[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 4650, making appropriations for the 
Department of Defense, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4650) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and 
     for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       (1) Dole amendment No. 2479, to provide for the termination 
     of the United States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina no later than November 15, 1994.
       (2) Helms amendment No. 2480, to limit military assistance 
     and military sales financing to the Government of Colombia 
     until the President certifies that it is fully cooperating in 
     counternarcotics efforts.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers] is recognized to offer an amendment on Milstar.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendments be laid aside and that the Senate immediately 
proceed to the committee amendment on page 37, line 7.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Amendment No. 2481 to the Committee Amendment on Page 37, Line 7

 (Purpose: To reduce the amount for acquisition of Milstar satellites)

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], for himself, Mr. 
     Conrad, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Simon, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2481.

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 37, line 7, in lieu of the matter proposed to be 
     inserted, add the following: ``$12,111,511,000, to remain 
     available for obligation until September 30, 1996: Provided, 
     That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, none may be 
     obligated or expended for parts or other components 
     associated with the acquisition of Milstar satellites numbers 
     5 and 6: Provided further, That $61,595,000 shall be used to 
     develop an advanced EHF military satellite communications 
     system.''

  Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, as I prepared for this debate this 
morning, I had a lot of reservations about whether it is really worth 
it or not, knowing from the outset that we will not prevail, knowing 
that perhaps there are no more than 50 Senators in town to listen to 
the debate, knowing that those who are in town are not watching the 
debate, and knowing that about the only time we ever kill a military 
program around here is when the Pentagon undertakes it on their own.
  The other day we waged a long debate on the space station. Many 
people know that I have tried unsuccessfully to kill the space station 
for several years. We had a chance to save almost $156 billion over the 
next 35 years and $74 billion just over the next 10 or 12 years. But 
nobody listened to the debate. I only got 36 votes to cut that much 
spending, despite the fact that virtually every scientist in the 
country is opposed to the space station, despite the fact that 
virtually every single scientist in the country said there is no 
medical research you can do on the space station that you cannot do on 
the ground, despite the fact that physicists said we will not be able 
to grow crystals any differently on the space station than we grow 
crystals on the ground.
  But as I said many times, people walk through that door over there 
who have not listened to the debate and really do not much care about 
the merits of the debate as long as a part of the program is being 
built in their States. And so we go merrily along spending money 
needlessly--$74 billion on the space station--and wondering how we are 
going to finance health care, how we are going to get the deficit down.
  In the past, in the fall of the year, I have offered a series of 
amendments to reduce spending. This year I am not going to offer an 
amendment to cut the CIA, even though I probably would get more votes 
for that than for almost any of these spending cuts because there are 
enough people who are suspicious of the CIA who will vote to cut its 
funding. But I will not prevail.
  There was one really rather amazing thing--and I have been in the 
Senate 20 years--that was extremely gratifying to me after the space 
station debate. A Senator, a Republican, walked up to me in the well of 
the Chamber and said, ``I have always voted for the space station, but 
I listened to the debate this year and I have concluded that there is 
no justification for the space station, and I'm going to vote with 
you.''
  I cannot tell you how gratified I was partly because he is a Senator 
I have immense respect for, but also because it is just so unusual for 
anybody to come onto the floor of the Senate with his mind not made up, 
or who does not walk down to the well and ask the managers, ``What is 
your vote on this?'' And that is the way they will vote. And people 
wonder why we keep spending money the way we do, why we cannot seem to 
get spending under control.
  I want to pay a special compliment to the distinguished chairman of 
the Defense appropriations bill. I sit on that subcommittee. He has 
always been extremely accommodating, always listens, even when he does 
not agree with you. And some of you will recall that when the Defense 
authorization bill came up, I offered both this amendment and an 
amendment to kill the so-called Mark VI guidance system procurement. I 
pointed out that by killing the program now and saving $250 million 
that we would lose six-tenths of 1 percent of our capability on one 
missile in the years 2015 and 2016. Think of that, Madam President. A 
chance to save $250 million with a simple loss of six-tenths of 1 
percent of readiness on one missile for 2 years, 19 years down the 
pike.
  The distinguished Senator from Hawaii, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, said that he listened to my comments both in the 
committee hearings and on the floor of the Senate and decided I was 
right and took $258 million out of this bill. That is gratifying, too, 
Madam President.
  I have said many times that when I was Governor of my State, I could 
sign my name and make something happen. In the U.S. Senate, you can go 
to the blackboard and sign your name a thousand times and nothing 
happens. When I came here, I had a very difficult time adjusting to the 
legislative process where you have to go through a subcommittee, a full 
committee, the floor, the conference committee and it could come 
unraveled at any stage of the game.
  I think it is possible that the space station is gone. I do not know 
whether I will take it on again next year or not. The President and the 
Vice President both think it is wonderful. The contractors who are 
going to get the $74 billion think it is wonderful. The people who work 
in Florida and Texas and California and will have a job secured for the 
next 10 years think it is wonderful. Even a lot of the taxpayers who 
are picking up the bill probably think it is wonderful.
  So, Madam President, here we are this morning to discuss a defense 
program called Milstar.
  Milstar was originally conjured up in 1981, and it was designed to 
allow the Defense Department to communicate with their forces in the 
field during a 6-month nuclear war.
  The Senator from Hawaii said, ``Please do not call that a cold war 
relic; it makes me feel so old.'' But that is what it is, a cold war 
relic. And I do not mind cold war relics as long as they do not cost 
$30 billion. Unhappily, that is what this one costs.
  So in 1981, the Defense Department said we are going to put eight 
satellites into space. We are going to put all this equipment on them 
so that the Soviet Union will not be able to jam them. And even if a 
nuclear war comes, we will still be able to communicate.
  And so we started contracting and doing the engineering work, and so 
on. In February 1994, we put up the first satellite. Bear in mind, 
Madam President, we originally intended to put up eight satellites and 
locate them around the globe so that we could communicate with our 
forces no matter where they were.
  Now, even before the Defense Department launched the first satellite 
in February of this year, they had already cut back from eight 
satellites to six, and that is the present plan. We will put up another 
one in May 1995. Those two are already bought and paid for. I am not 
suggesting we do anything with them; they are paid for. Each satellite 
is supposed to have a 7-year life expectancy. It is very doubtful that 
the first one, which we put up this year, will last 7 years because the 
minute it got up there its power system failed, and it is now on a 
backup power system. We hope that backup system will last the required 
7 years.
  These first two satellites are called Milstar I satellites. In 1999 
and 2000, we will launch two more. Those are called Milstar II 
satellites. If my amendment fails, we will launch the fifth and sixth 
satellites in the year 2001 and 2002.
  We have spent $12 billion so far on the system, and we will spend 
another $17 billion during the life of this communications system. Each 
satellite cost $1 billion. It cost about $300 million for the Titan 
rocket to boost it up there. So every time we do that, it cost about 
$1.3 billion, but by the turn of the century it is estimated that it 
could be as much as $1.6 billion to $1.8 billion for each one.
  Now, this system, which was conjured up to enable the United States 
to communicate during a 6-month nuclear war, has already lost its 
rationale. Everybody knows that even if it were in place right now and 
the United States and Soviets had a 3,500-warhead exchange, there is 
not going to be anybody left with whom to communicate. They initially 
intended to make these satellites maneuverable so that they could move 
250,000 miles out into space, so they could not be shot down. They no 
longer have that capability.
  But these satellites are what we call low- and medium-data rate 
communicating systems. We have all kinds of systems to communicate 
right now, the most notable being what they call DSCS. That is an 
acronym for Defense Satellite Communications System. And the DSCS can 
handle thousands of communications simultaneously. These Milstar 
satellites can handle 192 low-rate communications and 32 medium-rate 
communications.
  Now, the 192 phone calls that this can handle at one time--one 
satellite--are regular phone calls. Unhappily, the sound system is not 
too hot. These things speak Donald Duck. If you speak duck, you will 
have no problem understanding what is being said. If you do not speak 
duck, you must speak very slowly and distinctly to be heard. So we are 
not only talking about a system that is going to cost a fortune, we are 
talking about a system that is not exactly Cadillac when it comes to 
sound quality. There is a lot more that could be said about the quality 
and what it lacks, but that really is not a part of the basic argument 
here. The argument is that we do not need it, and we ought to scrap it.
  The second argument is that when the Pentagon did its Bottom-Up 
Review last year to analyze all of its procurements, all of its weapons 
systems, the Pentagon--not Senator Bumpers, the Pentagon--appointed 
what they considered to be two of the biggest communications 
contractors in the country and two defense labs to review Milstar. Who 
were they? The Mitre Corporation, which chaired the Bottom-Up Review of 
Milstar, Lincoln Labs, Aerospace Corp., and Applied Physics Lab.
  Madam President, do you want to know what is frustrating? Here is a 
system that is studied by the most brilliant people in this country on 
communications, and what did they say? They said to scrap that sucker 
now. And here is what they said. ``Plan now for the transition to an 
advanced extremely high frequency system.'' And instead of making this 
advanced EHF system operable in the year 2006, spend some of this 
Milstar money on that and advance it to 2003--much cheaper, more 
advanced technologically. Do not deploy the last four of these six 
satellites. By doing that, you will save over $3.5 billion.

