September18, 1979
Page 25012
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I spoke earlier in the day, and stated that I did not pretend competence in the areas of the Armed Services Committee. I have gone on the Budget Committee this year, and could not escape noticing the trends, that while for the most part our expenditures have been down, those of the Russians have been up.
Let me quote from Secretary Brown:
Its (Soviet Union) annual rate of increase has averaged more than 3 percent measured by what it would cost the U.S. to duplicate that effort in our economy, and between four and five measured in rubles. By how much the present effort now exceeds our own is less certain. It could be by as much as 45 percent, or as little as 25 percent.
Then he concluded by saying, relative to defense spending:
Relative defense spending, annual or cumulative, is the best single crude measure of relative military capabilities, if efficiencies are not too different. And in military matters, Soviet and U.S. efficiencies are not as far apart as in the civilian sector.
Mr. President, the one critical signal we are going to give here, I have said it twice today and I will say it again, is that we are not going to meet the President's own standards, his own policies for fulfillment by 1985 without the whole 5 percent.
What the President stated, indirectly through Secretary Brown, last Thursday during the hearings, upon being asked, "Mr. Secretary and Mr. President, is it not true that the goals that you have set for 1985 will not be met by the budget you have asked for between now and 1985?" Secretary Brown, after hemming and hawing around a bit said, "Yes."
We will not meet them at a 5-percent increase, and if we vote that down today, the signal we are giving is that the minimal requests the President has asked for will not be met; that the Senate is not attempting to meet those minimal requests that we have said we were going to meet.
That is the signal we send to the Soviet Union. I do not know how far we can go down in military spending and preparedness before we not only have no credibility with the Soviet Union, but before we begin to have very little credibility with countries around the world whose support we are interested in.
One last fundamental fact: a vote for the Hollings amendment today will not give us enough money to meet the standards that the President and his own Secretary of Defense say are necessary for us to meet, by 1985, the President's goals. A vote for anything less than what Senator HOLLINGS is suggesting today is a vote to even widen the disparity in meeting those standards.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
I have heard the distinguished Senator from Oregon argue that we will not meet the President's budget by adopting the Hollings amendment.
Mr. President, we are not acting on the President's budget. We are acting on the second budget resolution for fiscal year 1980. I have already spelled out in detail, in my own comments and statements that I have put in the RECORD, what that establishes for national defense.
The second budget resolution will achieve what I have said it will achieve. Whether or not it will achieve the President's goals, in a year when I think the fight against inflation is imperative, is another question.
But we are not acting on the President's budget; we are acting on the Senate's budget resolution, as modified from the first budget resolution adopted in May.
That is the issue, and that issue poses the inflation question for us. I have already told you about the price of gold today. Within the last hour, the Federal Reserve Board has raised the discount rate from 10.5 percent to a historic 11 percent.
The Bank felt that was necessary because of the strong inflationary pressures evidenced in the economy and because of what is happening to the price of gold. Just 1 year ago, gentlemen, the discount rate was only 7 percent. At the peak of inflation during 1973-74, the rate never got above 8 percent. Now it is 11 percent.
Here, indeed, is a way for us to send a signal to the world's central bankers, to other countries watching our economy, to our own citizens who are watching the behavior of the spenders in the Federal Government. There is a signal. We have already sent two today. Send another one.
Your vote indicates that you are going to send the one that I oppose. But do not be unaware of the economic signal you will be sending at the same time that you respond to Senator PACKWOOD's challenge.
Are there other Senators who wish to speak?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I do not want to detain the Senate; I think the Senate is ready to vote. But I do want to point out a little hardware here.
I ask the question, first, what are we voting for now, in this so-called 5 percent? What are we voting for? Do we know how many submarines or ships or planes or missiles or what have you?
No one knows. There has been no listing, no report, no examination, no priorities. We are just setting that high figure there through this committee. I say we had better stay out of it.
Let me say just a word here about our Navy. It is agreed that the new antisubmarine destroyers are the finest in the world and over half of 30 new ones have been delivered and the rest will be within a few more months. The nuclear attack submarine force has increased from 19 in 1965 to 70 in 1978, and 25 more are under construction now. The money has already been appropriated for them.
