September 18, 1979
Page 24978
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LEVIN) . The time of the Senator from Georgia has expired.
Mr. NUNN. If I may have 3 more minutes
Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield the Senator 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no further time left, except on the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield the Senator such time as he requires on the bill.
Mr. NUNN. I thank the Senator from Maine.
In our general purpose forces, our Army's disadvantage is growing. The Soviets will have maritime superiority by the 1986-88 period if current plans for naval shipbuilding are not increased. Our Air Force does still have advantages but these are declining. The Marine Corps is faced with critical problems in the area of mobility — amphibious shipping — and sustainability in combat, especially munitions and naval firepower.
On top of all this, the allocations within our own defense dollars have 56 percent going to personnel costs, leaving too little for real investment.
There can be no disagreement that the trends are adverse. Our own Department of Defense clearly believes that the 5-year plan with 3-percent growth will not permit us to meet President Carter's national security directives. Even a 5-percent growth will not be sufficient, but if we make this commitment and fulfill it, we will begin making great strides. Unless we make an increased effort in defense, not only will meaningful arms control measures become virtually impossible to negotiate, but the already dangerous 1980's will become more dangerous.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Maine for yielding me time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the Senator from Maine will yield me 30 seconds on the bill, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HOLLINGS. There is no better informed Member in the entire Congress on our defense affairs. I only wish we had more time and attention given to him, because there would be no doubt in my mind about the outcome.
I also commend our distinguished colleague from Oregon, who has had to leave the floor momentarily (Mr. PACKWOOD). He gave one of the best defense talks I have heard in my time in the Senate.
I think It is very significant that Senator PACKWOOD, who has had a slightly different record. let us say, than that of the Senator from South Carolina on defense, gave as categorical, cogent, and persuasive a talk as he did.
I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I believe the Senator from Mississippi and the senior Senator from South Carolina want to be heard, and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. WARNER).
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I assure my friend from South Carolina that we have, I think, adequate time for debate, and I will be perfectly willing to make it available.
I think at some point before long the other side of this issue ought to be heard. At the moment, the Senator from South Carolina is in the position of tilting with windmills; unless I become the windmill, the Senator will not have opposition.
At this time, I yield 12 minutes to my good friend the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, from the Armed Services Committee. Following that I will yield Senator THURMOND 2 minutes, and then 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia (Mr. WARNER); and then, at that point, I think I should make my position clear, so that the issue can begin to be drawn.
I yield to the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am yielding this time out of my time on the amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. It may be that I will not take all of that time at this point, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I am supporting that part of the amendment that relates to fiscal year 1980. That is the part upon which we will have an opportunity to vote, according to the rule of division. There are a great many points here that I could refer to, that relate to other parts of the Hollings amendment, but I will not go into that question just now.
I do want to say one word, Mr. President, lest the wrong impression get out: In all the years of NATO, I do not know of any single promise that we made that we have failed in any way to carry out. I do not know of anything that we promised and then failed to live up to that promise.
You can figure as many possibilities as to what might be the needs in Western Europe as you have people that have pencils. For example, the estimated time of the battle or the war vary in estimates from 1 or 2 days to a year or more. You make your calculation, then, on what may be needed.
I also speak as one who has been through many of these debates, in a position of responsibility on the floor with reference to NATO. I always supported the idea and defended the recommendations for the money. We had many of those requests, to bring home within a year's time 40 to 50 percent of the troops. As I recall, one time the resolution had 44 Senators as cosponsors.
But now, according to the best figures available, we are presently spending a total sum of $48 billion a year on NATO. That is not chicken change; $48 billion a year, and that has steadily risen since 1974, which is the figure that I have here; it was then $44 billion a year. It has steadily risen at that rate.
I hear criticism, because we do not have nuclear missiles, or that we have not enough. Well, it is a pretty good reason, when you do not have the permission of a country to put those missiles
there.
So all the things of that kind are joined in here in the overall picture of NATO. I will continue to support NATO,but I know how easy it is to get off into those problems. I know how difficult it isto even carry out a contract for making weapons over there, or making parts here and the motors over there, or the motors here and the rest over there. It does not work well.
We have here, and I like the fact, a Budget Committee. They have made headway. They are helping arrest this trend toward overspending and unbalanced budgets. Any overspending is bound to have its place in the inflation picture, as I see things. But they have made headway, and I do not want to tear down their work. I want to support them when I can.
But here, on this part of the amendment, this is a budget that has already been gone over.
Hearings have been held, members have worked on these items and passed on them, and reports have been filed. This bill, in effect, has already been before the Senate and passed by a highly favorable vote.
This part of the amendment today that relates to fiscal year 1980 is merely a refiguring of the application of the 3-percent increase that the President promised. He promised the military and he promised NATO. When it was figured almost a year ago, or at the beginning of this calendar year, it was less than now. I have an itemized list of these items here that shows that the fuel alone has gone up so much in price that it constitutes a great part of this increase. Fuel prices have increased $888 million. Dollar devaluation, $470 million. It all adds up to $2.7 billion.
Almost every item in that amount of money will have to be paid for, anyway. We are not saving any money by falling to put it in the bill this year. You just defer the time that it will be paid.
I should like to insist on exercising a management effort all year to try to hold these figures down and make some improvements here, there, and everywhere. But we are face to face with time here, and now. I hope that this part of the Hollings amendment can be put in here so it will not be out of order when we come back with an appropriations bill.