  So what did the Defense Department do in their Bottom-Up Review after 
the so-called technical support group reviewed this 6-month cold war 
communications system? They just ignored it. They went right on 
contracting as though no study had ever been done.
  I repeat, the technical support group said to cancel Milstar II, 
advance the extremely high frequency to the year 2003 instead of 2006, 
and save yourself $3.5 billion. The Defense Department said, ``We ain't 
having any of that.'' And they go right on building this system just as 
they intended to.
  What is this new extremely high frequency system? First of all, you 
can launch it on an Atlas missile, which is infinitely cheaper than a 
Titan. It is considered to be much more reliable than a Titan. And one 
of the reasons you only save $3.5 billion by doing what the Bottom-Up 
Review said to do is because they said spend the money on Milstar III, 
the extremely high frequency system, and advance it by 3 years.
  Here are the most brilliant people in the country saying scrap this 
thing and go to the EHF system. Then that is followed by the General 
Accounting Office which released a report in April of this year, 4 
months ago. Four months ago the General Accounting Office, on whom we 
rely for most of our information, studied this same system. Because it 
was a little later than the Bottom-Up Review, they said do not cancel 
the last four satellites as the Bottom-Up Review team had recommended, 
but cancel the last two. If you cancel the last two, you will save 
somewhere between $1.4 billion and $2.1 billion.
  (Mr. LIEBERMAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, $2 billion ``ain't bean bag.'' When the 
General Accounting Office recommends saving $2 billion, we ought to 
listen. I have taken that position in my amendment, hoping against hope 
that I might find one or two more votes. I have taken the least 
dramatic alternative and said, let us just go along with the General 
Accounting Office and cut $1.5 billion to $2 billion. The General 
Accounting Office said that the Defense Department will have a slight 
risk in the year 2001 and 2002 prior to the deployment of the new 
system in 2003. They say there will be a slight risk in their 
communications ability during that 2 years.
  But let me ask my colleagues this: If that is true, what kind of risk 
are we under right now when we have one crippled Milstar satellite in 
space to communicate with? Think about that. I want to repeat that 
because my native Arkansas common sense tells me that is the craziest 
thing I have ever heard. I am not criticizing GAO for this. They are 
simply saying the Defense Department will have to make a judgment. 
Shall we save $2 billion at the slight risk of not being able to 
communicate as well as we would like during that 2-year period? You ask 
yourself: What is our risk today, and what is our risk going to be 
until the year 2000? It is going to be, according to GAO, much greater 
than it will be during this 2-year period when you actually have four 
satellites up.
  Mr. President, I do not know much else to say. I am not going to 
belabor the debate. I would like to give my colleagues the opportunity 
to vote to save money and not just talk about it before the chamber of 
commerce banquets back home. I used to hate it when people would say, 
``He talks one way in Washington and he talks another way at home.'' 
There is not a Member of the U.S. Senate that has not had that said 
about him or that he has Potomac fever, and all of those other 
accusations you go through every time you run for reelection. But in 
any event, there is enough truth in that statement to make it credible.
  People go home, and say, ``Well, I am for cutting entitlements.'' 
What are entitlements? They do not tell you. I will: Social Security, 
Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Federal pensions, and two or three 
others that represent about $800 billion of expenditures every year. 
They say, ``Let us cut entitlements.'' You do not ever hear them say 
which of those entitlements they will cut and how much they are going 
to cut them. When we come here and we get specific and we say let us 
torpedo the space station, everybody jumps under their desk. It took 5 
years to kill the superconducting super collider. I have been at the 
space station the same number of years, and it still is healthy, 
breathing, and alive.
  You say, ``Well, how about killing the Milstar program?'' How about 
buying a few less D-5 missiles for our submarines? After all, the cold 
war is over. I could go on and on with all the things that I tried to 
cut. Everybody jumps under their desks. It is those nebulous 
entitlements that everybody is after, because you do not have to 
explain that. If you go home and say I cut the defense budget $2 
billion, you face the prospect of your opponent saying you are soft on 
defense. I have always loved for my opponents to say that about me--and 
they all have. Then I can launch into about a half dozen programs that 
make no sense whatever but that cost billions.

