May 26, 1976
Page 15609
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this seems an appropriate moment in the discussion of the pending legislation for me to present the significance of the action of the Committee on Armed Services on the military procurement authorization bill and how it relates to the national defense targets that Congress established in the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1977.
First, I extend my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), for the work he has devoted to this important legislative measure. Senator STENNIS and the entire committee membership have labored hard and long to carry out the Senate's mandate for national defense embodied in the budget resolution adopted by Congress on May 12, 1976. In a year when defense spending requests have increased substantially, I salute the Senator's diligence in bringing before the Senate a defense authorization bill that is within the congressionally approved budget targets.
Mr. President, the bill before us authorizes military procurement and R. & D. funding of approximately $31.9 billion in budget authority. In addition, this bill sets Defense manpower levels which imply funding of approximately $35 billion in budget authority. Together, these two amounts represent about 60 percent of the national defense function.
The $31.9 billion for procurement and R. & D. is $2.3 billion less than the $34.2 billion Presidential budget request as revised by the Minuteman III missile and shipbuilding budget amendments. Preliminary fiscal year 1977 outlay estimates associated with the authorization are roughly $9.5 to $9.7 billion. These outlays, combined with outlays from prior year budget authority, total to an amount over $24.8 billion for fiscal year 1977, approximately $550 million less than the estimated revised Presidential outlays of $25.4 billion.
In addition to the procurement and R. & D. authorizations, the bill reduces active duty military personnel and civilian personnel levels and increases military reserve strength. The costs for these recommended manpower levels will be provided during the appropriations process.
However, preliminary estimates for these personnel actions indicate that they will result in savings of at least $200 million below the President's budget request; these savings would be in both budget authority and outlays.
Mr. President, before proceeding to my specific concerns on the details of the military procurement authorization bill and the upcoming conference of the Armed Services Committees, I would like to provide my colleagues with the initial Senate Budget Committee estimates on the relationship of the Armed Services' actions to the national defense functional target established by the first budget resolution. The Committee on Armed Services reviewed a large segment of a Presidential budget request of $114.8 billion in budget authority and $101.4 billion in outlays. The result of the committee's actions on the military procurement authorization bill and the military construction authorization bill provides the following approximate totals.
I ask unanimous consent that a chart displaying the figures be inserted at this point in the RECORD :
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Comparison of Committee on Armed Services authorizations with national defense functional targets in 1st concurrent resolution
[In billions of dollars]
Budget authority Outlays
A. Presidential budget request for national defense 113.3 101.1
Budget amendments 1.5 0.8
Total request for national defense 114.8 101.4
B. First concurrent resolution targets for national defense 112.5 100.8
C. National defense total resulting from armed
services action:
Procurement authorization below procurement request 2. 3 0. 6
Estimated personnel reductions below request 0.2 0.2
Military construction authorization below military construction
request 0. 1 (1)
Total reductions 2.5 0.7
Total for national defense function 112.3 100.7
The Armed Services' action addresses only the Procurement Authorization and Military Construction Authorization bills. The figures shown for the total for National Defense Function Resulting from Armed Services Action reflect a functional total assuming acceptance of Presidential levels for the function minus Armed Services' reductions in the Procurement and Military Construction Authorizations. These estimates are preliminary and subject to modification.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Armed Services Committee's action, Mr. President, addresses only the procurement authorization and military construction authorization bill. The figures shown in the chart for the total national defense function resulting from armed services action reflect a functional total assuming acceptance of Presidential levels for the functions minus armed services reductions in the procurement and military construction authorization. These estimates are, of course, preliminary and subject to modification.
I have provided an overview of the military procurement authorization bill as it compares with the first budget resolution targets. I now want to address the problems that lie ahead when this bill leaves the Senate for conference, and how these problems impact on the targets this body has set for the National Defense function.
First, there are the built in pressures incorporated in the national defense targets. I am referring to the President's proposed economies amounting to $5.4 billion in budget authority and $4.5 billion in outlays. Will Congress enact the necessary legislation required to save a portion of the economies?
The following is a quote from the Senate report accompanying Senate Concurrent Resolution 109, the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1977. The resolution "assumes 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. Failure to achieve the economies would require reductions elsewhere in the defense budget to stay within the target." The intent of this language was repeated in the conference report on the budget resolution as follows: The resolution "assumes implementation of the legislative and administrative economies proposed by the administration or other savings necessary to remain within these — national defense — targets." This means — and I want to make this clear — that failure by the Congress to enact the proposed economies will require offsets elsewhere within the national defense function to stay within the 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 for budget authority and outlays.
Simply stated, the resolution adopted by the Senate for national defense depends on implementation of these economies. Many of the economies require legislation and are not politically popular issues, particularly during an election year. They include the stockpile sales, elimination of the 1-percent kicker for retired pay, elimination of dual compensation for Federal workers on reserve duty, phase out of commissary subsidies, a fair market rental policy, revised wage board pay policy, limited reductions in selected aspects of Reserve and Guard pay, and reduced cadet pay. In addition to these legislative proposals, the administration has proposed savings in the Federal pay and compensation category and other management efficiencies. The most significant of these items are the pay cap and the change in methodology for determining pay comparability.
To the credit of Senator STENNIS, the Committee on Armed Services is recommending favorable action on all but one major legislative proposal within its jurisdiction.
The remaining major proposal is for stockpile sales, saving the Government over $700 million. It is my understanding that my distinguished friend from Nevada (Mr. CANNON), intends to conduct hearings on the proposed sales soon. I urge my colleague to press on. The legislation to allow the sales is essential, and he has the support of the Budget Committee in this endeavor.
