July 11, 1978
20208
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want to speak today in support of the military procurement authorization bill and offer my views on how it relates to the national defense targets the Congress adopted in the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1979.
First, I extend my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) for the contribution he has made in shaping this important legislation. Repeatedly, he demonstrates his devotion to our Nation's defense and economic well-being as well as to the success of the congressional budget process. On many occasions, he has assisted me in my quest for fiscal constraint by the Congress and for reduced federal budget deficits. I thank him again for his support.
Mr. President, S. 2571 authorizes military procurement, research and development, and civil defense funding of approximately $36.1 billion in budget authority. Fiscal year 1979 outlay . estimates associated with these items are roughly $9.8 billion.
In addition to this authorization, the bill provides active duty and Reserve military personnel and Department of Defense civilian personnel strength levels and general provisions for other miscellaneous defense purposes. The impact of fully funding these personnel levels and general provisions would result in budget authority of $45.5 billion and outlays of approximately $44.3
billion.
The combination of the program authorizations and the proposed personnel levels and provisions results in budget authority of $81.6 billion. Outlays amount to approximately $54.1 billion.
Mr. President, the major concern of the Senate Budget Committee conferees on the first budget resolution was to provide for a level of defense funding that would allow the United States to meet its NATO pledge to aim for real growth in defense spending in the range of 3 percent over the next several years.
Beyond the need for assuring the security of our Western European allies, there also exists a broad requirement for force modernization and readiness in United States and allied capabilities to counterbalance moves by the Soviet Union and its allies to strengthen their defense forces and use that strength in ways which cause political instability and unrest.
In the national defense category, the first budget resolution provides for $128.7 billion in budget authority and $115.7 billion in outlays. When the President's military budget request is adjusted for deferral of the Trident submarine, a 5.5 percent pay cap, and 20 percent absorption of the upcoming October 1978 pay raise — as assumed in the first budget resolution — the Congress has provided nearly a $2 billion increase to the administration's request for defense. The national defense targets in the budget resolution provide for 3 percent real growth over fiscal year 1978 estimates.
Most importantly, the defense targets in the budget resolution and the continuing pattern of real growth in defense expenditures initiated in fiscal year 1976 send a signal globally that the Congress is committed to a strong U.S. defense posture.
Mr. President, S. 2571 as reported fits within the national defense targets set by Congress in the first budget resolution assuming the pay cap and pay raise absorption which I previously mentioned, small reductions in other appropriated areas of the function, and a CBO reestimate of outlays associated with prior-year appropriations. I, therefore, support the bill.
However, it is not the Senate Armed Services Committee's bill that troubles me. The other body's military procurement authorization bill is a much more costly piece of legislation than the Senate-reported bill. The House bill is $2.5 billion in budget authority over the Senate bill we are now considering. The outlay difference in the two bills is small and is not a severe problem.
But, Mr. President, $2.5 billion in budget authority is a significant amount, and Senator STENNIS and the other Senate conferees face a most difficult task in arriving at a conference agreement that does not exert undue pressure on the national defense targets in the first budget resolution. For this reason, it is essential that the conference agreement on this bill be near the Senate totals. If not, the Congress must consider reductions within the general defense appropriated program so that the Congress does not breach its budgetary objectives.
Before closing my remarks. Mr. President, I want to make a final point. For the third consecutive year, the Senate bill recommends repeal of title VIII of Public Law 93-365, requiring submarines and major surface combatant vessels to be nuclear powered. The Senate Armed Services Committee recommends this for a very simple reason. We need to build and maintain a Navy that has the flexibility to respond to broad missions around the globe. The administration's 5-year shipbuilding program would provide for roughly a 500- to 550-ship Navy by 1990. Our ability to reach this goal by placing nuclear-powered systems in each major vessel is very much in doubt and would be exceedingly expensive. Careful management is critical at a time when most of our strategic and tactical forces require extensive modifications to stay abreast of technological advancements and maintain essential equivalence in capabilities with our adversaries. An all-nuclear Navy deprives the Department of Defense of valuable resources to upgrade our forces. I urge my colleagues who take this bill to conference to support the Senate's position for repeal of title VIII.
Mr. President, in concluding my remarks, I would like to reiterate my sincere appreciation to the distinguished chairman, Mr. STENNIS. I support this military procurement authorization bill, of course, reserving the right to support floor amendments which I deem necessary and desirable. I will watch with great interest the forthcoming conference on the House and Senate military procurement authorization bills. Senator STENNIS has my best wishes and encouragement to come back from conference with an agreement that is consistent with the congressional budget resolution targets for national defense.