GOP Plan to Boost Defense Spending Is Deflated

WASHINGTON —  In a setback for advocates of increased defense spending, House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-La.) has declined to support a GOP campaign to pass the biggest military budget hike since the 1980s.

Defense advocates were expecting Livingston to join Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) in publicly endorsing increases of $20 billion to $25 billion a year in the $251-billion military spending plan.

But aides confirmed Monday that Livingston has balked at embracing increases of that magnitude, a sign of Republican ambivalence over defense spending increases that could threaten the 2-year-old balanced-budget agreement and compete with rival initiatives for tax cuts and domestic needs.

The first big hike in defense spending since the Cold War first appeared likely in September, when the Joint Chiefs of Staff acknowledged to Congress that they had cut too much in the military’s post-Cold War contraction. The chiefs asked for annual increases of $17.5 billion to $27.5 billion.

Any such hikes would have wide impact in California, where one in six defense dollars is spent. The idea enjoys passionate support among many GOP members of Congress, including leaders of key committees.

Yet Livingston backed out of signing a joint letter of support with Lott that was to be sent to budget committee chairmen in the respective chambers. A spokesman said Monday that Livingston supports defense increases but “wanted to work the numbers some more” before committing to specific figures.

Congressional aides said the move showed that Livingston, despite a history of supporting defense spending, does not want to put military spending at the top of his agenda if it would displace other priorities.

This year’s budget deliberations are expected to spark huge fights over how to spend the $70-billion budget surplus.

Under the balanced-budget agreement, Congress will be able to increase defense spending only if it finds offsetting domestic spending cuts, or designates the spending to be for an unforeseen “emergency.”

Budget experts have been predicting that President Clinton will propose a moderate increase and that defense advocates in Congress will fight to add additional billions to the spending bill, just as they did in last year’s budget. Livingston’s move suggests that such efforts may have only limited backing.

Even if the armed forces do not receive the kind of increases their leaders have sought, the administration appears ready to give them much of what they need to cover their most pressing needs.

The service chiefs have requested increases in military pay and retirement benefits, more money for short-term readiness needs, such as spare parts and fuel, and additional spending to update weapons.

After weeks of intense deliberations, the administration appears close to settling on an increase of $10 billion or slightly more for next year’s budget. That is in line with what outside experts have been predicting. It would allow some improvement in pay and retirement programs, meet the most pressing readiness needs and augment spending for some procurement programs, officials said.

Even without Livingston’s aid, many top Republicans in Congress have been trying to apply pressure for the administration to offer a rich increase.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has been named to chair the Senate Armed Services Committee in the next Congress, has signaled that he may block the administration’s effort to authorize a new round of military base closings if Clinton’s defense hike is too small.

Last spring, Warner was the pivotal vote that killed a proposal for a new base closing round in the Senate. He said in an interview last week that he could have “no comment” on his position on base closing until he sees what Clinton’s budget contains for defense.

“I’ve become increasingly concerned about the need for added spending for national defense,” he said.

Another strong advocate of increased spending is Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), who next year will be chairman of the influential House Appropriations defense subcommittee.

Lewis said in an interview that after an initial analysis he believes the Pentagon may need an additional $100 billion over five years.