U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

71–531 PDF 2012

RESTORING JOBS, COASTAL VIABILITY, AND 

ECONOMIC RESILIENCE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO: 

H.R. 3096, THE RESOURCES AND ECOSYSTEMS 

SUSTAINABILITY, TOURIST OPPORTUNITIES, AND 

REVIVED ECONOMIES OF THE GULF COAST 

STATES ACT OF 2011 

(112–66) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 7, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

PANEL ONE

Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas ........... 20 

Hon. Jeff Miller, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ......... 20 

Hon. Steven M. Palazzo, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Mississippi ............................................................................................................ 20 

Hon. Jo Bonner, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alabama ....... 20 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana 20 

PANEL TWO

Craig A. Bennett, Director, National Pollution Funds Center, United States 

Coast Guard .......................................................................................................... 35 

Tony Penn, Deputy Chief, Assessment and Restoration Division, Office of 

Response and Restoration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ........................................................................................................................ 35

PANEL THREE

Julian MacQueen, Chief Executive Officer, Innisfree Hotels, Incorporated ....... 49 

Garret Graves, Chair, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana ..................................................................................................................... 49 

Hon. Robert Craft, Mayor, City of Gulf Shores, Alabama .................................... 49 

Bill Williams, Commissioner, Gulf County, Florida ............................................. 49 

Robert H. Weisberg, Ph.D., Professor of Physical Oceanography, University 

of South Florida .................................................................................................... 49 

Michael C. Voisin, Motivatit Seafoods, Houma, Louisiana .................................. 49 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, of New York .................................................................. 66 

Hon. Rick Larsen, of Wasington ............................................................................. 69 

Hon. Cedric L. Richmond, of Louisiana ................................................................. 71 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Pete Olson ....................................................................................................... 73 

Hon. Jeff Miller ........................................................................................................ 74 

Hon. Steven M. Palazzo .......................................................................................... 76 

Hon. Jo Bonner ........................................................................................................ 79 

Hon. Steve Scalise ................................................................................................... 82 

Craig A. Bennett ...................................................................................................... 85 

Tony Penn ................................................................................................................ 90 

Julian MacQueen ..................................................................................................... 97 

Garret Graves .......................................................................................................... 101 

Hon. Robert Craft .................................................................................................... 115 

Bill Williams ............................................................................................................ 121 

Robert H. Weisberg, Ph.D. ...................................................................................... 125 

Michael C. Voisin ..................................................................................................... 132 

Page

IV 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, request to submit the following into the record: 

Hon Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, letter to Hon. John L. Mica, Chairman, and Nick J. 

Rahall II, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, December 6, 2011 ........................................................ 3 

Tim Richardson, Director of Government Affairs and Alaska Program, American Land Conservancy, ‘‘Why Habitat Conservation 

was a Cornerstone of Exxon Valdez Restoration,’’ written testimony ....................................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

request to submit the following letters in support of S. 1400 and H.R. 

3096, the RESTORE Act, into the record: 

Letter from Greater Houston Partnership; Chamber Southwest Louisiana; Greater New Orleans, Inc.; Partners for Stennis-Hancock 

Chamber of Commerce; Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce; and 

Pensacola Bay Area Chamber of Commerce; to Senator Harry Reid, 

Senator Mitch McConnell, Representative John A. Boehner, Representative Nancy Pelosi, Representative Eric Cantor, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Representative Doc Hastings, Representative 

Edward J. Markey, Representative John L. Mica, and Representative Nick J. Rahall II, November 9, 2011 ............................................ 27 

Letter from American Fisheries Society; American Fly Fishing Trade 

Association; American Sportfishing Association; Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies; B.A.S.S., LLC; Berkley Conservation Institute, Pure Fishing; Center for Coastal Conservation; Coastal Conservation Association; Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation; 

International Game Fish Association; National Marine Manufacturers Association; Shimano Sport Fisheries Initiative; and Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; to Representative John 

L. Mica and Representative Nick J. Rahall II, November 1, 2011 .... 29 

Letter from Marco A. Giamberardino, MPA, Senior Director, Federal 

and Heavy Construction Division, Associated General Contractors 

of America, to Representative Steve Scalise, October 17, 2011 ......... 30 

Letter from Stan Harris, President and CEO, Louisiana Restaurant 

Association, to Representative Steve Scalise, October 17, 2011 ........ 31 

Letter from Louisiana Restaurant Association; Southeastern Fisheries Association; Texas Shrimp Association; Louisiana Seafood 

Promotion and Marketing Board; National Fisheries Institute; Gulf 

Oyster Industry Council; and Louisiana Seafood Processors Council; to Representative John A. Boehner and Representative Nancy 

Pelosi, November 10, 2011 .................................................................... 32 

United States Coast Guard, response to request for information on oil spill 

capability questions raised by Hon. Blake Farenthold, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas: 

Four Coast Guard projects to enhance the Service’s response to a 

Spill of National Significance ............................................................... 44 

Cost of the four projects ............................................................................ 45 

Funds allocated for 2012 Coast Guard oil spill response initiatives ..... 45 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Department of the Interior, written statement ..................................................... 136 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 71531.001
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 71531.002
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 71531.003
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 71531.004
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 71531.005
x 


Insert offset folio 6 here 71531.006
xi 


Insert offset folio 7 here 71531.007
xii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 71531.008
xiii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 71531.009
(1) 

RESTORING JOBS, COASTAL VIABILITY, AND 

ECONOMIC RESILIENCE IN THE GULF OF 

MEXICO: H.R. 3096, THE RESOURCES AND 

ECOSYSTEMS SUSTAINABILITY, TOURIST 

OPPORTUNITIES, AND REVIVED ECONOMIES 

OF THE GULF COAST STATES ACT OF 2011 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica (Chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Mr. MICA. I would like everyone to take their seats, and we will 

call the committee—subcommittee to order. We will try to get started here. I expect Mr. Gibbs in just a minute. 

Welcome this morning to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure hearing on the subject ‘‘Restoring Jobs, 

Coastal Viability, and Economic Resilience in the Gulf of Mexico: 

H.R. 3096, the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist 

Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf States Act of 

2011.’’ 

I see they have scheduled today three panels. The first one will 

be Members of Congress. And I would like to welcome them. As I 

said, Mr. Gibbs will be here shortly, but I wanted to go ahead and, 

in the interest of time, get this hearing started. 

The order of business will be opening statements by members of 

our panel, and then we will hear from the Members who have requested to testify this morning. 

First let me say that I was approached by many Members—and 

you will hear from some of them today—to enlist my support for 

the measure which I described. And I won’t take a half-hour to recite the title of the bill again, but in listening to Members and in 

my position as chair of the committee, I understand their concerns 

in trying to make their States and the areas they represent whole. 

The oil spill incident that we had in the gulf was a horrendous 

tragedy impacting lives dramatically, hurting economies, destroying some of the ecosystem and doing damage to the economies in 

the whole region and the United States. 

The bill that has been crafted—and there have been several proposals I have heard dividing up any awards that may result here 

from litigation—are crafted primarily, I think, right now to the 

2 

benefit of the Gulf States who secured—or rather, endured the primary damage. I thought what it would be best to do is to, rather 

than lend my support to a particular measure or division of some 

of those awards at this point, was to hear everyone out in open 

forum. And I hope to accomplish that. And we can hear from the 

Members, and they can provide for the record and, for what I hope 

to be a fair resolution of whatever proposal we come up with, their 

viewpoint and their—express their concerns on behalf of their constituencies. 

I, in turn, hold a position as chair of the committee, and somebody has to represent—even though I represent 1 district in Florida out of, right now, 25, someone has to represent the people of 

the United States in this division again, and try—and this attempt 

to make everyone whole, including the people of the United States. 

So, it is my hope that we can take from this testimony a good 

assessment of who has met their obligations in, first of all, trying 

to make folks whole after a very difficult situation. And then, if 

there is a division of any award, that it be done fairly and equitably, both among those impacted and on the basis of the damage 

they sustained, or that they have not been made whole for. 

It has been our intent in the committee to try to ensure that 

those responsible for the spill are held accountable, and it falls on 

them to, again, make whole and repair, as best they can, the damage. And also compensate the United States and the taxpayers for 

the cost incurred. So, that is the purpose of today’s hearing. And 

I appreciate Members coming before us, and we will try to sort this 

out as best we can, be fair and equitable to all parties, including 

the United States taxpayers, who absorbed a great deal of cost and 

also took on the responsibility for the—managing the cleanup and 

other very expensive enterprises for which the United States probably has not been made whole. 

So, with that, that is those comments, let me yield—I guess Mrs. 

Napolitano, if you are ready—Ms. Johnson, are you ready? The 

gentlelady from Texas is recognized. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for holding this hearing and giving our colleagues 

an opportunity to testify. 

I will not take up any time away from their time, but I would 

like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter from 

Congresswoman Castor. And two, a testimony from the American 

Land Conservancy. So, if you can accept that under unanimous 

consent, then I will yield back my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. [presiding.] So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

3 


Insert offset folio 10 here 71531.010
4 


Insert offset folio 11 here 71531.011
5 


Insert offset folio 12 here 71531.012
6 


Insert offset folio 13 here 71531.013
7 


Insert offset folio 14 here 71531.014
8 


Insert offset folio 15 here 71531.015
9 


Insert offset folio 16 here 71531.016
10 


Insert offset folio 17 here 71531.017
11 


Insert offset folio 18 here 71531.018
12 


Insert offset folio 19 here 71531.019
13 


Insert offset folio 20 here 71531.020
14 


Insert offset folio 21 here 71531.021
15 


Insert offset folio 22 here 71531.022
16 


Insert offset folio 23 here 71531.023
17 


Insert offset folio 24 here 71531.024
18 


Insert offset folio 25 here 71531.025
19 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you for your indulgence here, while we get 

started. I am sitting in for Mr.—Chairman Mica. Welcome to the 

committee today, and I will start with my opening statement. 

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was and continues to be a tremendous tragedy for the gulf coast and the Nation, as a whole. 

Over 87 days we all awaited anxiously as responders battled nature, logistics, and the natural limitations of technology to secure 

the well head. 

Like all of you, I felt a tremendous amount of relief when the 

well was finally secured. However, as you all know, the response 

did not end there. The efforts to mitigate the impact of the spill are 

ongoing today, and will continue for years to come. I fully support 

the ongoing restoration to repair the damage caused by the oil 

spill, and I know the gulf coast will bounce back stronger than 

ever. 

However, I do have some concerns about this specific piece of legislation. The responsible parties have already agreed to fully pay 

the cost of the spill response, damages, and restoration activities 

to individuals and businesses, environmental trustees in the Gulf 

Coast States. That could total over $40 billion. 

In addition, the State and local governments of the gulf coast 

currently receive 50 percent of the revenues for offshore drilling in 

the gulf, and use that funding for coastal restoration projects. The 

total cost is over $25 million, annually. 

Finally, the gulf coast has received billions of dollars for flood 

damage reduction projects in response to Hurricane Katrina, almost $15 billion of which went to projects in the vicinity of New 

Orleans. Now some are seeking billions in the Deepwater Horizon 

Clean Water Act penalties for those same activities. I have some 

concerns with the precedent that sets. 

Additionally, the language, as drafted, could potentially fund restoration projects with penalty money, allowing the responsible 

party to avoid payment under the Oil Pollution Act. The bill also 

comes with serious cost implications. CBO has scored the Senate 

version of this bill at $1.2 billion. 

And finally, the bill would redirect the penalties from the Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund to the States. The fund currently has a 

balance of $2.3 billion. Meanwhile, the cost of the Deepwater Horizon spill could total over $40 billion. Redirecting these penalties 

away from the fund could undermine efforts to respond to future 

spills, where the responsible party is either insolvent or is operating in the foreign waters, such as Cuba. 

I would like to thank the Members of the panel and I would like 

to now represent—recognize Representative Napolitano for any 

opening statements you may have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t have questions 

of the Members, but I am glad this hearing is going to shed a little 

more light on the issue that brought such a great tragedy to the 

Gulf States. 

I do ask for unanimous consent the statements from the members of the committee who were not able to make it be entered into 

the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

20 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. At this time we will recognize our first panel of 

Members of Congress. I think the plan here is just to have your 

statements and not have questions. I think that is what we decided 

earlier on. So I will start with Honorable Olson. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. PETE OLSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS; HON. JEFF MILLER, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

FLORIDA; HON. STEVEN M. PALAZZO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; HON. JO 

BONNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF ALABAMA; AND HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member 

Napolitano, for holding this hearing to examine the importance of 

the gulf RESTORE Act. Seated before you are five Members that 

represent the people who work and live in the Gulf States. And 

while each of us were impacted differently by the Deepwater Horizon spill, we have worked together to build a consensus to best address the challenges facing our States. 

When considering the economic recovery needs of the gulf coast, 

a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work. Gulf coast communities 

know what they need for recovery. It is critical that any economic 

response reflects local priorities. 

In the 22nd Congressional District of Texas, which I represent, 

a significant portion of jobs are connected to manufacturers and 

small companies that rely on the offshore energy industry. This is 

an industry still reeling from the Obama administration’s moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The moratorium 

was only supposed to affect deep water drilling. But in reality, it 

impacted shallow water permits, as well. 

As a result, family-owned companies with generations of experience lost work as the drilling operations they supported moved out 

of the Gulf of Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of industrial, engineering, manufacturing, construction, and support jobs were impacted. The drilling moratorium was—has technically been lifted. 

But the de facto moratorium, also known as a ‘‘permitorium,’’ remains through the slow permitting process with devastating economic consequences. 

There have been signs of recovery. But jobs in the Gulf of Mexico 

are still well below the levels before the Deepwater Horizon accident. While offshore activities finally expected to return to pre-moratorium levels by mid-next year, we are still well below projected 

levels. 

The RESTORE Act will ensure that each State can address their 

specific recovery needs. Passing the RESTORE Act will bring us 

one step closer to the long-term ecological and economic recovery 

that the Gulf States most directly hurt by the spill desperately 

need. This bill and its Senate campaign will ensure a full recovery 

from the spill. 

