Images de page
PDF
ePub

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1976

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION

ON

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1976,
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman

JOHN C. STENNIS, Mississippi MILTON R. YOUNG, North Dakota
JOHN O. PASTORE, Rhode Island ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey
MIKE MANSFIELD. Montana HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii
GALE W. McGEE, Wyoming TED STEVENS, Alaska
WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, Pennsylvania

JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

Ex OFFICIO MEMBERS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

JAMEs R. CALLowAY Chief Counsel and Staff Director GUY G. McCon NELL, RICHARD D. LIEBERMAN, Douglas A. ALLEN, JAMEs A. FELLENBAUM, and Joel E. Box NER (Minority) Staff Assistants, Department of Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

(II)

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1975

U.S. SENATE,
SUBcom MITTEE of THE COMMITTEE on APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, D.0.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room 1223, Everett McKinley Dirksen Office Building, Hon. John L. McClellan (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators McClellan, Stennis, Pastore, Symington, Proxmire, Young, Hruska, Stevens, and Schweiker.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. SCHLESINGER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

ACCOMPANIED BY:

GENERAL GEORGE S. BROWN, USAF, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS
OF STAFF

HON. TERENCE E. McCLARY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DE-
FENSE (COMPTROLLER) -

CoLONEL ZANE E. FINKELSTEIN, JAGC, USA, LEGAL ADVISOR
AND LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN, JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF

open ING REMARKs of CHAIRMAN M'CLELLAN

Chairman McCLELLAN. The subcommittee will come to order. The Defense Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations begins hearings today on the fiscal year 1976 budget of the Department of Defense. The budget to be considered by the subcommittee totals $97.8 billion. As I noted in a speech on the floor of the Senate yesterday, it is part of a $349.4 billion budget with a $52 billion deficit. This request is shocking and sobering, not only in its proposals, but also in its projections. This budget proposes outlays of $1 billion a day and projects a deficit that will make one day of each week in the coming fiscal year a deficit day—adding $1 billion each week to the already swollen national debt. Last year, we appropriated $82.1 billion for the Department of Defense and the corresponding outlays are estimated to be $79.2 billion. Thus, the budget considered by this subcommittee represents an increase of $15.7 billion in appropriations requested for the functions of the Department of Defense, and an increase of $7.6 billion in outlays.

(1)

This sizable increase is being proposed at a time when our economy is in disarray—when unemployment is soaring to near depression rates—when our foreign trade balances are suffering from the high price of imported oil—and when the cost of living for all our citizens is still climbing, although at a reduced rate of inflation. Under these circumstances, I believe that I speak for all members of this subcommittee when I state frankly that this year we will be scrutinizing the spending proposal of the Department of Defense with even greater care and intensity than we have given it in past years. In dealing with the Department of Defense budget, the subcommittee cannot operate in a vacuum. In this period of economic instability, we must give the fullest and most complete consideration not only to the requirement and demands of national security, but we must also take into account other demands upon the tax dollar and other priorities. One of the points which I am certain that the subcommittee will wish to have cleared up for the record is whether or not this budget is the loh" we need to maintain our national security in an insecure WOTIC1. We will wish to know if, on the other hand, it contains funds not required to fulfill mandatory defense needs but included in this budget as a “pump priming” device—designed to help us spend our way out of the current recession. I hope, Mr. Secretary, that you will address yourself to this issue during your testimony. I should like to make one further point.

PATTERN OF DEFENSE COSTS MISUNDERSTOOD

There has been considerable misunderstanding not only in the Senate but among the American people as a whole over the pattern of defense costs in relation to spending for all governmental functions in recent ear’S. y While many Americans have been deceived by a barrage of misinformation that defense costs have swallowed up the lion's share of our resources, the facts present a completely different picture. As I said yesterday, over the past decade, outlays for national defense have shrunk from 41.5 percent of total Federal budget outlays to 26.9 percent of the sum requested for fiscal year 1976. The defense share of the total Federal budget and the gross national product continues to decline. And defense spending has been rising far less rapidly than any other major item in the budget. I hope that during these hearings—and when we take our completed defense appropriations bill to the floor—we will be able to continue an educational process aimed at providing the American people with facts and figures about defense spending, not propaganda. In conclusion, let me state that it is the aim of this subcommittee to provide the United States with the best and most complete system of national defense commensurate with the state of our economy and our ability to pay for it. o Let us remember that we are trying to preserve and protect freedom and democracy not only for ourselves but for people all over the world. On the surface, democracy appears to be the easiest path for man to follow, but this is not true. Democracy demands the extraordinary of

« PrécédentContinuer »