[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5087-5089]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  FOREIGN SPILL PROTECTION ACT OF 2016

  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 1684) to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and 
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to impose penalties and provide 
for the recovery of removal costs and damages in connection with 
certain discharges of oil from foreign offshore units, and for other 
purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1684

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Foreign Spill Protection Act 
     of 2016''.

     SEC. 2. LIABILITY OF OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF FOREIGN 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Oil Pollution Control Act Amendments.--Section 1001 of 
     the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (26)(A)--
       (A) in clause (ii), by striking ``onshore or offshore 
     facility, any person'' and inserting ``onshore facility, 
     offshore facility, or foreign offshore unit or other facility 
     located seaward of the exclusive economic zone, any person or 
     entity''; and
       (B) in clause (iii), by striking ``offshore facility, the 
     person who'' and inserting ``offshore facility or foreign 
     offshore unit or other facility located seaward of the 
     exclusive economic zone, the person or entity that''; and
       (2) in paragraph (32)--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (G), respectively;
       (B) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) Foreign facilities.--In the case of a foreign 
     offshore unit or other facility located seaward of the 
     exclusive economic zone, any person or other entity owning or 
     operating the facility, and any leaseholder, permit holder, 
     assignee, or holder of a right of use and easement granted 
     under applicable foreign law for the area in which the 
     facility is located.''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (G), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``or offshore facility, the persons who'' and inserting ``, 
     offshore facility, or foreign offshore unit or other facility 
     located seaward of the exclusive economic zone, the persons 
     or entities that''.
       (b) Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.--
     Section 311(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
     U.S.C. 1321(a)(11)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and any facility'' and inserting ``any 
     facility''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, and, for the purposes of applying 
     subsections (b), (c), (e), and (o), any foreign offshore unit 
     (as defined in section 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act) or any 
     other facility located seaward of the exclusive economic 
     zone'' after ``public vessel''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. 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 material on H.R. 1684.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, following the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska in 1989, 
Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA. The basic 
premise of OPA is that the party responsible for the spill is 
responsible for all of the costs of cleaning up the mess.
  The Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010 reminded us of the impact a spill 
of its size can have on waters, coastlines, people, and our economy. It 
is important to note that these offshore facilities, as defined by OPA, 
are limited only to the navigable waters of the United States, and 
foreign rigs cannot be designated as responsible parties. Therefore, if 
there were an oil spill originating in foreign waters, the most the 
responsible party would have to pay to clean up American waters and 
shores is $150 million.
  This issue is of particular concern to Gulf States. Mexico, Cuba, and 
the Bahamas are actively looking at expanding their offshore drilling 
operations. Of particular concern is Mexico, which is looking into 
ultradeep wells, exceeding 6,000 feet in depth. In 2012, Mexico's top 
oil regulators said they were not prepared to handle a serious accident 
or major oil spill.
  But it is not just the Gulf States that could be negatively affected 
by a spill. On the Canadian side of Lake Erie, offshore energy 
exploration is being conducted for natural gas. While Canadian law 
prohibits oil extraction from the Great Lakes, the risk of a spill 
persists. Again, under current law, the responsible party would only 
have to pay a maximum of $150 million for cleanup.
  In response to these concerns, my friend from Florida, Representative 
Patrick Murphy, and I introduced the legislation that is being 
considered here today. The bill ensures that the responsible party, 
regardless of origin, pays for all American cleanup costs by applying 
OPA. This will also apply Clean Water Act penalties to the responsible 
foreign party.
  I am proud that this legislation has broad bipartisan support and has 
been endorsed by environmental fishing and other groups that depend on 
the water for their livelihoods. Our coastal communities need peace of 
mind that if they are harmed by a foreign spill, resources are 
available to clean up their shores and help them recover. American 
taxpayers should not have to foot the bill to bail out the mistakes of 
foreign companies.
  I would like to thank and commend the Coast Guard and the majority 
and minority staffs of the committee, particularly John Rayfield and 
Dave Jansen, for their work on this important legislation.
  H.R. 1684 is a very straightforward bill that looks to hold the party 
responsible for a foreign oil spill that affects U.S. waters or lands 
accountable. I urge all Members to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 5088]]


