April 23, 1979
Page 8244
Mr. MOYNIHAN. May I have the chairman's attention for one moment? I just want to make clear that as far as I can see there is not a scintilla of suggestion of any wrongdoing or subterfuge by anyone, certainly not by our staff, which is superb. The men and women possess total loyalty and a formidable capacity for work.
I think we are dealing with the question—
Mr. MUSKIE. I hope that they can read this record and come out of it feeling that way about this situation.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Still, sir, we are grateful for the quality of their work.
Mr. RIEGLE. If I may say to the Senator from New York, I cannot dissent from that. I saw the Budget Committee staff do exceptional work. I find only one problem, but it is a rather remarkable one. It relates to these Iranian ships.
As long as the issue has been raised, let me make just one other observation. If the Senator will look at page 267 of the Budget Committee document, he will find that, in addition to the fact that the numbers do not reflect the committee vote, the description of the committee recommendation for function 050, national defense, is seven lines long. There is no hint that the committee even discussed Iranian ships, let alone took a vote to remove hundreds of millions of dollars for them from the budget. Absolutely not a word. It is a remarkable omission, a remarkable omission.
That would not be such a big deal if the numbers were right. But when the numbers are wrong, then the report's silence on the issue raises a big question. It certainly should to those of us who voted in the majority on this issue.
It is astonishing to me that we could debate an issue for a full hour and a half, spread over several days and find not one word about the concerns of committee members in the report. Remarkable.
Well I will not delay the Senate any longer at this time. Clearly, it was my purpose to delete the $1.3 billion. I think the committee record will bear out that interpretation.
In any case, I do think it is important that this matter be brought to the attention of the Senate. I would not want my silence to be considered acquiescence to the numbers as they have been presented on this single issue in the Budget Committee report.
Mr. MUSKIE Will the Senator yield?
Mr. RIEGLE. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the RECORD at this point, the President's supplemental request. The Senators may then see for themselves, that had the full amount sought to have been stricken by the distinguished Senator from Michigan been stricken, what Presidential requests would have been deleted from the supplemental without ever having been discussed in the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that supplemental request be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the supplemental request was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a document which was prepared by the Armed Services Committee. It was given to me on the day in question by the core staff of the Budget Committee. It was the document I was working from. It contains the dollar amounts to which, time and again, I made reference. Dollar amounts which people will find in the transcript on the day of the vote in question.
There being no objection, the document was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, I should like to make note of the fact that the document just asked to be printed in the RECORD was indeed a document of the Armed Services Committee staff. It is entitled "Amended Fiscal Year 1979 Supplemental Authorization Request for Defense Procurement, Research and Development, and Military Construction, S. 429 as Amended by Legislative Proposal Dated February 28, 1979."
This is a description of the authorization bill, S. 429, as reported out by the Armed Service committee. which contained four ships. That legislation was not before us. We had no authority to strike four ships from that document. It was not before us.
What was before us was a markup that reflected the President's request, that included two ships and other items that the Armed Services Committee did not approve. Some of these items were set aside to make room for the ships, as I understand it. I think that ought to be understood about that document.
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, if he will yield for just 30 seconds additional, I want to note one point in the committee record. On Wednesday, April 4, the Senator from Maine speaking, saying the following:
The pending issue before us is the 1979 weapons supplemental reported by the Armed Services Committee and its implications for the figures which we approved for the 1980 defense functions.
That would seem to make it very clear what supplemental was being discussed. I am not quoting myself here.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has quoted,and I have to try from memory, to interpret these words. The Senator read some words like, "Its implications for what is before us."
Some of the armed services supplemental was before us, but not all of it. It was before us because parts of the armed services supplemental and the President's supplemental were identical. Nothing I said could put all of the armed services supplemental before us. The defense authorization bill was not before us. Whatever I said, it could not be before us.
