September 18, 1979
Page 25005
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I continue to defend the numbers in the second budget resolution for the reasons I have covered at sufficient length this afternoon, and I do not think I need to repeat that argument.
It is apparent that the sentiment for increasing the defense function is very strong. For those who feel that way, I would commend the amendment of the Senator from Nebraska very vigorously, because his amendment is more nearly consistent with the need for budgetary discipline at this point than is the Hollings amendment. I have no doubt about that. It also moves in the direction of increased defense expenditures, which many Senators seem to think is in the national interest.
I believe that we will probably have to move in the direction of increased defense expenditures in those years ahead of us, but I think that movement should not be in response to what should happen to the SALT treaty. It should be in response to a positive, constructive, comprehensive evaluation of mission needs and program tradeoffs, leading to the real military capabilities that we need to have. I do not think we have had that kind of discussion and I have listened to the debate all afternoon. No Senator has satisfied me regarding the need for increased defense spending and I am told that I have been listening to Senators who are experts in this field. If they are, they have not revealed it, in the sense that I think we need to structure the defense priorities of the future.
We come to the floor being urged to increase spending 3 percent. What does that mean? Increase spending 5 percent. What does that mean? Can any Member relate that to improved military capability and effective management of resources? If so, I have not heard them.
Mr. NUNN. What does 1 percent mean? That is what the Budget Committee has in there. How are we to deal with out year projections?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have an answer to that. We structure our numbers in the budget resolution, as the Senator knows, on a mission basis that we initiated as a result of the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES) and the distinguished Senator from Georgia
(Mr. NUNN) .
We do not go into line items, but we try to go into capabilities. We have not refined our ability to conduct that kind of analysis and judgment but each year our capability improves.
The remark I made a moment ago was addressed to the point that I understood there were Senators who were capable of offering us leadership in that respect. I have heard a lot about specific weapons systems and specific defense hardware. I have looked at those charts, and, in terms of capabilities, they have relevance to certain points of view. But in terms of the issues raised by the SALT hearings and the other major defense issues that have followed — as we began a closer and more careful and intensive examination of our defense budget — we need something more than that, and I am all for that something more.
I will move in future budgets considerations to that kind of analysis and examination of policy that is indicated to be in the national interest. But I am not going to come to the Senate floor when confusion is present. Dealing with it effectively gives us sufficient time to also deal effectively with the national security aspects. I think we can do both, one stepat a time, and I think both are important to do.
Mr. NUNN. I say to the Senator from Maine that I think it is perfectly understandable that he would not agree with those of us who have advocated increases. But to say that we have not addressed our capabilities, it is hard for me to have been here all day and believe that the Senator really does not understand that we have been addressing exactly that. We have talked about not being able to gain air superiority in NATO, No. 1. We have talked about not having enough ammunition for a 11/2 war theory by 21/2 percent.
We have talked about losing the tactical nuclear advantage we have had all the years since NATO was formed.
We have talked about losing essential equivalence in strategic weapons. I just ask the Senator from Maine what capability is it he wants to hear described? We talked about the loss of maritime superiority in the late 1980's. I cannot for the life of me understand what it is he wants us to describe for him.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. NUNN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I respect the Senator as an intelligent, thoughtful, effective, committed Senator in the field of defense requirements. I am especially interested in listening to him. What I have heard are conclusions on the questions. By that I mean conclusions by the Senator from South Carolina and conclusions by the Senator from Georgia about defense issues. I have not heard the analyses. I heard the conclusions again just now. I have not heard the analyses. Nor have I heard anything that persuades me that such analyses, if made, dictate that we could overcome these shortages in the year 1980 and further that we must overcome them in 1980 to the exclusion of the national priority on inflation in 1980.
That I have not been persuaded of, and I am still not persuaded of it, and that seems to make the Senator uncomfortable.
Mr. NUNN. No.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am as stubborn in my pursuit of the national interest in economic security as the Senator is in his insistence upon pursuing defense security.
Mr.. NUNN. I commend the Senator for that. No one has a higher regard for the Senator from Maine than I do. I think he has made probably the most singular contribution to this Senate and overall congressional debate of anyone I know in Congress. We have debated the security issue for 6 years. It has not just started. I debated in the Budget Committee every year. For 3 years I talked about details.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield me 2 additional minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 additional minutes.
Mr. NUNN. I have come to the conclusion that the Senator from Maine cannot be persuaded on this issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have come to the conclusion that the Senator from Georgia cannot be persuaded on the inflation issue.
