[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 40 (Friday, March 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3464-S3465]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE WORDS WILL FLY

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are obviously getting close to 
closing up business for the day. Over the weekend, I am sure we are 
going to hear a lot about what took place in these Chambers these last 
few days, about who was right, who was wrong, who was accused of 
deception, who was taking the unique responsibility for being the one 
or the ones who wanted to tell the truth, who wanted to be honest with 
the American people. The words will fly, Mr. President, at a fairly 
rapid pace.
  I think one thing ought to be said, because I have been here now a 
dozen years. I came out of the business community, and I do not 
remember the people in the boardrooms where I spent some time, or 
people in business conferences where I spent a lot of time, or people 
who shared in the responsibilities in these companies--I very seldom 
heard a business leader, a CEO, a chairman of the board saying, ``I 
have been fleecing my customers and I have been doing it for a long 
time, but we do not have to do anything else.''
  Around here, in these last days, I heard people suggest that we ought 
to tell the American people the truth, that we ought to stop the 
deception, that we ought to come straight. I do not know who they were 
talking about. I can tell you I resent it if the accusation includes me 
and some of the finest people I have ever known who worked hard here 
trying to do their best, trying to always level with the public. Yes, 
we could have a difference on either side of the aisle. We could have a 
difference in the way the information is presented. We could have a 
difference in the way the slant is tilted.
  But I do not remember, in my angriest moment with someone with whom I 
disagreed, saying that they are lying, or saying that they are telling 
untruths because they disagreed with a position that I took.
  I have heard rhetoric from the House that says we have been picking 
the pockets of the American citizens way too long. I do not know who 
does that, Mr. President. Occasionally, there is someone in this 
Congress of ours who does commit a dishonest act or who breaks the 
rules. That is true. But it is wrong to suggest we collectively are 
doing this purposefully to take advantage of the public.
  Many are here at wages far less than they might earn in the outside 
world, and take abuse far more than they might take in the outside 
world. It is far more disruptive to family life than it would be in the 
outside world, when you know you can get home for dinner and review 
your kids' lessons or say hello to your spouse and enjoy some moments 
of relaxation. It is not possible here. We all talk about the quality 
of life and how we would like to 
[[Page S3465]] make it better and how tough it is, when your home is in 
Minnesota or New Jersey or New York or Idaho, to be sitting here in 
Washington, which is our workplace for the most part, not our home 
State and not our house where family exists. So there is always that 
kind of thing to consider.
  Therefore, Mr. President, those who serve here are not looking for 
some particular advantage.
  I believe that, even, again, with those with whom I most disagree, 
they are here because they believe that we have a purpose; that this 
country of ours is such a valuable asset and we are so lucky to live in 
this Nation that they want to serve and serve honestly.
  Sometimes the rhetoric escapes and we start talking about things that 
are nonsense, about how we have been tricking the American people. It 
is not true.
  We just had a vote on the balanced budget amendment that lost 
temporarily, a balanced budget amendment to change our Constitution. 
There are many who voted against the balanced budget amendment--almost 
every one--who would like to see life made easier on our citizens and 
on ourselves by balancing the budget, by getting our House in order.
  Mr. President, we heard references so many times to the way 
individuals, businesses, and States conduct their affairs. They say 
they balance their budgets. Those who suggest that willy-nilly do not 
know what they are talking about, because the average family is far 
more in debt because they try to own a house or a piece of property 
that they feel will be an asset to pass on to future generations, and 
they leave far more debt when they pass on in a situation like that 
than is being suggested as laid out in front because of the way we 
conduct business here.
  Businesses borrow money constantly. I do not know of any company of 
size--and I am a student of business, as well as a former business 
leader. I am considered a pioneer in the computing industry, one whose 
name is listed in the Data Processing Hall of Fame. It does not compare 
to my colleague, Bill Bradley's, identification with the Hall of Fame 
of Basketball, but it is a hall of fame, as small as it may be.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, that there were many times 
when I discussed business problems with leaders and they talked about 
their borrowing and they talked about their indebtedness and they 
talked about what they had to do now to plan for the future.
  State after State, including my own that has a balanced budget 
requirement, nevertheless, has the opportunity to borrow for capital 
investments and either put it up as collateral or go to the marketplace 
for bonds to be paid off over a period of years. We do not have that 
sensible structure in Federal Government. And that is a point, I think, 
though discussed many times, that is still not clear.
