May 16, 1977
Page 14858
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the military procurement authorization bill and offer my views on the significance of the Armed Services Committee's action and how this relates to the national defense targets the Senate adopted last week in the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1978.
First, I extend my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) for the work he has devoted to this important legislation. I also want to reiterate my words of last Friday when I spoke on behalf of the budget resolution. Senator STENNIS has done all of us in the Congress, and indeed the American people, a great service when he demonstrated his devotion to the success of the congressional budget process. He knew of the dilemma in the budget resolution conference regarding national defense. His assistance provided a way out of the stalemate. He helped for the simple reason that he wants the process to work. I thank him again for his timely support.
Mr. President, H.R. 5970 authorizes military procurement, research and development, and civil defense funding of approximately $36 billion in budget authority. Preliminary fiscal year 1978 outlay estimates associated with these items are roughly $9.7 billion. In addition to this authorization, the bill provides active duty and reserve military personnel and civilian personnel strength levels. The impact of fully funding these personnel levels would result in budget authority of $41 billion and outlays of approximately $40.1 billion.
The combination of the authorization and the proposed personnel levels results in budget authority of $77 billion or $0.1 billion less than the administration's budget request. Outlays amount to approximately $49.8 billion or $0.4 billion less than the budget request.
Before proceeding to specific comments on the details of this authorization and the upcoming conference of the Armed Services Committees on the bill, I would like to provide my colleagues with the initial Senate Budget Committee estimates on the relationship of the bill to the national defense functional targets established by the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1978. I ask unanimous consent that a chart displaying the figures be inserted at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the major concern of the Senate conferees dealing with the first budget resolution was that the United States maintain real growth in defense spending for the modernization of our forces and for the operational readiness of equipment and availability of supplies. Accordingly, the conference targets allow for a defense budget which provides for substantial improvements in U.S. force capabilities, counterbalancing efforts by the Soviet Union to modernize and strengthen its defense forces..
The conference agreement for the national defense function was particularly difficult to attain because of the widely divergent views of the two bodies on what is an adequate level of defense spending in view of U.S. national security needs and the relationship of these needs to domestic requirements. Obviously, a very delicate balance exists here. It must be maintained in setting our national priorities. The agreement, signed by all Senate conferees, accomplishes this aim.
The first budget resolution targets for national defense are based on the following assumption: Reductions in manpower, along with its associated costs, and in investment and readiness costs will not be used as the primary vehicle for accommodating the targets. Rather, it is assumed that significant financial adjustments can be made to the Administration's request for the defense function in order to remain within these targets. These financial adjustments may include such items as a possible slowdown in projected foreign military sales, the utilization of prior year unobligated funds to finance a portion of the fiscal year 1978 program and a partial absorption of the October 1977 pay raise. It is anticipated that these types of adjustments may constitute a major portion of the actions necessary to meet the recommended defense targets.
Mr. President, I have provided an overview of the relationship of the military procurement authorization bill to the first budget resolution targets and the assumptions behind the development of those targets. I know that my good friend, Senator STENNIS is aware of the pressures that we in the Congress face as we strive to achieve the targets in the resolution. I am aware that the military procurement authorization as voted on by the other body is a more costly piece of legislation. However, it is essential that the conference agreement be near the Senate totals. I will do what I can to assist the chairman to achieve this difficult but desirable goal.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House-passed military procurement authorization bill, including a price-out of the personnel strength levels, is about $0.3 billion in budget authority over the totals reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee and $0.4 billion over the Senate in outlays. In addition to these higher totals, the House bill does not provide authorization for a specific amount associated with shipbuilding claims.
Instead, it leaves the door open for unspecified appropriations. If funded at the level in the budget request and in the Senate bill, this item could increase the House levels by another $0.3 billion in budget authority and outlays over the Senate bill.
The Senate bill recommends repeal of title VIII of Public Law 93-365, requiring major combatant vessels to be nuclear powered. This is an important policy move. I support repeal of title VIII because any merit the measure might have from a technological and logistical standpoint — and I am not sure it does — is more than offset by fiscal disadvantages and the fact that the very substantial costs associated with this requirement seriously impede our ability to buy the numbers and mix of ships necessary to strengthen our sea power. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the repeal of title VIII as recommended by this bill.
With regard to the committee's proposed shipbuilding program, I question if this is the time to undertake development of some of the very expensive ships recommended in the bill. Several of the proposed new ships for construction or modernization were not included in the administration's budget request. Among these is long lead funding for a Nimitz class nuclear attack carrier for which the Congress approved a fiscal year 1977 rescission only 2 months ago.
It is not necessary, however, to address each of the ships in question; the real issue really revolves around the basic sea warfare mission: Whether the primary mission should be that of sea control or power projection. Although it appears that the Committee on Armed Services is not necessarily attempting to solve this problem now, the effect of its actions lean toward the projection role. I recommend that my colleagues read further on this issue the recent analysis developed by the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office in hearings and studies on national defense. I ask unanimous consent to place in the RECORD at this point a mission analysis of the shipbuilding costs of the different sea warfare options.
There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Mr. MUSKIE. It serves no useful purpose to have the case prejudiced before a total evaluation is made of the sea warfare mission. Factors that must be weighed are not only the relevant roles of the Navy and Air Force, but how those joint and separate roles relate to our No. 1 concern, the security of the United States and its allies in NATO. My distinguished colleagues, Senators NUNN, BARTLETT, and CULVER, have recently done a great service for all of us by drawing attention to many of the military preparedness problems associated with our NATO strength in case of a short-warning attack by the Warsaw Pact nations. To shore up the NATO shortcomings to meet this type of threat will require a great deal of funding over the next few years.
Mr. President. I am not sure the budget can handle our No. 1 problem, the enhancement of NATO's capability, and also an expanding shipbuilding program for power projection purposes around the world, particularly when that role is not envisioned by the Department of Defense in a NATO short war scenario and two Presidents, recognizing fiscal pressures, have not asked for the Nimitz carrier.
I would like to make one point clear, I favor the buildup of our naval forces to the 550-600 ship Navy that the Defense Department has indicated is necessary for both a balanced fleet and to offset the Soviet improvements in sea power. This is a national need. I am of the opinion, however, that Congress should wait until President Carter and Secretary of Defense Brown have reviewed the options and presented their plan. In the meantime, the mix of the 22 ships contained in the budget request provides a good start toward rebuilding the overall strength of our sea warfare forces.
Mr. President, in concluding my remarks, I would like to reiterate my sincere appreciation to the distinguished chairman, Mr. STENNIS. The military procurement authorization bill has my support, of course reserving the right to support floor amendments which I deem necessary and desirable. I will watch with great interest the compromises resulting from the forthcoming conference on the House and Senate military procurement authorization bills. I wish the distinguished chairman well in reporting a conference agreement that is consistent with the budget resolution targets for national defense.