August 1, 1975
Page 26699
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1976 — CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6674) to authorize appropriations during the fiscal 1976, and the period of July 1, 1976, through September 30, 1976, for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons, and research, development and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico 2 minutes.
Mr..DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine.
I should like to address these remarks to the Senate, but principally to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, who has talked about what the budget resolution did in this particular target area as it applies to military commitment.
Let me say that as far as this Senator is concerned, I am not sure that it would change the entire scenario, if we tried to keep the Senate budget figures and not impose the 5-percent caps. I am not sure the Senator is exactly right. But certainly I agree with him that there would be some kind of rather disastrous effect if we do not put the caps on.
I want him to know that I am, nonetheless, going to support the Senator from Maine today, because it appears to me that that budget resolution is right when it implies that the only way we can meet this and do justice to R. & D. and troop levels and new types of equipment needed is if we impose the caps. I think implicit in his remarks are that if we did, at some point in time, in another process in this body, impose them, then, indeed, we could do justice to the troop level and justice to the R. & D. program which he helped us so much to try to understand in the Committee on the Budget. However, it appears to me that if we do not keep the heat on in terms of looking down the line to putting those caps on as one alternative, or acknowledging that when we decide not to, we are going to break the budget by about $1.8 billion and let everyone know that, I do not think we have any chance of coming in within the 9.7 outlays for this year. It is for that reason–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield me an additional 30 seconds?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want the Senator from Georgia to understand my reasoning in that regard, because I agree we cannot fit them all in. I do not think the way to keep the heat on for the next venture in what we are going to spend, and the caps, is to do anything other than to assume, for right now, that they are on.
Mr. NUNN. I might say to the Senator, just in brief reply, if the Senate assumes that this bill must bear the burden of raising the pay caps and if it is the instruction of this body for our committee to assume that, we cannot have a military authorization bill this year.
Will the Senator from Mississippi yield me 30 seconds?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield the Senator 1 minute.
Mr. NUNN. I respect what the Senators are doing on the Budget Committee. I am for it. I think it is a good exercise. But if the Committee on the Budget opposes this, they should tell the Armed Services Committee how much they want to cut and what the assumptions are. The only figures we have heard are the $5 billion and the $4 billion over the targets. How much does the committee want to cut this bill? What would make the Senator vote for this bill? What level?
Mr. DOMENICI. If the distinguished Senator would answer a question for me, how can we bring the proper issue to Congress of whether we are going to have the lids on or not and then let him pass on this bill? If he will answer that for me, I think we are in business and he will not have any argument.
Mr. NUNN. I will answer the Senator this way: we cannot have a military bill under the definition the Senator has just given before we vote on the pay caps in October. This means the authorization bill is finished. If that is the criterion the Budget Committee is imposing, let us make it clear and not go back and sit down and talk to the House. We cannot have an authorization bill until the Senate decides this question of pay cap. There is no way in the world we can have an authorization bill until we know what is going to happen on the pay caps.
Mr. DOMENICI. If the distinguished Senator would propose a sense of the Senate resolution on the pay caps and this body makes that decision, I assure him it will affect my vote.
Mr. NUNN. It seems to me that is the duty of the Committee on the Budget, because the committee is imposing an impossible situation on the Armed Services Committee — a mission impossible. The Budget Committee is the one assuming the pay caps are going to be taken off. If they want to resolve that question, I think a resolution is the way to go.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 1 minute to clarify that point.
The Committee on the Budget made no assumptions with respect to pay caps. The House did, and took a vote in connection with the first concurrent resolution. We are not a line item committee, as the Senator from Georgia well knows. We cannot put all the pieces together in one legislative package. The best that we can do is set our targets to begin with, then try to follow the road down through the process, giving and taking, and avoiding serious risks, knowing that other decisions are coming down the road, and preparing ourselves to take them. We cannot do it all at once, as the Senator would have us do on the defense function today.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator answer one question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am limited on time.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield the Senator 1 minute.
Mr. NUNN. I want to find out what figure the Senator from Maine would support this bill on. What is he telling us to do? What figure does he want us to come back with so we can sign off on this bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will tell the Senator what my view is.
Mr. NUNN. That is what I want.
Mr. MUSKIE. If you have the Senate bill as of the time we passed the Senate bill it was within the guidelines. Now, some things have happened that make it higher. The Senator asked me a question.
Mr. NUNN. I had not interrupted; I just raised my hands.
Mr. MUSKIE. How are we on the time question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator still has 30 seconds.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from Georgia had 30 seconds.
Mr. MUSKIE. We still have these questions. As the Senator well knows, the cap decision has not been made.
The Senators, if they vote for this conference report, ought to understand they are making a commitment to that kind of a cut down the road somewhere or the Armed Services Committees have got to consider authorizing additional sales from the strategic stockpile, now an impossibility. Maybe it will become a possibility, if the Senate approves the conference report.
So these kinds of things are being flagged here today and, depending upon what decision is made, the appropriate committees will act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yield it to the Senator from Georgia because I am not sure I am so friendly.
Mr. STENNIS. One minute, Mr. President. We must go along. I yield 1 minute.
Mr. HOLLINGS. What criteria did the Senator from Georgia use?
Mr. NUNN. The Senator from Georgia, when we had this bill on the floor, listened to the Senator from Maine when he said–
Mr. HOLLINGS. I mean this current bill.
Mr. NUNN. I am going to answer the Senator's question. He said we were within the limit of this bill, and he said if we remove the pay caps, we are not within the limit. Now he is saying we are going to remove the pay caps, and so this is over. So if this same criteria had been used on the floor of the Senate, when the Senate bill came up, it should have been opposed by the Budget Committee. We have shifted criteria.
Mr. HOLLINGS. What are the criteria the Senator uses for this conference to report to the Senate as his criteria?
Mr. NUNN. The criteria are if the pay cap is removed and must be offset in this bill, there is no way in the world you can have an authorization bill that is within the Budget Committee limits. I agree completely with the Senator from Maine.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator assumes this bill has a pay cap in it; is that what the Senator is assuming?
Mr. NUNN. This bill says if the military pay has caps on it, if the Senate and the Congress approve the civilian pay caps–
Mr. HOLLINGS. That is what the Senator assumes, so you have got a balanced bill.
