Conservatives Warn Against Excessive Defense Cuts : Budget: Sen. Nunn says that Clinton may have gone too far in proposing to slash Pentagon spending by $123.9 billion over five years.

President Clinton’s plan to slash defense spending by $123.9 billion over five years ran into its first serious resistance in Congress on Friday as conservatives, led by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), warned that he has gone far enough.

In a floor speech, Nunn suggested that the cuts Clinton has proposed should be viewed as the maximum that should be made. And he warned both the Administration and other lawmakers not to seek any further reductions either to finance domestic programs or to cut the deficit further.

Nunn also served notice that if other savings Clinton is projecting in his economic plan do not materialize, he will expect the Administration to protect remaining Pentagon programs rather than seek extra defense cuts to meet its targets.

His remarks, intended to lay down a marker in the coming battle over the defense budget, were quickly endorsed by other congressional conservatives, who have begun to criticize the Administration for going too far in slashing defense spending.

Sen. J. James Exon (D-Neb.), another member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a floor speech that he is “concerned that the Clinton Administration has gone too far, too quickly” and urged the White House to provide more details before asking lawmakers to vote.

At a meeting of the House Armed Services Committee last week, Rep. G. V. (Sonny) Montgomery (D-Miss.) warned that “we’re bringing down the military much too fast and we’re putting people out of jobs.” Others on the panel echoed his views.

And Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the defense subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that the defense budget reduction Clinton is proposing “concerns us because it’s a much bigger cut than we anticipated.”

“I do not believe we could mount a Desert Storm operation if we keep going the way we’re going,” Murtha said in an interview with The Times. “We’re going to have a hollow force if we are not careful.”

The increasingly vocal resistance suggests that the President may have more difficulty than he expected pushing through his defense cuts, which were announced by the Pentagon last month. Nunn said he has voiced his concerns privately to Clinton and top Administration officials.

Clinton had said during the 1992 presidential campaign that, if he were elected, he would slash defense spending by some $60 billion from the George Bush Administration’s plan for the period between fiscal 1993 and 1997.

Instead, his new proposal calls for $123.9 billion in cuts--$60 billion in reductions from last year’s actual Pentagon spending levels and some $63.9 billion in added “savings” ranging from a freeze on military pay to lower assumptions for the expected inflation rate.

The emerging debate comes at a critical time in the budget process. House and Senate budget committees are scheduled to begin work this month crafting a congressional budget resolution that effectively will set the limits on defense spending for fiscal 1994, which begins Oct. 1.

The Pentagon has disclosed only the overall figures for the defense budget that it is recommending, with details not expected until the White House approves the figures sometime this month.

Nunn contended on Friday that many of the extra spending cuts Clinton has proposed reflect uncertain assumptions that may not turn out as expected.

Clinton has projected some $27 billion in savings, for example, because the Administration is predicting a lower inflation rate than contained in the Bush assumptions. And he is expecting to “save” another $18 billion by freezing military pay.

Nunn also complained that, in calculating the $60 billion in promised program cuts, Clinton did not allow credit for the $7.4 billion that Congress pared from Bush’s defense budget last year and instead used the lower congressional figure as a starting-point for his own cuts. As a result, he said, the Administration’s proposed cuts are some $7.4 billion larger than was necessary to fulfill Clinton’s campaign promise.

Nunn warned Friday that if the pay freeze and other add-ons the Administration have proposed do not materialize, the White House should look for reductions elsewhere rather than trying to slash weapons programs and personnel further.

He also called on the Administration to exempt the Defense Department from paying the special energy tax the President has proposed, as traditionally has been the practice. Times staff writers William J. Eaton and David Lauter contributed to this story.