S-285-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
Sponsored by James Lankford (R-OK)
What it does
This bill would create procedural budget "points of order" in both the House and Senate that could be used to block appropriations legislation containing provisions — known as Changes in Mandatory Programs (CHIMPs) — that would reduce the amount available from the Crime Victims Fund below its three-year average. A point of order is a parliamentary tool that allows a member of Congress to challenge legislation as violating a budget rule, potentially stopping it from moving forward. The protection would not apply if the reduction in the Fund's available balance is $2 billion or less compared to the prior fiscal year's balance.
Who benefits
Crime victims who receive services funded through the Crime Victims Fund, including survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse, and human trafficking. Nonprofit organizations and state agencies that administer victim assistance and compensation programs funded by the Crime Victims Fund. State governments that rely on Fund distributions to support victim services infrastructure. Victim advocacy organizations that have long sought stable, predictable funding streams.
Who is hurt
Appropriators in Congress who currently use CHIMPs as a budget tool to create flexibility in discretionary spending — this bill would constrain that flexibility. Budget negotiators who rely on Crime Victims Fund CHIMPs to offset spending elsewhere in appropriations packages. Taxpayers or programs that might otherwise benefit from the budget offsets that CHIMPs currently provide. Potentially, other federal programs that compete for budget space when CHIMP options are reduced.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Crime Victims Fund — which is financed by criminal fines and penalties, not taxpayer dollars — has been repeatedly raided through CHIMP provisions in appropriations bills, reducing money available to actual crime victims. They contend that using a fund built from offender penalties to paper over unrelated budget gaps is a misuse of its purpose, and that a point-of-order protection would restore the Fund's integrity and ensure stable, predictable resources for victim services programs that states and nonprofits depend on year to year.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that points of order add procedural rigidity to the appropriations process at a time when Congress already struggles to pass budgets on time, and that CHIMPs — including those involving the Crime Victims Fund — are a legitimate and long-established tool for managing overall discretionary spending levels. They contend that the $2 billion waiver threshold is arbitrary and that locking in a three-year average baseline could prevent Congress from responding to genuine fiscal emergencies or shifts in Fund balances caused by factors outside congressional control, such as fluctuating criminal fine collections.
Constitutional context
This bill is a procedural measure governing Congress's internal budget rules and does not directly raise Commerce Clause, Takings, or other enumerated-powers questions. The Constitution grants Congress broad authority over appropriations under the Appropriations Clause (Art. I, §9, cl. 7) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18); establishing internal points of order is a well-established exercise of that authority.
Checks and balances
Congress retains authority over its own budget procedures; the bill adds an internal legislative check — a point of order — that individual members can raise to protect the Fund, but which a majority can waive, preserving ultimate congressional control.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously enacted points of order protecting specific mandatory programs from CHIMP reductions, including provisions in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and subsequent budget resolutions, though none specifically targeting the Crime Victims Fund.