Mr. NUNN. I have got a balanced bill. There is no balanced bill if we do not have pay caps and must offset that cost in this bill. I agree with the Senator from Maine on that.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Let us get right down to the meat in the coconut, Mr. President.
These criteria now, if I may have the attention of the Members, these criteria laid down by the Budget Committee and the Senate, we fully met them. We met them with the bill we brought back here unless we let the Budget Committee go into all these new fields, charging us, for instance, about the manpower cost. I never heard of that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. No, not right now. I never heard of all these manpower costs being included in this formula. You can meet his formula — we have got the calculations here — if you reduce the outlays that we have gotten here by $2.1 billion. But that will cut off 1 million men. If you just want to take a million of them out, according to these calculations, that is the way you can do it, out of the uniformed or civilians or a combination of both. That is exactly what I am advised we will have to do. Those are the realities of things.
We are talking about pay caps and all. No one knows what is going to happen in that, but they are asking that we assume the worst will happen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GLENN). The 2 minutes of the Senator have expired.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield myself 1 more minute. So we have got to get down to the realities at some time.
This matter now of forcing the House — let me repeat, of forcing the House — to go in under the budget standards, why, they did not refer to the standards ever. We did but they never did. That body, as a whole, voted a day or two ago, I believe it was, 348 to 60 to support this conference report. I do not believe, with their attitude and that vote behind them, that they will give a conference on this matter — maybe not for 60 days. We are headed right into the idea here of a continuing resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Let us look at the realities now. We face a continuing resolution and that means no new starts for all the planes that are needed, felt to be needed and voted on in this Chamber; no new starts for ships, large and small, that have been examined and approved over and over, and voted for on the floor; and it is going to mean eliminating about 15 percent more of the research and development.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD a memorandum of Navy fleet modernization and a table showing the number of ships we have been building.
There being no objection, the memorandum and table were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NAVY FLEET MODERNIZATION PROBLEM
As a result of reduced funding during the Vietnam war years, modernization of the Navy fleet was neglected.
In 1964, the Navy fleet consisted of over 900 ships with an average age of 14 years. By 1970, despite the phase-out of substantial numbers of World War II ships, the average age of Navy ships is reduced by almost 25%, the average age should be reduced. But, because replacement ships were not being built in sufficient numbers, the average age continued to increase through the Vietnam years.
At the end of 1974, the Navy fleet was almost half the 1964 size (about 500 ships) with about the same average age as 1964 (14 years).
For well over ten years, we have not been building enough ships to sustain an adequate Navy fleet. This year, with an authorization of 22 ships, a strong step toward much needed and overdue modernization program for our Navy is being taken.
Shipbuilding and conversion,
Navy appropriations
Billions
1962 $2.9
1963 2.9
1964 2.1
1965 1.9
1966 1.6
1967 1.8
1968 1.9
1969 .8
1970 2.5
1971 2.5
1972 3.0
1973 3.0
1974 3.5
1975 3.1
1976 Authorization 4.0
Major Navy ships approved by Congress
New
construc- Con-
tion version
funded funded
1964 28 36
1965 41 5
1966 37 5
1967 35 7
1968 9 18
1969 5 16
1970 10 5
1971 13 12
1972 15 8
1973 9 8
1974 14 5
1975 22 4
1976 22 --
Mr. STENNIS. Now, Mr. President, those are just the realities. You cannot successfully dispute that. It just takes them out. The Senator is adding his original formula. He is demanding now that we meet it and, frankly, that we meet it alone. He is trying to tell us what to do when the House is the one that ought to be told.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself time. The Senator says we ought not to consider the manpower cost implications in the bill. Yet, in the statement which he distributed as of July 25 he says this about manpower :
In addition to the R. & D. and procurement funds, the conferees approved manpower reductions totaling 32,000 people in the year end strength of active duty military and civilian personnel.
He projects that saving $400 million per year. So, of course, this bill affects manpower costs. The total manpower costs are $34 million, so if we do not save as much in the bill that is before us as we should or as we did in the Senate version, and we have to look to manpower as a way to save, then we have to take into account the fact that the action taken by the conferees—
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield right there?
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may finish.
Mr. STENNIS. I mean for a question.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not charging the Senator or this bill with the manpower costs. All I am saying to the Senator and to the Senate is this: Taking into account the cost implications of this bill and trying to project on a reasonable basis, with the best advice we can get, what we can save in the rest of the defense budget, where are we likely to come out?
I have gone into, perhaps, gruesome detail, examining our assumptions and the projections. They are all subject to challenge. But the Senator ought not to simply challenge our right to make them. We ought to look at them and decide whether that can be so.
The Senator from Georgia said that last year the Appropriations Committee cut $2.3 billion in manpower costs. If the Appropriations Committee chairman will tell me they expect to make a $2.3 billion savings in manpower costs this year, then that would change the projections, of course.
Mr. NUNN: That includes O. and M. and military personnel.
Mr. MUSKIE I understand it does. I will take savings wherever they come and, at the very least, if I lose this debate this morning at the very least, hopefully with the help of the Senator from Georgia, the Senator from Mississippi and the others, we will have flagged and pinpointed other areas where savings can be made, and the pressure will be greater if we approve this conference report. But at least we will have identified the places where other savings can be made, and that is part of this process, gentlemen, that is part of this process.
These projections I have given today are not written in stone, but they are very good projections and they are very good assumptions, and they are the result of long study. Just do not brush them aside. If you vote for the conference report look at them seriously because if we approve this conference report the pressure to find savings in other areas in the defense budget is going to be greater than it was following adoption of the Senate bill.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes there, if I may, just 2 minutes.
Again, Mr. President, we have to come back to the proposition that the Senate budget resolution and the conversations about it never did suggest to us that we were expected to go over and make these reductions beyond our bill over into the other appropriation bills, and all. That just was not demanded.
We passed a bill here 9.8 percent below the budget of the President of the United States. Now, that is disregarding this matter about Vietnam. No one else has passed a major bill of that proportion, no other department has, and I am talking about 9.8 percent below the President's budget.
Now, we have come to the Senate Budget Committee's recommendation of a $7 billion reduction, and we have taken our part of that, as I explained earlier this morning, and we have taken more from this bill now on the floor than our pro rata share, according to all the calculations up until a few days ago, for this military bill.