  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this noncontroversial 
legislation that will clarify existing Federal authority regarding the 
liability for and enforcement of offshore oil spills originating from a 
foreign source outside the U.S. exclusive economic zone.
  H.R. 1684, the Foreign Spill Protection Act of 2016, clarifies that 
owners and operators of oil production facilities located offshore and 
outside the United States are liable for cleanup costs and damages from 
oil spills. These foreign entities are responsible for oil spills that 
originate outside U.S. waters if they threaten or cause damage in the 
United States. The foreign entities would be subject to criminal and 
civil penalties, Federal removal authority, and any State-authorized 
remedy currently allowed under Federal and State law.
  I would like to commend the cooperation shown by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Shuster, Coast Guard and 
Maritime Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Hunter, and Ranking 
Member Garamendi in working out the final details of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Deepwater Horizon disaster painfully reminded us of 
how catastrophic an offshore oil spill can be, both in its geographic 
reach and in its environmental and economic costs.
  The settled liability and enforcement regimes authorized under the 
Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act have proven themselves to be 
comprehensive, durable, and effective. In the event of a spill, this 
response regime has ensured time and time again that the Federal 
Government has clear, unequivocal authority to respond to a spill, 
restore the environment and communities harmed, and recover damages for 
the harm caused. This legislation will in no way impede or change those 
indispensable authorities.
  In closing, it is a helpful enhancement to clarify that spills 
originating from foreign sources fall under this well-established legal 
regime. I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
supporting this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would like to thank the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, for his 
statement and for his cooperation on this legislation. I also want to 
thank Chairman Shuster.
  As the gentleman mentioned, the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee is oftentimes an example of how we can put politics aside to 
work together and do good things for the American people. This 
legislation is very important to my constituents in south Florida, in 
the Florida Keys, and, really, to coastal communities all over the 
country. So I thank the gentleman for his statement. I thank everyone 
who had a part in crafting this legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy), who is vitally interested and 
concerned about this legislation.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida and I thank the gentleman from Oregon for their tireless 
efforts to protect our environment. As the gentleman from Florida and I 
know firsthand, so much of our economy is based on our environment. 
Making sure that we have clean water and clean air is exactly what we 
need to be focused on.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, ensuring the party 
responsible for such oil spills is held liable. Hopefully, we get 
bipartisan support going forward. I thank the two gentlemen for their 
work putting this forward.
  I would also like to rise today in support of H.R. 2901, the Flood 
Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act. I was proud to put this 
bipartisan legislation forward with my good friend, another gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Ross) to clarify that private flood insurance may be 
an available option for homeowners to satisfy mandatory coverage 
requirements under the National Flood Insurance Program. For Florida 
homeowners, this is a win-win, giving them more options for flood 
insurance coverage and using new competition to drive down prices and 
expand coverage options for consumers.
  The National Flood Insurance Program is an important tool that 
empowers and protects homeowners all across America. The Biggert-Waters 
Act of 2012 took an important step in opening up the market and 
allowing private flood insurance policies to satisfy mandatory coverage 
requirements under the program.
  However, as we have learned, sometimes even the best laid plans can 
have unintended consequences. With a lack of clarity as to which 
private flood insurance policies are allowed in the program, the market 
has not been able to expand, and consumers have been left with just one 
choice to insure their properties from flood risk: the National Flood 
Insurance Program.
  I recently heard from one of my constituents in Martin County, 
Florida, about how the premium for just 1 year of flood insurance 
coverage through the NFIP ended up being five times the price they 
expected it to be. To make matters worse, the maximum coverage was only 
half of what they paid for the home itself; yet they were required to 
purchase the higher priced plan that did not provide the coverage they 
needed because there were no other options.
  This highlights the urgent need to allow competition in the flood 
insurance marketplace to meet homeowners' needs and drive down costs. 
But to do that, we must allow the States to license and regulate flood 
insurance policies, exactly like homeowners insurance, car insurance, 
or health insurance.
  Yet, almost inexplicably, Florida's private flood insurance market 
remains restrained because homeowners are not given the choice to look 
to private market policies for more flood insurance options. The bank 
will not accept other policies because their regulators haven't 
approved them.
  This bill will solve this problem by allowing State insurance 
commissioners, who have long been considered by Congress as the most 
appropriate regulators of insurance, to certify private insurance plans 
to provide equivalent or better protections for flood insurance other 
than the NFIP plan. Everyone I talk to agrees that Florida's insurance 
commissioner is certainly better equipped to regulate flood insurance 
in our State than the Federal banking regulators.
  By breaking this down, we break down a major barrier to marketplace 
expansion. This legislation will foster more competition, greatly 
benefiting homeowners across Florida and the Nation.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas, Chairman Hensarling, for his 
leadership on this issue. I also extend my deep gratitude to the 
gentlewoman from California, Ranking Member Waters, for her relentless 
advocacy for consumers and for working with us to improve this 
legislation and produce a solid, bipartisan outcome.
  I appreciate all of my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee 
for moving this commonsense measure forward with unanimous, bipartisan 
support.

                              {time}  1615

  I am hopeful that today it will be passed by the full House with 
similar support and will be swiftly considered in the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2901, the Flood 
Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I thank my colleague from Florida (Mr. Murphy), whom I saw in the 
Everglades on Friday. We were celebrating another great victory for 
Floridians there.
  Here today we are again celebrating that we have been able to get 
something done with the support of our colleagues on behalf of the 
people of our State.
  We decided early on in this Congress that we would work together to 
protect

[[Page 5089]]

our coastal communities, and that is exactly what we are doing here 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 1684, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________