Showdown on Contra Aid: More at Stake This Time, Lawmakers on Both Sides Say

Congress has voted on aid to the Nicaraguan Contras more times than most lawmakers care to count, but this time, Democrats and Republicans say, there is more at stake.

Unlike earlier battles, this week’s showdown vote on President Reagan’s request for $36.25 million in aid comes against the backdrop of a Central American peace process that has just begun to show results. And the impact of Contra aid on those negotiations--a matter of sharp disagreement--has become a key concern to both parties.

Increasingly, supporters and opponents of the Nicaraguan rebels say that beyond the fierce political struggles of an election year, there is a realization on Capitol Hill that the vote could have a profound effect on the prospects for peace in Central America for years to come.

‘Political Shoot-Out’

“If this was just a political shoot-out at the O.K. Corral . . . we could handle that,” said Rep. Lynn Martin (R-Ill.). “Now there’s a growing feeling that this vote is different, that the decision we make may have a five-year impact on more than one nation down there.”

There is little consensus, however, on what that impact will be.

Proponents believe that periodic installments of Contra aid will pressure Sandinista leaders to continue their moves toward democratization. Yet critics fear more U.S. assistance will doom the peace process and condemn Nicaragua to a brutal “war by proxy” without end.

Both sides have been lobbying 20 to 30 undecided House members whose support will be crucial in a vote that is expected to be extremely close. Under rules agreed to by the White House and Congress, the Contra aid package will be dead if it loses in the House this Wednesday, although the Senate will vote the next day regardless of the House action.

‘The Main Event’

Congress decided “to make this the key vote on the issue this year . . . it’s an up or down vote, yes or no, with no amendments, no delays, no distractions,” said California Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced), the House majority whip. “For Contra aid, this is the main event.”

As a result, the pressures on so-called swing voters, some of whom have taken differing sides on the issue in previous years, have been intense. Many have been called into White House meetings with Reagan and also lobbied by Democratic opponents of Contra aid.

“You get caught between the liberals and the conservatives on this thing,” said Rep. Albert G. Bustamante (D-Tex.), who opposes the Administration’s latest proposal but voted for $100 million in Contra assistance last year. “They’ve drawn the lines pretty clearly.”

For Reagan, the vote looms as the key political test of an issue that has been a cornerstone of his foreign policy. He has warned that a loss of military aid could mean the end of the Contras and the “surrender” of Nicaragua to communism. The President will cap his lobbying campaign Tuesday with a nationally televised speech on the issue.

Would Scuttle Concessions

Democrats charge, however, that new military aid for the Contras would scuttle the concessions toward democracy that Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has made in recent weeks. Sensitive to charges that they are “walking away” from the Contras, the Democrats have vowed to replace Reagan’s plan with a new package of humanitarian assistance for the rebels.

The package sought by Reagan would provide $3.6 million worth of weapons and ammunition and $32.65 million in additional, “non-lethal” assistance to the Contras. White House officials have said the funds would last for four to five months, at the end of which they might ask Congress for additional aid.

Under the plan, the weapons and ammunition would stay in storage as long as progress is made toward a cease-fire between the Contras and the Nicaraguan government. The President would “personally consult” the presidents of the four other Central American nations before releasing the $3.6 million worth of “lethal aid.”

The request is a far cry from the $270 million for 15 months that Reagan said last fall the Administration would seek, and scaling it back reflects the strong opposition that the White House faces in winning approval for any Contra aid. The vote this week is viewed by some as the Administration’s best--and last--chance to ensure support for the rebels.

Mixed Signals

Administration officials, who have vowed to keep the Contras alive, sent out mixed signals Sunday in response to a report in the Miami Herald that the White House has a plan to solicit other nations to provide assistance for the guerrillas if Congress turns down further aid.

Lt. Gen. Colin L. Powell, the President’s national security adviser, ruled out such requests, but Secretary of State George P. Shultz refused to comment on whether such action has been considered. The Administration made such solicitations several years ago, triggering one of its most heated clashes with Congress as part of the Iran-Contra scandal.