What the Senator seeks to do today is to charge this bill with a great many matters over in another bill. It is tied up, tied up with these other reductions.
Another thing has not been mentioned here this morning: There is in this bill, an unlimited military aid for Israel, that was voted in this bill on this floor over my objection. I opposed it. I made a motion to table it
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. One more minute.
I do not complain how anyone voted, but that is a matter that is in the bill, and it was not in the President's budget. I do not know where it stands with reference to the Budget Committee, whether they ought to stand up and clear it. Some of them voted for it.
That is a part of the picture here. Representing the Senate I asked the Houseto yield to us on that amendment, and they did.
So instead of really objecting to matters coming in above the budget and beyond, we find they are changing the rules in midstream, bringing up all this about manpower. After all, how can one meet obligations about manpower, take these people off the payroll?
I yield, Mr. President.
Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
This business of changing rules in midstream, I strenuously object to. We have not changed any rules.
Earlier I put in the RECORD the statement that I gave on the floor of the Senate on June 4, with respect to the Senate bill and I ask the Senator from Mississippi to read that and study it and compare it with what I have said today. I do not think he will find any change of rules.
What I am talking about are not rules. This is not the Budget Committee mandating. All I am doing is holding up what the Senate did on May 15. It set a target. Uncomfortable, is it not? The Senator does not like it.
That is true of every Senator when that budget hits a program he is interested in. It is not comfortable.
I told the Senator on May 15, that this was a tight budget.
Mr. STENNIS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may finish.
Mr. STENNIS. All right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Tight in the defense function, tight in every function. Of course it is uncomfortable.
It is my job to hold that number up for us to see.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. But I have to yield, I think, to my other colleagues, I have a long list.
Mr. STENNIS. May I yield myself halfa minute, Mr. President?
The Senator has said he expressly refrained from giving us anything definite, any figure, that the Senator wanted us to come under.
The Senator would not assign or did not assign anything to our bill, the one we were working on. We did not know just where the line was, but to be safe, we went further.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, the Senator–
Mr. STENNIS. We do not know yet where the Senator's line is. He said this morning he especially refrained from mentioning figures on different categories.
Mr. MUSKIE. In the debate on June 4, I told the Senator specifically that the amount of that bill was tight and barely within the target.
That was the number. What does the Senator mean that I did not give him a number? The number of that authorization bill was the number.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. We did not give the Senator any leeway above it, that was the number.
Now, I expect the conferees are going to have to compromise, and realistically, they probably could not hold to that number.
All I am saying now is, let us get closer to that number because that number is as much a House obligation as it is a Senate obligation. Try to get closer to it.
Now, if it is the view of all Senators, the view of all Senators is that expressed by the distinguished chairman of the committee, that the numbers that the Budget Committee says are within the budget on the floor of the Senate go out the window when they walk to the conference, we have got nowhere to go.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield me 30 seconds?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes.
Mr. NUNN. Let me digest where we stand here for just a moment.
There is nothing wrong with what the Senator from Maine pointed out today, may I say, looking to the budget on the armed services. What is wrong is what was not pointed out back when this bill was on the floor and in the concurrent resolution passed by the Budget Committee. That is the big thing. It is not the Senator from Maine's comment today.
When we talk about changing rules in midstream, if the Senator from Maine had the same assumption about the military pay cap when this bill was brought on the floor he has got–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. NUNN. May I have 15 seconds more?
Then the first bill would have been over the target. That is where the rules changes come.
Now, the Senator from Maine assumes the pay cap is going to be removed. He did not assume that. He simply wondered about that on the last go-around.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Unless the Senator wants to yield, I have got to yield.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. This is not a good position–
Mr. STENNIS. Just for this purpose, Mr. President, to bring it back to the hard figures.
This Senate bill was passed without any reference to the old Vietnamese money. The bill totaled $25 billion, and that was $1½ billion under the House. When we went into conference more than half of that extra sum was decided in our favor. It was well, well within any definite targets or guidelines or signs to us.
There had never been any kind of a dollar figure given to us until here, in opposition, about how high we could go in that bill without transgressing guidelines.
I have never seen any such figures.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 1 minute.
No. 1, it was very clear to anyone reading the RECORD of the June 4 debate that the amount of money in the Senate bill was at the target or possibly over.
There was no consideration of authorizing the Senate conferees to go to conference with a higher number than was in the Senate bill. There was no more room under the target, and that should have been clearly understood.
Second, I have complimented the Senator from Mississippi for the job he did in conference. This debate is not to be construed as criticism of any kind, but the fact is that out of this conference we have another $750 million in budget authority for procurement, research and development, and all other, and another $150 million in budget authority for personnel.
That is a total of $900 million in budget authority over the Senate bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. And that translates into $300 million in outlays.
At this point, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Iowa (Mr. CULVER).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time is yielded?
Mr. MUSKIE. Two minutes.
Mr. CULVER. Mr. President, I regret to say it, but the $31.2 billion military procurement conference report that is before us today is an incredible reversion to the unlimited military spending obsession that has been a prime cause of the country's inflation.
We are all committed to the proposition that our country must have a strong, modern defense capability. But this does not mean delivering a blank check to the Pentagon, as I believe we would all agree.
I know that the conference committee labored long and faithfully. I commend them for trimming the administration request by about $3 billion. But considering how inflated the administration's budget was, we are still back on a budget busting big spending street with this conference report.
In a short, lucid period during the past few years, it appeared that Congress, in response to the public will, was declaring a measure of independence from its long enslavement to what President Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex."
There was hope that fiscal moderation and selective judgment would guide our military spending policies.
But where are the voices of moderation today?
With the Mayaguez incident, something within our reasoning and self-control systems snapped.
And here we are back at the old stand, rubber-stamping virtually every whim the military suggests, regardless of what it will do to our depressed economy and the Nation's future.
I do not relish saying these things. But somebody needed to say them.
The members of the Armed Services Committee in both Houses are good people and true. I do not for a moment question their dedication to our Nation's national security and well-being.
I know we must work together. In a spirit of compromise, I myself voted for final passage of the Senate version of the military procurement authorization despite the fact that it contained, in my judgment, at least $1.2 billion in funds in excess of our real defense needs. On balance, I believed that the bill had a number of important, forward-looking provisions carefully worked out in countless hours of committee work.
