TIMES SURVEY : Congress Split on Giving Bush Its Vote for War

With Congress approaching historic votes on the use of force in the Persian Gulf, a Times survey indicated Thursday that both the Senate and House are closely divided over whether to authorize President Bush to wage war or, instead, to give economic sanctions more time to work.

Among the 364 lawmakers willing to state positions in advance of their votes, Republicans overwhelmingly supported Bush’s request for authority to attack Iraq, while Democrats were deeply split over their leaders’ plea to endorse continued reliance on sanctions to end the occupation of Kuwait.

Sixteen Republican senators and 86 GOP House members said they would vote for a resolution authorizing the President to take any military action in the Persian Gulf that he deems necessary. Only three Republicans in each house were opposed.

Democrats were split sharply on the proposal, opposing it 22 to six in the Senate and 114 to 43 in the House, where they command substantial majorities.

The totals suggested that the resolution sought by Bush might carry the House narrowly but that the outcome was too close to call in the Senate. Clouding the picture, some lawmakers said they had not made up their minds, and 171 others did not respond to the survey.

A similar pattern was evident on an alternative proposal from Democratic congressional leaders urging the President to give sanctions more time to work. Republicans in both houses massively opposed it, 95 to four, while Democrats were split in favor, 108 to 71.

“Although my district is fairly redneck and very patriotic, it is opposed to going to war at this time,” said a prominent liberal Democrat, Rep. Mary Rose Oakar of Ohio. But in a reflection of deep Democratic differences, many conservative Southerners and liberal backers of Israel expressed support for a war resolution.

“If we leave Iraq unencumbered, they’ll take over the world’s oil by military force or intimidation,” Rep. Butler Derrick (D-S.C.) said in responding to the survey, the most detailed yet on Congress’ views of the Persian Gulf crisis.

Many lawmakers contacted in the survey were skittish about taking a stand that could be misinterpreted by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein or by voters back home; top leaders generally declined to respond or requested anonymity.

Indeed, the usually placid Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) exploded in the middle of a question about whether the United States “should continue to enforce economic sanctions, no matter how long it takes. . . .”

“Why don’t you just burn those questions--erase all my answers!” he demanded.

A sizable majority of lawmakers approved of Bush’s overall handling of the gulf situation. On the other hand, a smaller majority believed that the President has done only a fair to poor job of explaining why he sent American troops to the region.

“I think the President’s goals are in order, and I think he has done an excellent job of rallying the international community,” said Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.), his party’s chief deputy whip in the House. “But I don’t think he has done a good job with respect to moving from a defensive to an offensive military posture. I would have given more time for diplomatic initiatives and economic sanctions to work before I would have done that.”

Among Republicans, 112 said they strongly or somewhat strongly approve of the President’s management of the crisis, while only one senator said he disapproves. Among Democrats, 86 approve and 73 disapprove of Bush’s overall performance.

The President was given lesser marks, however, for his job of explaining why he ordered the massive deployment of troops. Only 24 Democrats said he has done an excellent or good job, while 133 called it fair or poor. Seventy-five Republicans answered excellent to good, and 24 said fair to poor.

On other questions, Democrats overwhelmingly supported, and Republicans almost as decisively rejected, the notion that Bush must ask Congress to declare war before he orders military action.

However, members of both parties strongly oppose linking a resolution of the crisis with a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as demanded by Hussein and strenuously opposed by Bush. The only lawmakers supporting linkage were seven House Democrats.

By the narrow margin of 98 to 89, lawmakers thought that it would be necessary to maintain a large military presence in the Middle East, even if Iraq pulls its troops out of Kuwait.

The legislators also overwhelmingly rejected, 161 to 36, a proposal by some Democratic leaders to impose an income tax surcharge to pay for the burgeoning costs of Operation Desert Shield, the multinational deployment of troops in the gulf.

They said they believe that Britain is the only U.S. ally paying a fair share of those costs. Accused of contributing too little were Japan, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia and the exiled government of Kuwait.

The survey suggested that while Democrats are not anxious to give the President all the war-making authority he wants, they are struggling to find compromise language that would enable him to present a united front to Hussein.

