Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would like to confine my remarks to four specific areas of concern. I have spoken on the Reid amendment twice before, and there are four specific areas that I want to discuss today. The first is the committee report and its exemption of the everything-is-on-the-table concept. The second is the floor discussion, centering around the concern that we are putting a statute into the Constitution. The third area is the Dole figleaf amendment. The fourth area is the point that Senator Graham, the Senator from Florida, just made in his comments about section 2 of the balanced budget amendment as presented to this body. Let me begin with my first point, the committee report and the exemption of the everything-is-on-the-table concept in this committee report. Last Thursday, I mentioned that on page 19 under the section marked ``Total Outlays'' of the Judiciary Committee report for this legislation, the language states that among the Federal programs that would not be covered by S.J. Res. 1 is the electric power program of the TVA. And then in the course of our floor discussion, it became clear that not only was the Tennessee Valley Authority excluded, but the Bonneville Power Authority was excluded as well. In other words, the electric power programs of this Nation took a higher priority than did the Social Security of some 42 million Americans today. As I began to take a look at the Bonneville Power Authority, the point was raised, ``Well, these are not quasi-Federal authorities,'' and I must dispute that. They are, in fact, quasi-Federal authorities. I refer this body to the General Accounting Office report entitled ``Bonneville Power Administration, Borrowing Practices and Financial Condition,'' dated April 1994. The facts from this GAO report are as follows: The Bonneville Power Authority's plan for fiscal years 1993 to 2001 relies on Treasury for about 90 percent of its borrowing, 76 percent from bonds and 14 percent from appropriated debt. Second, the accessibility of low-interest Treasury financing plays a substantial role in Bonneville Power Authority's approach to financing capital projects. Third, Bonneville Power Authority is more heavily leveraged than other utilities. significant operating and financial risks because of its heavy reliance on borrowing, recent operating losses, and various uncertainties. Fifth, the Bonneville Power Authority's long-term debt in fiscal year 1991 was equal to 96 percent of its total assets, while the figures for public utilities, investor-owned utilities, and the Tennessee Valley Authority were 67 percent, 37 percent, and 79 percent, respectively. And finally, Bonneville Authority's projected debt for fiscal year 2001 is $17.9 billion. It was said on the floor that, if the Bonneville Power Authority got into trouble, this body would then have to consider whether we are going to pick up its debt or not. However, this Government would have no choice but to bail it out because the Bonneville Power Authority depends on the Treasury for 90 percent of its borrowing. The point I am trying to make is that we are excluding a heavily leveraged power authority from the balanced budget amendment, but we are not excluding Social Security. To me, that is a mistaken list of priorities. I was also told on Thursday that I would receive a list of the other items that are excluded from the balanced budget amendment. I have not received such a list, but it is clear that everything is not on the table in the balanced budget amendment as has hitherto been reported. I must assume that if the wording on page 19 of this report says, ``Among the Federal programs that would not be covered by Senate Joint Resolution 1 is the electric power program of the TVA authority,'' that there are also other programs excluded from the balanced budget amendment. Now, I do not know whether the progams excluded are some Senators' pet programs, or some House Members' pet programs, or a group's pet programs, or this body's pet programs. But the point I wish to make is it is clear, crystal clear, in black and white, that programs are excluded from the balanced budget amendment. Not ``everything,'' as the distinguished Senator from Illinois says, is on the table. This report indicates to me that everything is not on the table. I think those of us who are concerned about Social Security have a right to know what other programs are being excluded from the balanced budget amendment that we are not being told about. Let me go on to my second point. The floor discussion that has just taken place, in essence, says that we should not put a statute in the Constitution. There is a certain iambic pentameter to the amendments of the Constitution of the United States that would not lend itself to anything as crass as protecting old age survivors and benefits trust fund moneys and that it should not be in the Constitution of the United States. And then, second, the concern is expressed, well, if it is written into the Constitution of the United States, there are sure to come a large number of statutes. Well, that is correct. However, let us take a look at the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a very major amendment to the Constitution, an amendment which guarantees civil rights. There are 20 volumes of statutes defining this amendment, and they are right here--20 volumes of the United States Code Annotated. It goes on and on, statute after statute, that has flowed from the passage of the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States. That is well and as it should be because constitutional amendments need enabling action. That constitutional amendment, in fact, even says that there will be enabling