These are times that do not have to be expressly authorized by the Senate Armed Services Committee, because they are what we call O. & M. items. But there will have to be an accounting for all of this. I am one of the ones who goes to the other committees and deals with the Appropriations Committee in the House on these very matters.
I hope that we can develop this and pass it this way, because time has run out.
I am not saying that about these other items, these future years, where none of these figures have been weighed by anyone and hearings have not been held, committees have not passed on them. ButI do see the picture here, clearly, with reference to this refiguring of these inflated figures that go to make up this amount.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, I yield.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I have wanted to get the floor for 5 minutes.
Mr. STENNIS. Let me yield back the time that I had to the chairman of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I had already agreed to yield 2 minutes to Senator THURMOND and 3 minutes to Senator WARNER. I shall be happy then to yield 5 minutes to Senator GOLDWATER.
I simply want to repeat that at some point, the other side of the case ought to be made so the issue will be drawn. I am happy to yield in accordance with that sequence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the pending amendment, of which I am a cosponsor, to restore fiscal year 1980 defense spending to a level of 3 percent real growth as originally recommended by President Carter in his initial budget message.
I believe this amendment is the bare minimum level of defense funding needed for fiscal year 1980 if we are to undertake any worthwhile effort to meet our defense shortages.
While this amendment supports only a 3-percent real growth in fiscal year 1980 defense spending, I believe we must increase this level to as high as 8 percent in future years if we are to reduce the period of danger we now face.
Because various defense programs have been delayed, and others canceled, such as the B-1 bomber, the United States will lose "strategic essential equivalence" with the Soviets in the early 1980's.
This is substantiated by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Only through an aggressive defense program can we regain that equivalence or shorten the period this danger will be hanging over our heads.
This can be done by accelerating production of the MX and cruise missiles, building a modern manned bomber such as the B-1, increasing the size of our Navy, and modernizing our Army. If we fail to take these actions we will be placing the safety of our people and the future of our free system in jeopardy.
Mr. President, I just call the attention of the Senate to the fact that, in 1955, the defense budget was 58.1 percent of the entire budget. For 1980, it will be about 23.4 percent. In other words, it has gone down from 58.1 to 23.4 percent.
On human resources in 1955, that was 21.2 percent of the entire budget; in 1980, it will be 52.6 percent.
Mr. President, really, we are placing this country in danger if we do not increase our defense expenditures, because that is the only way, in my judgment, that we can retain freedom for the people of this Nation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks a speech on this subject which I delivered at Fort Campbell, Ky., during the Senate recess.
There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS BY SENATOR STROM THURMOND
CHALLENGE OF THE 1960'S
General Brandenburg, Judge Wilson, Members of the Tennessee-Kentucky Chapter of the AUSA, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen:
It is a distinct privilege to visit with the military men and women who make up the 101st Airborne Division and other units at this outstanding installation and to also meet with leaders in the civilian community who have supported Fort Campbell and the Army over the years.
The high state of readiness of this unit with its air assault capabilities provides this nation with an important capability to deter would-be troublemakers and to deal with them if necessary. After visiting some of the training of the 101st this morning I can say their spirit and capabilities are equal to any challenge.
I wish I could report to you today that our nation is equally prepared for the threats that face us.
ESSENTIAL EQUIVALENCE LOST
Only last week, for the first time in our history, the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitted before the Senate that the United States will lose essential equivalence in a strategic sense with the Soviet Union in the 1980's. This is a shocking, but truthful, statement of the situation we face when improved accuracy of Soviet missiles will make our land based Minuteman ICBM force hostage to a first strike beginning around 1982.
This sad and dangerous development has resulted from two easily visible movements in history: First, an unprecedented buildup of Soviet strategic military power; and, second, the failure by our nation to accelerate our own strategic force modernization to meet this threat.
Today, in bringing this situation into focus, I would like to touch briefly on first, the shifting balance of power; second the SALT II Treaty, and third, meeting the Soviet threat.
1. Shifting power balance
In 1969, by any measurable standard, our military strength vis-a-vis the Soviets was clearly superior. Our technology had enabled us to counter the massive Soviet buildup which began following the Cuban crisis in 1962.
However, the first four years of the Nixon Administration were spent on supplying our forces in Vietnam and attempting to extract us from that war in an honorable manner. Next came Watergate, which mesmerized the country and saw us embrace SALT I which I supported.
When President Ford assumed office, his efforts went towards healing the wounds of Vietnam and Watergate. Then President Carter was elected, and he initiated policies which not only failed to reverse the shifting balance of military power, but in many respects moved us towards an even weaker position.
U.S. LEAD ENDING
These trends can be illustrated quite dramatically in the area of strategic military strength. In 1969, the U.S. led the Soviet Union in nearly every measure of strategic defense systems: the numbers of land and sea-based missiles, the accuracy of these weapons, the number of warheads, and the megatonnage of our missile forces. Now, with the SALT II Treaty at hand, we find the Soviet Union leads the U.S. in all categories except the number of warheads. Unfortunately, they will lead in this area by the time the SALT II Treaty ends in 1985.