Mr. NUNN. I do not agree with that one iota. I voted with the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Neither do I agree with the Senator.
Mr. NUNN. All I can do is explain the need for planes, explain the need for ships, explain the need for ammunition, explain the shortages we have, relate them to the defense missions, relate that to the President's own national security objectives, and then I have to yield the floor. I cannot comprehend it for anyone else. I can only explain.
Mr. MUSKIE. In the same fashion, and I know he understands, the following is just as appropriate to me. I have to listen in the Budget Committee, as Senator MAGNUSON does in the Appropriations Committee, to all of these urgencies in every function of the budget, all of them.
The Senator knows as well as I do that defense is not the only function in which people urge the importance of doing more about this, that, or the other.
The Senate said today we cannot do more in the domestic programs so we voted reconciliation. We said you have to cut $3.6 billion, notwithstanding the fact that a case can be made for doing more. But we have said you cannot afford to do mere now because of inflation.When I make the same argument in defense then the Senator says to me, "Look I have been making these arguments for 6 years."
Mr. NUNN. That is exactly right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Those people interested in domestic programs have been making the same argument for 6 years to the Budget Committee.
Mr. NUNN. I agree with that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have to ask for restraint across the board. I have not heard an argument that the imperatives associated with this proposed increase in defense budget argue for lifting restraint on defense by $3.2 billion while imposing restraint of $3.6 billion on other programs. I have not heard that argument this afternoon, and I am sorry if I do not have the comprehensive ability that the Senator from Georgia wishes I have. I do not, if that is what is required as a test.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the splendid services of the Senator from Nebraska on our Armed Services Committee. He is always active, constructive, and helpful. He has been here today on this amendment.
But I have to submit the proposition that at the same time his amendment, cutting in half this 3 percent, would make the mission of the 3-percent add-on fall short. It also complicates the future years, and would leave us short. If you get the application of the 3 percent to this $44 billion in support of NATO and readiness, it would not give us the 3-percent level.
I understand, talking about them being left out and our being short in supporting them, this 3 percent will be real and above inflation. I understand the German Government, with all deference to them, reported their budget the other day and it did not have any increase.
What we are trying to do now is to cover them as well as ourself. Therefore, the Exon amendment I respectfully say should not be adopted. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute on the bill to call to my colleagues' attention a headline on the front page of the afternoon Star, "Furious Buying Pushes Gold Price to $375."
I realize Senator HOLLINGS thinks I am preoccupied with that because I think back to my college days in the early thirties. But I say to the Senator that when we set a record yesterday at over $350 an ounce and we now have broken that record in less than 24 hours and set a record as high as $379, I find that frightening. It has nothing to do with the fact that I was a freshman in college at the bottom of the Great Depression. It has something to do with the fact that I think this country is on the threshold of the greatest danger to the economy in the form of inflation that I have ever experienced in my lifetime. When the daily newspapers each day carry headlines like that regarding gold prices, I would think Members of this body would be alarmed.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes and 15 seconds.
Mr. EXON. And the opposition?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opposition has used all their time on the amendment.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I think we have debated this long and thoroughly this afternoon, and I am prepared now in just a few moments to ask for the vote and yield back the remainder of my time.
Just a very short closing statement: I hope once again that all will recognize, before they vote on the Exon amendment, and will clearly understand that this is the only chance they are going to have to vote for substantial increase expenditures on defense without busting the 1980 budget deficit. I suspect if they do that they may well be hearing from the people back home.
I was home in August, as I said in my opening remarks. I think the chairman of the Budget Committee has just emphasized it with what he just said. I appreciate very much the fact that while the chairman of the Budget Committee said he could not support my amendment it is the most reasonable approach that has been offered. I think it is a very reasonable approach, and I really believe that if all of the Members of the Senate understood what I was proposing and did not have their minds changed in one direction or another they would probably support it.
With those closing remarks, I wish to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, could I make a unanimous consent request for cosponsorship?
Mr. EXON. On the Senator's time.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I do not have any time. I want to ask unanimous consent.
Mr. EXON. Certainly there are more cosponsors of the Hollings amendment and I want those on record.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. JOHNSTON) be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Let the record show that there are no cosponsors on the Exon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment, calling for substantial increases in defense spending for many reasons. And I must say that I have ceased being amazed by actions continually brought before the Congress that seek to overturn our carefully considered objective of budget discipline.