As you hear testimony from the expert witnesses here today, I 

ask that you keep something in mind. Reversing the effects of the 

21 

Deepwater Horizon is not just a regional interest. It is a national 

priority. The Gulf of Mexico supplies 30 percent of our Nation’s energy, and is a powerful economic engine. 

The damage that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico—communities 

along the gulf coast should be able to allocate the penalty money 

where it will be most beneficial, without bureaucratic interference. 

I thank you for allowing me to testify before you today, and I 

look forward to working with this committee as the RESTORE Act 

moves through the committee process. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. I thank you. 

Mr. Miller, Representative Miller, welcome. 

Mr. MILLER OF FLORIDA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First I would like to, with all due respect, set the record straight. 

BP and the responsible parties have not, and in many cases do not, 

intend to make many of the individuals that were harmed economically especially whole in this instance. 

And I would also like the record to reflect that Florida gets zero 

revenue from any leases or any production in the Gulf of Mexico. 

I want to thank the other Members that are sitting here at the 

table today. It is a diverse group. And the fact that we were able 

to come together and be able to cosponsor a bill that was authored 

by our good friend, Mr. Scalise, who has talked about how important this RESTORE Act is for the gulf coast—not only the gulf 

coast, but also for the United States of America. 

This bill is about one thing, and it is restoring the gulf coast 

from the devastating—and I mean devastating—effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010. The fact that we are here today, almost 2 years later, still talking about the impacts of the spill shows 

just how widespread the disaster was for our communities. 

And you are going to hear about just how costly the effects of the 

spill were from local leaders, local economists, businesses, and environmental researchers in subsequent panels, so I am not going to 

go into what they will be testifying about this morning. 

You all know that oil on the beaches of northwest Florida drove 

the tourism industry over a cliff. And you know that oil is still 

being cleaned up in the marshes of Louisiana, and occasionally 

along the gulf coast, to the east. So instead, I want to make clear 

what this bill is not. 

This is not a handout or a backfill for local and State budgets. 

The RESTORE Act is about restoring the gulf coast from the worst 

oil spill in American history. As we have seen from the lingering 

effects of Exxon Valdez, these effects will be felt for years, if not 

for decades to come. The Federal Government has stepped in to 

help clean up the environmental damage, and the responsible parties set up a claims facility for individuals and businesses that 

were harmed. 

However, more needs to be done. More needs to be done to restore the environment that will be damaged for years to come. But 

frankly, there is already a mechanism set forth in the law requiring the responsible parties to pay for and take care of environmental cleanup. There is no such statutory requirement to compensate for economic damages. There is not a mechanism to restore 

the countless small businesses that have already gone out of business because of the Deepwater Horizon spill. There is not a mechaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\2011\12-7-1~1\71531.TXT JEAN
22 

nism to help the people who lost jobs, lost their homes, lost families 

because of the spill. You either roll the dice with the BP Feinberg 

claims facility, or you take your chances in court. 

The RESTORE Act fixes the imbalance by creating a way to rebuild local and State economies that took such a tremendous hit 

from the oil spill. And the RESTORE Act is the right thing to do. 

It does force the responsible parties to take care of the damage that 

they caused. This damage took place along the gulf coast and the 

fines paid for the damage should be returned to the gulf coast. The 

RESTORE Act will help restore us from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. And I would hope that this committee will take up this bill 

as quickly as possible. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Representative Palazzo, the floor is yours. Welcome. 

Mr. PALAZZO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning about this critical piece of legislation. The Gulf 

of Mexico has been a leader in American oil production for nearly 

75 years. I am proud to say Mississippi has played a significant 

role in the exploration and production of oil and gas in America. 

In fact, Chevron USA operates its largest American refinery in 

Pascagoula, Mississippi. Many generations of Mississippians, including myself, have benefitted from the good-paying jobs provided 

by the oil and gas industry. 

Mississippi has also assumed the environmental responsibility 

that comes with the economic rewards. For decades, coastal residents have lived with the potential and real liabilities of the oil and 

gas industry so our region and the country could prosper economically. 

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 dealt a serious blow to 

our gulf coast environment and our economy. It is now time to 

seize an opportunity to repair and restore not only the damages 

from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, but the decades of cumulative 

impacts we have endured, as a region. The RESTORE Act allows 

us to do this through Clean Water Act fines and not taxpayer 

money. 

Under current law, responsible parties are required to pay fines 

for each barrel of oil spilled into the water. Without congressional 

action, these penalties will go toward unrelated Federal spending, 

and leave the necessary long-term restoration of our environment 

undone. 

The RESTORE Act provides Gulf States with the flexibility necessary to address long-term environmental and economic restoration issues as they arise. The continued environmental deterioration of the gulf coast poses a growing threat to ecosystems that 

support not only the regional communities and cultures, but also 

our Nation’s most critical energy, shipping, tourism, commercial, 

seafood, and other industries. 

Two official reports on the spill, one conducted by Navy Secretary 

and former Mississippi Governor, Ray Mabus, and the other from 

the bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon 

Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, recommended that CWA penalties 

be dedicated to gulf coast restoration. 

23 

The RESTORE Act is a unique opportunity for healing. It will 

help rebuild and strengthen our gulf coast ecosystems, and it will 

also support America’s economic recovery. I strongly believe that 

recovery along the gulf coast can lead to recovery around the 

United States. Many of our Nation’s key economic resources depend 

on the gulf’s delicate and vulnerable ecosystem. A healthy gulf 

coast ecosystem means a healthy American economy. 

Let me provide a few examples. Gulf energy helps power America. Nearly one-third of domestic oil production comes from the 

Gulf of Mexico. Ports and other infrastructure supported by the environment are necessary in keeping this industry functioning. As of 

now, the gulf is home to 10 of our Nation’s 15 largest ports by tonnage, and there is a $621 million port expansion plan in Gulfport, 

Mississippi. 

The Gulf of Mexico produces 40 percent of all commercial seafood 

in the lower 48 States. Our Nation’s seafood industry is clearly relying on a healthy gulf. 

Tourism heavily depends on a healthy gulf. Restaurant, hotel, and other hospitality workers are part of the gulf’s $34 billion-ayear tourism industry. 

Clearly, restoring communities and the environments of the gulf 

is critical to both the Gulf Coast States and the Nation, as a whole. 

It is in our Nation’s best interest that this Congress works diligently and passes the RESTORE Act. There is no time to waste. 

The Gulf of Mexico needs it. America needs it. Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member, and other Members, thank you for your time. I 

yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Representative Bonner, welcome. 

Mr. BONNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee for holding this time-sensitive hearing. And special 

thanks for affording some of us an opportunity to share our experiences and our thoughts with you. 

The RESTORE Act, as has already been noted, is vitally important to both the gulf coast and to our country. And it is the Members who are here today from the five Gulf Coast States of Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and Alabama, on behalf of the millions of American taxpayers who reside on those—in those States 

and along that gulf coast who very much appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of the reasons why we believe this 

legislation is the right solution and the right resolution to this 

tragedy. 

On a personal note, I am also grateful to the committee for giving one of our local leaders, Gulf Shores Mayor Robert Craft, who 

will be in one of the later panels, an opportunity to bring his 

unique perspective, as well. Mayor Craft is one of the many unsung 

heroes from this tragedy, in that he and so many other local leaders helped their communities keep the faith, especially during the 

darkest days of this, which was the worst manmade disaster in 

U.S. history when, as we can all recall, it didn’t seem that anyone 

or anything could plug that plume of oil that was spewing up more 

than a mile deep off the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. 

While unlike the chairman of the committee, who hails from a 

State whose total coast line is more than 600 miles of beautiful 

24 

white sandy beaches, Alabama only has about one-tenth of that 

amount. In fact, even today many Americans are surprised to learn 

that Alabama has some of the most beautiful beaches in the world, 

all of which are located in my congressional district, in southwest 

Alabama. 

But whether along the Florida Panhandle or in communities like 

Fort Morgan, Orange Beach, Gulf Shores, Dolphin Island in Alabama, the beaches along the northern Gulf of Mexico are as unique 

and as desirable to vacationers as any in the world. For generations, the beaches of Baldwin and South Mobile Counties in Alabama have been Vacation Central for Alabamians and for people 

all along the Gulf Coast States. Unfortunately, on April 20, 2010, 

the tragic and deadly Deepwater Horizon explosion changed that 

image in the minds of millions of Americans. 

As oil began to wash ashore weeks later, fisheries were shut 

down. Hotels and condominiums lay vacant. And restaurants that 

were normally filled with tourists in anticipation of a good tourism 

season were empty. To say we struggled to stay afloat during that 

season would be an understatement. But to not acknowledge that 

businesses are still struggling almost 2 years removed from this 

event would be doing everyone who lives along the gulf coast a 

great disservice. 

Thankfully, most of the visible oil has been removed from our 

beaches, and tourists returned to the Alabama gulf coast this past 

summer in record numbers. But for all the great progress that has 

been made, Mr. Chairman, there is still a lot to be done to fully 

heal the scars, and to ensure that future threats to our region will 

be minimalized. 

Members of the committee, the five of us are making the case 

today that there is still every reason to be concerned about future 

economic and environmental impact from the oil spill. A lot of questions still are not answered. And make no mistake. Each Gulf 

Coast State was affected in a different way from last year’s spill. 

Some States, like Louisiana, arguably had more environmental 

damage, while others like Alabama endured significant and adverse economic impact. Our beaches in particular lost at least 1 

million tourists during the 2010 season. And the absence of these 

tourism revenues struck just as our area was trying to recover from 

the worst recession since the Great Depression. 

While we should all be hopeful about the prospects of putting the 

nightmare of 2010 behind us, the progress made toward the cleanup is but a hollow victory for thousands of local businesses and individuals which were dealt crippling blows during a tourism season 

that was a complete loss. Entire communities are still reeling from 

business losses, while the presidentially appointed administrator of 

the BP claims system, Mr. Ken Feinberg, continues to slow-walk 

approval of the legitimate claims payments. 

While that is not what this hearing is about, I for one believe Mr. 

Feinberg’s gulf coast claims facility has been nothing short of a colossal failure, and should be an embarrassment for the Obama administration that set it up. 

That said, bringing the majority of the Clean Water Act fines assessed against BP, TransOcean, Halliburton and others back to the 

Gulf Coast States is only fitting, as our region was uniquely and 

25 

undeniably affected by this tragedy. As those of us who live along 

the Gulf of Mexico already know, our backyard is vital to the economic health of our entire Nation. As Mr. Palazzo and others have 

said, it is home to the vast majority of oil and gas production that 

benefits the entire country, as well as 40 percent of the country’s 

seafood production. And it is a major world-class tourism destination that has economic benefits for the entire country. 

In fact, if the United States Gulf Coast States, our five States of 

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas were an individual country, they would rank seventh in global GDP with more 

than $2.5 trillion annually. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, 

among many others, critical that the Gulf Coast States, which bear 

so much risk, even today, be afforded access to the majority of the 

Clean Water fines collected to restore the damage that has been 

done, and to better prepare our region to respond to future crises. 

I am personally pleased that the five of us and the other Members, in a bipartisan way, who live in the five coastal States have 

worked to support Mr. Scalise and the legislative initiative that he 

helped bring to this table today—and I very much appreciate the 

committee and the Members giving this bill your serious consideration as a solution to a tragedy that should have never occurred. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Representative. 

Representative Scalise, welcome. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, and the members of the entire committee for having 

this hearing. I also want to thank my colleagues from the gulf coast 

for being with us here today. We have all worked hard to bring together a bipartisan coalition of support for this bill. 

I do also want to correct the record. Louisiana won’t even start 

getting revenue sharing until 2017 on offshore drilling, and it will 

be far below the 50 percent that was mentioned. 

But before I begin my testimony, my colleague from New Orleans, Congressman Cedric Richmond, had planned to be with us 

today but had to go back to New Orleans for the funeral of a close 

friend. He asked that I submit his statement for the record. So if 

I could ask the committee to have that statement submitted, I 

think you all have a copy with you. 

I want to thank the committee for taking up our bill today. The 

RESTORE Act will ensure that the lion’s share of the future Clean 

Water Act fines assessed on the responsible parties will be dedicated to the Gulf Coast States that were directly impacted by last 

year’s oil spill. 

On April 20th of last year, the Deepwater Horizon exploded. 

Eleven men lost their lives. And when the Macondo well blew out, 

the largest oil spill in our country’s history ensued. 

We continue to remember those lost in the disaster, and keep 

their families with us in our prayers. The events of that tragic day 

are still felt every single day by the families, the communities, and 

fragile ecosystems all along the gulf coast. 

Five million barrels, over two hundred and five million gallons. 

At its peak, the amount of oil per day that spilled from the 

Macondo well was about the equivalent of oil used by the entire 

State of Delaware each day. For 86 days, oil flowed into the Gulf 

26 

of Mexico, not only devastating the ecosystems of the gulf, but also 

causing billions in economic losses across all five Gulf Coast States, 

shutting down small businesses and destroying entire industries 

for an extended period of time. 

On the third panel you will hear testimony from Mike Voisin, a 

seventh generation oyster harvester who will discuss how the gulf 

seafood industry, which represents a large portion of our domestic 

seafood supply, was essentially shut down for an entire season. 

In addition, when the Government imposed a moratorium on 

drilling in the gulf, even for those companies who played by the 

rules and that in no way were connected to the Deepwater Horizon 

disaster, thousands of energy and service industry workers from all 

across the country lost their jobs, and about a dozen deep water 

rigs left our country for places like Ghana and Egypt. 

Every day people along the gulf coast continue to deal with the 

effects of this disaster. And each story is unique. But one theme 

is constant, and one thing is clear: the recovery of this region will 

take well over a decade. And it is critical that this bill move forward, so that we are able to ensure that when the fines are eventually assessed and collected, that a mechanism is in place to ensure 

that those penalties return to the areas where the disaster occurred. 