legislation. So, frankly, that argument does not hold much water with me. Let me go on to point No. 3, the Dole figleaf amendment. One of the things that is most disturbing to me about this debate is that the Senate must do just what the House has done. Suddenly we are the second-rate body. Just because the House of Representatives has passed an amendment, we must pass an identical amendment. There cannot be a conference committee to remedy differences. Suddenly, the highest policymaking body in the United States of America is relegated to an also-ran body. We must do things just as the House of Representatives has done. I do not accept that argument, Mr. President. People have often said that the House of Representatives and the Senate are like a cup of coffee and a saucer. The House is the cup of coffee, and you drink the coffee out of the cup. The Senate is the saucer into which you pour the coffee to cool it, and to discuss it, and to have it stand the test of time. If this, in fact, is true, there is ultimate precedent for the Senate to take another course and to fashion its own balanced budget amendment recognizing the concerns of tens of millions of young Americans who are paying FICA taxes today to save funds for retirements tomorrow. These funds may not be available for their retirements. Now, the Dole amendment. Why is it a figleaf? Why is it a figleaf that does not even cover the parts that a figleaf would normally cover? Let me try to explain. The Congressional Research Service in an opinion dated February 6 very clearly states that if the amendment is ratified as drafted, Congress would be without the authority to exclude the Social Security trust funds from the calculations of total receipts and outlays under section 1 of the amendment. The figleaf simply stated that we refer this to the Budget Committee, and we say, ``Budget Committee, at your leisure consider this and present back to the Senate at some later time how to achieve a balanced budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the disbursements of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Trust Fund to achieve that goal.'' It is whole cloth. It will not make any difference because this esteemed body, number one in the United States of America, would have passed an amendment which enshrines language into the Constitution of the United States that the Dole figleaf is absolutely unable to amend or change in any way. And yet we did it because the House of Representatives did it. So what passes the House of Representatives is good, and we then must be in lockstep and also pass? I do not believe that is right. I do not believe that is why the people of the United States elected people to the Senate, to say OK, you say jump and we will say just how high? We have our own minds, our own voices, our own constituencies that reach deep across the United States of America and involve entire States. I do not believe that the working men and women of this country are well served if we impose, as this body and the other body have, a FICA tax to pay for their retirements and then we take those moneys and use them to balance the budget. That is wrong. It is dishonest. It masks the debt. It betrays people. And it violates a compulsory tax act which every one must pay. If we are going to misuse these FICA taxes, then we ought to cut the FICA tax. If we are going to run surpluses in Social Security of more than $700 billion between now and 2002, then we should save them, not use them to finance the deficit and to balance the budget. That is what we who support the Reid amendment say is wrong, is dishonest, and should not be done. I would also like to point out that the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, representing 6 million Americans, has written stating that clearly this is the case. I will once again have that letter of February 1 printed in the Record, if I may, Mr. President. The Dole amendment, or S. 290, which was at the desk prior to the Dole amendment, are really only fig leaves; they cannot countermand a balanced budget amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I pointed out, for 58 percent of all working Americans, the employees' share of FICA and the employer's share of FICA put together are more than they pay in Federal income taxes. It is a big-ticket item for working Americans. Because it goes into a trust fund--and this trust fund is like an annuity. It is like buying an insurance policy. What you put in you protect that trust fund. We should protect that annuity. The Reid amendment protects that trust fund and protects that annuity, and I am proud to support it and vote for it. The vote on this issue will be very close. The balanced budget amendment may have 67 votes without the Reid amendment. It may not. There is, however, enough support in this body to pass a balanced budget amendment with Social Security excluded. So if my colleagues want to take a gamble to try to pass a balanced budget amendment without the Reid amendment because they want to misuse Social Security funds, they can do that. But, they have an opportunity to pass a real and honest constitutional balanced budget amendment that protects Social Security. I know this Senate could pass it, and I hope it does. It will be nobody's fault, but their own if the constitutional amendment goes down because they took this gamble. Finally, I want to address my remarks to the concern that just came up about section 2 in the budget report. It was the argument made by the distinguished Senator from Florida. That budget report, right in the very beginning of section 2, points out that to utilize funds from Social Security for purposes of this amendment would only take a majority vote. Votes for other than this