September 18, 1975
Page 29264
Mr. MUSKIE. Can the Senator give me 10 minutes?
Mr. FONG. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I must reluctantly oppose Senate Resolution 239, which would remove the 5-percent cap on Federal pay increases recommended by the President.
On August 29, President Ford sent a message to the Congress recommending, under the Pay Comparability Act of 1970, an increase of 8.66 percent in Federal white-collar pay on October 1.
In that message, the President made an alternative recommendation, as permitted by the Pay Comparability Act, to hold the increase to 5 percent. Either body of the Congress may overturn the President's alternative recommendation by passage of a simple resolution, in which case the increase of 8.66 percent would prevail.
The distinguished chairman of the committee has eloquently stated, as well as the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, the equities involved in the question of pay raises for Federal employees.
I understand those equities fully, sympathize with them, and, indeed, endorse them. So the observations I make are related more to my responsibilities in connection with the budget than with the merits of this particular proposal.
I begin, Mr. President, by pointing out that the pay proposal covers all Federal so-called white-collar civilian employees except the Postal Service. It also covers all military personnel. Postal Service employees and so-called Federal blue-collar employees are granted pay raises through separate procedures and are not affected by the resolution under consideration today. Since the Postal Service is an "off budget" agency, any increases granted to postal employees do not show up in the budget totals.
A pay raise of 8.66 percent would have a budgetary cost of about $3.2 billion in the remaining 9 months of fiscal year 1976. Holding the pay raise to 5 percent would save about $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1976 and about $2 billion on a full-year basis. These figures are slightly lower than those cited by the President in his August 29 message and reflect more up-to-date information. These are the gross figures.
Mr. President, I will acknowledge that some savings through absorption of pay costs within regular Federal agency budgets are likely, but the amount that can be absorbed is only a small part of the total — in recent years averaging only 10 to 15 percent — so we cannot count on much from that quarter. The resolution before us today is really "spending legislation" since it locks us into increased budget authority and outlays when supplemental pay requests come before the Congress in January or February 1976.
Last May, when the first budget resolution was adopted by Congress, the statement of managers accompanying the conference report indicated that as of that time the budget totals were sufficient to cover the full costs of the pay raise, provided, of course, that other targets were met. No decision on this matter was taken by the Senate, either in committee or in floor debate. Thus the vote today will be the first specific action on the pay raise by the Senate.
In considering the pay cap issue, Mr. President, it is essential to consider the present status of the budget. That is where my responsibility lies.
Summary Table 1 on page 9 of the latest Senate budget scorekeeping report, issued September 15, shows that spending legislation enacted, in process, or requested by the President may exceed the first budget resolution targets by $9.4 billion in budget authority, when the total is adjusted for comparability, and by $6 billion in outlays. I should point out that these totals include the full pay raise, since we have adjusted the President's requests not yet acted upon to reflect the cost of current law in all cases. If the pay raise were held to 5 percent, we may, depending on our remaining spending decisions, still be over the first budget resolution targets by $8 billion in budget authority and $4.6 billion in outlays. This means we have a lot of saving still ahead of us to do if we want to avoid the deficit rising from the $68.8 billion projected in May.
The amounts for the pay raise are found in two functional areas of the budget. "Function 050: National Defense" includes the cost of the pay raise for all military personnel and the civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The "allowances" function includes the cost of the pay raise for all civilian employees of the Government other than the Department of Defense. This "allowance" is not divided by agency until the supplemental requests are transmitted next year. The pay raise amounts break down as shown in the following table.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the table entitled "Fiscal Year 1976 Pay Raise Costs" be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, thus, if we hold to a 5-percent increase, during the next 9 months we will save $1 billion in the national defense function and $0.4 billion in the allowances function from the figures contained in the scorekeeping report.
As shown on page 15 of the latest scorekeeping report, spending legislation enacted, in process, or requested by the President in the national defense function may exceed the congressional budget targets by $7.9 billion in budget authority and $4.9 billion in outlays. While this overage is apt to be reduced considerably through congressional action on the President's defense appropriation requests, I have pointed out several times — most recently in the August 1 debate on military procurement authorizations — that it will be very difficult to hold to the congressional budget targets for national defense. The implication is clear — we need to save every dollar we can in the national defense function. Limiting the pay raise to 5 percent will save $1 billion,which we might otherwise have to make up through extreme cuts in defense procurement or other areas.