DEFENSE ISSUES
This trend is also prevalent in our overall military force structure. Think for a moment what has happened concerning our defense preparedness in just the past two years. Here are some of my concerns:
1. Cancellation of MINUTEMAN III missiles production;
2. Cancellation of the B-1 Bomber Program;
3. Cancellation of Neutron warhead deployment;
4. Veto of a new nuclear aircraft carrier;
5. Constant delays in the badly needed MX mobile missile program;
6. Constant delays in development of the cruise missile programs;
7. Reduction by 1/2 of the Navy's 5-year ship program.
8. Reductions by 10's of billions in overall defense spending during which time not one single new program has been initiated.
OTHER POLICY ACTIONS
In addition to these unilateral reductions in our military strength such reductions have been accompanied by other policy actions with which I disagree, such as:
1. The giveaway of the Panama Canal;
2. Troop withdrawals from Korea;
3. Acceptance of nuclear capable aircraft in Cuba.
4. The appointment of Paul Warnke to negotiate SALT II;
5. Transfer of technology to Communist nations; and
6. Amnesty for draft dodgers.
These are some of the major actions on weapons programs and policy actions which concern me and others in Congress who favor a strong national defense.
SOVIET BUILDUP
Against this background we find that the Soviets have been outspending the U.S. on overall defense by at least 40 percent and by three times as much on strategic forces.
It is clear the Soviets are not interested in a position of parity, but seek a clear military superiority.
This Soviet buildup is far in excess of any defensive needs. They view military power as the key to political influence, and rightly so. It is not so much a question of whether or not they will launch a military attack, but rather the leverage this power gives them throughout the world.
They intend to use this power to bring other nations into their orbit and to deprive the free nations of access to oil resources, raw materials, and the like.
SOVIETS PROJECT POWER
Examples of their power projections abound even with the current power balance. Through their Cuban proxy troops in Africa and direct military aid, they have brought to power pro-Soviet regimes in Angola, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Afghanistan and other places; supported the insurgents in Rhodesia and Nicaragua; encouraged the fall of the Shah of Iran; introduced MIG-23 nuclear capable aircraft in Cuba; backed Vietnam in its takeover of Cambodia; and used the Vietnam-China War to gain access to South Vietnamese ports.
These events, along with the Soviet military buildup, have contributed to a deep running apprehension in the Senate as to the worth of any arms agreement With the Soviets.
2. SALT II AGREEMENT
As for the SALT II agreement, we have just completed two weeks of hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee. There hearings have shown the Treaty to be seriously flawed. In my judgment, it is a poorly negotiated document in many respects.
As an example, why should we allow the Soviets 308 heavy missiles, each with 10 warheads, while the U.S. is not allowed any? Even our light missiles are permitted to carry only one-half the number of warheads allowed the Soviets. Is this equality?
Further the Soviet Backfire bomber does not count in the Treaty, although it clearly has strategic capabilities. On the other hand, the U.S. is forced to count all of our old B-52's, even some which have been cannibalized for spare parts. Is this equality?
Another example is the fact that the Soviet SS-20 mobile missile, already deployed against NATO can easily be converted to a strategic missile which could reach the United States by adding a booster or by downloading some of the warheads. The SS-20 is not counted in SALT II but the U.S. nuclear and non-nuclear ground and sea based cruise missiles are limited in the protocol to 372 miles in range.
OTHER TREATY CONSIDERATIONS
Besides the obvious inequality of the Treaty, the Senate must also consider SALT in the context of how it will impact on the critical need we face to redress our strategic weaknesses.
Will it create a euphoria such as occurred in SALT I which will diminish our will to meet the Soviet threat?
Can its ambiguities be corrected by unilateral reservations and understandings?
Is it possible to effectively link SALT II to Soviet expansion around the world?
Can this treaty be adequately verified?
These are all questions of the greatest importance. My chief hope is that SALT II will ignite a great national debate which will spur the country to respond as we did in thespace race. We need to initiate a crash program to regain the essential equivalence we will lose in just a few years.
3. MEETING THE SOVIET THREAT
This brings me to my third and final point, meeting the Soviet threat. I believe our people are ready and able to meet this challenge. The only element now lacking is positive and aggressive leadership in Washington. This leadership needs to come from both the President and the Congress. In my judgment there is no question as to what we should and must do. Congress has already made a beginning. We have moved to accelerate the MX program and the President has recommended the larger MX missile for advanced development. We have added four ships to our Navy in the military bill this year by ordering conversion of the Iranian destroyers to U.S. type ships. Money is included in this year's bill for concept work on a new strategic bomber and for design of a cruise missile carrier.
However, many other steps need to be taken. The President himself must speak to the nation on this approaching crisis. We have had many talks on energy, but not one on national defense. Our leaders must realize that we cannot defend ourselves in the 1980's and 1990's with the weapons of the 1950's and 1960's. We need an 8 to 10 percent increase in real growth in the defense budget over the next 10 years. Even this large effort would represent only about a 2 percent real growth in our overall national budget of around $600 billion.
We should announce immediately the deployment of the new MX missile in the most survivable basing mode;
We should accelerate deployment of thecruise missile without SALT restrictions;
We should build the B-1 or some other new strategic bomber;
We should modernize our forces without delay;
We should accelerate development of theTrident II missile for our strategic submarines;
We should build a Navy that can protect the sea lanes which are vital to our national survival.
These efforts will require a national consensus in which I urge that you participate as individuals and collectively. If you act Washington will react.
In closing, I would like to quote first from the Book of Proverbs where we find this admonition: "Where there is no vision, the people perish"; and, second, in Luke: "When a strong man armed keepeth his place, his goods are in peace."
