Democrats Act to Halt Gulf Escorts : Funds Would Be Cut Unless Reagan Can Justify Operation to Congress

Senate Democrats, invoking the spirit of the controversial War Powers Resolution, offered legislation Thursday that threatens to cut off funds for escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers flying the U.S. flag in the Persian Gulf unless President Reagan can convince Congress that it is in the nation’s interests.

The toughly worded measure, which immediately drew fire from the President and his supporters in Congress, clearly was designed to disprove assertions by critics who had said the Democrats lack the political will to challenge the President’s policy in the gulf.

Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) said that the legislation, which appeared to have majority support in the Democratic-controlled Senate, is intended to keep Reagan from “loosing the dogs of war” in response to actions by Iran in the gulf. A vote on the measure could come as early as today.

Attack in the Gulf

Democrats began drafting the measure shortly after U.S. helicopters fired on an Iranian vessel found laying mines in international shipping lanes of the gulf last Monday night and after the President declared that the situation there did not require him to report to Congress under provisions of the War Powers Resolution.

While it does not technically invoke the terms of the resolution, the Democratic measure is similar to that disputed Vietnam War-vintage law in the sense that it threatens to halt funding within 90 days of enactment. It also proclaims flatly that the situation in the gulf “meets the conditions established” for congressional action under the resolution.

Enacted in 1973 over then-President Richard M. Nixon’s veto, the War Powers Resolution requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours after U.S. troops face “imminent hostilities” and to withdraw the troops within 90 days unless Congress votes otherwise. Yet no President has ever willingly abided by the measure, which White House attorneys view as unconstitutional.

Under the Democrats’ measure, authored by Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), the President does not have to repor1948284015legislation is enacted. Nevertheless, as is the case under the War Powers Resolution, funds for the Navy’s escort operation in the gulf and for the re-registering of additional tankers under the U.S. flag would be cut off after 90 days unless Congress voted otherwise.

Even if the Democrats’ new measure is approved by the House and Senate, as expected, it is not clear when the 90-day period would begin because the Byrd-Nunn measure was added as an amendment to a fiscal 1988 defense spending bill that the President already has vowed to veto for other reasons. But Senate Democrats have pledged to attach the measure to another bill if the defense measure does not become law.

Speaking for the President and his GOP supporters in Congress, Virginia Sen. John W. Warner, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, condemned the Byrd-Nunn measure as nothing more than a thinly disguised War Powers Resolution--what he called “War Powers II.”

“If the Senate takes this action, a signal will roll across this country and, indeed, across the oceans, and the headline will be: ‘Congress invokes the War Powers Act,’ ” Warner said. “This proposal will send a warning shot across the bow of every ship in the gulf that is there in the pursuit of peace. It tells the sailors that you may be called home at any time in the future.”

Flexibility for Reagan

In response, Byrd insisted that the measure was designed “to give the President some flexibility--give him some elbow room” while still honoring obligations imposed on Congress and the President under the War Powers Resolution.

Nunn added that the War Powers Resolution, which has a growing number of opponents in Congress, is too broad to deal with the unique situation in the Persian Gulf. He noted that the Byrd-Nunn amendment is aimed only at the U.S. policy of escorting the re-registered Kuwaiti ships and would not call for a complete U.S. pullout of forces from the Persian Gulf, as would be required under the War Power Resolution.

“What we need is a surgical instrument and not a very, very heavy sledgehammer,” he said, referring to the differences between the Nunn-Byrd amendment and the War Powers Resolution.

Although the United States has maintained a naval presence in the Persian Gulf for decades, it was not until last July 22 that the Administration began escorting Kuwaiti oil tankers through the gulf after they had been re-registered under the American flag.

Among other things, the Nunn-Byrd measure would require the President’s report to Congress to state the objectives of the re-registration operation, explain how these objectives fulfill the strategic interests of the United States, divulge how much it is costing and specify how long the operation will continue.

Nunn said that the Administration, which has been reluctant to discuss the costs and duration of the operation, has also failed to convince Congress that the “reflagging” is in U.S. interests. He said that his measure says to Reagan: “Either you come up here and convince us that this reflagging is in the American interest or you cease and desist.”

In essence, he said, the President must answer these questions: “How do we know under this policy when we win? How do we know when to declare victory?”

The stridency of the Byrd-Nunn amendment stunned many Republicans who had been involved in marathon negotiations with the Democrats for two days in an effort to come up with a bipartisan measure that would have been an alternative to invoking the War Powers Resolution.

By Wednesday, according to Warner, the talks had produced a compromise measure that was expected to win the support of the Republican leadership and the White House.

But Democrats suddenly broke off the negotiations after the compromise was criticized by liberals on both sides of the aisle. Sens. Lowell P. Weicker (R-Conn.) and Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.), authors of an amendment invoking the War Powers Resolution in the Persian Gulf, accused the Democrats of failing to act like a responsible opposition party on the reflagging issue.

“If they want to be the opposition party, you’d never know it from the way they act,” said Weicker. “They’d rather lie in the weeds and wait for Reagan to stumble than challenge him on this issue.”

Nevertheless, the Democratic challenge caused no apparent weakening in the President’s position that the War Powers Resolution does not apply in the Persian Gulf. On Thursday, Reagan sent a letter to Congress that portrayed the U.S. attack on the Iranian vessel as purely defensive.

The President added: “We regard this incident as closed.”

‘Mutual Cooperation’

Reagan’s letter said he was reporting to Congress only in the spirit of “mutual cooperation . . . while being mindful of the historical differences between the legislative and executive branch . . . with respect to the interpretation and constitutionality of certain provisions of the War Powers Resolution.”

Late Thursday night, the Senate voted 91 to 4 to approve an amendment offered by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) stating that the Navy is “fully justified in sinking any Iranian vessel prohibiting passage of any vessel with an American aboard” in the Persian Gulf.

In other action Thursday, the Senate rejected, 62 to 35, an amendment to the defense bill authored by Hatfield that would have imposed a two-year moratorium on underground tests of all but the smallest U.S. nuclear weapons. A similar provision is contained in a House-passed version of the fiscal 1988 defense bill.

At the same time, the Senate approved, 97 to 0, an amendment authored by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) that would suspend aid to Panama unless that country adopts democratic reforms. The House measure contains no such provision.