My amendment does not prevent the tax increase. That is absolutely and perfectly clear. Let me say it again. My amendment does not block and does not prevent the tax increase. No. 2, my amendment does do two things. It says that any money in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can only be used for oilspill cleanup and, secondly, that it cannot be used to offset other spending. That is exactly what is going on in this bill. My colleague knows that the $15 billion created by this tax increase is used as an offset in this bill. It masks spending in this bill of $15 billion. If it were not for that money, the 'score' of this bill would be $15 billion higher. It would go from $79 billion to $94 billion. What I am saying is simple. We should not be grabbing, stealing that oilspill liability money to mask other spending, to double count it, to essentially steal it from the trust fund. Again, my amendment does not prohibit the tax increase.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is addressing concerns about an amendment related to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and tax increases.
Share
More from David Vitter
Was not this practice, in fact, by the numbers part of the Wells culture by definition because it was so widespread for so long a period of time?
Why isn't this crystal clear proof that an entity as big as Wells is not only too big to fail, but it is too big to manage and it is too big to regulate?
Protecting innovation and not materially altering the new chemicals process was a critical part of the final compromise. Every effort was made to ensure EPA has the right tools to review new chemical substances but the amendments to this…
first of all, let me thank our colleague for his words. I certainly join him in mourning the horrible, tragic loss of life this weekend in Orlando. Certainly I am committed, along with all our colleagues, to fighting terror wherever it…