program would take a three- fifths vote. To run a deficit, the Federal Government must borrow funds to cover its obligations. Section 2 removes the borrowing power from the Government, unless three-fifths of the total membership of both Houses vote to raise the debt limit. However, the point that was made by Senator Graham, which is well taken, is that in the case of Social Security this vote would be a simple majority. That is wrong. To sum up, I would like to commend the Senator from Nevada. I would like to commend the coauthors of this amendment. Many of us have said, if the Reid amendment is agreed to, we will vote for a balanced budget amendment. We have said so for good and just reasons. There is a need for the castor oil of a constitutional amendment to force the body to do some of the things it has been loath to do. However, without the Social Security amendment, I believe the balanced budget amendment is, indeed, a slippery and treacherous slope. I believe it jeopardizes the retirements of future generations and it jeopardizes a trust that these bodies have put in place with purpose and with specific financing. We should not do that. We should not break that trust with the American people. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, February 1, 1995. Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing with regard to S. 290, introduced recently by Senators Kempthorne, Dole, Thompson and Inhofe. The fact that the sponsors of S. 290 believe that it is necessary to take action to protect Social Security under a balanced budget amendment is, in my view, proof that it is imperative that the Senate adopt your amendment to exclude Social Security from the balanced budget amendment. The pending balanced budget amendment reverses the 1990 law removing Social Security from a consolidated budget and puts Social Security back on budget as part of the Constitution. This presents serious problems for Social Security which cannot be addressed by S. 290 or any statutory measure. The sponsors of S. 290 cannot bind future Congresses to their legislation, or for that matter ensure that this Congress will not modify or overturn this legislation while Social Security would remain on budget as part of the Constitution. I also note that while S. 290 attempts to prohibit Congress from increasing Social Security revenues or reducing benefits to balance the budget, it will allow Congress to continue using the surplus in the Social Security trust funds to conceal the deficit. This only confirms our understanding that the proponents of the balanced budget amendment intend to continue this budgetary charade thereby avoiding balancing the budget until will into the next century. The nearly six million members and supporters of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare strongly oppose this practice of using the surplus generated by the Social Security payroll tax to fund deficit reduction or mask the true size of the general fund deficit. Let's not forget that the continued borrowing from the Social Security trust funds will only create huge debts for the next generation which will be forced to redeem the bonds through massive tax increases. The only way for proponents of the balanced budget amendment to live up to the many promises not to harm or undermine Social Security is to explicitly exclude it from the text of S.J. Res 1. Sincerely, Martha A. McSteen, President.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Page 19 of the committee report, about two-thirds of the way down the page. It says ``Total outlays,'' and then the second paragraph there, which begins ``Among the Federal programs that would not be covered by Senate Joint Resolution 1 * * *''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor, and I thank the Senator very much. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I appreciate that and I thank the Senator. It is just that I think I find a conflict in this because, after all, Social Security, although there is an outlay every year, is running well in surplus. By the year 2002 when this is operative, there will be $705 billion plus another $300 billion, it is my understanding, becoming available for retirements. But because they are not needed, this amendment would automatically use those revenues to balance the budget. That is my problem with this. The fact that--let us say it is Federal or quasi-Federal--this is still an entity that is the product of the Federal Government whose full faith and credit at one point built it, et cetera, and whose full faith and credit would sustain it if it fell into tough years. I look at Social Security as important as TVA, it is as important as Bonneville if you are a senior who is depending on it or a working person who is paying the FICA taxes with the expectation that the Government is going to make those revenues available. This amendment does not make those revenues available for retirements. So all we are saying is, just as you have excepted Bonneville, TVA, and some other things yet unknown to some of us, we say exempt Social Security, and then we can all march forward together.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is exactly right, Mr. President. Something is wrong. Something is fishy, I think. And I think we ought to find out what it is, because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me make this point, if I may, because the Senator from Idaho has just said these are not Federal programs. The majority report says these are Federal programs. The majority report says: ``Among the Federal programs that would not be covered by S.J. Res. 1 is the Electric Power Program of the TVA.'' Now you are saying it is not only TVA, it is Bonneville as well. Now, maybe to some the argument can be made that there is no Federal responsibility for these. But if something happened with these programs, I think we would bail them out very rapidly. I do not accept the argument that they are not Federal programs, and the majority report does not accept that argument. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this has piqued my curiosity as to what is excluded because, if we just follow the logic of the distinguished Senator from Illinois, I stretched my memory back to see if there was a time when the Federal Government ever bailed out Social Security. I do not believe there was. There were times when the Federal Government, the Congress, has raised the FICA tax, but the FICA tax is a compulsory dedicated tax that goes for retirements. I find it somewhat interesting that some programs--and it does refer to quasigovernmental programs in this as well--some programs are exempted under this bill and others are not. Of course, the program which is most important to the American people is Social Security. It is not exempted. It is not exempted because there will be 3 trillion dollars' worth of surplus revenues that are going to be taken from Social Security and used to balance the budget. That is what Senator Reid and I do not think is right. I would just like very much to obtain a full list from the committee and from the authors of this as to precisely which programs are being exempted from the balanced budget amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Senator, this is exactly my point, because in 1990, this body took Social Security off budget by a vote of 98 to 2. Social Security draws its revenues from its own specific FICA tax, not from the income tax or any other tax of Government.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I made my comments this morning on the Reid amendment. I very strongly support it and I pointed out my rationale for so doing. Since then, we have been reading the committee report, Mr. President, and something has come to my attention. In the spirit of debate and discussion which was so prevalent on the floor between the Senator from Pennsylvania and the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I would like to continue that spirit, and if the bill manager, the Senator from Pennsylvania, would be prepared to answer a question on the majority report, I would appreciate it very much. In this report, on page 19, it is pointed out that some programs are exempted from this resolution and some are not. Now, this is news to me, because, as a member of the Judiciary Committee that considered this, that was not the case. I would like to read the exact language. It reads: Among the Federal programs that would not be covered by S.J. Res. 1 is the electric power program of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Since 1959, the financing of that program has been the sole responsibility of its own electric ratepayers--not the U.S. Treasury and the Nation's taxpayers. Consequently, the receipts and outlays of that program are not part of the problem S.J. Res. 1 is directed at solving. Now, this is very strange to me. Social Security is put on budget and its receipts and outlays are subject to Senate Joint Resolution 1, but we suddenly find that the Tennessee Valley Authority is not. And not only is it not, but the words prefacing the statement say ``Among the Federal programs that would not be covered by Senate Joint Resolution 1 * * *'' My question to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is: A, are you aware of this, that the TVA is being exempted; and, B, what other programs are being exempted from Senate Joint Resolution 1?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This means then that Congress does not have the option of later excluding Social Security in implementation language. We simply do not have it. Therefore, unless Congress enacts this amendment, Social Security funds will be used to balance the budget. No other way around it. No talk is going to change it. No pounding the breast is going to change it. No vows taken with blood or wine or anything else is going to change it. It will be enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and $3 trillion of money paid in FICA taxes by young people in this country, working men and women, will be used to pay for agriculture, to pay for HUD, to pay for education, to pay for this highway project or that highway project. I believe that is violative of a public trust, and I believe that what this amendment is all about should not be to gut Social Security, and that is exactly what we would be doing, if we don't exclude Social Security. So we have taken care of that argument. Congress does not have the option of later excluding Social Security in implementation language. It is very clear. A vote for a balanced budget amendment that does not have this amendment in it is clearly a vote that puts Social Security on budget and takes its surplus. Let there be no doubt about it. Exempting Social Security could create a Social Security deficit. Actually, the exact opposite is true. Excluding Social Security from the balanced budget amendment protects it while including it in the balanced budget amendment guts it. If you put Social Security in the budget, it is not to protect it. It is to use its revenues and thus increase its insolvency. In 60 years of Social Security history, the trust funds have never run a deficit. They cannot. If trust funds run out of money, benefits cannot be paid. It is that simple and straightforward. Charge Four Excluding Social Security would allow the Government to gamble with Social Security funds. According to the Republican policy committee report, and I quote, Congress might stop