Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. The sponsors seek the International Trade Commission, or ITC, to conduct a study under section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The study would examine the domestic impact of President Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico and of potential retaliatory measures. Section 338 studies are resource-intensive endeavors for the ITC. The chair of Finance is one of the individuals authorized to request such studies and historically has done so sparingly to conserve precious few ITC resources. I fail to see why we should expend those resources when a number of private groups are already developing economic models on the tariffs at issue. Furthermore, it bears emphasis that the tariffs are not redressing economic issues but, rather, the Biden administration's failure to secure the border from fentanyl and migration. Yes, tariffs have economic costs, but they can be used as tools too. The cost of President Biden allowing fentanyl and migrants to flood into the United States is quite high. The proposed bill has no interest in trying to quantify the impact of the Biden administration's failure. Instead, it selectively targets only the new Trump administration for trying to redress a serious public health and national security threat. Accordingly, because the bill unnecessarily expends the ITC's resources and is not balanced, I object.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, to respond briefly, this entire day is being spent almost entirely on attacking President Trump's tariffs. This is another attack on them. The bottom line is that the economic data that is being discussed is being created, and the bottom line is that part of this day is to help continue the effort to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States and stop the flow of illegal migration into the United States that should have been stopped by the previous administration. I continue my objection.

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I said in response to the last unanimous consent request that this was a day to attack the President's tariffs, and this unanimous consent request continues that trend. But, ironically, this one adds in an attack on the tax bill that President Trump and we on the Republican side are fighting to enact. And, once again, we see the politics of fear playing out, saying to Americans that you are going to have all kinds of dire things happen to you so that we can cut taxes for the wealthy. This is a standard attack that has been used for over a decade, and it is no truer today than it has been. The reality is--and I think most Americans are starting to understand this--that the very tax bill that we put into place 10 years ago, which gave us the strongest economy we have had in years; reduced the deficit dramatically; helped us to create more jobs than we have historically seen, particularly for lower income individuals; and made a capital formation explosion in the United States, stopping all of those large companies from moving their assets out of the United States and moving their jobs out of the United States and made America once again the place where capital is, where America is the place where people come from the world to form capital. If we do not extend that tax law, there will be a $4.3 trillion tax hike. I am going to say that again: a $4.3 trillion tax increase on all Americans. The average American household will see over $2,500 go up in their tax bill. Madam President, $2.6 trillion of that tax will go to people making less than $400,000 per year, and another 600,000 will go to small businesses--tax hikes hitting small businesses. What we are fighting to do is to reduce taxes, to keep them stable, rather than letting them go up. That is what this battle is about. So this unanimous consent request says we can't use revenue from tariffs to offset the costs of saving and protecting those tax increases. The issue is whether there will be any tariffs in the reconciliation bill, and that is not settled. We don't even know whether that will be done. But the rules of math have been settled. When someone pays an import tariff, they have paid an amount that is deposited in the U.S. Treasury and adds to the total of our Treasury funds; that is mathematical truth. That basic arithmetic is settled and is consistent with how we calculate and estimate America's revenue. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office's June 2024 report notes that revenue from existing tariffs from 2024 to 2034 could total $872 billion. We can debate whether tariff rates should be higher or lower to bring that total number up or down, but we cannot change the fact that money entering the Treasury, pursuant to law, should be counted as money entering the Treasury. And to do it in the name of trying to stop tax increases, when what we are doing is stopping the tax increases? Those fighting this are trying to let that bill expire so that everybody in America's taxes can go up, so that we can have more spending. This is the old tax-and-spend debate with the spin of the politics of fear on it. And because of that, I reject this unanimous consent, and I object to it.

