Kent Conrad: “I almost don't recognize my amendment when I hear the description of the Senator from Idaho. The amendment he is talking…”

“I almost don't recognize my amendment when I hear the description of the Senator from Idaho. The amendment he is talking about is not my amendment. My amendment says very simply: No new mandatory spending, and that is two-thirds of Federal spending; no new tax cuts unless they are paid for until we stop using Social Security funds for other purposes. The only way around that is a supermajority vote. So let me repeat what this amendment does. This amendment says: No increase in mandatory spending, no new tax cuts that are not paid for until we stop the use of Social Security funds for other purposes. Let me be clear. We have had in the past pay-go provisions, and the pay-go provisions operated in just this way. They were focused on mandatory spending, not on discretionary spending. We disciplined discretionary spending with spending caps. We have a cap in place right now. Mandatory spending we disciplined with a pay-go provision just like mine, and we disciplined the tax cut side of the agenda with a discipline just like mine. But those disciplines were stopped in 2002. What I am saying is they ought to be put in place. We ought to insist that if somebody wants more spending, new spending on the mandatory side, they ought to come up with a way of paying for it. If they want new tax cuts, they ought to find a way to pay for it until we stop the use of Social Security money for other purposes. We would defend those disciplines with a 60-vote point of order.”