Sherwood Boehlert: “let me begin by explaining what this amendment would actually do because I think there has been a lot of confusion.…”

“let me begin by explaining what this amendment would actually do because I think there has been a lot of confusion. Under my amendment, Members could still raise a point of order against bills, resolutions, amendments, and conference reports if they would cost the private sector more than $100 million, which is the threshold in current law. Under my amendment, the Chair would rule on the point of order. Just as with most points of order in the House, there would be an objective ruling. The point of order would be sustained if the Congressional Budget Office had scored the measure as costing more than $100 million or if CBO had not scored the measure. That eliminates one flaw in the bill, which allows someone to claim that a measure would cost more than $100 million even if CBO has scored it otherwise, because the bill requires no evidence at all to raise the point of order. Under my amendment, if the point of order is sustained, 20 additional minutes to debate on the bill or amendment themselves is added to whatever debate would have occurred under the rule. This is the crux of the matter. Under my amendment the point of order is used to provide for additional debate, while under the bill the purpose of the point of order is to cut off debate. I fail to see how having less debate will lead to better-informed decisions. So again, here is what my amendment would do. First, it would accomplish every stated goal of the bill.…”