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia was to be recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona at this moment.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I do not know if the Senator from Maine would want to yield to me. I probably come someplace in between.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I only need a few minutes because, to be honest, I have not completely made up my mind on this matter. Common sense tells me which way to go, but I have such high respect for what the two chairmen of the Budget Committee have been able to do with this that I kind of hate to upset the apple cart.
But I cannot let an almost lifetime experience with the military just go by. I think I can safely say that this country has never, in its history, been in such a dangerous condition militarily as we find it today. Our Navy is in worse shape than it was before Pearl Harbor. Our Army is in good shape, but not good enough. The flying forces of the Army, the Navy, the Marines and the Air Force are the only areas in which we are superior to the possible enemy, the Soviet. It is not because of equipment, because they outnumber us 2 to 1 in tactical aircraft. If the truth were told by the Defense Department, which they do not do very often, they would admit that in numbers of aircraft that can deliver bombs to the mainland of America, they have as many as we have that can deliver bombs to the mainland of Soviets. The difference is that ours can get back; most of theirs cannot.
We are no longer the No. 1 military country in this world and I want the American people to start understanding that.
I am tired of the President telling them that we are ahead; I am tired of the Secretary of Defense saying that we are No. 1, when we are not. We are No. 2 and not a very good No. 2. They outnumber us almost 4 to 1 in uniformed people, nearly 9 to 1 in tanks, and we still have not a new tank since World War II nor a new artillery piece. They outnumber us 20 to 1 in artillery pieces, by the way.
We are not looking at a world that we are dominant in any more. What I am afraid of is not a confrontation with the Soviets. I do not believe that we shall ever go to war with that country. But what we are seeing in Cuba today is just one of many instances that we are going to start seeing all over this world. The battlefields that we have talked of in the past being on the soil of Europe probably will not come through.
We see possible battlefields in Yemen and Ethiopia, around the perimeter of the Indian Ocean, in areas of this world that we never dreamed of, and not from big countries. Because a small country like Cuba can thumb its nose at the United States, every small country in the world is going to be tempted to do it.
As I say, Mr. President, my mind is not made up on this.
I want to mention one more fact that I could not mention before yesterday but, thanks to the ever leaking New York Times, an article was published yesterday that is still highly classified, which I tried to get the Defense Department to release so that the American people will understand that our forces are in very depleted condition. Our Reserve and National Guard are about 50 percent of the strength that we would like them to be. Our doctor strength is 25 percent, nurse strength 12 percent, short. It would take about 200 days to get a draftee prepared for war in view of the fact that we have no draft at this time. As the man who spoke out first publicly in politics against the draft, I now have to support a draft for this country, as distasteful as it would be to see it happen.
But it either happens or we do not have troops to back up the freedom of this country, if it is needed.
If I have sounded dismal in my talk, I feel dismal. I do not like my country being second to any country in this world in anything, but we are. We are second militarily. We are certainly not the strong moral country we once were, not the strong economic country we once were.
If I said these words, I am not sorry for them. I do not have to live this life forever. But I have grandchildren and I do not want them to have to go through what most of us in this room went through, all because of a shortsighted, foolish Government that could not believe that the United States could be in such bad shape.
I congratulate both the Senators who brought this subject to the floor. I hope it gets a very thorough discussion and, in all probability, I will support it, but I am not sure yet.
I thank both sides for letting me speak.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I agreed to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia. There has not been a word of debate on the side of the opposition to the Hollings amendment and I think the time has come when I have a responsibility to raise those questions and those issues.
So I yield to Senator WARNER at this point for the 3 minutes I agreed to, and then I will take some time on the amendment in order to present my rationale.
These speakers, all of whom I respect highly, have put my position in doubt by their arguments, unless their arguments are answered. So I think I must do so after I have yielded to the Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair and I thank Senator MUSKIE for this time.
Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is debating our defense requirements. It is a subject that needs to be given the highest priority by every Senator.
As a new member of the Armed Services Committee, I have had the privilege this year of reviewing our defense posture and our defense needs in depth. And from that review, I must tell my colleagues, I am greatly concerned.
We as a nation are no longer in a position to feel comfortable and secure. We face unprecedented threats — and we are ill-prepared and ill-equipped to meet them. I will not here attempt to catalog all the threats we face, but I hope every Senator will take the time to consider them in detail.
The trends are clearly adverse — across the board.
Over the past 10 to 15 years, the SovietUnion has been engaged in a peacetime military buildup of unprecedented proportions. With a GNP less than half that of the United States, that country in the last 8 years has succeeded in investing an estimated $100 billion more for defense than has the United States.
This very substantial investment is beginning to pay off in the form of formidable military forces capable of challenging the United States and its allies around the world — on land, at sea, and in the air.
What has the United States done in the face of this military buildup? Have we recognized the threat? Have we responded adequately to protect our Nation's interests?
Not yet. Our defense effort today continues at a level below what this Nation spent on defense in fiscal 1964. The threat has grown tremendously since then, but our defense effort has actually declined.
I know that each year the headlines shout "Record Defense Budget This Year" — but that is largely because of inflation and increased manpower costs, not because we have a greater defense effort.
In fact, when you discount for inflation, we now spend less for defense in uninflated dollars than in fiscal 1964 — and that money buys less and less defense equipment because of higher manpower and operating costs.
