[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10472-10479]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (S. 3473) to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize 
advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon 
oil spill.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                S. 3473

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ADVANCES FROM OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND FOR 
                   DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL.

       Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
     2752) is amended in the second sentence--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Coast Guard''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``and (2) in the case of the discharge of oil that 
     began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and 
     sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater 
     Horizon, may, without further appropriation, obtain 1 or more 
     advances from the Fund as needed, up to a maximum of 
     $100,000,000 for each advance, with the total amount of all 
     advances not to exceed the amounts available under section 
     9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and within 7 
     days of each advance, shall notify Congress of the amount 
     advanced and the facts and circumstances necessitating the 
     advance''.

     SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.


                             General Leave

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous materials on S. 3473.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, I am grateful for the indulgence of our colleague on the 
committee, our ranking member and senior Republican, Mr. Mica, for 
responding so quickly to the action of the other body.
  We are unaccustomed to such prompt unanimous action in the other 
body, but they did pass, by unanimous consent, the bill before us now, 
S. 3473, in response to requests of the Department of Homeland 
Security, Secretary Napolitano, and Admiral Thad Allen, the National 
Incident Commander, following up on the May 12 request of the 
administration for legislative changes to, quote, ``speed assistance to 
people in need,'' close quote, in response to the BP-Deepwater Horizon 
tragedy.
  The request further asks the Congress to, quote, ``act immediately on 
return from recess,'' close quote. And that is exactly what we are 
doing, but preceded by a hearing the committee held yesterday on the 
many aspects of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and payment from 
responsible parties and the need for future legislation.
  And the gentleman from Florida had several instructive and thoughtful 
suggestions that we in the committee will be acting upon per our 
previous agreement.
  I want to lay out the specifics.
  First of all, the request: Quoting again from the Homeland Security 
Department letter, ``Congress needs to act now to permit movement of 
moneys from the principal fund to the emergency fund. At the current 
pace of BP-Deepwater Horizon response operations, funding available in 
the emergency fund will be insufficient to sustain Federal response 
operations within 2 weeks.'' That's from June 4.
  ``At that point, the Federal on-scene coordinator would not be able 
to commit sufficient funds to the agencies involved in the Federal 
response, including National Guard, Department of Defense, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Department of Interior, and Department of Agriculture, to 
continue to provide critical response services, including logistical 
support, such as moving boom from Alaska and California to Louisiana; 
scientific support, such as evaluating the environmental impact of the 
spill and the response; and public health support, such as ensuring 
seafood from the gulf region is safe and monitoring fumes that might be 
a public health issue.
  ``Additional transfers from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
principal

[[Page 10473]]

