The Senate voted without dissent last night to commend President Bush and support U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf after nearly a day of partisan squabbling over how far it should go in praising the president and endorsing his decision to take the country to war.

The resolution, which the House is expected to consider today, was a compromise in which Democrats agreed to praise the president and Republicans dropped language that would have put Congress on record as supporting his decision to use military force against Iraq.

The vote was 98 to 0. Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) and John Glenn (D-Ohio) did not vote. Cranston is in California undergoing treatment for prostate cancer; a spokesman said Glenn was in Ohio on constituent business.

The resolution stated that "Congress commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the president as commander in chief in the Persian Gulf hostilities" and that "Congress unequivocally supports the men and women of our armed forces who are carrying out their missions with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism and exemplary bravery."

Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Maine) and Minority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) joined in bringing the resolution to the floor late yesterday after spending at least six hours exchanging proposals aimed at unifying Congress behind a declaration of support for U.S. troops in Operation Desert Storm.

Their job was complicated by the insistence of Senate Republicans on a commendation for Bush and his policies and by the reluctance of some Democrats who voted against an authorization for war last Saturday to appear to be endorsing the action now.

"I want a resolution that endorses the president's action" as well as expressing support for U.S. armed forces, said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), expressing what appeared to be a nearly unanimous GOP position.

To vote for such a resolution now is a "ridiculous effort to try for political cover on one hand or to give the president more authority and leeway than he requires," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a leader in the fight against the war authorization last week.

Anxious to avoid a reopening of the Senate's three-day debate over authorizing military action last week, Mitchell said, "We want to do this in a way that conveys the unity we feel." Dole put it differently: "They {Democrats} don't want to say anything good about Bush."

In the House, the two parties lined up along similar lines.

When Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) saw the original Democratic draft, which expressed support for U.S. armed forces while taking note of "honest differences of opinion" on the war policy, he called it "pretty wishy-washy and rather mealy mouthed to say the least."

Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) said the debate on policy was over. "I am not going to go back and decide whether or not we should or shouldn't -- or want to -- start that debate over again," he said. Instead, Foley said, Congress should unite and give its full support, including any necessary funding, for U.S. troops.

By last night when the much-revised resolution went to the Senate floor for 30 minutes of debate, the only words were of unity.

"When Americans go to war, we go to war together," said Dole, who helped lead the fight for the war authorization last week.

"The war we all hoped to avoid but feared would come has come. . . . It is now time to unite . . . together we stand in support of our men and women on the front line," said Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), who voted with a majority of Senate Democrats against the authorization.

"We've debated this issue, but today is the day to support our military forces. All of us pray for a very quick end to this war," said Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), one of the most outspoken foes of the war authorization.

Earlier in the day, before the Iraqi missile attack on Israel, House members took the floor to give brief speeches about the apparently successful early hours of the war that ranged from almost giddy enthusiasm to relief to sober examination of potential long-term problems in the troubled region.

"America's 'Top Guns' have prevailed," Rep. E. Thomas Coleman (R-Mo.) said.

Outright opposition to the war was rare. Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Calif.) said, "I continue to believe . . . that we did not have to go to war and that there is an alternative to killing and dying." Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) urged Bush to call an immediate halt to the bombing of Iraq and support a peace mission to Baghdad by the U.N. secretary general. "History will not look kindly on us if we don't do everything in our power to stop the bloodshed," he said.

In both chambers, some lawmakers on both sides of the war issue, including Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), who opposed the authorization, and Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.), who favored it, urged the United States not to lose sight of troubling long-range questions facing the country in the gulf.

"The political fallout from the war will be very, very extensive," Hamilton said. "No matter how decisive a military victory is, the U.S. is not going to be able to avoid heavy involvement in the region."