June 4, 1975
Page 17042
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it seems to me that at this point in the debate on the first of the amendments to reduce S. 920, I have some responsibility as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to try to undertake to identify the budget impact of S. 920 and the pending amendment.
This is the first major annual authorization bill to be considered by the Senate since we adopted the first concurrent resolution on the budget, and so S. 920 represents a test run.
It is not our function as a budget committee to tell the authorizing committees or the Appropriations Committee how to split up the pot, but we are concerned with keeping a running record of the spending decisions taken by Congress, so that we may evaluate their impact down the road on the budget ceiling.
The targets recommended in the statement of the managers for national defense are these: for budget authority, $100.7 billion, and outlays of $90.7 billion. S. 920 clearly represents a significant portion of those amounts.
While the Budget Control Act specifies that beginning next year the concurrent resolution set target totals for each functional category, the resolution will not instruct the authorizing and appropriating committees as to the allocation among individual bills of the amounts contained in a particular functional category. Thus, for example, in the national defense function, the concurrent resolution would not instruct the Armed Services Committee with regard to the amount which should have been included in the military procurement bill or the components of that bill. Nor would it tell the Appropriations Committee how much should be contained in the military construction appropriation, compared to the regular defense appropriation bill. The resolution simply would set an overall target for the national defense function, within which all of these spending decisions should be accommodated as we dispose of individual defense authorization and appropriation bills.
The Budget Act clearly intends that other standing Committees decide which bills to propose for enactment within each functional category, as long as the sum of the spending provided in all these bills does not exceed the functional targets contained in the first resolution.
The budget resolution Congress adopted last month does not itself break down the aggregate Federal spending ceiling into individual spending priority targets. The statement of managers on the budget resolution does contain the spending priority targets upon which the aggregate spending figure contained in the resolution is based. Adherence to these individual spending targets will be necessary to stay within the overall spending ceiling the resolution contains.
The role of the Budget Committee is to assist committees and the full Senate in staying within those targets. We cannot state flatly that a particular bill is "within the resolution" or "outside the
resolution," but we can advise as to the effects of a particular bill in the context of the overall legislative outlook for the function of which it is part. Where the passage of a bill or resolution, compared to other legislation which must be accommodated within the appropriate target, poses a threat to the targets contained in the first resolution, the Budget Committee may be required to recommend opposition to it.
In this connection we must take account of the fact that the House recently approved H.R. 6674, a companion bill to S. 920 which authorizes approximately $1.5 billion more in budget authority and at least $300 million more in outlays than does S. 920. Adoption of the House totals would probably result in a breach of the national defense target, since it is unlikely that in the legislation remaining to be considered in the defense sector, additional cuts can be made to accommodate the higher levels contemplated for procurement in the House bill. Even if only half the difference between S. 920 and its House counterpart is authorized and appropriated, the total for military procurement would pose a serious threat to the budget targets which we recently recommended.
With regard to the national defense function, the first concurrent resolution on the budget assumed cuts from the President's request totaling $7 billion in budget authority and $3.3 billion in outlays. S. 920, as reported to the Senate, is in line with the assumptions of the Budget Committee regarding those elements of the defense program that are covered in this bill. S. 920, as reported, assumes cuts of $5 billion in budget authority and $1.8 billion in outlays from the President's request. For comparable items, the First Concurrent Resolution assumed cuts of $5 billion in budget authority, the same as S. 920, and $2 billion in outlays, which is close to the S. 920 mark. This comparison is based on the assumptions that were made by the Senate Budget Committee and the conference committee. The Senate ought to consider those when it is voting on this and other amendments.
It must be pointed out, however, that there is a strong likelihood of additional requirements in the national defense function over and above the President's request.
For example, the House of Representatives has voted to remove the 5-percent pay cap on DOD military and civilian pay. That involves $1.2 billion in budget authority and $1.2 billion in outlay.
Removal of the 5-percent cap on military retired pay would involve $600 million of budget authority and $600 million of outlay.
