CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
September 18, 1969
Page 26185
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President. I move to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAVEL in the chair). The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be authorized to make technical and clerical corrections in the engrossment of S. 2546 and that the bill as passed by the Senate be printed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, before the Senate adjourns this evening there is one matter that I must refer to again. So at this, time and on behalf of the entire Senate I rise in gratitude to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the able and distinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS). I am confident that I speak for every Member when I say that Senator STENNIS, during the lengthy consideration of this bill, has exhibited the fine qualities that have for so long marked him as a Senator's Senator, a public servant whose record of achievement is unsurpassed.
Throughout the many days and weeks and months of debate, even the most casual observer could not help but marvel at the careful diligence, the devoted service and the outstanding advocacy displayed at all times by Senator STENNIS. But even more impressive, perhaps, was the remarkable patience and indulgence exhibited by the distinguished chairman. That is only characteristic, however, of this gracious and outstanding man from Mississippi.
To my recollection it has been years since a legislative proposal has been considered at such length and with such great intensity. But as long and intense as has been its consideration, Senator STENNIS carried the burden of presenting the measure and its many detailed and complex features with the greatest skill and understanding. Collectively, our hat goes off to JOHN STENNIS. With his handling of this year's military procurement authorization measure leading to its overwhelming adoption, he has established an example of the highest order. The Senate is profoundly grateful.
Joining Senator STENNIS with her unsurpassed cooperation and support was the distinguished senior Senator from Maine (Mrs. SMITH). As the ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services she devoted her equally talented skill and ability to the successful presentation of this measure. Some may call it incongruous indeed to find in this gracious and charming lady such a broad authority on our entire defense system. But it does not need saying that her expertise in the area of the military is unsurpassed.
May I say also that the remainder of the committee members deserve equally high praise. The Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON), the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. CANNON), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. MCINTYRE), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. DOMINICK), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. BROOKE), and the others, all joined to assist so well during the lengthy consideration of this bill. The Senate is well aware also of the long hours the committee applied to its consideration even before it reached the floor, and it is grateful.
Before closing, it should be said that as long and as thorough as the debate has been there is no question in my mind that with it, the Senate has asserted afresh its constitutional role to understand and appraise our defense strategy and needs; the Senate has sought -- in some cases for the first time -- to answer the many questions that have been raised over the years. Certainly not all of the questions have been answered. But already we are a vastly more informed Senate. And, henceforth I believe that the decisions that should be made by the Senate and the Congress, will be made by the Senate and the Congress.
Of course, all Members may take pride in the probe that has occurred thus far. Perhaps a few should be singled out for their leadership. The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. HART) made outstanding contributions as did the Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE). We were greatly pleased moreover to witness the contributions of some of our more recent Members. Those who come immediately to mind are the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOK), the Senator from New York (Mr. GOODELL), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCHWEIKER), and the Senator from California (Mr. CRANSTON). There are many others, on both sides of the aisle, who similarly deserve our thanks.
Finally, let me just say that I believe we may all take great pride in this achievement. In the years ahead I think this moment in the annals of the Senate may well go down as one of great historical importance. For this, we may be especially grateful, may I say once again, to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.
DEFENSE SPENDING AND NATIONAL PRIORITIES
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, during the past 3 weeks, we have debated at great length and in great detail a number of specific items in the military procurement and research and development authorization bill. This year's floor debate on the military budget has been unique, both in the time we have devoted to it and the quality of the arguments advanced for and against particular military weapons systems.
There are several characteristics of the issues we have been debating which make our decisions terribly important and terribly difficult. We are dealing with the national security of the United States. The consequences of a wrong decision could, some day, be very serious. One does not lightly jump to a decision on such matters. On the other hand, the budgetary costs over the years ahead of the weapons systems we have been asked to approve are in many cases staggering. The F-14, for example, if ultimately used in its various versions to replace the existing planes of the Navy and Marine Corps, would cost some $25 billion over the next 10 years to procure and operate. Unless such a weapons system is truly vital to our national security, a decision to proceed with its procurement would waste a huge amount of resources which are desperately needed at home, to clean up pollution, to improve education, to build housing, and to provide decent urban transportation. Finally, the issues we have been debating are necessarily exceedingly complex, for they deal with the means of meeting uncertain military contingencies in an uncertain and everchanging world, against potential enemies whose motives and future actions are impossible to foresee.
