Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 13, 1990 TAG: 9005130032
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The spending plans, which were drafted by the civilian and military chiefs for the Army, Navy and Air Force, were formally submitted to Cheney's office on May 1.
"There are no surprises here," said one source, who noted that the proposals, which cover the years 1992-1997, are far from final. "It's a submission. The final decisions are up to Cheney, up to the president."
All of the officials who spoke of the plans did so on condition of anonymity, given that the plans are considered classified. The Washington Post and The New York Times first disclosed details of the documents in their Saturday editions.
The chiefs' suggestions came as Capitol Hill is putting great pressure on Cheney to clarify the Pentagon's long-range spending goals in this time of reduced superpower tensions and reduced chance of a major land war in Europe.
Lawmakers complain they can't debate President Bush's $303 billion budget submission for fiscal 1991 without this guidance. Some want to slash $15 billion to $20 billion from the single-year spending plan, while Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn, D-Ga., has set his limit at spending $298 billion, a number that makes sharply reduced Pentagon spending a near certainty.
Following a formal presentation on strategy Monday by Gen. Colin Powell, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each of the services will present their arguments about their recommendations to Cheney over a period of several days, another source said.
The secretary must make the final decisions about the proposals sometime this summer as part of the Pentagon's complex budget process. Bush will submit his 1992 budget to Congress next January.
Cheney has ordered the service chiefs to cut spending by 2 percent below the rate of inflation in each year from 1992 to 1997, and in that light, the plans are supposed to be the first thorough review of the military's long-term needs.
"They are now in the secretary's hands, and now the real debate begins," said one Pentagon source.
Many of the proposals have been reported in recent weeks as the service chiefs debated their options. The Pentagon sources said the major points include:
Reducing active-duty Army forces by six divisions, which would cut the active-duty force to 580,000 from 764,000.
Paring the Army's reserve force from the current 776,000 to 645,000.
Slashing the Navy's fleet from 542 to 488 ships.
Cutting carrier battle groups from 14 to 12, while seeking a new aircraft carrier in 1996.
Stopping Trident submarine production with the 18th ship, but with an option to build more.
Vice Adm. Daniel L. Cooper, the service's top submarine officer, told Congress in March the Navy initially wanted 24 submarines, to be built one a year at a cost of about $1.2 billion each. The Navy also has considered stretching out production to one boat every other year.
Paring 50,000 active-duty Navy slots and around 40,000 Air Force active-duty personnel.
Slashing nearly in half the Air Force's B-2 Stealth bomber program, from 132 to 75.
Putting off deployment of the MX rail garrison and the development of the Midgetman single-warhead missile.
Retiring the 200 Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Even though the chiefs have been forced to suggest the cuts, that doesn't mean they are happy with them or want to see them put into effect, several sources said.
Despite the suggestion that the Navy's carrier fleet could be reduced, Navy Secretary Lawrence Garrett III still intends to argue for 14 carrier battle groups, one source said.
"Cooper wants at least 21 [Trident] submarines. Garrett wants 14 carriers," the source said.
The official said the Navy wants an option to readjust its program so that it could switch funds around and "buy back" ships if world events sour, the source said.
by CNB