Nunn Calls $15-Billion Defense Cut Proposed by House Too Severe

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), fearful that sharp cuts in defense spending would increase unemployment, said Wednesday his panel will propose trimming far less from the Pentagon budget this year than the $15-billion cut by the House.

Nunn told reporters he did not see how Congress could go much beyond the $7 billion in reductions that President Bush has proposed for fiscal 1993 “without having significant adverse effects on military personnel and on defense-industry personnel.”

At the same time, Nunn left open the amount the Armed Services Committee might recommend for medium-term cuts, covering the period from fiscal 1993, which begins Oct. 1, through fiscal 1997--the five-year period normally used for defense planning.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) has recommended slashing $91 billion during the fiscal 1993-97 period--the equivalent of a $114-billion cut under earlier budget computations. The President has recommended a $48-billion reduction.

Nunn--and the Senate Armed Services Committee--traditionally have been more reluctant than the House to slash defense spending sharply. Nunn said Wednesday he would not propose a medium-term defense figure until the Senate begins work on its budget in about a week.

The defense spending issue is expected to be particularly critical this year because many lawmakers want to use the expected “peace dividend” from defense savings to finance increases in domestic spending, cut taxes or reduce the federal budget deficit.

The more that defense spending is cut, the more, they reason, will be left over for these other uses. Other key lawmakers have proposed slashing anywhere from $100 billion to $350 billion from the defense budget over the next five years.

But with the economy still in a recession, many legislators have begun having second thoughts about slashing defense spending too far, lest it exacerbate the nation’s unemployment problem by throwing military personnel--and defense-industry workers--out of jobs.

California has been hit especially hard by layoffs in the defense industry. Many analysts have warned that unemployment in the state could grow significantly if defense spending is cut sharply.

As a result, Aspin and some other lawmakers have suggested that Congress might “slow” the reduction in defense spending, cutting a relatively small amount this year in exchange for much larger cuts toward the end of the five-year period.

The Bush Administration’s request is for a defense budget of $281 billion for fiscal 1993, a decline of 4.5% from the current fiscal year’s level after adjustment for inflation. The reductions would come mainly by eliminating several major weapons systems.

Proponents of sharper cuts argue that with the threat from the former Soviet Union now significantly decreased, there is no need for the United States to maintain the same massive military Establishment that it kept up during the Cold War.

But the Bush Administration has cautioned that the situation in the former Soviet Union could easily flare up again and has argued that newer threats--from Third World countries such as Iraq and North Korea--justify keeping U.S. defenses strong.

The budget adopted by the House earlier this month is designed only to set broad limits on major spending categories. The Senate takes up a budget plan later this month, and the House and Senate Armed Services committees are expected to begin drafting a bill in April.

Nunn said Wednesday that the defense cuts that his panel is likely to propose will “certainly not (be) as much as the House is recommending,” but he did not offer any firm figures.