Excluding Social Security would make it harder to balance the budget.<p>
That is true. Taking Social Security off budget does require more spending cuts, about $3 trillion of them by the year 2017, because all of this money will be used to balance the budget. But the alternative of leaving it on budget is basically stealing from Social Security to avoid spending cuts.<p>
There is nothing magical, as the distinguished Senator from Florida pointed out, about the year 2002. Somebody just sat down and decided we have to do this by the year 2002. The Sun is not going to refuse to come up in the year 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007. If people are really concerned that we need to use Social Security revenues or you cannot balance the budget, then it is simple: Extend the time line out to 2005 or 2007 rather than loot Social Security.<p>
If a man runs short on money one month, the law does not allow him to steal from his neighbor to make ends meet. But this amendment allows the Federal Government to steal from Social Security to meet its obligations. How is that right?<p>
<h3>CHARGE TWO</h3><p>
It is unprecedented to put a statute in the Constitution of the United States.<p>
I have heard that mentioned time and time again on this very floor.<p>
Now, of course, it is true, it is unprecedented. It is also true that it is unprecedented to put the Nation's fiscal policy into the Constitution. And if we decide that this Nation needs the strong medicine of a balanced budget amendment, then we better be sure that the amendment is drawn deeply enough and widely enough to represent some of these concerns.<p>
The legislation before you is narrowly drawn, and it specifies that only those funds used to provide old age and survivors and disabilities benefits are involved. So it is not a loophole.<p>
The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, whom I deeply respect, has said, well, a game will be played if we put the words Social Security in the Constitution. Education moneys will be called Social Security moneys. The amendment is drafted to be specific, to prevent this from happening, and it does.<p>
Now, Chairman Hatchhas also said that no one wants to use Social Security revenues to balance the budget, and we could protect them in implementation legislation or by some other resolution.<p>
I initially thought, well, maybe that is a great idea. If we can do it that way, why not do it. And so we asked the Congressional Research Service, if that could be done.<p>
I wish to read the reply I received. This is what it says:<p>
If the proposed amendment was ratified, then Congress would appear to be without the authority to exclude the Social Security trust funds from the calculations of total receipts and outlays under section 1 of the balanced budget amendment.</body>
