Congress Majority Whips See Defense Cut : Expect Reduced Military Spending to Be Tied to Domestic Trims

The majority whips of the Senate and House, in bipartisan agreement that it will take more than economic growth to prevent budget deficits approaching $200 billion, said Sunday that they expect reduction in the rate of military spending to be linked with the domestic budget cuts that President Reagan seeks.

“We can’t do these other things we’re talking about unless we get to the defense budget,” Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), assistant majority leader of the Senate, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” as he discussed the possibility of a government spending freeze designed to slash the deficit by $50 billion.

Rep. Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.), the House majority whip, who also appeared on the program, said that Congress should “think about” a $15-billion reduction in the $34-billion increase that Reagan asked for defense last week when he submitted his $973.7-billion budget for fiscal 1986. The Pentagon budget request totaled $313.7 billion.

Simpson was asked about reports that congressional leaders and the White House had reached a firm deal under which the White House would accept reductions in defense spending if Congress would take the initiative--and the political blame--for including Social Security cost-of-living allowances in an overall freeze on government spending.

“No deal, as far as I’m concerned,” Simpson said. “It’s a question of doing it across the board, and unless we do it with Social Security and unless we have defense in that package, we’re not going to get it done.”

Simpson, who is on record in favor of freezing Social Security cost-of-living increases, said without going into detail that “those at the poverty level” would not be affected.

Poor Not Target

“We’re not out to do a number on the poor in America,” he said.

Foley left the door barely ajar for inclusion of Social Security increases in a freeze, declaring that if a package of cuts is developed, “Social Security would probably be last on the list.”

The two legislators indicated that they were not persuaded by Reagan’s statement in his State of the Union address last Wednesday that “the best way to reduce deficits is through economic growth.”

The leaders agreed that any attempt to reduce the deficit by increasing taxes will fail as long as Reagan is committed to vetoing such a proposal. “We can’t pass a tax bill over his veto and it’s silly to talk about tax proposals as a consequence,” Foley said.

Simpson concurred, but called Reagan’s commitment to tax reform “very valid.” He said that, with the backing the issue has received from the Administration, it is showing “the best bipartisan surge I see on anything cooking in this Congress.”

Simpson was asked about charges last week by David A. Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget, that military bureaucrats are more concerned about protecting their retirement benefits than they are about national security. The Wyoming senator said that he thinks “there’s a secret yearning in the bosom of a politician that somebody ought to be saying something like that, but not that way.”

Simpson, a veteran, noted that there are former servicemen who “weren’t involved in any kind of activity and draw every single benefit that a combat veteran draws.” He called the pension systems serving retired civil servants and former members of Congress “an outrage” and declared that “they all have to be looked at.”