In closing that people have said--we can't do this. The House of Representatives would object because it isn't ``paid for.'' Well, there is $2.4 billion in unoffset tax provisions included in the Dodd/Shelby amendment and a large amount of this does not even relate to housing. Why should the House of Representatives accept $2.4 billion worth in tax incentives not paid for and object to our clean energy tax provisions at the same time? That is an example of why there is inconsistency in objecting to our amendment being voted on.
John Ensign: “In closing that people have said--we can't do this. The House of Representatives would object because it isn't ``paid…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing objections to clean energy tax provisions during a debate.
Share
More from John Ensign
I wish that not only someone from HHS was here, but also from the Congressional Budget Office.
I rise today to talk about this New START treaty. I have some very serious concerns about it. I appreciate the work that has been done by my colleagues. This is an incredibly serious issue. I do not question anybody's motives, but I do…
I rise today to deliver a very difficult speech. This will be my farewell speech to the Senate. Serving as Nevada's 24th Senator has truly been the greatest professional privilege of my life. Growing up with a single mom in very humble…
Just to address the one point on the clarification in the resolution of ratification, it has been said that our resolution of ratification clarifies and we should not need this language in the definition. Here is the problem I have…