using Social Security surpluses to buy Government securities and let the Social Security trustees try their hand in the private market. They could start gambling with trust fund reserves by acquiring industries, buying up real estate, taking a chance on cattle futures or speculating on foreign currencies. Mr. President, to that I say nonsense. To that I say baloney. That is pure flimflam. Social Security is off budget today, and the trust funds are not allowed to be invested anywhere except U.S. Treasury bonds. And they are the safest investment in the world. If they go, our Government goes. Social Security has never been allowed, nor will it ever be allowed under this amendment, to use trust fund reserves to buy up real estate or cattle futures or to speculate on foreign currencies. This charge is pure obfuscation. It is pure fantasy. Under this amendment, Social Security would still be required to invest in U.S. Treasury bonds, and there is nearly $5 trillion today of Federal governmental debt. The U.S. Treasury will continue to issue bonds and Social Security will continue to purchase those bonds. The biggest difference between the practice today and the practice if the balanced budget amendment excluding Social Security is adopted is that when the constitutional amendment takes effect, the U.S. deficit will actually shrink--shrink--for nearly the next two decades, not grow. And to my mind that is fiscally prudent. As the debt shrinks, interest rates drop. This means businesses can expand and hire new workers, Americans can afford new homes and pay for college for their children. Shrinking the debt is the right objective, and that will happen under this amendment for the next two decades. Mr. President, in conclusion. I have listened to all the arguments about what is wrong with our amendment to exclude Social Security, but they all boil down to one thing: Members of Congress simply want to use the money to balance the budget. That is not a real argument. That is a failure to deal truthfully with the American people. To loot Social Security is morally wrong and I cannot support it. I want to support, as I said before, a balanced budget amendment and I am prepared to do so if Social Security is excluded. Rather than argue about this amendment, my colleagues who support a constitutional balanced budget amendment as I do, why not do the right thing and accept this amendment to exclude Social Security? Then we can move forward in a bipartisan way and get this country back on the right track again. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada for those very generous words. I appreciate them very much. Mr. President, last year I supported both these amendments. In the ensuing year, I have come to think a lot about it. It is a long time before ratification, even if a balanced budget amendment is passed. And when people, beginning with 40 million and then 60 million, then 70 million, then 80 million Americans on Social Security understand what the impact of this amendment is, it is my very deep belief that it will not be ratified. I view the use of Social Security surplus revenues as a major flaw in the balanced budget amendment, but it is a flaw that can be corrected by this amendment. In 1990, this very body, by a vote of 98-2, voted to take it off budget. They said: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of (1) the budget of the United States, (2) the congressional budget, or, (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. This body voted for it 98-2. And in the ensuing days, this body is going to reverse their opinion. One must ask why? Why are we doing this? FICA Taxes Let me talk for a moment about FICA taxes and what they are. By the year 2017, $3 trillion of FICA tax reserves meant to pay for the retirements of American workers will be used instead to balance the budget. This is unconscionable. If Congress is going to use FICA taxes that are meant for retirements for another purpose other than retirements, we should cut the FICA tax to eliminate the surplus so people do not see their FICA taxes misused. FICA taxes were raised in 1977 and 1983 so the Social Security system would run surpluses. It was changed at that point from a pay-as-you-go system to a system that would bank surpluses for the future. Why was that done? It was done because the actuarial tables showed there was going to be a major baby boomer generation retiring in the not to distant future and the revenues, as projected, would not be adequate to meet their retirements. Therefore, it was thought by this esteemed body that we should increase retirement taxes so that moneys could accrue and there would, therefore, be enough money to meet the retirement needs of the baby boomer generation. What has changed is we found that even without this amendment, downstream, after the year 2018, the Social Security system will run into trouble. There still will not be enough money. But, if these dollars are used to balance the budget, the system is going to run into trouble much more rapidly. By 2002 nearly $1 trillion will be used and by 2017, nearly $3 trillion if we don't start saving these Social Security surpluses. There are those who say, ``That's OK, we'll use the revenues. It will force us to make necessary changes in the system.'' I agree we have to make some changes in the system. If you raise FICA tax, if you means test it, whatever you do with it, some changes are going to happen. But to use the reserves to fund health, to use FICA taxes to fund the Interior Department, the Agriculture Department, defense, and interest on the debt and other Government programs, is just plain wrong. Over 58 percent of working Americans today pay more in FICA taxes if you put in the employer