This spring the Congress charted a steady course of treatment aimed at balancing the budget and reducing the percentage of our gross national product which we devote to Government. But in the past 4 months, spending pressures have escalated. Inflation has worsened. And the economy has weakened. We have already agreed to reconsider a number ofspending decisions made over the past several months in order to keep the deficit from climbing in the next year. The amendment to increase defense spending would destroy that incentive without a sound basis for altering our goals.
We set a course toward balance for two fundamental reasons:
First. We must control inflation. Inflation is our worst enemy, because it attacks the hopes and aspirations of our people. It drains our economy of vitality, and it can cripple our effectiveness as the leader of the free world.
Second. We must also limit the portion of the individual's income which we use for the common goals of Government, so the individual has a greater portion to use for his own priorities. That was the message of proposition 13, and the Congress must be committed to taking the minimum necessary for a compassionate and effective Government.
Those imperatives are still overwhelmingly clear to me. The budget resolution before us maintains our course. But we are encountering new complications every day.
The defense spending proposals contained in the amendment significantly alter the priorities we set in the first budget resolution. National security does not merely mean that we arm ourselves for every possible conflict — large or small — for a short time period or an extended conflict.
National security embodies the whole of the Nation. Our total economy, all our citizens, open and vital competition here and in the world marketplace. Our military needs compete with our domestic requirements and with the course to secure economic well-being. These are all legitimate priorities. They must be balanced. This amendment would bring them out of balance.
Mr. President, let me address why the proposal for increasing defense spending is being given such serious consideration at this time. In the first place, it is being advanced by some of our colleagues whose judgment we have relied on in the past.
Second, there is a legitimate need periodically to review our defense policies in light of Soviet activities and our perception of Soviet intentions and capabilities. Third, the SALT debate has focused the attention of the country on something none of us enjoys thinking about — nuclear war.
So these proposals to increase defense spending ought to be taken seriously. This country can and must have a strong military force which meets our defense needs. We must maintain the resources and the will to spend the extra $100 billion, and more, if need be, to remain the bulwark of the free world.
The question before the Senate is whether it is necessary to spend the additional billions in the amendment to maintain our national security.
We are committed to maintaining a nuclear arsenal so strong that it can survive a massive surprise attack and deliver a lethal blow to the attacker. We are committed to maintaining a secure Europe by keeping the NATO alliance politically healthy and technologically superior.
We are committed to maintaining a strike force so strong that we could, if necessary, exert our influence anywhere in the world to protect our interests and those of our allies. I believe there are sufficient funds provided for defense to accomplish these goals.
But what have we heard in the debate over defense spending levels? Some supporters of large increases in defense spending say we have done virtually nothing in the way of developing an improved military posture. Others say we have not done enough. Still others say our efforts have been unsuccessful, that we have fallen behind or soon might.
Mr. President, I do not agree with these pessimistic assessments. We have not been standing still.
There have been significant levels of real growth in the major investment activities of the Department of Defense from fiscal year 1975 to 1979 and the second budget resolution would continue that real growth trend from fiscal year 1980 to 1984.
The Budget Committee believes it is necessary to focus attention on investment, because that relates to improved capability. Total defense spending which includes active payroll and retired pay funds does not provide a measure of defense strength. That is one of the pitfalls contained in the amendment before us.
The research and development and procurement accounts of the DOD are estimated to have approximately 5 percent annual real growth from fiscal year 1975 to 1984. The Budget Committee carefully considered and agreed with the requirement that force capability improvements be maintained and the budget resolution before the Senate provides for over 2 percent real growth in investment in fiscal year 1980 and an average annual rate of 2.75 percent from fiscal year 1980 to 1984. These are the types of real spending increases that will relate to actual force improvements.
During the Budget Committees deliberations on the second budget resolution, we decided to add $13.5 billion to the defense budget levels to cover requirements for the MX missile, the Trident submarine and missile, cruise missiles, and other major strategic program initiatives. We did not do this at the urging of the administration but because the committee analyzed future strategic needs in order that a balance in strategic capability be maintained with the Soviet Union. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table identifying major U.S. strategic program requirements over the fiscal year 1980-84 period be placed in the RECORD at this time.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows :
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there are many areas of defense capability that the Congress has moved to strengthen. Army missile, aircraft, and tank capability are all in the process of being modernized and we have virtually completed a major Air Force modernization.
By 1983 we will have so increased our NATO capabilities that five U.S.-based Army divisions and most of the Air Force will be able to deploy to Europe within 10 days to augment the forces already there.