As I mentioned, this bill has wide support, not just from members of the gulf, but also for Members of Congress all across the 

country. 

I want to particularly thank Congressman Don Young from Alaska for cosponsoring this bill, the RESTORE Act. He is all too familiar with the decades it takes to recovery from an oil spill. As the 

lead architect of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990—which is the legislation that actually imposes these fines we are talking about—in the 

wake of the Valdez spill, Congressman Young can attest to the importance of this legislation. 

We have also received wide support from a broad coalition of people and organizations in the business and conservation communities. And I would like to submit for the record the support from 

those organizations, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[Letters in support of S. 1400 and H.R. 3096, the RESTORE Act, 

follow. Please see the ‘‘Prepared Statements Submitted by Members of Congress’’ section for the statement of Hon. Cedric L. Richmond, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana.] 

27 


Insert offset folio 26 here 71531.026
28 


Insert offset folio 27 here 71531.027
29 


Insert offset folio 28 here 71531.028
30 


Insert offset folio 29 here 71531.029
31 


Insert offset folio 30 here 71531.030
32 


Insert offset folio 31 here 71531.031
33 


Insert offset folio 32 here 71531.032
34 

Mr. SCALISE. If we look at the Valdez spill in Alaska, what we 

know is that even now, more than two decades later, those communities and the ecosystems that were directly affected still haven’t 

fully recovered. And many of those effects weren’t seen until many 

years later. Just one example was the collapse of the herring fishery in Alaska. The failure of the herring to come back couldn’t fully 

be anticipated for about a decade after the spill. And it is estimated 

that the loss of the herring industry alone has cost the region 

about $400 million. 

The gulf coast will be dealing with similar restoration issues for 

more than a decade. And the ecosystems and resources of the gulf 

coast are of critical importance to our entire country. Thirty-three 

percent of the Nation’s seafood harvest comes from the gulf. We 

produce 90 percent of America’s total offshore oil and gas. And we 

are home to 10 of the Nation’s 15 largest ports. 

Last year’s oil spill jeopardized these assets. And particularly in 

Louisiana, where we continue to lose a football field of our coast 

every hour, the effects of the oil spill exasperated the degradation 

of an already fragile ecosystem which supports the economy and resources all along the gulf coast which are so important to our entire country. 

As history has shown us, after the Valdez spill, the recovery of 

the gulf coast region will take years to accomplish. It is essential 

that Congress work to ensure that responsible party, not the taxpayer—and I think that is very critical to note in this, it is the responsible party, not the taxpayer under our bill—that will foot the 

bill for this disaster and the cleanup. And our legislation, the RESTORE Act, accomplishes that while making sure there is a mechanism in place that allows each State to respond to our unique recovery needs. 

This legislation enjoys bipartisan support, and I look forward to 

working with this committee to pass our bill. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I want to commend you, all five of you, 

for coming before the committee with your testimony, and making 

sure that the damage that was done to your constituents are made 

whole. And obviously, the economic vitality of the gulf coast region 

is very important to the rest of the country. 

So, thank you for being here. And you are excused, and we will 

take a break for just a few moments while our panelists for panel 

two can get to their seats. 

Our next panel, we have two panels of expert testimony. We 

have Mr. Craig Bennett, he is the director of the National Pollution 

Funds Center of the United States Coast Guard. And Mr. Tony 

Penn is the deputy chief of the assessment and restoration division, 

Office of Response and Restoration of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

Mr. Bennett, we will start with you. Welcome, and the floor is 

yours. 

35 

TESTIMONY OF CRAIG A. BENNETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

POLLUTION FUNDS CENTER, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD; 

AND TONY PENN, DEPUTY CHIEF, ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION DIVISION, OFFICE OF RESPONSE AND RESTORATION, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. BENNETT. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, and distinguished members of the committee. I am 

grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today about the 

RESTORE Act. My testimony will focus on how this act may impact the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and the liability and compensation regime established by title I of the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990, open OPA90. 

Whenever there is an oil spill affecting U.S. waters, my role as 

the director of the NPFC is threefold. First, I fund the Federal oil 

pollution removal costs and trustee costs to initiate assessment of 

natural resource damages, using amounts Congress has made 

available from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Second, I ensure 

the response party adequately advertises its process for paying 

OPA90 claims for removal costs and damages. And, if claimants are 

not fully compensated by a responsible party, they may present 

their claims to the NPFC for payment from the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund. Third, I recover costs from any and all responsible 

parties. 

With respect to the Deepwater Horizon spill, costs to the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund for Federal removal activities and trustee 

costs to initiate the assessment of natural resource damages have 

totaled $616 million to date. In addition, the Coast Guard has incurred $272 million in removal costs that were not paid directly out 

of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, but for which the responsible 

party is liable. 

As the responsible party, BP is advertising its claims process, 

and paying claims for damages that result from the spill. In general, claimants whose claims to BP or its gulf coast claims facility 

are denied or not settled after 90 days may present their claims to 

the NPFC for consideration. At the NPFC we have received more 

than 1,500 claims from individuals or businesses. The NPFC has 

paid one Federal trustee natural resource damage assessment 

claim in the amount of $1.4 million. 

To date we have sent the responsible parties 12 bills totaling 

$716 million in Federal costs, due to the Deepwater Horizon spill. 

Of these, BP has paid the first 11 bills in the amount of $712 million in full. We will continue to bill the responsible parties for all 

costs under OPA90. 

The RESTORE Act would, among other things, redirect 80 percent of the civil penalties paid under the Deepwater Horizon responsible parties under section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Under 

the RESTORE Act, these redirected penalties could apparently be 

used for a broad range of ecological and economic restoration 

projects in the five Gulf States. 

The provisions of the RESTORE Act may impact the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and the OPA90 liability and compensation regime in two important ways. First, the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund is financed, in part, from Clean Water Act penalties. The reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\2011\12-7-1~1\71531.TXT JEAN
36 

direction of these penalties would, therefore, be the most direct impact of the RESTORE Act on the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 

Second, there was a potential for overlapping funding by the Gulf 

Coast Restoration Trust Fund of activities that might also constitute damages for which a responsible party is liable under 

OPA90. Responsible party liability includes natural resource and 

other economic damages. This liability is an addition to the responsible party’s liability for any Clean Water Act penalty. 

The potential for overlapping damage compensation could increase the burden on claimants when presenting OPA90 claims to 

establish that their claim damages have not or will not be compensated from the penalty amounts. The potential for overlapping 

damage compensation could also complicate NPFC cost recovery by 

providing the responsible parties with arguments that their penalty payments have been used to compensate the damages paid by 

the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. 

The Coast Guard looks forward to working with the committee 

on these very important issues. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. 

Welcome, Mr. Penn. The floor is yours. 

Mr. PENN. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify on the natural resource damage assessment and restoration planning processes for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as you consider H.R. 3096, or the RESTORE 

Act. My name is Tony Penn, I am the deputy chief of the assessment and restoration division in NOAA’s Office of Response and 

Restoration. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss NOAA’s trustee 

roles in the natural resource damage assessment process, also 

known as NRDA. 

NOAA and our co-trustees have been working tirelessly over the 

last 19 months to assess the ecological and human use impacts of 

the spill and to identify restoration opportunities in the Gulf of 

Mexico. My testimony today will discuss the damage assessment 

process in general, and the status of the Deepwater Horizon assessment and restoration. 

NOAA, along with our co-trustees, is charged with assessing and 

restoring natural resources and services injured by an oil spill. The 

goal of the assessment process is to determine the type and amount 

of restoration needed to compensate the public for injury to the 

natural resources. The trustees also assess the public’s lost use of 

those resources, such as recreational fishing, boating, hunting, and 

swimming. The ultimate goal of NRDA is to implement a package 

of restoration projects that compensate the public for all the ecological and human use injuries. The NRDA process does not address private or commercial economic losses. 

Since the outset of the Deepwater Horizon spill, NOAA has 

worked with Federal and State co-trustees and responsible parties 

to assess the injuries to ecosystem resources of the Gulf of Mexico. 

NRDA studies have been conducted in almost every area of the regional ecosystem. These include science directed at measuring the 

exposure and ecological injuries to resources and habitats in the 

shoreline, nearshore, water column, continental shelf, and deep sea 

environments. Additionally, they include assessing impacts due to 

37 

the acute and chronic exposures of the ecosystem to the released 

hydrocarbons and dispersants. 

Presently, our longest term studies consist of less than 2 years 

of field observations and data, and analyses from that work are 

only now becoming available for synthesis and interpretation. Field 

studies are supplemented by toxicity studies that look at many permutations of exposure to oil in the laboratory, from fresh to weathered oil, and with and without dispersant. The unique ecosystem 

impact of this spill, especially among very long-lived organisms 

such as turtles, tuna, and mammals, means that long-term restoration monitoring will be central to any final restoration plan. 

Concurrent with the injury assessment, NOAA and the co-trustees are planning for and implementing restoration. To date, the 

trustees and BP have agreed to implement several emergency restoration projects designed to curtail further injury to resources. The 

trustees are also preparing an environmental impact statement 

which will identify a range of restoration alternatives that the 

trustees will consider to compensate the public for lost natural resources and services. On April 21st of this year, the trustees announced an agreement whereby BP agreed to fund $1 billion in 

early restoration projects. Public input on early restoration projects 

has already begun, and will continue through this year and into 

next. 

Natural resource damages are one element of liability under the 

Oil Pollution Act, or OPA, that address injury to, destruction of, 

loss of, or loss of use of natural resources. Other elements of liability under OPA include oil removal costs, real and personal property 

damages, loss of subsistence use of natural resources, lost Government revenues that may be recovered by the United States, a 

State, or a political subdivision of a State, lost profits and earnings 

capacity of businesses and individuals, and net costs of increased 

or additional public services—again, which may be recovered by a 

State or a political subdivision of a State. 

As stated in H.R. 3096, the purpose of the RESTORE Act is ‘‘to 

restore the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and 

wildlife habitats, beaches, and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast 

States, and to create jobs that revive the economic health of communities adversely affected’’ by the events surrounding the Deepwater Horizon. Ideally, natural resource damages should address 

restoration of resources impacted by the Deepwater Horizon spill. 

The ecological restoration called for in the RESTORE Act could address chronic non-spill environmental conditions. 

The task of compensating the gulf coast residents and the larger 

American public for the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon spill is 

no small feat. The NRDA process under OPA provides a mechanism to mitigate the environmental impacts of the spill. And other 

provisions under OPA can address other types of impacts. The RESTORE Act is another opportunity to provide compensation in addition to OPA. The mechanisms by which the ultimate compensation is achieved should be clearly defined, and should consider provisions that currently exist under OPA. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on the damage assessment 

and restoration process. 

I am happy to try and address any questions you may have. 

38 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I will start off the first round of questions for this panel. Mr. Bennett, I think currently there is, what, $2.3 

billion in the trust fund. Is that correct? 

Mr. BENNETT. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Has all the cost that the trust fund has paid out, incurred—has been reimbursed from the responsible parties? What is 

the status on the reimbursements and your expenditure so far from 

the spill? 

Mr. BENNETT. We have billed for not all the costs that have been 

incurred, it is an ongoing process of billing. But we have billed for 

$700 million of the Federal cost, which is probably 80 percent of 

the cost incurred. And BP has paid all but one bill of $5 million 

that is pending payment. 

Mr. GIBBS. I am curious—before the spill, historical trust fund 

balance. What would be your historical number? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, the trust fund originally—they called it a bil- lion-dollar fund. It originally had a cap at $1 billion. And recently, 

when the tax was reenacted, the cap was lifted. So it has been 

growing from around—from under $1 billion to the current state of 

$2.3 billion. So $2.3 billion is as big as it has ever been, right now. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. What—I guess we heard in the testimony—I am 

a little concerned if these parties went bankrupt or insolvent, or if 

we had oil from a spill coming from the waters of Cuba, we could 

be liable for it and the trust fund could be really hit hard. 

So I guess for contingency plans, from an actuary standpoint, 

what do you think the trust fund balance should be at, for historic 

levels? 

Mr. BENNETT. That is a great question, Mr. Chairman. For 20 years $1 billion was clearly more than enough for anything we witnessed. But this was the first time we have had a Spill of National 

Significance since OPA was enacted. And in the wake of what has 

been called probably a $40 billion spill, it is hard to say what the 

right amount would be. 

What I can say is the more that is there, the less likely I would 

have to come to you to ask for supplemental funds, should we run 

out of money. But it is hard to put a number on that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Mr. Penn, under this bill that is being proposed, 

would it be possible to use the penalty funds to finance restoration 

projects that are—responsible parties are also liable under the 

fund? 

Mr. PENN. So, in looking at the bill, that is one of our concerns, 

is could these monies, the Clean Water Act penalties, be used for 

restoration that the responsible parties would otherwise be responsible for. And so what we would like to see is that the responsible 

parties are—they fully pay for what they owe under the OPA natural resource damages provisions, and that, you know, these dollars that would be available under the RESTORE Act do above and 

beyond what the responsible party would be liable for under OPA. 

Mr. GIBBS. What role is the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration 

Task Force playing in the NRDA process? 

Mr. PENN. Yes. So we have been coordinating very closely with 

the Gulf Coast Restoration Task Force, and I think we have talked 

with them over the past 16, 18 months now, about how we integrate the damage assessment with the work of that task force. And 

39 

I think all along it was envisioned that the natural resource damage assessment would achieve restoration under its mandates, and 

then the gulf coast task force and their planning was to do restoration above and beyond what we would be called to do under OPA. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I will yield to the ranking member. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To Mr. Penn, you indicated both the emergency and early restoration projects have been 

undertaken with financing from BP. Has BP been supportive of the 

effort? And can you talk more in depth about the benefits that this 

approach could conceivably provide? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. BP has been cooperative. We are working 

on a cooperative damage assessment with them. As I mentioned, 

we are implementing a couple of emergency restoration projects— 

have already implemented. We are working on an early restoration 

plan to start using the billion dollars that they committed back in 

April. 