For these reasons, the decision about how to vote on each of the amendments offered to the committee bill has in no case been an easy one. After much deliberation, I have voted for some amendments, deleting or postponing particular weapons systems, and against others, thereby upholding the committee's recommendation to proceed with procurement. There are, I believe, some general principles which can be applied in making individual decisions about these matters.
These are the ones I have used in making up my own mind on the issues which have been raised in this debate.
After 3 weeks of discussion, necessarily devoted to the specific merits of particular military programs, I think it is desirable to step back and review more broadly the problems with which we have been dealing, and to discuss the general principles upon which we ought to base particular decisions about the military budget. After all, next year will bring forth another military authorization bill. We will again be called upon to make provision for the national security, while trying to insure that scarce budgetary resources are not wasted upon low priority or ineffective military spending.
The press has billed our debate as a revolt against the military, as a revulsion against the military budget, and as a major challenge to our own Armed Services Committee. The fact that specific items of this authorization bill have been questioned more sharply and debated in more depth on the floor of the Senate than ever before lends some apparent color of truth to this image. Yet it is a vast and dangerous oversimplification.
In the first place, the Armed Services Committee itself, after much questioning and extensive work, reduced the $22 billion requested authorization by almost $2 billion to $20 billion. This $2 billion reduction, made by the committee, is much larger than the aggregate dollar value of all the major amendments submitted during floor debate. We were not, therefore, voting upon a set of committee recommendations which passively reflected every spending wish of the Pentagon.
At this point, I should like to commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), and my colleague from Maine, the ranking Republican member, for the quality of work which they have done, not only during the debate, but before the bill was brought to the floor of the Senate.
On the other side of the coin, even had all of the proposed amendments passed, the resulting authorization bill would still have provided for large-scale improvement and modernization of our Armed Forces. Even had the nuclear aircraft carrier been deleted, the bill would still have authorized some $2.25 billion for Navy shipbuilding, a figure well above the amounts appropriated in most recent years. The bill provides for large improvements in our nuclear missile forces, both land and sea based; for major modernization of our Air Force; for additional nuclear attack submarines; for 800 new helicopters for the Army; for new amphibious forces and new antisubmarine patrol planes in the Navy and for over $7 billion in research and development funds.
In short, the debate on defense procurement has not been, nor should it ever be allowed to become, a simple-minded division into pro-military and anti-military sentiments. Rather we must be concerned with balancing the national security requirements of the United States against our other needs and our total resources. In today's world of rapidly advancing technology, available to our political enemies as well as to ourselves, adequate provision for national defense necessarily entails a large military budget.
But our domestic needs are also urgent. An excessively large military budget coupled with polluted air and water, congested cities, falling educational standards, and racial discontent is not the hallmark of a strong and secure nation. Our problem is not to choose up sides for or against military spending in general, but to take a selective approach to the military budget, approving those programs whose contributions to our national security are sufficient to justify their heavy costs, and turning down those which fail to pass this test. There are, I think, certain basic principles we can use in applying that test.
First, for the foreseeable future the provisions of strong and flexible armed forces -- both nuclear and conventional -- will remain a necessity for our national security. Early initiation of strategic arms limitation negotiations with the Soviets, and conclusion of an enforceable agreement can indeed reduce the burden of armaments for both sides. But no miracle will be wrought, nor should one be expected. This is said not to downgrade the importance of negotiations, but only to remind ourselves that negotiations will be difficult, and will cover matters which relate to only a part of our military budget.
Second, strategic nuclear forces constitute only a third of our military budget. Conventional forces take up the other two-thirds. These in turn are not primarily required to defend the continental United States, but to protect our vital interests in other parts of the world. As a consequence, the size, composition, and equipment of those forces depends upon what we judge those interests to be, particularly in Europe, in Southeast Asia, and in the Middle East. As the administration considers the future role of the United States, especially in Southeast Asia, it is incumbent upon them to come before the Senate and present the alternatives. Not only does the Constitution, through its treaty clause, give the Senate a major role in deciding these matters, but once decided, we shall be asked to provide the authorization and the funds for the military strength to back up those decisions. In doing so, we must assure ourselves that the military forces provided are neither excessive for the task at hand nor so weak as to destroy the credibility of our commitments.