For example, House Democrats strongly oppose a declaration of war at this time, and less strongly oppose giving Bush authorization to take whatever military action he deems necessary. But they are closely divided on whether to forbid the President to take action until sanctions are given more time to work. An analysis of these responses indicates that about one-third of House Democrats could wind up supporting the legislation that Bush seeks.

Republicans displayed a strongly hawkish face in the survey. Not only did they say in large numbers (102 to six) that they would vote to authorize the President to use military force, they also declared in similar numbers (74 to 12) that they would support a declaration of war.

Only a handful of Democrats (23 of 229) said they would vote to declare war if Hussein “indicates no intention of withdrawing Iraqi troops from Kuwait.”

But some Republicans suggested that their support of a war authorization is only a tactical move aimed at putting pressure on Hussein and that Congress would have an opportunity later to control U.S. military action.

“The best chance we have to reach a peaceful conclusion is for the President to have the strongest possible hand, made possible by a largely unified voice coming from the American government,” said California Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), his party’s third-ranking House member. “I feel strongly there will be plenty of time in the weeks ahead to talk about the constitutional responsibilities” of Congress to commit the nation to war.

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) declined to participate in the survey because “we don’t do questionnaires,” according to his press secretary, Diane Dewhirst.

Although Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) has insisted for months that Congress debate whether to give the President war-making authority, he responded to the Times questionnaire only on condition that his answers be kept confidential.

Of 64 senators and 300 House members who responded, 249 agreed to be on the record, including House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.), his party’s ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Gephardt strongly favored staying the course on sanctions, while Thurmond strongly advocated giving the President authority to launch an attack.

Staff writers Marlene Cimons, Don Shannon and Maura Reynolds and researchers Keating Holland, Murielle Gamache, Stephanie Grace, Randi Rothstein and Nicole Morris contributed to this report.

THE GULF DEBATE IN CONGRESS

The Los Angeles Times Washington bureau polled members of the Senate and the House of Representatives between Jan. 4 and Thursday. Sixty - four of the 100 Senators and 300 of the 435 House members responded. If today were Jan. 16, would you vote for or against: A declaration of war against Iraq if Saddam Hussein indicates no intention of withdrawing Iraqi troops from Kuwait?

SENATE HOUSE Dem Rep Dem Rep Yes 1 16 22 58 No 21 2 110 10 Depends 2 0 7 1 Don’t know/refused 16 6 50 42

A resolution authorizing the President to take any military action he deems necessary, including the use of air power and ground forces?

SENATE HOUSE Dem Rep Dem Rep Yes 6 16 43 86 No 22 3 114 3 Depends 1 1 3 2 Don’t know/refused 11 4 29 20

A resolution prohibiting the use of military force in the Persian Gulf until some specific date later in 1991, in order to give economic sanctions a chance to work?

SENATE HOUSE Dem Rep Dem Rep Yes 22 2 86 2 No 5 15 66 80 Depends 2 0 6 1 Don’t know 11 7 31 28

Under the Constitution, do you think President Bush must ask Congress to declare war against Iraq before he orders military action, or can he order military action without a declaration of war by Congress?

SENATE HOUSE Dem Rep Dem Rep Must first get declaration 28 3 132 8 Does not need declaration 1 13 19 74 Depends 1 1 8 7 Don’t know/refused 10 7 30 22

Generally speaking, how do you feel about the way George Bush is handling the Iraq situation?

SENATE HOUSE Dem Rep Dem Rep Approve 9 17 77 95 Disapprove 10 1 63 0 Don’t know/refused 21 6 49 16

How would you rate the job George Bush has done in explaining why he sent American troops to the Persian Gulf?

SENATE HOUSE Dem Rep Dem Rep Excellent or good 0 10 24 65 Fair or poor 17 6 116 18 Don’t know/refused 23 8 49 28

The following members of the California Congressional delegation declined to respond to The Times survey.

Gary Condit (D-Ceres), David Dreier (R-LaVerne), Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento), Wally Herger (R-Rio Oso), Duncan Hunter (R-San Diego), Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame), Richard H. Lehman (D-Sanger), Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley), Frank Riggs (R-Windsor) and Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles)

* Responses for Rep. Bernard Sanders, a Socialist from Vermont, have been included in the Democratic column.