  Who in the U.S. Senate is soft on defense? Nobody. It is the height 
of arrogance for one Senator to suggest that another is soft on 
defense. How could anybody in this body be soft on defense when we 
spend twice as much money on defense as the rest of the world combined? 
Let me repeat that. We spend twice as much money on defense as the rest 
of the world combined.
  Well, Mr. President, here is an opportunity for everybody to be able 
to point to something he voted to cut. I do want to say this: I take a 
little bit of kidding from my colleagues about coming out here in the 
fall of the year and going through this ritual of offering five or six 
or seven amendments to cut spending. I do not have to do the super 
collider anymore; it is gone. I do not have to do ASRM anymore, the big 
rocket motor for our shuttle which even NASA did not want; we finally 
killed that. And here we have this system which has $79 million in it 
for long lead items for 1995. Let me repeat that. If this amendment 
fails, the Defense Department is going to spend $79 million next year 
buying advance parts for satellites 5 and 6. I do not know what kind of 
comparison to make, except to say that once you start buying those long 
lead items, you are not going to kill the program. I am not sure I will 
be out here next fall fighting this battle once we undertake that $79 
million for those advance items.
  Mr. President, I am as absolutely certain as I am of my name that I 
am right about killing this program. If I had my way, I would do what 
the experts said. I would torpedo the last four satellites and start 
putting money into the extremely high frequency system and get it 
deployed, maybe--as some of the people on the team said--by the year 
2000 rather than 2003. I would save the taxpayers of this country $3.5 
billion and not jeopardize the security of this country one scintilla. 
You cannot ask for a better deal than that.
  Mr. President, I want to correct a statement I made a moment ago that 
was in error. I said the United States spends twice as much as the rest 
of the world on defense. Actually, we spend twice as much as the 10 
most likely adversaries we will ever face. We spend twice as much as 
China, Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, Iraq, Iran--I forget who the other 
three or four are, but we spend twice as much money as all of those 
nations combined, and we spend as much as or more on defense than the 
entire rest of the world.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, we are involved in a very important 
discussion, a very important debate.
  So it pains me to note the absence of our colleagues. The discussions 
carried on by my dear friend from Arkansas should have been heard and 
considered by all. Someday when history is written, I am certain he 
will be looked upon as the great watchdog of the Federal budget. I 
believe he has done more than any one of us in bringing about sanity in 
our budget system and thereby saving our taxpayers from the misery of a 
burdensome tax.
  Having said that, Mr. President, this is a discussion of reality. It 
is true that Milstar, a communications system, was conceived during the 
cold war. It was conceived during the period when all of us were 
frightful of the possibility of a nuclear holocaust.
  We were concerned about the thousands upon thousands of warheads and 
launching systems. We were concerned about the insanity and the 
irrationality of this Evil Empire. It was a time of terror. It was a 
time of horror. So we needed a communications system that could 
withstand attempts on the part of our adversary to jam the system to 
make communications impossible.
  Mr. President, from the earliest of mankind's history, we have been 
plagued with conflict. We have been plagued with wars. And any casual 
reading of the history of warfare will tell you that among the many 
important elements in warfare, three things are important: command, 
control, and communications.
  It was so at the time of Alexander. Attila the Hun found that his 
communications was lacking, so he had to return to Mongolia. The same 
happened with Genghis Khan and Kublai Khan. The same happened with the 
Caesars. And throughout the ages, all the way to General Schwarzkopf, 
communications have been important.
  It has been suggested that this system, since it was conceived during 
the time of the cold war, is a relic and, therefore, not necessary at 
this time.
  Many of my fellow Americans have concluded that ever since the 
crumbling of the Berlin Wall, a new era is upon us; that we have peace 
upon us; that we can dismantle our defenses. I realize that my friend 
from Arkansas is not suggesting the dismantling of our defense 
infrastructure. But he is suggesting that we minimize our 
communications system.
  I wish I could tell you that the era we opened 49 years ago, Mr. 
President, when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, has ended. That age 
is still upon us. As of this moment, the nations of the old Soviet 
Union, have in their possession at least 9,569 warheads and 2,041 
platforms to launch these warheads. But unlike the cold war, these 
warheads are not under the command and control of one entity. It is now 
spread throughout the old republics. Belarus has some; the Ukraine has 
some; and on and on.
  Though we were dealing with the Evil Empire, we knew who we were 
dealing with, and we knew that with adequate deterrence our adversary 
would not be so insane as to begin a holocaust to wipe themselves out. 
But today, we have a situation of uncertainty. We know for a fact that 
many other countries, other than the old Soviets, may have nuclear 
weapons. What about the Pakistanis, the Indians, the North Koreans, the 
Iranians, and the Iraqis?
  Mr. President, the Soviet Union and the United States entered into a 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which, incidentally, has not been 
ratified; but both sides are trying their best to live up to the 
provisions, and slowly we are reducing our forces.
  In 1988, the Soviets had about 10,555 warheads and the most recent 
count indicates that the Soviets have at least 9,569, a reduction of 
about 1,000 warheads.
  To assist the former Soviets in destroying these warheads and these 
platforms, we initiated a year ago a new program, the Nunn-Lugar 
program. In this bill, we are recommending the appropriation of $400 
million for this program. We have previously appropriated $1.2 billion. 
With the passage of this bill, we will have appropriated $1.6 billion 
to help the old Soviets destroy their warheads; $1.6 billion to 
dismantle warheads, and as of this moment, they have dismantled only a 
bare fraction of their total arsenal.
  Mr. President, what I am trying to suggest to my colleagues is that 
notwithstanding all the efforts we have made with taxpayer money, with 
insistence, with arguments, this world is still filled with warheads 
and delivery systems. To suggest that we do not need this 
communications system because it is a cold-war relic is not reality.
  We may have ended the cold war, but now we are in the age of 
uncertainty. I wish I had the wisdom to suggest to my colleagues what 
we can anticipate in the Korean peninsula. I wish I could do the same 
and suggest to my colleagues the mental process that is going through 
Saddam Hussein. But none of us has that wisdom.
  I always remind myself, Mr. President, that 8 months before the 
beginning of Desert Shield, 8 months before the war of the desert, we 
were prepared to retire General Schwarzkopf. In fact, he was on the 
retirement list.
  We were in the process of dismantling the Central Command, the 
command that was in charge of Desert Storm, the commander and the 
command that successfully executed Desert Storm, 8 months before we 
were ready to dismantle it. Why? Because we were convinced that the 
Middle East was stable, that Saddam Hussein was one of our great 
friends. Some of my colleagues on this floor suggested that Saddam 
Hussein may have the secret to peace. But yet we had to send our 
precious sons and daughters--and many are not with us today.
  Mr. President, I would like to believe that my responsibility as 
chairman of this committee is prevention. I would rather spend money 
and save lives than risk the possibility of losing lives by being able 
to tell my constituents, ``Yes, we reduced the budget deficit by $500 
million, but, sorry, a few had to die.''
  This may be a good time to remind ourselves the history of warfare in 
this Nation. Up until this moment, it has never failed. Whenever we 
have gone through a period of warfare and whenever that warfare ends, 
there is a sudden sense of euphoria that hits us. There is great joy 
among us. And what do we do? We immediately begin the process of 
dismantling our defenses.
  It happened even with George Washington. At the height of our 
revolution, Gen. George Washington commanded 30,000 troops. When he 
became President, he requested the Congress, that funds be appropriated 
so that he could maintain a U.S. Army--not a large force, a small 
force--to guard our borders, to provide for security, provide for 
defenses.
  Mr. President, there was a long debate in the Congress. Our 
predecessors in the U.S. Senate debated this issue and, when the dust 
settled, they provided funds for 80 men. That constituted the 
Continental Army of the United States of America--80 men; 25 at the 
headquarters in Pittsburgh and 55 at West Point. And history tells us a 
few years later the British came back and they burnt this building, 
they burnt the White House, and nearly set us back.
  The same thing happened after World War I. On the eve of December 7, 
we had less than 300,000 troops ready for combat, and most of them were 
on the island of Oahu, my home island. Just by good fortune, the 
Japanese did not wipe us out. But, during the height of World War II, 
from less than half a million, our forces were in excess of 12 
million--over 12 million men and women were in uniform. But when World 
War II ended, 49 years ago, there was this great euphoria once again. 
Peace was upon us, and so we began to dismantle our forces.
  On June 25, 1950, we had less than 800,000 troops ready for combat, 
and most of them were occupation forces--occupying Germany and Japan.
  And, Mr. President, I think all of us should recall the date June 25, 
1950. That is when Kim Il-Song sent his forces of North Korea across 
the 38th parallel.
  To suggest that we were unprepared would be an understatement. We 
sent men who hardly knew how to handle a rifle, who had less than 3 
weeks of training on shooting, who were not properly equipped to fight 
the hordes of North Koreans. And now we are told that the first 10,000 
casualties could have been avoided.
  Mr. President, Milstar is expensive, but in this age of uncertainty, 
I hope that if the horror of war should come upon us, we would be 
prepared with a communications system where our commanders can 
communicate with the men on the field. Yes, it is expensive and this 
committee recommends full funding, knowledgeable of the great expense.
  My final thought. Less than 1 percent of us, less than 1 percent of 
the population of the United States, have stepped forward taking the 
oath and said, ``We are willing to stand in harm's way for the rest of 
you''--less than 1 percent. They are the men and women who have said to 
us, ``We are willing to take up this strange lifestyle'' where wives do 
not see their husbands for 6 months or a year; where sons and daughters 
do not have the pleasure of playing with their parents because they are 
in Bosnia, they are in Somalia, they are in Rwanda; and they may be in 
Haiti.
  I say, Mr. President, the least we can do for these men and women who 
are willing to stand in harm's way for us is to provide them with the 
finest military capabilities so that we can at least give them a sense 
of hope that, even in the worst conflict, we will do our best to see 
that they get back to their loved ones. That is the issue before us.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that this body will reject the amendment of 
my dear friend from Arkansas.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alaska 
[Mr. Stevens].
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment of the Senator from 
Arkansas is not just about Milstar. I think that is clear from what the 
Senator from Hawaii said.
  The Senator from Arkansas is correct when he says that the Milstar 
satellite was designed for a mission that it will fulfill. But it is 
expensive and it has a very difficult history. There is no question 
about that.
  I think the Senate is faced with a dilemma now in what is the best 
choice for our country.
  I might say to my friend from Arkansas, this year he has additional 
support. Other Members of the Senate have indicated to me they are 
going to question, as he does, whether this continued production of 
Milstar is a good deal for the taxpayer.
  There is no question these programs take longer to develop than we 
anticipate. They are costing more than we anticipate. But I am sorry to 
say to my friend from Arkansas, what is not in dispute is the fact that 
the military, on whom we must rely to give us the best estimate of our 
needs, says that it needs this secure, high-speed, unjammable system of 
communications.
  Let me read some of the statements that have been made by military 
leaders just this year. On May 31, Admiral Boorda, who is Chief of 
Naval Operations, said this:

       A full constellation of Milstar II satellites is * * * 
     crucial to the success of smaller joint task forces operating 
     forward against uncertain adversaries.
       Navy opposes proposals to restructure the Milstar II 
     satellite program which would delay satisfaction of these 
     fundamental requirements.