fund to the emergency fund are needed to fulfill the President's order 
to bring all available and appropriate resources to bear in response to 
this disaster. Furthermore, depleting all currently available funds 
puts at risk the Nation's ability to address any new spills unrelated 
to the BP-Deepwater Horizon.''
  Second, I must note and affirm, as was done in our hearing yesterday, 
that any moneys advanced from the trust fund will be repaid by the 
responsible party--in this case, BP.
  I was part of crafting OPA 90 and its predecessors in my previous 
service on the now-dissolved Merchant Marine Fisheries Committee, which 
jurisdiction transfers to our Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. The whole concept of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
was from previous experience that there needed to be an immediate 
response by government agencies on scene to lay out funds, as was 
already spelled out in the letter from Homeland Security, without 
having to wait for negotiations with the responsible party.
  In those years, up through the 1990s, all the attention was turned to 
spills from tankers, oceangoing vessels, bulk carriage of crude oil, 
principally, but other product as well.
  The requirement was to get on the scene quickly, corral the oil, and 
contain the spill. The government needed to act quickly. The Coast 
Guard had the capability to do that. But we didn't want--and we had 
experience with Torrey Canyon and the Amoco Cadiz that there were long 
waits for the responsible party to make payments to government agencies 
responding in the case of France and the U.K. and in the case of U.S. 
Government agencies.
  So the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was established to have a 
financial resource for government agencies to respond quickly and then 
bill the responsible party. That has been done in the case of the 
Deepwater Horizon spill.
  At our hearing yesterday, Craig Bennett, director of the National 
Pollution Funds Center, said, ``All funds expended will be billed to BP 
and ultimately recovered. These funds are deposited into the principal 
fund, not the emergency fund. As of June 1, 2010, obligations against 
the emergency fund for Federal response efforts totaled $93 million.''
  That figure has now grown to $114 million. So it's bumping up against 
the limit of $150 million--the $100 million, plus the baseline $50 
million for emergency response.
  ``At the current pace of operations, funding available,'' continuing 
with Director Bennett, ``in the emergency fund will be insufficient to 
sustain Federal response operations within 2 weeks.'' And we're very 
close to that number now.
  The Coast Guard has, according to information supplied by the Coast 
Guard, billed BP $69 million. That billing, when responded to by BP, 
will be deposited in the general fund of the Oil Spill Liability Trust 
Fund to replenish the fund. And additional expenditures will be billed 
against BP for deposit in the fund.
  I further note that the Senate's bill amends section 6002 of the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990 and provides for, quote, ``one or more advances 
from the fund, as needed, up to a maximum of $100 million for each 
advance, with the total amount of all advances not to exceed amounts 
available in section 9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986''--that deals with the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund--``and 
within 7 days of each advance''--7 days' notice--``shall notify 
Congress of the amount advanced and the facts and circumstances 
necessitating the advance.''
  Now, that language will come after the end of the period of section 
6002(b) and will supplement, but not displace, the 30-day notice 
requirement of the basic law.
  Congress will be notified when the Coast Guard needs to borrow from 
the trust fund up to the maximum of $100 million for each advance it 
requests within 7 days. And we will receive all the information: the 
amount they're requesting, the facts, and the circumstances justifying 
the request for an advance.
  I think this language parallels language that the House has included 
in our supplemental appropriations bill but not yet passed. It's 
important to take this action now.
  This language clearly needs refinement, as was evident in the hearing 
we held yesterday, and I think the gentleman from Florida will agree. 
He has some very thoughtful ideas. We will merge those with other 
testimony submitted at yesterday's hearing and proceed with a 
legislative package in the coming 2 weeks.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Florida for participating in 
yesterday's hearing and for a response today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this is an emergency situation, and it 
requires emergency action by the House of Representatives.
  The United States Senate, the other body, has acted and sent us S. 
3743, which will allow us to expand some of the use of the funds that 
have been accumulated in the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund on 
an emergency basis. I am pleased that the other body acted. This is a 
unique and very difficult situation dealing with a very unique and 
difficult national disaster.
  First, I would be remiss if I didn't remember today those families 
who will be in Washington visiting with President Obama. Eleven 
individuals lost their lives when the oil rig, the Horizon, exploded in 
April. I know the President will be meeting with them. And, on behalf 
of all the Members of Congress, we extend our condolences for that loss 
of life.
  Right now we are dealing with the results of that disaster. This 
disaster and explosion, sinking of the rig and the uncontrolled oil 
spill--fortunately, there has been some progress in that regard, but 
incredible amounts of oil have spilt into the gulf and now endangers 
the shores of at least four of our States.
  In 1990, we set up an Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and that was 
after the Exxon Valdez. That fund has in it $1.6 billion, a substantial 
amount of money.
  Now, that fund was not set up to relieve anyone of responsibility if 
they are negligent, and it was also not a fund to pay for cleanup costs 
that are clearly assigned, clearly identifiable. A lot of it was 
intended for what they call an ``orphan spill,'' or a spill where you 
don't know where the oil came from, the polluting substance came from.
  Within that $1.6 billion trust fund for oil spills that we created, 
we have an emergency fund of $150 million that can be expended 
immediately. Now, what has taken place is that fund, the 150 million 
emergency dollars that can be spent--right now Thad Allen is doing a 
great job in leading the effort for the United States--and, as you 
know, he just retired from the Coast Guard--doing a wonderful job, but 
he has the responsibility of reacting now and immediately.
  It took some time for the administration to get him in place and also 
to declare this a spill of national significance, but he is on the job 
and he needs the resources.
  Now, the resources are running out. We do have a letter, which I will 
submit for the Record and to the Congress at this time. This is to the 
Speaker of the House, and it is from the Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget.
  And he says, ``All the costs of this fund also that are being 
expended at this point must be repaid. But, at this current time, in 
just a matter of days, the emergency fund will run out.'' So we have 
documentation of the need from OMB.
  And just a few minutes ago, we received from the Federal on-scene 
coordinator the statement that their requirements to support the 
continuing ongoing effort will bring the emergency fund to a critically 
low level over the next 7 days.

                              {time}  1045

  So we can't have the cleanup efforts come to a halt. We must act. 
Now, I saw the need for this yesterday and met with colleagues on my 
side of the aisle. We had a hearing in the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. Mr. Oberstar and I agreed

[[Page 10474]]

