Congress Likely to Delay Drastic Defense Trims : Budget: Key lawmakers say cuts will be deeper than Bush wants. But they don’t expect an immediate ‘peace dividend’ for domestic programs.

Although the Democrat-controlled Congress is almost certain to cut defense spending deeper than President Bush wants this year, it will put off drastic trims because of the turbulence in the Soviet Bloc and incomplete arms control talks, key lawmakers believe.

While Bush is expected to call for a 2% cut amounting to about $7 billion in his 1991 budget proposal next week, Congress is likely to pare 3% to 5%, or $9 billion to $15 billion, from current spending after adjustments for inflation.

Such action would give further impetus to the widely anticipated reshaping of the nation’s military. However, it would not immediately produce the huge “peace dividend” hoped for by many interest groups promoting domestic causes.

This assessment of the looming months-long struggle over the U.S. defense budget emerges from extensive interviews with congressional leaders and key committee members as the process is set to begin with the presentation of President Bush’s plan next Monday.

Some Urge Scale-Back

Although some lawmakers are demanding a broad military scale-back in light of the all-but-declared end of the Cold War, Congress is expected to move to drop Pentagon expenditures to no less than $285 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. That compares with the $300 billion it would take for the defense budget to keep up with inflation and the $293 billion that Bush is expected to request.

“We’ll see cuts somewhat lower than the President desires,” said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “But I don’t foresee Congress abandoning its responsibility and just slashing away aimlessly at this budget.”

House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) struck a similar note. “I don’t favor radical, Draconian cuts in defense until we’ve had an opportunity to look at what our strategic requirements are in the coming decade,” Foley said.

The pressure for larger reductions will probably come in a few years, the lawmakers said, and it will be powerful.

By 1995, many Democrats and some Republicans hope to see the military budget shrink dramatically to post-Vietnam dimensions. And the difference between what Congress and the Administration would like to see cut by that point could total a whopping $42 billion, judging from Bush’s new five-year plan and a long-range Democratic alternative under discussion.

“Two to four years out is when the drastic cuts will come,” predicted Rep. Julian C. Dixon (D-Los Angeles), a member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

Two Weapons Systems

In interviews, leaders said they foresee budget-cutting efforts aimed this year primarily at U.S. troop levels in Europe and at a pair of weapons systems not yet fully under way--the B-2 Stealth bomber and the rail-mobile MX missile.

“The important factor is not to move on to the next generation of new weapons systems that are unsuited to the world that we are apparently going to see in the decade of the 1990s,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.).

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), leader of a coalition of liberal groups inside and outside Congress that are seeking deep cuts, said that “we can certainly pull 100,000 troops out of Europe. The likelihood of a land invasion of Western Europe by the Warsaw Pact is now zero.”

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney has said that he hopes to avoid withdrawing troops from Europe in fiscal 1991 based only on budgetary reasons. Congress previously mandated the withdrawal of up to 6,000 troops from Europe as intermediate nuclear weapons are destroyed.

Meanwhile, Cheney on Wednesday ordered a halt to all new military construction contracts through April 30. While the three-month moratorium is unlikely to have any major impact on the $8.5 billion targeted for military construction in the current fiscal year, Cheney said it will give the armed services a break to look at future plans.

Despite the favorable budget-cutting climate, a number of legislators from both parties are warning against disarming too quickly, before negotiations with the Soviets are concluded.

“What I’ll be arguing with my colleagues is that we ought to go carefully and cautiously,” said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.). “We have not yet got in place two major arms control agreements, one on conventional forces and one on strategic.”

Senate Republican leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) agreed. “I think there will be a bipartisan group who says, yes, let’s reduce where we can, but let’s be certain we have a plan. . . . We respond (to the fall of Communist governments in Eastern Europe) not unilaterally, but we wait and see what the Soviets are going to do.”

Still, some budget cutters are expected to argue that the dramatic events have overtaken negotiations on reduction of conventional forces.

“Our problem now is with our (NATO) allies” who are unwilling to assume a greater defense burden, Frank said.

Sasser’s Budget Committee staff has drawn up a list of proposed cuts that could save $93 billion over the next four fiscal years. They include cancellation of the B-2 bomber, the V-22 transport plane and the Advanced Tactical Fighter, as well as scaling down the Strategic Defense Initiative and deferring the C-17 cargo aircraft and SSN-21 submarine.

Sasser suggested that by fiscal 1995, the military budget could be slimmed to about $270 billion, after adjustments for inflation. In contrast, a new defense plan approved by the White House envisions a $312-billion budget in 1995.

Cranston Targets B-2

Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) is spearheading the Senate fight to limit production of the B-2 to 15 planes, even though the radar-evading aircraft is being built by Northrop Corp. in his own state.

Cranston maintains that the fleet of 100 new B-1 bombers, supplemented by B-52s with cruise missiles, “can meet all our strategic manned aircraft needs for decades to come without the B-2.”

The Administration is expected to push for full-paced production of the B-2 to complete the currently slated fleet of 132 aircraft.

Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), a member of both the House Budget Committee and the Frank-led coalition, Budget for a Strong America, said that another major target will be the Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as the “Star Wars” anti-missile program.

“I think there will be a very strong consensus on the Democratic side, with a lot of Republicans joining us, to turn SDI back into a $1-billion or $2-billion basic research program,” he said.

Bush is expected to request $4.5 billion for “Star Wars” in his new budget, an increase of nearly $1 billion.

As the huge arms buildup of the 1980s begins to wind down, lawmakers from the big defense industry states of California, Texas, New York and Massachusetts are girding for fights to defend projects in their districts.

But a number of legislators said they believe the cuts will be so widespread that it will be difficult to save many individual weapons programs and military bases.

Rep. Thomas J. Downey (D-N.Y.), who succeeded last year in fending off a bid by Defense Secretary Cheney to shut down Grumman’s F-14 fighter plane production on Long Island, said: “It is going to be very hard to do that from now on. We were lucky to get in under the wire.”

Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garden Grove), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, agreed. “I think defense pork is dead for awhile,” Dornan said. “None of these programs are so concentrated in one area that they cause thousands to be fired. People will stand up and battle for their district to get those newspaper stories, but they won’t have a prayer of winning.”

California Economy

Several California representatives said they believe that the state’s economy is diverse enough to absorb large defense cuts.

“In the final analysis, I think California will do fine,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), the third-ranking House Republican leader. “Our economy has so many ways to go in terms of growth and progress.”

Whatever the size and distribution of coming cuts, the battle over the resulting “peace dividend” will be just as fierce.

“The No. 1 issue of the 1990s is going to be what do we do with the peace dividend,” said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.). “While it is going to be very small in 1991, it is going to be very big by the mid-1990s if things continue to go in the direction they are moving in.”

A SENATE HIT LIST

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) has listed eight Pentagon programs where Congress might be able to cut President Bush’s forthcoming 1991 defense budget:

Potential savings, 1991-1994, Program Action in billions B-2 bomber (Air Force) Cancel $30 V-22 transport plane (Marines) Cancel 7 Air defense anti-tank system Cancel 1 (Army) C-17 transport plane Defer 16 (Air Force) Advanced tactical fighter Cancel 9 plane (Air Force) SSN-21 submarine (Navy) Defer 14 Rail garrison basing for Cancel 4 MX missile (Air Force) Strategic Defense Initiative Scale back 12 (separate) Total $93

Source: Senate Budget Committee