CRISIS IN THE CARIBBEAN : House Endorses Troops, Sidesteps Backing Policy : Congress: Democrats scramble to avoid divisive debate. U.S. lawmakers may set deadline for withdrawal.

Relieved that U.S. forces were able to enter Haiti without bloodshed Monday, the House overwhelmingly endorsed the agreement negotiated by former President Jimmy Carter for the removal of Haiti’s military leaders. But the Clinton Administration faced an embarrassing confrontation with Congress as angry lawmakers demanded a deadline for the troops’ withdrawal.

With congressional sentiment still running strongly against the so-far peaceful military intervention, Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate scrambled to avert a conflict with President Clinton. They crafted a carefully worded resolution supporting the mission of the 15,000 troops being sent to Haiti without endorsing the policy that put them there.

The resolution passed the House, 353 to 45. But it faces delays in the Senate, where Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and other Republicans balked at what they said was language possibly implying support for the U.S. occupation. Negotiations continued, but a vote was not expected before today.

Democratic leaders made no secret of their hope that the Haitian military junta’s agreement to relinquish power by Oct. 15 would avert a divisive debate, which would likely undermine Clinton and embarrass the Democrats by exposing their differences and disarray over foreign policy.

“All Democrats are grateful to President Carter for allowing us to dodge a congressional bullet and grateful to President Clinton for proving once again that, when he’s put in a corner, he’s at his best,” said Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), a member of the Democratic leadership who also sits on the House Intelligence Committee.

But while opponents in both chambers agreed that the arrival of the troops in Haiti had changed the dynamics of the debate, and would at least temporarily mute much of the congressional criticism, many Democrats and Republicans said they will move after a “decent interval” to introduce legislation setting a deadline for the forces’ withdrawal.

“Most members want to support the troops . . . and now that the first step has been successful, they are reluctant to undercut it,” said Sen. William S. Cohen (R-Me.).

But citing the problems that occurred in Somalia, Cohen predicted that Congress will not give Clinton a long “grace period,” especially if the occupying American forces start to incur casualties.

“There is relief that the negotiations with Haiti’s military leaders were successful, but this doesn’t void the basic conflict that this Administration has with the majority in Congress over our presence in Haiti and the commitment that’s been made,” agreed Rep. Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs.

“What was going to be a dramatic confrontation between Congress and the Administration in the hours after the invasion is now going to be a slow and simmering one over the months to come as we attempt to limit this occupation,” Torricelli added.

“A congressional confrontation has been postponed, but probably not avoided. Republicans will want to set a withdrawal deadline as soon as possible and my guess is a lot of Democrats will support them,” a House Democratic leadership aide said, adding that House leaders fear a prolonged debate would undermine Clinton and his legislative agenda.

Carefully worded to avoid any expression of support for either the occupation or Haiti’s exiled president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the resolution commended the delegation led by Carter that negotiated the agreement.

Under the agreement, Haitian military leaders would leave office by Oct. 15, paving the way for Aristide’s return and the restoration of democracy in the impoverished Caribbean nation.

The resolution states that the Congress “fully supports . . . the Armed Forces who are carrying out their mission in Haiti with professional excellence,” but also supports their “orderly withdrawal . . . as soon as possible.”

Of Clinton’s decision to intervene militarily in Haiti, it said only that the lawmakers supported his “efforts, through the (Carter) delegation, to provide for the departure” of the Haitian junta and for “the return of democracy and the rule of law in Haiti.”

Senate Republicans were leery of even that language, however, and efforts were being made to “accommodate their concerns because anything less than an overwhelming, bipartisan vote on this could send the wrong message to Cedras and company,” a Democratic leadership source said.

Still, it was clear that most lawmakers remain opposed to the intervention, which they fear will turn into an open-ended commitment full of the dangers that faced U.S. forces in Somalia.

“The implementation of this agreement is going to be difficult . . . It is not a risk-free situation,” warned Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) said he would introduce a resolution aimed at forcing a full-scale congressional debate on of the Haitian crisis later this week.

“Haiti has, in effect, just been made a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States . . . and we are on the threshold of a long occupation,” said Cox, adding that a commitment of this scope is “just bad policy” unless Congress has approved it first.