Mr. RIEGLE. Well, just to go on from the quote that I read, this is the Senator from Maine speaking on that date. He was saying:
I will ask the staff now to present the facts with respect to the supplemental that we reported out and what its implications are for fiscal 1980.
I guess the only way to settle the matter, is to let people read the record for themselves. It is a big issue involving $1.3 billion in taxpayers money. That involves $700 million in outlays just in this fiscal year alone.
I do not want to have disagreement with the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has made that clear. He has avoided disagreement all afternoon.
The fact is, of course, that the full supplemental was a proper subject for discussion. The Senator was talking about four ships that were not before us. I did not challenge that. The full supplemental is a proper subject for discussion. But that is something different from the parliamentary question on which we were voting.
Mr. RIEGLE. There is a difference of opinion, not just between the chairman and myself but with some of the other committee members that have been here today. We had one record vote. And, obviously, we shall have to have another one.
If this were a small item, it might be of less consequence. It is not small. I think it deserves the time that we must spend on it here.
I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that the time be
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I need no more than 5 minutes, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to try to clarify as best I can what I understood the situation was — and I say this to my good friend from Michigan — after the Domenici mark had been accepted, immediately after acceptance of this, what I understood the situation to be in terms of function 050.
When I proposed my mark, my recollection is that I was submitting the President's mark with some internal adjustments to differentiate between the missions, but that I accepted the President's mark, that we voted on that and it was approved, and then thereafter a modification of it was sought.
I think that format is necessary to understand what I had in mind and where we were.
At that point in time it was necessary that we take into consideration whatever was in a supplemental that the President was including in his mark because the supplemental came in my mark, yet there was something that had to be done in terms of supplemental that I was including.
So, to put it another way, I contemplated a supplemental that the President had recommended when I moved his mark.
As I review the transcript, it appears to me that sequence-wise the authorizing committee, in response, apparently, to our chairman's request that they give us their best advice, had, after the President's supplemental, considered a different mix which included four Iranian ships instead of the two that were in the President's mark.
Now, I am not going to pass judgment on what somebody coming forth after the mark with a motion to delete moneys for Iranian ships had in mind, but I am going to read from page 276 of the transcript of April 4, at the bottom of the page.
I asked the question:
Was I wrong in that? I think the record says that.
Sid Brown, who was advising us on technical matters says:
No, sir, you were not wrong. I asked the question this morning to make sure that was clear. Your motion assumed the supplemental as proposed by the President.
It continues on. I am not going to read the rest.
Mr. RIEGLE. Would the Senator just continue on, because if he does not go down three more lines to the point where Brown says:
However, at the end of the session this morning the whole question of the supplemental was left to further discussion.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
I am not trying to leave anything out. I would not do that.
Mr. RIEGLE. I want to help the Senator and make sure he does not.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. RIEGLE. That is a key item.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is kind here, as he was for 5 days in the committee, and I greatly appreciate it.
I will get back and read that, on page 277, so we will all have it in front of us.
This is our chief staff man. He indicates there is a new fact, namely, the authorizing committee.
What the authorizing committee did that we should take into account and understand, and, as I understand it, what he was talking about was the recommendation of a different mix by the authorizing committee, different from the mix that the Presidents' supplemental had submitted and which I included in my mark. Whether or not we then were talking about the authorizing committee's mix or the President's mix, I guess, can be clarified here on the floor, but I clearly understood once we voted on my recommended mark that the total dollar figure was to include whatever was needed in 1980 to carry forth the President's supplemental.
That is what I understood and I think Sid Brown is confirming that by then saying, however, that the authorizing committee is recommending something different.
Now, that is the best of my recollection. I will be glad to read the bottom of page 276 if the Senator from Michigan wants me to.
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Continuing from where the Senator just quoted, and coming to page 278, I think he will find the chairman saying:
We have not yet acted on a third concurrent budget resolution for 1979 at all, and it is conceivable although I don't think so, given this morning's vote that this committee may vote something less or could, at least, has that option. If that happens, the '80 impact will change again.
