May 26, 1976
Page 15616
Mr. STENNIS. First, I want to thank the Senator from Maine, the chairman of our Budget Committee, for his very fine words and for his fine work, and that of the other members of the committee.
In the first place, I have learned by experience that you have to go, and should go, to a conference meeting with fellow Members of Congress from the House with very high purposes, staying as near as you can with our own Chamber's bill, but recognizing that they, too, have the same high purpose.
I do not want to say or do anything that would reflect any attitude that I had any other purpose except to meet in conference for a real conference.
However, looking at these problems that we do have, I said when we reported the present bill, Mr. President, there would have to be negotiations in the conference, and that parts of the bill would necessarily be rewritten to some degree, and those are just the practical facts of life.
I appreciate the Senator's reference to the economies that our committee has tried to start in motion, that did not pertain to hardware, and I do not think any of those are included in the House bill.
There are other matters, such as new ships, where there is great variance in the two bills and also what I call the old money there which pertains to existing contracts for ships. But I have always found the House conferees willing to get down, knuckle down, to the problem, and we have been able to come back with bills that are generally satisfactory.
The fine work that our Budget Committee does underscores and emphasizes the difference that the House conferees are under as compared to the Senate conferees.
We have a valuable member of our committee, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. NUNN), who is also a member of the Budget Committee, where he also carries responsibilities, and I hope he will comment upon that difference and just bring it out in the open here as to what we are up against.
I pass on there to this point: I want to read the Senator from Maine's remarks very carefully. I admire lots of things he is doing and his overall purposes. I admire all of them, and before this debate closes — before we go into the recess — I hope I will be able to make some more remarks on this subject matter. But the time is short now. We have the Senator from New Hampshire here, and the Senator from Georgia who seeks a word, and I hope he will say a word now and then we will get the Senator from New Hampshire to come in.
Mr. NUNN. I want to say to both my committee chairmen, the Senator from Maine, the chairman of the Budget Committee, and the Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that you two leaders have done an outstanding job in trying to reconcile the need for national security and a strong national defense with the overall need for a disciplined budget process.
I know the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Maine have discussed it but, unfortunately, what is evolving in this budget process, as I see it, particularly as it relates to the Armed Services Committee, is the fact that the Senate Budget Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full Senate are doing a very responsible, conscientious, dedicated job of trying to truly abide by the budget ceilings, and succeeding on the Senate side.
On the House side, as the Senator from Maine well knows, the Budget Committee has taken the position that they are not concerned about the authorization bill passed by the House Armed Services Committee.
When we combine those things and see, as the Senator from Maine already pointed out, that the House, if we compare it to the budget resolution, is $1.7 billion in budget authority above the budget target, or somewhere in that approximate neighborhood, while the Senate is, at this point. $565 million below the budget target in budget authority. When we combine the fact that we are going to have to go to conference with the fact that the House Budget Committee did not in any way challenge the military authorization bill, it puts not only the Senate Armed Services Committee but also the Senate Budget Committee into an irreconcilable position.
I think the budget process is in great danger of becoming a one-legged monster unless the House intends to really go by the process and intends to take it seriously.
It is obvious to the Senator from Georgia that at this point the House Budget. Committee, based on their lack of actions on the House Armed Services Committee bill, has not taken the budget process seriously and has thereby placed the Senate Budget Committee and the Armed Services Committee in the Senate on inevitable confrontation when we come back from conference. Not only is there a tremendous gap in the amounts authorized in the two bills between the House and the Senate but also there is a large difference in the crucial area of pay restraints.
The Armed Services Committee has gone beyond what the President asked for in pay restraints by about $100 million. Yet not a single one of those pay restraints is in the House hill.
So unless the Senate conferees are able to go into the conference and get all the pay restraints agreed to by the House conferees and compromise on the total amounts authorized somewhere about three-quarters in the direction of the Senate and one-quarter in the direction of the House, then the confrontation is inevitable and is not the fault of either committee but in my opinion, . the fault of the failure of the Budget process to be taken seriously by the House Budget Committee and by the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. I may say, If the Senator will yield, with respect to the House Budget Committee and the House budget process, that the Budget Committee on the House side does face in many respects a different, if not more difficult, problem than we do on the Senate side.