Two illustrations from the recent debate come to mind. Should we decide, as a nation, to scale down our commitments and our direct involvement in Southeast Asia, the Navy's 15 attack carrier task forces clearly become too large a force for the interests they are designed to protect.
But even if we do not scale down our overseas military commitments, sufficient evidence has been presented to question seriously the need for all 15 of those carrier task forces. That is why I voted for a study to determine whether we need to spend the tremendous sums involved in a carrier force of the present size.
In the case of the C-5A, again, a significant scaling down of our overseas commitments would quite possibly eliminate the need for additional squadrons. But barring such a redefinition of American overseas interests, it seemed to me that the mobility provided by the C-5A's would warrant the purchase of at least one additional squadron of planes, and would indeed make it possible to protect our interests with a smaller overseas troop contingent. As a consequence, despite the disturbing escalation in C-5A's costs, I voted against the amendment which would have deleted the funds to purchase an additional squadron of C5A's.
Third, we must resist the temptation to buy security cheaply by relying on the threat of our tactical nuclear weapons for the protection of our interests abroad. To meet conventional threats against what we have decided are our true interests, we should have sufficient conventional forces. There is every likelihood that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would soon escalate to massive proportions. Let us define our interests realistically, and then be prepared to defend them with conventional forces.
Fourth, no amount of funds can buy absolute security. Doubling the size of our Armed Forces and our military budget would not guarantee us against every possible threat or every possible contingency. Perfect security does not exist in the modern world. Of necessity, therefore, we must seek something less than perfect security. Of all the myriad possible future threats against our security, we must decide which ones are worthwhile to try to protect against, taking into account the costs of doing so and the domestic needs we sacrifice by diverting resources to military programs.
On this basis, it has always seemed to me both unfair and evidence of shallow thinking to accuse someone who opposes an individual weapons system as a unilateral disarmer. Even the most vocal of "hawks" would not propose that we spend an additional $40 billion annually on our military budget. Yet this judgment itself implies that he is willing to forgo weapons or forces which might, at least marginally, protect us against certain remote contingencies. Conversely, the most ardent "dove" would not suggest that we cut our military budget to zero. All of us must necessarily be selective in what we propose and what we oppose in the way of military programs. Labels of "unilateral disarmer" or "captive of the military-industrial complex" are no substitute for hard thought and conscientious judgment.
Fifth, we must ask ourselves, What is the role of the individual Senator in making decisions about particular military programs? To what extent must we rely on the expert judgment of military men, and to what extent can we, and should we, apply our own judgments? The Constitution gives to civilian authorities, both in the Executive and in the Congress, the final power to make decisions about the military budget. And despite the growth of modern technology and the resulting complexity of current weapons systems, this decision of the Founding Fathers remains, in my view, a wise one. How one leads an infantry division in combat, deploys a carrier task force, or develops a logistic supply line, are matters which can and should be primarily left to military experts. On the other hand, the definition of U.S. interests throughout the world which must be protected against military threats is a question which only the President and Congress can decide.
In between these two extremes are questions which relate to the major force levels and weapons needed to protect those vital interests. Do we need an advanced strategic bomber? Should we operate 15 carrier task forces? Must we build new major air defense systems against the possibility of an as yet nonexistent Soviet bomber threat? On these questions, we need the judgment of both military men and political leaders. On the one hand, we require military expertise to help us judge the capability of particular forces and weapons, both our own and those of our potential adversaries. On the other hand, we need to decide whether or not the gain in national security is worth the accompanying budgetary cost and sacrifice of other domestic goals.
That is a political judgment which only the President and Congress can make. Finally, in any governmental institution -- be it the Department of Agriculture or the Pentagon – the natural human tendency is to overstate the benefits and understate the costs of one's own program. And here Congress must play the watchdog to scrutinize inflated claims and check excessive spending.
