ASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — The House voted convincingly today to authorize President Bush to use force against Iraq, while the Senate gave its own strong show of support by clearing the way for the measure's final passage.
The hard-won victory for Mr. Bush came little more than a month after many lawmakers from both parties returned to Washington expressing grave doubts about a rush to war. The House vote of 296 to 133 to allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by Saddam Hussein reflected weeks of lobbying and top-secret briefings by the administration.
While the margin was large and the support bipartisan, the vote highlighted a sharp split in the Democratic Party over how and when to use force. Even though Representative Richard A. Gephardt, the minority leader, put his weight behind authorizing force, more House Democrats voted against the resolution sought by the president than voted for it, opposing it 126 to 81. Six Republicans and one independent voted against it. [Roll call, Page A15. ]
The opponents cited a host of reasons for their vote, including doubts that an Iraqi attack with weapons of mass destruction was imminent, fears that unilateral use of force would take away from the war on terrorism and sentiment from their constituents against war. [Page A14.]
President Bush hailed the House action, saying, "The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally."
It was Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the majority leader, who had been one of the Republicans skeptical about the president's Iraq policy, who closed the House debate with a plea for support for Mr. Bush.
Mr. Armey, 62, who is retiring at the end of this session, cried as he spoke of the troops who might be sent to war.
"Mr. President," he said, "we trust to you the best we have to give. Use them well so they can come home and say to our grandchildren, `Sleep soundly, my baby.' " He choked up and walked out of the House chamber.
The Senate was also on track to approve the use of force. It voted 75 to 25 to cut off the delaying tactics of Democrats who had been trying to force the chamber to hold a far lengthier and more deliberative debate. With that vote, final passage was assured. It was just a matter of when, as the Senate defeated a handful of Democratic amendments.
Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, gave Mr. Bush his backing, saying, "I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
Mr. Daschle alone among the four senior Congressional leaders had not signed off on the final wording when a compromise on using force was struck at the White House a week ago.
The actions came after long days of debate in the House and Senate over Mr. Bush's decision to confront Iraq. The president argued that in the post-Sept. 11 world, Mr. Hussein could provide terrorist groups with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or use them himself.
The resolution authorizes Mr. Bush to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend the nation against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. It requires him to report to Congress within 48 hours of any military action.
The resolution was far less broad than the initial resolution put forward by the White House, which members of both parties said was too open-ended and could conceivably allow military action throughout the Middle East. In a concession to Democrats, the resolution encourages the president to try to work through the United Nations before acting alone. Still, it leaves him with broad latitude.
Mr. Bush has said his powers as commander in chief already permit him to act in defense of the nation. Without seeking a formal declaration of war, however, he wanted Congress to be involved in the issue, so that, he said, he could argue to the United Nations that he was expressing not only his own view but that of the American electorate.
Most Republicans stood solidly with the president and many echoed the call to oust Mr. Hussein.
"The question we face today is not whether to go to war, for war was thrust upon us," said Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority whip. "Our only choice is between victory and defeat. Let's be clear: In the war on terror, victory cannot be secured at the bargaining table."
Still, the fight fractured the Democratic Party. In the Senate, an array of Democratic presidential hopefuls stood behind the president. Mr. Gephardt, who is a likely presidential contender in 2004, joined Republican leaders in making the case for the president instead of standing in opposition to Mr. Bush.
As one of the last speakers in the House, Mr. Gephardt, who opposed the last gulf war, argued that Sept. 11 had "made all the difference" and that Mr. Hussein had to be stopped from developing weapons of mass destruction.
"The events of that tragic day jolted us to the enduring reality that terrorists not only seek to attack our interests abroad, but to strike us here at home," he said.
But only a minority in his caucus followed his lead and his second-in-command, Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority whip, took the other side. Ms. Pelosi, a senior member of the intelligence committee, pointed to a C.I.A. letter declassified this week that judged that Mr. Hussein was not likely to use his weapons against the United States but could lose his restraint if faced with an American-led force.
She said attacking Mr. Hussein would turn the country away from what should be its true national security focus, the terrorist threat.
Many Democrats said they agreed that Mr. Hussein was a dangerous tyrant. But they expressed fear of giving Mr. Bush so much power, or argued that by striking a nation that has not struck first, America could lose its moral standing. They also said Mr. Bush had not presented a definitive case that Iraq was an imminent threat.
In the end the vote was not all that different from the House vote on the gulf war. At that time, 86 Democrats voted to grant Mr. Bush's father, President George Bush, the right to use force, and 179 opposed him.
Today, the opposition was particularly strong among House Democrats from the urban Northeast, the West Coast and among minority members.
House Democrats rallied around an alternative by Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina that would have authorized force in conjunction with the United Nations. The president would have had to return to Congress for a second approval if he wanted to act unilaterally.
If Americans do not act in concert with allies, Mr. Spratt said, "This will be the United States versus Iraq, and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world." The measure was defeated 155 to 270, but attracted 147 Democratic votes.
In the Senate, too, Democrats remained splintered. Twenty-two Senate Democrats joined two Republicans and an independent to try to prolong the debate. But 28 Democrats and 47 Republicans voted to shut it down to move to final passage.
As Senate debate went into the night, some prominent Democrats announced they would support the president, including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who had proposed a more restrictive resolution, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York who called the vote "probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make." Mrs. Clinton said she had concluded that bipartisan support would make the president's success at the United Nations "more likely, and, therefore, war less likely."
Senate opponents were thwarted in several efforts to alter the resolution. One alternative was written by Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who proposed a two-step process similar to what was defeated in the House.
Mr. Levin said pushing the president to build an international coalition would mean that Mr. Hussein "will be looking down the barrel of a gun, with the world at the other end rather than just the United States."
