[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 118 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1159-E1160]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      DEEPWATER HORIZON SETTLEMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN FLEMING

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 21, 2016

  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record regarding 
statements made by Congresswoman McCollum (D-MN-4) during debate on the 
Smith (MO) Amendment Number 85 to H.R. 5538, the Department of 
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017.
  Congresswoman McCollum claimed during amendment debate that the Smith 
Amendment would block $500 million from the Deepwater Horizon 
settlement from being paid to Gulf States by the Office of Natural 
Resource Disaster Assessment at the Department of Interior.
  Despite Congresswoman McCollum's claims, the Smith Amendment does not 
have any legal effect on the Deepwater Horizon settlement.
  The Smith Amendment prevents the Department of Interior from using 
funds to carry out this sentence of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): ``Sums recovered by 
the United States Government as trustee under this subsection shall be 
retained by the trustee, without further appropriation, for use only to 
restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of such natural 
resources.''
  However, the Deepwater Horizon spill fell entirely under the Oil 
Pollution Act, and was not prosecuted under CERCLA. No fines were 
assessed under CERCLA.
  In addition, CERCLA contains an explicit exemption for petroleum 
products in Section 101(14). In fact, an environmental group that filed 
a lawsuit against BP under CERCLA and EPCRA lost their suit because of 
the petroleum exemptions in those laws.
  Therefore, a legal analysis by the American Law Division of the 
Congressional Research Service confirmed that the Smith (MO) Amendment 
Number 85 would have had no legal effect on the NRDA process, the 
RESTORE Act funds, or any other payment from the Deepwater Horizon 
Settlement. The RESTORE Act already appropriates money from the 
settlement to the states.
  To quote from the CRS memorandum: ``This memorandum finds that the 
Amendment, if approved and then made part of enacted legislation, would 
not have created a legal barrier to DOI's distribution of funds from 
the Deepwater Horizon settlement with the federal government and the 
Gulf States to address natural resources damages related to the 
incident.''
  Instead, the Smith Amendment would have prevented executive branch 
agencies who collect fines under CERCLA from buying more federal land 
that is unrelated to the CERCLA violation without any Congressional 
oversight. The Amendment is designed to stop executive branch abuses 
and overreach, which has been a common theme for the Obama 
Administration.

[[Page E1160]]

                               Congressional Research Service,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2016.


                               Memorandum

     From: Adam Vann, Legislative Attorney, 7-6978
     Subject: Applicability of Failed Amend. 85 of H.R. 5538 to 
         the Authority of the Department of the Interior to 
         Distribute Deepwater Horizon Settlement Funds to Gulf 
         States

       You have asked us to analyze the impact that a proposed 
     Amendment to H.R. 5538, the Department of the Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, 
     would have on the legal authority of the Department of the 
     Interior (DOI) to allocate funds to mitigate natural 
     resources damages caused by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon 
     incident. The proposed Amendment, listed as Amendment 85 in a 
     Rules Committee Report on H.R. 5538, was not adopted. The 
     Amendment would have provided that funds made available by 
     H.R. 5538 could not be used to carry out a specific provision 
     in Section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). This 
     memorandum finds that the Amendment, if approved and then 
     made part of enacted legislation, would not have created a 
     legal barrier to DOI's distribution of funds from the 
     Deepwater Horizon settlement with the federal government and 
     the Gulf States to address natural resources damages related 
     to the incident. However, CRS is not opining on whether the 
     Amendment would have created practical administrative 
     difficulties that might have impeded allocation of those 
     funds.


                               Background

       The proposed Amendment 85 to H.R. 5538 read as follows:
       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     carry out the third sentence of section 107(f)(1) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
     Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607(f)(1)) (relating to use 
     of recovered sums by the United States Government without 
     further appropriation).
       Section 107(f)(1) of CERCLA addresses liability for injury 
     to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources caused by a 
     release or threatened release of hazardous substances, and 
     designates the United States government as a trustee 
     empowered to receive compensation for such damages. The third 
     sentence of Section 107(f)(1) provides that ``[s]ums 
     recovered by the United States Government as trustee under 
     this subsection shall be retained by the trustee, without 
     further appropriation, for use only to restore, replace, or 
     acquire the equivalent of such natural resources.'' This 
     grant of federal authority to act as trustee forms the legal 
     foundation for DOI's Natural Resource Damage Assessment and 
     Restoration program, which allows the agency to distribute 
     funds to assess natural resources damages, and restore, 
     replace or acquire the equivalent of the damaged resources.
       A similar authority to collect and disburse funds to 
     address natural resource damages is found at Section 1006 of 
     the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). That section authorizes the 
     United States government, as designated trustee, to ``develop 
     and implement a plan for the restoration, rehabilitation, 
     replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent'' of natural 
     resources damages resulting from an oil spill. Section 
     1006(f) authorizes maintenance of a fund ``for use only to 
     reimburse or pay costs incurred by the trustee . . . with 
     respect to the damaged natural resources.'' After the 
     Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, 
     the United States and the affected Gulf States entered into a 
     Consent Decree with BP Exploration and Production, Inc. (BP) 
     outlining BP's liability to the United States for the 
     incident under federal statute, including liability for 
     natural resources damages under the relevant provisions of 
     OPA. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, DOI was tasked with 
     managing the designated funds for the ``restoration, 
     rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent 
     of injured or lost Natural Resources or natural resource 
     services as provided in one or more restoration plans.''


                               Discussion

       Staff at DOI previously stated that the passage and 
     enactment of Amendment 85 as part of H.R. 5538 would have 
     constrained DOI's ability to distribute funds for natural 
     resources damages related to the Deepwater Horizon incident, 
     as it is authorized to do by the Consent Decree. Upon review 
     of the text of the Amendment as well as the relevant language 
     in CERCLA, OPA and the Consent Decree, CRS cannot find any 
     legal limitation in the Amendment that would have barred DOI 
     from expenditure of funds for ``restoration, rehabilitation, 
     replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of injured or 
     lost Natural Resources'' in the Gulf of Mexico related to the 
     Deepwater Horizon incident pursuant to DOI's authority under 
     OPA and the Consent Decree. However, CRS cannot opine as to 
     whether administrative issues (e.g., commingling of CERCLA 
     and OPA funds in one account) may have presented barriers to 
     distribution of such funds if DOI had been barred from 
     distributing CERCLA natural resource damage funds by the 
     Amendment, as representatives of DOI have reportedly claimed. 
     Analysis of accounting and related administrative concerns at 
     DOI is outside the scope of this memorandum.