To use an analogy, we must when education legislation is before us listen respectfully but critically to the advice of professional educators. We must gain from, but not be captive of, their professional expertise. In a similar vein, congressional decisions to delete a particular military budget request should not be looked upon as an attack upon either the competence or the dedication of military professionals, but rather as the legitimate exercise of that broad policy judgment given us by the Constitution to be applied equally to matters domestic and military.
In passing judgment on the military budget, in accordance with these major principles, Congress could be greatly helped by the provision of better information from the executive branch.
Of necessity, we must pass upon specific items in the military authorization and appropriation bill. But these judgments would be greatly aided if the individual pieces could be set in a larger framework. I have two particular points in mind.
In the 3 years immediately preceding our major involvement in Vietnam, we were spending about $50 billion per year on the military budget. With those funds we were not only maintaining, but also substantially increasing the size and combat capabilities of our nuclear and conventional forces. By 1972 or 1973, taking into account increases in the general price level and military pay raises, it would take about $65 billion to have the same purchasing power as the $50 billion did prior to 1965. For these $65 billion, therefore, we should be able not only to maintain, but also to improve our military capabilities. Yet, according to a number of recent estimates, the military programs and forces currently programed for the early 1970's, quite apart from the costs of Vietnam, will cost between $75 and $80 billion per year -- an amount $10 to $15 billion higher than the pre-Vietnam levels adjusted to current wages and prices. To act intelligently on the specific items which make up this total, Congress needs an explanation of this apparent increase. Is this projection of future military costs correct? If it is, what are the major new programs causing the increase? What changes in the world situation or in the nature of the threats facing us justify the large additional sum? Are there not areas of lower priority which can be pruned to make room for these increases? It is questions like this, Mr. President, legitimate questions, which have prompted the challenge to this military authorization bill which has been led by such distinguished, capable leaders in the Senate as the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE).
More generally, Congress needs to be provided with an overall projection of future military spending, in order to act adequately with respect to its domestic requirements as well as to its security interests.
The major budgetary impact of the military systems we have approved this year will not be felt at once but only in future years. The authorization bill before us carries $240 million for the Navy's F-14A. But, as I pointed out earlier, the 10-year cost of replacing existing aircraft with F-14's will amount to at least $25 billion. The Safeguard ABM accounts for only $759 million in this bill, but will require at least $12 billion in procurement and operating costs over the next 5 years. We cannot act intelligently in authorizing individual systems unless we know the total consequences of our actions, not only system by system but for the military budget as a whole. In effect, under current practice, we are asked to authorize the foundations of the building without any notion of what the completed structure will look like.
The burden of my remarks today has been twofold. In the intelligent exercise of congressional judgment on the military budget, there is no room for easy slogans or simple formulas. We must be selective in what we approve and what we delete. In every military spending decision, we must balance the potential gain in national security against the sacrifice of domestic needs which it requires. As a consequence, neither a general approval nor a general condemnation of military spending meets the test of intelligent judgment. Reasoned opposition to a specific military proposal does not turn a man into a unilateral disarmer, nor does approval stamp a man as a captive of the military-industrial complex. To make better judgments on individual military proposals, however, Congress does require fuller information from the executive branch. I think, Mr. President, that as a result of the debate over these weeks, this year, we will get better information. Most important, Congress needs to know the long-run budgetary and military consequences of the action it is currently asked to take.
I am confident, Mr. President, that the current debate, extended and informed by the facts to which I have referred, can lead to a more effective and balanced treatment of our defense and domestic needs.
So, Mr. President, may I again compliment the Senator from Wisconsin and all his colleagues who have undertaken the burden and the time and the energy necessary to do what I think has been a public service of the highest order.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I commend the Senator from Maine on what I think is an excellent speech. It is too bad that sometimes speeches have to be delivered so late in the day that they do not have the kind of audience they merit. This is certainly an example of that.
The Senator has put the debate into a very useful perspective. He has pointed out that these were selective cuts. These were not aimed at diminishing our Armed Forces. In fact, they were aimed at trying to strengthen our Armed Forces, and it was a matter of judgment as to whether they were or not. Furthermore, when the Senator called for long-term projections, this is an area in which it would seem to me we should be able to get this long-term projection -- not just in terms of what one weapons system may cost in the long run, but what the overall military budget is likely to look like 3, 4, or 5 years from now. Without that kind of judgment, it is very hard for us to make a wise decision on these basic authorizations that begin something that cannot be stopped without a great loss of funds.