that we must act. The Senate has acted.
  We have before us S. 3473. This morning, myself and other colleagues 
in Congress introduced H.R. 5499. That's mirror legislation. So both 
the Republican and Democrat House and Senate agree on the provisions of 
this legislation, which will allow in $100 million increments the 
expansion of the emergency fund.
  Now let me make this very clear: the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
is not going to be a piggy bank for BP or for other responsible 
parties. This money must, should, and will be repaid. This is only a 
temporary measure. It is only a temporary measure, too, because the 
money that they are repaying goes back into that larger fund, not into 
the emergency fund. This legislation will correct, again, the inability 
of accessing a larger amount of money on a needed basis.
  So we have introduced mirror legislation today. This is a cooperative 
and bipartisan effort. However, this is a terrible disaster, and 
questions need to be raised about what has caused us to get to this 
situation. Quite frankly, I'm quite baffled about some of the 
administration's positions on deepwater offshore drilling.
  In the beginning of this year, in February, we received the budget 
from the President of the United States and the administration. In this 
budget, they proposed cuts to the Coast Guard of more than 1,000 
positions. They also proposed cuts to and proposed the decommissioning 
of some of the ships, the helicopters and the planes that we see now 
involved in this very important mission. Not only did they propose cuts 
to the Coast Guard, our first responder, but in February they also 
proposed cuts to the Department of the Interior--and look this up, if 
you will--and to the Minerals Management Service, which is responsible 
for environmental reviews. This is what they proposed in February.
  Then in March they proposed the expansion of drilling in the gulf. I 
remember I and Frank LoBiondo, the ranking member, sent out a press 
release when we read about these cuts within the Coast Guard, and we 
said that this was a recipe for disaster. Fortunately, those cuts have 
not been enacted; and I believe, even before this oil spill, there was 
bipartisan support not to enact those cuts that were recommended.
  In light of the administration's policy to expand drilling in the 
gulf, some people say I've been too tough on the Obama administration. 
I think the Obama administration does have a responsibility in this. 
They did issue the permit that allowed the drilling, and I have the 1-
page permit.
  Here is the 1-page approval: April 6, 2009, approval for deepwater 
drilling at 5,000 feet.
  I have what I call the ``deficient plan'' that they approved that was 
submitted by BP in March. So in less days than it took in some 
instances to approve now of a cleanup of proposals, they rubber-stamped 
and gave carte blanche approval.
  Let me say that I also criticized the Bush administration, but I went 
back and looked at what the Bush administration did with the agency 
that was responsible for issuing these permits. This is a memorandum 
from the Office of Inspector General, and it is dated September 9, 
2008, which was during the Bush administration. This is what the Bush 
administration did in that agency that issued this permit under this 
new administration.
  This memo conveys the results of three separate Office of Inspector 
General investigations into allegations against more than a dozen 
current and former Minerals Management Service employees. I went on to 
read what else the Bush administration did with regard to this agency 
that was responsible for issuing these permits.
  Listen to this: Collectively, our recent work in the Minerals 
Management Service has taken well over 2 years. They investigated these 
folks. It also involved the OIG, Office of Inspector General, and Human 
Resources. There was an expenditure of nearly $5.3 million in OIG 
funds. There were 233 witnesses and subjects who were interviewed, many 
of them multiple times. Roughly 470,000 pages of documents were 
reviewed, and people were prosecuted, under the former administration, 
in this agency.
  Now, the latest reports I have, which I discussed yesterday at the 
hearing, were that, in fact, we have reports of inspections by this 
agency, the Minerals Management Service, which were supposed to be done 
by these officers of that Federal agency. They were actually penciled 
in, we believe, and those are the reports we have by oil workers, which 
were then inked over by these folks. It is nice for this administration 
to have spent time rewarding BP with safety awards in the prior year. 
It is nice for them to have a good working relationship with those 
folks who are responsible for issuing the permits, but I think we need 
to take a closer look at how we got ourselves into this situation.
  What brings us to this day when we've expended the emergency fund for 
cleanup that we have to take an emergency step like this?
  Now, I support this measure, but I'm telling you that every penny 
needs to be paid back. This fund, this Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 
that was put in place, shall not and cannot be used, as I said before, 
as a piggy bank for BP or for any responsible parties.
  Where is the money? Where is the billing?
  In the private sector, if you have a bill due, you pay it. As of 
yesterday, the staff told me that BP has been billed $69 million. As of 
yesterday, the information that we had is that they hadn't paid the 
bill. If they paid the bill, we still probably would have to be here 
because of the terms of the current legislation to allow access to 
additional money, but that money needs to go back into the trust fund, 
and it needs to be paid for by the responsible parties.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2010.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to urge the Congress to 
     move quickly in enacting the FY 2010 Supplemental request. On 
     June 4, 2010, Secretary Napolitano announced that the Coast 
     Guard believes that within the next two weeks funding levels 
     in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund's expenditure account 
     will drop to levels that will force the Federal On-Scene 
     Coordinator to begin to cut back Federal Deepwater Horizon 
     response activities. We cannot allow the lack of funding to 
     hamstring our Federal response to this national catastrophe.
       On May 12, the Administration proposed legislation to 
     support the BP/Deepwater Horizon response and speed 
     assistance to people in need. Included in this package was a 
     provision that would permit the Coast Guard and its National 
     Pollution Funds Center to move funds from the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund to the Emergency Fund so that the 
     Federal response effort can continue without interruption. 
     Specifically, the legislative changes would permit the Coast 
     Guard to obtain additional advances in tranches of $100 
     million up to the incident cap for the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund. All of these costs are being billed to the 
     responsible parties and the receipts will be deposited in the 
     Trust Fund.
       The President has ordered Federal agencies to bring all 
     available and appropriate resources to bear in response to 
     this disaster. Without legislative authorization, however, 
     the Coast Guard cannot access the additional emergency fund 
     resources necessary to pay for the Federal agencies' response 
     to this tragic oil spill.
       We appreciate your support in moving this critical 
     legislation forward in the coming days.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter R. Orszag,
                                                         Director.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I completely agree with the gentleman. As the gentleman from Florida 
and I discussed in our hearing yesterday, the purpose of the trust fund 
is not to relieve anyone of responsibility.
  I was part of crafting that legislation in 1990 and its predecessors. 
It was clearly our intent that this should be a fund to give the 
government the authority to move quickly, to get on the scene, to begin 
cleanup before industry responds, to bill the industry in order to make 
them pay into the trust fund, and to keep the industry responsible.