  If we in the U.S. Government make the decision to build a building 
that has a 50-year life and we can build it in 1 year and it costs $1 
billion, we charge off $1 billion in that fiscal year. If it were in 
the business world, it would be written off at the rate of about 
$20,000 a year. Excuse me, I have not been doing arithmetic enough 
since I have been out of the business world. But the fact of the matter 
is, it would be written off over a period of time. We do not do that 
here.
  In many ways, our financial house is in far better condition than 
many here would admit.
  Mr. President, we were looking for responses from those who supported 
the balanced budget amendment in relation to Social Security and 
Medicare. What would happen if we did not use the Social Security trust 
fund to force a better balance on our books than we have? We asked for 
those proponents to lay out a budget that would balance; let them do 
the arithmetic.
  It never happened, Mr. President, because we pretended that by force 
feeding the process, that we could achieve something that we would not 
do on our own even though our constituents sent us here specifically 
for the purpose of watching out for their interests.
  I can tell you, Mr. President, that the balanced budget amendment, 
had it gone into place or if it goes into place, would severely impair 
life and the economy in the State of New Jersey. We could be looking at 
tax increases of 17.5 percent to make up for the funds that we would 
not be getting from the Federal Government. We would lose $2.1 billion 
a year in funding for Medicaid. We would lose almost $200 million a 
year in highway trust fund grants. We would lose almost $1 billion a 
year in lost funding for education, job training, the environment, 
housing, and other areas. To restate, New Jersey would have to increase 
State taxes by 17.5 percent across the board to make up for losses in 
grants.
  On the jobs side of things, the most critical index, according to the 
Treasury, by forcing Congress to raise taxes and/or cut spending in a 
recession, the balanced budget amendment would substantially worsen the 
effects of economic downturn.
  During the recession of 1990 to 1992, the unemployment rate in my 
State of New Jersey rose from 4.9 percent to a peak of 9 percent. Had 
the balanced budget been in effect, unemployment in New Jersey would 
have peaked at a much higher level, somewhere, it is estimated, between 
9.9 percent and 11.8 percent. Had the balanced budget been in effect, 
the unemployment rate in New Jersey would have been punitive. Thus, Mr. 
President, the balanced budget amendment would not have done my State 
any good.
  What will do my State good is if all of us get together and work to 
balance the budget, whether it is in the year 2002 or 2010. The fact is 
if we put this on an ever-decreasing glidepath from where we are, we 
will be substantially better off, better off than having a law that 
would force feed our economy into an unnatural structure that could be 
the most painful decision that this country has seen, perhaps, in its 
history.
  Mr. President, I close by asking the question, where's the beef? 
Where is the interest by those who propose the balanced budget 
amendment, into presenting a budget that will, in fact, balance itself, 
reduce the deficit, ultimately wind up in a zero annual deficit.
  Let them produce it. I am on the Budget Committee, Mr. President. I 
am more than willing to work with the distinguished leader of the 
Budget Committee and the ranking member to try and devise a budget that 
answers that need. Right now, I do not see a willingness to tackle the 
problem. I see an intent, rather, to do the politically satisfying or 
advantageous thing.
  It is regrettable, Mr. President, that we had the kind of bitter 
rhetoric that permeated this place in these last couple of weeks. I do 
not think it does the Congress any good. I do not think it does the 
institution any good. I do not think it does the country any good.
  Right now there is chaos in the currency markets across the world. 
The dollar is dropping rapidly. I think much of it is due to the fact 
that there was such dire forecasts made here that unless we balance the 
budget, unless we took this artificial means of dealing with our fiscal 
responsibilities that catastrophe would fall.
  I hope that that is not true, Mr. President. As I said earlier, I 
often disagree with colleagues on the other side, sometimes with 
colleagues on this side. I really believe that in this body, in this 
institution, there are people whose will is good, who want to do the 
right thing.
  I would not accuse any of those who take a different position of 
lying to the public, of trying to deceive the citizens of the country. 
No, Mr. President, I think we ought to cool the rhetoric and get on 
with our responsibilities. I hope that in the next weeks we will do 
just that. I yield the floor.


                          ____________________