$1-Billion Soviet Aid Plan Cut From Pentagon’s Bill

In an embarrassing setback, Congress’ two leaders on military affairs were forced Wednesday to drop their $1-billion Soviet aid package from a $291-billion defense bill in the face of strong bipartisan opposition and indifference by the Bush Administration.

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) had proposed sending humanitarian aid and helping the Soviets dismantle their huge arms complex with the money. But the proposal ran up against strong sentiment to pay more attention to U.S. domestic needs, especially during hard economic times.

The idea by the two chairmen of Congress’ Armed Services committees ran into a second serious roadblock when President Bush did not answer their pleas for a statement supporting the aid plan. The Administration, instead, repeated that it had “no objection” to giving the President discretion to use Pentagon funds for the aid.

Although conservative Republicans ignited opposition to the aid package, Nunn and Aspin also ran into opposition in their own party when Democratic leaders accused Bush of ignoring domestic needs--and Sen. Harris Wofford (D-Pa.) won an upset election by stressing such needs.

Nunn, who rarely suffers reversals of such magnitude, yanked the aid package from a fiscal 1992 defense authorization bill Wednesday. He and Aspin had personally inserted it last week when a Senate-House conference committee was working to reconcile versions of the legislation.

In a floor speech and interviews, Nunn angrily blasted the “shortsightedness” of Bush and his legislative colleagues, insisting that the aid package could have paid “dramatic dividends” in the reduction of Soviet weapons and the prevention of destabilizing hunger in Soviet republics this winter.

He acknowledged that the Administration probably already has the authority to send some food and medicine this winter and to engage in limited cooperative efforts to reduce the Soviet arsenal. But he said that legislation is needed to provide large-scale technical assistance envisioned in the aid package.

Nunn said the proposal would be pressed in separate legislation early next year, but he expressed fear that it would fall victim to election-year politics. He criticized leaders of his party on this point.

“I think the Democratic Party is going to have to be very careful” in accusing Bush of stressing foreign policy more than domestic issues, he told reporters. “I do not think we ought to be spending 1992 (the election year) saying foreign policy is not important. . . . It might pay off on some kind of political whim but will not be in the best interest of the country.”

In a floor speech, Nunn said that colleagues in both parties had told him:

“ ‘Yes, we need to take this step now, but all my constituents are telling me: Take care of our own needs; help the people of America for a change.’ ”

Nunn said that the best way to get more money for domestic needs is to help reduce the Soviet threat, enabling more Pentagon funds to be used for education, health care and other programs.