July 1, 1976
Page 21981
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, I want to address the military procurement authorization conference report and express my views on how it relates to the national defense targets Congress established in the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1977. Further; I want the Senate to know what must be done if the Congress is to stay within the defense targets established only last month when the budget resolution was adopted.
The military procurement conference agreement authorizes $32.5 billion in budget authority for fiscal year 1977 which, if fully funded, would result in $24.6 billion in outlays. This amount for budget authority is a $0.7 billion increase to the Senate-passed military procurement authorization bill total of $31.8 billion. The outlay amount is estimated at $0.2 billion below the Senate-passed total of $24.8 billion. This is basically due to the different composition of weapons systems in the conference agreement than was in the Senate bill and a somewhat slower spend out rate associated with the procurement of these items. The conference agreement represents a decrease in the House military procurement authorization bill totals of $0.8 billion in budget authority and $0.1 billion in outlays.
I believe Congress can accept the levels represented in the conference report, particularly in view of the emerging action on the defense appropriation bill which funds these military procurement authorizations. The House has passed its defense appropriation bill which, when conformed to the levels in this authorization bill, provides $32.1 billion in budget authority for military procurement programs. Although the Senate Committee on Appropriations has not reported a defense appropriation bill, its Subcommittee on Defense has reported an appropriation amount to the full committee that is below the House-passed bill.
When the defense appropriation actions are considered in context with the other appropriation measures associated with the national defense function, such as military construction, military assistance, ERDA Defense related activities, and miscellaneous items, it appears that Congress is currently within the first budget resolution targets. Preliminary cost estimates for the national defense function developed by the Senate Budget Committee staff indicate that we are currently at $112 billion in budget authority and $100.3 billion in outlays for the national defense function as a whole. This is $500 million below the first budget resolution targets of $112.5 billion in budget authority and $100.8 billion in outlays.
Let me be quick to point out, however, that these levels I have just cited assume that significant legislative and administrative savings in defense programs will be achieved. The first budget resolution targets for fiscal year 1977 assume implementation either of the administrative and legislative economies of $5.4 billion in budget authority and $4.5 billion in outlays which were proposed by the administration or of other actions that would achieve comparable savings.
Savings of this magnitude are also assumed in the "current status levels" I have just cited. If the Congress fails to enact these proposed economies, offsets elsewhere within the national defense function will be required if we are to stay within the budget resolution targets. Similarly, if the President requests and Congress approves any future budget amendments or supplementals, tradeoffs between high priority and low priority areas will be required to remain within the resolution targets.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHILES) . The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 additional minutes of my time. I believe I have 15 minutes allotted to me.
Let me identify the major items included in the administration's economies package which impact the National Defense function. They are: the pay cap on civilian and military pay, stockpile sales, elimination of the 1 percent kicker for military and CIA retired pay, elimination of dual compensation for Federal workers on reserve duty, phase out of commissary subsidies, reallocation of compensation increases and a revised wage board pay policy. The Senate Committee on Armed Services recommended favorable action on all but one major legislative proposal within its jurisdiction. That proposal is for stockpile sales which could save the government over $0.7 billion during fiscal year 1977. The House Military Procurement Authorization bill did not include favorable action on any of these major legislative proposals.
I received a letter from the chairman of the subcommittee, my good friend from Nevada (Mr. CANNON) indicating that hearings would be held on that proposal.
The conferees on this bill have included two of these proposed savings. They are the 1 percent kicker provision — with the stipulation that it be eliminated only if the same action is taken for all Federal retiree programs — and the reallocation of compensation increases. Elimination of the 1 percent kicker for Civil Service retirees is under the jurisdiction of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. The conferees on this bill and the conferees on the State-USIA authorization bill are taking favorable action on the military, CIA, and foreign service retirement plans. I think it is most appropriate to now do the same with the Civil Service retirement program and urge my distinguished friend from Wyoming (Mr. McGee), to press on in this endeavor.
