Editing William J. Perry (section)

===Defense budget===
[[Image:William Perry shortly after arriving at Kigali Airport in Rwanda, 1994.jpg|thumb|right|Perry in Rwanda, 1994.]]
The formulation of the [[Military budget of the United States|Defense budget]] and shepherding it through Congress was one of Perry's most important duties. The problem of how to deal with a large projected Defense budget shortfall from 1995 to 2000, an issue that weakened Perry's predecessor [[Les Aspin]] and contributed to his resignation, persisted when Perry took office.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/16/us/change-pentagon-aspin-resigns-cabinet-president-lost-confidence-defense-chief.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm|title=Change at the Pentagon; Aspin Resigns from Cabinet; President Lost Confidence in Defense Chief, aides say|work=New York Times|date=December 16, 1993}}</ref> Immediately on presenting his 1995 budget request, which he termed "a post-Cold War budget," Perry stated that Defense required a few more years of downsizing and that its infrastructure needed streamlining as well. The proposal, he said, maintained a ready-to-fight force, redirected a modernization program (including a strong research and development program), initiated a program to do business differently (acquisition reform), and reinvested defense dollars in the economy.<ref name="Historical Office William J. Perry" />

Perry asked for $252.2 billion for [[fiscal year|FY]] 1995, including funds for numerous weapon systems, such as a new [[aircraft carrier]], three [[Aegis combat system|Aegis cruisers]], and six [[C-17 Globemaster III|C-17 cargo aircraft]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Magazine%20Documents/1994/April%201994/0494chart.pdf|title=Snapshots of the New Budget|work=Air Force Magazine|author=Tamar A. Mehuron|date=April 1994}}{{dead link|date=May 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> The budget projected a further cut of 85,500 in active duty military personnel, leaving a force of 1.52 million.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19940207/1894013/armed-services-would-hold-line-on-spending----2637-billion-called-bottom-line|title=Armed Services Would Hold Line On Spending -- $263.7 Billion Called 'Bottom Line'|author=Robert Burns|work=[[Seattle Times]]|date=February 7, 1994}}</ref> Ultimately Congress provided $253.9 billion TOA, about $2 billion more than in FY 1994, but actually a 1.2% cut in inflation-adjusted growth.<ref name="Historical Office William J. Perry" />

In February 1995, Perry asked for $246 billion for the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] for FY 1996.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=353|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100302001022/http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=353|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 2, 2010|title=FY 1996-97 Defense Budget|publisher=U.S. Department of Defense}}</ref> This proposal became entangled in the controversy during 1995 over the House Republicans' [[Contract with America]], their efforts to spend more on defense than the administration wanted, and the continuing need for deficit reduction.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.defense.gov/specials/secdef_histories/bios/perry.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060926222125/http://www.defense.gov/specials/secdef_histories/bios/perry.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=September 26, 2006|title=William J. Perry February 3, 1994 - January 23, 1997 19th Secretary of Defense Clinton Administration|publisher=U.S. Department of Defense}}</ref><ref>[https://www.c-span.org/video/?63163-1/defense-department-news-briefing F.Y. '96 Defense Budget], ''[[C-Span]]'', February 6, 1995. Retrieved April 29, 2021.</ref>

Perry cautioned Congress in September of the possibility that President Clinton would [[veto]] the FY 1996 Defense budget bill because Congress had added $7 billion in overall spending, mainly for weapon systems that the Defense Department did not want, and because of restrictions on contingency operations Congress had put in the bill. Three months later he recommended that the president veto the bill. When Congress and the administration finally settled on a budget compromise midway through FY 1996, DoD received $254.4 billion TOA, slightly more than in FY 1995, but in terms of real growth a 2% cut.<ref name="Historical Office William J. Perry" />

The question of a [[United States national missile defense|national missile defense system]] figured prominently in the budget struggles Perry experienced. Aspin had declared an end to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] program, but long-standing supporters both inside and outside of Congress called for its resurrection, especially when the Defense budget came up. Perry rejected calls for revival of SDI, arguing that the money would be better spent on battlefield antimissile defenses and force modernization, that the United States at the moment did not face a real threat, and that if the system were built and deployed it would endanger the [[Strategic Arms Reduction Talks]] with the Russians. The secretary was willing to continue funding development work on a national system, so that if a need emerged the United States could build and deploy it in three years. President Clinton signed the FY 1996 Defense bill early in 1996 only after Congress agreed to delete funding for a national missile defense system.<ref name="Historical Office William J. Perry" />

Shortly before he introduced his FY 1997 budget request in March 1996, Perry warned that the United States might have to give up the strategy of preparing for two major regional conflicts if the armed forces suffered further reductions. The Five-Year Modernization Plan Perry introduced in March 1996 reflected his basic assumptions that the Defense budget would not decline in FY 1997 and would grow thereafter; that DoD would realize significant savings from infrastructure cuts, most importantly base closings; and that other savings would come by contracting out many support activities and reforming the defense acquisition system.<ref name="Historical Office William J. Perry" />

For FY 1997 the Clinton administration requested a DoD appropriation of $242.6 billion, about 6% less in inflation-adjusted dollars than the FY 1996 budget. The budget proposal delayed modernization for another year, even though the administration earlier had said it would recommend increased funding for new weapons and equipment for FY 1997. The proposal included advance funding for contingency military operations, which had been financed in previous years through supplemental appropriations. Modest real growth in the Defense budget would not begin until FY 2000 under DoD's six-year projections. The procurement budget would increase during the period from $38.9 billion (FY 1997) to $60.1 billion (FY 2001). For FY 1997 Congress eventually provided $244 billion TOA, including funds for some weapon systems not wanted by the Clinton administration.<ref name="Historical Office William J. Perry" />

Although he had not thought so earlier, by the end of his tenure in early 1997 Perry believed it possible to modernize the [[U.S. armed forces]] within a balanced federal budget. Perry argued for the current force level of just under 1.5 million as the minimum needed by the United States to maintain its global role. Further reductions in the Defense budget after 1997 would require cuts in the force structure and make it impossible for the United States to remain a global power.<ref name="Historical Office William J. Perry" />