Washington ? Congress voted solidly to give President Bush the broad authority he sought to use U.S. military force to confront Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, handing him a crucial national-security policy victory

The Democratic-led Senate early today approved the war resolution 77-23, wrapping up an often contentious week-long debate. The House voted for the resolution on Thursday, 296-133.

Because the Senate approved the House-passed measure without changing a word, it now goes directly to Bush for his signature.

The resolution gives Bush the power to use American military force to enforce United Nations orders that Saddam dispose of his weapons of mass destruction. It encourages Bush to seek U.N. cooperation in such a campaign but does not require it.

“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,” Bush said after the House vote.

The president has stressed, however, that he has made no decision on launching a military strike against Iraq.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the most outspoken Senate foe of the resolution, accused Congress of “handing the president unchecked authority.”

While Bush hailed the strong showing, a majority of House Democrats voted against the resolution even though their leader, Dick Gephardt of Missouri, was one of its authors.

“The issue is how to best protect America. And I believe this resolution does that,” Gephardt said.

The Senate approved the same resolution after voting 75-25 to choke off delaying tactics. It voted down a series of efforts to weaken or block the resolution, as did the House.

The administration got a big boost when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced he was putting aside his misgivings to support the president.

“I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice,” said Daschle, D-S.D. “It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values.”

But some influential Democrats remained opposed.

“The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. “We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance.”

The resolution gives the president wide latitude in defending the United States against the “continuing threat” posed by Baghdad. In a concession to Democrats, it encourages that all diplomatic means be exhausted before force is used, and requires reports to Congress every 60 days once action is taken.

Bush has said he hoped to work with the United Nations, but wanted congressional authority to act independently if necessary. The strong congressional backing he received could bolster U.S. efforts before the U.N. Security Council.

At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said “talks are progressing” at the Security Council on wording of a strong new resolution to disarm Iraq that all five-veto holding permanent members can support. The United States and Britain continues to encounter resistance from France, Russia and China.

The president telephoned Gephardt and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., to thank them for the vote, then told reporters at a hastily arranged news conference:

“Today’s vote … sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime: You must disarm and comply with all existing U.N. resolutions or (you) will be forced to comply. There are no other options for the Iraqi regime. There can be no negotiations. The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end.”

Parallels to 1991

The war resolution comes nearly 11 years after Congress voted to give Bush’s father similar powers to confront Saddam. In the earlier instance, however, an international coalition was already in place to drive Iraqi invaders out of Kuwait. The current Bush administration has faced resistance from allies in its efforts to form a similar international coalition.

In the House, 126 of the chamber’s 208 Democrats voted against the war resolution.

Still, that was stronger support than the first President Bush received in 1991 when the House voted 250-183 to authorize force against Iraq.

House Democrats urged the president to work closely with the United Nations before going it alone against Iraq. “Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world’s detriment,” Gephardt said.

House turns back challenge

The House earlier rejected, by 270-155, the main challenge to the White House-backed resolution, a proposal backed by a majority of Democrats that obliged the president to return to Congress for a second vote on the use of American force against Iraq after he decides that cooperative efforts with the United Nations are futile.

Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said that without a multilateral approach, “this will be the United States versus Iraq and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world.”

The Senate also turned aside efforts to put more checks on the president’s war-making authority. It rejected, 75-24, a proposal by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., that was similar to the Spratt proposal in the House.

On the key 75-25 Senate vote to draw debate to a close, 28 Democrats joined 47 Republicans in voting for the measure. Only two Republicans voted against it: Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

In the closing hours of debate, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said the decision to back the resolution was “the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make, but I cast it with conviction. I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country, at the United Nations or at war.”

Meanwhile, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that the Bush administration seems unnecessarily rushed about taking on Iraq. Zinni, a former U.S. envoy to the Mideast for the Bush administration, said he considers Saddam “deterrable and containable at this point.”

“I’m not convinced we need to do this now,” Zinni said at a foreign-policy forum.