August 2, 1976
Page 24923
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I rise at this point — which seems a logical one — to present the position of the Committee on the Budget on the bill. I am not rising to offer an amendment, I assure my colleagues.
Mr. President, I want to express my views on the significance of the Appropriations Committee's action on the defense appropriation bill and 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 Congress is to stay within the defense targets established in May when the budget resolution was adopted.
First, I extend my congratulations to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLELLAN) for the work he has devoted to this important legislative measure. Senator McCLELLAN and the entire committee membership have worked extremely hard to bring before the Senate a defense appropriation bill that is within the congressionally mandated budget targets.
The bill before us appropriates funds totaling $104 billion in budget authority. This total is $3 billion less than the committee allocation to its Defense Subcommittee as shown on page 27 of the August 2 edition of the Senate Budget Scorekeeping Report. The outlays associated with the budget authority total reported in the bill are $93.7 billion, or an amount $2.5 billion less than the total allocated to the Defense Subcommittee. These outlay figures include outlays of $22.7 billion from prior year authority.
Possible later requirements for Defense Department pay raises, military retired pay, and related items are now estimated to be $1.9 billion in both budget authority and outlays. This would still leave $1.1 billion in budget authority and $0.7 billion in outlays remaining within the Defense Subcommittee allocation.
On page 14 of the same Senate Budget Scorekeeping Report, the potential status of the National Defense function is listed at $111.8 billion in budget authority and $100.8 billion in outlays. The first budget resolution targets are $112.5 billion in budget authority and $100.8 billion in outlays. Thus, our current best estimate — and I emphasize that, our current best estimate — for the national defense function leaves us $0.7 billion in budget authority under the first budget resolution target and puts outlays at the target.
I have a detailed chart depicting the derivation of these figures and I ask unanimous consent that the table be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,as follows:
STATUS OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE FUNCTION
[Fiscal Year 1977 ($ in billions) ]
Budget Authority Outlays
First budget resolution targets for national defense
(function 050) 112.5 100.8
Action to date:
Defense appropriation bill (reported in Senate) 104.0 93.7
Military construction appropriation bill (enacted) 3.3 3.2
Public works appropriation bills — ERDA defense
related items (enacted) 2.0 1.8
Foreign assistance appropriation bill — military
assistance items (reported in Senate) 1.0 1.0
National defense items in other appropriation bills
(enacted) 0.1 0. 1
Amounts enacted in prior years, net (primarily foreign
military sales Trust Fund) 0.5 0.9
Subtotal, action to date 109.9 99.0
Possible Later Requirements (primarily Defense pay
raises and military retired pay requirements) 1.9 1.9
Total action to date, and possible later requirements
as contained in Scorekeeping Report 11.8 100.8
Mr. MUSKIE. Although our estimates place the functional total for budget authority under the budget resolution target and the total for outlays at the target, I do not want my colleagues to be misled by the potential status of the national defense function. There are some very tough decisions ahead in the defense area for the Congress as we determine the ceiling for defense spending for fiscal year 1977 in the second budget resolution in September.
A major uncertainty exists because of the administration's stated intention to resubmit certain budget proposals in the R. & D. and procurement areas — particularly for shipbuilding — which were denied in the military procurement authorization bill. We do not yet know the exact size of these resubmissions or how Congress will react to them; but if enacted, they would be likely to cause both the Defense Subcommittee's allocation and the national defense budget targets to be exceeded — particularly the national defense outlay target.
At this time, I am not speaking for or against a supplemental for more weapon systems, but I want the Senate to be aware that such a supplemental could easily cause our congressional targets to be exceeded, unless we take firm action to prevent that from occurring. In considering any supplemental request, I believe the Senate should state its will regarding the firmness of our budget targets. It does not make sense to this Senator that a congressional budget target should be changed because Congress agrees to additional funding for another weapon system, particularly when the agency involved has a budget of over $112 billion, and their budget has increased by $11.5 billion from their fiscal year 1976 funding level. If the Department of Defense cannot determine program priorities and make necessary cuts within a budget of over $112 billion to stay within the target, then perhaps the Congress will have to do it for them.
