Senate Rejects Increase in ‘Star Wars’ Spending : Soviet View That Plan Won’t Impede Arms Talks May Have Weakened Support

The Senate dealt a serious blow Tuesday to the “Star Wars” missile defense system by rejecting any increase in spending for the program in the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

It was the first time that the Senate has cast a vote against “Star Wars,” a missile interceptor program known officially as the Strategic Defense Initiative.

The 66-34 vote reflected a dramatic deterioration in support for “Star Wars” in Congress, apparently hastened by the Kremlin’s recent decision to de-emphasize the issue of defensive nuclear weapons in U.S.-Soviet arms control negotiations.

By rejecting an increase of $300 million proposed by Sens. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), the Senate accepted the decision of the Appropriations Committee to set the “Star Wars” spending level at $4 billion, or slightly less than this year. And that figure is certain to be cut even further in negotiations with the House, which has voted to cut “Star Wars” spending to $3.1 billion.

The action came as a surprise to “Star Wars” supporters, who had anticipated that the Wallop-Warner proposal would pass easily and thus strengthen the bargaining position of senators in negotiations with the House on a final spending figure for SDI. To improve their chances of winning, they had even added some increased spending for a number of popular conventional weapons.

The Council for a Livable World, a leading anti-nuclear group, hailed the surprise vote as “another nail in the ‘Star Wars’ coffin.”

The Senate action virtually guarantees that President Bush will receive less money for “Star Wars” in fiscal 1990 than he did in the current year--the first real cut that the controversial program has suffered since it was initiated by former President Ronald Reagan six years ago.

Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), a leading “Star Wars” critic, predicted that the House and Senate would settle on a figure of $3.6 billion for the program. He also predicted that funding would decline in future years, making it impossible for the Administration to achieve its goal of deploying a nuclear defense system by 1994.

“People are just finally running out of enthusiasm for this program,” Johnston said. “This is just a dose of reality. I am sure that this Congress is going to bring this program back to reality.”

Loss of Support Observed

Even before the vote, senators on both sides of the aisle had observed that “Star Wars” was losing its traditional support in Congress as a result of recent improvements in U.S-Soviet relations, stiff competition for government dollars and what some members view as Bush’s lackluster support for the program.

In a floor speech, Johnston argued that the Administration had failed to even define the missile defense system, despite the expenditure of $20 billion on research since Reagan initiated it. “They cannot to this day tell you what the purpose of SDI is or what it will look like,” he said.

As proof of the Administration’s alleged failure to adequately explain “Star Wars,” SDI opponents cited a recent statement by Vice President Dan Quayle in an interview with The Times. Quayle said that Reagan’s original promise of an impenetrable shield against Soviet missiles had been nothing more than “political jargon.”

Furthermore, Johnston argued that the need to fund “Star Wars” had been reduced by Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard A. Shevardnadze’s announcement over the weekend that Moscow no longer sees U.S. development of “Star Wars” as an obstacle to negotiating a treaty reducing the superpower arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons.

“The Soviets are not so concerned about SDI anymore,” Johnston said. “I think it is a recognition of the fact that they are not so concerned about the progress we’re making” in developing a missile defense system.

“They are really not afraid of the program anymore,” Johnston later added.

But their strategy clearly backfired, with many Senate members seeming to be as opposed to the “sweeteners” as they were to the increase in “Star Wars” spending. Furthermore, some senators appeared to be convinced by the argument of Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.) that the House would never accept the $4.3-billion spending level proposed by Wallop and Warner.

“Voting to put this extra SDI money in here is a complete waste of time,” Dixon said. “It can’t possibly happen.”

But the sentiment against added spending for space-age weapons did not extend to the controversial B-2 Stealth bomber. Shortly after voting against an increase for SDI, the Senate voted, 71 to 29, against a proposal by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) that would have forbidden the Air Force to buy more than 13 of the bombers.

The Senate also voted, 65 to 34, for a “reassessment” of the current commitment of 43,000 troops to South Korea. By accepting this amendment, the Senate turned aside a competing proposal by Sens. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) and Johnston that would have mandated the withdrawal of 10,000 troops from Korea.

It was the first time in this decade that Congress has considered a proposal to limit troop strength in Korea, and supporters of the Bumpers-Johnston proposal viewed it as the opening shot in what they expect will be a heated debate on the subject over the next few years.

Bumpers said the United States cannot justify such a costly commitment of U.S. troops in the area, especially when the South Koreans are reducing the percentage of their own gross national product that they are spending on defense.

“If South Korea is so terrified of North Korea, why don’t they spend the money to have another 400,000 troops under arms?” he asked. He said they would rather rely on “Uncle Sugar . . . Uncle Sucker.”

Earlier in the day, the Senate voted, 86 to 14, to reject a plan to reconsider the decision of a federal commission to close 86 military bases and to scale down five other bases. The base closing decision was based on the Pentagon’s expressed need to reduce defense spending in future years.

The vote came as Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney was threatening to close even more military bases to meet future cuts in defense spending imposed on the Pentagon by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

“Given all the demands to redirect dollars from the defense budget to other areas, I’ve got no choice but to find ways to close additional bases,” Cheney said.

SOVIETS INVITED: U.S. offers to allow Soviets to tour TRW “Star Wars” plant in Orange County. Page 17