This year's defense budget request, for example, is about the same size in uninflated dollars as our defense budget in fiscal 1970. Yet, this year's budget request will support a million fewer men and women in uniform, approximately 300 fewer ships, and approximately 4,000 fewer aircraft than did the 1970 budget.
Thus, the threat has grown tremendously — while our defense effort has actually declined. The key question now is how long this trend can go on before the Soviet Union realizes meaningful military and political advantages that will further alter the worldwide balance of power.
Recent events give us some hint of what is likely to come if we allow the military balance to shift further in favor of the Soviet Union.
It is a sad fact of life, but as much as we would like to, we have no control over the threats we face. The Soviet arms buildup and other threats to our security are beyond our control. As long as the threats are there, we must respond.
Mr. President, over the August recess, there were several articles and editorials in the press to the effect that the Pentagon had so much money it did not know what to do with it all. The implication was that adding any more money to the defense budget would only throw good money after bad.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There are literally hundreds of needed — effective — worthwhile defense programs that have gone unfunded for years.
Let me give but a few examples. The Navy currently has so few tactical aircraft that it cannot even muster enough airplanes to put a full complement of aircraft on each of our 13 aircraft carriers. Just to stay at this already low level of aircraft, we would have to buy at least 180 tactical aircraft per year.
The administration budget request asks for only 39.
When the members of the Armed Services Committee try to increase the number of aircraft in the bill, we are told that the budget constraints will not allow it.
Another example is Navy shipbuilding.The Carter shipbuilding plan for fiscal 1980 calls for construction of only 10 combatant ships — a building rate that will lead to an even further decline in our fleet at a time when our dependence on the sea lanes is increasing.
The other services are just as badly off.
The Army has tremendous shortfalls in ammunition and combat equipment. The details of these shortfalls are classified, but I would like every Senator to know that I do not feel at all comfortable letting American soldiers be deployed along the East German border with the ammunition stockages we have today.
We simply must build up these stocks, but it takes money.
In all the services, funding constraints are such that flying hours are being restricted to the point where readiness is suffering. Our pilots are flying just barelyenough hours to maintain proficiency.
These are not isolated examples. I could go on. They run through our entire defense structure from top to bottom.
Take Mark 48 torpedoes. The administration wants to end production. They say we have enough. What we have is enough torpedoes for each of our attack submarines to have one full load plus a few.
It seems unwise to buy a $400 million submarine and give it only enough torpedoes for one patrol. When the torpedoes are gone, we may as well tie the submarine up at the pier.
These are just some of the decisions being made because of funding constraints.
Military construction is another whole area which has suffered greatly from funding limitations.
There is currently a $35 billion backlog in needed military construction and modernization. There are hundreds of high-priority projects that go unfunded year after year.
We have medical facilities that are not only inadequate and outdated, but in outright violation of health and safety standards.
We have ammunition handling facilities that are antiquated and unsafe.
Mr. President, the list goes on and on and on.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the strains on our defense posture.
Mr. President, in closing, I urge that Senators take a look at some of the printed hearings of testimony before the Armed Services Committee.
Take a look at volume II, page 538 of this year's hearings, for instance. You will see Admiral Hayward quoted as saying:
With fewer ships facing an increasing threat, we are no longer able to achieve the concentration of forces necessary to secure at the outset of the war all of the historically vital sea lanes.
Mr. President, the shortages are real, the threat is real, the time is now. We simply must increase our defense spending to assure the continued security and freedom of our Nation.
Mr. President, it appears to me that this morning we have had a very fine dissertation from knowledgeable Members of this Chamber about the adverse trends in our national defense. I have referred to those trends in my statement. But I ask my colleagues to think of something else besides the charts and the statistics and the weapons systems, and that is, the individual soldier, the individual citizen. He is counting on his Government to provide for an adequate defense.
When we send a soldier to some overseas outpost, he has a right to expect that he will have good equipment — and plenty of it.
If you look at the facts, we are not meeting that expectation. The Army is critically short of ammunition and equipment. The Navy has barely enough ships to meet its peacetime commitments. Across the board, our Armed Forces have significant weaknesses caused by budgetary constraints.
I ask my colleagues that when they come to the floor to cast their vote on this amendment they think in terms of their responsibility to those young people to give them the arms that they expect, that they are entitled to, not only to defend freedom, but to defend themselves.
In good conscience, we cannot order these people throughout the world and fail to give them the weapons to which they are entitled.
We have a broader obligation, however, to all Americans. We should not — as Senator NUNN has said — allow the American people to be lulled into a false sense of security.
The facts are there for all those who want to see them. The shortages are real. The growing Soviet threat is real.
It is time for the Congress to respond. It is time to start strengthening our defenses.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes on the amendment.
Mr. President, I have listened now for some 2 hours or more to colleagues for whom I have the highest respect on both sides of the aisle. I share their concern for the state of the national security.
So what divides us is not our perception of the importance of a sufficient defense, but rather, what in addition do we need now, what in addition do we need in the years ahead, with respect to our defense posture.
I am concerned about our national security, Mr. President, but I view our national security as involving something more than our arms capability. To me, the greatest threat to our national
security today is not the condition of our defense establishment and it is not those threats which we can perceive from abroad. The greatest threat to our national security is inflation.