Another major uncertainty exists concerning the ultimate disposition of the proposed defense economies assumed in the first budget resolution. I have spoken repeatedly of the need to achieve the economies. The potential status of the national defense function leaves little flexibility in budget authority to make upward adjustments to accommodate those economies we cannot place into effect. We have no flexibility in outlays as they are at target.
The Secretary of Defense has recently asserted that a budget supplemental covering the economies not approved by the Congress will probably be submitted by the administration. The effect of this action would adversely impact the congressional targets for national defense over and above the adverse impact of the potential supplemental for Defense R. & D. and procurement.
If the Congress reacted favorably to this supplemental, our national defense functional targets would very likely be breached, particularly the target for outlays. As stated in the conference report, the first budget resolution assumed enactment of the savings proposed by the President or other savings of like magnitude. I want to make this clear: failure by the Congress to enact the proposed economies will require offsets elsewhere within the national defense function if we are to stay within the congressional targets.
Let me identify the major items included in the 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 retired pay, elimination of dual compensation for Federal workers on reserve duty, phase-out of commissary subsidies, reallocation of compensation increases — which was achieved with passage of the Military Procurement Authorization bill — and a revised wage board pay policy.
I urge the committees of jurisdiction to press on with the remaining major legislative proposals necessary for the Congress to achieve enactment of each of these savings. I believe it is most important that the Congress focus in particular on the 1-percent kicker, the pay cap, and stockpile sales items if we are to have a chance to stay even with the national defense functional targets.
Elimination of the 1-percent kicker for military retired pay is worth $112 million in both budget authority and outlays. It has been approved contingent upon elimination of the kicker for civilian retirees. A House vote on elimination for civilian retirees is scheduled for the week of August 2. It is essential that the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee take up this item as soon as it clears the House.
The cap on civilian and military pay raises is estimated to save $500 million for both budget authority and outlays. We should receive the President's pay proposal in September and will need to give it careful consideration.
My good friend from Nevada (Senator CANNON) has indicated that he intends to conduct hearings on the proposed stockpile sales during August and hopefully will bring stockpile legislation to the floor during September. He is well aware of my concern for the stockpile sales issue, and I would like to reiterate to him the fact that achieving the sales is essential if we are to improve our current budget picture.
Mr. President, in concluding my remarks, I want to again extend congratulations to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. McCLELLAN, and to the entire committee membership for their efforts in producing a bill with funding level with the congressional budget targets for defense. I support the Defense Appropriation bill as reported, but I want my colleagues to fully understand the crucial budget decisions that lie ahead for this body. It is in that spirit and for that purpose that I have made this statement here this morning.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I wish to thank the distinguished Senator for his complimentary references to the work of the Appropriations Committee and its efforts to process this bill within the limitations that have been established by Congress in the first concurrent resolution. It was not easy to do. You have had to make adjustments and to exercise restraint in order to do it. But I do believe we are within our budget limitation as of now. There is no way, the Senator will agree, we can foresee future developments. We will just have to deal with those problems when they arise.
We have done our best to stay within the first concurrent resolution and we are within it as of now. There is some legislation that can be enacted that will relieve the pressure to a great extent if it is enacted, as I understand the Senator's report and statement.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is exactly right.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I add another word of appreciation to the Senator, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and that is a word of commendation for the speed and efficiency with which appropriation bills have been brought to the floor.
As the Senator knows, the Budget Reform Act imposes timetables which all of us find restrictive. But I suspect no one finds it more restrictive than the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
The Senate is well ahead of anything in my experience, with the possible exception of 1960, which was a special case. But other than that it is well ahead of other sessions, anything in my experience, and the challenge is much more difficult this year than it was 15 years ago.
I would like to compliment the Senator for the RECORD and publicly for having adhered to this schedule and made it possible for the Senate to be so close to the end of its work in the appropriations field, at least, if not other matters which are frustrations to the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I am glad to accept that commendation on behalf of all the chairmen of the subcommittees and the other members of the committee because they are the ones who have produced this result, and they are entitled to prime credit for these achievements. They have worked hard, diligently and expeditiously and, by doing so, have achieved a result which is very gratifying to all of us, I am sure.
Mr. MUSKIE. And which many skeptics thought could not be achieved.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Will the Senator please repeat his last statement.
Mr. MUSKIE. Which many skeptics thought could not be achieved.