Nunn Calls for Deep Cuts in Troop, Warship Levels

Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), Congress’ most respected voice on military matters, called Thursday for much deeper reductions in troop and ship levels than those advocated by President Bush, as the battle to carve a “peace dividend” from the defense budget intensified.

The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in his third floor speech challenging Administration plans, urged slashing U.S. forces in Europe to between 75,000 and 100,000 by 1995, instead of the 225,000 sought by Bush.

Nunn declared also that the Navy should be able to make do with 10 to 12 carrier battle groups instead of the 14 the Pentagon wants to keep. Each battle group consists of an aircraft carrier, six support ships and an air wing.

Robert F. Hale, assistant director of the Congressional Budget Office, estimated that Nunn’s ideas could save up to $7 billion a year in operating costs and up to $64 billion in long-term equipment investments. That would make up a large chunk of the $250 billion or so that many congressional Democrats believe can be chopped out of the defense budget over the next five years, in light of relaxed East-West tensions.

Democrats and Republicans alike hope to use such a peace dividend to reduce the federal deficit or expand domestic and foreign aid programs.

Nunn’s proposals, which are expected to attract a wide following, were made as the House Budget Committee approved cutting Bush’s proposed $303.3-billion military budget for fiscal 1991 by nearly $8 billion. The committee’s figure would be $1 billion less than in the current year.

The Budget Committee’s resolution, which sets ceilings on appropriations, also authorizes $283 billion for military spending in future years--or $24 billion below Bush’s proposal.

The developments portend sharp clashes between the President and Congress on the first federal budget since the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact. The moves were also the first key steps in a complex negotiating process within Congress.

The House is expected to vote substantially deeper defense cuts than the more conservative Senate, although both chambers are likely to settle on a compromise plan to provide significantly less funding than the Administration wants.

In a 19-page speech outlining “a new military strategy,” Nunn chiefly advocated making U.S. forces smaller and more mobile. In Europe, he suggested that NATO allies take over most of the responsibility for supplying troops on alert, with the United States providing reinforcements in case of a Soviet invasion--which he described as a greatly diminished threat.

As part of the plan, he called for seeking an agreement that would permit the United States to use, on an emergency basis, ports and airfields in France for the first time since 1964, when France pulled out of NATO’s military command.

Bush has proposed reducing U.S. ground and air forces in Central Europe to 195,000 from the current 255,000. The Soviet Union also has tentatively agreed to cut its troops to that level. An additional 30,000 U.S. troops would remain in Western European nations outside the central zone, such as Britain and Turkey.

“We should start planning on a residual force in Europe on the order of 75,000 to 100,000 troops within five years,” Nunn said. The cuts are dictated not only by a reduced Soviet threat, he added, but also by rising German sentiment to take back U.S. housing, hospitals, schools and open land and “convert them to German civil uses.”

The power behind the drive to cut Pentagon spending was shown by the way a determined band of liberal Democrats on the House Budget Committee overturned a decision by Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) to hold future spending authority at $285.9 billion.

Angered by what they considered a broken agreement, the liberals threatened to block committee approval of a House budget resolution unless the figure was lowered to $283 billion--$24 billion below Bush’s request. After consulting with Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley) and Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), Foley capitulated.

As a result, the Democratic budget may be in greater danger of defeat when it comes to the House floor next week because it could lose the support of defense-minded conservatives in the party, who would join most Republicans in opposition.

But the liberal band--including Californians Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae) and Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), along with five others on the panel--argued that a budget resolution containing a higher future spending authority would be opposed by liberal Democrats in a floor showdown.

“We were also concerned that, when the budget goes to the Senate . . . we’ll have to negotiate up,” Boxer said.

Panetta told reporters that the defense figures--approved 21 to 14 on a straight party-line vote--were primarily a bargaining lever to use in negotiations with the Senate and the Bush Administration on the final size of the budget.

Republican opponents described the defense spending cuts as far too deep in a time of uncertainty in U.S. relations with the Soviet Union.

“Your defense number is scary--it’s devastating,” Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.) said.

Meanwhile, the Administration, noting that the Soviet threat in the Pacific has diminished somewhat, announced that it would reduce its forces in Korea, Japan and the Philippines by about 11% over the next three years. That translates into 15,000 of the 135,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in the three countries.

Paul D. Wolfowitz, undersecretary of defense for policy, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Korean peninsula remains “one of the most potentially explosive areas in the world” and that further cuts there would depend on a reduction in tensions between North and South Korea.

Staff writer John Broder contributed to this story.