Mr. CRAPO. We have had this debate for 10 years. The facts are out. The biggest beneficiaries were the lower middle and upper middle income families in America. The biggest hit, if we don't extend these tax cuts, will be the lower middle and upper middle income families in America. Under that bill, we had more jobs, higher wages, higher benefits. The average family's net wealth went up to historic highs, and that is what is at stake right now. The bottom line here is, you can throw all the numbers around that you want, but the people in America know we had the strongest economy in our lifetimes as this tax cut went into place. And if we see this tax cut expire, we have seen the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce give us the data--a million jobs lost. We are going to see GDP and our growth go down by at least a percentage point, and the same kind of negative impacts on the economy will happen every time we have a massive tax increase in this country. This battle, no matter how you want to characterize it, is over whether we should have another massive $4.3 trillion tax increase, and I object.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, along with my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth, we join in honoring Emily Oster, ParentData CEO, best- selling author and data-driven economist whose work eases the minds of both new and experienced parents across the country. We thank her for speaking to the Senate Moms group. Emily Oster is a data-driven economist and professor of economics at Brown University. She is the author of four books--Expecting Better, the Family Firm, the Unexpected, and Cribsheet--which examine data- driven decision-making from pregnancy, parenting and beyond. Cribsheet earned her a spot as a New York Times best seller. As CEO of ParentData, Emily translates complex scientific research into answers for some of the most pressing questions parents have. She has helped moms and dads alike dissect panic media headlines and social media claims and avoid hours of late-night-panic-Googling. In providing clear explanations of detailed data, her work inspires parents to have more confidence about the choices they make on a wide variety of topics from conception to school-aged children. Her efforts make moms especially feel less alone in the concerns they have about doing what is best for their children. Emily lives with her husband and two children. Our staff led the Senate Moms group, a bipartisan group of more than 200 moms employed by the U.S. Senate. The group's regular meetings and internal resources in the Senate help working moms feel united and supported in navigating the Senate workplace and raising children in the Washington, DC, area. Thank you, Emily, for your inspiring work to quell the concerns of many Senate moms and giving them the resources that empower the decisions they make about their families every day. You have set an outstanding example for the many working moms who help keep the U.S. Senate functioning day-to-day. We wish you the best in all the future offers you.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the confirmation of Mr. Michael Faulkender, who is nominated to serve as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. The Deputy Secretary advises and assists the Secretary in the supervision and direction of all of the Department and its activities. Along with Secretary Bessent, the Deputy Secretary will be thoroughly involved in Congress's efforts to craft pro-growth tax policies, which will benefit all Americans and allow U.S. businesses to compete on the global stage. Mr. Faulkender's depth of experience in the public and private sector, in addition to his academic credentials, makes him a highly qualified choice for this position. Mr. Faulkender spoke strongly at his confirmation hearing about his determination to tackle America's affordability crisis. I look forward to working with him to restore economic prosperity and opportunity and usher in the economic golden age envisioned by the President. Mr. Faulkender, also, clearly met the standard of the Finance Committee's rigorous nomination process, and I commend the candor and the diligence that he displayed during the extensive meetings that he had with committee members and committee staff. Qualified nominees for Deputy Treasury Secretary in prior administrations have normally received bipartisan support. I strongly encourage my colleagues today, on both sides of the aisle, to join me in voting to confirm Mr. Faulkender. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this isn't about spending $46 billion; it is about saving $20 billion. The Democrats' partisan supersized IRS funding is something we have been battling over for a couple of years now. It is a textbook example of the type of out-of-control spending that President Trump and Republicans have rightly opposed. Rather than working together to help the IRS solve its massive taxpayer service and IT shortcomings, the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act went to fund untargeted and heavily handed enforcement improvement. As I had mentioned at the time, the last thing hard-working Americans need is an IRS funding bloat that disproportionately hurts them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment to provide the IRS nearly two times its entire annual budget in unaccountable enforcement dollars. Vote on Amendment No. 1273

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I share my colleague's frustration with the Medicare system that far too often fails our seniors. Medicare's coverage and reimbursement paradigms routinely prioritize treating the symptoms instead of the underlying causes of chronic stress and disease. Research shows that patients with diminished vision, hearing, or oral health are more likely to suffer chronic conditions like kidney, Alzheimer's, and heart disease. We should modernize Medicare to focus on prevention and maintenance interventions. Patients should have access to a full spectrum of specialized providers working together as a team, from nutritionists, to dentists, to psychologists and surgeons. However, we must tackle these reforms without increasing the costs for patients or taxpayers. My colleague's proposal would increase the deficit by tens of billions of dollars and risk spiking seniors' premiums. After years of record inflation, we cannot rush to enact a policy that has not been carefully considered and appropriately integrated into Medicare. This bill was just introduced today. It hasn't even been looked at by the Finance Committee. No hearing has been held, and no evaluation of how to effectively integrate these types of policies has been made. I welcome the opportunity to work with my colleague to enact meaningful improvements to Medicare that deliver better outcomes for Americans. However, simply introducing a bill and then moving to have it passed on the floor of the Senate before there has been any consideration is not the way to proceed. We must proceed within the committee and floor process, within the regular order that this Senate requires. Therefore, for these reasons, Mr. President, I object to the request.