I think the—for this, for the RESTORE Act, a potential opportunity that doesn’t conflict with what we are trying to do for natural resource damages and the ecological restoration that we are 

doing is—as I mentioned in my statement, NRD does not address 

economic or commercial impacts. And so, in the RESTORE Act 

there is discussion about using funds for promoting the seafood industry, promoting tourism, workforce planning, planning assistance. Those are the kinds of things that we are not—that is not 

part of what we do under the damage assessment process. And so 

I think that might be an area where, you know, you wouldn’t have 

this question about are you letting the responsible parties off the 

hook for their ecological restoration responsibilities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Who then would be responsible for being able 

to address those shortages, those impacts? 

Mr. PENN. I am sorry, who would be responsible for—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. If your agency does not handle those 

particular areas, who then would they be able to turn to? 

Mr. PENN. Those economic impacts? Yes. Well, so that is a good 

question. And, you know, as I mentioned, the Oil Pollution Act does 

have these other elements of liability for, you know, private claims, 

for Government claims. I suppose there could be resources there to 

address some of these issues—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well—— 

Mr. PENN [continuing]. But I don’t know that that is happening. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, Mr. Penn, and that brings up an issue 

that if these people have no redress, because they can go to an 

agency and say, ‘‘No, it is not our responsibility, it is somebody 

else’s,’’ but nobody knows who else, then those people are still left 

holding the bag for something they have no part in, the catastrophe. 

Mr. PENN. Yes, ma’am. And that is why I think that would be 

a fine use of the RESTORE Act, is to focus on that economic kind 

of recovery. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Then the other question, then, the importance—what is the importance of the long-term monitoring, the 

damage assessment process? And is that type of monitoring covered 

under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990? And is there a timeframe 

limit? 

40 

Mr. PENN. So monitoring is very important as part of our damage assessment process. We, as we are charged with making the 

public and the environment whole, we want to—first we have to 

implement the restoration that we think is going to be compensatory. We use the monitoring to make sure that that restoration 

is performing and basically meeting the requirements that we set 

out, so that the public does get back those resources and services. 

In the past, I would say, you know, monitoring has been on the 

order of 5 to 10 years, depending on the area, the kind of restoration that we are doing. I think in this case, restoration monitoring 

will be longer lasting. We expect that, as I mentioned, with some 

of these resources that are impacted, we may not see the effect of 

the spill on those resources for perhaps decades. 

So, as part of our restoration, we plan to do active monitoring to 

see that we are able to restore resources, and to see also if there 

isn’t some latent effect that we might have missed in the early 

days of our assessment—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK, but if this were to take, say, a couple of 

decades, as you are mentioning, would BP still be liable to be able 

to address those events? 

Mr. PENN. Yes. So what we would try and do, as part of the final 

restoration plan, the settlement or the court judgment, we would 

target funds that would come from BP for that long-term monitoring, as part of—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What is there in writing, or—and you can address, Mr. Bennett, if you wish—is there something somewhere 

that really holds BP liable for this extended period of impact? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, ma’am. I can answer that question. Under the 

law OPA90 right now there are statute of limitations for the various kinds of damages. And the statute of limitations for NRD damages is 3 years from when the damage is known. So, in the case 

of NRD that is typically 3 years from the end of an assessment 

being done. And there is no limitation on when assessment can 

take place. 

So if, for example, a certain species showed a problem 10 years 

from now and the trustees needed to start an assessment process 

and study and then come up with a restoration, the statute of limitation would all start from the end of that assessment. So there is 

basically no limit. And the responsible—BP would—and the other 

responsible parties would remain responsible, regardless of how 

long that took. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And they are aware of that? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, ma’am. They are very aware of that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Then, Mr. Bennett, you affirm in 

your written statement that the direct impact of the RESTORE Act 

on the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund would be—that it would redirect up to 80 percent of the amounts gathered through the Clean 

Water Act section 311 penalties. I don’t think you mention that impact would be from the loss of the revenue to the trust fund. What 

would be the diversion of funds away from the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund—threaten the fund’s solvency in the short or long 

term? And would the fund be able to function in the future, much 

as it has over the past 30 years? Long question. 

41 

Mr. BENNETT. That is a good question, ma’am. And the short an- swer is no, it would not affect the solvency. We typically get $10 

million to $20 million a year in Clean Water Act penalties. So the 

amount that we are talking here is a very large amount relative 

to what, historically, has been there. 

But as the chairman pointed out, it is that much—our only point 

is that it will be that much less money that is there for future 

spills, and it is not our—I am kind of agnostic as to how much 

flows into the fund or doesn’t flow, I just want to make sure people 

understand. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, Mother Nature doesn’t count on the 

rules that we set. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for the indulgence. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Landry, you have questions? 

Mr. LANDRY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Is—Mr. Bennett, is 

it my understanding that you have some objection to 80 percent 

going to the Gulf Coast States? 

Mr. BENNETT. I don’t have an objection, per se. I have an observation, if you will, that it potential—not about whether it goes to 

the States, but that the—the diversion of 80 percent—the one concern is that that is less money that is in the fund for future spills. 

And the other concern we have is that the potential for overlapping 

issues with NRD—and I would just hope that we can work together 

to resolve the potential impacts of that, because it could complicate 

being responsive to a particular claimant down the road, and it 

could also complicate potential litigation in the future with ERPs, 

if there is overlap. 

Mr. LANDRY. So your recommendation would not be basically to 

direct that 80 percent to the States. Is that—— 

Mr. BENNETT. I don’t have a recommendation, one way or the 

other, on whether there is 80 percent direction. 

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Penn? 

Mr. PENN. NOAA and the administration support the goals, the 

objectives of the RESTORE Act, of directing a significant portion 

of the Clean Water Act penalties into gulf coast recovery and restoration. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, here is the question. I mean ultimately you 

all work for the President, correct? And I mean do you all normally 

go against the recommendations of the administration? 

Mr. BENNETT. No, sir. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, the administration directly recommended—all 

of his panels directly recommended that 80 percent of the fines go 

to the Gulf Coast States. So what I am trying to get from you all 

is to just echo what the administration has recommended. 

So is that a fair assessment? Could you make that recommendation to us today, based upon what the administration has already 

recommended in their task force? I mean I would like to make sure 

that everybody is singing off the same hymnal. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. It is a good question, Congressman. I don’t 

think either of us are in a position to speak officially for the administration on—— 

Mr. LANDRY. Wow, really? 

42 

Mr. BENNETT. We don’t object—what we are trying to do is make 

sure the committee is aware of the implications of the bill, as written. 

Mr. LANDRY. Did you make—I mean—but evidently—I am sure 

the administration is aware of those implications, and evidently 

has made an executive decision that, you know what, those concerns—basically, directing 80 percent to those States trump those 

particular concerns. And I just again wanted to get everybody on 

the same hymnal. 

Mr. PENN. I guess I would, if I may, say that, again, NOAA and 

the administration support the objectives of 80 percent, or a significant percent, of the Clean Water Act penalties going to gulf coast 

recovery and restoration. 

I think the administration also shares the concern that we want 

to hold the responsible parties liable for what they are responsible 

for in restoration. We want to do the restoration that comes from 

the RESTORE Act in addition to what the responsible parties are 

required to do. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK, great. Thank you. I have another question for 

you. Mr. Bennett, in analysis that you have done to date, have you 

examined the impact on a State-by-State basis? 

Mr. BENNETT. I am not sure I follow your question. When we get 

claims we analyze the merits of each individual claim, and it is a 

very fact-specific—— 

Mr. LANDRY. I mean are you able to tell us, based upon the research and the study that you all have done throughout the gulf 

coast, if you can determine which States have had the greatest environmental impact, up to date? 

Mr. BENNETT. Well, I have information on claims submitted and 

what GCCF reports and BP has—claims paid. I would have to 

defer to the trustees on the ongoing assessment of the environmental impact. I don’t think that is a known quantity at this point. 

Mr. LANDRY. So you don’t have the ability to determine if certain 

States had been affected disproportionately? Like Mr. Bonner said, 

you know, some States from an environmental standpoint and others from an economical standpoint. 

But, I mean, NOAA—to me, NOAA’s main focus would be the environmental impact of the—you know, of each State. And so I am 

trying to determine whether or not you have the ability to say this 

particular area—it may not be a State, it may cross State lines— 

but this particular area was disproportionately affected, versus 

other areas of the Gulf of Mexico. I am just curious, based upon 

analysis that you all have made so far. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I can’t say what is disproportionate. What I 

can say is we have—we can see what—the damages that are being 

paid, and what are being paid and compensated. 

Mr. LANDRY. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Representative Altmire. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bennett, as you 

know, the Oil Pollution Act established finite caps for the emergency fund per incident expenditures and responsible party liability. And in light of the response and recovery costs for the Deepwater Horizon spill event, what is your opinion on whether these 

caps should be revised upward? And if so, by how much? 

43 

Mr. BENNETT. Congressman, that is a good question. We—it is 

hard to say if we will hit the cap. Certainly on removal costs, it 

doesn’t appear to. That has kind of tapered off. There is ongoing 

response going on, but the costs of that are minor, in the scheme 

of things, for the removal actions. BP and the GCCF have paid out $7 billion to claimants already. 

Whether that is enough or not enough, we haven’t paid a lot of 

damage money to individuals, businesses, or States. 

I think the big unknown is the NRD costs. And so far, BP has 

indicated—has paid some of those costs, and has put a billion dollars on the table to start early restoration. But it is a good question, because the amounts that are being talked about for NRD, if 

they were to come to the fund, would exceed the cap. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Now, under the RESTORE Act, which we are talking about today, the funds collected from the Clean Water Act penalties paid by BP and other responsible parties would be diverted 

from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to a new Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund. This fund would then finance a wide range of 

environmental projects to restore natural resources affected by the 

Deepwater Horizon spill. 

However, under the natural resource damage assessments process, the same types of restoration projects could be supported by 

funds provided through a final NRDA damage settlement. Should 

the bill be amended to establish a clear demarcation between the 

types of projects funded through the NRDA and those projects 

funded under the RESTORE Act? 

Mr. BENNETT. I think we would support—work to clarify the differences, and perhaps put a savings clause in or other mechanisms 

to help reduce some of the ambiguity about what might happen 

during cost recovery or claims adjudication downstream. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Penn, do you have a response also? 

Mr. PENN. Yes, sir. I think that would be a good thing to do, to 

make sure that is clear that we are not doing restoration with RESTORE Act funding, that that should be the responsibility of the 

responsible parties. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. And lastly, still with Mr. Penn but I will ask both 

of you. If a responsible party were, in effect, to pay for an environmental restoration of the RESTORE Act, would this in any way affect how much that responsible party might later be liable under 

an NRDA settlement? Should the bill clearly keep these two processes separate for the purposes specifically of liability? 

Mr. PENN. Let me see if I understand. I think that if we—if a 

responsible party—funds from a responsible party goes to implement restoration, ecological restoration, and that is not brought by 

the trustees as part of the damage assessment process, I think they 

very well could, as we go to ask payment for our restoration claims 

under the damage assessment process, they could say, ‘‘Look, this 

area has already been restored.’’ 

And again, I think that is why we have to be very clear about 

what is being done for the natural resource damages versus what 

would be done under the RESTORE Act. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. All right. Mr. Bennett? 

Mr. BENNETT. I would agree. I would add typically there is an 

NRD damage dollar amount assigned to the damage. And so, if it 

44 

is not clear whether they were—the RPs were getting NRD credit 

for what was done under the RESTORE Act, then it is—if the 

trustees came and did something similar, it could be problematic 

in adjudicating that claim, because I have to be able to do cost recovery against those funds. And if the RP goes to court and says, 

‘‘I have already done this,’’ and it is not clear what happened, I 

don’t know how the judge would rule. So that is the kind of thing 

that we are concerned about. 

Mr. ALTMIRE. Great. Thank you both. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have 

a couple of questions, some just in general and some specific to the 

district that I represent, which is a large chunk of the Gulf of Mexico, including the Padre Island National Seashore. 

But I want to first start with the broad national concerns with 

Mr. Bennett. After the Deepwater Horizon spill, I think we became 

acutely aware that as a country we don’t have enough science and 

technology designed to deal with these sort of events, whether or 

not they are the result of a spill, of a U.S. oil company or a company operating in U.S. waters or, worse yet, a company operating 

in the waters of Cuba or Mexico or in the Arctic and in other foreign waters. 

What is the Coast Guard doing with respect to that? Are you all 

spending some money there? What are you all doing? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. As you know, there are provisions under 

OPA, title VII, for R&D. And there are discussions about continuing research and development. And I can take a question for 

the record if there is a specific question you have with regards to 

that. But it is a topic of discussion within the administration. 

[Insert for the record from the U.S. Coast Guard follows:] 

The Coast Guard’s Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Program is currently executing four projects to enhance the Service’s ability to respond to a Spill of National 

Significance: 

• The first project is ‘‘Response to Oil in Ice’’ with the objective to develop equipment and techniques for detecting, tracking, and recovering oil in ice-filled waters. The 

Coast Guard has conducted one exercise in the Great 

Lakes region to examine the capabilities of existing 

equipment and plans to conduct another exercise in the 

Great Lakes region in fiscal year 2012. 

• The second project is ‘‘Recovery of Heavy Oil’’ with the 

objective to develop the capability to detect and recover 

heavy oil on the sea/ocean floor. The Coast Guard has 

conducted some initial prototype testing and plans to 

conduct a field demonstration in fiscal year 2012. 

• The third project is ‘‘Detection and Collection of Oil 

within the Water Column’’ with the objective to develop 

technologies that can detect and mitigate oil within the 

water column down to 10,000 feet. 

• The fourth project is ‘‘Mobile Asset Tracking and Reporting’’ with the objective to develop a flexible, interoperVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\2011\12-7-1~1\71531.TXT JEAN
45 

able communications and information system that will 

assist the Coast Guard, other Government agencies, first 

responders, and volunteers in responding to an incident 

of national significance. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So how much did you all spend last year? Do 

you know that, off the top of your head? 

