Legislators, White House draft authority for retaliation

Congressional leaders and staff are working to reach rapid agreement on a resolution that would authorize the use of force to respond to Tuesday's terrorist attacks.

House leaders had hoped to bring up a resolution as early as Thursday, but disputes over the breadth of the authorization could delay consideration.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said Thursday afternoon that consideration late in the day was still possible--although leaders from both parties were working to reach a consensus on language, with the goal of passing the resolution this week.

Aides said the White House, congressional Republicans and congressional Democrats have drafted versions for the resolution authorizing force and the goal now is to work through the different approaches.

Some key Democrats have raised concerns about the President's initial request for authorization--made while he was seeking wide authority to spend whatever sums are necessary to respond.

"We ought to do it right," Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. said, adding, "The President is asking for authority, and I think the Congress will be inclined to give appropriate authority to the President. But words matter, and language matters, and we've been working all this through with respect to the language."

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said he hoped the matter "can be resolved in a way that meets the President's needs and our concerns."

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said, "My reaction was: I haven't heard of any use of force resolution until today."

An early draft version of the resolution sought by the administration authorized the President to use force "against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, harbored, committed or aided in the planning or commission" of the attacks. It also stated the need for the United States to "exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad"--drawing some concerns that it could be interpreted to grant undetermined new presidential authorities at home.

Aides said congressional leaders were trying to balance the need to present a united front during a time of crisis with the need to assert congressional prerogatives. The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and the 1973 War Powers Act proscribed the President's powers to make war without congressional authorization.

Several senators said an authorization would be useful--even if it was not required for presidential action. Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member John Warner, R-Va., who helped draft the 1991 Gulf War resolution sought by President Bush's father, said he was developing new language requiring "timely consultation with the congressional leaders." But, he said, it would be "beneath our dignity" to go so far as to declare war against someone like Osama bin Laden, who is suspected in the attack.

Nevertheless, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., and a few other House members this afternoon announced they would introduce such a declaration of war. "If we are serious ... then there is no other solution and should not be," said Barr.

Without precisely defining the resolution authorizing Bush to retaliate for the attacks, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., said House Democrats wanted to support the administration in any way they could and that he thought Bush already had authority to respond if necessary.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer also appeared to suggest Bush already believes he has the authority to act against those who committed Tuesday's acts.

"There's no question that Congress believes that the President has the authority to act in the self-defense of the United States, and we are talking to Congress about appropriate language," Fleischer said.

Bush himself expressed hope for a "strong resolution" from Congress "supporting the administration and what we intend to do."