For example, within our Budget Committee, as the Senator well knows, we are able to reach an agreement across party lines often in respect to major issues, to be able to come to the floor with that kind of bipartisan support on critical issues, not all, is a very important plus for us.
Second, the House Budget Committee has had a different kind of problem on the House floor in order to get the votes for the budget resolution.
Finally, the House Budget Committee must have support, not only of those who are for a strong defense, who are very articulate, very vigorous and very effective on the House side, but also the support of those more liberal members within our party on the House side who feel that defense spending is too high and social spending too low.
So that in producing its budget resolution, the House Budget Committee must accommodate both those points of view to a greater extent, perhaps, than we must sensitize the Senate in order to get it for the budget resolution.
At the same time, on the authorizing committee side, that is with respect to the Committee on Armed Services on the House side, a lot of this legislation, of course, originates there and it is a little more difficult for the House Budget Committee to work closely with the Armed Services Committee staff on the House side, to sort of work to get in the evolution of the authorization bill, than it is on our side.
We have found, I think, our staff relationships very good, if I may ask the Senator from Mississippi. So we are able to work very closely in the development of the authorization bill and, to a greater extent, than Congressman BROCK ADAMS, chairman of the House Budget Committee, finds it possible to do on the House side.
So there are some differences. The net result of it is, just as my two good friends from Mississippi and Georgia pointed out, that they are put in the squeeze.
I guess that is the nature of the budget process, that if it is to work, a lot of us are going to be put into the squeeze from time to time.
I am simply indicating my desire to cooperate in that respect.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator from New Hampshire yield for just 1 more minute?
The Senator from Georgia agrees with everything the Senator from Maine has said except the point that we are put in a squeeze. The way I see the situation, we are not put in a squeeze, we are put in an impossible situation, unless we presume the Senate conferees can go to conference and come back with everything virtually like it is in the Senate bill, and if that happens there would be no conference.
So I do not believe it is going to be possible to reconcile these differences on the Senate side.
I would submit, in spite of the difficulties I know Chairman Adams is having with the House budget situation, and in spite of the great effort he has made over there, there is not really much sense getting a budget resolution through and putting together a coalition of votes that would get that resolution through if, after it is put through, the House Budget Committee is then going to ignore the budget resolution, and that is exactly what they have done in terms of the military authorization bill.
So a budget resolution, per se, means nothing unless the House is willing to have some discipline in abiding by it.
As the Senator from Maine knows, the Senator from Georgia is a very strong proponent of the budget process and wants to do everything he can to see that it works. But I believe we are about to reach a situation where the budget process itself is in danger unless the House is able to build a coalition that really supports the procedures, and it is obvious that so far they have not.
Mr. STENNIS. Will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I make two points in response to that?
Mr. STENNIS. I feel we are obligated to the Senator from New Hampshire has waited again. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Just two very brief points.
One, last year, we faced a similar situation and we were able to resolve it. This one may be more or less difficult. I am not sure. But we faced a similar one. Second, there are two ways in which
the process can fail. One is the one proposed by the distinguished Senator from Georgia. The other is for both Houses to fold on the budget process.
To say in the Senate that because the House is lax we are going to be lax is another way to undermine the budget process.
So that if we have the capacity on this side to be more effective or strong or stern about the process, then I think we have some obligation to press that.
At some point, we are going to come to those crunches, and I understand that. I do not want to try to anticipate every crunch or what the answer will be and I do not want to back off. I am sure the Senator from Georgia agrees with me on that point.
Mr. NUNN. I do agree with that point. I think the Senator has done a tremendous job, not only guiding that budget effort, but also making it very apparent as far as the Senate is concerned that it is going to work.
