No War Powers Act in Gulf, Shultz Says

Secretary of State George P. Shultz said Friday that the Reagan Administration has no intention of becoming involved in a shooting war with Iran and doesn’t intend to invoke the War Powers Act to give Congress a say in the deployment of U.S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf.

Shultz said that U.S. warships are escorting “reflagged” Kuwaiti tankers through the gulf to assure the free flow of oil to the West and “to make sure that states that are friendly to us are not intimidated by Iran,” which is at war with Iraq.

“We can’t be declaring war powers every time somebody exercises a threat of that kind,” Shultz told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee.

Later Friday, the Senate voted 96-0 for a non-binding resolution calling for a cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq War and calling for a negotiated settlement to the conflict that began in September, 1980.

During brief debate before the vote, Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) said it is only a matter of time before Americans die in the gulf and recalled that a mistaken Iraqi missile attack on the guided missile frigate Stark on May 17 cost the lives of 37 American sailors.

“I hope and pray to God . . . I am proven as wrong as anybody can be proven around here,” Bumpers said. “You’re not dealing with rational people when you’re dealing in an area where the Iranians are holding forth.”

The Senate vote and Shultz’s testimony came as lawyers for 114 members of Congress filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. District Court in Washington to direct the President to comply with the reporting requirements of 1973 War Powers Act.

The act requires that the President send a written report to Congress within 48 hours after U.S. servicemen are sent “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated.” Within 60 days after the report is sent, the President has to withdraw the troops unless Congress authorizes them to stay.

The suit, filed after a one-day delay, also said the Administration waived some registration rules for the Kuwaiti vessels in national security interests. Such waivers are invalid, it said, because they are intended only for war or other military emergencies.

The suit says that if the court does not force reporting to Congress under the War Powers Act, then the Transportation Department’s reflagging of the Kuwaiti tankers should be ruled invalid.

Rep. Mike Lowry (D-Wash.), one of the congressmen filing the the legal action, said that every Administration since 1973 has argued that the law is an unconstitutional restriction on a President’s authority, but the Supreme Court has not ruled on that issue.

“If there was ever a case where the War Powers Act’s terms of imminent hostilities applies, this is it,” Lowry added.

In his Senate testimony, Shultz said that because of the high incidence of terrorism around the world, it makes little sense to invoke the War Powers Act in this particular case.

“We don’t have any intention of getting into that war,” Shultz said.

But Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), contended the War Powers Act should apply.

“I flat-out disagree with your assessment,” Specter said. “Sure, our intentions are not to get involved, but our intentions are not going to determine the situation.”

He told Shultz that because of threats by Iran’s revolutionary government, “we can’t sit here and say hostilities aren’t imminent.”