  On April 15 of this year, General Binford Peay, then-Vice Chief of 
Staff, said:

       The Army's commitment to the Milstar program is important 
     to every soldier including the Army Chief of Staff.
       Milstar is that essential element of assured satellite 
     communications to support critical information transfer.

  And then, just on August 2, the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Perry 
said:

       We need Milstar II Satellites 5 and 6 to meet the combat 
     support needs of the Commander-in-Chief and the Joint Chiefs 
     of Staff.

  I say to my friend from Arkansas, I understand what he is saying. We 
must encourage the Department of Defense to look at alternatives to 
Milstar. But until we can be assured that there is an alternative that 
can meet the Milstar schedule, we have no alternative but to provide 
the funds this year for the initial phases of satellites 5 and 6.
  I think the Senator could modify his amendment, perhaps. We might 
have another evaluation--I know we have had those before, I am not 
suggesting it--but I do think it is important to keep the Pentagon 
leadership and the Congress advised about any Milstar alternatives that 
may be viable.
  But until there are such alternatives, until we are certain that we 
have an alternative, based upon the advice that we have received from 
the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs and the two military 
commanders who must rely to the greatest extent on this system, I must 
oppose the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska, Mr. Exon.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Arkansas. I think the record will show that 
this Senator and the Senator from Arkansas have stood side by side over 
the years on many, many issues--on the same side, cutting defense 
expenditures. However we must part company on this one with honest 
differences of opinion.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas was originally 
offered in somewhat different form on another matter. I believe it was 
the defense authorization bill, not more than 2 weeks previously. At 
that time I spoke out against the amendment that was withdrawn and not 
brought to a vote. It was clear at that time that the Senator from 
Arkansas was going to come up with another version of that amendment on 
the appropriations bill. Of course that is his right and he has made a 
very good statement.
  Some of the things--many of the things the Senator from Arkansas has 
said draws the agreement of the Senator from Nebraska. And my 
subcommittee is the committee of jurisdiction in the Armed Services 
Committee on, among other things, the Milstar program.
  We must review where we are going on this; be devoid of emotionalism 
as much as we can on this issue. While I suspect many who heard the 
excellent presentation by the Senator from Arkansas would say, ``Why 
not? Why not go along?'' There are several reasons, assuming that we 
could assure ourselves that for the next 20 years we would not be 
involved in a regional conflict of any kind. When I speak of a regional 
conflict I speak of ones that would be not dissimilar to the engagement 
that we had in the Persian Gulf. But I think few Members of the Senate 
or the House of Representatives would want to make that kind of a 
gamble. When I talk of a regional conflict of course I am talking about 
front-line battles. The Senator from Arkansas, although not making a 
particular point of it, continues to argue for his amendment to 
basically gut the Milstar program, at least in the outyears, with the 
argument that we can do something better and cheaper if we would just 
put the money into it. That is the ``if''; that is the problem that I 
see in going along with the recommendations of the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  I cannot be assured we are not going to be in a regional conflict. 
Therefore, I listened very carefully to people in the military in whom 
I have great confidence. I refer of course to the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, who told me without 
equivocation that the Milstar program, as envisioned and recommended by 
the administration, is an absolute must. I refer also to Admiral 
Childs, who is the head of our STRATCOM facilities in Omaha, NE. 
STRATCOM would be very much involved in any kind of--not only advanced 
planning but the execution of a conflict.
  I emphasize once again the Senator from Arkansas keeps referring to 
the Milstar of yesteryear, not the Milstar of today. The Milstar of 
today is a far cry from what was envisioned during the cold war, when 
Milstar was indeed a communications system based upon the doomsday 
scenario of a nuclear confrontation between the Soviet Union and the 
United States.
  Certainly we would all agree that with recent positive developments, 
we have come a long way from the brinkmanship that both the United 
States and the Soviet Union were practicing at that time. But I would 
simply point out, and I want all Senators to understand, and listen 
carefully to the words of the Senator from Hawaii, the Senator from 
Alaska, Senator Nunn, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and 
others, who continue to point out, as has the Chairman of our Joint 
Chiefs, the head of our STRATCOM planning session for future wars, and 
others who continue to point out that STRATCOM believes that the redo 
of the Milstar program would make it one that would be primarily 
functional from the standpoint of direct communications, command and 
control, if you will, on the battle fronts of tomorrow should we be 
engaged in a regional conflict.
  To put it another way, the Milstar has been reconfigured. Its cost 
has been reduced. But it would give communications, without 
equivocation, to the commanders in the field in case of a conflict--the 
people up front in the battle line.
  As Senator Nunn observed during the debate on this subject on the 
budget resolution, much of the criticism directed at the Milstar 
communication satellite system is 4 years out of date. That system does 
not exist anymore.
  The Armed Services Committee made the same criticisms 4 years ago 
that are being made by the Senator from Arkansas today in somewhat 
different form.
  If those criticisms were still valid, Mr. President, then we would 
not be on the floor today in opposition to the amendment by the Senator 
from Arkansas, and we would not be repeating them over and over and 
over again to try to terminate the program.
  But that was 4 years ago, and the Senate Armed Services Committee 
voted to terminate the Milstar program for three reasons. The committee 
concluded that the design of the satellite had been inappropriately 
focused on prolonged nuclear war-fighting requirements. The Department 
of Defense was planning to spend billions of dollars on an unjustified 
classified payload. The system would have provided little support for 
our tactical conventional forces, a program that is absolutely 
essential, which I alluded to a few moments ago. And the program was 
simply too expensive. These are all things that the Armed Services 
Committee said 4 years ago.
  As a result of the committee's actions, Secretary Cheney 
fundamentally restructured the Milstar program. He cut the plan 
constellation size by 50 percent, eliminated excessive nuclear war-
fighting capabilities, terminated procurement of excessively survivable 
and expensive ground terminals, started development of cheaper, 
tactical terminals, and added a new payload for much higher data-rate 
communications in place of the terminated classified payload. These 
measures dramatically improved the tactical forces while reducing total 
program cost by 25 percent.
  Secretary Cheney did a good job.
  The Bottom-Up Review conducted another comprehensive examination of 
the Milstar program. The Bottom-Up Review examined whether Milstar was 
still required, whether it was affordable, and whether an advanced 
version could be developed in time to allow the DOD to do without all 
or some of the restructured Milstar satellites.
  Again I emphasize, Mr. President, that not only is the restructured 
program strongly supported by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, by our 
commander at STRATCOM, but by the Secretary of Defense, William Perry, 
whose credentials on such matters cannot be questioned.
  The Bottom-Up Review then concluded that the capabilities that the 
restructured Milstar system would provide are absolutely essential, 
despite the end of the cold war. That review also concluded that 
Milstar, although expensive, was affordable and should be continued. 
The bottom line here, Mr. President, is what is it worth to us in 
millions or billions of dollars to provide the assurance that better 
communications command and control are improved in the case of another 
gulf-type conflict.
  I think we dare not run the risk of scuttling this program or cutting 
it back dramatically, as recommended by the Senator from Arkansas, 
given that concern for the future. I suspect, because I have a great 
deal of confidence in my friend and colleague from Arkansas, that maybe 
he has studied this in great detail. The Senator from Arkansas may be 
fully correct. Maybe the risk that we are being asked to take if we 
adopt the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas is a risk 
worth taking. I do not agree, from the hearings we held on this matter 
in the Armed Services Committee and the advice--the valuable advice and 
counsel--that this Senator has received from those at the uppermost, 
topmost positions of command and authority over the national security 
of the United States of America and the security of our people on the 
front line in battle, in the case of another regional conflict.
  Finally, the Bottom-Up Review concluded that it was possible to 
develop a smaller and cheaper version of Milstar using new technology 
and that this advanced satellite could replace many of the Milstar 
satellites planned for the future. As a result, plans to procure five 
future restructured Milstar satellites, called Milstar II satellites, 
will be eliminated in favor of five advanced Milstar satellites known 
as Milstar III satellites. These Milstar III satellites would be first 
launched in the year 2006.
  Altogether, the actions of the Senate Armed Services Committee and 
the subsequent actions of Secretaries Cheney and Perry resulted in the 
cost of the Milstar program being reduced from over $45 billion in 
fiscal year 1991 plans to less than $30 billion in fiscal year 1995 
plans, while the benefit of the system to the tactical forces has 
increased dramatically.
  It is, therefore, puzzling to hear critics label Milstar as a ``cold 
war relic.'' In view of several budget problems facing the Department 
of Defense today, I do not believe that Secretary Perry and Deputy 
Secretary Deutch would have agreed to continue the Milstar program if 
they did not think it was important and very relevant to the needs of 
our forces in the post-cold-war security environment, especially those 
forces that are up front in battle.
  Senator Bumpers asserts that the review group tasked to support the 
Bottom-Up Review of Milstar argued that the advanced Milstar III 
satellite could be developed by 2003 or even by the year 2000, 3 to 6 
years ahead of the current DOD schedule. Senator Bumpers argues that if 
this claim is valid, DOD would need to procure all four of the planned 
Milstar II satellites.
  First, the review group was not unanimous in recommending that an 
advanced Milstar could be developed, produced and launched within 5 
years or even 8 years. Half of the group said it could not be done. 
Those who claimed it could be accelerated said that the conclusions 
that they had been reaching were suspect. They said that if 
difficulties were encountered, capabilities would have to be 
sacrificed.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. President: They said that if difficulties 
were encountered, capabilities would have to be sacrificed and that 
cost savings would not be that certain.
  Second, this technical advisory group was composed of representatives 
from the Mitre Corp. and MIT Lincoln Labs, not Government officials, 
Mitre and Lincoln Labs are advanced technology development 
organizations that are understandably optimistic about how fast new 
technology can be developed. I do not doubt the sincerity of these 
scientists. I do know from many years of experience that, for whatever 
reason, it usually takes more time and more money to bring new 
technology to fruition than even the Government thinks it will. 
Scientists and engineers in the private sector and think tanks are 
frustrated by these delays and overruns, as are all of us, but saying 
that it shouldn't take so long doesn't mean that it won't
  DOD started the Milstar Program in 1981. Even though DOD knew it 
would be a complex undertaking, DOD assured Congress that it could be 
developed in less than 7 years. The first satellite was finally 
launched in 1994, 13 years after the program started and almost 7 years 
behind schedule.
  Third, we must look at what is required technically to develop the 
advanced Milstar III satellite. The plan is to shrink the satellite so 
that it can be launched on a space booster smaller than the Titan IV, 
which would save a couple of hundred million dollars for each 
satellite. But to achieve this, DOD must shrink the weight of the 
entire satellite by more than a factor of two. It must reduce the 
weight of the communications payload by more than a factor of three. 
And it must reduce the total volume of the satellite by almost a factor 
of four to enable it to be launched on a medium-sized space booster. 
Defense Department officials do not believe that this can be done in 5 
years, or even 8 years.
  I would also point out to my friend from Arkansas that I am puzzled 
to find him on this side of the argument. Normally, the Senator from 
Arkansas is skeptical of claims from DOD and industry about how easily 
a new technology can be developed. I usually count on him to be our 
doubting Thomas, but I find he has deserted me.
  The real choice is between sacrificing or postponing capabilities to 
support tactical forces, on the one hand, and saving money, on the 
other. To claim that we can save money in the near-term without 
sacrificing anything requires a major bet on high-risk technology 
development. Budget reductions may force DOD and Congress to sacrifice 
more capabilities in the years to come, and in this and other programs. 
In coming years, DOD may also find that its current assessment of the 
risk of accelerating the Milstar follow-on is in error.
  Secretar Perry has informed the Armed Services Committee that the 
Department intends to continue to evaluate the potential to accelerate 
the follow-on. In a letter to the committee on May 4, 1994, Secretary 
Perry stated that:

