[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 94 (Tuesday, July 19, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                              ENTITLEMENTS

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, we are in the appropriations process. I 
spoke yesterday afternoon about the fact that we still have a $4 
trillion national debt. While the news is good that the deficit 
continues to decline, we also know that in 1996 the deficit will quit 
declining and go up slightly unless a number of things happen:
  One is, unless we pass some sort of bill that controls health care 
costs we will see an increase in the deficit.
  The second thing is, there is a myth that is pervasive in the U.S. 
Senate that entitlements are the sole cause of the deficit. There is no 
denying that so-called entitlements--which include Social Security, 
Medicare, food stamps, pension funds--are in fact going up much faster 
than the rest of the deficit.
  The discretionary spending, such as the roughly $13.5 billion in this 
bill, is actually declining. What that means is the funding for things 
that we do here that make us a greater nation--namely, control crime, 
educate our children, provide jobs for our people--is declining in the 
Congress. But simply because it is declining is no justification for 
continuing to waste money in that category, namely, domestic 
discretionary spending. There have been all kinds of gnashing of teeth 
because the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] and the Senator from Iowa 
[Mr. Grassley] offered an amendment on the budget resolution to cut an 
additional $13 billion in domestic discretionary spending, which 
includes defense, over the next 5 years. I am not gnashing my teeth, I 
am simply saying that the bill passed, that amendment was adopted, and 
we now have the obligation, the solemn duty, to comply with it.
  We can start with the space station. It will probably be debated on 
the floor of the Senate next week. I have been trying to kill that 
sucker so long I cannot remember when I started, but this is going to 
be either the fourth or fifth year that I have tried to convince the 
Members of the U.S. Senate that the cost is staggering and the benefits 
are minimal. There is over $2 billion in the HUD/VA appropriation bill 
this year for the space station. The House, because of intense lobbying 
from the Vice President and the White House, overwhelmingly adopted the 
$2-plus billion appropriation this year to continue the space station. 
If the Senate should suddenly come to its senses and vote to kill the 
space station this year, that would take care of over $10 billion of 
what we are trying to find to take care of the Exon-Grassley amendment.
  Unfortunately, we are not going to do it. I do not much believe we 
can kill the space station with the White House lobbying on the other 
side. What a pity.
  It is not just the space station, incidentally, if I may digress; it 
is everything. The National Endowment for Democracy--you cannot kill 
it. I used to think the only programs around here you could not kill 
were in the Defense Department, but it has reached the point you cannot 
kill a program of any kind for any reason. The National Endowment for 
Democracy has a board membership that looks like Who's Who in America. 
Every year when that appropriation comes up, we receive all these 
letters from these very knowledgeable people who have nationwide 
reputations saying, ``This is a magnificent program. Please don't vote 
to kill this.'' And the money goes to the Republican and Democratic 
Parties and labor unions and the chamber of commerce. Do you believe 
that? Madam President, $35 million, almost evenly divided between the 
two political parties and the AFL/CIO and the chamber of commerce. What 
in the name of heaven are we doing?
  Then the Defense Department has this magnificent communications 
system called Milstar. Not many Senators have ever heard of Milstar--
but why would they? It is only $30 billion. We have an opportunity to 
cut that system this year but my guess is we will not come close.
  When Les Aspin was Secretary of Defense he appointed a group of the 
most knowledgeable communications people in America to study Milstar. 
It was conceived in 1981 to use in a 6-month nuclear war to communicate 
between the forces in the field and the Pentagon--in 1981, the height 
of the cold war. It made very little sense then. Who are you going to 
communicate with after the first 24 hours? There ain't going to be 
anything left. Think about the idiocy of spending $30 billion so we can 
communicate with our forces during a 6-month nuclear war.
  I get up and say these things and the American people call my office 
and say, ``Senator, that was a magnificent speech that you made. Why 
didn't you prevail?'' It would take longer to explain that than it 
would to debate the issue. But that is the reason we have a $4 trillion 
national debt. We have already spent $12 billion on Milstar, and we 
have put up one satellite out of the six we are going to put up. Its 
initial power system has already failed, and it was supposed to last 7 
years. But we are going to spend $18 billion more on a system that we 
do not need, is ill-conceived, poorly designed, and whose costs are 
completely out of control. We cannot kill it. We cannot stop anything 
around here.