I think we ought to continue that policy. I hope the Senate Budget Committee will be just as tough in the negotiations with the House Budget Committee as the Senate Budget Committee presumes that the Senate Armed Services Committee is going to be with the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. McINTYRE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BUMPERS). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research and Development of the Committee on Armed Services, a position which I have been privileged to hold since February 1969, I would like to speak in support of the Committee recommendations on H.R. 12438, the Military Procurement Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1977.
But before doing that, Mr. President, I compliment my neighbor and good friend from the State of Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) on the very hard work that he is putting in on the Budget Committee.
I was very pleased and interested to hear the remarks of the Senator from Maine and his compliments to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee (Mr. STENNIS). The chairman, of the Armed Services Committee has been very aware of the Budget Committee's work and we have been reminded of it several times during our hearings.
As far as I am concerned, and the members of the Armed Services Committee, we are trying very hard to work on this important area of the budget which must be successful.
I might say to the Senator from Maine, it squeezes everybody as we try to go forward with the budget process. The Subcommittee on Research and Development normally is not in a position,
Mr. President, to take a hard look at the budget recommendations of the administration or the Defense Department until well into February. At that time, we get what we call the backup statements, the rationale, the reasons why the Department of Defense feels that certain areas need to be explored. Mr. President, the date of April 15 is when we receive a tentative figure, followed by a firm figure on May 15. This puts a stress on the committee to take a hard look at the $11 billion to be spent on research and development. It also behooves the Senator from New Hampshire, as we move into the next fiscal year, to find some other mode or method of hearings by which we can cover at least 10 or 15 percent of that request. We cannot do it, I believe, Mr. President, by the formal hearings. That will be the problem of the subcommittee.
Before addressing the research and development part of the bill, there are some general observations which I would like to make.
During the 7-year period of my chairmanship, and beginning with the request for fiscal year 1970, the subcommittee recommended reductions totaling $3.9 billion through fiscal year 1976 and the 3-month transition period. It is significant, Mr. President, that most of this reduction was approved by the Armed Services Committee, the Senate, and the Congress.
The reductions which we have recommended always have been based upon the most thorough review and analysis of program details, and confirmed by a wide range of formal hearings and informal discussions with Defense officials. These reductions have been specific rather than arbitrary, and the passage of time has proven that they were not detrimental in any way to the ability of the Department of Defense to develop advanced weapon systems for our combat forces.
It is with firm conviction that I can report that these reductions of some $4 billion have constituted real savings,to the American taxpayer.
Mr. President, this is a year of messages. In this year of Presidential election and Bicentennial celebration, the flow of political messages boggles the mind. However, this profuse torrent of words, echoed, reechoed, embellished, and interpreted by the news media, is an essential ingredient in our great democracy. Other nations of different calling, especially those with monolithic types of government, simply cannot fathom our freewheeling and often vitriolic public debates and provocative contradictory statements of politicians. Little do they realize that these are healthy manifestations of a political system which has made us the greatest and most powerful country in the entire history of the world.
And this brings me to the subject of my speech — to insure that we guarantee to our children and the generations which follow the same freedom of expression, security and greatness that we have been privileged to share in our own lifetime. And the only certain guarantee of our freedom is the certainty of our ability to defend ourselves against all enemies.
The research and development program which we are recommending for fiscal year 1977 is designed to provide for the support of a wide array of major new weapons systems, major sub-system developments which are the building blocks that are put together to create the most advanced new weaponry, and a broad spectrum of technology to insure that we will lead our potential enemies with modern weapons during the remainder of this century.
The committee has made these objectives credible and attainable by recommending the largest amount ever authorized for the R.D.T. & E. appropriations. Based upon my own observations and experience, the $10.5 billion which this bill provides is entirely adequate to the requirements of the Department of Defense and the Nation. It will not permit the Soviets to gain any future technological advantage which could threaten the security of the United States, if these funds are wisely and scrupulously administered consistent with the guidance and intent of the Congress.
