252. Letter From Secretary of Defense Carlucci to Senator Nunn1
Last fall, as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, I was involved in negotiating the so-called budget summit agreement. Under this agreement, the Congress and the Administration adopted an overall framework for budget reduction. According to this plan, the Department of Defense was required to reduce its planned program for FY 1989 by $33 billion to $299.5 billion. This was well below the level that the Administration felt was necessary for our security, but in the interest of reducing the overall budget we agreed to accept greater risk in our national security posture.
Since assuming my responsibilities as Secretary of Defense in November, the task of making the very difficult decisions required to meet this agreement fell on my shoulders. I cannot overstate how difficult these decisions were. They involved cancelling a number of programs, delaying others, and making reductions in our overall force structure. The budget I submitted represented the soundest overall defense program under these difficult budgetary constraints. I am gratified that to date, the Congress has not reduced overall defense spending below the level agreed to in the budget summit agreement. However, I am very concerned about Congressional reductions to a central element of our defense program—the President’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program.
SDI is the cornerstone of our overall defense program. It holds the promise of a more stable and effective deterrent posture based on a balance of offense and defense. The hopes we had for a more stable and safe deterrent under the ABM Treaty regime have not been realized. The Soviet Union has continued to modernize and expand both its strategic offensive and defensive forces in an effort to blunt the credibility and effectiveness of our deterrent. It is time we recognized this, and took the steps necessary to rectify an increasingly unstable situation. The case for the SDI program is further strengthened by the disturbing proliferation of ballistic missile technology.
[Page 909]The Administration’s request for Department of Defense SDI activities in FY 1989 is $4.5 billion. This figure represents a reduction of $1.7 billion from what we had previously planned to spend in FY 1989. I recommended this reduction to our request with considerable reluctance, as Congressional reductions in SDI funding to date have already resulted in substantial delays in the program. However, I felt that I had made a commitment to present the minimum overall budget request that—while accepting greater risk—was consistent with our security requirements. The request the President submitted for the SDI program reflects a balance between our legitimate security requirements and existing budgetary constraints, and it is a sound technical program. The action of the House of Representatives—which reduced our request by almost $1.5 billion—was irresponsible, and it would cause grave damage to this vital program.
I urge you in the strongest possible terms to oppose any amendment on the Senate floor which would reduce SDI funding below that level recommended by the Committee. If the Congress sends the President a defense bill that contains a funding level for SDI that is in my view inadequate, I would have no choice but to recommend a veto of that bill. While I would make such a recommendation with regret, I would not be living up to my responsibilities to the President or the Nation if I failed to do so.
Sincerely,
- Source: Reagan Library, Frank Carlucci Files, SECDEF Carlucci’s Library Subject— 1988: SDI [05/06/1988–05/24/1988]. No classification marking. Carlucci sent an identical letter to Warner the same day. (Ibid.)↩