On the recordJanuary 25, 1995
I offered a free standing substitute that would have protected Social Security and would have met the argument that, ``Oh, you could then call anything Social Security.'' I offered an amendment to the Committee on Rules which would have taken the Barton amendment and simply added language that said, ``When you calculate whether or not there is a surplus or a deficit, you exclude Social Security,'' and defined it to be an old age and survivors program with payments. So it was not open to that. The Committee on Rules said ``No.'' I know now why they took Claude Pepper's picture down. They did not want Claude Pepper looking on when they killed an amendment that would have protected Social Security. But then they had second thoughts. They came up with about as meaningless a resolution as I have ever seen. Members keep saying, ``We don't want to cut Social Security.'' But you are trying to pass a constitutional amendment that will create an incentive to cut Social Security because under the amendment being offered, if there is a deficit elsewhere, it could be offset by a Social Security surplus. We have had the Speaker of the House say that we must recalculate the consumer price index so that it provides less. That is primarily a means of reducing cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients.
Source
govinfo.gov




