April 12, 1976
Page 10490
Mr. STENNIS. In effect, it has already been made, and I am not complaining about it now, a reduction of $1.9 billion.
If Congress does not back up all of those assumptions then more money would have to be added somewhere else.
That can be settled, but not here, now, is my point.
I can say, though, Mr. President, that the Armed Services Committee in making the markup is trying to adopt those recommendations, and has already adopted some of them and enough of them to mean some real money. For instance, the committee has already included the 1 percent kicker.
I shall not go further than that one illustration, but it has already been agreed. Our bill is coming in recommending that be adopted.
Mr. President, I will not impose on the Senate any longer now. I think this matter is well in hand by the Budget Committee, they have thoroughly considered it, and they have been fair and impartial about it. At this stage I very strongly recommend that their figure be the. figure adopted by the Senate.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
I want to emphasize the point that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi has made.
I think it is rather easy to assume that the $5.4 billion in cuts in budget authority that the committee has mandated are going to be easy to achieve. They are going to be very difficult to apply, the 5-percent cap, lifting the 1-percent kicker on retirement, the rather high figure on stockpile sales, and a number of other. issues that the Congress has always found it difficult to resolve and accept. The committee mandated them because the President had recommended them and because many of them seemed worth pursuing, seemed to have some prospect for achieving savings.
But if the full amount of those savings are not achieved, then with the functional totals we put in on the defense function, the savings would have to be achieved in some other fashion, including those suggested. by the Senator from Indiana, if the budget totals are to be met. I think Members of the Senate, on whichever side of this issue they may find themselves, ought to understand the difficulty of achieving those savings.
I yield to my good friend from Georgia, who is such a valuable Member.
Mr. NUNN. I thank my chairman.
The Senator from Georgia would like to emphasize, just for a brief moment, the statement made by the Senator from Mississippi and just alluded to by the Senator from Maine about the cost restraints.
These cost restraints are recommended by the President of the United States, and they are part of this overall budget resolution.
The committee this year specifically dealt with those. The committee made it very plain they expected not only the Armed Services Committee but other committees of jurisdiction to take the initiative to comply with those Presidential recommendations of cost restraints.
The Senator from Georgia emphasizes that at least half of these cost restraints, and perhaps as much as 60 percent, cannot be effected by the Armed Services Committee but must be effected by the Civil Service and Post Office Committee because the Civil Service and Post Office Committee has jurisdiction over civilian personnel.
So it is going to be a difficult task because it is not one committee dealing with these; it is several committees.
This Senator believes those savings are going to be the key to whether we really have any growth in the defense budget this year.
The Senator from Indiana is recommending a cut of about $2.6 billion in budget authority. Out of the $29.3 billion in procurement, only $3 billion relates to new initiatives in procurement. A cut of $2.6 billion in budget authority would eliminate 90 percent of the new programs in procurement.
We are not dealing with just insignificant figures here. We are dealing with the very heart of the defense budget. We are dealing with a question on this amendment of whether we are really going to have growth in procurement and research and development in fiscal year 1977.
For those who do not want any substantial growth, then, of course, the amendment would be looked on favorably. For those who believe, though, as the Senator from Georgia does that we have not had growth in the defense budget in a meaningful way in several years, then it is imperative that this amendment be defeated.
The Budget Committee has taken a responsible course of action in terms of the overall defense category.
The Budget Committee has made it very plain to those of us on the Armed Services Committee that reductions have got to be made; substantial reductions have got to be made. The reductions that have to be made are going to be much more difficult politically than reductions in procurement, research and development, and operations and maintenance would be, because they deal with people and people vote and people let their views be know.
So we are going to have a difficult time this year in accomplishing all the reductions mandated by the budget resolution.
In order to accomplish these reductions, we are going to have an unusual amount of cooperation from committees having jurisdiction in this area. The Senator from Georgia hopes that we do not compound the difficulty by agreeing to this amendment which would not affect the overall restraints, but would go much further and really eliminate most of the increase in procurement and research and development which this Senator, for one, thinks is imperative in our overall national security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DOMENICI) . The Senator's time has expired. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. May I have 1 minute?
Mr. NUNN. I do not have any time to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I reemphasize, as has already been done, the fact that the Budget Committee did look carefully for cuts in the defense category, and this resolution includes those cuts.
I simply state I understand they total $5.4 billion in budget authority and $4.5 billion in outlays.
These come from a savings of $700 million from stockpile sales, moderation in growth, military construction, research and development, and petroleum consumption, amounting to $1.3 billion in budget authority and $.4 billion in outlays, and a total of $3.4 billion in outlays and budget authority from the pay and compensation of the military personnel.
As has been said, these require certain congressional action and, if not taken, it simply means we have to find another way to save that amount of money.
Mr. President, the accommodation with the functional committees on both the House and the Senate side becomes difficult as we reduce the defense function.