But this conference report crosses the line. It is a farewell to reasonable arms restraint.
The public mood changes, particularly in a time of universal unease, such as we have across the land today.
But I cannot believe that the American people who must pay the tab want us to continue this open-end military spending beyond the rational needs of a strong national defense.
Few of the most forward-looking provisions to which I alluded survived the conference, and most of those remaining have undergone dental surgery to remove most of their bite.
In addition, the conference report includes over three-quarters of a billion more dollars than the Senate-passed bill, thus bringing it to $2 billion more than I believe the Pentagon needs or our economy can stand.
No one should doubt my commitment to a strong national defense. Our forces need some new equipment, and our society must maintain a vigorous research and development program to maintain a technological lead over potential adversaries. My vote against this conference report is not a vote against defense, but rather against an excessive, wasteful, budget-busting bill.
As one who has served in Congress on both sides of the Capitol rotunda, I fully appreciate the need for compromise to reconcile differences, as well as the determination of conferees to insist on their own body's version of bills.
But this conference report goes beyond merely splitting the difference in money; it represents a surrender by the Senate on many crucial programs and policies.
Mr. President, let me highlight some of the major deficiencies in this conference report which lead me to oppose its adoption.
This measure restores most of the funds requested for the B-1 bomber, including $87 million in long-lead time procurement funds. Although the conferees stipulate that this is not a commitment to production, it is a sizable sunk cost which prejudices both congressional and departmental review of this program next year.
This bill contains $60 million in long-lead funds for a new $1.2 billion nuclear strike cruiser, which was not even considered by the Senate Armed Services Committee and which is still not clearly defined by the Navy. I do not believe that we as Senators should tolerate this deviation from the regular order of careful committee analysis, nor do I think American taxpayers want us to make a downpayment on such a costly pig-in-a-poke.
We have to pay special attention to these Navy programs because that service is on the verge of cost overruns of monumental proportions. According to press reports of internal Pentagon documents, the Navy is already $2 billion short on projected costs of its shipbuilding programs in the next 5 years and will have to cough up an extra $1.6 billion to pay for projected overruns on its F-18 program. These sums will either have to come at the expense of the other services, or, more likely, will have to be squeezed from our taxpayers.
The conferees restored 47,000 manpower slots which the Senate deemed unnecessary — 9,000 in active military; 21,000 in the reserves; and 17,000 in DOD civilians. The costs here are hard to measure, but probably approach $200 million.
One of the least logical compromises came on perhaps the most controversial programs in this bill — the maneuvering reentry vehicle or MaRV. The House had killed the Navy's $45 million evasive MaRV, and the Senate had voted to prohibit flight testing until the President certifies that our potential adversaries had conducted such tests themselves.
Since the only MaRV flight testing in the fiscal period covered by this bill was planned to be the evasive MaRV, one would have expected the conferees to prohibit at least those tests. Instead, the conferees rejected the test ban and resurrected the evasive MaRV program.
Mr. President, there are other provisions in this conference report which are a disappointment to me and in which I had taken a special personal interest.
Despite the committee's overwhelming endorsement of $29.7 million cut in the Army's XM-1 tank program, which would have provided a restructuring of that project so that it would phase with testing of a German Leopard II tank competitor, the conferees restored those funds and permitted early source selection between U.S. contractors with approval of the Secretary of Defense. I hope that this action will not undermine the current momentum toward increased weapons standardization in NATO.
Committee-adopted amendments requiring reports on force readiness and life cycle costs of major weapons systems were deleted as unnecessary. Let me go on record, Mr. President, with my intention to seek this important and useful information through the regular committee hearing process, so that the Congress can better evaluate the Defense Department's budget requests.
The conferees also substantially modified an amendment urging standardization of weapons and equipment for NATO forces. While these changes in no way dilute the existing statutory authority of the Secretary of Defense to waive provisions of the "Buy America" Act when foreign purchase is in the public interest, it is regrettable that this explicit linkage will not be written into law.
Taken together, Mr. President, these actions by the conferees constitute an unfortunate backward step from the Senate's carefully considered work on the military procurement bill.
With our economy in trouble, with our people demanding responsible action by the Congress, these excess funds for the Pentagon are a double waste — permitting programs which are not really essential for preserving our national security and denying funds for vitally needed domestic programs.
Mr. President, in the wake of Vietnam we have gone through what was thought to be a period of profound reassessment of our foreign and defense policies. One salient point that I thought had emerged, clear and distinct, from this introspection, was that our defense policy should be geared to the thoughtfully conceived objectives of our foreign policy.
Do we still want to underwrite the staggering costs of being policeman of the world? Do we still believe in gunboat diplomacy as the cornerstone of our international policy? Are we still totally committed to the unlimited arms race in this era of nuclear proliferation?
Mr. President, I cannot believe that such capitulation to the moribund voices of the past represents the thinking of the American people today. And I have the greatest faith in the ultimate judgment and good sense of the people.
Yet, earlier this week we approved in this Chamber a base construction in the middle of the Indian Ocean that may well be the first step in a multi-billion dollar expansion to a three-ocean navy.
And today in this conference report, we are being asked to spend millions for weapon systems that are still in search of a mission, that are little more than a gleam in the designer's eye.
In the meantime, here at home, we are mired in a deep recession with the largest. number of men and women out of work since the great depression. The high unemployment persists and the administration tells us it will have to continue in order to check inflation. Yet the President vetoes, as inflationary, bill after bill designed to put people to work and to get the prostrate economy moving again.
And if the inflation is being checked – by human sacrifice – the jobless, middle class, the poor, the
elderly on fixed incomes, the veterans of previous wars have not heard the good tidings
yet. For the cost of living continues inexorably to rise.
Mr. President, as we set our priorities for defending our country, I would point out that more than 8 million unemployed and millions of other Americans living in hardship are in themselves inestimable handicaps to our country's ability to defend itself.
The health and morale of our people and their economic security should be seen to constitute the first line of our national security.
But what hope do we give these people if we continue in lockstep down the road of unlimited spending for exotic weapons systems and ever-expanding bases and military personnel?