Mr. CRAPO. I am prepared to discuss the issue. I am not telling you that I will limit the discussion to this piece of legislation. But, yes, we are prepared to discuss significant approaches to how we improve and expand proper healthcare treatment in America.

Mr. CRAPO. I do think that idea--that outcome is a good outcome to seek to achieve. I can't say that I want to have your legislation or even my legislation--

Mr. CRAPO. Correct.

Mr. CRAPO. I assume that this bill will be referred to the Finance Committee.

Mr. CRAPO. If this bill is referred to the Finance Committee, then it, like all other legislation in this area that is referred to the Finance Committee, will be reviewed by us. I can't tell you that it will have a specific hearing. I can't tell you exactly how that will work. We will look at developing a very significant and I hope broad and successful approach to reducing the cost of our healthcare system and increasing the focus and successes in our healthcare system, and I look forward to working with you on that.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, with my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth, we join in honoring Kendra Adachi, the Lazy Genius, for her devotion to time management and inspiring those around her. We thank her for speaking to the Senate Moms group. Kendra Adachi is a two-time New York Times bestselling author of ``The Lazy Genius Way'' and ``The Lazy Genius Kitchen.'' She is the host of nationally ranked The Lazy Genius Podcast. Kendra has built her entire brand and career around a compassionate approach to time management in which she encourages others to stop doing it all for the sake of doing what matters. Kendra resides in North Carolina with her husband and three children. Our staff lead the Senate Moms group, a bipartisan group of more than 200 moms employed by the U.S. Senate. The group's regular meetings and internal resources in the Senate help working moms feel united and supported in navigating the Senate workplace and raising children in the Washington, DC, area. Thank you, Kendra, for your inspiring work to motivate Senate Moms to help define what is most important so they can accomplish their daily tasks with empowerment. You have set an excellent example for the many moms who help keep the U.S. Senate functioning day-to-day. We wish you the best in all that may come your way.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise to discuss some issues with Senator Coons' request for unanimous consent for the Senate to pass S. 348, the STABLE Trade Policy Act. Senator Coons is a good friend and a great ally, and, reluctantly, I stand to oppose this motion on this particular procedure. First, Senator Coons and I agree about much on trade policy, including the need for the United States to have more high-standard free-trade agreements, like the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, or USMCA. We should ensure that the commitments in those agreements are respected. The last administration not only refused to negotiate new trade agreements but undermined U.S. rights under them when it waived our intellectual property rights under the WTO TRIPS Agreement and without informing Congress, attempting to remove the rights of American investors under the USMCA. Second, I also agree that we should not undertake tariff actions lightly on our allies or free-trade agreement partners. We should, however, take care before we say that all options are completely off the table. In fact, all of our free-trade agreements provide exceptions for when parties can remove economic benefits, including on national security grounds. I don't recall anyone suggesting that the Biden administration could not impose sanctions on Nicaragua last year because it was a CAFTA party. Instead, we recognized that legitimate national security grounds, including Nicaragua's human rights abuses, warranted the economic pressure. Third, it was only yesterday that we confirmed Jamieson Greer as the U.S. Trade Representative to serve as the principal adviser on trade issues. He told the Finance Committee that he wants to work closely with Congress. There are a lot of good things we can do together. For instance, we can negotiate new agreements and reinvigorate congressional executive partnerships on trade. The STABLE Trade Policy Act is, accordingly, too blunt of an instrument when nuance is called for, including the option of tariffs in some instances. With that, I object to Senator Coons' request. I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I rise today to discuss Senator Sanders' request for unanimous consent for the Senate to pass his Social Security Expansion Act. Before I do so, I want to respond to a couple of points that were made. The accusation was once again made that Republicans are trying to cut taxes for billionaires. The reality is, Republicans are trying to stop a tax increase on all Americans. The TCJA, or 