Yesterday, gold breached the $350 ceiling. Now, that is not as dramatic, I suppose, as some of the statements we have heard today with respect to the alleged shortage of arms in the defense establishment. But the significance of what happened yesterday ought to strike thoughtful people in this body and should shock them and disturb them more than any threat to our national security interests.
When I was a freshman in college, the Congress of the United States, under the pressures of the depression, set the price of gold at $35 an ounce. It stayed there until 1971 when it was allowed to float free of that shackle and to respond to the real economic conditions of this country, and the industrial countries of the world.
As the price of gold rises, the value of the dollar drops.
The price of gold yesterday was 10 times more than it was in 1971, or in the early 1930's.
What does this reflect? It reflects the fact of inflation. What does it reflect? It reflects the fact of our dependence upon imported oil. What does it reflect? It reflects our inability to come to grips with energy. What does it reflect? It reflects our inability to exercise restraint in the management of our fiscal affairs.
Do you think for one moment that defense is going to be benefited if the rest of the Government's budget must absorb inflation and not the defense budget? Do you think defense will be benefited if the rest of the American economy and all American citizens must somehow swallow inflation but not the defense budget? Do you think there is some way to so insulate the defense budget from inflation so that there will be no threat to it?
I have listened with a great deal of interest to my good friend, the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Nunn), and I have as high respect for him as I have for any other Member of this body or any man in public life I have ever met. He is a young man of substance, intelligence, and judgment, but he occasionally makes arguments that do not rest on fact.
First of all, he created a strawman. He said somebody was arguing that defense spending was responsible for our inflation. I have never made that argument. I have never heard anybody else make that argument.
But then Senator NUNN went one step further, and he said inflation correlates with the growth in non-defense programs and the budget. I have never heard that argument made before, and I must say that it is nonsense.
The Federal budget or any part of it is sometimes a contributor to inflation and often it is not.
With respect to the 1960's, it was defense spending in connection with the Vietnam war that triggered the inflationary forces that have never subsided since, because we were not willing to pay for that war as it occurred. We did not increase taxes, but we did increase defense spending, and that defense spending was inflationary.
Whether or not defense spending or any other Government spending is inflationary generally depends upon the state of the economy. With the recovery from the 1974-75 depression, Mr. President, and with the reduction in unused industrial capacity, we have reached the point in many segments of our economy whereGovernment spending can trigger inflationary forces — and that is true of any Government spending, whether it is defense or domestic programs. That is where I come down.
Senator Nunn is arguing, in effect, that whatever the effect of Government spending on inflation — assuming Government spending is generally inflationary, then somehow the defense component of Government spending does not contribute to inflation. Mr. President, that argument simply does not hold.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I will stipulate, if he would like, that the total Government spending affects inflation.
I ant not arguing that you can say that defense does not have an effect. I am saying that this chart clearly shows that the inflation rate has gone sky high in a period of time that defense spending was going down.
But I will agree with the Senator from Maine that it is the total spending of the Government, including defense and social spending, that affects inflation. We have no argument on that point.
Mr. MUSKIE. But the Senator did not make that clarification when he presented that chart.
Mr. NUNN. I said that those who are arguing that defense spending is causing inflation are wrong.
Mr. MUSKIE. But I have heard nobody make that argument.
Mr. NUNN. I have read it in the paper over and over.
Mr. MUSKIE. I read all kinds of things in the paper, but I have not heard that argument made.
Mr. NUNN. Did I say that the Senator from Maine had?
Mr. MUSKIE. No, but the debate is on the Senate floor.
Mr. NUNN. I did not say, either, to the Senator from Maine that social spending caused inflation. I specifically said I was not making that allegation.
This chart is accurate. If the Senator wants to argue about it, I will stipulate that both added together have an effect on inflation. I am not isolating either. The straw man is being created by the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator from Georgia that I accept his qualification of his earlier statement. I do not quarrel with what he has just said. I quarreled with what he said earlier.
Mr. NUNN. The Senator did not listen to what I said earlier, or he misinterpreted what I said earlier. If we have a stipulation or an agreement, I guess there is no further argument.
Mr. MUSKIE. Whether I listened closely is a subjective thing I cannot prove or disprove.
Mr. NUNN. The record will show what I said. We can read it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The record can be read. I think the point is now clarifled, and it is not irrelevant.
Mr. NUNN. Both added together will have an overall fiscal impact. I agree with that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly, and now the point is clear.
Mr. President, I hope I do not stir tempers every time I make points that in any way disagree with the arguments of the supporters of the amendment that I have been listening to for 2 hours. There has been no challenge to those arguments; and while there was no challenge, the environment was quiet. Now, when a clarification is sought, I have somehow asked for something that stirs tempers.
The point I am making is that the enemy in fiscal year 1979 and in fiscal year 1980, the enemy who has the capacity in those years to devastate this economy — the defense budget, the Government's overall budget — is not the Soviet Union nor any other enemy I can foresee. It is the enemy called inflation.
You can take one of two positions with respect to it: either that there is not much we can do about inflation by any of our actions with respect to the Government's budget, or that we can exercise some control over inflation by our actions on Government spending. If there is something we can do by our control over the Government's budget, then I say we should do it.
I must say that many of those who have been speaking for the Hollings amendment are the same Members who have been saying this same thing when we are talking about the non-defense portion of the budget. You cannot have it two ways. All aspects of the budget, defense and non-defense, have to be controlled by this body if we are to control inflation.
