Judd Gregg: “the Senate voted last Wednesday morning, May 11, to waive the Budget Act point of order that applied against the Inhofe…”

“the Senate voted last Wednesday morning, May 11, to waive the Budget Act point of order that applied against the Inhofe substitute, Senate Amendment 606. The Budget Committee has since received a cost estimate of that substitute from the Congressional Budget Office. As I pointed out last week, CBO was not able to provide a more timely estimate because the language was not provided to them until it became available on May 10, a day after the Inhofe substitute was put before the Senate. Apparently none of the committees of jurisdiction had asked CBO for an estimate of their combined amendment. So for the information of my colleagues and the public, I would like to enter a table into the Record that summarizes the status of this highway bill with regard to budgetary enforcement--showing why there was a 302(f) point of order that I raised. I would also like to place into the Record a table that addresses not the contract authority, which is the relevant unit of analysis for budgetary enforcement of this bill, but the deficit results of this bill. Last week the bill's proponents repeatedly asserted the bill is ``paid for'' over the 2005-2009 window of the bill and reduces the deficit by $14 billion over the 2005-2015 period. It is hard to know how anyone could say this because the Budget Committee and the other committees did not receive until yesterday CBO's estimate of highway trust fund outlays resulting from the Inhofe substitute.…”