Judd Gregg: “let me respond quickly to the comments made relative to the technical aspects of the amendment. First, I am impressed…”

“let me respond quickly to the comments made relative to the technical aspects of the amendment. First, I am impressed that it has received such adulation but so little support. The Senator from New Mexico, whom I immensely respect, said it is a wonderful idea except for a couple little points but he thinks it might be a good marker. The Senator from North Dakota appears to be saying essentially the same thing with a little more intensity. I am glad we have put something out here that appears to be pretty close to what we need. Why do we need it? We need it because without any budget disciplines in place, we will be in serious trouble as we move down the road, as was highlighted by a number of speakers. We need to have something in place that we can look to at least to give us some guidance, some signposts. On the issue of pay-go, obviously you don't need pay-go if you are in surplus. It makes no sense to have pay-go if you are in surplus. In fact, we have shown that every time we have been in surplus, with the last appropriations bill coming out across the floor, we have basically put a hold on or stopped the application of pay-go. This bill makes it very clear. The language says: There shall be no sequestration under this section for any fiscal year in which a surplus exists. It is very specific. There must be a surplus in order for pay-go to be withdrawn. But if there is not a surplus, clearly pay-go exists, and it is available.…”