Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, June 20, 1990 TAG: 9006200421
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A/2 EDITION: EVENING
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Even under President Bush's military spending plan - criticized on Capitol Hill as far too costly - a smaller military is coming, Cheney told reporters Tuesday as he compared several options for military cuts.
"Even under the president's program, we're still going to have to take some steps that probably will result in forcing people out who would like to stay," the secretary said.
"We are not going to have as large a military in the future as we have today, and somehow you've got to shrink the force to get there."
Cheney, attempting to stave off even more severe budget-cutting proposals from the House and Senate, argued at budget negotiations that a 25 percent cut in forces could save $8.6 billion over five years.
This would result in retiring six active-duty Army divisions, 111 Navy ships and 11 Air Force tactical fighter wings. It would remove 442,000 men and women from the military's 2.1 million active-duty ranks over the next five years, as well as civilian workers and members of the National Guard and reserves, he said.
"The total, if you add it up . . . is almost 600,0000 military and civilian personnel," Cheney said.
Cheney's proposal would reduce the fiscal 1991 defense budget Bush submitted in January from $303.3 billion to $302 billion. Over five years, it would cut $8.6 billion from Bush's proposal.
The secretary charged that House and Senate plans could result in the closing of half the U.S. military's installations around the world and could reduce the Pentagon's 3.1 million civilian and military work force by 1 million people.
The House's proposal to cut Pentagon spending to $295.4 billion would require a 35 percent cut in troop levels, while the Senate Budget Committee plan for a $293.9 billion level would force a 50 percent slash in force strength, the defense chief said.
Such cuts would "do serious damage" to the nation's military, Cheney contended, arguing that the result would be "unbalanced forces . . . units that are undermanned in some key areas."
Cheney's figures dissatisfied many congressional Democrats who attended the budget talks. They contended that the numbers amount to a savings of only about 10 percent.
Rep. Les Aspin, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, argued that Cheney could have made different decisions in the structure of the military that could have yielded savings of 18 to 27 percent.
"They have made a set of policy choices to get there that I think are awfully cautious," Aspin, D-Wis., told reporters. "It's quite clear from this exercise that we are nowhere near an agreement on the budget."
by CNB