2017 tax bill, is going to expire at the end of this year, and if it is not stopped from expiring, every American will get a tax increase, and those in the lower income categories and middle-income categories will share $2.6 trillion of that tax increase. That is what the tax fight is about. Then, continuing what I call the politics of fear in the face of the reforms that we are bringing, the attack was, well, we are going to cut Medicaid, we are going to stop financing for community health centers, and we are going to do all of these terrible things. I have not seen such a bill in this Congress, in the House or the Senate. We are debating how to get rid of fraud, waste, and abuse. We are not looking at how to cut benefits in Medicaid. I believe that is very clear. Today was the first time on the floor that I heard we were looking at community health centers. I wasn't aware of that either. The bottom line here is we are trying to pay attention to our $37 trillion national debt by weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse. We will have disagreements about how to do that, but it is definitely not going to be all the things that are being brought up, that have been accused in order to stir people up and scare them and tell them that we should not pay attention to our national debt. With regard to Social Security, we can all agree on the importance of Social Security, which provides monthly benefits to millions of seniors, individuals with disabilities, and their families. I also agree with my colleagues on the other side that Congress must act to preserve and strengthen Social Security to ensure that it is there for current beneficiaries and future beneficiaries. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, if no action is taken, the combined Social Security trust funds will be exhausted within the next 10 years, meaning the program will not be able to pay the full amount of benefits currently promised. However, I disagree with my colleagues' approach here today, and they have disagreed with our approaches. We have competing ideas about how we should address this issue. Addressing Social Security's solvency will require thoughtful discussion about a variety of policy options that culminates in a bipartisan solution, not a cramdown of a different solution that we haven't even had the opportunity to have a discussion in the Finance Committee about. Instead, my Democrat colleagues are pursuing a live UC of a bill that has not received consideration before the full committee and has never had a Republican cosponsor in the House or the Senate. This bill would also raise taxes on certain workers making less than $400,000--something my Democratic colleagues have previously promised not to do. For these reasons, I object.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the confirmation of Mr. Jamieson Greer, who is nominated to serve as the U.S. Trade Representative. I think I ought to just probably set a couple of facts straight about President Trump's utilization of the various policies that he used in the past term when he was President the first time. It was said that wages went down, prices went up, and that people are going to face terrible, dire consequences if he is able to follow his trade policies again in this term. The reality is that under President Trump, wages went up, jobs went up, unemployment went down, benefits went up, the economy grew dramatically, and we had the strongest economy in our lifetimes because of the policies President Trump pursued. So I don't think people should let the politics of fear-- saying that everything President Trump does is going to hurt people-- convince them otherwise. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which was created in 1962 by Congress, develops and coordinates U.S. international trade policy and oversees trade negotiations with other countries. The U.S. Trade Representative--the role for which Mr. Greer is nominated--historically and statutorily serves as the United States' principal adviser, negotiator, and spokesperson on trade issues. Mr. Greer is well suited for these roles, as demonstrated during his previous tenure as USTR Chief of Staff when he worked with both sides of the aisle in negotiating and securing congressional approval of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which passed the Senate 89 to 10. I would note that the previous U.S. Trade Representative, who is now being replaced by Mr. Greer, and President Biden himself for the past 4 years refused to actually negotiate any bilateral trade agreements with other nations--none. Throughout the nomination process, Mr. Greer demonstrated his strong commitment to working with Congress in a bipartisan fashion to advance the interests of our farmers, ranchers, fishers, and workers. In particular, I applaud Mr. Greer's commitment to change that pattern of the last 4 years and to negotiate and work on opening markets for our farmers and manufacturers around the globe, negotiating new bilateral trade agreements and enforcing existing ones--something we have not seen for 4 years. I fully welcome a return to the USTR that performs its statutory obligation of creating new opportunities for Americans, and I look forward to the USTR's forthcoming reviews of foreign trade barriers that stymie U.S. investments and imports. I urge my colleagues to join me now in advancing Mr. Greer's nomination. It is critical that the United States have a USTR at the helm of these investigations and to support the administration's return to an active and robust trade agenda that prioritizes America's farmers, ranchers, workers, and businesses. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today we are debating the narrow Senate fiscal year 2025 budget resolution that fulfills promises to secure America's borders, our national defense, and unleash our energy potential and finally start to get our fiscal house in order. In the near future, I expect us to move forward with a budget resolution that allows us to prevent more than a $4 trillion tax hike on American households, the largest tax hike in the history of America. That will be felt by virtually every American if tax cuts expire at the end of this year. Because the other side has filed a litany of tax amendments that rehash various false narratives and each side will only have 1 minute to debate, I am going to spend a little time right now explaining why we can't afford a $4 trillion-plus tax increase, the positive impact that the Trump tax cuts had on the economy, and some of the key provisions that expire at the end of the year. At the end of this year, many key provisions of President Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act are set to expire, triggering an over $4 trillion tax hike on American families and businesses. While taxes will increase on Americans of all income levels, the majority of this tax hike, about $2.6 trillion of it, will fall on those making less than $400,000 per year. An average family of four making about $80,000 a year will see a $1,700 tax hike in 2016. Another $600 billion-plus will hit millions of small business owners who could see Federal tax rates skyrocket up to 43.4 percent. Tens of millions of families will see their Child Tax Credit cut in half from $2,000 to $1,000. The list goes on. But, first, I will talk about what the Trump tax cuts actually did and why failing to extend key provisions would be economically devastating for millions of hard-working taxpayers. So what did the Trump tax cuts do? There has been a lot of talk recently about how extending these tax cuts are for billionaires and corporations, but the facts actually show otherwise. The 2017 tax bill increased the take-home pay and powered a growing economy. Individuals across all income brackets received a tax cut, not just--as opponents suggest--for the uberwealthy. In fact, the Trump tax cuts made the Tax Code more progressive, meaning the highest income earners now pay a greater share of all income taxes than they did before 2017. The majority of benefits accrued to the working middle-class families of America. Between the bill's passage in 2017 and 2021, the bottom 50 percent of earners received the largest reduction in average tax rates at 17.3 percent. In addition to lowering tax rates across the board, the Trump tax cuts doubled the standard deduction and the Child Tax Credit and provided tax relief to America's entrepreneurs and small businesses. The effect of pro-growth tax reform was immediate. Not only did taxpayers get to keep more of their hard-earned money, but a growing economy helped a median household income reach all-time highs. The labor market improved; workers saw wage growth; and the unemployment rate fell dramatically to 3.5 percent--the lowest in 50 years; and the lowest income workers experienced the largest wage growth. Corporate inversions became a thing of the past, and America became the place do business. All Americans reaped the benefits of a booming economy. Extending this current, proven tax policy and building on it is the best way to restore economic prosperity and opportunity for working families, many of whom are still struggling to recover from the historic inflation of the last 4 years. As American families contend with increasing costs of everyday living, the last thing they need is another massive tax hike on top of that inflation. Failure is simply not an option. What happens if the Trump tax cuts expire? As I have said, if we do not extend these tax policies, Americans will be hit with an over $4 trillion tax increase. More than $2.6 trillion of that tax increase will fall on households earning less than $400,000 per year. An average family of four making $80,000 will be saddled with a $1,700 tax increase. This is the equivalent of 6 to 8 weeks' worth of groceries for a family of four. Tens of millions of