Today when many dangers are cited about the Soviet naval threat, we and our NATO allies have 30 percent more major combatant ships and submarines than the Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact. In addition, these ships have over twice as much aggregate tonnage as do Warsaw Pact ships. Despite concerns about Soviet naval developments, we maintain the capability to protect our interests around the world.
Finally, as far as strategic nuclear forces are concerned, we will increase our strategic nuclear arsenal to 12,000 warheads during the life of the SALT II treaty.
Mr. President, the supporters of this amendment are telling us now that these programs are not enough. Of course, many of them are the same people who urged them on us in the first place. I ask them what new threat has arisen that necessitates spending over $100 billion above the budget resolution levels over the next 5 years? What other parts of the budget are to provide such a dividend? The second budget resolution provides for over $800 billion for defense spending during the fiscal year 1980-84 period. Where is the proof that an average annual expenditure of $160 billion cannot meet our priorities concerning defense spending?
Now we have before us another formula increase to do the job of credible budgeting. I will continue to state that any formula increase, be it 7, 5, or 3 percent, ought to be viewed with suspicion. This sort of policy making by arithmetic is not acceptable in any other area of the budget. It is unacceptable in defense. It is no substitute for careful analysis of programs, objectives, and needs. The choice in budgeting is almost always a choice among good programs.
It is seldom easy. But it is always preferable to not choosing at all. The formula approach provides no guarantee whatsoever that American forces will be more able to engage effectively in military activities in future years. It is not levels of spending but how the funds are spent that relate to capability improvements.
There will always be ways to spend additional money for defense and we can be sure the military will find them. But we who are responsible for the entire budget must understand, that the military does not have the countervailing responsibility for providing for the domestic needs of the country and for maintaining the Nation's economic health.
Since the military has this single responsibility rather than the larger responsibility of the Congress, it will always find programs that are "essential" to U.S. security. Furthermore, there will always be defense contractors with new ideas on ways to spend money. If the Congress is to fulfill its responsibilities to the Nation, however, it must reject the impulse to throw more money at the Defense Department without a thorough understanding of how and why that money is to be spent and what will be sacrificed in the process. It is the responsibility of the Congress to insure that the citizen's tax dollars are effectively spent.
Mr. President, I would like to briefly address the major reasons why this amendment should be defeated.
The amendment adds $3.2 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1980 and $21.7 billion in fiscal years 1981 and 1982. This will cause the projected fiscal year 1980 deficit to increase to over $30 billion — an amount greater than the fiscal year 1979 deficit. Further, the increases for fiscal years 1981 and 1982 will significantly reduce — by up to one-half — the projected budget surplus levels for fiscal years 1981and 1982.
The amendment provides for increases of $38.3 billion in budget authority for fiscal years 1980-82 without specification of how the money can be spent and what reductions are required in other budget functions to maintain budget credibility.
The amendment maintains defense outlays as a percent of GNP at a constant 5.1 percent level from fiscal year 1980 to fiscal year 1982 while non-defense outlays as a percent of GNP are being reduced from 16.6 to 15.2 percent. The amendment also keeps Federal outlays as a percent of GNP above the 20 percent level. So much for our lofty ideals of controlling outlays — and I might add that many supporters of the amendment are also the most vocal supporters of restraining Federal spending.
The NATO 3 percent commitment is not cast in stone forevermore. It has a built-in flexibility that addresses real growth in the region of 3 percent subject to economic circumstances affecting what can be achieved. Further, it stresses expenditures devoted to major equipment. The budget resolution reflects these flexibilities and the realities of our present economic situation. I ask unanimous consent that the NATO communique on the 3-percent commitment be placed in the RECORD at this time.
There being no objection, the cornmunique was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
EXCERPT FROM NATO 3-PERCENT COMMITMENT AGREEMENT, MAY 18, 1977
RESOURCES FOR DEFENSE
16. Against the background of adverse trends in the NATO-Warsaw Pact military balance and in order to avoid a continued deterioration in the relative force capabilities; an annual increase in real terms in defense budgets should be aimed at by all member countries. This annual increase should be in the region of 3 percent, recognizing that for some individual countries:
Economic circumstances will affect what can be achieved;
Present force contributions may justify a higher level of increase.