And inflation? Every economist worth his salt knows that a principal fuel of the persisting inflation we are suffering today has been the ungoverned, open-end military spending through the years.
It it true that our huge military outlays mean jobs for some and profits for others. But armament production does not create goods that nourish and build the economy. It is a dead-end street.
And where does it all lead?
Consider the course we are on and project it 5, 10, 20 years into the future.
We are not talking, as in the past, of ''guns and butter."
We are talking about guns and bread.
Mr. President, I would refuse to vote to skimp to the extent of $1 on any military appropriation necessary for the defense of our country.
But there comes a point where we must consider, the preservation of what we are defending – the health and morale and economic security of our people — as well as our ability to defend these.
We must take a stand, strike a balance, somewhere.
In the cause of moderation, reason, and our overall national security, I urge you to vote against this conference report.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Virginia is a member of our conference. He wanted to ask the Senator from Maine some questions. I understood they had conferred about this. They will be brief.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STENNIS. I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. CURTIS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Chair tell me how much time I have left?
Mr. STENNIS. It is on my time. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia to ask a question.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Maine for his hard work and dedication as chairman of the Budget Committee.
I will ask these questions quickly.
To get a better understanding and a better perspective, the total outlays involved for research and development and procurement in the 1976 budget totals $9.6 billion. Does that coincide with the Senator's figure? I am speaking of outlays.
Mr. MUSKIE. What is the source of the Senator's numbers? It is 9.7.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. $9.7 billion?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. It is correct, is it not, that the conference committee reduced that outlay request by $1.1 billion?
Mr. MUSKIE. About $150 million in outlays.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. The outlays were reduced by $1.1 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Research and development?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. Research and development and procurement.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator's question addressed to the reduction from the President's budget?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. From the President's budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. The staff tells me that is reasonably close.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr.. Then, that means that there is in the report, as it is now before the Senate, $8.5 billion in outlays for research and development and procurement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired. Who yields time?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is reasonably close, to answer the Senator's question.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. What is the total reduction in outlays that the Senator from Maine feels should be made inorder to comply with what the Senator has in mind?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am conscious of the fact that if my position prevails, they will go back into conference. I do not like to give numbers that the other side would take comfort in. I think we ought to use as our target the numbers associated with the Senate bill which passed the Senate and move toward that. I understand they will probably not be able to get that far, but my view is that to the extent we can pick up additional savings we reduce the pressure on the rest of the defense function.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. What I am trying to understand is does it need to be reduced by $1 billion, $5 billion–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield a half minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Ideally, the full amount would please me.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. What amount does the Senator have in mind?
Mr. MUSKIE. The amount over the Senate bill is $300 million in outlays and $900 million in budget authority.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, Jr. So it is $300 million that the Senator feels should be reduced in outlays?
Mr. MUSKIE. If that can be achieved, yes.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may I yield myself 2 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11/2 minutes remaining.
Mr. STENNIS. I better take all of that at once.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the position has been well stated by the Senator from Maine and the other members of the Budget Committee about the importance of rereferring this measure to the conference. I am going to support that position. The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee has pointed out that the requests that have come in now in terms of the recommendations to the Senate are 9 percent below what the President of the United States recommended.
The fact of the matter is that it is 23.5 percent higher than what was actually obtained last year. We have to consider this amount, Mr. President, in light of some other actions that have been taken by the President of the United States in a wide variety of other areas: Thumbs down on a housing bill, thumbs down on education, thumbs down on health, thumbs down on a farm bill, and many other such programs, because of the kinds of expenditures which the Congress has approved.
I personally believe that with the military construction bill that passed the Senate we were supplying the U.S. defense needs and meeting our commitments around the world. We were acting with strength in meeting our commitments to the American people and the people throughout the world.
It seems to me, Mr. President, that with these increases that have been obtained in the conference, we are moving to a situation where we may very well have a national defense, but what are we going to have to defend? Cities that are going to have people who are unemployed, without decent housing, without decent education, and without decent health care.
I would certainly hope that the kind of criteria that has been set by the Budget Committee and its chairman, the Senator from Maine, will be followed in this measure and by all of us in allocating the resources of this Nation to meet the great needs of national defense and other social concerns.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, it is with a feeling of regret that as a member of the Armed Services Committee I must vote against the conference report, especially becauseof the deep respect I hold for the chairman of the committee and the members of it.
Mr. President, in an address before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in April 1953, President Eisenhower uttered the following prophetic statement:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
These words, from the President who 8 years later in his farewell address warned the Nation against the consuming power of the military-industrial complex, are as true today as when first spoken 22 years ago.
The recommendations of the conference committee on the military authorization bill are, in my opinion, a virtual admission that the Congress is still unable or unwilling to cope with the demands of the military-industrial complex.
The President requested $28.6 billion, an increase $5.5 billion over the amount approved by Congress for fiscal year 1975. The Senate authorized $25 billion; and even that modest figure was bloated beyond our actual needs. The House of Representatives authorized $26.5 billion. The conferees have recommended a total authorization of $25.8 billion—$800 million more than the amount voted by the Senate.
Mr. President, after months of deliberations in the Armed Services Committee, after weeks of debate in Congress, we have come up with a grand reduction of $2.8 billion from the budget- busting request of the Pentagon.
I am reminded of the old fable of how the mighty mountain labored and there was throughout the land the highest expectation, but it brought forth only a laughable little mouse. And that is what we have come up with, an almost laughable reduction of less than 2.7 percent of the total $105 billion requested by the Pentagon.
Mr. President, why each year go through the futile exercise of trying to bring reason to bear on our military spending? Why not just enact legislation permitting the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take a couple of tanks and a fleet of trucks to the Treasury at the start of each fiscal year and load up with the money they want?
We would save taxpayers the expense of Congress going through the motions of approving authorizations and appropriations each year. We would save them the expense of requiring top Pentagon officials to neglect their normal duties to come up to Capitol Hill for hours upon hours of committee hearings and private lobbying. We would save Americans the agony of witnessing the annual charade that the Congress and the administration go through in formulating the defense budget.
What was the result of the months of work on the bill in the full Armed Services Committee and in its subcommittees?