       If it is possible to transition to an advanced satellite 
     sooner, save more money, and continue providing essential 
     military capability with acceptable risk--we will recommend 
     such a program to Congress.

  The Armed Services Committee Report includes a requirement for the 
Secretary of Defense to formally examine this question again. However, 
at this time, there is no basis for terminating the last two Milstar II 
satellites.
  In summary, Mr. President, this amendment would cause DOD to attempt 
the rapid development of new technology, which would be very risky, and 
to delay an important capability for our tactical forces. This 
amendment was based on a cautious and caveated recommendation from only 
some members of an industry advisory group. The Secretary and Deputy 
Secretary of Defense rejected this recommendation as too risky. Now the 
Senate is being asked to endorse it. I think this would be very unwise. 
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  I hope that, after careful consideration, we will vote down the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers].
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, outside of cutting the number of B-2 
bombers we would buy from about 132 down to 20, I cannot remember in my 
20 years in the Senate when we ever cut anything in defense. I am sure 
there have been a few little cuts and nicks here and there. But outside 
of the very dramatic cuts in the production of the B-2 bomber, I just 
cannot remember the Defense Department not getting precisely what they 
wanted.
  I pleaded personally and in the subcommittee hearings with the 
Secretary of Defense, Bill Perry, to please accept either the Bottom-Up 
Review recommendation or accept the GAO recommendation on Milstar 
because if you do not kill the program, the U.S. Senate will never kill 
it.
  If the Defense Department came over and said we really need 12 
satellite instead of six, and instead of $30 billion we need $60 
billion, we could not wait to jump on board. On a rare occasion, the 
Defense Department has said something is redundant or we do not need 
it.
  The Senator from Nebraska--the senior Senator from Nebraska, who was 
elected Governor of his State the same year I was elected Governor of 
my State--and I became good friends back in the early 1970's when we 
shared those common problems that Governors share. But the former 
Governor of Nebraska said a moment ago that I had said I thought the 
risk was worth taking.
  Not only do I feel that way, the General Accounting Office said, 
essentially, without saying it precisely that the risk is worth taking. 
But let me ask my colleagues, what is the risk at this moment? We have 
one lonely satellite, crippled, operating on a backup power system 
since May of this year. We have one up there now and will put another 
one up next year. What is our risk at this moment, and what is our risk 
going to be between now and the year 2000?
  I will tell you what it is. It is greater than the 2-year risk under 
my amendment.
  Why is it that the risk for the year 2001, 2002 is so great, and the 
Russians are going to launch the missiles, and we will not be able to 
communicate in those 2 years, and between now and the year 1999 we do 
not have an even greater risk of not being able to communicate? We can 
save a couple of billion dollars in the year 2001 and 2002, with the 
risk actually less than it is right now or for the next 5 years.
  It is even better than that. If the first two satellites, called 
Milstar I, last 1 year or 2 years beyond their 7-year life expectancy, 
you have no risk.
  The first one was launched this year, February 1994. The second one 
will be launched in May 1995. If those two satellites happen to make it 
to the year 2004 and 2005, there is no risk. But I must say, what a 
piece of logic to say that the risk is not worth taking when you have 
been under this risk for 40 years and will continue to be under the 
risk until the year 1999. That is a piece of logic that totally eludes 
me, Mr. President.
  (Mr. ROBB assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I misspoke myself in my earlier statement 
when I said we had killed the superconducting super collider. We did 
not do it. The House did it. The super collider continued to get a nice 
majority vote in the Senate. It was the House, with a massive turnover 
of new Members who had promised their people they were going to cut 
spending and felt obligated to fulfill that promise. That is why the 
superconducting super collider was killed. That is why ASRM, the rocket 
motor, was killed. We did not do it. We passed it. We voted for it. It 
was the House that said enough is enough.
  Over the weekend, Mr. President, there were two things that happened. 
One was a story on downsizing our forces. We have cut manpower. We 
seriously tinkered with the idea of not giving the armed services a 
raise in pay. As an old, ex-gyrene I can tell you those pay increases 
are important.
  They talked about less leave time for people on ships in the Navy, 
less sailing time for our ships. We have a bare-bones budget, they 
said, and we are going to have to give up a lot.
  Do you know who lost his job because he criticized this system? An 
Air Force colonel. All the Air Force colonel was doing was saying the 
Air Force--not just him, but the generals in the Air Force--did not 
want the Milstar system. He did last until the water got hot. I am 
surprised the Pentagon did not try to take the eagle off his shoulders. 
They do not suffer those kinds of views gladly over at the Pentagon. 
The Secretary of Defense said, ``I don't want to hear another peep out 
of you people. Do not say that publicly anymore.''
  Oh, there is a way of getting your way around here if you are in a 
position to get your way. If you are Secretary of Defense, you tell the 
Air Force not to mention killing Milstar again. We are going to build 
it.
  But over the weekend there was a big story about all the things we 
are going to have to give up. The General Accounting Office came out 
with a study last Thursday that said the Defense Department has 
underestimated their costs by $150 billion over the next 5 years. And I 
invite my good friend, the manager and ranking member, to tell me where 
that $150 billion is coming from.
  Here is a golden opportunity to pick up $2 billion of it. I have not 
heard one single peep out of the Pentagon or anybody on the Senate 
floor about the GAO report. Some people say the GAO is wrong. That is 
what we always say about people we disagree with--they are just wrong. 
And yet we spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on the General 
Accounting Office to give us information like they have given us on 
this. And what did they say about this? They said kill the sucker. So 
what do we say? They are wrong.
  I have never known the General Accouting Office to be right if a 
majority of the Senate said they were wrong.
  I can remember last spring, in 1993, when we were grappling with how 
we were going to cut the deficit.
  Les Aspin was Secretary of Defense. He came before our subcommittee. 
I said, ``Mr. Secretary, I understand that you are going to be $20 
billion short of reaching the goal of cuts the President has set out 
for you.'' He said, ``Yes; that is true.''
  I talked to the President about it. ``Where are you going to find 
this $20 billion?'' He said, ``Aspin says he can find it.'' So here is 
the Secretary in front of me. ``Mr. Secretary, where are you going to 
find this $20 billion?'' He listed two or three items. But he said, 
