On the recordMarch 18, 2015
I would say to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont, whom I have worked with closely on a number of pieces of legislation and whom I would love to be able to work with to find a solution to the current impasse that we have on this legislation--I would say to my friend that if the objection is that this fund is not subject to the appropriations process, then that is something we ought to discuss and talk about. Why the fund is so important to me is because the fines and penalties that go into this save the taxpayers money. It actually takes the money from the people who create the demand and uses that to help heal and save and rescue the victims. I guess I would have a little difference of opinion--and maybe it is just semantics--that once the fines and penalties are paid to the Treasury, my view is they become public dollars although they technically aren't derived from taxes, per se. But beyond that point, I would say once this money is paid into the fund, I think we could come up with a mechanism that would then allow the Appropriations Committee to play its traditional role in directing the money to the purposes for which Congress designates. And I know, as a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator believes--and I respect--that is an important part of the process. It is important, though, to note that this would still be subject to the same rule which has prevailed for 39 years, and that is the Hyde amendment.…
Source
govinfo.gov