[[Page 10475]]

  Secondly, the gentleman included orphan sites in his commentary. The 
legislation is not exclusively limited to orphan sites.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional minute.
  An orphan site is one of the issues to be addressed, as we do under 
the Superfund Act. Yet the order of priority for response under the 
law, its first responsibility, is for the responsible party to act to 
the limit of its liability under the Oil Spill Act. We have to address 
that limit of liability. The hearing yesterday explored the range of 
dollar amounts of liability from the current $75 million to some 
greater number, including unlimited liability. That is something we are 
going to have to discuss in committee.
  So far, BP has, as the responsible party, spent $1 billion, and they 
are responding. Yesterday, when I made the announcement at our 
committee hearing that the Coast Guard had billed BP for $69 million, 
we still do not have a response on what the status is of repayment by 
BP into the trust fund, but we will have that information.
  Thirdly, I agree with the gentleman that the trust fund is not a 
piggy bank for BP.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional minute.
  We are going to hold them accountable. The Coast Guard will hold them 
accountable. I do want to point out that the emergency fund is an 
account within the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. It is not a separate 
fund of its own.
  Further, as the gentleman was critical of the administration's budget 
and properly said this is bipartisan criticism, our committee budget, 
in response to that of the administration, rejected their proposed cuts 
for the Coast Guard. We understand there is no daylight between us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  I would also point out that the previous administration of 2005, six, 
seven, and eight approved 4,120 offshore leases, including for this 
particular MMS lease sale--or 206--an exemption from a ``blow-out 
scenario requirement'' for Outer Continental Shelf actions in the gulf. 
BP's exploration plan for Deepwater Horizon did not therefore include 
an analysis or a response plan for a blow-out at the wellhead.
  Now I yield 3 minutes to the chair of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, in following up on what the chairman just 
spoke about, we just got an email from the Coast Guard saying that BP 
has assured them that the near $70 million for which they have been 
billed will be paid by the end of next week, and we will hold their 
feet to the fire.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation, I rise today in strong support of S. 3473, legislation 
to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from the 
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the response to the Deepwater 
Horizon oil spill.
  The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund consists of two funds--the 
principal fund and an emergency fund. As was described yesterday by Mr. 
Craig Bennett, director of the National Pollution Funds Center, the 
emergency fund is, in essence, the operating fund from which we take 
the money necessary to pay for the operations of the 27 Federal 
entities that are responding to the Deepwater Horizon crisis. On May 3, 
the emergency fund received an authorized advance of $100 million. 
There is currently no statutory authority for any more advances to be 
made. Furthermore, as of June 1, obligations from the fund totaled $93 
million.
  We cannot allow the fund to go dry. This legislation simply 
authorizes additional advances of up to $100 million per advance. 
Nothing in this legislation relieves BP of its responsibility to cover 
all of the costs which have and which will continue to result from this 
tragedy.
  I emphasize to our distinguished ranking member that I don't think 
there is one person in this body, either on your side or on this side, 
who is not adamant about making sure that BP pays every single penny--
not dime--but every single penny that is due to the American people. 
However, based on the way the fund is currently established, it is 
necessary to authorize additional funds today in order to ensure that 
Federal response efforts are not interrupted.
  I have already made two trips to the gulf coast, and I hope to make 
another one. I have seen firsthand the devastation caused by this 
spill. We cannot allow anything to threaten our ongoing cleanup 
efforts. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join us in the passing of 
S. 3473.
  I also would note, Mr. Speaker, that this allows us to act with the 
urgency of now to address these issues. We have windows of opportunity 
within which we can act and can get things done. We can get them done. 
We will get our money back, but the fact is that we have got to act now 
because there are people suffering, not only in Louisiana, but, 
certainly, in the ranking member's State and in so many other places.

                              {time}  1100

  And so, with that, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for expeditiously getting this bill to the floor so that we can 
address the needs of our people.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Cao), also a member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. CAO. Mr. Speaker, right after the oil spill, I had the 
opportunity to fly over the spill at ground zero, and as I flew over 
the gulf, I saw thousands of square miles of our beautiful waters being 
covered by this brown sludge and additional thousands of square miles 
of our beautiful gulf was covered by this oily slick.
  I also toured by boat just a couple of weeks ago with the officials 
of Plaquemines Parish as well as Jefferson Parish, and as I was 
traveling through Barataria Bay, I saw patches of brown oil infringing 
on the oyster beds that are so integral to the seafood industry of 
Louisiana. And as I saw the oil as it encroaches upon the marshes and 
the wetlands, my heart dropped for the State of Louisiana as well as 
for the many fishermen and the many small businesses that are impacted 
by this catastrophe.
  I also spent much of my time visiting businesses and talking to small 
business owners who are being impacted by this oil spill. I visited a 
seafood open market in Westwego and saw half of the businesses closed, 
and the parking lot remained empty. And I spoke to the business owners, 
and they informed me that their business has declined by more than half 
since the oil spill. And instead of being open for 5 days out of the 
week, 6 days out of the week, they are only open now 2 days out of the 
week.
  So we see that the oil spill has had a devastating impact on the many 
people of the gulf coast and the many small businesses of the people of 
my district. Therefore, I believe that it is integral that we allow the 
money from the trust fund to be transferred to allow the Coast Guard 
the necessary resources to address the cleaning up of this oil spill.
  We saw an absence of Federal Government post-Katrina. We saw how 
thousands of people struggled post-Katrina because of the absence of 
government, and I do not want the same problem to occur here with 
respect to this disaster caused by this oil spill. Therefore, I ask all 
of the Members to support this position.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota, for the time and also for dealing promptly 
with this legislation.