Mr. BENNETT. I don’t have those numbers handy, but I would be 

glad to get an answer back. 

[Insert for the record from the U.S. Coast Guard follows:] 

In fiscal year 2011, the Coast Guard obligated $1.9 million 

in personnel and direct project costs for the four projects 

focused on enhancing the Service’s oil spill response capabilities using fiscal year 2011 and previously appropriated 

funding. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. How much do you think you need for next 

year, I guess would be—— 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, I am not—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD [continuing]. The followup for that question, as 

well. 

Mr. BENNETT. No, it is a good question, Congressman. But I am 

not an R&D expert. I would have to go back and get an answer for 

you. 

[Insert for the record from the U.S. Coast Guard follows:] 

Of the amounts appropriated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, over $650,000.00 is currently allocated 

from the Coast Guard’s Research Development Test & 

Evaluation appropriation Research and Development for 

initiatives focused on enhancing the Service’s oil spill response capabilities. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And are you aware of—are you all partnering 

with academic institutions and other folks with regard to that 

R&D? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. I—although I am not an R&D expert, I 

do know that the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies work 

with academic institutions on R&D projects, and try to get the local 

people involved, as well. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Mr. Penn, as a NOAA representative, obviously the science is important to you. The beaches that 

are in the district that I represent are pretty much considered to 

be the garbage dump of the gulf. The way the currents work, it is 

going to probably wash up on the beaches of Texas. It is a ongoing 

battle that we fight. And as I think back in history, the Ixtapa well 

in Mexico, it was years after that blow-out that the final effects 

were determined and, you know, tar balls were washing up for a 

great deal of time. 

I have got some concern with some of the time limits and cutoffs in this proposed bill. How sure are we in the science that there 

isn’t just some huge plume there, waiting in the gulf, waiting to 

wash up somewhere? And you know, is there a time certain that 

46 

we are going to say, ‘‘All right, we have pretty much got this handled’’? 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. That is a very good question. I don’t 

think there is a time certain. We are—under the damage assessment process, our intent is to study this until, you know, we are 

forced to bring a claim in a court. The United States Government 

has filed a suit last December, and now we are on a court schedule 

for when we will have to present our claim. Certainly we will study 

as much as we can and understand the impacts up to that point. 

But even after that, whether it is a court settlement or a court 

order, we would—again, as part of our restoration plan, we would 

want to have monitoring to see that there aren’t latent impacts 

that we see some time down the road that—you know, in the settlement context, you know, we would look at a re-opener clause. You 

know, Exxon Valdez, that is something they are going through 

right now. 

So we are very concerned with your point, that we need to understand what has happened over time, the full length of time where 

there could be impacts, and get the public the restoration for those 

impacts. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I guess specifically I am concerned, in this 

act, if we are not careful in setting cut-off dates and deadlines, we 

are not going to be able to address the allocation of those resources, 

property. 

Let me go on and ask you another kind of broad national-significance question on R&D and how this is handled. My—the way I 

look at it, I am afraid we are going to be setting up a bureaucracy. 

I think we have already got seven or eight agencies involved in 

this, as well as the individual States. 

So I guess my first question would be do you have any suggestions on minimizing that bureaucracy and increasing the efficiency 

of how this is dealt with? 

Mr. PENN. So with respect to the natural resource damages, we 

are working as a larger group. I mean we have a couple of Federal 

interests, we are working with all the States, the five Gulf Coast 

States. And, you know, I have to say I think it is one of the successes of what we have done to date, is that we have worked together, we have a trustee council that is shepherding us through 

the decisions that we need to make, working through the early restoration process. 

But you are right. It is a number of agencies and people that we 

have to coordinate. But I think we have done well with respect to 

the broader damage assessment process. I think—you know, you 

asked about research and development. Our office, our particular 

office, the Office of Response and Restoration, would like to have 

some sustained focused effort on some of our oil spill response and 

damage assessment needs. And so if that focuses for our particular 

needs, we are supportive of that. You know, going through the 

Coast Guard may be another way of getting some of this important 

research done. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I see I am out of time. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Representative Southerland. Questions? 

47 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like, if I could, 

to ask that three different reports from Federal task forces be submitted into the record. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Great. Thank you very much. One of the 

things, as a Member—I live in Panama City, Florida. So this morning Representative Miller sat on the panel to talk about the interest of Florida. But I was fortunate enough to work with our spearhead, Mr. Scalise here, in the forming of this. And I had, clearly, 

great concerns. But not only do I feel that we have the responsibility to legislate here regarding this incident, the Deepwater Horizon, I lived through it, because my community is on the Gulf of 

Mexico, and I have nine coastal counties. 

One of the things that I want to make sure—because we keep 

talking about restoration and restoration, and as we talk about the 

RESTORE Act both in this committee and any other committee of 

oversight, I want to make sure that those of us who worked on the 

committee, especially those in Florida, recognize that there is a balance between the environmental damage and the economic damage. 

Now, I know we are going to have another panel after this one 

that will delve into that. But I am fortunate enough, you know, because of—Mr. Farenthold talked about the currents. We benefit 

from those currents, even though he is hurt by those currents, because I live on the Emerald Coast. It has the prettiest beaches in 

the world. So you know, we—our damage was economic. 

And so, when we talk about restoration, I would just ask all 

Members that are in attendance, and those that are perhaps 

watching this hearing to expand the definition and the purpose of 

restoration beyond environmental. It seems like every question 

here today has been focused on environmental. And I am telling 

you that I represent those nine counties. And how the effect of that 

wave of that economic damage went northward, we must also understand that there was significant economic damage to the small 

businesses. Thus, those economic damages continued to compound 

into the local and State governments that—and the cities that we 

live in. 

So—and the environmental cost—or, excuse me, the opportunity 

cost. It wasn’t just the actual cost or loss of dollars, but it is the 

opportunity cost of what those dollars that weren’t there prevented 

us from doing to better the plight of our citizens. 

So that was just a comment. I didn’t get a chance this morning, 

because there wasn’t room on the panel, but thank you for submitting for the record these reports. And I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. That is our questions for this panel, but 

I just wanted to make a couple comments—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GIBBS. Oh, I am sorry. Mr. Young. 

Mr. YOUNG. Just don’t forget me. You know, I used to sit in that 

chair. How time flies. 

I just want to make—I do support this legislation. The gentleman is absolutely right, that the lack of results to the economic 

loss to a lot of our small communities in Alaska—I lived through 

this. And my biggest concern is some of the money that we filed 

48 

against Exxon—it took us a long time to get that money to us— 

I think was misused, not for the communities. We made a big mistake because we set up an organization that supposedly was to address some of the economic issues, but mostly environmental 

issues, and they ended up buying land, private land. That was not 

the appropriate thing to do. 

So, OPA wasn’t perfect. I worked on that legislation. And I would 

like us to look at OPA. I think this is part of the solution. Mr. 

Scalise, I thank you for this legislation to make sure that the communities—because we hear a lot about the environment. 

If we leave God alone, the environment will do what it should do. 

And we will probably mess it up. And a lot of the areas in Alaska 

now, we ‘‘cleaned the environment up,’’ we killed the environment. 

We have dead areas where we use hot steam and soap and all that 

sort of thing. And we should have left it alone. We go out to muddle around in the bayous, cleaning up stuff that you know and I 

know that is natural to begin with, then we have a challenge to 

ourselves. Because are we doing better? I don’t think we are. 

But the people that live there, yes, maybe they will get some 

money if they have a few claims to file. They may get some back, 

I don’t know. Some of them rejected, probably rightly so, but maybe 

not. But we got to look at the total economic package of the coastal 

States, and the effect upon it. And communities, small and large, 

were hurt. The money that comes from the so-called fines should 

not just necessarily go to the Government. 

Now, I do believe the trust fund should be re-established, Mr. 

Chairman, and to a point where there is enough money when 

something does occur. I do believe that very strongly. But let’s not 

forget those individuals. And I think this bill here has got great 

merit. It may have some mistakes as far as, you know, setting 

precedent—I don’t believe in precedent, by the way. Everybody 

says precedent. The precedent is set here in Congress, it is not set 

into law. 

And so, I do congratulate the gentlemen and those from coastal 

States who understand what they are going through and what 

their communities are going through. 

So, Mr. Chairman, as we go through these hearings and find out 

why and yes and no, let’s get a little broader mind. Because when 

we passed OPA, it was the first time we had ever had an incident 

like this. And I take great pride in that bill, although I don’t think 

it is perfect. I think we ought to build on that bill with this bill, 

and we will solve the problem. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 

back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. And I want to thank the panel. I do want 

to make a quick comment. As an outsider from the gulf coast region, I think as an American taxpayer, all taxpayers, we are thankful that the parties involved in this disaster have had the resources 

to make restitution and not put the hook on American taxpayers. 

So thank you for being here, and the committee will be at ease 

while we excuse this panel and bring up the third panel. Thank 

you. 

Mr. LANDRY. [presiding.] The hearing will be in order. I would 

like to first introduce our first—first one to make comments would 

be Mr. Julian MacQueen, chief executive officer of Innisfree Hotels. 

49 

Mr.—I know you got a flight to catch, so Mr. Graves was kind 

enough to let you go first. So that is kind of why we are working 

a little bit out of order. So you have 5 minutes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF JULIAN MACQUEEN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INNISFREE HOTELS, INCORPORATED; GARRET 

GRAVES, CHAIR, COASTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION 

AUTHORITY OF LOUISIANA; HON. ROBERT CRAFT, MAYOR, 

CITY OF GULF SHORES, ALABAMA; BILL WILLIAMS, COMMISSIONER, GULF COUNTY, FLORIDA; ROBERT H. WEISBERG, 

PH.D., PROFESSOR OF PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA; AND MICHAEL C. VOISIN, 

MOTIVATIT SEAFOODS, HOUMA, LOUISIANA 

Mr. MACQUEEN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 

members of the committee for inviting me here today to share my 

experiences with the most damaging economic disaster to take 

place in the United States since the Three Mile Island nuclear 

meltdown in 1979. 

I have been in the hotel business all my life, starting as a busboy 

in the Fort Walton-Destin area at 15 years old, and I founded 

Innisfree Hotels 25 years ago with the development of an 88-unit 

hotel in Mobile, Alabama. I spent every cent I had to open the 

hotel and to develop the property and to hire my staff. My initial 

guests actually had to make their own beds until I had enough 

money to pay the housekeeping staff. 

Today, Innisfree is the largest hotelier in the Florida-Alabama 

gulf coast area, and the largest employer and taxpayer on Pensacola Beach. We own and operate 12 properties with 1,640 rooms 

and condominium units in Florida and Alabama. We employ 800 

people in the peak season and 625 people in the off season. We 

have a combined payroll in excess of $12.5 million. We pay in excess of over $2 million annually in lodging and sales taxes. And we 

pay in excess of $3.2 million annually in real estate taxes and lease 

fees. 

Our beachfront resort hotels in Orange Beach, Alabama, and 

Pensacola Beach, Florida, were at the epicenter of the BP Horizon 

oil spill that hit the Alabama-Florida beaches. I was attending a 

hotel owners conference when the news broke out of the explosion 

and the spill, and immediately rushed home to implement our disaster preparedness program. 

Those of us who live on the gulf coast are well experienced with 

natural disasters. For example, I lost seven hotels in one night during Hurricane Ivan in 2004. And one of those properties was the 

first to open up after the hurricane passed. 

But nothing I had experienced prior prepared me for the oil and 

the Corexit dispersant that drifted unabated from the spill. This 

toxic brew fouled our waters and blanketed our formerly pristine 

white sugar beaches with a thick oil and weathered tar balls. We 

watched with amazement, as did the world, at the lack of a plan 

from BP to control the spill, and later to clean up our beaches. 

Cleanup efforts were initially undertaken by people in blue jeans 

and tee shirts who raked and shoveled the sludge into bags wearing no safety clothing. It evolved painfully slow over weeks of experimentation to finally teams working in hazmat suits with soVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\2011\12-7-1~1\71531.TXT JEAN
50 

phisticated digging and sand and oil shifting mechanical equipment. The airborne fumes from the oil in our waters was so strong 

that it burned the eyes and the lungs, and our hospital emergency 

rooms treated 100 percent more respiratory problems in July of 

2010 over 2009. 

We have had many major oil mats shifting, sitting on the oil of— 

the floor of the gulf, just off our beaches, that even the smallest 

storms wash ashore. Presently, our beaches need constantly cleaning and renourishment. 

This disaster could not have come at a worse time, economically. 

We had just suffered through 2 years of recession, and through the 

first 4 months of 2010 we were bracing for a record year. Unfortunately, however, while the rest of the Nation enjoyed a record summer, we enduring the trauma of a season without any tourists. 

We make 70 percent of our money in the summer. And this hit 

just 1 month away from the commencement of our peak season. It 

was much worse, economically, than a hurricane, which typically 

hits at the end of the summer or early in the fall, after the hotels 

and our seasonal employees have made the money they need to 

carry themselves through the winter. 

The phones stopped ringing as soon as the oil spill occurred and 

the people watched the oil 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, gushing 

to the gulf and floating our way. Our hotel sat at the epicenter of 

the spill coming ashore on the Alabama and Florida beaches. And 

the media coverage went on and on. National TV networks set up 

live broadcasts from our Hilton Hotel on Pensacola Beach, and I 

was interviewed by everyone from Sam Champion to Joe Scarborough, and from the Wall Street Journal, even to Al Jazeera. Our 

beaches were black from oil. The negative publicity was overwhelming and relentless. 

I went into a deep depression, thinking I had lost everything I 

had worked for my entire life. And there was nothing I could do 

about it. I have quantified—we have quantified that the negative 

free media exposure from May to December 2010 for just Pensacola 

Beach alone had an advertising equivalency in excess of $90 million. This is negative publicity. 