The administration requested $840.5 million for research and development of the B-1 bomber, approved in total by the other body. The Senate authorized $762.2 million. The conferees recommend $800.2 million, a cut of less than 5 percent from the original request
For procurement items for the B-1, $108 million was requested, and agreed to by the other body. The Senate refused to authorize 1 cent for this purpose until it is eventually decided whether we will actually proceed with construction of the B-1. The conferees recommend $87 million.
For site defense research and development $178 million was requested; $168 million voted by the House and $89 million by the Senate. The conferees recommend $125 million.
For binary munitions — development and procurement of a new generation of lethal chemical weapons — $9.7 million was requested, and approved in total by the House. We in the Senate did not approve a penny for such offensive weapons. Almost predictably, the conferees recommended the full amount.
One of the most flagrant abuses in this bill is the authorization of funds for procurement of long lead items for the proposed nuclear strike cruiser. The administration delayed its request for $60 million until June 24, 1975, after the House of Representatives had on its own initiative — I assume with some urging from the Navy — included the item in its bill. The Senate bill contained no funds for this item. The Senate Armed ServicesCommittee did not have the opportunity to consider the item nor did the Senate have the chance to debate its extremely questionable merits. Despite this, the conferees recommended the full $60 million.
The fact is that this seemingly innocuous $60 million item would be only the first in a long series of expenditures that would eventually total at least $1.2 billion for each cruiser, and the Navy wants 18 of them. So, through a back door insertion in the defense budget, with the full support of the President, the way has been opened to a possible expenditure of more than $20 billion.
This, from the same President who vetoed a $7.6 billion education bill, $700 million larger than last year which barely accounts for inflation, claiming that it is $1.6 billion more than is necessary.
This, from the same President who vetoed a $2.5 billion bill for a wide range of health services and for nurse training, claiming it was $550 million more than his budget could stand.
This, from the President who while requesting $105 billion for the defense budget, $15.7 billion more than approved by Congress last year, at the same time requested cuts of $17 billion in programs that help the poor and the elderly such as medicare, food stamps, and community and mental health centers.
Mr. President, I could go on and recite all the depressing statistics of the conference report which fly in the face of the Senate bill and defy reason. But, they all add up to one thing — that the Congress is apparently unable to effect meaningful reductions in Pentagon demands.
This year's defense budget exceeds the biggest budgets of the Korean and Vietnamese wars and the largest of World War II, when more than 10 million Americans were under arms. It is greater than the entire cost of the Federal Government during any year of World War II.
All reliable indicators of public opinion tell us that the great majority of Americans favor a reduction in military spending. There is a general agreement that comparable spending for productive domestic programs will result in a sounder and more prosperous economy. We know that a sound economy and a sound dollar are as essential to the Nation's security as our defense posture. How many of us in the Congress during our campaigns for election and reelection responded to this deep feeling among our people by promising to help establish new priorities and a new sense of direction for our country? But nothing seems to change.
War or no war, the military budget is picking up more momentum each year. Moreover, Pentagon projections call for continued budget increases which could reach as high as $150 billion 5 years from now. The Pentagon is literally eating America out of house and home.
Mr. President, I certainly want the United States to keep its preeminence as the greatest military power in the world. I will continue to support programs that have proven defense capability and are necessary to maintain an adequate defense posture. However, we must determine what weapons systems are really necessary. Just because we know that a particular weapons systems is feasible does not mean that we must go ahead and produce it. Many things included in the conference report are technically feasible, but are unnecessary and can be produced only at enormous cost. Many others would, in my judgment, only accelerate the arms race.
I will not support such programs which are unproven or unnecessary or wasteful of taxpayers' money. For that reason I will vote against adoption of the recommendations of the conference committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I intend to oppose the conference report on H.R. 6674, the military procurement authorization bill. I recognize the need for a healthy economy. A consistently strong economy can be maintained in the long run only if the Congress abides by responsible budgetary procedures. The Budget Act of 1974 provides for that process, but it remains for the Congress to see that it works.
We now face the first test of the viability of this budget process. In May, the Congress adopted the first concurrent resolution. I was at that time concerned about the size of spending totals and deficit adopted by that resolution. But now we face the likelihood of exceeding even those alarming figures.
The conferees have reported a bill which is roughly $900 million higher in budget authority and $300 million higher in outlays than the Senate bill passed in June. The Senate bill was consistent with the spending for defense adopted in the first concurrent budget resolution. If we now accept the conference bill we will clearly be taking a large step toward exceeding the budget resolution and producinga higher federal deficit.
For this reason, Mr. President I must oppose the military procurement bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this and any other bills which may come before in the coming months that would cause the budget resolution spending totals to be exceeded. It is imperative that we act consistently in all functional areas of the budget. I will cast my vote against this military procurement authorization with the expressed intention of dealing with other areas of spending in a consistent fashion.
Mr. President, as a member of the Budget Committee, this Senator understands that we have no intention of going below the level of authorization passed by the Senate, at $25 billion, for this year.
Furthermore, following this proposal we will be bringing up the school lunch program, which is $430 million over the budget, and we will have to stand here and oppose that. On the basis of consistency, our choices are limited; either we are going to make exceptions for certain programs or we are going to support the Budget Committee.
It is a matter of priority and the Congress agreed on priorities less than 2 months ago when we passed the first concurrent budget resolution. So we must stick to those priorities and hold the line equally on all issues. Either the Budget Committee should be effective or it should be dismantled. It would seem to this Senator, as a member of the committee, that we have an obligation to follow the line we agreed upon.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from South Carolina 2 minutes.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in response to the comments of the Senator from Kansas, when the Senator from Maine spoke about increases in the authorization for nurses' training, he spoke
with an indulgent smile. But when it comes to the defense, it is a different story. If we have such temerity as to change those figures in the middle of the stream, we have acted irresponsibly.
It has been said that if we went along, Mr. President, with the chairman of the Budget Committee, we would have to fire a million men out of the Army. We would have no ships, and no R. & D. I never heard of such poppycock.
What did the Senator from Georgia say, when I asked him about the total cost? He said, "I would assume there would be a pay cap."
He said, "Assuming that, we are bringing you a balanced bill."
But if it is not, if one of the assumptions, one of the predictions of the distinguished chairman is correct, he has said we are only $100 million different in a $31.2 billion bill.
So, Mr. President, I have no choice but to oppose the conference report on military procurement.