Let us now examine the budget request as submitted by the Department of Defense. The initial request for R. & D. totaled $10.9 billion, an increase of $1.4 billion or 12.8 percent above the amount authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 1976. This, too, was the largest amount ever requested for R. & D., but it is requested to keep pace with inflation. Therefore, only $736 million represented real program growth.
During the committee markup of the bill, the Department submitted a budget amendment which included $200 million for Navy Research and Development involving V/STOL aircraft and advanced missiles to accelerate or initiate a series of programs designed to advance our capability to control the sea lines of communication. Although the committee is sympathetic with these requirements, the request was received too late to enable the committee to obtain and review the program details and submit recommendations to the Senate. The budget amendment therefore was deferred without prejudice. This means that the Department may submit a proposed supplemental for these items immediately after final congressional action is taken on the pending bill, if the items are still required.
Without considering the $200 million add-on, which the House did not act on because it was submitted after they had acted on the bill, the Committee recommendation of $10.5 billion is $380.7 million or 3.6 percent lower than the original amount requested. It provides $117.5 million more than was approved by the House and is the smallest percentage reduction ever recommended for Research and Development by this committee.
Setting aside the $200 million budget amendment, the committee recommendation consists of decreases totaling $424.3 million which are partially offset by increases totaling $43.6 million. In terms of real program growth, the committee recommendation provides for an increase of $356 million or 3.2 percent over fiscal year1976.
Mr. President, I am pleased to report that for the first time in a number of years, the recommendations of the subcommittee had the unanimous support of all five members. This is even more remarkable when you consider the wide diversity of views represented by the membership. On the Democratic side, we have the junior Senator from Iowa (Mr. CULVER) and the junior Senator from Vermont (Mr. LEAHY) . On the Republican side, we have the senior Senator from. Ohio (Mr. TAFT), and the senior Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER).
It also is a credit to the excellent staff of the subcommittee and to the personal staff of the subcommittee members, that they were able to do so thorough a job within a limited period of time in reviewing the mountain of testimony and detailed justification material, and providing meaningful recommendations and summations as the basis for subcommittee deliberations and decisions.
I must pay a special compliment to my good friend, Senator CULVER, who, together with the junior Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BARTLETT) reviewed the Department of Defense Army tank program and submitted separate recommendations to the committee. I must also recognize the hard work of my good neighbor from Vermont, Senator LEAHY, who did an outstanding job of reviewing the total airlift program of the Defense Department. My esteemed colleague, Senator TAFT, concentrated on the Navy ship program and made a significant contribution to the subcommittee deliberations on ship research and development. And I must recognize the special task performed by my good friend, Senator GOLDWATER, who conducted a comprehensive hearing on the Department of Defense training simulator program.
The subcommittee conducted 26 hearings between February 5 and April 6, 1976, which included appearances of all of the officials of the Department of Defense with primary responsibility for the research and development program. These included the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, the three service Assistant Secretaries for Research and Development, and their military counterparts.
Let me now report on the major actions recommended by the subcommittee.
First. Reduction of $62.7 million from the $182.5 million requested for the Navy sea-launched cruise missile program. This decrease applies to the alternative variant but approves the full request for the tactical missile to support initiation of fullscale engineering development. The additional $15.3 million included in the Navy budget amendment is deferred without prejudice.
Second. Reduction of $32.4 million from the $84 million requested for the Air Force advanced ICBM program called the MX. This will delay the start of fullscale development beyond fiscal year1978 pending completion of a study by the Defense Department to demonstrate the need.
Third. Reduction of $25.4 million from the $311.4 million requested for the Army ballistic missile defense programs. This will maintain an ongoing level of effort consistent with prior congressional guidance.
Fourth. Deletion of $3 million requested to start development of the Navy Trident II missile as being premature because of technical problems still to be solved on the Trident I missile.
Fifth. Reduction of $7.3 million from the $29.8 million requested for the Navy Seafarer extremely low frequency communication system to delay full scale engineering development until fiscal year 1978.