Whether we can realize all of these economies is up to the Senate as a whole. I urge that we follow through on the impetus provided by the Budget and Armed Services Committees and enact all of these economies. It is particularly essential that all committees having jurisdiction on the relevant legislation act favorable on these matters because the House-passed version of the procurement authorization does not provide for implementation of the economies. We should send the Senate Armed Services conferees to conference with a clear mandate from the Senate that the economies be implemented. I shall work with Senator STENNIS to insure that the Congress enact the proposed economies or prescribe other savings in defense in order to remain within the budget resolution targets.
Another point I should like to stress is the significant difference between the House-passed amounts for its military procurement authorization bill and the proposed Senate authorization. The House level is $1.3 billion in budget authority over the Senate committee report. If we include proposed House and Senate actions on manpower levels and the proposed economies, this difference could rise to $1.8 billion or more in budget authority. The difference in outlays amounts to $400 to $500 million. Inasmuch as the Senate authorization bill has the effect of creating an amount for national defense only slightly below the budget target, it is obvious that our conferees will be in an extremely difficult position as they attempt to reconcile the significant differences in the Senate and House versions of the military procurement authorization measure for fiscal year 1977. A compromise that is close to the midpoint between the two bodies will exceed the budget resolution target. We must be ready to deal with that situation.
I should like to put into perspective the major area of difference between the House and Senate bills — the Navy shipbuilding program. The administration requested $6.3 billion for procurement of ships in fiscal year 1977. This is a 62-percent increase in 1 year over the fiscal year 1976 appropriation of $3.9 billion. How did our Senate colleagues on the Armed Services Committee react to this request? They acted with commendable restraint.
In the middle of the committee's review of the procurement authorization request, the administration rushed forward with a shipbuilding budget amendment totaling $1.2 billion including $1 billion for procurement of ships. Consequently, the committee reviewed a $7.3 billion shipbuilding procurement request, or a budget request calling for a 90-percent increase in shipbuilding authorizations in a single year. To the committee's credit, it did not panic at an election year gimmick. The committee reviewed the request and developed a proposal for shipbuilding procurement at just under $6 billion. Some critics will say this amount is still too much for shipbuilding. Nonetheless, it is less than the budget request by $1.3 billion and is aimed in the right direction — toward a more desirable and less costly mix of the Navy fleet.
Furthermore, the Senate procurement authorization bill recommends repeal of title VIII of Public Law 93-365, requiring major combatant vessels to be nuclear powered. I support the repeal of this statute, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. I am committed to a strong defense for our country — a defense comprised of a proper balance between land, air, and sea power. I am particularly committed to a proper balance in the utilization of resources within the Navy. The excessive costs associated with the shipbuilding program required by strict adherence to title VIII can interfere with this balance by minimizing the capability to project American power when justified for national security or humanitarian purposes.
The House reviewed the original $6.3 billion shipbuilding request and added $3.7 billion for additional ships. This increase was partially offset by a $1.4 billion reduction in frigates and a conventional Aegis destroyer. Neither of these class of ships is nuclear powered. The House made a further reduction of $1.2 billion in the request to cover past cost growth and escalation associated with shipbuilding. Therefore, the net increase in shipbuilding in the House is $1.1 billion. The House provided this substantial increase in ship programs because they are apparently committed to high technology and costly ships with the balance favoring nuclear power in accord with title VIII provisions.
Mr. President, as we attempt to establish priorities between domestic and military requirements within the Federal budget, I question whether the requirements and costs associated with title VIII are consistent with a goal of increasing the size of the Navy.
I believe the Senate should support the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services in the Senate version of shipbuilding procurement for fiscal year 1977. In a manner similar to our commitment to the enactment of the proposed defense economies, I recommend that the Senate send its Armed Services conferees to conference with a mandate endorsing the Senate shipbuilding proposal.
Mr. President, in concluding my remarks, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the distinguished chairman, Mr. STENNIS. The military procurement authorization bill has my support, although I reserve the right to support floor amendments which I deem necessary and desirable. As chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I know the pressures on the national defense target in the first budget resolution:
The need to implement all the proposed economies;
The substantial differences in the House and Senate versions of a Defense shipbuilding program; and
And potential supplementals including an amendment to overhaul the U.S.S. Belknap.
With this in mind, I will watch with great interest the compromises resulting from the forthcoming conference on the House and Senate military procurement authorization bills. This authorization legislation has a direct impact on the subsequent appropriation measure.
Consequently, if the conference report leaves the legislation above the first budget resolution targets, I want the Senate as a whole, and Senator STENNIS in particular, to understand that the Senate Budget Committee must seriously consider opposing the conference report on the floor.
I have discussed the bill and other defense policies and programs in considerable detail.
I want to make it clear to the Senate, as I have over and over again, that the Budget Committee is not a line item committee, and it is not for us to decide what shall be the detailed makeup of the Defense Department program under the overall ceilings which the Senate and Congress as a whole have imposed.
But I would agree with something which I think the distinguished Senator from Mississippi said a year ago, that we cannot, as we look at the totals, overlook the implications of the major components of those totals.
So I think the Senator from Mississippi was absolutely right last year in suggesting that we at least take into account the impact and the implications of the major policy decisions with which his committee must struggle not only in committee and on the Senate floor but in conference with the House of Representatives as well.
It is in that spirit, may I say to my good friend from Mississippi, that I have made these comments this morning.