Defense budget divides senators

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans took turns Tuesday lashing the Defense Department for slashing spending and shrinking the Army in the proposed budget for next year, and the Pentagon’s proposal for additional base closures fell flat in the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta defended the spending plan, saying the department is meeting congressional requirements to attack the budget deficit in a way that doesn’t sacrifice readiness. To do that, he said, the Pentagon needs the force structure changes and other measures proposed for fiscal 2013.

For Fort Drum, the defense budget potentially means reductions in both uniformed and civilian personnel, as well as belt-tightening in base operations. And while the post would see a new $95 million aircraft maintenance hangar and other projects, the prospect of base realignment and closure puts the installation’s future shape in some uncertainty.

“Defense spending is not what’s sending this country deeper into unsustainable national debt,” said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the committee’s ranking Republican.

Mr. McCain and other Republicans accuse the Obama administration of using deep cuts in defense spending — some $487 billion over a decade — to support higher spending on highways and other priorities.

Mr. McCain said he doubted the administration’s position that the budget is driven by military strategy rather than cost-cutting.

“This doesn’t add up,” Mr. McCain said.

And Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, dubbed as a gimmick the administration’s proposed savings from the end of combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq — operations that both Mr. Obama and his predecessor, President George W. Bush, paid for with borrowed money.

“I think ‘phantom savings’ is the most generous thing I’ve seen,” Mr. Cornyn said.

Mr. Panetta, in prepared testimony, told the committee, “Make no mistake: the savings we are proposing will affect all 50 states. But it was this Congress that mandated, on a bipartisan basis, that we reduce the defense budget, and we need your partnership to do this in a manner that preserves the strongest military in the world.”

“This will be a test of whether reducing the deficit is about talk or action,” Mr. Panetta added.

The House Armed Services Committee will be officials’ next stop today, with a similar result likely. Rep. William L. Owens, D-Plattsburgh, said Tuesday the construction at Drum is “very good news” but he opposes additional base closures. Fort Drum appears well positioned with the Pentagon’s goal for an agile, lethal force and increasingly sophisticated training, he said.

The reception was warmer from Democrats. Sen. Carl M. Levin, D-Mich., the panel’s chairman, credited the department for meeting the congressional deficit reduction mandate. But Mr. Levin and others, both Republican and Democrat, raised doubts about base closures. And Mr. Levin appeared to catch the defense secretary in a contradiction — President Barack Obama has promised steady reductions in troop levels in Afghanistan but the Pentagon budget holds troop levels steady at 68,000 through fiscal 2013.

On that point, Mr. Panetta said the department does not have a plan for withdrawal beyond the 33,000 troop reduction already under way to end the “surge” strategy there. That withdrawal is due for completion this summer; Mr. Panetta said a review of further reductions probably will not begin until later this year. The focus now, he said, is on reduction of the surge.

Pressed by Mr. Levin on the budgetary impact of further troop withdrawals, Mr. Panetta said, “Will there be some savings? Of course, whatever we decide to do there will be some savings.”

Base closures appear to generate a more bipartisan skepticism. Although Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said to “count me in” on budget cuts and base closures, Mr. Levin said the department should focus first on trimming overseas installations, which can be done without a BRAC.

And Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., said she has “serious questions we save any money” through base closures, citing a government study showing the 2005 round cost 67 percent more than the Pentagon projected.

“Please count me out when it comes to BRAC,” Ms. Ayotte said.

Sen. Kirsten E. Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who has been on the lookout for possible BRAC impacts in New York for several months, urged Mr. Panetta to preserve the state’s military assets, especially in cyber security and use of unmanned aerial vehicles, for instance. And she pressed him to maintain National Guard and Reserve training capabilities in New York.

On Friday, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Owens and other New York lawmakers urged the Pentagon to steer away from proposed research cuts that could hit the Air Force Research Lab in Rome.