I then go on to ask about that. We had not taken any action with respect to the supplemental; and my concern was that if we did, it would have an impact on 1980 and 1981. So we nailed that down.
I think this record makes it clear that we were bound in no way on fiscal 1979 at that point.
Mr. DOMENICI. I just want to say that from my standpoint — and I have reviewed the record and I think it is clear — that my mark did not anticipate four ships. If you are going to take out four, you are taking out two more than were anticipated by my mark. The Senate can add up the figure for four and take it out of this budget, if it desires; but I think the staff, in arriving at the figure, followed through with what I had in mind, which was the supplemental as recommended by the President. If you readjust it, you might provide for four ships or six, but there were only two in it when I took the mark. That is the point I wanted to make, and that is the reason why I came to the floor.
Mr. RIEGLE. When did the committee adopt the mark of the Senator from New Mexico? Can he show me that in the record?
Mr. DOMENICI. It is my recollection that we voted on a Wednesday.
Mr. RIEGLE. Can the Senator point out in the record where we adopted the Domenici mark for 1979?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will have to find it for the Senator.
Mr. RIEGLE. I cannot find it, and I am not sure it is there.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think we voted on it.
Mr. RIEGLE. The reason I question it is that the chairman, after the Senator assumes a 1979 mark was accepted by the committee, made it clear time after time that the committee had not bound itself in any way with respect to fiscal 1979.
Mr. DOMENICI. We did not bind ourselves until the end of 1979.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. As we were going through the 1980 to 1984 budget, it was made very clear that we were assuming the 1979 numbers as we went along, subject to change when we got back to 1979 specifically.
Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely.
Mr. RIEGLE. That is exactly my point.
Mr. MUSKIE. But at that point, when you got back to 1979, you had the mark that was in it.
Mr. RIEGLE. But, as you said at the time, we had taken no action on 1979 at all. We had deferred that. We had not locked anybody's mark in as an action of the committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. We had not deferred it.We had assumed the mark in the 1979 supplemental in order to write the 1980-84 numbers as we went through the 1980-84 budgets and projections. But it also was clear that we could go back and change the assumptions in the 1979 budget, and one of those was the defense supplemental. We could change it, and we did change it. But you cannot change it by eliminating from it something that was never there in the first place.
Mr. DOMENICI Will the chairman agree that if you are going to change it with reference to something that was not in it or that might be considered in it, then to the extent that is different from the original assumption, you have to change everything?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. You would have to specifically eliminate the other items.
Mr. RIEGLE. At no time did we lock in detail 1979 supplemental assumptions. It is my clear understanding — and I think the record bears it out — that we held off on that until the Iranian ships could be considered. We decided to start that debate after we broke for lunch. We did not get back to vote on the supplemental until several days later. That happened because the chairman and others asked that we put aside the debate on the Iranian ships so a decision could be made on the fiscal year 1980 numbers only.
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course, but whether or not putting it aside changed the parliamentary situation from two to four ships is a different question. I say to the Senator that it is my job as chairman to stay on top of the parliamentary situation in order to be fair, and I am convinced that I was in this case. I am not convinced that I was understood. The Senator from Michigan has made that clear this afternoon. I do not think I pulled the wool over anybody's eyes on this subject.
Mr. RIEGLE. I think not. I think the chairman was most forthright in the record. Time and time again he is quoted as saying that we were not locked in at all.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say that again. You can go back and change it. But if you do, you have to change items other than the two destroyers already in it if you want to eliminate a total of four destroyers.
Mr. RIEGLE. But as the Senator from Maine has made clear on many occasions, the Budget Committee is not a line item committee. Members can offer an amendment to strike out an amount of money for a particular activity or function, and that does not lock anybody into details.
Mr. MUSKIE. But the Senator from Michigan is proposing to eliminate something that was not there.
Mr. RIEGLE. It depends upon what piece of paper you are looking at. If you are looking at the request from the Armed Services that was the subject of all the debate, during the committee meeting, the four ships certainly were there — $1.35 billion worth of them.