Finally, as the Senator has said, neither approval nor condemnation of military spending is what is called for and what is useful or what is really the subject of this debate. It is a matter of using discrimination and judgment and understanding to try to determine what is necessary to make this country as strong as possible at a cost consistent with a stable economy and consistent with meeting our very big and serious domestic needs.
The Senator has put this into a most useful perspective, and I thank him very much.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
May I say that I deliberately did not undertake to deliver this speech before the vote on the military authorization bill, because I wanted to begin the debate on the next military authorization bill with this speech. So whether or not it was listened to by many on the floor today is not so important as whether or not I have succeeded in identifying some of the questions and at least the character of the debate we will have in the years ahead.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I think there is no problem, when the junior Senator from Maine rises to speak, as to whether there is a live audience of a considerable number or just a few of us; because his is one of those rare voices in the country which is listened to and read and the message retained. I am sure that though few are here and fortunate enough to hear it tonight, what he has said will remain in the conscience of this country for a long time. Hopefully, it will broaden the understanding of each of us with respect to our actions on specific proposals in the months ahead and will increase the understanding across the country of the problem that confronts the Senate and Congress specifically, but involves each of us, whatever our role in our society.
To put it beautifully, I, for the first time, tonight voted against this basic military authorization bill. It was a very difficult vote, one unlikely to be explained very effectively. But I can say "Amen" to everything the Senator from Maine has just said.
This is not an either/or proposition. No, certainly it is not an attack on the military. I hope the military will always be an honored profession. Our security does involve the maintenance of strength adequate to reasonably anticipated tests.
Many of us, including the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Maine, sought to modify some of the authorizations and, speaking generally, we failed in every case.
Mr. President, when you come to the final roll call, if you have voted to correct what you think to be mistakes in the authorization and you failed every time you then go ahead and vote "yes" on the final roll call. If you do, you do it on the basis that there is more good in the bill, that it is more wise than unwise, whether you figure the ratio at $15 billion to $5 billion, or $16 billion to $3 billion. That has been my course in the years I have been permitted to serve here.
But tonight struck me as the time, if I was ever going to do it, to vote "no" as a further indication that there are increasing numbers of us who seek to get a message to those who prepare the requests for military spending -- and I believe they have gotten the message already -- to insure that in any budget of $80 billion there are things we do not need and that our survival does not hinge upon the full $80 billion. This $20 billion is the first effort.
There is waste in our family spending, unless we are at the raw poverty level. But what would the situation be if as a family we had $20 billion or $80 billion to spend?
To vote "no" is to express the concern that the unmet domestic needs -- while prayer and good works are welcomed in their solution -- without exception require a lot of money. We kid ourselves if we think that except from the $80 billion on the military side there is going to be very much money rescued from total Federal spending to apply to what the Senator from Maine has given national leadership in attempting to restore our water and air, and what the Senator from Wisconsin has sought to do in connection with housing in the low- and middle-income markets of this country. These programs and programs like them require lots of money. Like it or not, these programs require much money.
The Pentagon is placed on record by the "nay" vote tonight to double check every request it makes of us.
I thank the members of the Committee on Armed Services and several Senators who have undertaken leadership in the last 2 months for their efforts to indicate the Senate is double checking these requests.
Finally, as we fold the tent on this military authorization bill after more than 2 months of debate it is in order to remind Senators that last year on the same bill we spent 2 days.
I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I wish to add that his good opinion and judgment have always been of value to me since we came to the Senate together 10 years ago. I had no doubt as I was delivering my remarks tonight that my position would not be too different from his. I think I understood before he said so why he voted "no" to the military authorization bill.
He does understand and his record demonstrates the need for providing for our national security interests. He also understands from time to time courageous voices must cast votes such as he cast today, if they are the only effective protests which will reach the ears of the Pentagon, other corners of Government, and throughout the country to influence the decisions which are going to be made in the future.
I think really the claim I made a moment ago about beginning the debate on next year's authorization bill with my remarks was too hasty. I think the debate was begun with the "nay" vote by the Senator from Michigan and his colleagues who voted the same way.