Sixth. Reduction of $9.5 million from the $83.2 million requested for the Navy LAMPS ASW helicopter program because of a delay in schedule.
Seventh. Approval of the full $85 million requested for the Army Roland short range air defense system which is being adapted from a joint French-German development.
Eighth. Approval of the $180 million requested to support full scale engineering development of the Army surface-to-air missile system, SAMD.
The subcommittee recommended increases for four programs, above the amount requested, and this was adopted by the full committee:
First, $10 million was added for a new program under the control of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to be used to evaluate new foreign weapons for possible adoption by U.S. forces. This could save hundreds of millions of dollars and valuable time if we found a weapon that could be used, because we would not have to invest in a brand new development.
Second, $4 million was added to the $1 million requested in order to accelerate development of. the Army area fire support rocket system. This capability is needed as early as possible to neutralize and suppress enemy artillery and air defenses.
Third, $8 million was added to enable the Navy to accelerate development and introduction into the fleet of the tactical towed array sonar system. This makes a total of $22.3 million available for this important antisubmarine warfare program.
Fourth, $200,000 was added to be used by the Department of Defense to conduct contractual studies relating to operational employment of weapon systems. These studies will cover concepts of tactical operations as they relate to weapon systems, an area which the committee feels has not been adequately examined.
The subcommittee examined the research and development proposal for the B-1 strategic bomber program and recommended approval of the $482.7 million requested. The committee adopted this recommendation, and after considering the separate proposal for procurement, including the first three production aircraft, also recommends the full amount of $1,049,500,000 requested.
During the past year, joint hearings were held on independent research and development — I. R. & D. — by the Research and Development Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Priorities and Economy in Government of the Joint Economics Committee led by its chairman, my good friend, Senator PROXMIRE.
The proceedings were published and cover the period from September 17 through 29, 1975. The hearings were very informative and resulted in a series of additional questions which were addressed to the Department of Defense. The General Accounting Office was requested to participate and comment on the reply. The requested information has been received only recently and is being considered by the respective staffs of the two subcommittees. Therefore, the subject of I.R. & D. has not been addressed as part of the action on the pending bill. It will, however, be addressed at a later time depending upon the findings and recommendations of the staff.
I would like to take a moment, Mr. President, to compliment Dr. Malcolm R. Currie, Director of Defense Research and Engineering who has done an outstanding job of managing the defense research and development program. He has demonstrated great courage in trimming the Defense R. & D. organization by some 6,000 jobs over a 3-year period while at the same time diverting a larger share of R. & D. funds to the private sector where most of our innovative ideas originate. This action promises to increase the efficiency of Defense in-house organizations while encouraging industry, institutions and universities to make greater contributions to national defense needs.
Dr. Currie has bolstered defense advanced technology by proposing a 5-year plan to increase the level of basic research and exploratory development in annual increments, above inflation, of 10 percent and 5 percent respectively. I am pleased to report that the Committee is solidly behind this plan and has recommended essentially all of the funds requested for these programs.
The Department of Defense is making noticeable progress in demonstrating that cooperative research and development and standardization of weapon systems with our allies can be successful. There have been some hard lessons learned in adapting the European developed Roland system for manufacture by U.S. industry. Neither the magnitude nor the complexity of this task was adequately anticipated, with the result that the total development cost has increased. But these lessons have proven the practicability of such a conversion, and will provide important guidelines for future cooperative efforts. Despite the increase in cost, the Army estimates that the United States will save more than $250 million by avoiding the full cost of developing a completely new system of equal capability.
Extending this cooperative attitude to standardization of weapons, munitions, and other logistic support of NATO forces in Europe will dramatically improve their combat efficiency and promises annual savings estimated to exceed $10 billion.
The committee again has demonstrated its full support of standardization by adopting a revision to section 814 of last year's bill which would make it the policy of the United States rather than the sense of the Congress. I urge your strong support of this provision in the bill.
