Orrin Hatch: “there is a constitutional point of order that lies against the pending amendment. It was filed and offered by my friend…”

“there is a constitutional point of order that lies against the pending amendment. It was filed and offered by my friend, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the senior Senator from Oregon. A constitutional point of order lies against the amendment, numbered 27 because it violates article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the origination clause. The origination clause states that ``All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. . . . '' In addition, the pending amendment is not germane to the bill we are debating, and is not expected to pass. I reserve the right to raise this constitutional point of order against amendment No. 27 in the unlikely event that it passes. I will hold off for now on raising this point of order to spare the Senate an unnecessary vote. However, I want to put everybody in the Senate on notice that, in the future, I reserve the right to raise this constitutional point of order regarding any proposal that violates the origination clause. In the Senate, revenue proposals should first be processed in the committee of jurisdiction in the Senate, which is the Senate Finance Committee. I will vote ``no'' on the pending amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.”