Senate Passes Defense Bill With Unprecedented Curbs

The Democratic-controlled Senate on Friday approved a mammoth, $303-billion defense spending bill for the 1988 fiscal year that would set unprecedented restrictions on President Reagan’s authority to manage the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The legislation, which still must be reconciled with a $289-billion measure passed by the House that contains the same arms control limits, was approved by a highly partisan 56-42 vote. Forty Republicans voted against it, many of them staunchly pro-defense senators who have never previously rejected a Pentagon spending bill.

The Senate bill slashed $9 billion from Reagan’s request for 1988 defense programs and included 118 amendments on a range of issues. One amendment called for a U.S. embargo on Iranian oil and other products, such as pistachio nuts. Another barred Soviet officials from moving into their new embassy in Washington until a new U.S. Embassy building in Moscow that is laced with Soviet eavesdropping devices can be reconstructed.

Senate passage of the measure triggered what is expected to be a blistering showdown between Reagan and Congress over arms control and defense spending that may not be resolved until Christmas.

“We have essentially a Democratic Congress on a direct collision course with the President of the United States,” said Sen. Dan Quayle (R-Ind.). “What we have is the opening round of the 1988 presidential campaign.”

Two key provisions of the bill--one barring Reagan from conducting space tests of his “Star Wars” missile defense system and the other requiring him to abide by the limits on nuclear weapons set in the 1979 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty--were hailed by arms control specialists but denounced by the White House.

It was the first time that the Senate had consented to any such language binding the President’s hands on these matters. The House has consistently passed strict arms control provisions in recent years, but none of them have survived in the Senate.

At the White House, Reagan vowed to veto the bill on grounds that the arms control provisions would give the Soviet Union concessions that it has been unable to win at the bargaining table. He said that the arms control provisions would “undercut my efforts to negotiate equitable and verifiable arms reductions and undermine U.S. national security.

“Any bill that includes these provisions will be vetoed,” he added.

Democratic Leaders’ Pledge

Undaunted by these threats, Democratic leaders pledged never to back down on the arms control issues and predicted that the President eventually will be forced to accept these restrictions if he wants to continue funding the Pentagon.

“He can veto it, he can veto it, he can veto it, . . . but he cannot fund the security of this country until he signs something into law,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.).

Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) added: “I would urge the President to go slow with the veto pen. Sooner or later, he’s going to have to sign a bill that pays for the men and women who defend this country and that bill may have these same items on it.”

Ironically, the Senate is getting tough on arms control at the very time that Reagan is promising to conclude an agreement with the Soviet Union eliminating intermediate-range nuclear missiles, something that arms control advocates have been demanding from the Administration for several years.

‘Dragged’ into Role

Fred Wertheimer, head of Common Cause, the self-styled citizens lobby, which strongly advocated the arms control legislation, said that Senate Democrats were “dragged” into playing a role in arms control because Reagan betrayed Congress on these issues last year.

Last year, Democrats were persuaded by the President to drop many of their arms control provisions from the fiscal 1987 defense bill immediately before Reagan’s summit with Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland. Democrats then were disappointed that the summit did not produce greater progress toward an arms control agreement.

Less than an hour before approving the bill, the Senate voted, 57 to 41, in favor of an amendment authored by Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) that wrote the SALT II limits into U.S. law without ever mentioning the treaty by name.

Nunn, who previously opposed the idea of imposing the terms of an unratified treaty on the President, was one of several conservative Democrats who voted for it for the first time. He explained that he did not object to enacting the limits as long as the arms treaty was not mentioned.

At the same time, the Senate voted, 97 to 0, for an amendment authored by Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) saying that the President is not obligated to abide by SALT II unless it is ratified. Nunn insisted this was consistent with the Bumpers amendment, which has nothing to do with the treaty.

‘Fatally Flawed’ Treaty

Although Reagan has branded SALT II a “fatally flawed” treaty, he abided by the limits it set on intercontinental ballistic missile launchers until late last year. The United States then exceeded those limits as it deployed a 131st B-52 bomber--one over the SALT II limit--capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles without dismantling other weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The United States has now deployed 15 bombers over the limit of 1,320 nuclear missile launchers and long-range bombers.

Conservatives argued that the United States should not abide by the treaty’s limits because the Soviets have violated other aspects of the treaty, most recently on Thursday when the Kremlin test fired a missile that fell within 600 miles of Hawaii.

Under an amendment co-authored by Nunn and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and adopted by the Senate more than two weeks ago, the Senate-passed defense bill also requires the President to abide by the traditional, narrow interpretation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistics Missile Treaty that bars testing of “Star Wars,” known officially as the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Although Reagan has never officially abandoned this interpretation, his legal advisers last year unveiled a new interpretation of the treaty allowing for SDI testing. “A broader interpretation would enable us to save time and money in developing effective defenses against a potential Soviet missile attack,” he said on Friday.

Democrats’ Argument

Led by Nunn, Democrats argued that a president cannot unilaterally reinterpret a treaty after it has been ratified by the Senate. Conservatives argued that the provision gives the Soviet Union a ban on SDI testing that they have been unable to win at the bargaining table.

The Senate bill provides $4.5 billion for the Strategic Defense Initiative, an increase of 22% over the current year. But it is far less than the $5.7 billion requested by Reagan. The House bill provides only $3.1 billion for “Star Wars.”

As passed by the Senate, the defense bill does not contain a highly controversial amendment co-authored by Nunn and Byrd that would have required the President to halt escorting of Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf within 90 days unless he receives specific approval from Congress to continue the operation.

Faced with a GOP filibuster, Democrats on Thursday night abandoned their efforts to use this measure to gain control of Reagan’s Persian Gulf policy. Byrd said it might be reintroduced as early as next week as a separate piece of legislation, but Sen. Lowell P. Weicker (R-Conn.) predicted that the issue would resurface in the Senate as soon as another U.S. serviceman is killed in the gulf.

Weicker also criticized the Democratic majority for failing to force the President to abide by the terms of the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which would pull U.S. troops out of the Persian Gulf within 90 days unless Congress votes otherwise. The War Powers Resolution is a vestige of the Vietnam War era designed to protect the Congress’ right and duty to declare war.

“We will vote for the hardware of war, but we will not participate in any decision about the employment of that hardware,” said Weicker. “Missing in action--the Constitution of the United States and the War Powers Act of 1973--(these are) unreported casualties.”