As shown on page 57 of the latest scorekeeping report, spending legislation enacted or requested by the President in the allowances function may exceed the congressional budget targets by $0.4 billion in budget authority and outlays. This is exactly the amount we would save in that category by holding the pay raise to 5 percent. If we hold to 5 percent, the allowances function will be on target.
Mr. President, it is not easy for any of us to vote to hold pay raises for Federal employees to an amount less than established procedures indicate may be required. Each of us represents Federal employees, and they are giving the country loyal and dedicated service. But Federal workers are taxpayers, too. They are American taxpayers. And like all of us they want and deserve fiscal responsibility — freedom from inflation and all possible limitations on Federal deficit financing.
So, Mr. President, all are facing very tough fiscal choices right now. The question before us is not whether Federal employees deserve a full raise — they certainly do — but the alternatives we must consider. If we grant a full pay raise now, what else will be cut? Will we build fewer ships? Will we cut Federal employment? The money has got to come from somewhere, Mr. President, and that is why, on balance, I will vote to raise Federal salaries 5 percent.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida.
Mr. CHILES. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine on that point. As a member of the Committee on the Budget and as one who was interested in making and made some amendments at the time we were dealing with the figures which became our subtotal for defense, I say that I thought many of us at that time were working on the assumption that we were talking about 5 percent. I know the Senator from Georgia pointed out not once but on many occasions that if we were not talking about 5 percent, then we were talking about major cuts that would have to be made, tremendous cuts in materiel, tremendous cuts that would have to be made in R. & D. or planning money, and probably more realistically what would happen, because we would not be able to make those cuts, there would be riffing of employees. There would have to be cuts in personnel, if we were going to go over the figures. Yet we did cut. We did cut from what the President had requested, and I thought we were cutting in areas that we could, without sacrificing defense; at the same time we were dealing with the assumption of a 5 percent pay raise, and that we would be able to meet these items.
If we do not have that 5 percent and we go to 8.86 percent, we are either going to have to increase spending or we are going to see some deep, deep cuts.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. First, I should like to say this. I believe it is accurate to say that the Budget Committee last spring did not specifically act on the question of the pay raise. Each of us made his own assumption. Perhaps all of us hoped that the development of the budget and the spending decisions made by Congress would make possible the full pay raise — which, of course, at that point had not yet been received from the President. That has been received just recently. But I think we all hoped that we could so control spending decisions subsequent to that time that the full pay raise would be decided.
We are now faced with a condition, not speculation, and the condition does mandate as alternatives those that the distinguished Senator from Florida has mentioned.
I know that the distinguished Senator from Georgia also has addressed himself to this matter, and I yield to him at this point.
Mr. CHILES. I just want to make one more point. I think it would be more positive for me to say that we did not know what the President's figure was going to be. But what we did work for was that we were going to provide that there would be some increase and that the increase would be 5 percent. So we were not holding him to a zero increase. We were saying that we could provide for 5 percent and still do these other things. When we see it go to 8.66 percent, we cannot do the other things and have the 8.66 percent, too. I think that is a better way to put it.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I support what the Senator from Maine has stated and what the Senator from Florida has just added.
As the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Florida know, when we had the first concurrent resolution, I felt that the Senate position on that was the responsible position. But when the conference committee report came back, I questioned that on the floor of the Senate. The Senator from Maine and I had a dialog that day about the defense budget. At that time it was apparent to me that if we were going to be able to stay within that budget on defense, we had to assume a 5 percent pay cap. The reason is not that I have any strong position on whether it should be 5 percent or 8 percent, but it is really just arithmetic. I admit it is rather complicated arithmetic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. McGEE. The Senator has not quite an hour because of the time for the quorum call having been divided equally.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NUNN. The arithmetic is rather complicated because of the relationship between outlays and authorizations. In the bill that the conference committee has just come back with the second time, it is a $30 billion authorization bill, since personnel costs are not included, although numbers are. The outlays are only about $8 billion.