``We don't think this is going to be a problem. We can find that $20 
billion, and we can go ahead and cut the deficit the way we have been 
planning to.''
  A year and 3 months later, the General Accounting Office comes out 
with a report that says it is not $20 billion; it is $150 billion. When 
I saw that, I thought my efforts to cut procurement of the D-5 missile, 
my efforts to torpedo something the General Accounting Office and the 
Bottom-Up Review both say ought to be torpedoed, were enhanced; surely, 
my chances are enhanced.
  Surely there are other Senators who wonder where we are going to find 
the $150 billion GAO says we have to find within the next 5 years. 
Where better could we find it than a relic started in 1981 to enable us 
to communicate during a 6-month nuclear war with the Soviet Union? The 
Soviet Union does not exist, and if it did, and we had a nuclear war, 
there is not going to be anybody left to communicate with.
  I am not opposed to an antijamming system, a system the Pentagon says 
they need. What I am opposed to is going all out to build a system that 
everybody that has a grain of sense about this thing says ought not to 
be built. We should advance Milstar III to the year 2003 and save 
ourselves a couple of billion dollars and take no risk.
  We are not talking about capability. We are talking about outrageous 
redundancy. We have a communications system up there right now that has 
antijamming capability, admittedly not as great as it is supposed to. 
But over the years of the cold war, we developed a mentality we cannot 
let go: The Russians are still going to come up the Potomac River--even 
though they cannot feed their people, even though they are pleading 
with us to give them the money to dismantle their nuclear weapons--they 
are still going to come up the Potomac River and get us. That is the 
excuse for a $250 billion to $260 billion defense budget this year.
  Last year, the U.S. Senate debated the President's so-called omnibus 
budget reconciliation bill. He said, ``We are going to cut spending 
$250 billion, and we are going to raise taxes $250 billion,'' both 
about as popular as leprosy.
  Everybody jumped under their desk and said: The President expects me 
to vote for a $250 billion tax increase. You say, well, it is only on 
the wealthiest 1.2 percent of the people in the country, and we have to 
do something major about the deficit. Here was a chance for the U.S. 
Senate to vote to cut $500 billion off the deficit over the next 5 
years. The point was made then that in January of last year, 1993, the 
prediction was that the deficit of October 1, 1994, would be $305 
billion. Senators stood up and said: We cannot continue this. Of 
course, the richest people in America do not want to pay more taxes. Of 
course, these people who get the Government largess of $250 billion do 
not want to give it up.
  Cutting spending is almost as unpopular, Mr. President, as raising 
taxes. Senator after Senator on that side of the aisle stood up and 
said: You are going to create a depression; millions of people are 
going to be thrown out of work. And the deficit is going to soar, not 
be cut.
  They were wrong, dead wrong. Today, we have a dynamic growth rate in 
our economy, a 6 percent unemployment rate. If they had not changed the 
method or calculating the rate, it would be 5.5 percent. Inflation is 
as low as it ever gets. More jobs were created in the last 15 months 
than in the preceding 4 years all combined. And listen to this: The 
deficit now, instead of $305 billion on September 30, is estimated to 
be $200 billion, $105 billion less. Never has the Senate stood taller 
than it did when it approved the budget reconciliation bill, though the 
Vice President had to vote to break a tie. There were 50 brave souls 
here who were willing to go home and tell people, ``Yes, I voted for 
the budget bill because this country is going down the tube if we do 
not do something about the deficit.''
  So why are not those people who were predicting the apocalypse, why 
is not all of America, dancing in the streets? When Ronald Reagan was 
President, there was a story about the deficit on the front page of 
every paper in America every week. Today we have the sharpest drop in 
the deficit by far in the history of the world, and what do you talk 
about? You talk about Whitewater. Why are people not allowed to dance 
in the streets and enjoy the fruits of a dynamic economy and a deficit 
going down like a rock in an unprecedented way?
  Now, everybody is looking at health care. That is a terrible idea, 
they say. Even though you spent $200 billion on health care for the 
elderly, we have 11 million children in this country, the most 
vulnerable of all, on which we do not spend a penny. No; you cannot 
provide them health care. It costs too much.
  Let us talk about health care. Let us talk about Whitewater. Do not 
give the people a chance to relish something good that has happened in 
this Nation.
  I can remember when ``60 Minutes'' had it all to themselves on Sunday 
night. They were the only news magazine on the air. Now there are about 
nine copycats. You can turn on almost any network two or three times a 
week, and you can get a news magazine program telling some kind of a 
terrible story that makes you sit on the edge of your seat. God knows, 
there is enough wrong in this country and there are enough problems in 
crime to keep you on the edge of your seat.
  Then in addition to all those news magazines, you have Oprah, 
Donahue, Rivera, Sally Jessy Raphael, Robertson, Falwell, and Limbaugh. 
How in the world can the people ever get a breath? How can they ever go 
to bed at night without thinking about all that they have been told 
during the day about how this country is going you know where?
  All I am asking the Senate to do is--not what I believe, not follow 
my advice--but what the General Accounting Office said we ought to be 
doing. More than that, Mr. President, I made the point earlier that the 
four consulting firms and corporations in this country that know more 
about satellite communications than anyone else in the world said do 
not do what the GAO said, do not just reduce the program, but torpedo 
the whole thing now and save $3.5 billion.
  I took the less draconian of the two measures, following the General 
Accounting Office recommendation because they have such great 
credibility. I say to my colleagues that they lose nothing.
  All they have done is save the poor taxpayers of this country about 
$2 billion, and they do not risk anything. Drop that cold war rhetoric 
for just a minute and do something sane, reasonable, rational, and 
fiscally sound.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I also wish to ask unanimous consent that 
this vote occur immediately after final passage tomorrow morning, I 
believe, of the HHS appropriations bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I shall 
have to object at the present time. I have to confer with my friend on 
scheduling that. I will do that tomorrow morning.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will confer with the Senator on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to confer with the leadership of the 
Senate.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I would just like to state my cosponsors 
are Senators Conrad, Leahy, Feingold, Kohl, Simon, and 
Wellstone.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I have five amendments and I will send 
them to the desk one at a time. All of these amendments have been 
studied by the managers of the bill and we have no objections to the 
passage of these amendments.


