June 4, 1975
Page 17046
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but when I got over here and saw this amendment with this provision in it about abrogating the responsibilities of Congress to make appropriations for specific items, delegating that power to the Secretary of Defense, with the language here I do not know what it means.
I wonder as to the Appropriations Committee when the Secretary of Defense reports back that he is going to spread this money, this way or that, does that become the law that binds the Appropriations Committee? There is no provision in here as to what he has done with it after the report is made. They just report back how they are going to spend it if it is under the authorization. Does that bind the Appropriations Committee just as if it was written into the law where he makes the cuts?
I tell you this is loose legislating. This is not the way for Congress to meet its responsibilities.
You may be for reducing; and, if so, offer an amendment to reduce the item in the bill. But this way it delegates the power to the Secretary of Defense to come back and make a report of how he is going to spread it around.
That provision is absolutely, in my judgment, if that is intended to bind the Appropriations Committee, that provision is unconstitutional. If it is not intended to do that, what is the purpose of it? If it is not intended to bind us, it does not say, "You will make a report for consideration by the Appropriations Committee." It just says that he makes a report of how he is going to distribute these authorizations.
Mr. President, this is — I do not know a word that describes it from the standpoint of responsible legislating. I do not care how much you want to cut, and there is a tendency to cut, and I am not against cutting. Without any requirement, I myself have led the fight to make cuts in the defense appropriations during the past 3 years. I have not gone to the extreme that some would want to go, but I say, Mr. President, that this is an abrogation of responsibility or it is legislating so that no one can understand what the intent of Congress is. This ought to be corrected before it is voted on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield me 2 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A question is being directed to the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 2 minutes?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I yield to the able Senator from Massachusetts 2 minutes.
Before he speaks, I would say to my good friend from Arkansas that all we are discussing, is a proposed reduction of 4.8 percent of the bill's procurement budget, $1.2 million. Here the Secretary of Defense would have to report to us where he took this additional cut.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I have just one question: Does he intend that that becomes law, what he decides to do? Is it binding on anybody and, if so, on whom.
Mr. SYMINGTON. It is only binding on the 4.8 percent of the authorization.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It would be binding on those who do or those who do not; it should be equal.
Mr. SYMINGTON. It would be binding only on that amount apart from what the Senate Armed Services Committee has recommended for authorization.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would just like to direct this question to the chairman of the Budget Committee, because he made a statement before. I understand that the Budget Committee had recommended a 10.5 percent increase in defense expenditures. It is my understanding that, under the proposed authorization, it will be as high as 20 percent over last year.
Now, in listening to the Senator, if you do not have a cap on military pay and, I must say, in terms of trying to look down the road it seems to me it would be extremely unlikely — would not the chances increase that we would exceed the budget recommendations?
Mr. MUSKIE. That was the purpose of my statement this morning. If the additional items which were not reflected in the budget materialize, a total of $2.4 billion in outlays and $2.4 billion in budget authority, and the indications are that they will, and the figure stated was the pay cap, both active duty pay and retired pay, if those materialize, this bill S. 920 ought to be cut, and the vote to cut ought to be cast by those who are going to support those decisions.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has been here longer than I have, and he has watched the actions Congress when it comes to cutting pay increases. I ask what he thinks, as an individual Senator, of the possibility of holding the line on those items?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think there is any possibility. The House has voted to have the cap, and the Senate will follow suit, and we will have to find room for the $1.8 billion in the defense budget to accommodate that, and for that there must be some provision in this bill.