On the recordDecember 5, 2006
I don't have disagreements about the issue of the pay-for here, and I think my colleague has already described he has a provision that would pay for this. There is a rule XVI against it if he puts it in this bill. I suggest perhaps we do a unanimous consent on the pay-for. If he doesn't, I know a politician who will easily pay for it. I will do a unanimous consent to pay for it. It will be objected to, regrettably. These things ought to be paid for. The first time we suggest this is when a family is in trouble on the farm. We have had hundreds of billions of dollars come through here with hardly a blink, none of it paid for. That ought to change. I am with the Senator from Oklahoma. Let's try to change that. The fact is, this does not have a pay-for, not because Senator Conrad doesn't want it there or I don't want it there; it ought to be there. We have the device by which this can be paid for. There is a rule against it, but we ought to do a unanimous consent to describe the fact that it will be objected to, but we want it paid for.
Source
govinfo.gov




