Senate Opens Gulf Debate, Warns Bush Not to Overstep His Powers : Congress: Democrats introduce a resolution barring the President from starting a war without approval. But they agree to delay vote until after next week’s U.S.-Iraq talks.

WASHINGTON —  The Senate, moving ahead in spite of initial objections by Democratic and Republican leaders, opened a debate on the Persian Gulf crisis Friday by questioning President Bush’s right to go to war with Iraq without prior congressional consent.

The threat of war dominated the launching of the new Congress, with a coalition of liberal senators angrily denouncing the President for his refusal to promise lawmakers that he will seek congressional approval before committing U.S. forces to war in the gulf region.

“We have not seen such arrogance in a President since Watergate,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, adding that there is “no question, no doubt, no gray area” regarding the powers that the Constitution confers upon Congress alone to declare war.

A resolution introduced by several other liberal Democrats, including Sen. Alan Cranston of California, would bar Bush from launching a military strike against Iraq without “an explicit authorization by Congress.”

Although it reflected a view widely shared by lawmakers from both parties that Congress should debate and vote on the question of war before hostilities can be launched, the resolution was immediately attacked by Republicans who argued that the Senate should not be engaging in a public debate of the gulf crisis until after Secretary of State James A. Baker III meets in Geneva next Wednesday with Iraqi Foreign Minister Tarik Aziz.

“We can debate all we want to about our constitutional rights, but isn’t it also our responsibility . . . to act responsibly by giving our last, best hope for peace a chance?” Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said.

Citing the “delicacy” of current diplomatic efforts to avert war, House and Senate leaders initially sought to delay the start of debate until after the Baker-Aziz meeting. But Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Brock Adams (D-Wash.), the resolution’s principal sponsors, took advantage of Senate rules requiring unanimous consent to thwart the leadership’s attempt to defer the debate until later this month.

Accusing the Administration of “grossly misleading” the American people about the nature and outcome of a possible war with Iraq, Harkin said “now is the time for Congress to stand up and be counted” on the constitutional question of the power to declare war.

“Congress has the responsibility to move our country back from the brink of war,” Adams added. “I am hopeful that Secretary Baker’s diplomatic mission will succeed. . . . But if diplomacy fails, sanctions--not war--should be the alternative.”

After lengthy closed-door negotiations, Adams and Harkin struck a compromise with Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) allowing them to introduce their resolution and begin the debate while deferring a vote until sometime after the Baker-Aziz meeting.

Mitchell announced later that, after the close of Friday’s debate, the Senate will convene only in pro forma session next week and not resume its consideration of the gulf crisis until Thursday, a day after the U.S.-Iraqi talks.

The complicated procedural compromise, worked out over two days of talks, reflected the conflicting pressures that increasingly are being exerted on lawmakers as the Jan. 15 U.N. deadline for Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait draws near.

Returning from their districts after the Christmas-New Year holiday recess, many lawmakers reported they were coming under heavy pressure from their constituents to take a clear stand on the gulf crisis--something which most legislators, faced with an array of difficult and politically dangerous choices, have so far been loath to do.

“While our young men and women have been sweating it out in the sands of Saudi Arabia, while even the U.N. has mustered the will to take strong and decisive action, Congress has been AWOL,” Dole agreed.

No definitive head counts are available, but congressional leaders have told Bush that a resolution authorizing him to use force in the gulf might not pass the Senate and would probably gain only a narrow majority in the House if put to a vote now. Not willing to risk an outcome that might undermine the credibility of its threat to use force against Iraq, the Administration in turn has told congressional leaders that it would prefer no vote to a close vote.

Interlocked with this is a simmering dispute between the Administration and Democrats over whether Bush needs congressional authorization to order troops into combat in the Persian Gulf. On that question, a clear majority of Democrats believe that Bush is obliged by the Constitution to consult Congress first. But most Democrats, including Mitchell and House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), clearly are also concerned that a vote affirming this principle now could be interpreted by Iraq as a sign of weakness and division over U.S. policy.

Adams, launching Friday’s debate, disagreed, saying “the best time to debate this matter is before we go to war, not after the bloodshed begins.”

He and several other lawmakers also voiced a suspicion--one that is shared by a growing number of lawmakers, including those who support the President’s policies--that the Administration is concealing information from Congress and is not being completely candid about either its aims in the gulf or the means by which it hopes to achieve them.

Speaking to reporters during a break in the floor debate, Harkin accused the Administration of “grossly misleading” the public by waiting until after last November’s elections to announce a major troop buildup in the gulf, suddenly switching the emphasis of its policy from a reliance on economic sanctions to the use of military force.

“The Administration has not leveled with the American people,” Harkin charged.

Rep. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced a resolution similar to Harkin’s on the House floor, also complained that the Administration has been “purposely evasive” about whether it would seek congressional approval before going to war.

These Democratic complaints that Bush has been misleading Congress and the people came as the head of the General Accounting Office told the House Budget Committee that Operation Desert Shield will cost $30 billion this fiscal year even if war does not break out.

“The costs will go up very rapidly if we do go into a full-fledged conflict,” said Charles A. Bowsher, comptroller general of the congressional watchdog agency.

The Bush Administration has never offered an official estimate of the costs of Operation Desert Shield, and Bowsher complained that the Pentagon had refused to cooperate fully with the GAO in assessing the cost of deploying more than 400,000 American soldiers to the Persian Gulf.

But Budget Committee Chairman Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley) said he believes the Pentagon and the State Department both had the numbers, even though they have refused to release them.

“Surely an Administration that is willing to level with Saddam Hussein about the costs of his aggression should be willing to level with the American people and the Congress about the costs of stopping that very aggression,” Panetta said.