families will see their child tax credit cut in half to $1,000, and 90 percent of taxpayers would see their standard deduction cut in half. Owners of over 20 million small businesses will face a massive tax hike, with taxes up to 43.4 percent, and 7 million taxpayers will be impacted by the alternative minimum tax, up from just 200,000 taxpayers currently. Many more small businesses and farms will have their death tax exemption cut in half. The National Association of Manufacturers recently highlighted that, if we allow the tax cuts to expire, 6 million jobs will be at risk; $540 billion in employee compensation will be lost; and the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by $1.1 trillion. The bottom line: While we aren't considering tax policy as a part of this reconciliation package, it is important to set the record straight as to what is at stake in the upcoming tax debate. The stakes couldn't be higher. You are going to hear tonight dozens and dozens of tax amendments being brought. We are going to respond to each of those by explaining that that debate is not this amendment. This budget that we are debating today is on the border, on our national defense, and on increasing our oil and gas production to strengthen our economy. That is why the Senate and House Republicans are working together to act as quickly as possible to make these tax cuts permanent--but that will be in the next step--to prevent a massive tax hike and to provide certainty and relief to families and businesses across this Nation.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the targeted budget blueprint before us today would secure the border, strengthen the military, and facilitate energy independence, and take initial steps to get our fiscal house in order. While the Finance Committee does have a $1 billion deficit decreasing instruction, this is not a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill. The instruction makes that clear. To meet this instruction, the Finance Committee will reverse a Biden administration nursing home rule that would increase taxpayer costs by billions and jeopardize patient access to the long term, especially in our already underserved rural communities. Point of Order Mr. President, I have been advised that this amendment would be corrosive to the privilege of the budget resolution if adopted. Because the amendment contains matters that are inappropriate for a budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's privilege. Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act because it is not germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment does not meet a standard required by law, I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Motion to Waive

Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, the targeted budget blueprint before us today would secure the border, strengthen the military, facilitate energy independence, and take initial steps to get our fiscal house in order. While the Finance Committee does have a $1 billion deficit-decreasing instruction, this is not a tax bill nor a healthcare reform bill. The instruction makes that very clear. To meet this instruction, the Finance Committee will reverse a Biden administration nursing home rule that would increase taxpayer costs by billions and jeopardize patient access. Madam President, I have been advised that this amendment would be corrosive to the privilege of this budget resolution if adopted. Because the amendment contains matter that is inappropriate for a budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's privilege. Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act because it is not germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment does not meet that standard required by law, I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, the Democrats know very well that this targeted budget blueprint does not cut Medicaid or Medicare. The blueprint before us focuses on securing the border, strengthening the military, facilitating energy independence, and taking the initial steps to get our fiscal house in order. To meet this instruction, the Finance Committee will do one thing and one thing only, and that is reverse a Biden administration nursing home rule that would increase taxpayer costs by billions and jeopardize patient access to long-term care, especially in already underserved rural communities. Mr. President, I have been advised that this amendment would be corrosive to the privilege of this budget resolution if adopted. Because the amendment contains matter that is inappropriate for the budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the resolution's privilege. Additionally, this amendment violates the Congressional Budget Act because it is not germane to the budget resolution. Since the amendment does not meet that standard required by law, I raised a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Motion to Waive