We survived by cutting staff and expenses to the bone from day 

one of the spill. Hundreds of conscientious, hard-working employees were denied work in those prime summer months from which 

they made their primary earnings for the year. We were favorably 

surprised when BP stepped up and started immediately funding 

emergency payments. We can argue over the methods, and whether 

or not everyone had been completely made whole by the BP claim 

process. But we cannot argue over the godsend of that initial payment. 

But I cannot stress enough that the long-term impacts of this 

disaster are not over. We have documented that many of our historical core customers have not returned to our hotels. For example, our Pensacola Beach Hilton Hotel has lost over 50 percent of 

the premium Hilton Honors guests. These are premier travelers 

who stay—who can stay anywhere on the points that they earn on 

their travel points program. The core geographic market from 

which our guests come have changed. 

51 

We know that over 50 percent of the gross revenue increase in 

2010 over 2009 from our Pensacola Beach Hampton came in from 

95 markets from which we have never had a guest, while the number of guests from our traditional markets have declined. Many of 

our core customers went to other locations and have never returned. We know that some of our customers went to Myrtle Beach, 

for example, which had a remarkable summer in 2010. 

Along with—although the region was blessed with an above-average summer this year, we remain very concerned that it is not sustainable. This increase, which did not come from our core customers, was primarily driven by advertising grants to local communities by BP. A very sophisticated BP Web site and social media 

campaign involving Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, as well as $170 

million BP spent in national advertising and promotion has helped 

us recover somewhat for 2011. Our convention and visitor’s bureaus received three grants in excess of four times their normal operating budgets. And our guests increased. BP continues to operate 

a very sophisticated Web site and social media campaign, encouraging people to come for visits. 

Full economic and economic recovery of the gulf coast is directly 

tied to the use of monies received from the fines paid by BP for the 

barrels of oil they spilled. We still need beaches cleaned and renourished. We still need better preparedness plans by the oil companies working with the Federal, State, and local governments. We 

still need more research and better methods involved in the identification and removal of oil mats in the gulf before they come to 

shore. We still need more research and a better understanding of 

the long-term impact of our seafood, its ecosystems, and our wetlands. And we still need significantly greater marketing and advertising dollars. 

In conclusion, I urge you and your colleagues to support the Restoration Act. Our States, our counties, cities, and convention and 

visitors bureaus need these funds as soon as possible, and with the 

greatest flexibility, in order to maximize their effect, based on local 

needs. I urge Congress and the administration to make sure that 

the funding from this legislation benefits the full range of economic 

and environmental recovery efforts, such as tourism, ecotourism, 

tourism-related economic development, the gulf waters, seafood, 

and wetlands. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to share my story. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. MacQueen. 

And now Mr. Garret Graves, the chair of Coastal Protection and 

Restoration Authority of Louisiana, someone who I have a tremendous amount of respect for, and understands coastal issues, regardless of whether you are in Louisiana or along the gulf coast. 

Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Congressman Landry, Congresswoman Napolitano, 

thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. It is a 

good seat for you, sir. 

I want to thank Congressman Scalise for introducing this bill. 

But I think it is unfortunate that we have to be here today under 

these conditions, in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill caused extraordinary impacts to 

the gulf coast. Nearly 1,100 miles of the gulf coast and all five Gulf 

52 

States were oiled. Approximately 75 percent of the heavily and 

moderately oiled shore lines were in the State of Louisiana. Further, in the State of Louisiana we have had over 300 marine mammals such as dolphins, whales, and other species that have washed 

up on our shore lines and have been found oiled with fingerprint 

from Deepwater Horizon since the beginning of this oil spill. 

Just last month, Mr. Chairman, we removed 1 million pounds of 

tar mats from one beach in your congressional district that were 

previously unknown to exist. This oil spill is very live, very real, 

and very much impacting—continuing to impact our citizens today. 

This oil spill compounded the extraordinary impacts from the 

hurricanes we have had along the gulf coast. In the last 7 years 

we have had—as I recall, I believe it is six of the most disastrous 

hurricanes in our Nation’s history in regard to property damage. 

And this oil spill has compounded those efforts. 

It is important to recognize that the gulf coast is fundamentally 

different from many other coasts in the United States. The gulf 

coast is a working coast. Mr. Chairman, I know you are aware that 

the five Gulf Coast States cumulatively represent the seventh largest economy in the world. The gross domestic product from those 

five States represents approximately $2.5 trillion. Fifty-four percent of the Nation’s oil, fifty-two percent of the Nation’s natural 

gas, forty-seven percent of the Nation’s refining capacity, and nearly fifty percent of all international commerce comes through our 

gulf coast through our port facilities, where 13 of the top 20 ports 

in the Nation are represented. 

In addition to that, on an annual basis, approximately 1.4 million 

pounds of commercial seafood landings come from the gulf coast. It 

is one of the most productive estuaries in the world, and certainly 

the most productive in North America. 

Mr. Chairman, this area is absolutely vital to the Nation. Even 

on the recreational fishing side, about 31 percent of the recreational fishing trips in the United States occur on the gulf coast. 

And those anglers are so good that they bring in about 44 percent 

of the recreational fishing landings in the United States. 

The RESTORE Act is designed to fulfill recommendations of Secretary Mabus that was appointed by President Obama to develop 

a long-term recovery plan. It is designed to fulfill recommendations 

by the National Oil Spill Commission that was appointed by the 

President and had bipartisan leadership and former Senator 

Graham of Florida and former EPA administrator under President 

Bush, Sr., William Reilly. It was designed to response to the Gulf 

Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force recommendations that 

recommended that these funds be returned to the gulf coast. And 

it is responsive to comments by the President, who endorsed, as 

you noted earlier, Congressman, who endorsed the concept of returning these dollars to the gulf coast. 

I heard comments earlier regarding—and perhaps confusion—regarding the fact that this bill perhaps would cause an overlap 

through existing remedies that are provided under the Oil Pollution Act in 1990. And I want to clarify some statements that were 

made there that I think are very, very important for folks to recognize. 

53 

Number one, if these were duplicative or overlapping penalties if 

they were returned to the States, or if this was an overlapping 

remedy, why would they have been included in the same legislation? Why would the responsible parties be asked to pay both 

NRDA, economic, and these penalties, if they are overlapping or 

duplicative? These were done in the same year. These were all 

done in 1990 in the OPA bill. These are not duplicative. These are 

absolutely complementary penalties that are deterrents from causing environmental damages. I think it is important to keep that in 

mind. They are in the same statute. And so, if anyone would call 

those duplicative, I think that the Congress should review that. 

But certainly that is not the perspective of the State. 

Number two, and perhaps the strongest point, Mr. Chairman, is 

that if these funds are not returned to the Gulf States, that means 

that the Federal Government profits from these funds from the responsible party. Why should the Federal Government profit from 

the gulf coast loss? I don’t think that is an appropriate policy approach. The Clean Water Act fines are complementary to the 

NRDA process. They are complementary to ecological restoration, 

and they supplement that process. They don’t replace; they are in 

addition to. 

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act is an environmental 

statute. These fines are environmental-related. They are based 

upon volume of oil. They are based upon the impact that oil caused. 

And I think that these fines should be returned, based upon these 

environmental impacts, as the spirit of the legislation—excuse me, 

of the law—intends. 

I also heard, Mr. Chairman, that the redirection of these funds 

could cause gaps in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, and I heard 

some very disturbing comments related to that. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is designed to be a gap filler. It is not designed 

to be the bill payer for oil spills. Just like when I go drive a car, 

I have to have car insurance. And just as an operator is out there 

producing energy in the Gulf of Mexico, they should not be producing without the financial resources to address disasters such as 

a spill. And the trust fund was never set up to be the sole bill 

payer. 

Billions of barrels of oil, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas have 

been produced in the Gulf of Mexico without a spill. This spill was 

an anomaly. And based upon some of the analyses that have been 

done, there appears to have been gross negligence on the part of 

the operators, and it appears that perhaps oversight activities were 

not as robust as they should have been. 

I think it is important to recognize the comments that the director of the NPFC made on the second panel. He said that the balance of the trust fund today is the highest it has ever been. And 

this legislation does not take all of those funds. It does provide, 

under a worst case scenario, an additional $1 billion, increase in 

the balance of the trust fund by 50 percent, and perhaps increasing 

the balance of the trust fund by over 200 percent of its existing balance. And it could be more. 

The RESTORE Act—and this is another, I think, issue that was 

confused in some of the statements made earlier—the RESTORE 

Act simply improves upon the existing process known as SEPs, 

54 

supplemental environmental projects. This is a fundamental component of virtually all settlements that are administrative settlements or judicial settlements. These projects are included in settlement negotiations with the responsible parties. They exist today. It 

has been happening for several years, hundreds of cases in all EPA 

regions include supplemental environmental projects. And in effect, 

what this legislation does is it takes the decision for how those 

funds are spent away from the responsible party, and gives it to 

the public, to the State governments, to the local governments, and 

to the Federal agencies that are responsible for the trust resources. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that is really important to recognize, that 

this is not a—that this is simply improving upon the current supplemental environmental project process. And I don’t think that we 

should discriminate against the gulf coast by taking that away. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to note on the behalf of Louisiana 

that the State is committed to investing these resources and resiliency efforts to help ensure the resiliency of coastal Louisiana 

against future hurricane damages and future disasters, to help ensure that the gulf coast may continue to be an extraordinary component of this Nation’s economy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Graves. 

Next, Mayor Robert Craft from the city of Gulf Shores, Alabama. 

You have 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAFT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today. First, let me state again how 

much the coastal residents along the Gulf of Mexico appreciate 

your interest in our region, as you consider the RESTORE Act. I 

believe the RESTORE Act contains requirements for eligible spending, which will ensure the American taxpayer an annual return on 

this investment. 

As mayor of Gulf Shores, Alabama, a coastal city located directly 

on the Gulf of Mexico, we work closely with our sister city, Orange 

Beach, to support and enhance a dynamic beach tourism industry. 

In 2009, we hosted 4.6 million visitors on just 32 miles of sugar 

white sand beaches. This provided direct spending of over $2.3 billion, creating over 40,000 tourism jobs. 

In the pre-spill first quarter of 2010, our lodging tax, the only accurate measure of tourism performance, was up 17 percent in Gulf 

Shores alone, indicating the promise of a record year. If two cities 

in one county with only 32 miles of beaches and in just one of the 

gulf’s many industries had this much at risk, consider the cumulative threat to the thousands of miles of gulf between Florida and 

Texas. 

Ports along the coast struggled during this time to deflect the assumptions by many that they would be closed to traffic. The exportfocused ports along the gulf coast are important to many sectors of 

the U.S. and local economies. Add to that the billions of dollars and 

thousands of jobs created by the gulf’s oil and gas industry, as well 

as the commercial seafood harvesting and processing industry, and 

you understand the value of the coastal gulf to the Nation’s economy. 

On April 20, 2010, with the tragic events resulting in the Deepwater Horizon accident, our world changed, most probably for years 

55 

to come. All of our gulf-related industries came to a halt. Areas of 

the gulf were closed to all activities. Vacations were canceled, jobs 

were lost, and many small businesses with generations of history 

closed. 

As the oil spread throughout the gulf, so did the impact on the 

entire gulf economy and reputation. In South Baldwin County 

alone, tourism dollars in July, our busiest month, were down nearly 70 percent. Also in July, when large areas of gulf waters were 

closed, our seafood landings were down an unbelievable 97 percent. 

Surveys confirmed that 75 percent of people nationwide had significant concerns regarding the safety of gulf seafood. Those safety 

concerns, along with major reputational damage for the entire gulf, 

resulted in many lost customers and business failures. 

2011 was a much better year for our coast. Tourism and seafood 

were beginning to recover. But we all must understand why. BP 

funded $179 million in tourism grants and commitments. BP also 

funded $72 million for seafood testing and additional marketing. In 

addition, BP spent untold millions on protecting their brand and 

promoting their reputation with broad media ads touting the recovery and safety of the beaches and seafood. This dramatic increase 

in marketing is the main reason we had a good 2011. 

2012 and beyond remain a serious question, since no such commitments from BP exist, going forward. When BP leaves, the future is up to us. And there are still many unanswered questions. 

As analysis continues on the safety of our gulf, we wonder. Will 

there be any future unknowns that affect the marketability of our 

products? Will the oil or dispersants destroy our juvenile population of seafood? Will our small businesses and fishermen survive? 

The businesses that are still here—and many aren’t—have seriously depleted reserves. This loss of reserves, combined with damaged access to credit and any future impact, be it more spill effects, 

further economic downturn, or a tropical weather event—and we 

will certainly see more businesses close. 

The entire gulf coast economy faces a continued threat from providing the energy resources that the Nation demands daily. But 

even with this exposure, which has a magnitude that we now all 

grasp, I believe the majority of us on the coast completely support 

continued safe drilling in our gulf, and encourage aggressive efforts 

to create energy independence for our country. 

All we ask is that, as those who are negligent are fined, the fine 

money be directed to the coastal economies that were damaged. 

This will allow us to recover and to continue to generate tax dollars 

each year to the benefit of all Americans. The RESTORE Act contains strict requirements for eligible spending. These appropriate 

restrictions will ensure the American taxpayers will receive an annual return on investment. 

There is no doubt that the gulf coast is of vital national importance. The ports, the seafood industry, the energy industry, and 

tourism all provide benefits to the entire country. It is absolutely 

in the Nation’s interest to ensure that the gulf coast is able to boost 

its resiliency. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

The next panelist will be the Honorable Bill Williams, Gulf 

County, Florida. 

56 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Congressman Mica, and certainly yourself, as the chair, I appreciate the opportunity. My name is Bill Williams, and I am a Gulf County commissioner of a small county located near Panama City in Apalachicola, less than 20,000 people. But I am also the president-elect with 

the Florida Association of Counties, so I have the opportunity to 

work with all 67 counties in the impact to our State, and as a system. 