[[Page 10476]]

  There is a more than $1.5 billion today in the trust fund, but the 
Coast Guard and the other government agencies cannot access that 
because of existing limits on the per incident expenses and because of 
the cap on using this for natural resources and economic damages.
  The trust fund exists so that we can get on with the work at hand, 
and I'm pleased that the chairman and the ranking member are moving 
promptly to give the administration the tools that they need to deal 
with this. There is work to be done, and it must be done quickly. This 
will take care of immediate expenditures.
  We have also dealt with, here in the House, increasing the total 
capacity of the trust fund, and we must rapidly build up those 
collections from the oil companies in that trust fund. And then, of 
course, we must recover from BP and the other responsible parties the 
money that is used from the trust fund.
  So spending this money now, and I hope the chairman has been clear 
for our colleagues, spending that money now does not absolve BP of any 
responsibility. It just allows the work to get on, and the funds will 
be collected from BP.
  Also, because this only deals with the immediate incident, there is 
still a need to, I would argue, pass the Big Oil Bailout Prevention 
Act, or something of the sort that I've introduced along with a number 
of cosponsors, to deal with this long term, to raise the liability 
limit so that we can collect everything that is necessary from oil 
companies.
  Mr. MICA. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), also a senior member of the T and I 
Committee.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3473. This 
legislation is absolutely critical to continue our oil spill response 
efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.
  The Coast Guard and other agencies involved in the response to the 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill are spending tremendous amounts of time and 
effort ensuring every tangible resource is available to meet this 
response. By passing this legislation, we ensure that the Coast Guard 
can maintain these valiant efforts, while simultaneously ensuring other 
important missions are met, including maritime safety, security, 
defense, search and rescue efforts, mobility, and preparedness. As 
America's maritime guardian. The Coast Guard is always ready, and this 
legislation ensures this goal can continue to be met.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the oil spill 
trust fund is funded by the petroleum industry and not the taxpayers.
  I urge passage.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Well, Mr. Speaker, I will summarize for our side.
  First of all, again, this is an emergency situation. We have to act, 
we must act, and we will act. Let me make it clear, and I'm glad 
everyone on the other side has made it very clear, that BP's feet will 
be held to the fire to repay this money.
  Now, it's good to come out here and hear that BP has called the other 
side and told them that they're going to pay, the check is in the mail, 
and that's all well, fine, and good. But I'd be glad to send somebody 
down to OMB and show them how they can send a rapid request for payment 
to BP as this thing moved forward because, again, the taxpayer 
shouldn't be left on the hook nor should this fund be left on the hook 
in any way for responsibility for this cleanup.
  Finally, just a couple of points. It was mentioned that the Bush 
administration gave 4,200 leases--I think that was the figure--and that 
is true. It's also true, and the Democrat staff did an excellent job--I 
complimented them yesterday--in getting a list of the current drilling 
and production activities in the Gulf of Mexico, and I'll submit this 
to the Record. But if you look, there are about 3,500, 3,492 wells in 
relatively shallow water, 200 meters, about 600 feet up to the surface. 
There are only 25 a thousand meters below.
  The Obama administration, coming into office, issued--these are 
deepwater, 1,000 feet to 8,000 feet--more than two dozen. We'll also 
submit that to the Record.
  Now, if they knew this was a management problem in the Minerals 
Management Service, and I just cited the Bush administration 
investigated that agency for 2 years and conducted a very thorough 
review of what was going on, they must have known there was a 
management problem when they inherited it.
  Instead, what did they do? Faster than BP can pay their bill, they 
took the proposal from BP in deepwater, some of the deepest water 
drill--here are the number of ones that the committee found that 
there's deepwater drilling in--and they carte blanche, rubber-stamped 
approval of this outline that BP gave them. One page, April 6. Those 
are the facts.