Third, if, as a Congress, we should fail to enact legislation to continue the sale of commodities from the strategic stockpile – and the effect of that would be to reduce receipts that are deducted from budget authority outlays – if we were to fail to enact that legislation, which the President has requested and has assumed in his budget, then the effect would be to add $400 million in budget authority and $400 million in outlays to the President's budget estimates.
Then, the final item is this:
The President proposed legislation to authorize petroleum sales from the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve. The effect of that, if we do not get the full impact in the 1976 fiscal year, would be to reduce receipts that are deducted from budget authority and outlays, the same way as the sale of commodities from the strategic stockpile. That legislation is pending in two committees, as I understand it. The form of the legislation, as it may finally pass is unclear, so the budget impact is unclear.
We think that, responsibly, we ought to consider the possibility of $200 million being added to both budget authority and outlays this year.
All of those items – four of them in total – total $2.4 billion in budget authority and $2.4 billion in outlays.
The details are as follows:
ADDITIONAL NATIONAL DEFENSE REQUIREMENTS (FISCAL YEAR 1976)
[in billions of dollars]
Budget
authority Outlays
Removal of 5 percent cap on DOD military and civilian pay 1.2 1.2
Removal of 5 percent cap on military retired pay .6 .6
Failure to enact legislation to continue the sale of
commodities from the strategic stockpile (reduces
receipts that are deducted from budget authority and outlays) .4 .4
Delay in enactment of legislation to authorize petroleum
sales from the Elk Hills naval petroleum reserve (reduces
receipts that are deducted from budget authority and outlays) . 2 .2
Total 2.4 2.4
If these additional requirements materialize, the overall reduction in the national defense function that would be required to arrive at the First Concurrent Resolution target is $9.4 billion in budget authority and $5.7 billion in outlays.
As I have already mentioned, S. 920 as reported provides cuts of $5 billion in budget authority and $1.8 billion in outlays from the President's request. If the additional requirements I have described materialize, that leaves us with a need for further cuts of $4.4 billion in budget authority and $3.9 billion in outlays elsewhere in the defense program if we are to stay within the national defense targets accompanying the first concurrent resolution on the budget. As we consider S. 920, we must also consider the possibilities for arriving at these further cuts. Mr. President, I have prepared a list of possible additional cuts that might be considered by the Senate. I am not prejudging their cuts, but will simply try to itemize the areas where we will have to look for further cuts in the national defense function in areas other than those covered by S. 920. Cutting will not be easy and the following is only illustrative of the kinds of cuts we will have to consider. I will not list items that I believe are impossible to attain such as holding the 5-percent cap on military retired pay and accelerating the sale of petroleum from the Elk Hills
Reserve. Here are some examples of the realistic options:
POSSIBILITIES FOR FURTHER REDUCTION IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNCTION (FISCAL YEAR 1976)
(In billions of dollars}
Possible savings
Budget
authority Outlays
Retain the 5 percent cap on DOD military and civilian pay,
as requested by the President 1.2 1.2
Enact legislation, as requested by the President, to continue the sale of
commodities from the strategic stockpile .4 .4
Defense appropriations bill – cut below the President's request in
several areas 4.3+ 2 8+
Cut the operations and maintenance funds other than pay
(funds for maintenance of real property, ship repairs and
overhauls, office supplies, fuel, minor construction projects
and other housekeeping items) (1.5) (1. 1)
Reduce procurement other than that authorized in S. 920
(trucks, automobiles, other non-combat equipment) (1.0) (.2)
Financial adjustments such as: Transfer unobligated balances
of prior year budget authority to fiscal year 1976 (.5) (.2)
increase receipts from sales of excess military equipment
and foreign military sales (reduces budget authority
and outlays) (.5) (.5)
Reduce stock fund cash balances as a result of reduced
war reserve procurement (.5) (.5)
Reductions in special pay allowances and travel funds
for military personnel (.3) (.3)
Further cuts in personnel over and above those recommended
by the President and S. 920 (fiscal year 1976 savings of
$100,000,000 per 20,000 jobs) 7 7
Cut military construction authorization and appropriations
(funds for new facilities at military bases) .2 .1
Cut military assistance and foreign military sales .7 .5
Cut out military assistance for Cambodia (.4) (.3)
Maintain fiscal year 1975 level for foreign military sales (.3) (.2)
These options add up to $6.8 billion in authority and $5 billion in outlays plus whatever amounts might be saved from the unpriced options such as further personnel cuts.