I have a script that is here, and you all can read with it. I think 

the issue here is that we don’t need a script. I certainly don’t, because we lived this for 2 years, and in the process. I have testified 

in front of Congressman Issa with the Oil Pollution Act responsibility, and how we have been paralyzed. 

If I could take the picture that we have all heard today—and my 

congressman, Steve Southerland and Congressman Miller have hit 

it right on the head—this is about giving us a chance to pull back 

in. This is not a handout. This is not moving dollars that should 

be shifted back into the trust funds there. These five States were 

grossly impacted by the acts and negligence of others. We have 

been held, from the very beginning as local officials, paralyzed by 

OPA. 

Congressman Young hit it very clear to me a moment ago. It was 

what they had at hand in 1990. And there were certainly excellent 

opportunities and things written in that. We have to make the 

changes that make us whole. The folks that I sit beside and the 

folks that are working, everyone is working hard. We have got different trust funds, trustees, everyone working. But what I want 

you guys to—and ladies—to understand is that it is so fragmented. 

Right now, for example, in the NRDA process, if you look at what 

is happening within our States, each State received $100 million, 

each State has a trustee that has the ability to overlook it. And 

they are doing yeoman’s work on that process. As a local official in 

the State of Florida, we have sunshine laws where everything is accountable and transparent. I cannot look at what those NRDA 

projects are behind the scenes, because of confidentiality agreements with BP. To me, that is not acceptable in the process. 

What I ask this committee to do is we understand—I can sit here 

and tell you the oystermen in Franklin County, their resources, 

their ability to make a living were devastated. You have heard this 

from the different Members that are here. I have an aquatic level 

one preserve in my county with scallops, one of the few areas in 

it. As Steve indicated, he has got different counties with coastal 

areas. This is about economics. And you do hear a lot about the 

issues of the different States. Louisiana, by far, took it on the nose 

on the environmental side. My State took 2 million pounds of product in Escambia County, 400 pounds of product in my county. We 

have product. And if we had the last tropical storm—I am still getting tar balls and tar mats that are coming there. 

So, I think I would ask this committee to understand that there 

is a balance between economics and the economy that we have got 

to do. These funds and this transfer of dollars, instead of going to 

the general trust fund, will empower and allow our folks to come 

in. 

57 

President Obama sent in the Chamber of Commerce I would 

probably say maybe, I don’t know, 6 months into the event. They 

did excellent work, drilling down into the counties that I serve 

with. But I don’t know where that data went. How are we going 

to take that template and show that there is no redundancy on the 

environmental and on the economic side? 

But this is an opportunity to put our citizens back to work, protect our shores, and have best practices that never happen again. 

So I ask that you hear our hearts, as much as our dialogue, and 

the fact that we were paralyzed. We do need best practices to review. OPA needs changes in the process that occur. We need these 

dollars to make sure that the research is done. 

All of the services and all of the academia and all of the research 

is very fragmented. There is no central clearinghouse where we, as 

non-scientists, can make interpretations and give to our citizens 

where things are. I hear reports of fish with skin lesions, or I hear 

the shrimp industry is not there. I see what it is. We need your 

support in bringing all those academic and scientific—to come to 

us, where we can make decisions and work with the oil industry 

to have best practices and change OPA, that local officials are 

never empowered. 

But as my congressman said, and certainly Congressman Miller, 

the economics cannot be forgotten here. 

And I appreciate your time, Mr. Landry, to allow me to speak 

from a local perspective, because I think it is critical that you are 

our partner, the State is our partner. I have got a Governor that 

wants to move jobs. And we need your help to be able to do that. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, thank you. And I can tell you—I sit right next 

to your congressman on both this committee and in Natural Resources. And this is something that is very important to him. And 

I believe that he is committed to fulfilling everything that you requested here today. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LANDRY. Next we will have Dr. Weisberg, University of 

South Florida. 

Dr. Weisberg, you have 5 minutes. 

Mr. WEISBERG. Thank you. Honorable committee members and 

guests, it is my privilege to comment today on H.R. 3096. My testimony will be somewhat different, because I am going to focus on 

the Gulf of Mexico, itself. I guess I am going to focus on the 5 percent of the bill, instead of the 95 percent of the bill. 

While the Deepwater Horizon spill continues to be costly, I concur 

with the recent NRC report that the full impacts of the spill are 

unknown, and will be expressed over years to decades. I also question whether H.R. 3096 will facilitate definitive answers to the 

questions being posed. I will attempt to explain shortcomings and 

offer suggestions for improvements. 

H.R. 3096 is precise, administratively, but imprecise on how the 

ocean system works. For instance, fish neither organize like regional councils, nor by State and Federal water boundaries. The 

Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and southeastern United States are not 

separate marine ecosystems, because they are connected by the 

Loop Current, the Florida current, and the Gulf Stream. 

58 

Similarly, while 3- or 9-mile limits distinguish State from Federal waters, fish spend their life histories in both of these regions. 

Ecology is, therefore, all about connectivity, connectivity in space, 

time, and across trophic levels. 

Ecology begins with the ocean circulation, uniting nutrients with 

light, fueling primary productivity, and distributing water properties. This demands that the Gulf of Mexico be studied as a system if we are to better understand how it works, assess damages 

to it, and facilitate and improve environmental stewardship. 

An automobile provides an analogy. With mechanical, electrical, 

and fuel systems, an automobile cannot be fixed if one does not 

know how its pieces work individually and together, as a system. 

Referenced throughout H.R. 3096 are projects and programs that 

would restore and protect natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, 

et cetera. Toward this end, the plan is to incorporate the President’s Gulf Coast Restoration Task Force report, which lists four 

goals and actions. These actions, however, are mostly directed toward regions peripheral to the Gulf of Mexico versus the Gulf of 

Mexico itself. As such, the actions cannot achieve the goals. 

For instance, beach water quality may have nothing to do with 

local inputs. Instead, water quality may be due to the transport of 

materials from points distant from the beach. Red tide offers a case 

in point, as does the movement of Gag Grouper larvae. The reality 

is that few coastal ocean processes are local. Most entail remote 

connections. 

If these connections are not understood, then the goals cannot be 

met. Even the progression of oil deposition on the gulf beaches followed predictable connectivity rules. But these concepts are neither 

included in the task force report, nor in H.R. 3096. Whereas, a robust scientific foundation as referenced, the basis for that foundation is missing. 

The shortcomings discussed above are echoed in the NRC report 

which states, ‘‘A mechanistic understanding of and model for complex linkages and interdependencies of the ecosystem being studied 

would be of immense value in analyzing ecosystem services.’’ 

The coastal ocean is particularly important, because that is 

where society meets the sea. How it works must be understood, if 

we are to predict the consequences of human actions and distinguish these from natural occurrences. Such understanding comes 

through observations and hypothesis testing. Hence the need for a 

coordinated program of ocean observing and modeling. Only in this 

manner will we be better prepared for future accidents, or become 

better environmental stewards. 

Fisheries provide a focal point. If we can understand fisheries, 

then we can make application to other topics. In other words, to do 

fisheries right we must do all else right. All is predicated on understanding how the ocean system works, and the connections thereof. 

The problem is big, requiring coordination between observations 

and science-based models, many of which already exist. Benefit will 

derive from empowering those who actually pioneered such studies, 

and who have demonstrated performance through peer-reviewed 

publications. 

We should sustain and systematically build upon what is scientifically defensible. But I am concerned about the level of fundVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\2011\12-7-1~1\71531.TXT JEAN
59 

ing. Five percent of the trust fund is to be split between the program and the fisheries and ecosystems endowment. The program 

will have five centers of excellence, each with foci within at least 

one of five enumerated topics. But of these five topics, only one addresses how the Gulf of Mexico works. Such dilution will negate 

having enough funding. 

The fisheries and ecosystems endowment is also troublesome. We 

cannot understand the fish by merely studying fish. Instead, the 

fish must be viewed in the context of the system in which they live. 

The problem is one of State variable estimation with the fish being 

but one of many variables, and dependent upon all of them. 

Two modifications are suggested. The first is to increase the percentage of money targeted at sustaining and building coordinated 

observing and modeling elements aimed at determining how the 

Gulf of Mexico works. The second is to remove preconditions, other 

than mandating that monies to be used in a scientifically defensible manner, to be developed by a science steering committee, selected from the academic community, organized through the NRC 

with input from the agencies. Plans must be generated by those 

most familiar with the science. 

I appreciate the laudable intent of the task force, the agencies, 

and the drafters of H.R. 3096. With modification, we can provide 

a lasting legacy of benefit to the Gulf States and the Nation. Thank 

you. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Dr. Weisberg. 

And it gives me a great privilege to introduce one of my constituents from down in south Louisiana, a guy who is right on the coast 

who has seen firsthand the impact of this, not only environmentally but economically as well. Mr. Mike Voisin, Motivatit Seafoods, Houma, Louisiana. 

Mr. VOISIN. Thank you, Congressman. It is nice to have a congressman pronounce my name correctly. It is good to be with you 

today. My name is Mike Voisin. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today on several factors impacting the 

seafood production jobs in my home State of Louisiana. 

In order to give you the most accurate perspective on this issue, 

I will be wearing my business hat. Since 1971 I have owned and 

operated Motivatit Seafoods in Houma, Louisiana. My business is 

an oyster farming, seafood harvesting, processing, and distribution 

company. But my 40-year career in Louisiana fisheries goes well 

beyond that. 

My family came to Louisiana in 1770, after having gotten kicked 

out of France and then kicked out of Canada, and then down to 

Louisiana. And hopefully Deepwater Horizon won’t kick us out of 

Louisiana. I am a seventh generation oyster harvester and an 

eighth generation of my family is poised to take that business over. 

2010 was an incredibly challenging and emotional year in the 

seafood community. We had over 40 closures and openings in our 

harvest areas, and a 90- to 120-day period, moving capital from one 

part of a State to another part of the State with closures, and 

throwing product back after closures would occur on a moment’s 

notice. 

Since 1982 I have served as a trustee for the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation and the Southeastern Fisheries AssoVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\2011\12-7-1~1\71531.TXT JEAN
60 

ciation, and the National Fisheries Institute, among other organizations. The Gulf of Mexico and the State waters associated with 

it produce one-third of all domestically caught fisheries production 

in the United States. And in my association with each of these organizations I have advocated for developing a strong and sustainable commercial fishing community. That is why I am here today 

in support of RESTORE Act, H.R. 3096. 

The Louisiana seafood community has faced its share of environmental and economic challenges in recent years, most notably with 

the horrific hurricane seasons of 2005 and 2008, the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010, and this past summer severe Mississippi River 

flooding. Fishing is a livelihood that has been under attack from 

environmental regulations, natural disasters, and resource depletion. In the absence of concerted action, this oil spill could be one 

of our challenging blows for the fishermen and the processors in 

the Gulf States. 

First, it is imperative to recognize the natural resources of our 

culture and heritage has relied on to feed families for many generations is not something you can put a simple dollar value on. It is 

a tradition that has been threatened. It has forced U.S. fishery production into a downward spiral. In my written testimony I have included two charts provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service that outlines employment in both recreational and commercial 

fisheries across the gulf from 2006 to 2009. 

Secondly, Louisiana’s economy is highly dependent on a strong 

seafood supply chain. And under current law, the natural resource 

damage assessment that has been spoken of today a lot can take 

anywhere from 10 to 20 years before efforts can begin addressing 

recovery needs for our natural fishery resources. This is time in the 

seafood community we simply do not have. 

Al Sunseri, a good friend of mine, owner of P&J Oysters, is also 

a competitor. I welcome his competition to keep our community 

healthy and compete in a global marketplace. But he is struggling. 

He can’t supply all his wholesale customers because production is 

down by an estimated 50 percent. Next year’s projections point to 

an oyster harvest equivalent to 35 percent of what we had been 

producing. His workforce will likely absorb the impact of the decline in sales. Our future is uncertain. 

The only way to move forward is to calm the waters of fear in 

the fishing community, first and foremost by passing the RESTORE Act. The gulf coast claims facility is the first step, but it 

is plainly not enough to help ensure our community’s survival over 

the medium and long term. The RESTORE Act will provide funds 

more quickly to respond to rebuilding those areas that our resources need to be able to thrive, once again. 

At a time when Congress is justifiably looking high and low for 

measures to assist in job creation and generate real economic recovery, the RESTORE Act is a concrete immediate step that could 

be taken to do just that. I urge you to act quickly in the passage 

and implementation of this very important act. Thank you. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Voisin. And I am going to let my 

southern manners get the best of me and allow the Ranking Member, Mrs. Napolitano, to ask the first series of questions. Mrs. 

Napolitano? 

61 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, and that is very kind of you, sir, and I 

really appreciate it. I would like to start off with Dr. Weisberg. 

In your testimony you discussed the need for more monies to be 

dedicated to research and monitoring in the gulf to better assess 

long-term damages and ensure restoration dollars are better spent. 

You also mentioned the preconceptions and preconditions about 

how this money should be spent, how they should be removed. Can 

you explain what you mean in a little more detail? 

Mr. WEISBERG. Yes, thank you. I guess, said succinctly, we cannot restore—when I say ‘‘restore,’’ I see there are two elements to 

this bill. One is economics and the other is, say, ecological. And I 

am referring to the ecological. 

We cannot restore what we don’t understand. We don’t understand how the Gulf of Mexico works, as a system. The science isn’t 

there. The long-term observations are not there. We have no baseline, for instance, of what to restore to. And so I am very concerned 

that the bill has a lot of language like ‘‘ecology,’’ like ‘‘restoration,’’ 

like ‘‘fisheries,’’ but with no definition on how to actually go about 

doing that. 

And given the 5 percent of the monies that are to be apportioned, 

half in one way, half in another way, and a dilution within that 

apportionment, I just don’t see how there is enough money to do 

what needs to be done. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. But I am not sure whether there are any 

universities doing any studies to be able to understand, especially 

along the gulf coast, to be able to have some of that information. 