                            DRILLING AND PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Approved
                       Water depth in meters                          Active leases    applications     Active
                                                                                         to drill     platforms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-200.............................................................              2,279        33,590        3,492
201-400...........................................................                143         1,099           21
401-800...........................................................                330           835            9
801-1,000.........................................................                412           506            7
1,000 and above...................................................              3,454         1,634           25
                                                                   ---------------------------------------------
    Total.........................................................              6,618        37,664        3,554
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: MMS, current as of June 1, 2010

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Oberstar, thank you for your 
leadership. Chairman Cummings, as well, thank you for your leadership.
  The Coast Guard is poised in the gulf working overtime, waiting for 
this drawdown, which is a reimbursable drawdown. But we have to do 
something now. We have to do something for the shrimpers, the 
fishermen, the oystermen, the restaurants. We have to do something for 
the people who are bleeding and need our help.
  This is a BP problem, but it is an oil industry problem. We have to 
see them rise to the occasion, to develop a better claims system, to 
develop a recovery plan. But right now, the Coast Guard, as told to us 
in a meeting with them last week with Chairman Cummings and Chairwoman 
Brown, they need the money now. This is an important step.
  We can go back and look at the noes, but we've got to say yes today. 
Vote for this legislation.
  I also wish to thank Senator Reid for introducing this very important 
piece of legislation in such a timely manner. Today, I rise in support 
of S. 3473, an amendment that would authorize advances from the Oil 
Spill Liability Trust Fund as created by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
  BP is dragging its heels on the oil spill cleanup. The sooner we can 
get the wheels turning on the cleanup, the sooner we can make families 
whole again and ensure a safe environment for the Americans that had to 
bear the brunt of this disaster of mammoth proportions. Releasing some 
of the funds from the aforementioned trust will allow individuals to be 
able to support themselves in their Gulf-based industry. Just yesterday 
I testified before the House Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee and proposed legislation that would allow for the release of 
100 million dollars from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.
  The sooner we address the problem, the more likely we are to prevent 
more extensive damage. It has been well noted that BP's efforts alone 
will not suffice. As members of Congress, we must do everything we can 
to address and resolve this crisis in the most expedient manner, and 
releasing these funds will allow for a more efficient response.
  This amendment would provide a much-needed source of recourse and 
restitution for those victimized by this environmental disaster of 
massive proportions, caused by the April 20, 2010 explosion on the 
Deepwater Horizon oil vessel. It will also provide an avenue for 
accountability, which should be assigned, appropriately, to the parties 
responsible for imposing such suffering on the residents of the Gulf 
Coast area.
  We are all very much aware of the hardship that has been inflicted 
upon the people in the Gulf Coast region. The oil, gushing at a rate of 
at least 12,000 to 19,000 barrels a day, has now spread over 42 miles 
beyond the spill site, 3,300 miles beneath the surface of the ocean. In 
its most concentrated areas, oil plumes created by the spill are 
sometimes over 15 miles long and 1,500 feet thick, depths below the 
water. This does not even account for the immense volume of oil which

[[Page 10477]]