“The minute you start talking about what you’re going to do if you lose, you’ve lost. And I intend to win,” said Shultz, appearing on ABC-TV’s “This Week With David Brinkley.”

Yet even if the proposal loses, others predict that the Contra issue will continue to surface in this session of Congress. Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.), the Senate’s deputy GOP leader, predicted last week that the aid issue would become a “running observation platform on the behavior of (Nicaraguan President) Danny Ortega.”

Supporters of the Contras continually would try to increase aid, Simpson said, while opponents would try to scale it back. “We’ll be voting on this every two weeks,” he said.

Close Margin

As they check and recheck their head counts, strategists on both sides say the margin in the 435-member House may be less than 10 votes. All the while, Democrats and Republicans alike have been searching for the right strategy to win over uncommitted members.

The Republican pitch is simple: Voting aid for the Contras will keep pressure on the Sandinistas to maintain their commitment to democracy. If the peace process succeeds, no military aid will be necessary. But if the Nicaraguan government reneges on its pledges, the rebels will be able to continue their fight.

“If we (Republicans) are wrong on this, there’s no great loss, because the peace process can go on,” said Rep. Martin. “But if the Democrats are wrong on this, the Contras are gone. That’s it.”

Republicans also stress the small amount of military aid being sought.

“That $3.6 million, that’s not even a good pork-barrel project,” said Rep. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the Republican House whip and chief vote counter.

“Are we going to vote on each round (of ammunition) and each missile . . . for such a pittance? This amount of money goes to one (highway) interchange in one part of one section of this country. It’s ridiculous.”

Defeat No Great Threat

Democrats argue just the reverse. Defeating the request will be no great threat to the Contras because “they will still have enough to keep 2,000 to 3,000 men in the field,” said Rep. David E. Bonior (D-Mich.), the Democrats’ leading spokesman on the the issue. Contra leaders have told him directly that they will continue even without the aid, Bonior says.

In addition, Democrats contend that the Administration is trying to deceive the public by describing the aid request as small. Most of the $32.65 million in “non-lethal” aid will actually go for trucks, helicopters, communications gear and other forms of military equipment, they claim. And the level of aid, $9 million a month, is slightly more than the $100 million per year that Congress agreed on last year, they point out.

At the same time, Democratic House leaders have promised to assemble an alternative aid package for Central America, composed mostly of non-lethal humanitarian aid, that stresses “trade, economic growth and jobs . . . an attempt to bring the Contras back into mainstream life in Nicaragua and stabilize the area,” according to Coelho.

The key attraction for moderates is that this plan would give them “something to vote for” in addition to an up or down vote on Contra aid. That would be a “very significant” point for these House members to make in their campaigns this fall, added Rep. Bustamante.

Prepared to Reopen Issue

Just as important, Democrats said they are prepared to reopen the issue if the Sandinistas renege on their agreements. Were Nicaragua to invade one of its neighbors, for example, “we (Democrats) would move strongly on the side of whoever is invaded. If Ortega were to say, ‘the hell with my Central American colleagues,’ we would work with those four other Central American nations,” said Coelho.

As the lobbying continues, some members of Congress note with irony that the Contra debate seems to be generating more controversy on Capitol Hill than outside Washington.

For example, Rep. Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who opposes the aid request, said the issue was rarely raised by constituents over the Christmas holidays in his rural “pro-military” district.

“There were many more issues on their minds . . . like how to get the floodwater out of their basements,” he said. “Unless I mentioned this whole question, it almost never got discussed.”

And Rep. Martin, although she is committed to Reagan’s plan, confessed that she is not “as emotionally involved” in the Contra issue as is the President.

“In my (Republican) district, in northwest Illinois, there’s no burning concern over this,” Martin said. “In my district, they think foreign aid is money that’s going to Chicago.”