I want my colleagues to know we keep tally and keep measures of how much some of these amendments cost. This is an accurate portrayal. We had amendments that would increase taxes and spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. Those are now entered in the Record. I also heard some comments on pay-go. I might mention for our colleagues, last week Senator Murray had an amendment. I raised a point of order on it that most all of our colleagues on the Democrat side said, let's waive pay-go. Let's spend an extra $18 billion. We have a tax credit, but basically it was to spend more money, $18 billion. We didn't waive it, but most of our colleagues on the Democrat side who profess belief in pay-go voted to waive pay-go--for a bill, incidentally, that had never had a hearing before the Finance Committee, never been vetted. It is just proposed on the floor. I happen to be a supporter of pay-go. Incidentally, people act like we have not had pay-go for the last year. That is false. The budget we passed last year had pay-go for anything that wasn't assumed in the budget resolution, period. We used pay-go and other points of order, some of which are redundant. You can make a budget point of order because a committee exceeds its allocation, or you can make a pay-go point of order. I used both. We made 61 or 62 budget points of order, on most of which we prevailed, which saved over $800 billion in new spending.
Don Nickles: “I want my colleagues to know we keep tally and keep measures of how much some of these amendments cost. This is an…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of pay-go rules and recent amendments during a Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Don Nickles
I am happy to debate my colleague, or any colleague, on the budget. We spent several days debating the budget. I am more than happy to debate it. I will tell my colleague that we basically have assumed a freeze in nondefense, non-homeland…
I have a couple comments. Again, I compliment my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Senator DeWine. They have been steadfast in their advocacy. Senator DeWine is right, he and Senator Kennedy introduced this a long time ago. If I am correct…
Lowering the threshold required for cloture, in my opinion, would be a mistake, because that is a threshold that almost by definition requires bipartisan involvement.
If you do really good tax reform, you do not need energy tax issues. Let the marketplace work.