If someone can give me some demonstration, such as an imminent Soviet attack of some kind next year, then I will say, "Let's go to it. Let's raise taxes. Let's raise defense spending the way we do in wartime." But that is not a rational process. We throw money at wars. Perhaps some would have us do it now, if there is that kind of physical threat to us from the Soviet Union in 1980.
What has triggered all of this debate? Until the SALT hearings came along, there was none of this surge, this interest and determination to add such large increments to defense spending. Oh, there were those, including Senator HOLLINGS, who complained about the inadequacy of defense appropriations for years, and I do not mean to suggest otherwise about my friend and other longtime advocates of large defense spending totals. My question deals with the general attitude about defense spending.
It is only a short time ago that the Navy Department, for example, was talking about a high-low mix of ships: a high mix, the expensive, sophisticated ships that had to do with the projection of American power, and the low mix, the inexpensive ships we could use for escort in order to guard our sea lanes.
The defense establishment senses now that there is momentum in congressional opinion and in public opinion for enormously increased defense spending levels. No longer do I hear as much about the high-low mix. I do not hear as much about the need to exercise restraint in spending.
I am beginning to hear more and more about wish lists originating in the Defense Department and elsewhere: The theme is, "We can get more money now. What can we do to justify it? What is your wish list, Mr. Navy Department? What is yours, Mr. Air Force?"
I have seen this reaction over a lifetime, long before I was in public life; and it is true not only of the Defense Department but also of other Government agencies. Senator NUNN's example of domestic programs during the last 15 years is another illustration.
Once the public makes an issue or a cause popular, Government agencies and the Congress of the United States rush into the breach and throw money at it. The Defense budget is one of the most attractive recipients.
Who dares to stand and challenge an argument that tells the people of this country that their freedom and their security are in jeopardy because their national defense capability is inadequate? That is the essence of this argument today — that the freedom and security of the people of this country are in jeopardy because our national defense is no longer adequate.
Mr. President, if I believed that, would I be standing here, arguing for the Senate budget resolution numbers? Am I really conceived as being insensitive to the real needs of national security? Are the members of the Budget Committee who, in committee, voted down this amendment, or its equivalent — and look over the list of their names — are the Members insensitive to our national security interest? Of course not.
I have heard a lot of horror stories in the Chamber today. I am really not a sufficient expert in defense to answer all of them, to reply to all of them or to put all of them in perspective.
But here is one analysis, and I am going to use two or three, and there are more than this, to put another perspective on the adequacy of our defense expenditures. For example, I have seen a chart circulated by the proponents of this amendment that compares Soviet defense spending to American defense spending.
Mr. President, why do they not add NATO defense spending levels to American defense spending and Warsaw spending to Soviet spending? It may be because the Warsaw Pact nations contribute very little to Soviet military spending but the NATO allies contribute a great deal in conjunction with U.S. military spending. The best figures I have seen and nobody has challenged them, is that combined NATO-U.S. military spending in the year 1979 is about $218 billion. The Soviet-Warsaw Pact spending is $188 billion.
Is it illogical to add NATO spending to U.S. spending and Warsaw Pact spending to the Soviets in order to get a real comparison of the levels of defense spending? Of course it is not illogical.
We are being urged today by this amendment to increase our commitment to NATO. If NATO spending is irrelevant, why should we be adding our commitment to it? So I assume that NATO spending is a real and substantial element of the military buildup that confronts the Soviet Union when they look at us and our NATO allies, and on that basis the spending is $218 billion for NATO/United States as against $188 billion for Warsaw Pact/U.S.S.R. That is a $30 billion difference on an annual basis.
I have another table that was produced by the Department of Defense, the International Institute of Strategic Studies, and the Center for Defense Information. This table compares the military resources of NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the People's Republic of China. I ask unanimous consent that the table be printed 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, we have been hearing about the inadequacy of the defense numbers in the second budget resolution. Between now and the mid-1980's according to our analysis, our capacity to hit Soviet strategic targets will be double because of the defense posture written into the fiscal year 1980 second budget resolution and preceding congressional budget resolutions.
I offer those perspectives not as the ultimate in what our defense capability should be, but to counter this impression that has been argued repeatedly by our experts today that our freedom and our security are in jeopardy because our arms capability is inadequate. I just do not believe that.
Mr. President, I have not even touched my prepared speech. Perhaps I should save it and I will for later, but I wish to make one observation at this point very briefly.
Through this budget resolution and the reconciliation instruction that the Senate adopted 90 to 6 this morning — we are imposing on millions of Americans the impact of budgetary restraint. I am not one to pretend that the programs which are impacted will do everything that should be done to deal with the problems generated by a deteriorating economy — to deal with the problemsof the disadvantaged, to deal with the problems that we face with severe health costs increases, and to deal with the problems of the aged and young. I am the first to conclude that with the reconciliation instruction we are imposing restraints.
There are those who will say that through the 1960's social programs grew so fast that no one should have a problem anymore. That does not happen to be the fact. It certainly is not in my State.
And I cannot believe that there is a Member of the Senate who does not have disadvantaged groups in his State whoseability to grapple with inflation in their daily lives, whose ability to meet their food requirements, their housing requirements, their health requirements, their educational requirements, will not be impacted by the restraint this Senate adopted 90 to 6 this morning. How much restraint did that impose on the Defense Department? One hundred million dollars. That is the only restraint of the reconciliation instruction on the Defense Department. All the rest of the reconciliation comes out of programs impacting on the people I have described.