As a member of the Budget Committee and chairman of its task force on national defense, I am cognizant not only of the need to maintain the integrity of our budgetary process but to maintain a strong defense posture as well.
With this in mind, I am of the firm opinion that further reduction could and should be made in H.R. 6674, and that by doing so both objectives can be met.
I am not unmindful that it was a long and difficult conference.
However, it is imperative that the Members of this body understand that the budget target totals are a joint effort of both Houses. We are not talking about target figures arbitrarily imposed by the Senate Budget Committee. Rather we are talking about carefully considered and reasonably conceived numbers which were arrived at after months of hearing and careful deliberation on the part of the Budget Committees of both Houses.
Subsequently, these targets were ratified by both the full House and Senate. If we are to preserve this very significant progress in the years to come we must make the hard decisions and reject efforts to exceed these carefully considered budget targets. If we refuse to make these hard decisions then we have become nothing more than a select committee in search of a ceiling.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this conference report.
Mr. President, I should like to focus briefly on the budgetary significance of one item in this conference report which may well lead to a $30 billion, 18 ship-building program.
The Navy proposed a nuclear-powered strike cruiser to the Defense System Acquisition Review Council in November 1974. This was to be the lead ship in the Aegis program. They asked for long-lead funding in fiscal year 1976 and full procurement in fiscal year 1977. Secretary of Defense Schlesinger rejected this approach. The proposed budget for 1976 contained zero for the strike cruiser when it was sent to the Hill. Additionally, the Department of Defense requests for 1977 procurement authorization, submitted to the Congress in February 1975 in compliance with the Budget Act also omitted any funds for the strike cruiser. As no Aegis platform for 1977 was ever approved, the 1977 authorization request also omitted funds for any other Aegis ship. The strike cruiser was, however, included in the 5-year defense plan as an item for further consideration in fiscal year 1978. The inclusion of the ship in the 5-year defense plan did not constitute approval of the ship by the Secretary of Defense. The most recently available information the committee has indicates that the exact configuration and price of the strike cruiser is still under review in the Navy. In other words, even the planning for this ship is not final. The administration's witnesses gave no testimony defining the cruiser during the Senate, or House Armed Services Committees hearings for the 1976 authorization request. However, Admiral Rickover discussed the Navy's proposal with the House Armed Services Committee which put in $60 million for the strike cruiser in the House version of the procurement authorization, H.R. 6674. The Senate gave absolutely no consideration to the strike cruiser in the committee or on the floor in approving S. 920, the Senate version of the procurement bill.
Amazingly enough, however, on June 24, 2 weeks after the procurement bill went to conference and less than a week before the beginning of the fiscal year the President requested an amendment to his 1976 budget asking authorization and appropriation for $60 million in advance procurement for the nuclear strike cruiser. Subsequently, the Navy submitted a budget request declaring that full funding would be requested for fiscal year 1977 and estimated the cost of the first ship at $1.2 billion. Unfortunately, the Senate conferees were unable to prevail on the item in conference.
In short, the Senate has yet to have the first day of hearings or hear the first witness on this very expensive and potentially wasteful item.
It may very well be that after proper consideration the Senate may decide the ship is needed.
However, in my estimation the Senate should not approve the $60 million item until full hearings have been held not only on this particular ship but on the future direction, size, and mission of the Navy of the 1980's and beyond.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 minutes to theSenator from Colorado (Mr. GARY W. HART).
Mr. GARY W. HART. Mr. President, on the surface it appears the conference report, if approved, would authorize only about 25 percent of the military budget for this fiscal year.
However, the report has more impact than many would think because it contains personnel strength figures which make the measure far more important than it first appears. This is because these personnel costs must later be funded by appropriations, and there is little chance that significant reductions will be made later. Therefore, the authorization act drives, not 25 percent of the military budget, but rather 64 percent of the administration's request for national defense.
Some reductions were made to H.R. 6674 by the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate and other adjustments resulted from Defense Department changes requested after the original budget request. Nevertheless, all the reductions made are, according to the Budget Committee, only 45 percent of the budget authority cuts necessary to meet the target set by the first concurrent resolution and only 24.5 percent of the cuts necessary to meet the outlay target.
It is unnecessary to quibble over whether the conference report breaks the target by $7 billion in budget authority and $4.2 billion in outlays or something less, because it is quite clear that the target will not be reached if this report passes the Senate. There is simply no way the Defense Department can be brought under the ceiling by any further action of the Congress this year.
Furthermore, the new initiatives contained in this bill will be a mortgage the taxpayer will have to fund for years to come. It is essential that the target be met this year or in all succeeding years it will be impossible to meet it because of new starts which will become future commitments.
This conference report is full of compromises which on examination are not compromises at all. Not only did the House and Senate conferees settle for the most part on the highest figure one body recommended, but they included several dubious measures. Among these is nearly the full Air Force request for the B-1 bomber to include advanced production money. To be sure, the conferees added language denying this funding represents a production decision on the part of Congress, but the language does not counterbalance the reality that the money means we are sufficiently down the production road so we will not be able to turn back. Good sense did not triumph in respect to the Airborne Warning and Control System, which has yet to find a mission, nor to several other costly but equally worthless programs.
Several Senators have seized on one particular program which for demonstrating congressional neglect of its responsibilities has little parallel. I refer, of course, to the nuclear strike cruiser, added in conference without 1 day of hearing on the merits of the proposal. Surely, this program addition, since it has such devastating future budget impact, is reason enough to reject the conference report.
One prominent American has made many comments on the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress, and he has singled out, on occasion, riders added by conference committees, noting that conferences are notoriously poorly qualified to explore the significance of add-ons. The same American has likewise criticized the Congress for failing to accept "its responsibility as a full partner in the struggle to keep Federal spending under control," and he has called for maintaining "a firm line against ill-conceived spending that adds to the growing deficit and necessitates Federal Government borrowing which drives up interest rates" at the expense of business recovery.
He has further asked Congress to "exercise restraint in expanding existing Federal responsibilities" and to resist adding new Federal programs to our already overloaded and limited Federal resources.
All this seems to me to be particularly sound advice which should be applied to defense spending just as to any other Federal expenditures. The advice comes, of course, from President Ford, who has cautioned us that "new spending programs which the Congress is considering could easily raise the Federal budget to an intolerable level of $100 billion. This must not happen."