  Going back to the point I was about to make a moment ago about 
Milstar, when Les Aspin and the Department of Defense did what they 
call their Bottom-Up Review, they appointed four of the most 
knowledgeable organizations in America in the field of communications, 
to examine the program MITRE, for example. And those four 
organizations, after studying Milstar extensively, said you should go 
ahead and deploy the second Milstar satellite in 1995. Why? Because we 
have already paid for it so we might as well put it up. But then they 
went ahead to say, ``Cancel the last four. Do not go ahead with this 
project. Instead, accelerate the smaller, cheaper follow-on system and 
save $3.5 billion.''
  These are the experts, appointed by the Department of Defense, and 
they come back and they say kill that system. So now do you know what 
the Defense Department has done? They have said, ``We do not need it 
for strategic forces to fight a nuclear war anymore. We need it for 
tactical reasons.'' Even though the number of messages it will carry is 
just a fraction of what an existing defense communications system will 
carry and no more than the cheaper follow on, Milstar 3, would carry. 
It would not make any difference if the Second Coming walked on the 
Senate floor and said, ``This is a bad idea,'' it would still get 
funded. And one of the reasons it would is because it means jobs.
  I am not going to belabor this any further. But in the past several 
years the only success I have had with amendments I have offered to cut 
spending was the superconducting super collider, and the House really 
killed it.
  I received a lot of credit for killing the super collider, but the 
truth of the matter is, we lost in the Senate. It was the House that 
killed the super collider.
  The other success in cutting spending was the advanced solid rocket 
motor, which was a $3 billion saving. The House killed that one too. 
But the House let me down this year on the space station. They passed 
it by 1 vote last year and about 150 votes this year. That is what the 
power of White House lobbying will do.
  There are a whole host of other things, Madam President, I could 
mention, but I do not stand around letting my colleagues tell me how 
terrible the Exon-Grassley amendment is, because we can accommodate 
that very easily if suddenly everybody in this place came to their 
senses and decided they wanted to.
  I am going to have a very difficult time, and I sit on the 
Entitlements Commission, the so-called Kerrey Commission. The Presiding 
Officer sits on that Commission with me. We have been talking about 
what we are going to do about Social Security, and all of a sudden, I 
am getting mail from all over the United States: ``Please do not let 
them cut my Social Security.''
  I do not think we are going to. Whoever set up that Commission very 
intelligently decided not to make a report until after the elections 
were over, because you cannot deal with those things in an election 
year.
  Last summer when I went home after casting a very unpopular vote on 
the budget reconciliation bill I told my constituents, many of them 
upset with my vote, that the one thing I knew is if you are serious 
about the deficit, you try to reduce it, you try to cut it. And there 
are only two ways to do it: One is to cut spending and the other is to 
raise taxes.
  I do not know which is more unpopular. I get as much mail for one as 
I do for the other. We grew up with entitlements. With that Entitlement 
Commission, you have to tell people we are not trying to cut your 
Social Security, but you should know that in about 20 years, there will 
be nothing left. It is now paying out more than it takes in.
  You have to be honest with people. I made the point the other day 
that if you are really serious about dealing with Medicare and Social 
Security, and a whole host of other things, you better start laying the 
groundwork for it, because it is the one thing people do not want to 
hear. Forty million recipients do not want to hear it, and I understand 
that.
  I have paid the maximum Social Security since I was 27 years old, 
Madam President, and I hope I never draw a dime. I hope I am always 
active and making enough money that would bar me from drawing any 
Social Security. I am happy for other people who are less fortunate to 
draw whatever I paid in.
  We are rapidly reaching the point, though, where we are going to have 
two people paying into the system for every one drawing out of it. Then 
we are going to almost reach the point where we have 1\1/2\ people for 
every one drawing out. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know 
that the Social Security System cannot be sustained forever on that 
basis.
  It is a mammoth problem. You can sit back and say do not do this and 
do not do that, but I will tell you, if you do nothing, you ought to 
forfeit your seat. All of these programs have to be dealt with. All I 
am saying is I would be very reluctant to vote for anything on any of 
those entitlement programs until we have dealt with a whole host of 
other issues.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________