Mr. MUSKIE. That was not before us. Nobody offered it. It was not adopted.
Mr. RIEGLE. One was before me, because one was placed before me, on my desk by the case staff of the Budget Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. That amounts to the committee adopting it?
Mr. RIEGLE. No. I do not think the committee adopted any.
Mr. MUSKIE. There, the Senator from Michigan and I disagree. I see no reason for starting discussion on that issue again.
Mr, DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to answer the question so that we have it in the record.
In the morning session of Wednesday, April 4, at page 249, the vote is announced. It says the amendment does not carry; therefore, the vote recurs on the Domenici amendment, and the Domenici amendment was voted on.
On page 279 of the first concurrent resolution on the budget, prepared as a report by the committee, it says:
Item No. 6, Domenici motion to set function 050 (Defense) totals in Mission 2 (Tactical Warfare Forces) at:
There was a vote, and the votes were all yeas, with the exception of three nays, the three nays being RIEGLE, HART, and the chairman.
In that mark there is the last item, discretionary supplemental, and it is stated, "BA 1.8 outlays 1.0," in billions. That is identical in BA and outlays with what would be affected on the 1980 budget by the President's 1979 supplemental. They are identical figures. That is all I am saying. That is what I proposed; that is what we voted on.
Beyond that, the mix that is within it, if somebody wanted to cut from that supplemental and thus affect 1980 in a different way, I think it is up to them to pick the earlier figure in BA and outlays that they want to cut. If it is two ships, in dollars, they can make it that. If it is four ships in dollars, that figure was known. I think that can be decided in another way. But I make the point that the supplemental was adopted perhaps in a wrong manner, in that we assumed it in adopting 1980, subject to our chairman's constantly saying, "You can go back and adjust the supplemental if you don't like it."
Did we not in some other function reduce and adopt the entire supplemental, which is further indication, and went back and changed 1980?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. To me, that indicates the course that was open to anyone who wanted to change this.
Mr. MUSKIE. Absolutely.
Mr. RIEGLE. I think that is exactly the course I took. I was as explicit as I could be with the English language in saying that I wanted to strike the money for four ships, and I used the numbers time and again.
Mr. MUSKIE. But there were not four ships in it. We are back where we started.
Mr. RIEGLE. It appears that there are two ships in there now, and that is disturbing to me.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, there are not two ships in there. It is not a line item situation. If two ships are funded by the Appropriations Committee, it will be because the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses. between them knock out other items from the supplemental. There are not two ships in here, and the Senator has read from the report that it is blank on that subject. There is nothing in the report that says there are two ships in there.
All the Senator is doing is anticipating the possibility that the Senate and the House may approve the authorization bill in full for four ships and, second, that the appropriations bills would fund it. But it is not in this resolution.
Mr. RIEGLE. In anticipation of that, I move to strike the money, the figure of $1.3 billion was mentioned time and again. But, mysteriously, only half of that money was taken out.
Mr. MUSKIE. That was the anticipation of the Senator from Michigan. He did not question it, so far as I know.
Mr. RIEGLE. I mentioned it only a dozen times or more during the debate — four ships and $1.3 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. But not the items that would be deleted elsewhere in the supplemental if the Senator's anticipation for deleting four ships came to pass. He was assuming there were four ships in the document before us to knock out, and there were not. There were two ships.
Mr. RIEGLE. I think I should state my own assumptions.
I knew the effort was to procure four ships, and I wanted the Budget Committee not to assume one dime for any of the four ships. I thought that is what we voted not to do.
Mr. MUSKIE. There was no way for the Budget Committee to do that, as the Senator should know by now.
Mr. RIEGLE. Our vote came as close as we can come within the Budget Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. There was the parliamentary situation before us and we do not line item our budget resolutions.
Mr. RIEGLE. But half the money got back in.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not in there. It is in there for other items, I say to the Senator.