is less concentrated, but still very much diluted with the water of the 
Gulf Coast.
  The immediate effects of the spill are being felt as far west as 
Houma, Louisiana, and as far east as the Apalachicola Bay in Florida. 
Not only have there been serious environmental effects, but marine 
wildlife has been seriously impeded by the developments. Fishermen and 
workers in related industries are being deprived of their very source 
of income and livelihood. Even further, there are health effects 
resulting from the disaster that are increasing in number, daily.
  According to a recent CNN article, there have been 71 reported cases 
of oil disaster related health problems ranging anywhere from headaches 
and coughing to more serious ailments. Additionally, the oil has 
reached shorelines across the coast, and is affecting beaches and their 
patrons.
  It is imperative not only that the victims and potential claimants be 
afforded a source of recourse for the significant interruption of their 
way of life, but that the remedy process be made available in a timely 
fashion, as the effects of the oil spill are being compounded every 
day.
  The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, adopted in response to the Exxon 
Valdez Alaska oil spill in 1989, governs the claims process associated 
with the British Petroleum disaster. According to the Act, any party 
liable for any threat or actual discharge of oil from a vessel or 
facility to navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive 
economic zone of the United States, is responsible for all cleanup 
costs incurred. Additionally, claimants may recover damages for injury 
to natural resources, loss of personal property, economic losses, and 
loss of subsistence use of natural resources. However, the Act caps 
economic damages at $75 million from the party or parties responsible 
for an oil spill.
  Seventy five million dollars is simply insufficient to compensate the 
victims of such a massive disaster. The law was passed in light of the 
Exxon Valdez oil spill. That spill was considered to be one of the 
largest environmental disasters in history, and involved the 
disgorgement of at least 10.8 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska 
waters.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, I'm greatly appreciative of the partnership in our committee 
with the gentleman from Florida and for working so expeditiously under 
minimal notice that both of us had to bring this unexpected but welcome 
legislation from the other body so quickly to the floor. I would hope 
that this and other measures that we will enact will be seen as a 
testimonial to the victims of that explosion on the Deepwater Horizon.
  And as the gentleman from Florida said, I join him in commending the 
President for welcoming the families and consoling with them, and join 
in assurances to those families that Congress will continue to do 
everything right so that their lives will not have been lost in vain.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend the debate time by 5 
minutes on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The purpose for this request is that we may resolve a 
technical problem that the Senate notified us of in the drafting of the 
language of the bill and in the reference to the appropriate section of 
the Internal Revenue Code, and we need to spend just a few minutes and 
get the parliamentary language correct, and that will take a few more 
minutes to resolve.
  I ask the gentleman from Florida to designate his staff to 
participate with ours and with the Parliamentarian in assuring that we 
have the language properly crafted.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. MICA. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Well, maybe you could explain, for the benefit of this side 
of the aisle in the House, what the changes would be.
  I did have several changes that I would have liked to have addressed. 
I believe this particular legislation just deals with this spill. I 
would have hoped that we could have modified this so that, in the 
future, we wouldn't have to come back on an individual-spill basis to 
do what we are doing here today.
  And also, because this is a unique circumstance, we have not found 
ourselves in this situation before, we could make some additional 
changes to the measure that would, in fact, sort of, clean up the 
statute.
  But, again, I am not sure what particular parliamentary or minor 
technical changes the majority is prepared to make in the legislation 
at this time. We do want to be agreeable and move the process forward. 
Maybe, now, with those questions, you might respond.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Certainly. And I thank the gentleman. And I share that 
concern.
  In the hearing yesterday, I made it very clear that the committee 
would move forward with the broader changes that the gentleman just 
discussed, Madam Speaker, so that the Coast Guard will have authority 
to draw larger sums, in hundred-million-dollar increments, with proper 
notification to Congress, without having to come back and legislate 
each time.
  But that is beyond the scope of the pending bill. And the technical 
changes notified to us are of a truly technical nature. Expanding into 
the broader question that we are now discussing would require new 
legislation.
  And I commit to the gentleman that that will be part of our 
bipartisan work in committee, and we will craft the appropriate 
language.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Madam Speaker, BP's failure to have a responsible plan in place to 
deal with the effects of this oil spill obviously has caused untold 
harm to our coastal communities and the men and women on our gulf 
coast, many of which I represent.
  More needs to be done at every level to respond to this crisis. But 
one thing we will not tolerate is for there to be any disruption to the 
ongoing cleanup and containment efforts currently under way in the 
gulf, which is why I stand before you today in full support of S. 3473.
  This bill ensures that the men and women fighting to contain this 
disaster have all the resources they need to continue their important 
work. Under this bill, the Federal Government will provide advance 
funding to sustain and support the cleanup and containment efforts 
currently under way.
  But make no mistake: BP will be the ultimate financier. And they can 
count on receiving a bill once the total cost is in.
  At the same time, while we are working to contain this crisis, we 
also must take steps to ensure this terrible situation does not become 
worse. Last week, Madam Speaker, I sent a letter to the President, 
urging his administration to develop a plan in case a tropical storm or 
hurricane hits the gulf coast, and it will.
  The gulf region has weathered hurricanes in the past, but the 
presence of oil in our waters creates a number of unknown 
circumstances. And we need to be proactive in our efforts to protect 
our communities from a storm.
  That is why next week I will convene the Joint Oil Spill-Hurricane 
Planning Conference to develop a comprehensive hurricane preparedness 
and recovery plan for north Florida. The conference will bring together 
local, State, and Federal officials and key stakeholders to develop a 
comprehensive and coordinated plan that identifies what actions need to 
be taken before, during, and after a possible storm.
  We are clearly in uncharted waters, Madam Speaker, but that is no 
excuse for us failing to take action now against a threat that we know 
will strike sooner or later. We must begin planning now for this 
possibility.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman an additional 20 seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has 
expired.
  Mr. MICA. I yield the gentleman from Florida, my colleague from 
Florida, 30 seconds of my time.

[[Page 10478]]


  Mr. BOYD. I thank my colleague, Mr. Mica, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we must begin planning now for this possibility of a 
hurricane hitting the gulf coast and what effect the oil spill, what 
additional damage that will cause. We must ensure the current cleanup 
and containment efforts under way are able to continue unabated.
  Madam Speaker, I urge support for S. 3473.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I guess as we conclude the extended time of 
debate on this measure to again revise some of the provisions of the 
emergency portion, $150 million emergency fund within the $1.6 billion 
Oil Liability Trust Fund, I understand that there has been identified a 
minor technical glitch in the legislation as it came from the other 
body.
  As a great American, former United States Senator Bob Dole, he used 
to say that his body, the U.S. Senate, is a great place if you like to 
see paint dry and grass grow, as far as the speed in which things are 
done.
  However, here they have acted with due diligence and great speed and, 
in that speed, have made a minor technical error. And I am not going to 
tell anyone about it. And because this is a situation in which we must 
proceed on an emergency basis, I am going to overlook it, in fairness.
  I would also like to yield to the gentleman, our honorable chairman 
of the T&I Committee, my partner, Mr. Oberstar.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding.
  We have agreed that the technical issue raised by representatives of 
the other body is of a nature that can be resolved by the 
administration upon passage of this bill. It is better for us to pass 
this bill now to address the substantive issue, release of funds from 
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and not delay progress in cleanup.
  For that reason, we will pass the bill intact and let the 
administration deal with whatever issue comes up. Should any additional 
change be necessary of a technical nature, it can be dealt with at a 
later time.
  I thank the gentleman for his understanding, for his patience, and 
for yielding me the time.