So what the Senator from Florida has just said is extremely important; because no matter how much you cut in terms of planes and ships, unless you cut virtually every plane and every ship out of this military authorization bill, you cannot really affect 1976 fiscal outlays very much. In fact, staff computations I have received show that if this 5 percent pay raise does not stick, if we go to 8 percent, if you really are going to stay within the concurrent resolution on the defense budget in outlays, you will have to cut virtually all new ships, virtually all new planes, and you also will have to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The way you get to the outlays in fiscal year 1976, particularly since the year has already started — we are in it 3 months — is basically to cut jobs, because that is people and that is payroll.
So we are in a very bad position here, in trying to determine whether people get a pay raise while many other people get laid off. We will be saying to many people, "Yes, we are going to raise your pay, but you may not have a job next year."
That is particularly true in the defense industry and in the defense bases all over this country, which affects every State to some degree. It is particularly important that people who work in defense jobs and people who work for the FederalGovernment realize that this is a very difficult situation and that we are really talking about increased pay versus increased jobs.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for one brief question to the Senator from Georgia?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. STONE. In connection with what the Senator from Georgia has just said, does that mean this if this increase were to go through at 8 percent instead of 5 percent and militarily oriented jobs at bases would be cut, loss in employment could take place at such places as the rework facilities in Pensacola and Jacksonville and the other rework facilities around the country?
Mr. NUNN. That is true. Any military base could be affected.
I wish to make clear to the Senator from Florida, if the Senator from Maine will yield one or two minutes, that we are not talking about something that is going to happen automatically. There will be choices.
This does not mean that if we go to 8.7 people automatically are going to be laid off around the country. It means that we have a choice as to going substantially above, by about a billion dollars, the concurrent resolution on the budget and that means increasing the deficit, and everyone will have to make his own judgment about the economic effect of that. That is one choice. If that choice is not accepted, then we have to decide in the defense category how we are going to go about making the cuts.
So we not only are talking about laying off many people if we are going to stay within the concurrent resolution. We are talking about many other people in defense industry, in private employment, who will have to lose jobs, because we will have to cut out procurement — procurement in airplanes, procurement in ships.
So it is a matter of a choice we will have, a choice as to whether to increase the deficit and save the consequences of that — at least, that is my judgment — or whether we really want to slash the defense budget beyond anybody's imagination, including hundreds of thousands of jobs.
I believe that the people in my State who work for the Federal Government would rather have everybody who now holds a job have reasonable assurance of continuing to have that job, than seeing some people get a 3.6 percent increase above the 5 percent and then have thousands of people laid off.
I believe that the sentiment of the Senate is pretty obvious, when we look at the history of the military authorization bill. The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE) offered an amendment on the floor to increase the number of civilians cut from the defense budget by 17,000, and that amendment was adopted. The Senator from Georgia opposed that amendment, but it was adopted; and I believe that expresses the sentiment of the Senate as to what direction will be taken in the second concurrent resolution, in the military appropriation bill, when it comes to the floor, and, probably more significantly, what will happen next year as the budget pressures become greater and greater.
Mr. CHILES. I wonder whether the distinguished Senator from Maine can enlighten me on this.
We were just talking about our budget figures when we get ready for the second concurrent resolution. Have we made enough saving so that we can take up this increase and not break our budget target figures? I wonder whether the Senator from Maine can give us figures as to how we stand in that regard.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have made no savings that would permit us to absorb this increase without raising the deficit. I presented some of the figures already, in my prepared statement. Let me add another one. One of the great pressures on the budget is the pressure of uncontrollables. This has to do with programs which mandate by law certain expenditures — food stamps and veterans benefits, for example, and others.
Those kinds of expenditures have risen under the pressure of the recession. With more people out of work, those kinds of expenditures grow. At this moment, the cost of those kinds of expenditures has risen by $3.9 billion since the budget resolution of May. So there is $3.9 billion that we have to find a way to absorb in the budget, if we want to hold the deficit at $68.8 billion.
If we do not find a way to absorb that $3.9 billion, then, wholly because of that, the deficit will go up to $73 billion. That $73 billion includes the full pay increase. We are talking about this decision this afternoon as a way of dropping that, because we computed the congressional budget on the basis of what current law requires.
Mr. CHILES. As I understand, we then are $3.9 billion—
Mr. MUSKIE. Over the budget, for that reason alone.
Mr. CHILES. Today, we are $3.9 billion over our $69 billion target.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right for those items.
