$400 Million in ‘Star Wars’ Funding Cut in House Vote

The House voted Wednesday to cut funding for President Reagan’s “Star Wars” missile-defense system in fiscal 1989, and lawmakers predicted that most of the $400-million savings would be earmarked for the government’s war on drugs.

The reduction was adopted by a vote of 223 to 195 as an amendment to a $299.5-billion defense spending bill for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Sponsored by Rep. Charles E. Bennett (D-Fla.), the amendment would provide $3.5 billion, compared to the $3.9 billion appropriated in fiscal 1988 for “Star Wars,” known formally as the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Reagan has threatened to veto the bill if funding for SDI falls below $4 billion. But the figure ultimately approved by Congress could be at least that high if the Senate, which has yet to act on the defense bill, approves a higher level.

Compromise Likely

In fact, many House members said they were supporting the Bennett amendment to ensure that the final “Star Wars” figure would be about $4 billion. The Senate is expected to approve $4.6 billion for SDI, and House-Senate conference committees that reconcile differing versions of spending bills usually split the difference.

The President had requested $4.8 billion for “Star Wars” in fiscal 1989.

House Democrats argued in favor of the lower SDI funding figure on grounds that it would free up additional funds to be invested in government efforts to combat illegal trafficking.

“ ‘Star Wars’ or drug wars--the choice is yours,” said Rep. Les AuCoin (D-Ore.), trying to capitalize on the anti-drug fervor that regularly sweeps Congress during election years. “This is your opportunity to fund the war on drugs. . . . America is watching.”

The House is expected to vote overwhelmingly today to give at least $350 million of the money cut from SDI to the Coast Guard for drug interdiction. Among other things, the funds would be earmarked for six new patrol helicopters, six patrol boats and two radar aircraft.

“The mood out there is that drugs are important and we’re going to do something about it,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) told reporters.

The House has consistently cut the President’s request for funding for SDI over the last few years. Democrats contend that the program cannot produce an effective defense against incoming S1870031205but they acknowledge that it has been an effective inducement to the Soviets to agree to arms reductions.

Citing some estimates that SDI would stop only 30% of the Soviets’ incoming missiles, Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Berkeley) asked: “Would any of you with your best clothes on walk out in a rainstorm with an umbrella that is only 30% effective?”

Debate Tones Down

By and large, however, the House debate over SDI was not as lively as it had been in past years. Much of the controversy has gone out of the program since last year, when the President ruled against the efforts of conservative Republicans to win his approval for early deployment of some components of the system. Had the President sought approval for early deployment, the Democrats were prepared to cut SDI funding even deeper.

Before accepting the Bennett amendment, the House rejected a number of alternative spending levels for SDI in fiscal 1989.

The vote was 312 to 105 against a proposal by Rep. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to spend $4.87 billion and 227 to 190 against a proposal by Rep. William L. Dickinson (R-Ala.) to set it at $4.07 billion.

Likewise, an amendment authored by Dellums and Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae) to slash it to $1.3 billion was defeated, 299 to 118.

The House electronic voting machine broke down during the vote on the Dellums-Boxer amendment and, as a result, the members were forced to participate in an old-fashioned roll call vote by voice. The process took more than 40 minutes--20 minutes longer than the usual electronic vote.

Dellums said the breakdown was “one more example of the limits of technology under stress--but with ‘Star Wars’ you wouldn’t have the chance for a verbal recall.”