President Ford has vetoed dozens of programs which the Congress has designed to improve the economic conditions of vast sectors of the Nation on the grounds that "we must hold the line if we are all to enjoy the benefits of a prosperous, stable, and noninflationary economy." Is there any reason why this policy advice should not be extended to Pentagon spending works projects which benefit a very small sector of our economy and have the potential of doing vast damage to our national economy and the soundness of our dollar?
The Senate has a unique opportunity today to decide if we should continue the traditional governmental practice of exempting the Department of Defense from the sound principle of fiscal responsibility. We have the chance to decide if the Budget Act means anything at all. I urge the Senate to reject this conference report so that we shall not be taking another long step down the road to national bankruptcy.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that the conference committee has agreed to provisions that will allow the President to launch a new arms race with the Soviet Union.
This race involves a morally repulsive and militarily dubious weapons system: deadly nerve gas. The Senate demonstrated sound judgment by approving statutory language that would effectively prohibit the development of a new generation of nerve gas weapons. The Senate version prohibited research, development, production, and preproduction of new lethal chemical weapons — particularly the Pentagon's new binary nerve gas bombs and artillery shells.
What is left of the conference report? In practical terms, nothing. The statutory language left after conference prohibits the production of binaries. But to produce binaries, under the conference language, all the President would have to do is certify that it is essential to the national interest.
And let there be no doubt that the Pentagon plans to produce this new generation of nerve gas weapons, statute or no statute. Earlier this year the Pentagon requested proposals to design a production facility to produce binary nerve gas artillery shells. Funds have also been requested to modify a building at Pine Bluff Arsenal to house the production line for the new nerve gas artillery shells.
Let one thing be clear. We have had our chance to halt the development of this weapons system. And under the conference language this chance has been lost.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, I support the budget upon which the Senate agreed. I believe in a strong defense, but I also believe, Mr. President, that if the Budget Committee is to be meaningful, if it is to be of any real service to the Members of this body, we must support the Budget Committee's recommendations. Therefore, I support the position of the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Mississippi and I may have 2 minutes each, to summarize the arguments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection is is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, how much time does that give me?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It gives the Senator 3 minutes.
Mr. STENNIS. How much?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield 2 minutes to theSenator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I have been here for 25 years. I have attended a lot of conferences with the House of Representatives. I congratulate the Budget Committee for the job it did, but it can only seek to govern the actions of the Senate. It does not govern the action of the House of Representatives.
Looking at this thing realistically, what are the chances of any improvements if we go back at this late hour? If we do anything at all, it has to be done on the appropriation bill at this point. That is where it is going to be done.
The thing here is a question of pragmatism. If the gentlemen who have been making all the speeches here will go on the new conference, and see if they can convince the House conferees, well and good. But if we are going to send the same ministers back, they have heard all the arguments they have, and they will not be able to compromise. That is exactly what we are up against. We are up against, now, the realities of the situation.
Frankly, it will be an exercise in futility. All of this will read nice on the front pages tomorrow, but if we go back to that conference after they have compromised it, and they will not budge an inch, and you say, "Well, the Budget Committee of the Senate said this," do you know what they will do? They will laugh right in your faces.
That is what we are up against. I am all for the Budget Committee, but the fact remains that we have to look at it realistically at this point, and at what we are going to accomplish.
There is no need to castigate the conferees on the part of the Senate. They tried hard to maintain the position of the Senate. But they had to listen to the position of the House as well, and they compromised. The only chance we have now is for the second bite on the berry.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, we are on our way, now, to a continuing resolution of 2 months or 3 months duration. That, as a minimum, in my best judgment.
We brought back a bill that was just 2.9 percent above the bill that the Senate originally passed by that huge vote. And I am satisfied in my mind that this bill is the best that this group of conferees can do. I am speaking only for myself on that: But if we vote down this conference report, that automatically discharges those conferees. I say this seriously — we are down to the nub. If the majority that votes down this bill will have a conference and select conferees among themselves who will go to conference and maintain the position of that majority, that is a step I would welcome strongly. Senators can tell by the way I speak that I am not being angry or vindictive I have done all I can. I will welcome having someone else carry the load.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Mississippi has expired. The Senator from Maine has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Rhode Island, I pay tribute to the Senate conferees. By the standards of past years, they have achieved a great deal. I am just respecting another standard which I think is mandated by the Budget Reform Act. We have got to decide if we want to make that extra effort to save a dollar. That is why I am on this floor today.
The issue is very simple. The question is whether or not we take a decision today, which clearly, taking all the possibilities into account, will raise the deficit, the congressional deficit, by something in excess of $1 billion.
It is the Senate’s prerogative to make that decision.
The budget process contemplates that the Senate make that decision today, but if it wants to try to reduce the prospects of that kind of an increase in the deficit, then what we are saying to the Senators is we have to make another effort on this bill. If we do not make another effort on this bill, then we add strongly to the possibility that the deficit will rise by $1 billion or more.
Finally, I say, with all respect to the Senator from Rhode Island, that this is not just the Committee on the Budget. This is a congressional budget process. The targets I have been debating about today were set in a joint concurrent resolution agreed to by both Houses as a result of a conference of both Houses. If the conferees of the House of Representatives do indeed laugh at the Senate Committee on the Budget, they will be laughing, not at the Committee on the Budget, they will be laughing at the new budget process and any prospects of making it work because, unless the House conferees respect this process, one House cannot make it work.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield because he has used my name?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I make no criticism of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. No. But the Senator from Rhode Island is putting words in the mouths of the conferees of the House of Representatives.
Mr. PASTORE. I am telling the Senator very frankly that I have great respect for the intelligence of this body. I do not think I can put words in anyone's mouth.
All I am saying is that the Senator from Maine is right, and it is true that his recommendations come from a budget committee of the Congress, but it still is the budget recommendation of the Senate portion of the budget process.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is not true.
Mr. PASTORE. What I am saying is–
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not true.
Mr. PASTORE. Well, it is not true—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. PASTORE. I mean the figure that the Senator from Maine recommends is the same figure that was recommended in the House of Representatives.
Regular order, Mr. President.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.