Mr. CHILES. That includes this 3.9, which includes a billion dollars for this?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
In addition, of course, in the defense function, we have the problem posed by the defense procurement bill, which is just back from conference. I am not sure it is physically back yet, but it has been reported out. The conferees were not able to achieve the full cuts that would bring it in line with the Senate action earlier this year. I am sure it was a tough conference. I am not passing judgment on it at this point, but that represents additional spending for planes and ships, for which money must be found.
The Senator from Georgia is absolutely correct in making the point that those are the kinds of tradeoffs we are talking about.
What we are trying to do in this budget are necessary things: First of all, we changed the budget from that of the President in order, in many, many places, to relieve the pressures and the burdens of those at the grass roots in this country. We changed the budget in the health function, we changed the budget in income security, we changed the budget in the education function. We changed the budget in many ways for the purpose of relieving the pressure on grassroots Americans and in order to serve priorities here at home.
We cut foreign aid; we cut the budget in other ways in international affairs. We reduced defense spending to the extent that the committee thought was prudent. So there has been a shift in the direction of trying to be of assistance to grassroots Americans.
This pay issue was left fluid. We did provide for the 5-percent increase. We left the remainder until such time as the President made his recommendations and until we could see where the spending decisions that we have made since would take us. This is where we are.
The Senate, of course, has the prerogative this afternoon — and I emphasize that — of voting to increase the deficit. It has the prerogative of voting to increase the spending level in the budget.
That prerogative is not denied the Senate by the Budget Reform Act or by the budget process or by the Committee on the Budget. The Senate can make the decision today that this pay increase is more important than holding the line on the deficit and holding the line on Government spending. But I think the Senate ought to do so with a full recognition of the facts. That has been my posture all summer. It is my posture now.
I am as attracted by the equities of this proposal as any Senator. I think the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Hawaii are performing their duty in presenting those equities to the Senate this afternoon. I hope that when we are through with our discussion, following the presentation by the committee and the distinguished chairman and ranking Republican, that the Senate will be in a position to make its decision. That is the only role we are trying to play this afternoon.
Under the overall spending target of the budget, as I say, we tried to relieve pressures which the President's budget created for grassroots Americans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes.
Nevertheless, having done that, we still reached a ceiling because we were required to do so by the law. The Senate expected us to do so and we have set that ceiling. Now we have to make the process of adhering to that ceiling one of deliberate decision making. That is really what it is all about.
I am most grateful to the distinguished Senator from Florida and the distinguished Senator from Georgia, both of whom are members of the Committee on the Budget, for this contribution. I particularly appreciate the analysis made by the Senator from Georgia, because he is also a member of the Committee on Armed Services. He is much more knowledgeable with respect to the defense budget than any other member of the Committee on the Budget because no other Member serves on the Committee on Armed Services. We have looked to him for information and for perspective on these critical decisions.
Mr. STONE. Will the Senator yield to me for 1 minute?
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Maine. If I may make one brief comment, I think he is performing a great service here. The Senate, as he said, can take this deliberate decision of increasing the deficit if they choose, but it ought to be a conscious decision and an informed decision and I think the Senator is performing a great function there.
I also appreciate the positions of the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Hawaii, who are also performing a duty in pointing out the equities on the other side of this issue. It is a tough question, a tough tradeoff. It is not an easy situation to tell anybody why they were not raised 8.6 percent. But neither is it going to be very easy next spring to explain to people all over the country, who work at defense bases, why their jobs are being terminated if that is the choice that has to be made at a later point. I think that is the most likely choice, based on the sentiment I have seen in Congress so far.
The vote in the Senate today is on the size of the annual pay increase for military and civil servants, either 5 percent as recommended by the President or 8.66 percent. Unfortunately, on this vote there is no opportunity to eliminate Members of Congress from this pay raise. I voted last July to eliminate Members of Congress from this raise because we should actually take the lead in belt-tightening during this period of economic hardship.
The country continues to face near double-digit inflation. We see it in our food prices, in the increasing price of fuel, in high interest rates, and in virtually everything we buy. At the same time, there are over 8 million Americans unemployed.
Many Americans strongly believe, as I do, that excessive Federal spending has been an important contributor to these problems.
