Now Congress Backs the Pentagon

In his spartan office on Capitol Hill, Democratic Congressman Jim Lloyd of California scanned a letter from seven liberal colleagues last week. They urged him to support their drive to reduce sharply President Ford's proposed all-time high ($113.3 billion) defense budget for fiscal 1977. With no hesitation, Lloyd took a felt-tipped pen and scrawled a bold, red NO across the top of the letter, then underscored the word three times for emphasis.

Thus, Lloyd served notice that he is no longer the dove on the House Armed Services Committee who helped persuade Congress last year to cut $7.8 billion from the Pentagon's fiscal 1976 budget request; the 8% reduction (to a final budget of $90.5 billion) was the largest since 1953. This year Lloyd and many other members of Congress have become Pentagon converts. Says he: "I am no hawk, mind you. But there has been an increase in the Soviet capacity to wage war. One on one we are still better. But Americans, including myself, perceive a lessening of our international influence. I want this nation strong. I want sophisticated weapons in the hands of our troops."

Lloyd's transformation reflects a sea change in Congress's attitude toward the Pentagon budget. In recent months, would-be budget cutters have been overwhelmed by rapidly rising support for giving the Pentagon almost anything it wants. Says Republican Representative William Cohen of Maine: "The whole atmosphere has changed."

The hostility toward the military that grew out of the Viet Nam War has ebbed. At the same time, Congressmen, like their constituents, have become suspicious of the Soviets. Among the reasons: the accelerating Russian arms buildup, Soviet intervention in Angola and stagnation of the SALT talks to limit nuclear weapons. Complains Robert Sherman, an aide to two congressional critics of the Pentagon: "The House has been hopelessly spooked."

But Majority Leader Thomas ("Tip") O'Neill believes there is good reason for the changed mood. Says he: "There's an overall feeling that the world is a tinder box. We all know that we are not as strong as we used to be. The Navy is obsolete. We've neglected conventional weaponry. The feeling in Congress is that our equipment is worn out, and we better get it ready."

The public is beginning to share that belief. A Gallup Poll last month reported that only 36% of those polled thought that too much was being spent on defense, down from 44% in September 1974. The growing worries about U.S. military strength have been skillfully exploited by Ronald Reagan, who has caustically attacked Ford's defense policies (see story page 19). For his part, Ford has adopted "peace through strength" as his campaign slogan and promised last week to take the unprecedented step of vetoing any Pentagon budget that is much lower than what he has proposed. Senators and Representatives expect a similar debate over defense in their own campaigns. Says Democratic Representative Richard Boiling of Missouri: "No one wants to go into this election with the idea afoot that he's against national defense."

As a result, the House Budget Committee last week rebelled against its chairman, Democrat Brock Adams of Washington, who wanted to reduce Ford's Pentagon budget by $5.6 billion. Sensing opposition, Adams changed his proposal to $3.3 billion. Even so, the committee voted against him and set a total of $112 billion, a mere $1.3 billion less than Ford sought. The same day the Senate Budget Committee agreed on a military budget of $113 billion. Both committees have authority only to recommend overall ceilings for military spending to Congress; the actual reduction will be left to the House and Senate Armed Services and Appropriations committees. But those committees have already indicated that they want to cut little or nothing from Ford's request.

The full House this week begins debating the defense procurement budget, which is money earmarked for research, development and purchase of new weapons. The House Armed Services Committee has urged that the House authorize $700 million more than the $32.7 billion sought by the Pentagon. Most of the extra money would be spent on more nuclear-powered ships for the Navy, including an additional Trident submarine (total authorization for two of the subs in this budget: $1.5 billion), another attack submarine and seed money to begin construction of a supercarrier and a strike cruiser.

The committee approved three other major weapons programs:

> $1.5 billion for the first three production models of the supersonic B-1 bomber. Ultimately the Air Force plans to buy 244 B-1s to replace the aging B-52 bomber fleet.

> $179.2 million for jet-propelled cruise missiles, which are an updated version of Germany's World War II buzz bombs. Launched from ships or planes, they can fly 2,000 miles, hugging the ground to escape radar detection.

> $858.9 million for new weapons to improve close air support of U.S. ground forces. The total includes $128.9 million for 82 Cobra helicopters equipped with antitank missiles, $112.1 million for development of a new attack helicopter and $617.8 million for 100 A-10 light bombers.

Critics of the Pentagon have prepared at least four amendments to eliminate, cut or postpone some parts of the procurement bill. They argue that many of the new weapons will provide too little defense at too much cost. For example, Wisconsin Democrat Les Aspin maintains that the shipbuilding program will mean spending "enormous sums to buy a very limited number of relatively vulnerable, high-value targets." But the tide is against the budget cutters, and Gerald Ford will probably be the first President since Lyndon Johnson in 1966 to get just about all he wants from Congress for the Pentagon.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.