Mr. President, the problems I have already outlined in this debate are not the only objections I have to the proposed exemption. The attempt to insert a reference to a mere statute into the Constitution raises serious questions of constitutional and legal policy which argue against including such a reference.<p>
This amendment exemption proposes to take particular statutes of the United States and graft them onto the Constitution of the United States. This is unprecedented. It may have the effect of giving future statutory enactments constitutional significance. In other words, this amendment seems to establish a sort of quasi-constitutional device whereby Congress and the President--or Congress alone if it overrides a Presidential veto--can do something of constitutional significance by enacting a mere statute.<p>
This amendment would exclude from the general definitions of receipts and outlays in the balanced budget amendment the receipts and outlays of the Federal old-age and survivors insurance [OASI] trust fund and the Federal disability insurance (DI) trust fund.<p>
This amendment would constitutionalize the OASI and DI trust funds on the date of enactment and forever thereafter, however amended. This is no small point.<p>
The entire Social Security Act has been amended hundreds of times. The key section that establishes the old age survivors insurance trust fund and the disability insurance trust fund, or title II of the Social Security Act, has been amended over 20 times, or about once every 3 years. The pace of amendment has increased in recent years. Twelve of these amendments have been made since 1980, or almost once per year.<p>
This amendment is not restricted. There is no limit on the subject matter of future amendments. It will constitutionalize every program or policy that future Congresses add to title II, whether or not related to the original purposes of those trust funds.<p>
Of course, the pace of amendments to title II will likely increase rapidly because this amendment provides an incentive for adding extraneous items: Once in title II, the additional receipts and outlays will be off budget and exempt from the strictures of the balanced budget rule.<p>
Under this amendment, future amendments to title II<p>
may have constitutional significance. If this provision were added to the constitution, any amendment to title II, no matter how narrow or minute, would have some constitutional significance.<p>
For example, section 201 of the Social Security Act was most recently amended on October 22 of last year by section 3(a) of the Social Security Domestic Employment Reform Act of 1994. Had the provision offered today been in the Constitution at that time, the language on this chart would have had some kind of constitutional significance. Just look at it:<p>
Sec. 3(a) Allocation With Respect to Wages: Section 201(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401(b)(1)) is amended by striking `(O) 1.20 per centum' and all that follows through `December 31, 1999, and so reported,' and insert `(O) 1.20 per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 1989, and before January 1, 1994, and so reported, (P) 1.88 per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 1993, and before January 1, 1997, and so reported, (Q) 1.70 per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 1996, and before January 1, 2000, and so reported, and (R) 1.80 per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31, 1999, and so reported,': P.L. 103-387, 3(a), 108 Stat. 4074-75, Oct. 22, 1994.</body>