I am sure some of them have already made some attempt to be 

able to study the gulf, the sea, the things that—because I know we 

have with—for rivers dams, an organization of universities that are 

doing those studies for those. Is there—there isn’t any such thing? 

Mr. WEISBERG. No, there certainly is. I don’t mean to imply that 

there is not. There is. However, the way in which these programs 

are operating are not aimed at determining how the Gulf of Mexico 

works, as a system. They are stovepiped. And so we have never 

really approached the Gulf of Mexico the way it really needs to be 

approached. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. But is there a concerted effort, then, to 

be able to understand? If there is already studies, and you can then 

line up the impact this has had on identifying how it was versus 

how it is and how it should be. 

Mr. WEISBERG. Those studies are going on. But they are not comprehensive enough, they are not sustained, and they are not geared 

to really come up with the answers that we need, going forward. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then I can understand that, because I have 

been involved with other kinds of studies because I am ranking 

member in water and power, and we deal with some of these studies for—through the agencies, Natural Resources. 

But—and I can understand there is never enough money for the 

R&D. That is a given. So somehow we need to be able—I don’t 

know whether this bill has any segment in there to be able to say 

we need to know more about—with the R&D. There is universities 

getting Federal money. Maybe that is one of the things we should 

impose upon them to study, especially those universities that are 

62 

in that area, and then come back and offer—a coalition of them— 

to be able to look at and add to your studies. 

The second question, sir. Can you talk more about the potential 

problems you see in studying fisheries, but not studying them within the larger ecosystem, and how does this affect the value of the 

research that may be done? 

Mr. WEISBERG. That is a very good question, and I appreciate 

that. Fisheries, historically, have been studied not as fisheries 

oceanography, but as fisheries biology. So the fisheries have been 

studied on the basis of the fish, and not enough on the basis of the 

natural environment in which the fish actually make their living. 

And so, I mentioned that the Magnuson-Stevens Act has councils. Those councils have specific regionality. But the fish don’t 

know that regionality. The fish live in the environment. States look 

within 9 miles or 3 miles. The Federal waters go out to the EEZ. 

Every fish we put on a sandwich actually migrates between the 

State waters and the Federal waters. And so the way that we have 

actually been studying our fisheries needs to be looked at again in 

a more comprehensive way, so that we are studying the fish as 

they truly make their living in the environment. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. As an industry, as an industry. 

Mr. WEISBERG. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Because it is an industry. 

Mr. WEISBERG. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Are there any suggestions—very quickly and 

to the point—that you might make to make this bill a little better? 

Mr. WEISBERG. Yes, that is—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Quickly. 

Mr. WEISBERG. OK. I think that we need more money going into 

the R&D. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Mr. WEISBERG. And whether it comes out of this bill or it comes 

out of the NRDA process—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But not split. 

Mr. WEISBERG. Right. And I also would not split it the way it is 

split right now. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. WEISBERG. And I would like to see a different process come 

into place. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. WEISBERG. I was a little disappointed after we met in the 

President’s task force, and—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your answer, and very quickly. 

And thank you for your indulgence. 

Mr. Graves, in your statement you said the RESTORE Act is 

simply taking the supplemental and environmental projects—process under the Clean Water Act, and giving control of that process 

to the States. But as you know, there are provisions in the bill that 

would allow the Clean Water Act fines to be used for that purpose, 

beyond environmental restoration projects. 

If we are talking about using these fines assessed under the 

Clean Water Act to restore the degradation of the gulf caused by 

the Deepwater Horizon spill, then wouldn’t it be appropriate to 

limit the use of these fines, should we authorize it, to environVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\2011\12-7-1~1\71531.TXT JEAN
63 

mental restoration projects, as you described, to protect tourism, 

ecosystem, et cetera? 

In other words, should we not spend this money—should we not 

be spending this money, the supplemental environment project 

money, on things like casinos, conventions, et cetera? 

Mr. GRAVES. Congresswoman, I think you make a very good 

point. And you are certainly more familiar with the sausage-making process than I am. I will just say that on behalf of the State 

of Louisiana we certainly would make a commitment to spend our 

money or limit our money, money’s uses, as consistent with the existing process, meaning we would limit our—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But who determines—I am sorry, but I went 

over time—who determines how that money is spent at the State 

level? 

Mr. GRAVES. As I recall—and I think in the case of the State of 

Louisiana—that would be determined by the CPRA through a public process. The State agency where I work, through a public process. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So there wouldn’t be any legislators taking 

some of that fund to balance the budget and do some other things 

with it? 

Mr. GRAVES. Ma’am, we have done a very extensive master plan 

prioritization process. It is based solely upon science. I couldn’t tinker with it if I wanted to. And that would make the determination 

on the priorities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. That is what they said in California. Thank 

you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. LANDRY. You are welcome. My question—actually, I would 

like to start with Mr. Voisin for just a second, and then I have a 

question for you, Mr. Graves. 

But this weekend I—and as I watched the SEC championship 

game I was able to procure a sack of oysters from a—off of a boat, 

purchased it off of a oyster boat. You don’t—I mean you recommend that the gulf oysters are safe today? 

Mr. VOISIN. Absolutely, Congressman. One of our real challenges 

today in the seafood community is that, generally speaking, the 

Gulf States get it, and they understand that there has been a lot 

of media, post-event, for 2 years—close to, well, a year-and-a-half 

now. But outside of that, the rest of the States have not had that 

same opportunity to keep up on all of the work that has been done. 

All of the seafood that has been harvested in the States was always safe. There were significant closures, as I mentioned in my 

testimony, when there was even a hint that potentially oil would 

be in an area. All of the sampling that NOAA and FDA and the 

States did showed no hydrocarbon level increases at all of any concern that went beyond what would be considered an action level. 

So, oysters, crab, shrimp, fish from the Gulf of Mexico are safe, 

they are high-quality, they are available. And the challenge today 

is getting back out in America and helping those individuals who 

have kind of shied away from it, remind them that it is a healthy 

way to go, and to eat more seafood from the gulf coast. 

We are working at that. Congress gave a few dollars to the Gulf 

States Marine Fisheries Commission. We set up a Gulf States seafood and marketing coalition that I chair, and we are trying to reVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\2011\12-7-1~1\71531.TXT JEAN
64 

integrate ourselves back into the national market. But it has been 

a real challenge, Congressman. 

Mr. LANDRY. And, of course, the viability of the commercial fishing industry, which—you know, I think it is important to recognize—and it has bene said multiple times—the importance of the 

gulf coast economy to the rest of the Nation when, in fact, 30 percent of our domestically caught seafood comes out of that area. I 

mean that is a third of all of our seafood out of a relatively small 

area. 

And so, I am sure that you are here today because you feel that 

this bill helps not only to move in a direction of restoration, but 

continued viability for both the seafood industry and seafood living 

in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. VOISIN. Yes, sir, Congressman. And as I said, you know, our 

family left France and some of them went to Canada and some of 

them came straight to Louisiana. We really don’t want to leave 

Louisiana. One of our challenges is Louisiana is leaving us. And if 

we don’t implement a lot of the restoration that is needed today in 

Mr. Graves’s master plan, Louisiana will leave us. 

And what will that do? That—most of the seafood that is produced in the whole Gulf of Mexico spends part of its life in the estuaries of south Louisiana. So that means that the food that feeds 

America, or part of the food that feeds America, will not be able 

to be produced, as we lose that coastal estuary. We need to restore 

it and maintain it, so that we can provide that viable seafood production in south—in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Mr. LANDRY. Well, I thank you. I have eaten my oysters last 

week, I am going to have shrimp stew this week. 

Mr. Graves, could you expand your comment on gap—the gap 

filler comment that you had made earlier? 

Mr. GRAVES. Yes, sir. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, I—it is 

our view that it is not designed to be the single bill-payer for—in 

response to oil spills. I mean that is the responsibility of the responsible party. That is the liability of the responsible party. 

I think just as if my neighbor was carrying out some irresponsible activities and had threatened to burn down my house, I 

wouldn’t sit there and stockpile money in a fund, ready to respond 

to my house burning down. 

Just as—let me put it this way. I mean the Cuba comment was 

brought up earlier. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the funds 

are in there derived from domestic producers. I don’t know that it 

is their liability for what goes on in Cuba. And I think an analogy 

there would be that we have a threat from an ICBM being 

launched from China to the United States. We don’t sit there and 

put money in a trust fund, waiting to come in and clean up the 

damage from the missile. Instead, what we do is we have bilateral 

negotiations. We take proactive steps, in terms of missile defense 

systems or regulatory oversight, in the case of offshore production. 

And I think that you have a deterrence issue, as well, and I 

think that is the—in the case of domestic production, the fines. 

The reality is that the best use of those funds is making 

proactive mitigation investments. And that is what this bill is trying to do. And in the case of Louisiana, we want to restore our 

coast, we want to restore the fragmented marsh, so if there is anVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:53 Aug 27, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\2011\12-7-1~1\71531.TXT JEAN
65 

other spill or another hurricane, we are not going to have the damage that we are currently experiencing from the Deepwater Horizon 

disaster. 

Mr. LANDRY. And one last comment before we just—we wrap up. 

Isn’t it correct that putting these projects into play, especially in 

Louisiana, would help to further protect and make future—and 

hopefully we don’t have to use that term ‘‘future spills,’’ no one 

wants spills to happen again—but should there—an accident, and 

we can’t guarantee that it won’t happen again—but if we spend 

this money wisely and implement the projects properly, we can actually help mitigate future cleanups through proactive means. 

Mr. GRAVES. There is no question. I am trying to remember the 

exact number, but if you measure our coastline smoothly from 

Texas to Mississippi, it is about 800 miles. If you measure the tidal 

shoreline, meaning all the erosion—eroded coastline that has occurred in your district, Congressman, we actually have 7—800 

miles of tidal shoreline, because of this gross erosion, this coastal 

wetlands loss that has occurred. 

And so, when the oil spill came, we weren’t fighting the oil or 

trying to stop the oil on 800 miles. We literally were trying to come 

in and protect 40 million feet of shoreline. There is not 40 million 

feet of boom in the world. And so you are exactly right. 

And that is how Louisiana is committing to invest these dollars, 

is to restore our coast, and to put it back in a more uniform manner that would help to mitigate damages from future spills—and 

hurricanes, by the way. 

Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Graves. And I would like to again 

thank the panel for taking the time out of their busy day to come 

here and give us your testimony. 

And this committee will now stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

66 


Insert offset folio 33 here 71531.033
67 


Insert offset folio 34 here 71531.034
68 


Insert offset folio 35 here 71531.035
69 


Insert offset folio 36 here 71531.036
70 


Insert offset folio 37 here 71531.037
71 


Insert offset folio 38 here 71531.038
72 


Insert offset folio 39 here 71531.039
73 


Insert offset folio 40 here 71531.040
74 


Insert offset folio 41 here 71531.041
75 


Insert offset folio 42 here 71531.042
76 


Insert offset folio 43 here 71531.043
77 


Insert offset folio 44 here 71531.044
78 


Insert offset folio 45 here 71531.045
79 


Insert offset folio 46 here 71531.046
80 


Insert offset folio 47 here 71531.047
81 


Insert offset folio 48 here 71531.048
82 


Insert offset folio 49 here 71531.049
83 


Insert offset folio 50 here 71531.050
84 


Insert offset folio 51 here 71531.051
85 


Insert offset folio 52 here 71531.052
86 


Insert offset folio 53 here 71531.053
87 


Insert offset folio 54 here 71531.054
88 


Insert offset folio 55 here 71531.055
89 


Insert offset folio 56 here 71531.056
90 


Insert offset folio 57 here 71531.057
91 


Insert offset folio 58 here 71531.058
92 


Insert offset folio 59 here 71531.059
93 


Insert offset folio 60 here 71531.060
94 


Insert offset folio 61 here 71531.061
95 


Insert offset folio 62 here 71531.062
96 


Insert offset folio 63 here 71531.063
97 


Insert offset folio 64 here 71531.064
98 


Insert offset folio 65 here 71531.065
99 


Insert offset folio 66 here 71531.066
100 


Insert offset folio 67 here 71531.067
101 


Insert offset folio 68 here 71531.068
102 


Insert offset folio 69 here 71531.069
103 


Insert offset folio 70 here 71531.070
104 


Insert offset folio 71 here 71531.071
105 


Insert offset folio 72 here 71531.072
106 


Insert offset folio 73 here 71531.073
107 


Insert offset folio 74 here 71531.074
108 


Insert offset folio 75 here 71531.075
109 


Insert offset folio 76 here 71531.076
110 


Insert offset folio 77 here 71531.077
111 


Insert offset folio 78 here 71531.078
112 


Insert offset folio 79 here 71531.079
113 


Insert offset folio 80 here 71531.080
114 


Insert offset folio 81 here 71531.081
115 


Insert offset folio 82 here 71531.082
116 


Insert offset folio 83 here 71531.083
117 


Insert offset folio 84 here 71531.084
118 


Insert offset folio 85 here 71531.085
119 


Insert offset folio 86 here 71531.086
120 


Insert offset folio 87 here 71531.087
121 


Insert offset folio 88 here 71531.088
122 


Insert offset folio 89 here 71531.089
123 


Insert offset folio 90 here 71531.090
124 


Insert offset folio 91 here 71531.091
125 


Insert offset folio 92 here 71531.092
126 


Insert offset folio 93 here 71531.093
127 


Insert offset folio 94 here 71531.094
128 


Insert offset folio 95 here 71531.095
129 


Insert offset folio 96 here 71531.096
130 


Insert offset folio 97 here 71531.097
131 


Insert offset folio 98 here 71531.098
132 


Insert offset folio 99 here 71531.099
133 


Insert offset folio 100 here 71531.100
134 


Insert offset folio 101 here 71531.101
135 


Insert offset folio 102 here 71531.102
136 


Insert offset folio 103 here 71531.103
137 


Insert offset folio 104 here 71531.104
138 


Insert offset folio 105 here 71531.105
139 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 106 here 71531.106