share than they do in Federal taxes. This is not a small amount. This tax is not adjusted by salary. Everyone pays a flat tax of 6.2 percent up to $61,200 of income and the employer matches it with 6.2 percent. For a worker who makes $25,000, his share is $1,550. Combined with the employer tax, it is $3,100. For a worker who makes $35,000, when you combine it with the employer's share, it is $4,340. Go up another $10,000 to $45,000 and combine it, it is $5,580. Go up another $10,000 to $55,000 and combine it and it begins to grow, it is $6,000 a year. And for every worker who makes more than $61,200, combined it is $7,588. That is a lot of money at any income level. If it is being saved for retirement, then it is like an annuity: That's fine. You pay in funds and you get them out when you retire. But if it is being spent on Government, then it is just another expensive tax on working Americans, and then we ought to do the right thing and reduce the FICA tax if we are going to do this. Social Security Amendment The debate over this amendment to exclude Social Security from the constitutional balanced budget amendment is not complicated. It is very simple. The issue is: Does Congress want to take the funds generated by the FICA tax for Social Security, meant for a worker's future retirement, and use it to balance the budget? Or does Congress want to balance the budget honestly? I hope that whatever else our disagreements are, we can all agree that Social Security revenues from the FICA tax should not be misused to balance the budget. My problem with this constitutional amendment is that by including Social Security in the amendment, it does not only permit the use of the Social Security trust funds to balance the budget, but it mandates it by including those funds in the budget calculations. The amendment before us, in effect, enshrines the use of Social Security to balance the budget in the Constitution of the United States. Do we really want to do that? I think not. So the debate really is not over who wants to protect Social Security and who does not. It is about who wants to be honest with the American people in our budgeting and our fiscal policy and who does not. Because to be honest, Social Security should remain off budget. Ninety-eight Members of this very body voted to do that in 1990. Including it in the budget would be an enormous loophole. It is not the Federal Government's money, and it should not be used as if it were. Let me respond to four arguments raised against this Social Security amendment. Charge One Excluding Social Security would make it harder to balance the budget. 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. 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. 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? Charge Two It is unprecedented to put a statute in the Constitution of the United States. I have heard that mentioned time and time again on this very floor. 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. 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. 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. Now, Chairman Hatch has 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. 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. I wish to read the reply I received. This is what it says: 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the communication from the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service be printed in full in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, this constitutional balanced budget amendment is a very big issue. Its impacts are enormous. Its results, if passed and enacted, will be large and long remembered. There are two reasons I want to vote for a balanced budget amendment. The first is my own life experience. I shared this once before and I will do it once again. The year I was born, 61 years ago, the entire Federal debt amounted to just $25 billion. When my daughter was born, the entire Federal debt amounted to $225 billion. And 2 years ago, when my granddaughter, Eileen, was born, the entire Federal debt was 150 times greater than when I was born. It was nearly $4 trillion at that time. So my life experience shows me that with business as usual, the Congress is not going to be able to deal with the deficit unless it is forced to. The second reason is my Senate experience. In 2 years in the Senate, through my observation of the budget's authorization and appropriation processes, I have become convinced that a balanced budget amendment is in order. In short, current operating procedures will not, in my view, produce a balanced budget. The amendment, therefore, is necessary to face reality and make the difficult decisions. In a nutshell, those are the reasons I want to support a strong balanced budget amendment. But I want to support the right balanced budget amendment. And I have a hard time agreeing with those who have deemed it must have exactly only certain words in it; and only those words. Last year, I supported the Reid balanced budget amendment on Social Security, as I am today.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator. I do yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I yield.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is right.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I cannot answer that with specificity, but it would seem to me that if Congress fails to balance the budget that the President would have some authority, and whether this automatically confers a line-item veto or whether we do it separately, it would seem to me that the President should be a player and a dominant player in being able to assure that the budget is balanced.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.