 Amendment No. 2482 to Excepted Committee Amendment Beginning on Page 
                              141, Line 22

 (Purpose: To require a study on the receipt of food stamps by members 
                          of the Armed Forces)

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator Boxer, Senator Stevens, and Senator Inouye and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside in order to consider the five amendments to be proposed by 
the Senator from Hawaii.
  The clerk will report the first amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye], for Mrs. Boxer, for 
     herself, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Inouye, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2482 to excepted committee amendment beginning on 
     page 141, line 22.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 142, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:
       Sec. 8121. (a) Study.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     conduct a study of the receipt of benefits under the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) by the members of 
     the Armed Forces. The study shall include the following 
     elements:
       (1) The number of members of the Armed Forces who are 
     eligible to receive benefits under that Act.
       (2) The number of such members who receive benefits under 
     that Act.
       (3) The location by State and region of the members 
     referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2).
       (4) An estimate of the cost of raising the rate of basic 
     pay of members of the Armed Forces to a rate at which such 
     members would no longer be eligible to receive benefits under 
     that Act.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the study required under subsection (b) not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this amendment requires the Secretary of 
Defense to conduct a study on the subject of food stamp use in the 
military. This study will give the American people and Members of 
Congress the information they need to make important decisions about 
the pay rates of Armed Forces personnel.
  In the past year, a number of highly respected publications, from the 
New York Times to Congressional Quarterly, have reported that 17,000 
members of the Armed Forces currently receive food stamps. This 
troubling statistic is based on a draft 1992 study conducted jointly by 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture.
  That study concluded that military pay is adequate, despite the 
number of Armed Forces personnel receiving food stamps. It found that 
most service members receiving food stamps would not be eligible if 
their earnings were more accurately calculated. I find this conclusion 
troubling. However, it must be recognized that this study was not 
approved through the DOD chain of command, and therefore, its 
conclusion cannot be considered an official Departmental view.
  No one joins the Armed Forces to get rich. But I believe that the men 
and women who volunteer to serve--men and women who are willing to give 
their lives to defend our nation--ought to earn enough to feed their 
families.
  Mr. President, military life is hard. The stresses caused by family 
separation and career instability are extreme. Adding tremendous 
financial pressure can overwhelm even the most loving family. It is not 
hard to imagine how morale could be negatively impacted by family 
strain. And when morale begins to degrade, readiness may follow suit.
  This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to study this issue 
and report to Congress within 6 months. Receiving this report in a 
timely manner will allow Congress to make appropriate adjustments--if 
any--to military pay rates in the fiscal year 1996 DOD authorization 
and appropriations bills.
  I am grateful to the Chairman for accepting this amendment and I look 
forward to working with him to ensure quality of life for our Nation's 
military personnel.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as I indicated, this amendment is agreed 
to by the managers of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment
  The amendment (No. 2482) was agreed to.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 7 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator is recognized for up to 7 minutes as if in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Leahy pertaining to the introduction of 
legislation located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, under the authority granted to the majority 
leader and following consultation with the Republican leader, I now ask 
unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the conference report 
accompanying H.R. 4426, the foreign operations appropriations bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, we have one Senator who 
wishes to speak on the defense bill prior to going on this. Could we 
reserve the opportunity for Senator Thurmond to speak before we take 
this up?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I change my unanimous consent request to 
have H.R. 4426 come up after the Senator from South Carolina has been 
recognized for not to exceed 5 minutes, and then when it comes up, the 
floor would revert to me.
  Mr. STEVENS. No objection. I thank the Senator for his graciousness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from South Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment to terminate 
Milstar. The Senator from Arkansas has brought this issue forward once 
again, and once again all the commanders, all the Joint Chiefs, all the 
senior people in DOD disagree with him. We have to have secure, 
survivable, antijam communications. Anyone who thinks we can live with 
1970's-era satellite communications is living in the wrong age. Anyone 
will be able to shut us off, jam us out. DOD didn't design a system 
that costs billions just for fun; they did this because today, North 
Korea or Iraq could jam our most critical battlefield communications. 
We need to fix this.
  The Senator thinks he has a cheaper way to do this with an advanced 
EHF satellite. May be he is right. He is right that advanced EHF will 
be cheaper--but not in the year 2000. Not in the year 2003. Mr. 
President, advanced EHF will not even be available until 2006. The 
Senator from Arkansas wants to rush this technology. He wants us to 
take the risk that, in 6 years, DOD can reduce the payload weight from 
4,400 pounds to 1,500 pounds--a 66-percent cut. Mr. President, that 
would be a problem with an ordinary communication satellite, which is 
just a transponder, like a mirror in the sky for radio waves. Maybe the 
Air Force could reduce the weight of such a satellite by 66 percent; it 
has never been done before, but just maybe it could be done. There 
would be a lot of risk, and probably cost overruns, but maybe it could 
be done--but only for an ordinary communications satellite. Mr. 
President, the DOD satellite is much, much different. Instead of a 
simple transponder, the EHF follow-on has to have a whole computer-
operated switchboard in the sky. It has to do a huge amount of 
computing for on-board routing and antijamming protection. It has to 
control a large number of separate beams, and it has to calculate just 
where to point them at all times. No satellite has ever tried to do 
this much computing on board. This would be a questionable program that 
tries to do things with electronics that have never been done before. 
The Senator from Arkansas wants the Air Force to design a totally new 
kind of communication satellite, and he wants them to start right now. 
Mr. President, some Members of this body call for fly-before-buy. Well, 
this is buy-before-fly. In fact, it is more than buy-before-fly: it is 
buy-before-design.
  Mr. President, I wish to speak now about risk, the risk of failure 
and the risk of cost overruns. We know that if a program involves a 
great deal of risk, there is a chance of cost overruns. That was the 
case on the B-1B defensive avionics, for instance. That also was a 
program that tried to do things with electronics that had never been 
done before. Mr. President, it did not work: It cost us billions and it 
did not work--all because of risk. We went too fast with the B-1B 
defensive electronics, and now the Senator from Arkansas wants us to go 
too fast on the EHF follow-on. He wants the Air Force to start a 
program that has to achieve weight reductions of 66 percent and has to 
do it 3 years faster than planned. Mr. President, that means risk, and 
risk means overruns. The most credible study ever done shows that the 
cost risk is liable to be 200 percent. There is over $6 billion yet to 
go on Milstar; we cannot risk a 200-percent overrun.


                       bumpers milstar amendment

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to speak today as a cosponsor and 
strong supporter of Senator Bumpers' amendment to cut back the Milstar 
Satellite Program. This amendment will result in billions of dollars in 
savings over the next 5 years, without endangering our military 
capabilities. In fact, the amendment will actually speed up the 
deployment of a more capable and less expensive successor to Milstar.
  The Milstar satellite is a $30 billion program that was intended for 
a different world. It is a dinosaur of the cold war--big, slow, and 
cumbersome. Milstar is designed to survive a 6-month nuclear war, but 
it is packed so full of protective equipment that it cannot deliver 
enough of the tactical, conventional support that is needed now that 
the cold war is over.
  Many military experts, both inside and outside of the Pentagon, have 
determined Milstar should be terminated in favor of a cheaper and more 
capable system. The GAO, Rand, and others have raised serious questions 
about the program. However, this amendment does not terminate Milstar. 
Instead, it would reduce the number of Milstar satellites from six to 
four while at the same time speeding up the development of a follow-on 
system. This approach will provide our military with secure 
communications and improve our capabilities, while at the same time 
saving an estimated $1.4 to $2.1 billion over the next 5 years.
  Mr. President, Milstar was a secret program until very recently, so 
many people may not be familiar with it. However, with over $20 billion 
still to be spent, we cannot allow this project to continue unnoticed.
  There is another aspect to the Milstar Program that I would ask my 
colleagues to consider. It is tremendously expensive and risky just to 
get a Milstar satellite into space. Milstar is so heavy that it can 
only be launched by our most powerful rocket, the $400 million Titan 
IV-Centaur. The Titan IV is by far our most expensive and least 
reliable launch vehicle. Titan launches are frequently delayed for 
months or years because of problems, and, just last year, a Titan IV 
exploded soon after launch. Can you imagine what the reaction will be 
if a Titan exploded with a billion dollar Milstar aboard? Mr. 
President, I do not want to experience that, and I am sure my 
colleagues do not want to either.
  To add even more expense to the Milstar Program, I am informed that 
the cost of the Titan is projected to increase dramatically by the end 
of a decade. A follow-on system to Milstar would be lighter and could 
be launched on cheaper and more reliable rockets.
  For all this tremendous expenditure, Milstar satellites are still 
only projected to last for about 7 years each. Thus, whether we build 
four or six satellites, we will have to replace them with a new system. 
I think we should make this replacement sooner, rather than later. We 
can do this if we cut the last two Milstar satellites.
  Mr. President, there has been a great deal of debate recently about 
budget pressures and their impact upon our military capabilities. We 
are straining to maintain a strong, capable military within very tight 
spending constraints. There is no better way to prudently reduce some 
of these budget pressures than by reducing the Milstar Program. The 
Bumpers amendment will ensure a capable military while saving billions 
of dollars. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Milstar 
program and in opposition to the Bumpers amendment.
  As many of my colleagues know, Milstar is a military satellite 
communications system designed to provide secure, jamresistent 
communications to U.S. troops anywhere in the world, in any type of 
conflict. Unique attributes of Milstar include:
  Capabilities that are virtually immune to enemy jamming;
  Direct communications with a low probability of interception or 
detection, which is extremely important for special operations forces;
  Small receiving terminals which can deploy and move simultaneously 
with frontline forces, so our troops on the ground can always 
communicate with commanders around the world;
  Virtually worldwide coverage that does not depend on vulnerable 
ground stations for communication links; and
  Joint-service use by the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, which is 
becoming more and more important in the post-cold-war world.
  These capabilities of Milstar are so important to our military that 
the program is strongly supported by the President and on-down the 
chain-of-command, including Defense Secretary William Perry, the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, and our regional commanders in chief.
  The importance of Milstar was recently reaffirmed in a conversation I 
had with Admiral Chiles, head of U.S. Strategic Command. He said that 
the U.S. military needs Milstar; the program is vital to U.S. national 
security and will provide vital communications needs for the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, and Marines.
  Far from being a relic of the cold war, the Milstar program has been 
redesigned to meet the critical military needs of the post-cold war 
world. Originally designed to survive a protracted strategic nuclear 
war with the Soviet Union, Milstar has been reconfigured to meet the 
tactical and conventional threats of today and tomorrow. As a result of 
Congressionally mandated redesigns, the Defense Department has reduced 
Milstar costs by more than $15 billion since 1991.
  Let me quote Defense Secretary William Perry:

