Panel Votes for ‘Star Wars’ Curbs : Senate Unit Supports Tight Limits on Testing of System

The Reagan Administration’s efforts to accelerate deployment of a “Star Wars” anti-missile system suffered a major setback Tuesday as the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to support tight limits on the testing of space-based defensive weapons.

The committee, adopting restrictions similar to those already approved by its House counterpart, voted to allow continued laboratory research but to ban space tests of such exotic weapons as lasers, particle beams and kinetic-energy “collision” vehicles without congressional approval.

The vote was 12 to 8, with Sen. William S. Cohen (R-Me.) joining the panel’s 11 Democrats in support of an amendment by Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The provision was inserted into a $303.3-billion defense authorization bill that would cut Reagan’s spending request by $8.7 billion in fiscal 1988 and allow only for inflation-driven growth from 1987.

Bigger Cuts in House

Meanwhile, the House, working through nearly 200 proposed amendments to the version of the defense bill written by its Armed Services Committee, voted 248 to 172 to make even deeper cuts in Reagan’s defense proposal. The House tentatively set total spending at $288.6 billion--$23.4 billion less than sought by Reagan and a 5% decrease from current levels.

The Senate committee’s “Star Wars” amendment effectively would force the President to adopt a narrow interpretation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Soviet Union.

Administration officials, seeking deployment of a partial anti-missile system by 1994, have argued that some tests in space are legally permissible under a broad reading of the treaty.

Veto Predicted

Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), a leading proponent of early deployment of “Star Wars,” which is known formally as the Strategic Defense Initiative, predicted that Reagan would veto the bill “in a second.”

“The SDI amendment undercuts American negotiators in Geneva at the very moment they are seeking to bring about an historic arms control agreement,” Wilson charged.

Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) and Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) drafted a letter strongly urging a veto and said they expect at least 34 senators to sign it, demonstrating that there is sufficient strength to sustain a veto.

Nunn, declaring that “this is as good a deal as they (the Administration) can get,” warned that if a veto were upheld, Congress probably would retaliate by making deep cuts in “Star Wars” funding.

The Armed Services Committee proposed $4.5 billion in “Star Wars” research funds for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. That was $1 billion less than Reagan’s request but nearly $1 billion more than this year’s spending level--”a rather healthy growth rate” of 22.5%, Nunn said.

The House defense bill would provide $3.8 billion for “Star Wars.”

Nunn said that he supports continued research because a defensive system might be needed if U.S.-Soviet talks on offensive weapons cuts break down or if the Soviets develop their own defensive network.

Nunn noted that Lt. Gen. James A. Abrahamson, who heads the “Star Wars” program, had testified last month that all research projects planned for the next two years could be carried out under a narrow interpretation of the ABM treaty.

However, the Administration is considering whether to accelerate deployment efforts by implementing its broad interpretation of the treaty.

Nunn said he understands that the Administration plans to contend that, while the Senate had been given a narrow reading of the treaty by the Richard M. Nixon Administration during ratification proceedings, Reagan could “unilaterally” adopt a broad interpretation now because secret records show that was the understanding actually negotiated with the Soviets.

Nunn said that such a position would get the Administration into “a deep, deep box” because the Senate would demand to see--and make public--the negotiating record behind any future treaty. He said that this could cause particular complications for any U.S.-Soviet treaty on missiles stationed in Europe.

On the other hand, Wilson protested that the Nunn-Levin amendment is a case of Congress’ “unilaterally working behind the President’s back, undermining America’s bargaining positions.”