Two of the other major savings that impact defense spending also come under the jurisdiction of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee. The elimination of dual compensation for Federal workers on reserve duty and a revised wage board pay policy including a wage board pay cap. In its March 15 letter to the Budget Committee in connection with the first budget resolution, the Post Office and Civil Service Committee gave very little hope for favorable action by the committee or the Congress regarding these two items. I think we all realize that these are politically sensitive issues. However, the combination of these two items sums to $0.3 billion savings in fiscal year 1977 and a projected savings of $1.2 billion in fiscal year 1980. If we cannot achieve these savings, my earlier current estimate of $112.0 billion for budget authority and $100.3 billion for outlays for the national defense function would rise to $112.3 billion and $100.6 billion respectively.
The conferees agreed that some provision for the phaseout of the commissary subsidy would be desirable. However, action on this item rests with the Committee on Appropriations. The House-passed defense appropriation bill did not eliminate the commissary subsidy and added $0.1 billion to the President's request as a result. We will not know the Senate position until late July when the Senate defense appropriation bill is reported. The savings amount to $0.1 billion in fiscal year 1977 and over $0.3 billion in fiscal year 1980. I urge mycolleagues on the Appropriations Committee to give favorable consideration to this savings possibility.
Failure to achieve the President's proposed pay gap would not only increase the national defense functional targets, but also the allowances function of the budget which includes the pay raise funds for civilian agencies. The savings in the national defense function alone amount to $0.5 billion. If Congress does not agree with the President's proposal regarding the pay raises due in October, it will be yet another item forcing our defense estimates upward over the congressional targets.
Finally, let us look at the sale of material from the critical and strategic stockpile. Savings of over $0.7 billion may result from receipts from sales if legislative authorization for the sales is approved. This is a very critical savings item. My distinguished colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON) and I have written to our good friend from Nevada (Mr. CANNON) about hearings that he will hold regarding the proposed sales. I cannot overemphasize the need to conduct the hearings as soon as possible. If for some reason these savings are not realized, the $0.7 billion must be added to the national defense targets.
As I have mentioned our current estimate for the national defense function resulting from authorization and appropriation actions is $112 billion in budget authority and $100.3 billion in outlays. The effect of not achieving the various savings possibilities I have discussed would be to increase the current estimate to $113.8 billion in budget authority and $102.1 billion in outlays — well over the national defense targets in the first budget resolution. Is this what the Congress had in mind when it set the budget resolution targets for defense in May? I think not. But if the economies do not get implemented, then we must face this dilemma. Further, we must remember that supplementals will probably be submitted later in the year. These will create additional pressures. I believe we must understand now that without these savings, the Congress and the Executive should be prepared to determine the high and low priority areas within the national defense function so that we can see the tradeoffs involved.
Mr. President, in concluding my remarks, I extend my sincerest appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services (Mr. STENNIS). His task in arriving at a conference agreement with the House was a very difficult one. The Senate bill which we passed was a good bill. I thought the House position was unreasonable. I am aware of the pressure exerted by the House on Senator STENNIS to raise the Senate amounts to the House level amid their insistence that it could be done and still stay within the budget resolution targets. There are many things in the conference agreement with which I personally disagree. I do not need to address them here. I do want to state that Senator STENNIS refuted the House attempts and remained with a position that Congress had mandated targets in the budget resolution, and that he intended to stick by these targets. He is aware of the difficulties confronting us regarding the proposed economies and the resulting effects on the budget if the Congress fails to enact them. I will continue to seek his support in achieving the economies. I have spoken to Senator STENNIS several times regarding the national defense budget targets. I appreciate his dedication to the success of the congressional budget process and his continued support.
I think that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi would like some of my time and I think also the Senator from Oklahoma would.
Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will yield to me just 1 minute. I want to thank the Senator very much for the fine attention he and his associates have given to this bill and the problems inherent in it.
Too, we certainly can doubly assure him that we tried to stay within bounds. We consider it a duty, the primary duty, to have sufficient weaponry, but we certainly will work with the Committee on the Budget. I am going to pay close attention to what the Senator said in the RECORD and it is well that he said it now for future reference.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator want some more time?
Mr. STENNIS. I would appreciate it. I got caught short just a little. But I suggest that the Senator yield to the Senator from Oklahoma first.
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator yield for 3 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes; I yield 3 minutes.