When my own State of Georgia was faced with the question of granting pay raises to State employees, the State elected to exercise strict budget controls and maintain fiscal responsibility. Virtually no one received an increase as large as 5 percent and many received no increase at all. I would like to see the Federal Government also follow the principle of fiscal responsibility.
Today's vote, however, is a choice between a 5 and a 8.66 percent increase. The economic impact of an 8.66 percent pay raise is much broader than the actual $1.4 billion cost above the 5 percent raise and the ripple effect of the higher pay increase will be felt throughout the economy. Many off-budget agencies, State and local government employees are indirectly linked to Federal salaries.
There is a second consideration which many Americans are not aware of. In myopinion, real defense spending will have to be reduced by almost $1 billion if the higher pay increase is accepted. Significant cuts have already been made in defense spending; further cuts pose a serious threat to the ability of our armed forces to fulfill our national security goals.
Of course, in the defense area, this increase could be absorbed by increasing the national defense budget target with a corresponding increase in the budget deficit, but in my opinion, this is highly unlikely based on the mood of Congress.
It is more realistic to expect that the higher increase in pay would have to be absorbed within the current defense budget which would mean either an actual reduction in personnel or in the procurement of aircraft, ships and missiles, or more likely, drastic reductions in all of these categories.
There would be considerable pressure to concentrate these cuts in the personnel area. In fact, there have already been proposals to make further cuts in personnel. To absorb the difference of nearly $1 billion in the defense category — 5 percent versus 8.66 percent — in the personnel accounts at this time could require cuts in defense civilian and military personnel of hundreds of thousands. Such cuts are unacceptable in terms of our national security and in the loss of jobs of thousands of Americans involved in defense.
In effect, many defense workers would lose their jobs to permit others to enjoy a larger pay increase.
In times of economic hardships, the Federal Government must exercise fiscal responsibility in all areas of Government spending, including matters of pay. For these reasons, I am voting against the 8.66 percent increase.
Mr. STONE. Will the Senator yield me1 minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida and then to the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional time has expired. Who yields additional time?
Mr. FONG. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, even if a conscious decision were to be made by the Senate to increase the deficit by this amount, the fact that the Senate has included in a straight up or down vote, with no ability to separate the votes, the vote relating to a pay raise for the general Federal employees, coupling that with a required pay raise at that amount for Congressmen and Senators, would invalidate, in the view of the junior Senator from Florida and others, this vote.
We have set up a continuing conflict of interest by including Congressmen and Senators within the ranks of Federal employees. I think it is a bad mistake and will make it very much more difficult for those who would like to vote for a pay raise for others to vote for one for themselves.
Mr. FONG. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. TAFT. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Did the Senator from Connecticut wish me to yield to him?
Mr. WEICKER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Ohio, but I am sure I can get 2 minutes from the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. TAFT. I thank the Senator very much.
I listened with interest to the sentiment expressed by the Senator from Florida, and I must say, I am in strong agreement with it.
When this Commission for Pay Procedure was set up in the House of Representatives, I objected to it at that time. I voted against it at that time. I have voted against every pay increase that has been proposed under it that included the Senate and Congress — I think those are all of the increases — because of my objections that the principle involved seems to me to be wrong.
Yet I think that today we face a very, very difficult decision, because it does involve a conflict of interest. We have to weigh this conflict of interest with the equities and needs of those who are affected — those, of course, being all the lower paid employees and the military and also, I find, about 500,000 black lung recipients and their beneficiaries. This puts us, I think, in a very, very difficult position.
I have examined this carefully and I should like at this point to make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair as to whether an amendment to this resolution would be in order to excise Senators' salaries and Representatives' salaries from this measure?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is advised amendments are not in order.
Mr. TAFT. I thank the Chair for its opinion. I understood that was the case.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief comment?
Mr. TAFT. I would be glad to yield to the Senator without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. NUNN. I agree with the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Florida on the points made.
That was my position when it came up in July. I just want to echo the sentiments of the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. TAFT. I want to thank the Senator from Georgia for his comment.
I have examined what we have done in this regard, and I want to call the attention of the Senate to the measure introduced in the House of Representatives by my colleague, Representative MOSHER, under H.R. 9336. This measure is one that I expect in the very near future to introduce in this body, and I welcome any Senators who wish to cosponsor it.