       Some people consider Milstar a cold war relic. We have 
     totally, beginning already with the Bush administration and 
     continuing under this administration, completely reconfigured 
     that system so that many of the factors which made it so 
     expensive--which is the ability to withstand nuclear blasts 
     and so on--those features no longer exist in Milstar. What 
     does exist in Milstar is the ability to connect our tactical 
     units worldwide with high quality, high resolution, digital 
     data, so they can pass demands back and forth, they can pass 
     targeting data, they can pass intelligence information, and 
     it does it in such a way which is highly resistant to 
     interference, such as jamming.

  Milstar will be used in many tactical environments. The whole point 
of producing the 1,200 remote, highly mobile Milstar terminals is so 
our troops in the field can communicate directly with other forces and 
commanders anywhere in the world--quickly, directly, and effectively.
  Under a conventional war scenario that the Department of Defense ran 
in the Middle East--a scenario similar to the Persian Gulf war--more 
than 70 percent of all tactical military communications would use 
Milstar satellites. So, this is not a relic of the cold war and does 
indeed have important uses in today's world.
  While most people agree that secure, antijam, worldwide 
communications are vital, there is some disagreement about how to 
achieve this goal, hence the Bumpers amendment to terminate satellites 
five and six.
  But this complex issue has already been reviewed and carefully 
studied by our military experts. In addition, the Defense Department's 
Bottom-Up Review carefully studied the issue of military communications 
satellites, with the ``focus * * * on identifying and evaluating lower-
cost alternatives to Milstar.''
  As the Bottom-Up Review found, the current Milstar Program achieves 
the ``needed military communications capability in the near term while 
potentially reducing the long-term costs associated with sustaining 
this capability.''
  Could Milstar be terminated or replaced with something else and 
reduce costs while maintaining capabilities? The answer is no. The 
Bottom-Up Review studied all options and concluded that six Milstar 
satellites should be built, then transition to a lower-cost, lower-
weight advanced EHF [extremely high frequency] satellite that would be 
ready for launch in the year 2006. This new follow-on satellite is so 
complex to build that it will take years for the technology to mature. 
A lower cost Milstar simply does not exist now.
  If the Milstar Program is terminated now, or even if only the fifth 
and sixth satellites are terminated, an unacceptable gap in 
capabilities will exist. The risk associated with trying to develop and 
deploy the Advanced EHF satellite before 2006 are extremely high, and 
any cost savings may not materialize. In fact, the Air Force estimates 
that trying to accelerate the Advanced EHF satellite system will cost 
$1.39 billion, $120 million more than the $1.27 billion savings 
estimated from canceling Milstar satellites five and six.
  In addition, cancellation of this program would result in the loss of 
8,000 direct jobs nationwide. More than half of these job losses would 
come from California--a State that has already been adversely affected 
by defense downsizing with the loss of 250,000 defense-related jobs in 
just the last few years. These jobs represent the defense industrial 
base that will be counted on to develop and build the follow-on 
advanced EHF satellite that is currently planned to replace Milstar.
  According to Secretary Perry and the Joint Chiefs of Staff--who have 
already reviewed the program and made substantial cost reductions--the 
treat to national security by terminating the Milstar Program would be 
too high. Milstar is an important program that will serve our military 
communications needs into the next century.
  I strongly support the administration's request for Milstar and urge 
the Senate to defeat this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Secretary Perry to 
Chairman Inouye discussing this issue be printed in the Record
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1994.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In anticipation of possible amendments 
     to the FY 1995 Appropriations Bill, we are providing the 
     following information on the Milstar program.
       The Department of Defense opposes any potential amendments 
     that would terminate Milstar II satellites #5 and #6. Milstar 
     is a critically important program that supports the combat 
     potential of current and future military forces. Milstar 
     provides command and control and information transfer 
     capabilities essential to a smaller fighting force.
       The Milstar system is planned to provide operational 
     forces--especially highly mobile tactical units--secure, 
     survivable, flexible communications on a worldwide basis. The 
     system operates in a previously unused portion of the radio 
     spectrum--Extremely High Frequency (EHF). This attribute plus 
     other features, like advanced signal processing and 
     crosslinks, provide unique mission capabilities. Milstar 
     supports fundamental requirements to provide integrated 
     connectivity for theater and tactical elements through a 
     modernized, jam-resistant communications network. Milstar is 
     designed to satisfy requirements essential to the military 
     needs of a CONUS-based, power-projection force.
       Our current investment strategy--two Milstar I satellites, 
     four Milstar II satellites, followed by a transition to an 
     advanced EHF satellite not later than FY 2006--was selected 
     because it best met military requirements and represented the 
     best means of providing essential capability while reducing 
     overall program cost. All other options were higher risk and 
     deferred providing essential operational capability.
       Transition to an advanced EHF system is an integral part of 
     our investment strategy. However, its development represents 
     a technical challenge. During the Bottom Up Review, the 
     Technical Support Group identified the lack of maturity in 
     packaging microwave and digital electronics as a risk area in 
     downsizing the satellite payload so it could be launched on a 
     medium launch vehicle (MLV).
       Our FY 1995 budget includes a request for $22.1 million to 
     begin a focused technology effort to ensure technologies 
     mature sufficiently to allow transition to a smaller payload. 
     We need this investment to make an informed decision on the 
     risks and timing of a transition to this new concept. We will 
     continue to search for the best approaches to an advanced EHF 
     system. When we are able to transition to a follow-on system 
     with acceptable risk, we will present that proposal to 
     Congress. The Department is committed to fielding cost-
     effective, affordable protected communications capabilities.
       The Joint Chiefs of Staff have assured me they firmly 
     support the requirements for assured, protected 
     communications. To cancel Milstar II satellites #5 and #6 
     would save money only by deferring necessary capability and 
     accepting additional risk to our defense posture for the next 
     decade--risk which could erode deterrence or translate into 
     increased loss of life in a potential future conflict.
       The Department strongly recommends that the Milstar II 
     satellites #5 and #6 not be terminated. A four satellite 
     constellation is a fundamental element in the Department of 
     Defense mix of military and commercial satellite 
     communications.
           Sincerely,
     William J. Perry.

                          ____________________