Senate Passes Watered-Down War Powers Bill

The Senate, clearly divided over how to respond to President Reagan’s Persian Gulf policy, Wednesday approved a watered-down version of the 1973 War Powers Resolution that asserts the right of Congress to have a voice in U.S. military involvement in the region.

The measure, adopted in a vote of 54 to 44, still faces an uncertain future in the House and probably will be vetoed by the President. Nevertheless, senators on both sides of the aisle expressed relief at the vote, because it ended an agonizing four months of debate that began last July, when Reagan started providing naval escorts to U.S.-flagged Kuwaiti oil tankers.

Unlike the original War Powers Resolution, which--had it been invoked--would have required U.S. troops to leave the gulf after 90 days unless Congress gave explicit consent to keeping them there, the Senate measure approved Wednesday merely calls for another congressional vote on the issue after 90 days. It also would require Reagan to make a comprehensive report on the policy within 30 days.

Most Support Reflagging

The vote reflected neither support nor disapproval of Reagan’s policy. Although the Democratic-controlled Congress was initially critical of the reflaggings, which gave 11 Kuwaiti tankers U.S. protection, a majority now apparently supports at least temporary continuation of that operation.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), who opposed the measure, said it simply reserves the right of Congress to challenge the policy in the future.

“We want to be in a position to blame the President of the United States if something goes wrong,” he said.

Despite a 10-vote margin of victory, few senators seemed genuinely pleased with the outcome. In fact, the measure was so unpopular that it failed initially, 51 to 47, and was approved later only after Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) persuaded five members of his party to switch sides.

Conservatives and liberals combined to oppose the Senate measure. Liberals favored invoking the original War Powers Resolution and called the new measure too weak. Conservatives insisted that it would go too far in restricting the President’s ability to respond to an international crisis.

Co-Author’s Assessment

Byrd, a co-author of the measure with Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), said that it “provides a sure way for the elected representatives of the people to have a role in policy.” He said it proves Congress was not entirely impotent in the situation.

“The bottom line is that the Senate acted today,” Byrd added.

Warner said: “This is the best resolution of this conflict that could be arrived at over these many, many months of debate. Somewhere, we had to reach a consensus.”

Sen. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. (R-Conn.), who precipitated the debate by trying to invoke the original War Powers Resolution in the Persian Gulf, said he was persuaded to support the Byrd-Warner amendment because a GOP filibuster had made it impossible to act on the resolution.

“It’s something better than nothing,” he said.

Weicker and other liberals, including Sens. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) and Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), vowed to continue pressing Congress to invoke the War Powers Resolution if conflict between U.S. and Iranian forces in the Persian Gulf continues to escalate.

Assurances From Byrd

Byrd acknowledged that his measure in no way precludes Congress from invoking the War Powers Resolution, and he vowed rhetorically to eat his copy of the 1973 law if proven wrong.

The War Powers Resolution, enacted in the wake of the Vietnam war over President Richard M. Nixon’s veto, was intended to preserve the constitutional obligation of Congress to declare war. Technically, the President is required to invoke it within 48 hours after U.S. troops face “imminent hostilities.”

The law has yet to be invoked by Congress or willingly obeyed by any President. Reagan, like his predecessors, contends that it imposes unconstitutional restrictions on his duty to respond militarily in times of crisis.

No one in the Senate disagreed with Weicker’s contention that U.S. troops already face “imminent hostilities” in the gulf, but many expressed a fear that Congress, by invoking the War Powers Resolution, would only provoke the Iranians to attack U.S. forces in the hope of turning congressional sentiment against the President.

Brought Sides Together

The Byrd-Warner compromise had the effect of bringing together senators who oppose the President’s policy and those who support it. In fact, even the two authors of the measure disagreed over its ultimate significance.

Byrd, a critic of Reagan’s reflagging policy, said that while the Byrd-Warner measure will not lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the gulf, “it means that members of the Senate and House will have a voice in determining our policy with respect to reflagging and convoying Kuwaiti tankers” there.

Warner, on the other hand, viewed the measure as an endorsement of the reflagging policy. “I think it supports the President, “ he said.

Both Byrd and Warner were stunned when the Senate initially rejected the measure.

“Are there 51 votes for any one position?” Warner asked in exasperation. “With this vote, the Senate plunges itself into a boiling caldron of indecision.”

Five Who Switched

The five Democrats who changed their votes under pressure from Byrd were Sens. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Quentin N. Burdick of North Dakota, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Daniel K. Inouye and Spark M. Matsunaga of Hawaii. California Sens. Alan Cranston, a liberal Democrat, and Pete Wilson, a conservative Republican, voted against it.