That is why, may I say to my colleagues, sensitive as I am to the pressures for more spending for defense triggered altogether by the SALT hearings, I believe I have a responsibility — as does every Senator — not only to exercise restraint on the levels of Government spending, but to insure that the resources available are fairly distributed. I do not think it would be fair in the morning to impose a restraint of $3.6 billion on domestic programs and in the afternoon vote to spend $3.2 billion more for defense without a clear showing of the need now for the increase. Inflation is our enemy — we are on the front lines — now. And God help us if we do not realize it.
Mr. President, I am for enhancing defense capability, and this budget resolution provides — in response to an amendment by Senator DOMENICI — $13.5 billion more in the strategic warfare mission aimed at the early 1980's missile vulnerability problem disclosed in the SALT hearings.
Therefore, Mr. President, I oppose the Hollings amendment. I oppose any increase in defense spending in the fiscal year 1980 budget. What we do in subsequent years should be done rationally and I suspect we may have to do more. But let us not do it by a formula approach, 3 percent, 5 percent, which simply attracts wish lists from the Defense Department and other overly enthusiastic defense supporters. Let us insure that a solid case is made for increased spending.
Senator HARRY F. BYRD, JR., submitted a letter recently to the Secretary of the Army — and it is a good letter asking about cost overruns with respect to six weapons systems, the Black Hawk utility helicopter, the Roland air defense missile system, the infantry fighting vehicle, the AAH attack helicopter, the Patriot air defense missile system, and the XM-1 tank. The letter concerns cost overruns involving billions of dollars for these Army programs.
And what is our answer to the evidence, that the military cannot control the costs of the systems they are buying. We are going to throw more money at them.
Then there is the question of $23.5 billion in unobligated balances which may be necessary to advance the funding of weapons systems. The amount of $23.5 billion. I understand that it is a deliberate policy decision made by the Congress, to fully fund the costs of many weapons as we approve their acquisition. But what if the level of such unobligated funds reaches $50 billion, or $70 billion, as it could?
The Hollings amendment would add $110 billion over the next 5 years — $110billion — to the Senate budget resolution assumptions about defense.
Have we been that far off, Mr. President? A total of $110 billion off in our estimates of defense needs? Those estimates are based on 5 years' experience with the budget process — 5 years of inputs by the Armed Services Committee — 5 years of inputs by the Appropriations Committee — 5 years of inputs by interested Senators. Have we really been $110 billion off in terms of what our real national security needs require?
That is an appropriate question. It ought to be answered, but not by a formula approach such as 3 percent or 5 percent, as though somehow those suggestions have been completely justified in detail by thoughtful, rational, thoroughly examined bases of specific weapons systems and defense requirements. The lists I have seen for defense increases have all been generated since the SALT hearings:
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HEFLIN) . The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator from South Carolina yield me 1 minute?
Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator from Maine will have to do it. I do not have any time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has no time remaining on his amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield me 1 minute? Or will the Senator from Maine yield me 1 minute, just to clarify one point? Because I was a party to the reconciliation. I have a transcript showing there is no question but that when we considered the reconciliation, and we negotiated several days, that we had my amendment in mind, and that we knew we would have to reconcile whatever it would take. Instead of that, we have just voted the Army another $110 million cut.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator, to clarify the point.
Mr. HOLLINGS. We understood it would have to be reconciled, one way or the other. To come out of the excess profits tax or reconciled one way or another.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. First, the Senator from Maine has my great admiration for the marvelous job he is doing overall. But on the question of unobligated balances, this is referred to all the time, and I think it needs clarification.
An unobligated balance means we fund all the money before it is spent. I think it is interesting just to look at the unexpended and unobligated balances totals in 1978 — this is as of September 30, 1978.The Defense Department at that time had an unobligated balance of $21 billion, and an unexpended balance of $54 billion, total $73 billion.
At the same time, HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, had an unobligated balance of $34billion, and an unexpended balance of $195 billion, or a total of over $200 billion in HUD, approximately three times the total unobligated balance and unexpended balance in the Department of Defense.
HEW had an unobligated balance of $45 billion, and an unexpended balance of $28 billion, approximately the same as the Department of Defense.
The Office of Personnel Management — I assume this relates to retirement systems — had an unobligated balance of $56 billion and an unexpended balance of $34 billion, making a total of $100 billion.
So, Mr. President, this has to be put in perspective. That is the way this Government operates, and I do not believe anyone would want to change that.
But all I remember, particularly from the House side, is that we have these unobligated balances, therefore they do not need any more money. If that is the case, we could cut out the HUD and HEW appropriations. I do not believe anyone would favor that. And I do not believe anyone would change the system. I think it is a fiscally responsible method of accounting.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia makes some good points, but there are differences between the programs that he refers to as unobligated balances.
For instance, the HUD figure represents simply the 30- or 40-year payoffs of mortgages on homes. That is something different from the unobligated balance in defense. That is not to say it ought not to be compared with that. It is a bigger percentage, and perhaps I should not have pointed it out, but I think it is appropriate to point out not only with respect to defense but with respect to other programs, that we are stockpiling unexpended dollars, which tends to obscure the resources available in one way or another. I think we have to come to some reckoning.
Mr. NUNN. I do not dispute that.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has made an appropriate point.
Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.