These options, if we exercise them, give us enough latitude to cover the remaining cuts of $4.4 billion in authority and $3.9 billion in outlays if S. 920 is passed as reported.
As the Senate considers S. 920, I believe each Member must consider these or other possible cut options carefully, for we are certain to be faced with difficult choices later on if we are to stay within the first concurrent resolution target.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield 2 extra minutes to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I view these options, I come to this conclusion: it seems unlikely to me that the 5-percent cap on DOD military and civilian pay will be retained. I recognize that the conference report states that the totals are sufficient to permit removal of the pay cap if Congress so decides, but this means that most of the other options I have outlined have to be exercised.
So, to me, therefore, as one Senator, prudence dictates that I vote to cut S. 920 below the level reported. In addition, I intend, as an individual Senator, to vote for cuts in some of the weapons systems.
Because of the lack of specificity in the Symington amendment, I am concerned that the impact of that amendment may fall on shipbuilding, manpower, or other high priority programs.
I prefer, therefore, to focus whatever decisions I make to cut on more specific programs. So, I intend to vote against the Symington amendment for this reason, although I intend to vote for other specific cuts that are consistent with a sound defense policy.
May I say this to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi that as the Committee on the Budget considers these matters more thoroughly – and I think we will be establishing a task force on defense matters – in the coming months, we hope to be able to identify more specifically and selectively areas of low priority or waste.
Finally, Mr. President, we ought not to overlook the fact that the Committee on the Budget already has recommended and Congress approved in the first concurrent resolution substantial cuts in both budget authority and in outlays of the defense function.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, If the Senator will yield for a question, as I understand the situation that exists now, this Senate bill, as presented to the Senate by the Committee on Armed Services, comes within the guidelines of the Senator's resolution of the new budget of the Committee on the Budget; is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct, if one puts aside the four other items that I have described.
Mr. STENNIS. These items, the Senator has mentioned, are about what Congress may do in the future. The Senator made the same assumption when he presented his figures in the committee. The Senator took facts as they were, rather than what they may be after the Congress has acted.
Mr. MUSKIE. In the committee we assumed nothing with respect to these four items. In the conference we assumed that pay caps could be lifted, but we did not consider, I do not think, the other two items.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator took those facts as to those items as they were then.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, that is right.
Mr. STENNIS. That is what we are going to do here, if I may say so.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. There is no way for us to reach a decision, I take it, on those four items in connection with this pending bill.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SYMINGTON and Mr. McCLELLAN addressed the Chair.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will yield the time if I have time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine, which consisted of 2 additional minutes, has expired.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, does the Senator from Missouri wish to yield him a minute to ask questions?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I yielded some of my time to the Senator from Georgia (Mr. NUNN). If the Senator wants to yield his time he may.
Mr. KENNEDY. What is the time remaining?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield a couple minutes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I would like a couple minutes.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield a few minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 24 minutes remaining.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Did the Committee on the Budget get into the procurement questions in any detail which we are discussing today?
Mr. MUSKIE. No, we did not.
May I say to the Senator that we did not feel we ought to supersede the responsibilities of the authorizing committees in that kind of detail. So, as to S. 920 I think this is an appropriate debate that has been conducted, and the Senate now has to make those decisions.
I simply want to make sure that when the Senators vote on this they understand that down the road there appear to be four likely legislative decisions that are going to put pressure on the defense budget, and they ought to take those into account. If they do, that may well move them in the direction of the Senator's amendment. But I think those pressures ought to be understood so that we will not be asked the question down the line: "Senator, why did you not warn us that these were coming and what their budgetary effect might be?"
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Senator, and I thank the Senator from Mississippi.