The effect of it would be similar to what has been the rule of the State of Ohio for as long as I remember, and certainly when I was in the State legislature. That is a law that no member of the general assembly could receive a pay raise unless a general election intervened between the time the raise was voted and the time it went into effect.
Mr. President, this law has worked very well in Ohio. I realize in regard to a 6 year term there is a problem involved because there would be a bar against any increase for U.S. Senators for a period of 6 years if it applied consistently.
However, this measure would only bar Senators from a salary increase for the 2-year Congress in which they are elected. It seems to me, this is all right because there is also a House control and a reelected House that goes into office, would have a control over our salaries as well as ourselves, so I resolved that conflict with regard to the application of this measure to the Senate.
We are already in a jam now as to whether we vote a salary increase for ourselves and break the principle involved at this time or whether we prevent those who, I think, are entitled to a comparable cost-of-living increase from getting that cost-of-living increase.
Faced with this dilemma, I have struggled with myself somewhat, and I find I am going to vote for the 8.66 percent for the Federal employees and others who, I think, really need it under the current economic circumstances, even though I think it is basically wrong for the Senate, insofar as it itself is concerned. But that is a decision which I opposed when it came up on the Senate floor just a while ago, and when we put ourselves in this situation once more.
I hope the Senate will continue to consider remedies that might be enacted to cure this situation. It just has not worked very well.
If we get this increase, it will be the first increase we have gotten since the system went into effect in 1969, and certainly nobody can say that is a system that has worked very well under the circumstances. I think the country would far rather see us stop trying to hide behind some pay commission or advisory committee procedure, such as we currently have, and vote up or down and separately from other considerations on the salaries that we set for ourselves.
Mr. President, did the Senator from Kentucky wish to ask a question?
Mr. FORD. I have no questions, but I would like to have 2 or 3 minutes.
Mr. McGEE. The Senator asked for a little free time if there was any remaining.
Mr. TAFT. I would be glad to yield for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Ohio has expired.
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I commend the Senator from Maine for what he did here on the floor and the Senator from Georgia and the Senator from Florida in explaining the options we have.
Although this particular issue applies to more than military, whether it be military personnel and civilians included within the military, I think it is important since it has most of its impact on the military, and what the distinguished Senator from Georgia and the distinguished Senator from Maine have said about it should be understood and, as I see it, it is basically this, and I would like the Senator from Maine's observations.
Basically, when we set a target in terms of military outlays and authorizations for this country it is a little bit different in functional area than others because that is all in it, so we do not have all the confusion in it about four different functional areas mixed here and there. It is all in one. So we have got one figure that we came out of conference with, and it has got to cover both procurement and personnel.
It is my observation and, therefore, I am very concerned as to the military, that Congress is probably not going to exceed the total figure in target area either as outlays or as authorizations, and I think our vote on the procurement measure the other day is pretty indicative that we are going to use that figure or pretty close to it.
I think the point has been made that $1.2 billion out of this has to fit in that total figure, and you have got to find it within the total one way or the other and, as the distinguished Senator from Georgia said, the procurement bill the other day clearly indicates that there is not much room there.
So for those who are on the payroll of the military or the military's civilians they are confronted with a serious issue and that is are we going to add $1.2 billion down the line for the total military or are we going to stick with our original, and if we stick with the original and vote in the 8.66 percent then we are going to find $1.2 billion somewhere as a cut and, I believe, it will be either in equipment, R. & D., but most logically it will be in personnel, and it probably will be people without jobs in the military rather than whether they got 8.66 percent. That is my own analysis of it.
I am going to vote for the 5 percent. I think the committee has done an admirable job of presenting equity and fair play. Nonetheless, I think we have to look at this functional category alone, set an example and, I think, maybe out there many Americans will be looking at this as to whether or not we want to sacrifice a little bit for the benefit of fiscal responsibility, strong military, and meeting our other social goals in that budget. Otherwise, we are going to have to add more. I do not see how we are going to do it otherwise, and we are already over it because of things we cannot control.
Mr. SPARKMAN addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I just respond?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator to yield to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. Just 10 seconds. The Senator from New Mexico has clearly spelled out the options available to us, and I commend him for his articulateness and his commitment to the budget.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Maine.