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 2010.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to urge the Congress to 
     move quickly in enacting the FY 2010 Supplemental request. On 
     June 4, 2010, Secretary Napolitano announced that the Coast 
     Guard believes that within the next two weeks funding levels 
     in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund's expenditure account 
     will drop to levels that will force the Federal On-Scene 
     Coordinator to begin to cut back Federal Deepwater Horizon 
     response activities. We cannot allow the lack of funding to 
     hamstring our Federal response to this national catastrophe.
       On May 12, the Administration proposed legislation to 
     support the BP/Deepwater Horizon response and speed 
     assistance to people in need. Included in this package was a 
     provision that would permit the Coast Guard and its National 
     Pollution Funds Center to move funds from the Oil Spill 
     Liability Trust Fund to the Emergency Fund so that the 
     Federal response effort can continue without interruption. 
     Specifically, the legislative changes would permit the Coast 
     Guard to obtain additional advances in tranches of $100 
     million up to the incident cap for the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund. All of these costs are being billed to the 
     responsible parties and the receipts will be deposited in the 
     Trust Fund.
       The President has ordered Federal agencies to bring all 
     available and appropriate resources to bear in response to 
     this disaster. Without legislative authorization, however, 
     the Coast Guard cannot access the additional emergency fund 
     resources necessary to pay for the Federal agencies' response 
     to this tragic oil spill.
       We appreciate your support in moving this critical 
     legislation forward in the coming days.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter R. Orszag,
     Director.
                                  ____


           Timeline for Approvals of Deepwater Horizon Lease

       1986: MMS issues a list of categories of activities 
     excluded from further review under NEPA within the Department 
     of the Interior's ``Department Manual.''
       May 27, 2004: The Bush Administration extends process by 
     which MMS manages the NEPA process for offshore lease sales, 
     including issuance of ``categorical exclusions.''
       April 2007: MMS issues a Multistate environmental impact 
     statement (EIS) for a proposed 5-year lease on the Outer 
     Continental Shelf (OCS) that estimated a likelihood of 3 
     spills from platform drilling in deepwater that would produce 
     approximately 1,500 barrels for each spill. As a result, the 
     assessed impacts from oil spills under the 5-year lease were 
     described as minimal. No extrapolation or hypothesis for what 
     would happen if the spill were larger.
       October 22, 2007: MMS issues its Environmental Assessment 
     of the Proposed Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 
     206, Central Planning Area. MMS estimated, based on 
     historical data, that the probability of an offshore oil 
     spill greater than 1,000 barrels reaching an environmentally 
     sensitive resource was small. Accordingly, MMS finds that a 
     supplemental EIS is not required and issues a FONNSI (Finding 
     of No New Significant Impact)--over that assessed in the 
     Multistate EIS for the 5-year lease on the OCS.
       March 2008: BP purchased rights to drill for oil at MMS 
     lease sale 206.
       May 2008: MMS issues an exemption from a ``blowout scenario 
     requirement'': for OCS actions in the Gulf (Notice to Lessee 
     2008). Accordingly, BP's exploration plan for the Deepwater 
     Horizon site did not include an analysis or response plan for 
     a blowout of the wellhead.
       March 10, 2009: BP filed a 52-page exploration and 
     environmental impact plan for the Macondo well, located in 
     the Mississippi Canyon Block 252 of the Gulf, with MMS. This 
     plan stated that it was ``unlikely that an accidental surface 
     or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed 
     activities.'' In the plan, the company further asserted that 
     if there was a spill, ``due to the distance to shore (48 
     miles) and the response capabilities that would be 
     implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected.'' 
     Pursuant to 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1340, MMS is required to approve 
     the BP exploration plan within 30 days of submission.
       April 6, 2009: MMS approves BP exploration plan, with a 
     categorical exclusion from NEPA, because the falls within the 
     2004 list of potential ``categorical exclusions.'' Because of 
     the categorical exclusion, the additional environmental 
     impacts for a worst case scenario were not evaluated.

  Mr. MICA. Reclaiming the time, also keep in mind the time that I 
yielded to the other side when they ran out of time, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. But to conclude debate, again, I thank everyone for this 
bipartisan effort. Even though, again, we have a minor technical 
glitch, we want to move the legislation forward; so I urge my 
colleagues to pass the measure.
  Mr. McMAHON. I rise today in strong support of S. 3473. Since Day 1 
of this disaster the Administration has brought all resources to bear 
to address ensure that damage to the environment, wildlife, and public 
health of the Gulf Region was as limited as possible.
  In particular the United States Coast Guard has done outstanding 
work. As Vice Chair of the Coast Guard Subcommittee I know how hard the 
men and women of the Coast Guard have been working to contain this 
disaster. Led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has taken charge of federal 
on-the-ground response as National Incident Commander, the men and 
women of the Coast Guard are on the frontlines and deserve our 
gratitude and support.
  This legislation is critical to maintaining continuity in the federal 
government's response. It amends current law to allow the 
administration to take multiple advances of up to $100 million from the 
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Without passage of S. 3473, the Coast 
Guard could run out of funding for cleanup and prevention as early as 
next week. This cannot be allowed to happen. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this straightforward, common-sense legislation. 
It is the least we can do at the moment to help ongoing efforts to help 
the people of the Gulf region.
  Mr. MICA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, S. 3473.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further

[[Page 10479]]

proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________