In summary, Mr. President, the amount recommended for Research and Development is consistent with the general concern already apparent in the Senate and the House, and in the minds of our people insofar as I have been able to determine, that we must continue to be vigilant and well prepared while we continue to seek to reduce world tensions. While we all hope for a successful SALT II agreement, and progress in Mutual Balanced Force Reductions, we must provide insurance against failure. And such insurance requires a strong R. & D. program which will provide the modern advanced weapons essential to the defense of our freedom.
I am convinced that the research and development authorization recommended by the committee will provide this insurance and urge my colleagues to giveit their full support.
As always, Mr. President, I must add my compliments for the work and dedication of our chairman, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, for his fairness as he operates and runs the committee, and particularly for his leadership and his acumen as he cuts through the difficult problems.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I first want to underscore a very strong word of thanks to the Senator from New Hampshire and the members of his subcommittee. They have done an amazing job. Here are more than $10 billion worth of items which they combed through, with outstanding hearings, and came out with recommendations that are unanimous in the subcommittee, unanimously agreed to before the full committee, and so far there has not been any attack made on any of their deductions on the floor of the Senate, by way of amendments or even of comments. It has been an amazing thing to see them able and willing to render such a great service. These programs are the very vitals of our military program 10, 15, and 20 years from now, which underscores the importance of their work.
I especially want to thank the Senator from New Hampshire, and I am sure others may wish to add their words of commendation.
Mr. McINTYRE. I thank my chairman.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, first of all, long before the establishment of the Budget Committee or the new budget process, my friend from New Hampshire was proceeding with typical New England prudence with respect to the expenditure of tax funds for this vital function. I appreciated that long before I was chairman of the Budget Committee. His tendency to do so is of vital importance for the budgeting process as well, so I compliment him on that.
But I would also like to make a second point, a very difficult one, which faces all of us, not only with respect to the defense function, but with respect to all the other functions of the budget. It may be more acute, even with respect to the defense function. That is, how do we gear the process of creativity with the process of anticipating future needs in such a way that funds can be taken into consideration in the development of the congressional budget?
Two years running now, the administration has submitted to Congress additional requests for major additions to the shipbuilding program after the budget process has been completed in the Congress, and asked us somehow to find a way to squeeze these additions into the congressional budget resolution. This is a problem that has confronted the distinguished Senator from Mississippi two years running. It is almost as though the people downtown are unaware that we have a budget process here that must be accommodated.
For the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire to properly give consideration to new R & D additions, those ought to be brought to his attention early enough in the legislative schedule of the Senate and of Congress as a whole so that he and his committee can give the benefit of their judgment to the full Committee on Armed Services and to the Budget Committee, so that we can take it into account when we set the overall functional ceilings.
I must say we have had something substantially less than full cooperation from the administration in that connection. We have similar problems in the social services area as a result of new developments in education and new developments in health. New ideas are not limited by a budget schedule or a legislative schedule. They can emerge at almost any time. We have a similar problem arising in the security assistance bill which will probably be before us some time this week, in which my good friend from Alabama is keenly interested. We are asked to absorb them in the budget process before we have had an opportunity to give either of those propositions the same kind of consideration they have in the Executive Branch before they are brought here.
We have tried to put some pressure on by setting May 15 as the deadline for the reporting of new authorization bills to the Senate and House Chambers. But even so, and I daresay that when it is reported out in skeletal form on May 14 in effect, it violates that deadline because we still must occupy time after May 15 for the deliberative process to take effect, and then we still have the challenge as to how we absorb it in the budget ceilings which we have adopted on May 15.
I make this point at this time because I think the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, with the excellent work which he and his subcommittee have done in the military priority field, is faced particularly with this kind of problem in the work that they do, and I compliment him for what he has done over these several years of hard labor to which his committee has been assigned.
Mr. McINTYRE. I thank my good friend from Maine. I only add that I hope he realizes, as the Senator from Maine tries to make this budget process work, we are trying to cooperate down at the subcommittee level. It becomes very difficult. His suggestion to endeavor to have the administration inform us earlier, with a full backup, is a good one, and we will try it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.