There were years there when we could not get a contractor to build them, for reasons I shall not go into, old claims and so forth. There is the quality Navy. There are the best weapons in the world in that field. We know what they are. We are pulling them out, putting them in, all the time.
Planes — I have a list here. Fighter aircraft have gone up and up and up. We have more in the bill this year, and about 75 percent now, 521 of our F-14's have already been delivered. Half of the 733 A-10 attack aircraft have been funded or delivered. Production of the F-16 air-craft and F-18 for the Navy and Marine Corps is now starting.
There are a number of other things here. The modernization of our tactical air force is further along than that of our relay ground force. Much has been done in that field.
I have others here. Strategic Forces. We have an amazing supply and resupply and redo and we keep them clean and fresh all the time and replaced.
There is no doubt about those things. What are we trying to vote on here? I warn again: Beware; beware of this process. It breeds trouble. It does not have the technical basis, it does not have the analysis, it does not have the recommendations, except just the dollar amount. It cannot be made to fit the need as well as our present system that we have.
I hope we will stick to it. These days will pass and this little matter that we are excited about now will pass. The big thing is to keep on the track and keep this program going.
Mr. HART. Will the Senator yield 30 seconds to me?
Mr. STENNIS. If I have it, yes, I yield.
Mr. HART. I want to remind our colleagues of what the floor manager of the bill has indicated.
That is to say that if they do feel that there ought to be some at least symbolic support of the President's commitment for the 3-percent increase, that will be offered, if this vote fails, by either the Senator from South Carolina or myself. So there will be an alternative of the 3 percent in the outyears to vote on if this measure does not pass.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator from Colorado yield for just a brief question?
Mr. HART. Yes.
Mr. NUNN. Would not all the objections which the Senator from Mississippi posed to the 5 percent — without having hearings, the budget — would they not as well apply to the 3 percent or to 1 percent? If we defeat the Hollings amendment, we still have all the problems the Senator from Mississippi was referring to, because we still have the outyear budget.
Mr. HART. The Senator from Mississippi would still have the problem; the rest of us would not.
Mr. NUNN. I agree with the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to division 2 of the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 55, nays 42, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So division II of the amendment of the Senator from South Carolina (No. 435, as modified) was agreed to.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which division two of the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. JACKSON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,as I understand it, about 6 hours remain on the resolution. I understand that Mr. ROTH and Mr. DANFORTH have an amendment in which they will join, and there will be 2 hours on that amendment. Mr. ARMSTRONG, I am told, has an amendment on which there would be 2 hours. Mrs. KASSEBAUM has an amendment. I suppose that would be an amendment to an amendment, because there would be a 1-hour limitation to that.
Do any other Senators have amendments?
Mr. MELCHER has an amendment, and there will be 2 hours on that amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I expect to be able to dispose of my matter by colloquy.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. There are four amendments we know about, which would consume the 6 hours.
Will Mr. ROTH be willing to call up his amendment at this time and have the Senate resume the consideration of it tomorrow morning?
Mr. ROTH. I will be willing to do that,with the understanding that we get the full 2 hours.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The full 2 hours and then go over until tomorrow. Is this agreeable with the manager?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object — and I will not object — I point out to Senators who have not added up these times that the remaining time on the bill will not accommodate all the amendments which have been disclosed at this point. They add up to 7 hours, and we have 6 hours.
So, to the extent that we could get a reduction in time on any amendment, we could accommodate every amendment. If we cannot, the last amendment will be squeezed into whatever time remains, and we will have to reconcile that.
I will be happy to try to reduce the timeI take on an amendment, and I hope that the proponents of amendments also will try to reduce the time they need, in order to accommodate every Senator.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object — and I will not object — I say, in response to the Senator from Maine, that I am fairly sure we can work out some reductions tomorrow. I think this is a good arrangement. If the Senator from Delaware is willing to call up his amendment tonight and take it up at a reasonably early hour tomorrow, I assure the Senator that I will try on this side to see if we can reconcile the time requests.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the pending measure, with the pending question at that time to be on the amendment by Mr. ROTH, at 9:30 tomorrow morning.