THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, November 27, 1994 TAG: 9411240583
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J01 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ERIC ROSENBERG
LENGTH: Long : 187 lines
When Rep. Floyd Spence of South Carolina got word that his party swept the Democrats in a tidal wave of Republican victories across the nation, he was stunned.
``I just couldn't believe all the reports. I started calling around to make sure everybody was really elected. I'm still trying to get used to it,'' Spence said.
``It was a lot like when I got my (lung) transplants. I felt we were given a new life,'' he said. ``I've had a lot of people calling up and saying, `Hello, Mr. Chairman.' And I'm delighted to have them call me that.''
The senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, Spence is the likely successor to Chairman Ron Dellums (D-Calif.) in what will end 40 years of military budget-writing control by the Democrats.
After the 104th Congress is sworn in, the huge portraits of departed Democratic committee chairmen hanging in the Rayburn Building's hearing room will be staring down on a strange new sight - a majority of Republicans and conservative budgets getting approved.
The same gavel that in January will be in Spence's hand was once wielded by Les Aspin. At times, Republicans have complained, it was used by Aspin as a weapon. That's not lost on Republicans who have been itching for the reins as they watched a left-leaning agenda promoted through the years.
To be fair, many Democrats on the panel are moderates and have seen eye-to-eye with Republican colleagues. Rep. Norm Sisisky (D-Va.), for example, is mainly a moderate on defense issues and sees the change-over as ``a plus for defense.''
``Moderate to conservative Democrats have always gotten along with Republicans on the committee. We almost voted sometimes as a block. . . . We've really treated defense as a non-partisan issue,'' Sisisky said.
Sisisky was one of a handful of Democrats who voted against the last two budget resolutions, which proposed deep cuts to defense. Overall, President Clinton is seeking to cut defense budgets by some $127 billion from fiscal 1994 through fiscal 1998.
The panel's moderate wing, said John Spratt (S.C.), a senior Democrat on the committee, should make the transition of power smooth.
``Floyd Spence is a reasonable, pragmatic man. I don't think he'll be doctrinaire as chairman of the committee. I think he'll be very flexible. Other people like John Kasich (R-Ohio), he's been somebody we've worked with before. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) can be quite conservative, but we see eye-to-eye on different things,'' Spratt said.
Spence will be the point man who will devise and then shepherd a Republican defense strategy through the new House. And recently he stressed bipartisan cooperation.
``I am also mindful of the long-standing bipartisan tradition that has served the House Armed Services Committee well over the years and eagerly look forward to continue to work within that spirit with all of my colleagues on the committee,'' Spence said in a written statement.
Whether that is simply post-campaign rhetoric remains to be seen. Still, some of the more conservative panel Republicans didn't seem in the mood to shake hands.
``When you have had deep defense cuts and a failed foreign policy, that's what puts at risk the United States and other countries,'' said Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) ``We have got to at least try and force Congress to work like Congress and not be so bipartisan.''
Yet even Cunningham held out an olive branch of sorts. ``The majority of Democrats on the committee want to do the same good things we do. And I think it's going to be a much better place to work than it was before when the whole goal was to cut as much out of defense as possible for social programs,'' he said.
Most senior Republicans on the panel contacted had yet to think through the specifics of their forthcoming agenda.
The Republican ``Contract With America'' is the closest thing to an agenda. And it claims the GOP in the 104th Congress will push for unspecified defense increases.
``I have two goals,'' said Rep. Bob Stump (R-Ariz.), a senior member on the panel. ``One is to try to increase defense spending somewhat. The other is to stop this damnable spending of defense dollars for other purposes.'' He singled out the use of defense dollars for environmental cleanup as particularly egregious.
``If that is at all possible, I would intend to pursue it,'' he said.
But the watchword recently was get set for fireworks when President Clinton sends his budget to Capitol Hill after the new year.
``People have more or less gone along with what Clinton's budget request has been. I don't look for that being the case this time,'' said Spence. ``I think we're going to increase defense spending. How much and in what respect, that remains to be seen. But I think we have the numbers to do it.''
Rep. Herb Bateman (Va.), a senior Republican on the panel, said the exact level will take some time to hash out. ``But I can assure you budgets will be higher with a Republican majority,'' he said.
Congress approved a $262 billion fiscal 1995 defense budget.
However, defense contractors and communities hard hit by the spending downturn shouldn't expect a return to Reagan-era defense largesse.
Even Democratic budget analysts said the week before last, GOP discretionary defense increases by $2 billion to $4 billion a yearis achievable - albeit at the expense of domestic programs. The shifts would take place during March's budget resolution process that sets topline figures the authorizing committees live with.
