House Backs Bush’s Actions in Gulf but Skirts Military Issue : Foreign policy: Recalling Gulf of Tonkin, lawmakers worry about giving the President too much power.

A cautious Congress began to assert its authority over the handling of the Persian Gulf crisis Monday when the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution that endorses President Bush’s policies but carefully stops short of authorizing future military action.

The joint resolution was approved 380 to 29; Democrats cast all the dissenting votes. Lawmakers said they hope the action will send a “strong message” to Iraq that Congress and the Bush Administration are united in their determination to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.

A similar measure is pending in the Senate and is expected to receive equally strong bipartisan support when it is taken up today.

In a related development, the White House announced that it notified Congress of its intention to give Israel two Patriot anti-missile batteries under the provisions of a law that allows for the emergency transfer of military assistance from U.S. military stocks.

A White House spokesman said the Patriots will help Israel “upgrade its air defenses” against the threat of an Iraqi missile attack in the event that war breaks out in the Persian Gulf.

Six of the sophisticated missile batteries are included in the $6.7-billion arms package that the Administration wants to sell to Saudi Arabia but that pro-Israel lawmakers and lobbyists are opposing on Capitol Hill.

The House resolution on the gulf, crafted over several days of intense bipartisan negotiations in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, strongly praises all the steps that Bush has taken in the gulf crisis, including the dispatch of U.S. forces to Saudi Arabia.

But although the resolution affirms the need to maintain a “credible United States and multinational deterrent military force” in the region, it stresses Congress’ preference for “diplomatic efforts, international sanctions and negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations.” It purposely leaves open the question of how or when force should be used in the event that these options fail to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.

“This is not a blank check. . . . It is not (another) Gulf of Tonkin resolution,” Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East subcommittee, told his fellow lawmakers. “It does not support future actions . . . but it does show there is no major division (between Congress and the Administration) with regard to what has been done so far.”

Although members of Congress have been virtually unanimous in supporting the Administration’s handling of the crisis thus far, divisions over what the next steps should be had prevented Congress from formally endorsing the President’s policies until Monday’s action by the House.

While some lawmakers wanted to give the President the widest possible latitude in handling the crisis, others were concerned that they not repeat what they believe was a fateful mistake in 1964. In that year, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution giving the Johnson Administration open-ended authority to escalate the Vietnam War.

Those who dissented in Monday’s vote protested that the resolution does not go far enough in protecting Congress’ constitutional prerogatives under the War Powers Act.

“Everyone thinks that hostilities are imminent. . . . Only here in the halls of Congress and down the street in the White House do we try to ignore the reality of the Persian Gulf confrontation,” said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.). He added that he was voting against the resolution because it contains a “dangerous mix of policy statements that all of us support and silence on how to achieve them.”

A similar note of caution was sounded by Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) on the eve of the Senate debate on its version of the resolution. Voicing concern that the Administration is allowing reports of Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait to push it closer to war with Iraq, Cranston said the aim of the U.S. deployment in Saudi Arabia should not go beyond deterring “further Iraqi aggression” and preventing Persian Gulf oil fields from falling into Iraqi hands.

“We should not send millions of Americans into a bloody and destructive shooting war simply because we are repelled by Iraqi atrocities,” Cranston said. “We cannot correct all the evils in the world.”

However, supporters of the gulf resolution expressed confidence that Monday’s declaration satisfies the need to formally support Bush in the current crisis without giving him the open-ended authority to commit U.S. forces to war in the absence of more consultation with Congress.

“This resolution drives home to Saddam Hussein the message that the American government and people stand united in opposition to the brutal occupation of Kuwait,” California Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica) said. But at the same time, “it neither authorizes nor encourages any particular course of action in the future,” he added.

Stressing the same point, Rep. Dante B. Fascell (D-Fla.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, acknowledged lawmakers’ concerns over the War Powers Act. But he said that, “to stay silent would be a tragic error.”

“The hottest places in hell,” he added, “are reserved for those who, in times of crises, stay silent.”