Congress Deadlock May Stall Legislation : President, Own Party at Odds Over Priorities on Defense, Budget

Members of the new Congress that goes to work Thursday have very different goals from those set forth by the nation’s newly reelected President, Ronald Reagan. And the result could be legislative deadlock that would leave the nation’s problems to fester for another two years.

Paradoxically, the stiffest resistance to Reagan’s second-term agenda so far is coming from the President’s own party.

The No. 1 priority for congressional Republicans is stemming the flow of government red ink, which they say threatens to plunge the nation into another recession just in time for the 1986 congressional elections, when the Democrats hope to regain control of the Senate.

To these Republicans, including newly selected Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole of Kansas, their President does not seem to take the deficit seriously enough.

Driving Force

For his part, President Reagan, who will never have to face the voters again, appears most interested in the two goals that provided the driving force behind his first term in office: building up the military and shrinking the domestic side of the government.

“We’re making an all-out push to get as much as we can,” one White House official said. “We’ll never be in a stronger position than we are this year. This is not the year for us to talk with restraint about what we can get.”

The Administration remembers 1981, when Reagan, new to his office after his landslide electoral victory over Jimmy Carter, gained congressional approval of deep domestic spending cuts and tax cuts.

Now the President is fresh from a reelection triumph of even greater proportions--but that’s where the similarities with 1981 end. Congress appears to be in no mood to follow the leader.

“In the first term, the President came in with a great mandate,” Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-Minn.) said. “Nobody knew how to deal with him. In the second term, the Democrats are no longer afraid of him.”

Under the greatest pressure are the 22 Republican senators up for reelection in 1986--many of whom rode Reagan’s coattails to the Senate four years ago during the President’s landslide victory over Carter. Only 12 Democratic senators will have to face the voters in 1986, and the arithmetic works against the Republicans’ efforts to preserve their fragile 53-47 Senate majority.

“It’s the Republicans who have to live with whatever Congress ultimately decides, and they’re worried,” said congressional scholar Thomas E. Mann, executive director of the American Political Science Assn. “They want products. They want outcome. They want something to be accomplished.”

And they are worried that nothing will be accomplished if Reagan insists, as he has in his preliminary budget decisions, on maintaining his defense buildup at the same time that he would slash another $32.5 billion from a wide range of domestic programs. Rep. Dick Cheney (R-Wyo.) warns that defense spending may become “Ronald Reagan’s Vietnam.”

“I’m worried that continued failure to lower defense (spending) puts at risk everything President Reagan stands for,” Cheney, a member of the House GOP leadership, told reporters recently. “I think it’s the biggest threat to the success of his Administration.”

Cheney said Democrats will feel under no obligation to vote for a package of deficit reductions if it includes social program cuts but excludes defense.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), one of the 22 Republican senators facing a reelection campaign next year, complained that Reagan’s defense policy is “making it more difficult to accomplish the overall goal of getting our fiscal house in order.”

Grassley, who advocates freezing federal spending in all areas including defense, contended: “The political impossibility is to cut spending and radically change priorities at the same time . . . and do it early enough to make a difference on the deficit.” He called Reagan’s preliminary fiscal 1986 budget plan “a blueprint for political bloodletting.”

Frenzel lamented: “I think our chances of coming to some resolution early seem limited. My guess is we’ll spend the first 90 to 120 days posturing, making speeches to each other about deficits.”

Dole warned: “We have about six months to get the job done. We can’t wait until next October. We will be in the 1986 election cycle next October, and if we are still quarreling about defense, it means we haven’t done anything else, because I can’t believe Congress is going to cut all other spending and leave defense spending hanging as the last item.”

Reagan agrees that this is a critical period, according to White House staff members. He sees it, however, not as a time for quick compromise but as his last opportunity to use the leverage he gained from his election to make big strides toward building up the military and cutting the size of the federal government.

“His goal is not to get rid of the deficit,” congressional scholar Mann said. “His goal is to keep pressure on the government not to let it get bigger.”

A White House aide, who asked not to be identified, dismissed suggestions that bigger defense cuts would make it easier for the President to get congressional consent for domestic spending reductions.

“Do you think that the health care associations or the dairy producers are going to give up their programs on the basis of whether the Defense Department is taking its fair share of cuts?” he asked.

Frenzel warned that the Administration’s current strategy will simply force Congress to choose where to make defense spending cuts, “and I think Congress may not be the best agency to make them.”

Moreover, Frenzel said, congressional Republicans may find it impossible to cut deficits while keeping the President’s campaign promise of no new taxes. “Democratic control of the House is a practical reality, and they are going to insist on some tax increases,” he said.

For now, Democrats are remaining on the sidelines as Republicans argue with the President. House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) has said only that if Reagan is willing to make meaningful cuts in defense spending, “he will find that we will be helpful in non-defense areas.”

While most of the Republicans’ intramural struggle has centered on the budget, which Reagan will not submit formally to Congress until early February, leading Republicans have also said they will oppose the President on a range of other issues:

--Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), the staunch Pentagon ally expected to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, dealt what may be a mortal blow to the MX missile when he said the White House should give up its efforts to develop the controversial weapon.

--Sen. David F. Durenberger (R-Minn.), in line to become chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he will try to block Administration efforts to renew covert aid to the rebels--known as contras --fighting the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua.

--Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.), expected to succeed Dole as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he opposes any major tax legislation this year. Times staff writer Sara Fritz contributed to this story.