Most any increase, in the near term anyway, likely will go to bolster operations and maintenance accounts. ``Our No. one priority will be to assure readiness and quality of life of troops,'' said Bateman.
``That doesn't mean we'll be buying more B-2s and new aircraft systems that the Pentagon is talking about,'' said Spence. ``We're going to have to get our priorities straight for the short term.''
The Republican ``contract'' doesn't mention where the additional money will come from or how any increase can happen legally. Congress currently is operating under the discretionary spending caps established last year and in effect through fiscal 1998.
The overall discretionary outlay caps for through fiscal 1998 are $546 billion (fiscal 1995), $550 billion (fiscal 1996), $547 billion (fiscal 1997) and $547 billion (fiscal 1998).
The administration's defense outlay targets - the figures are GOP-led Congress can increase - are $269.5 billion (fiscal 1995), $262 billion (fiscal 1996), $257 billion (fiscal 1997) and $257 billion (fiscal 1998).
The battle lines in fiscal 1996, for example, will be drawn over how much to shift the $262 billion earmarked in discretionary domestic outlays and $21 billion in international outlays to defense.
``We still have a cap on discretionary spending,'' Spratt said. ``Any increase in defense, since the Republicans are committed to tax cuts, will have to come out of non-defense programs like education and the infrastructure community development block grant program,'' said Spratt.
Bateman sounded a cautious, good-government note. ``We have to make the budget comport to the reality in the Congress as a whole,'' he said.
Republicans are expected to try and resurrect the so-called ``firewalls'' that in the Bush-era insulated defense budgets. This would take only 60 Senate votes to restore, said Congressional Research Service budget analyst Steven Daggett. This act would imply a major increase in defense caps at the expense of the domestic category.
``We have to work through the budget committee to get the numbers better in line with what we think defense needs are,'' said Spence. ``This year that will be the thing we'll have to work on first.''
Sisisky will be a strong Democratic voice for bringing back the firewalls. ``There's not a heck of a lot we can do,'' he said, ``if the budget sets $263 billion and we have to come within that.''
Like Stump, Sisisky backs initiatives that would prevent the defense budget from being used to fund environmental cleanup and other non-defense projects. Last year, for example, Sisisky raised a stink when the Senate proposed using $300 million in Pentagon dollars for United Nations dues. He eventually prevailed.
Driving the budget increase will be Republican perceptions of the Clinton defense blueprint, also known as the ``bottom-up'' review.
The GOP most likely will convene hearings on whether those military forces are adequate and whether enough money has been set aside to preserve military readiness.
By late December, the General Accounting Office will be publishing a report on the bottom up review that will raise serious questions about the analysis - or lack of - underpinning the blueprint. It was provided to the Pentagon several weeks ago for a 30-day comment period.
The report is being prepared for the House Budget Committee and will provide ammunition for the incoming GOP.
But don't expect the GOP to rewrite the White House's military blueprint. ``I am not sure we'll call for a total, comprehensive reopening of the entire force structure. We may well call for some fine-tuning,'' said Bateman.
As for specific weapon systems, Republicans at this point have only ventured to say in their ``contract'' that a ballistic missile defense system to protect the United States will be resurrected in some form. The Clinton administration scotched the program in favor of theater ballistic missile defense.
Where the panel in the past leaned left of center, the 104th Congress will change the political landscape considerably. Look for the committee to lean heavily to the right on most issues because of the ascendancy of Cunningham, Hunter and Robert Dornan (R-Calif.), three very vocal conservatives.
Following through on a Republican threat, many of the professional Democratic committee staff will get pink slips. The GOP appears to be poised to cut congressional committee staff by 30 percent.
If the Republicans are to come out swinging in January, organizing the committee now as quickly as possible is key. In the next few weeks, Spence will meet with staff and members alike to hash out the broad committee organization. Staff from the both sides of the aisle have already gotten together to talk transition.
Republican leaders are pondering a name change - to the House National Defense Committee. But the six main subcommittees which review the Pentagon budget request - oversight and investigations, readiness, research and technology, military installations and facilities, acquisition, and military forces and personnel - likely will stand.
Said Spence: ``I don't see a whole lot of change there.'' MEMO: Rosenberg is deputy editor of Defense Week, a Washington, D.C.-based
newsletter, where a version of this commentary first appeared. ILLUSTRATION: Photos
Herb Bateman
Floyd Spence
Norman Sisisky
Color graphic by Ken Wright, Staff
by CNB