Specific target figures for each country will need to be determined in the normal course of the Defense Planning Review. Nations should provide full compensation for the inflationary impact of rising pay and price levels to ensure that planned real increasesare achieved. It is, moreover, imperative that nations increase the cost-effectiveness of their defense expenditures, in particular the percentage of such expenditure devoted to major equipment, but without detriment to combat readiness. The effective use of resources will depend to a large extent on progress in Alliance cooperation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the budget resolution provides for 2.1 percent real growth in budget authority in fiscal year 1980 for defense investments and an average annual real growth of 2.75 percent for investments over fiscal year 1980-84. These levels insure that defense investment activities will average real growth of approximately 5 percent annum from fiscal year 1975 to 1984.
Unobligated balances of the DOD — funds authorized by Congress but not obligated and available for spending — have increased from $12.6 billion in fiscal year 1975 to a projected $23.2 billion at the end of fiscal year 1980 — an 84-percent increase. While the full funding concept that causes a buildup of funds may be a reasonable one, a determination on the availability of funds from such a large amount to other defense programs should be made prior to a wholesale commitment of new excessive funding levels.
Current DOD data on 54 major defense programs indicates that they will have cost growth of $96 billion over the life time of the programs; $72 billion of this growth is due to program changes that can be categorized as under the management control of the DOD. A 20-percent improvement in management efficiency could provide $15 billion in savings from the anticipated cost growth for use on other defense programs. I ask unanimous consent that a table of these programs and their levels of cost growth be included in the RECORD at this time.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the United States currently provides 5 percent of its GNP to defense spending — no other NATO ally achieves this level of spending. Mr. President, I ask that a table identifying the percent of GNP devoted to defense by NATO members and other U.S. allies be included in the RECORD at this time.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, by rejecting this amendment, we are asking the Senate to live up to its commitment to move toward a balanced budget. If this amendment is not defeated our deficit next year will be larger than our deficit this year.
That result is unacceptable to me. We must make painful cuts in valuable social and economic programs, ask people to do without some of the government services they seek, and ask the individual Members of Congress to set aside some of their favorite programs for the common good. We must do it if we are ever to control the budget.
Those who argue for a 3- or 5-percent increase for defense would set aside important social goals in the name of economy, but add over $100 billion new dollars for undefined defense programs of no proved value and no demonstrated need.
If we adopt these increases in the face of this evidence, the deficit will increase.We will build new spending momentum into the budget. We will saddle the future Congresses with even more painful choices. We will throw oil on the fires of inflation in an important industrial sector. And we can say goodbye to all the brave talk about bringing the budget under control.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All remaining time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment (UP No. 560) of the Sena-tor from Nebraska (Mr. EXON). The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced—yeas 12, nays 85, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So Mr. EXON's amendment (UP No. 560) was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I might have the attention of my colleagues, the debate on the defense issue has gone on all afternoon. There are two votes now pending. The first vote is on the Hollings 1980 numbers, and the second vote is on the Hollings 1981 and 1982 numbers.
Senator HOLLINGS and Senator STENNIS and I agreed that between the last vote and the next vote, we ought to have 11 minutes of discussion, simply to wrap up the debate for those who were not able to attend most of the afternoon.
I have agreed to divide that time, 5 minutes to Senator HOLLINGS, 5 minutes to Senator STENNIS, and 1 minute to myself, typically brief.
Now, to the 1980 number.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Three percent?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. HOLLINGS. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, may we have quiet so the membership can hear?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Chair state the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on division 1 of the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina, which deals with 1980. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 78, nays 19, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So division No. I of the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina (Amendment No. 435, as modified), was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote by which division 1 of the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. TOWER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, at this time I yield 5 minutes respectfully to my good friend from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I wish to yield to the distinguished chairman. He asked for it. I want to answer what he has to say and will yield back the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself the 1 minute I indicated earlier. I am willing to speak first. I will just make these points briefly.
First, I call to the attention of colleagues on the floor at the time, the evening paper indicates on the front page that after setting a record yesterday of $350 an ounce on the price of gold the markets have now broken that record, a new benchmark of $375 an ounce, with a high price of $379.
That is a figure that should strike terror in the heart of any Member of this body who is concerned about what is happening to the dollar and to inflation and with the implications of the budget that we are voting on for those problems.
The second point I make is that this is the vote on the Hollings 1981, 1982 figures which projects a 5-percent, 5-percent, increase in the defense budget, raising the second budget resolution. There is another proposition that will be offered if this one fails, 3 percent and 3 percent. I think that that is excessive at this point but preferable to the 5 percent, 5 percent
So I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hollings proposal. I am now prepared to yield to either of my colleagues who wishes to speak at this point.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Go ahead.
Mr. STENNIS. Go ahead.
Mr. HOLLINGS. No; go right ahead
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi.