Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to enter their remarks into the Record on this topic of the gulf oil spill.

I appreciate the opportunity to anchor this special hour tonight. My name is Congresswoman Laura Richardson, and I represent California's 37th Congressional District which includes the cities of Long

Beach, Compton, Carson, and Signal Hill. It's adjacent to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, the largest port complex in the United States and the third-largest in the world.

For starters tonight, I want to take a look at what we're going to talk about in the report that I've prepared to present to the American people. As a Member of Congress, I'm a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and I'm the subcommittee chair of Emergency Communications, Preparedness and Response, and so because of that, I felt it was important to share with the American people the information and the observations of what I'm now calling the people's Congress.

I'm here tonight to present to the United States Congress and the American people my report, my observations, and my recommendations regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It includes the responses that have been taken and the recovery that's needed for us to move forward.

So let's start with what happened back on April 20 at 10 p.m. Tragedy struck in the Gulf of Mexico. Just 42 miles from the population of the people in Venice, Louisiana, there was a fire, there was an explosion, and the Deepwater Horizon oil rig began to be engulfed in flames. After trying to quench the flames, people came from all over the country, even Holland, attempting to figure out how to put the fire out on this rig. After spending much time and much energy, 115 crewmembers were rescued and evacuated.

Eleven crewmembers, unfortunately, tragically died. These eleven men lost their lives: Jason Anderson, Dale Burkeen, Donald Clark, Stephen Curtis, Gordon Jones, Roy Wyatt Kemp, Karl Kleppinger, Blair Manual, Dewey Revette, Shane Roshto and Adam Weise. These 11 gentlemen were men. They were men who were fathers, brothers, sons, and uncles, and on behalf of myself and the House of Representatives and Americans, we express our prayers to their families and friends and commit to study the situation and not to repeat it again in the future.

So, in order for us to do that, we first have to understand what is the magnitude of this problem. Throughout the evening on April 20 and into the next day, gallant efforts were made, as I mentioned, to still save, even into the second and third day, the 11 missing men and to put out the fire that could be seen for miles. The men who were coming to put out this fire, they could see the fire on this rig for 2 hours prior to getting to the actual site. That's how large it was. Some say the fire was as high as 200 feet into the air.

So 2 days later, after they made very many attempts to be able to put the fire out, the heat was just entirely too hot and the metal began to collapse, and the platform and the rig collapsed, 5,000 feet to the floor of the ocean.

As the fire began to subside on April 24, just two short days later, it was reported that oil was flowing into the ocean at a rate of at least 5,000 barrels per day. The United States has over 63,000 Federal onshore oil and gas wells. Having leaks and spills is also not something new to our country, but what is is the size and the magnitude.

Since 1990, there have been a total of 5,601 major pipeline incidences reported. That represents over $4 billion in damage. Previously reported, the worst spill was in 1989 by the Exxon Valdez in Bligh Reef, in Prince William Sound, Alaska. The flow rate technical group of the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Exxon Valdez spilled approximately 750,000 barrels of oil. Now, let's put that in perspective.

The oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon has continued for over 80 days, although it has passed at this point, and it is believed that the Deepwater Horizon will supersede the Valdez by several times. How could that be? If the Deepwater Horizon is leaking at anywhere between 10,000, as has been reported, and as high as 65,000 barrels a day, and if you multiply that by a minimum of 80 days, you're talking about a range of 800,000 to 4.8 million barrels of oil.

Now, the Deepwater spill took place 42 miles from Venice, Louisiana, which has 572 miles affected out of 7,721 miles. Those are shoreline miles, and so what that's saying is the impacted area is approximately 7.4 percent. In Mississippi, they have over 108 miles that are affected out of 359 total tidal shoreline miles, which brings it at approximately 30 percent. Alabama has over 67 miles of coastline affected out of 607 total tidal shoreline miles, approximately 11 percent. And Florida has over 69 miles affected out of 5,095 total tidal shoreline miles, approximately 1 percent.

So when we consider the damages that have happened so far with this Deepwater Horizon spill, some of the damages that are caused are to the beaches that we will talk about tonight, to fish, to birds, the environment, other wildlife, the ecosystem, tourism and the economy, marine life, livelihoods, jobs, lost productivity, and let's not forget public health.

In light of the loss of life, the unusual depth of drilling, and the immediate disaster implication, responses from all levels were immediately activated. President Obama and the administration, through working with the U.S. Coast Guard, is historically the primary responder to U.S. coastal waters. The U.S. Coast Guard responded to the BP oil spill within hours. The Coast Guard began immediately operating an emergency search-and-rescue mission.

Leadership was established on April 21, less than 1 day later. On April 21, a day after the explosion, pursuant to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Rear Admiral Mary Landry was made Federal on-scene coordinator.

On April 22, less than 2 days later, after the explosion, the national response team, led by Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, was activated along with additional regional response teams. These regional response teams are formed for many reasons. The teams typically include a United States Coast Guard representative, someone from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior and State and local representatives. The purpose of these regional response teams is to coordinate, to partner, to communicate, and to respond.

The regional response teams began developing plans, providing technical assistance and access to resources and equipment from its member agencies, as well as overseeing BP's response. Some workers, like Jay Harper from the Department of Homeland Security, have been working since day one, which is now 91 days straight, in response to the Deepwater Horizon spill. In this picture you see Jay and I viewing the source site, and he's pointing out information to me of where the actual source is, where the burns are taking place, and the whole aspect of what we could view from the plane.

On April 23, an incident command system stood up and was in accordance with the national response framework and the NCP. The purpose of the incident command system is to provide a common method for developing and implementing tactical plans to efficiently and effectively manage a multiagency response, and certainly this was it. The ICS organization for this response included incident command posts and unified commands at the local level, as well as a unified command at the regional level.

The next step was on April 29, just 9 days from the explosion, Secretary Napolitano designated the oil spill as a spill of national significance. This designation enabled Secretary Napolitano to appoint then U.S. Coast Guard Commander Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident Commander, the lead national coordinator in charge of Federal efforts.

On May 21, 2010, President Obama issued an Executive order creating the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling to respond to this spill. Further, President Barack Obama simultaneously has made four trips to the gulf to oversee the spill and to supervise the cleanup efforts.

On June 9, The New York Times reported that Rear Admiral James A. Watson, the on-scene coordinator of the Unified Command overseeing the response effort, wrote to British Petroleum, giving the company 3 days to provide plans. Among the requirements are that any new method, most importantly, that would contain the leak would be devised to reduce disruptions from a potential hurricane, which we are now approaching that season.

The letter came amid continuing questions about how much of the leaking oil was being captured by BP's latest containment effort, what we now know to be called the top hat. Also, there were questions of whether the company could be collecting more and what other processes could be used.

Finally, there were concerns about whether BP had failed to provide enough surface equipment. So when I had an opportunity to go to the gulf, and having read all of this, these were the things that I wanted to see. When you look at the source site of the Deepwater Horizon spill, what you will notice is there are multiple platforms, multiple vessels that are used to all coordinate in one sync to eliminate the gushing of oil that was coming into the gulf. And this was the scene that I saw just 1 week ago.

So when Rear Admiral Watson directed his letter, the things that he wanted to make sure that we were considering is incorporating the hurricanes, because the gulf is very much an area--as you can see, the waters are very calm here, but given very high winds and higher seas, these platforms and these vessels could easily be submerged as well.

When we talk about some of the things that have been done and when we look at the cleanup, 5.4 billion barrels were spilled into the gulf it is potentially believed; 2.6 million barrels were either evaporated or degraded; 823,000 barrels have been siphoned, and these are some of the various devices that helped to do this; and 262,000 barrels have been burned off, which is what you see of this flame. This is not the rig on fire. The rig had already collapsed into the ocean. This is to be able to pull the oil and to be able to burn the excess area, and 100,000 barrels have been skimmed.

Now, when we go to June 15, 2010, President Obama used his first Oval Office speech to address the Nation for 18 minutes and to talk about the oil spill that was carried on prime-time television to many TV networks. President Obama emphasized that we will fight the spill with everything we have got for as long as it takes.

When I participated in a hearing just a couple weeks ago, that was the question that the mayor asked us, Will you be here for as long as it takes? President Obama also said that he wanted to make sure that BP paid for the damages that had been caused, and he also stated that whatever was necessary to help the gulf coast and its people recover from this tragedy, we would do.

On June 16, 2010, BP agreed to create an independent $20 billion fund to pay the claims arising from the oil spill. The company also said it would suspend paying dividends to its shareholders for the rest of the year and would compensate workers for their lost wages.

Now, let's talk about the congressional action and the things we have done in this House in relation to the Deepwater oil spill. In relation to the administration's response, Mr. Speaker, Congress has taken significant actions since the oil spill to respond to this crisis.

Over the last 93 days, the U.S. Congress and the Senate have conducted over 24 Washington, D.C. hearings. We have conducted two field hearings, 75 on-site Member of Congress or Senate visits. H.R. 5503, the SPILL Act, last month was passed by the House, and it was passed in order to reform maritime liability laws.

Those laws were impacted by the Death on High Seas Act, the Jones Act, which we have heard much discussion about, and the Limitation on Liability Act. This bill is intended to ensure that the families of those who were killed or injured in the BP spill and other such tragedies are justly compensated for their losses.

On July 1, this House passed the 2010 supplemental appropriations bill, which includes aid measures requested by the Obama administration in response to this disaster. Included in this bill was funding for agencies that are working in the gulf to monitor the water, the air quality, the seafood safety, and worker health.

The bill also extends the time that the Secretary of the Interior would have to review an offshore drilling application. Current law only allows the Secretary 30 days to review the process, which is way too short of a time to complete a full review of increasingly complex drilling plans associated with deepwater drilling.

Then, H.R. 5481 was passed by this House to give subpoena power to the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. This is a bipartisan commission that our President formed. It's chaired by former Senator Bob Graham of Florida and former EPA Administrator William Reilly, and it was established on May 22. Its task is providing recommendations on how we can prevent future spills from originating from offshore drilling and mitigate any impact.

Then we have gone to S. 3473, which is access to the trust fund, and it impacts the liability trust fund. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that we have the tools necessary to respond to the BP oil spill. Last month, Congress passed S. 3473 to permit the Coast Guard to obtain one or more advances from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to underwrite Federal responses and activities related to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Under the law, the Coast Guard can only withdraw up to $100 million from the fund to finance emergency response efforts. After an accident and that money has run out, that can become a problem.

The trust fund was created by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and is funded by an 8-cent fee that is paid by all of the oil companies on each barrel of oil. This legislation has been signed by the President.

Finally, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. That act was passed and the House enabled it so that it would protect the coastal economies by ensuring that oil companies would pay to strengthen the solvency of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund instead of passing the buck onto the taxpayers. That measure will raise the fee of oil companies that they will pay per barrel and increase the current $1 billion cap on individual claims against the fund to $5 billion, and increase the $500 million cap on natural resource damages assessment to $2.5 billion. Currently the trust fund has a balance of roughly $1.6 billion.

Now, let's talk about my observations. We have talked about the tragedy that happened. We have talked about what the administration has done, and we have talked about what Congress has done in terms of legislation.

So now let's talk about some of the things that I've seen.

I've made two trips to the gulf. Both trips were with the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Committee of Government Oversight and Emergency Preparedness and Response. After viewing the news updates, I'll be honest, I anticipated seeing thousands and thousands of miles of oiled water. I expected to see every marsh covered in oil. I expected to see birds everywhere covered in oil. I expected to see sandy beaches covered in oil. And I expected to see no fishermen allowed to fish, and certainly no New Orleans businesses.

Indeed, it is true, over 500 miles of oil has gone onto the beaches in the gulf. This is a picture that shows the work that was done on the beaches. Now, you can actually see the work area in that far right section. You can see the booms that have been laid out. You can even see the restroom for the workers to be able to use as they clean the beaches. So you can see the booms, the nets, and even on this farther picture, you can see where the previous oil had gone across on the beaches. There are 3,617 birds have been rescued, 2,333 birds died, thousands of fishermen have been without work. And an 83,927 mile area has been disallowed for fishing.

The destruction has been immense, and the final estimates are far from being in. However, many of the challenges involved in reporting and responding have been overcome in the last 40 days. That's why I wanted to speak today, because I've been watching the news on a regular basis, hearing every single night of the individual incidents that have occurred, but we've heard very little about what our government and our representatives and the people who have been working every day have been doing.

Typically what happens on a daily basis is the planes go out, they survey the area, and they look at their various radar to see where the oil spill locations are. Once they observe them from

the air, they send the boats out, which then move forward and put the various booms out to either do burning or skimming. And then you also have some of the things that many of the elected officials in the local area had asked for, and that was the dropping of the sandbags. You can see this area where the sandbags were put in to prevent the oil from coming into the marsh area. Also, if you look very closely here, you will see the booms that were set in order to prevent the oil from coming into this marsh area.

Men and women are working around the clock. The administration has authorized and deployed 17,500 National Guard troops of which 1,580 have been activated. Approximately 45,000 personnel are currently responding to protect the shoreline and the wildlife and cleanup of our vital coastlines. And while there have been delays in equipment supply, the Coast Guard and Federal Government have been diligent in working to get the equipment that we need.

More than 6,800 vessels have responded on site, including skimmers, tubs, barges, and recovery vessels, all set to assist in the containment and the cleanup effort. In addition, hundreds of aircraft make the trip daily, as I said, remotely operated vehicles, and multiple mobile offshore drilling units to be able to clean up the disparate oil that has hit our shores.

Currently, approximately 572 miles of the gulf coast shoreline has been affected directly by the oil spill; approximately 328 miles in Louisiana, 108 miles in Mississippi, 67 miles in Alabama, and 69 miles in Florida. What many hardworking people have done is to set up 17 staging areas to protect many of our sensitive shoreline areas. This is an area where you can see actual workers where they go out; they actually go into the marsh area. You can see the pattern of where the oil has come in and where they're working to actually remove the oil. You also can see at this point some of the different--this is a boom that they're using in this area, and you can see inside in the marsh area where there is a tremendous amount of oil that had been spilled, but on the inner part it is still green and we hope will still survive.

Approximately 83,927 square miles of Gulf of Mexico Federal waters remain closed to fishing in order to balance the economic and public health concerns. We hope that soon those areas will be open once we can validate that in fact the fish that are living there that would be fished will be safe for consumption for people to eat.

Now, what was interesting to me is that when I was watching all the news about the oil spill, I just simply didn't understand why they didn't just put a boom around the entire source site. It seemed to me it wasn't that big and it would have prevented the oil from going to all these other States that we've talked about. Well, this is why--and I had no idea, and this is why I wanted to be here tonight so we could educate the American public because we're not seeing this on the news of why just having more boom is not fixing the problem.

When you look at the boom here, you can see that just by a simple small wave of not even one foot actually goes over and covers the boom area. So that's why whether you have six miles of boom or 10 miles of boom, it can only cover so much. Now, here you have workers who were actually collecting the boom that has collected some of the oil, and we can see how it has worked. But unfortunately it takes a lot of boom, and it takes completely replacing it.

More than 3.2 million feet of containment boom and 6.6 million feet absorbent boom have been deployed to contain the spill, and approximately 875,000 feet of containment boom remain. So as they watch where the oil is moving, they will have boom to move to that section.

One of the things I heard a lot about was something called ``the whale.'' They said it's large, it's from Taiwan, and it would be able to pick up all of the oil. This is a picture of the whale, as they call it. And as you can see here, here is some of the oil that the whale is picking up. Now, this whale is 1,150 feet long. It's quite an amazing site, but it's only one indication of the 20-plus international partners that we have had that the administration has been able to leverage with assets and skills from numerous foreign countries and international organizations as a part of this historic all-hands-on- deck response. Some of those countries are Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Russia, Spain, Tanzania, United Kingdom, United Nations International, and then some.

So let's talk a little bit more about some of the particular sites. You're seeing kind of the aerial view, but we had an opportunity to actually go to some of the parishes and to see some of the impacted areas in addition to the marsh area. One of the places we went to was St. Tammany Parish. I visited this area, and they already had an operating emergency operation center, and there I met Commander Dan Precourt. Commander Precourt is the parish liaison officer for St. Tammany Parish. His position is important because what we learned from Hurricane Katrina, one of those most important lessons, was that there simply was not enough communication between local officials and the public during that disaster. But at the St. Tammany Parish Emergency Operation Center, there is a Coast Guard liaison, there is Commander Precourt, as well as a representative from BP, and many other people who are working there, working together to talk about how the agencies can solve this problem.

The public liaisons are meeting with someone face to face so that they can respond to their problem or can direct them to someone who can. Support is coming from California, Alaska, Massachusetts, and many other States. What I found interesting that we don't hear so much about with this whole spill situation is that these people are working 7 days a week, oftentimes coming in at 6 a.m., leaving anywhere between 9 and 10 p.m., and many of them actually worked on Father's Day.

I was there on Sunday evening at about 8 o'clock, and there were still over 10 people there, working.

Tammany Parish is not one of the centers of the oil spill. In fact, it was particularly alarming to me, because I have friends and know people from Louisiana, when I heard that oil was found at Lake Pontchartrain. I thought, ``Oh, no.'' Most people know and enjoy the area of Lake Pontchartrain, but fortunately and actually--and what wasn't told and why we wanted to talk about this tonight--oil was discovered at the initial pass, which is called Rigolets Pass. At this time, the lake is fishable. We want people to know that. They are fishing in Lake Pontchartrain, and no oil has been found west of the I- 10 bridge.

Thousands of men and women depend upon fishing for their livelihoods. As was said in one of the local shows this morning, we have to make sure that people know that people are still fishing, that people are still living, that people are still eating, and that they are still vacationing on the coast. The Coast Guard is trying every feasible option available to stop this spill.

Next slide, please.

Now, before I visited and when I looked at some of the things that had been said, one of the things we heard people talking about were the impacts on wildlife and the environment. I had an opportunity to go to the wildlife fisheries with representatives both from the State of Louisiana and the United States, and we got a chance to see where they had taken many of the birds so they could be cleaned and could get extra help.

This picture is of a very dedicated veterinarian who had worked very long hours to help aid and assist the birds. This is the team that actually put up this system, which was pretty much out of wire and 2 by 4s. I mean it really was a very, what I would say, kind of archaic system, but it was working to help with the birds.

You see me there. We are talking about the pelicans that have been cleaned, how they are recovering and how soon we expect them to be returned to the wild.

Next slide, please.

Some of the beauties of the Gulf of Mexico are the marshes, the wildlife, and all the incredible things that you see. This is one of the dedicated gentlemen whom I mentioned who works for U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Jack Bohannon. He is on the water boat, and this is what they do. They survey the marsh

area to see if oil has gone into that section so they know where to put the boom or where to make replacements.

Here you see the Coast Guard commander of this particular area. It was the protected area, the marsh section called Pass a Loutre. This is Commander Claudia Gelzer, and she has been working very hard to keep the oil out and to minimize the damage to this much protected area.

Next slide, please.

It is somewhat hard to imagine, when you think of the oil coming in, how you would possibly stop it, or as I would kind of say, ``corral it,'' to be able to put it into a section where it could be safely burned and evaporated. This is an example of where you see a marsh area where the boom has been laid. They went out, and they found out there was an area where oil existed. They corralled it, brought it into the section. Then this is how they were able to safely set it afire.

This is another example of what I wanted to show of how you have the boom area protecting the local coast section. Very low down here, you can see where some of the oil had initially come, and that is why they have the boom area protecting this section, which is to keep the oil out.

Next slide, please.

Now, to talk about Pass a Loutre, not only is it an incredible area in terms of marshland, of over 115,000 acres of marshland, what is also particularly important about this is that it is a preserve area as well. Unfortunately, it was right in the eye of the storm of the Deepwater Horizon, and for the oil that came out, this was one of the first spots that it came to.

What we are showing you here are the first initial marsh areas. What I want the people to see is that not all of the marsh areas, not all of the 115,000 acres, are filled with oil. That is something that I didn't particularly understand as I was watching some of the news results. You look at our going out to the boat area. You see some of the low areas where some of the oil has come. Here you see it a little bit higher. Then, in this area, you see where oil very severely came in and impacted the marsh area.

Next slide, please.

This area is characterized by river channels with attendant channel banks, natural bayous, and manmade canals, which are interspersed with intermediate fresh marshes. Hurricane damage and subsidence have contributed to a major part of the vegetation and the marshes not being as strong as they had been in the past.

So, in this area here, I found this interesting. I rode on a helicopter for about 45 minutes and then on a boat for about 30 minutes to be able to finally get to the spot where the worst amount of the oil impacting the marshes had taken place.

So the message of what I want to say tonight is, yes, a horrible thing has happened, yes, to many areas that we love, have gone to for generations, and have cherished. But the important thing to remember is that it is not in a position where we cannot fix it with the work and the commitment to do so.

So what you see here is I'm reaching in and touching some of the oil that has accumulated here in this section. Then, on this portion here, is the actual entrance into one of the marsh canals. You can see literally where the oil just kind of traveled inside, came in and basically accumulated in this section here of what you see.

Next slide, please.

So we look at these marsh areas and what we can do to fix them. Some of the complaints that were made were: Why didn't we have enough boom? How come we couldn't get the boom out there quickly enough? This is what is very important for people to see.

Here you can see the boom is normally a yellow color. This is where oil has come over, and you can see it only takes about half of a foot of a wave or a foot of a wave to be able to go in. Here is where they are replacing it and putting new ones out and trying to keep it out, and then, of course, they are using the booms farther out in the area.

Next slide, please.

This, I think, was important to show in that, as the booms are collecting oil, they become filled with it. Then you have to go back out and remove them and place more in their place. So here you can see a tremendous amount of oil that had accumulated. It has been absorbed in these booms, and then they will be going out to these areas to place new ones.

Then one of the things that is also important to understand as to why the booms alone are not the answer is that, with the wind and with the waves, it begins to move them into the marsh areas, so it actually moves them out from protecting the outer area. So that's why the booms are not the permanent solution to this problem.

Next slide, please.

As I prepared this report, what I call ``the people's Congress,'' I would be wrong not to acknowledge the efforts of Secretary Napolitano and Chairman Thompson for providing the access, for demonstrating transparency, and for showing a willingness to consider all of the options on the table for the betterment of America and for the American people.

In order to improve even further, here are some of the lessons that I learned from some of the things that I've shown you tonight:

Elected officials in the local area talked about the fact that we have had past exercises. We have had national exercises in the gulf regions, and so you would ask the question: Why were there some of the problems we experienced?

Some of the things they talked about were their still not being connected on the calls, the daily calls, until a couple of weeks into the situation, and the impact on the local economy, when many of the areas really were not having an extensive amount of oil. You also had people sounding the alarm, expressing their concerns of how were we going to pay for all of the recovery that was going to be required. You had others who said we weren't moving fast enough and that we needed to do more. Still others said the teams should be changed.

Though I want to talk about another area that also became very clear to me, a lesson learned.

One of the recommendations I made when we had our hearing was to say to the Coast Guard and to the Department of Homeland Security that we need to also have our own message, which is why I am here tonight. We need to make sure that we are showing the American people, as they also have an opportunity to watch, that, yes, many marsh areas have been damaged. Yes, beaches have had oil come upon them. But yes, there are many other areas where they can still come, where they can enjoy, and where we hope that our marshes will survive.

When you look at some of the reports and when you look at the current state of the situation--and even in the hearing they acknowledged-- things have gotten better. A lot of that is due to now being included in those calls, it is due to the transparency of what has been happening, and to the daily updates from Rear Admiral Allen. One of the key things they talked about was having a message that was understandable and in layman's terms.

So that is why I came here tonight, because what the public had been asking for and what some of the elected officials had been asking for is just to show us what you are seeing and what we are doing in just regular terms. It is something very simple, but it basically conveys the message of what has happened.

When you also look at some of the improvements and what we've learned and with being the subcommittee chair of Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response, and it's very important to look at these things. How soon was the 1-800 number up? How many claims have been filled? You look at where did the boom come from? How long did it take it to get there? How much did we already have? How many skimmers did we have? How many do we still need?

These are all the things that we have now learned and we've learned in previous spills, as well, that we need to do to be prepared for a spill, unfortunately, of this size.

Now, when we talk about layman's terms, one of the key things that I think is important to acknowledge is the Gulf of Mexico. This is a picture of a very sensitive area. You can see that the marsh is not very deep, but it's pretty much covered all the way around with boom. It's green. The

water is blue. But we are fighting on a daily basis to keep it that way, and we have 45,000 personnel who are working to fix the problem.

So when we talk about the clear lessons, some of the other things that I think that should be considered are: one, we need to make sure that as we consider how we respond to a spill, that we're prepared to make the adjustments in a hurricane season as well.

I showed you pictures of the bird estuary and where they were cleaning up the birds. They are actually in the process of moving from that area because it's not stable enough. So if, in fact, a hurricane were to come, we would lose many birds as well from that experience. So we have to be including different agencies in that emergency process and to ensure that those places are set up throughout the region so that they're ready if something like this crisis does, in fact, occur.

Another thing that we also have learned is that when we talk about communication, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is predicting an active to extremely active hurricane season for 2010, with a chance, 70 percent chance for 14 to 23 named storms. So the clock is ticking, and that's why people are working so hard to be ready.

Another key point that is very important to consider has to do with legislation. Now, I mentioned earlier some of the legislation that the House has already passed, but there are other suggestions that should be considered as well.

One of the things that we found, in terms of response and who's in charge, is that when you looked at the marsh area, the Louisiana Wildlife individual felt that if you had oil in the marsh, that you should leave it there and allow it to eventually work its way out. The United States, at the Federal level, said it's better to go in to cut it open, to flush some water to go through to remove the oil and to get it out from just sitting there. So they were having to make those decisions.

And I would venture to say that we should actually have those kinds of plans in advance. We should know that for certain parts of our country, we have marsh areas and that if, in the event there are oil spills, and I already mentioned to you that there's been 6,000 in our period of time here in the United States, that we should already have an adopted policy that we agree to of how we get the oil out of the marsh. Do we leave the oil in or do we open it up to be able to flush clear water through? That was one of the things that I asked at the hearing that we had.

Another important thing to consider with legislation is to make sure that it would have proper mitigation, and that's what I'm talking about with the marsh. We should already determine what the potential costs are. We shouldn't be waiting until something unfortunately happens and then we're trying to guesstimate.

We should also make sure that mitigation includes natural resource restoration. When you look at mitigation, it's loss of life, loss of limb, loss of property. But it's also, we have grown to know, it's a loss of our natural ecosystem as well. So when we consider funding that's available for mitigation, we need to make sure enough is there for that restoration as well.

We also need to make sure that we have adequate information that's prepared independently, not of a particular independent private source, that will actually provide us the information and say what would be required to restore our ecosystem to its natural level.

Sensitive natural resource areas can be identified early, and they can be done so to adequately protect them from an oil spill and also help with associated cleanup operations. The damage impact assessment should be thorough and it should be accurate and it doesn't have to be late. Habitat restoration is the preferred method to mitigate for impacts of natural resources from an oil spill and associated cleanup activities. A detailed mitigation plan should be prepared.

These are the things that I saw and that I learned that I plan on bringing forward with my colleagues to consider on this very floor.

When you talk about adequate funding for restoration activities, it should be provided based upon the actual cost and not what we think it might be. We should have to have time lines. There should be strict penalties, feasible objectives. There should be separate oversight from the initiators and the implementers, and, certainly, there should be periodic updates.

So when you look at the Oil and Fuel Spill Readiness Act, another piece of legislation that I think this House should consider, we shouldn't have to, when we have a spill, scramble for a couple of weeks and try and get enough boom and try and get enough skimmers and try and get enough of everything to deal with an incredible disaster. These are things based upon the depth and the amount of oil that's being pulled from the ocean floor that we should be able to consider what would be needed if, in the event, a disaster were to occur.

A readiness act would be able to have lessons learned from this Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It should include objective academic minds and expertise. It should include standards and require all emergency planning. And it should also include, as I've said, environment and wildlife as well.

Now, as we talk about what I call the people's Congress, this House is one where we have an opportunity to represent approximately 650,000 Americans, and I happen to be fortunate enough to be one of those people. And so, as I rise today and I talk about this Special Order, one of the things you find quickly being a Member of Congress is that it's your area that you represent, but you also represent--you're a United States Representative, which means you're not only looking for your district but for other districts as well.

And so when this incident happened and it fell within the committee of jurisdiction of my particular area, I felt, really, it was a responsibility because we have oil wells and pipelines in my area as well. And what happened in Louisiana could happen in any coastline in this country, and so it behooves us to be prepared and to learn our lessons.

As I've explained tonight, we can start looking forward in a constructive way. We can work together with Federal, State, and local elected officials and agencies and private partners on solving these problems. Millions of people depend upon the gulf for their livelihood, for family history, and it is home to valuable animals as a part of their families, plants, and environments.

I am optimistic. And while this is certainly one of the biggest challenges this Nation has ever faced, one thing we know for sure about the United States is that we're always ready to rebound. We don't see things as insurmountable, and we do believe that they can be made right.

The last slide I am showing you tonight is not the marsh area before the oil spill. In fact, it's after. What you see in this marsh area is that it is in its full and beautiful state. It's perfectly green. You see the canals that are there supporting it. As we continue to work to respond to this oil spill and we put the recovery things in place, we can ensure that the rest of the 115,000 acres can look again like this particular section does as well.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to be able to share my thoughts, kind of a testimony of what I saw in the gulf, painting a picture for the American people of what is really happening and what so many incredible people are doing to really restore and to fix something that was originally a disaster that I think can come back to look like this particular slide does.

With that, I am appreciative for all of the efforts, as I said, of Chairman Thompson on our committee, Secretary Napolitano, of her working with all the Members of Congress and Senate to visit the gulf. We look forward to continuing to work, to do our lessons learned, and to put better systems in place so that we won't repeat the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Mr. Speaker, among the many challenges of this Nation is the ongoing oil spillage in the gulf, a region that I come from.

I also happen to come from the city of Houston and represent a number our large energy companies, along with wind and solar and natural gas. We truly need a seamless energy policy, but our consuming responsibility is to stop this oil spillage and to stop it now. And I believe it is important that we do it with an understanding of a long- range strategy to address this crisis.

Right now, as I speak, Hurricane Alex has made its way along the gulf. And during this hurricane season, we don't know how many other hurricanes will come and disrupt the clean-up actions that are going on.

So today I've introduced H.R. 5676, the Right to Equitable Means of Ensuring Damages for Injuries are Efficiently Secured Act of 2010, or the REMEDIES Act. And I rise today to introduce this to address the many issues created by the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

For over 2 months the blown-out wellhead beneath the wreckage of the Deepwater Horizon platform has spewed tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico and the gulf coast communities on a daily basis. The initial explosion killed 11 people, seriously injured 17 others, and destroyed a multi-million dollar platform. But the extent of the damage done is far, far greater. The disaster and its aftermath have wrecked local industries and polluted or outright destroyed precious natural resources, and people are unable to work and to earn the money to pay for food, mortgages and other basic expenses.

And in my visits to the gulf region, these people were unattended to; oystermen, fishermen, shrimpers, restaurants not having any way to access a quick and immediate response.

Oh, yes, you see now a claims system in place. You see that there is now an established $20 billion fund that I am grateful to our President for establishing. But look how long it took because there was no structure in place.

It is obvious that the existing body of law is antiquated and, therefore, inadequate to cope with the current situation. The liability caps under the current law will allow the responsible parties to pay just a mere fraction of the damages they have inflicted on the people of the gulf. Legislation enacted in the early part of the last century does not properly cover all the workers in the contemporary industry, and BP and other oil industry entities need to be able to address this question.

My bill would establish a tiered liability system so that we would provide a structure to provide coverage, yet protect the smaller and independent operators. The REMEDIES Act will also make some needed changes to 1920-era laws such as the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act, to ensure that family members can recover, such as mothers and sisters, brothers and wives, which is not the case at this point. The language suggests that it will be a personal representative.

In addition, my bill would cause the end of lax permitting of the Minerals Management Service and the Department of the Interior and would require that if you had five safety violations, you would immediately put a moratorium and shut-down of the deepwater drilling.

My bill would also increase the oil spill liability trust fund from $1.6 billion to $10 billion. The money would be standing there now.

In addition, the Federal Water Pollution Act would be amended, as I said earlier, permitting, requiring that any permit would require you to establish a vetted recovery plan, so that if your BOP did not work, you had a back up plan that had been vetted and assessed as workable.

In addition, as I mentioned, if you had any violations, as these companies have been known to have, but, in particular, this company, you would immediately be shut down.

When I asked one of the new members of the MMS why BP wasn't shut down with the enormous list of violations that it had, the question was, not to the fault of the person who answered the question, but it was, We just haven't looked at that now.

My amendment, or my legislation, will call for the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a separate claims process under their jurisdiction. This legislation will ask the President to establish an emergency spill coordination team led by the commandant of the Coast Guard, along with the EPA, and the Secretary of Energy.

My amendment would also establish a research and development fund funded by the industry up to $1 billion to be able to design the most sophisticated technology for recovery, research, and remediation in an oil spill.

And my amendment would require immediate post-traumatic stress disorder counseling for all of the people who we are not even addressing the pain or the mental distress that is being caused.

I ask my colleagues to review H.R. 5676, the REMEDIES Act, so that we can go forward and establish a pathway to solve this problem and not have it happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a far reaching, comprehensive piece of legislation to help address some of the many issues created by the recent disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the ``Right to Equitable Means of Ensuring Damages for Injuries are Efficiently Secured'' Act of 2010.

For over two months, the blown out wellhead beneath the wreckage of the Deepwater

Horizon platform has spewed tens of thousands of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico and Gulf Coast communities on a daily basis. The initial explosion killed eleven people, seriously injured seventeen others, and destroyed a multi-million dollar platform, but the extent of the damage done is far, far greater. The disaster and its aftermath have wrecked local industries and polluted or outright destroyed precious natural resources, and people are unable to work and to earn the money to pay for food, mortgages, and other basic expenses.

It is obvious that the existing body of law is antiquated and therefore inadequate to cope with the current situation. The liability caps under current law will allow the responsible parties to pay a mere fraction of the damages they have inflicted on the people of the Gulf, legislation enacted in the early part of the last century does not properly cover all the workers in the contemporary industry, and BP is nickel and diming the people its recklessness has put out of work.

Damage from the oil spill in the Gulf region will almost certainly total in the billions of dollars, but current law caps liability for damages at $75 million. While that seems like a huge number, it is less than 20 percent of the cost of the platform itself. My bill would establish a tiered liability system, so that the oil industry pays all the costs for cleanup and damages caused by the spills it creates, while still allowing independent operators to stay in business. This provision would be retroactive.

The REMEDIES Act will also make some needed changes to two 1920's era laws regarding injuries or death at sea. It will change the Jones Act so that the engineers and others who were killed or injured on the Deepwater Horizon, but who were not technically ``seamen,'' will be covered, and allow actions against anyone whose acts or omissions were a cause of those deaths or injuries.

My bill will also amend the Death on the High Seas Act, so that victims or their survivors will be able to receive compensation for their suffering, or the loss of their loved ones' companionship, rather than just the economic damages allowed under current law. It will also allow for punitive damages in cases involving gross negligence.

Of course, part of the cause of the explosion was the lax permitting processes. In 2008, the Minerals Management Service, MMS, and Department of the Interior changed regulations so that BP was not required to file a detailed blowout plan, and simply accepted BP's assertion that it was ``unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur from the proposed activities,'' and allowed the project to go forward. The REMEDIES bill will change that, requiring that operators file detailed spill mitigation and recovery plans, and detail their backup plans as well. Those plans would have to be vetted by impartial experts instead of simply rubber-stamped by industry insiders.

Under my bill the MMS will be allowed to suspend permits and cease operations when specific operators' safety records show that they are so focused on production that they risk the safety of their workers as well as the environment. Since 2007, BP had over 872 serious safety violations--a staggering 97 percent of the serious violations in the entire industry--at just two of their refineries.

BP is currently facing a criminal investigation for possible similar violations on the Deepwater Horizon platform, and new information strongly suggests that BP consistently made decisions that increased risk in order to save time or costs. While nobody wants to shut down such an important sector of our economy, it is important to make sure that the penalties for blatant disregard of our safety laws and regulations are strong enough to be taken seriously, rather than just paid as the cost of doing business. Making the continuation of production contingent on good safety records should be something BP and others commit to wholeheartedly. My bill imposes such requirements.

While there is now a $20 billion escrow account for third party claims against BP, administered by an independent third party, that took months to establish. Before that, the process BP had set up for the people of the Gulf Coast communities was a disgrace. BP's claims department engaged in a process in which people who are out of work because of the disaster on the Gulf Coast received some compensation, but by BP's own estimates, roughly twenty thousand of the forty thousand claims that have been filed had not been paid. The $5000 payment that most claimants have received was barely a drop in the bucket against the payments on loans for boats and other necessary equipment, and small business owners had frequently been given the runaround as to what exactly a ``legitimate'' claim was under BP's standards. Under my bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security will have the power to require businesses responsible for claims for oil spills to set up a more streamlined process, with guidelines for the proof necessary, so that legitimate claims are no longer delayed or denied.

In addition to the various provisions already identified, my bill will prevent unnecessary delays in the legal process for claims arising from this disaster. Under current class action law, BP and other defendants are allowed to have lawsuits brought against them by the states and municipalities it has harmed removed to Federal courts. While our federal judicial system is more than competent to handle these claims, it is also overloaded. By having cases filed in state courts removed to Federal court, defendants would be able to greatly and unfairly delay every step of the process, prolonging the damage their recklessness has caused and possibly pushing many to settle for less than they are fully entitled to. The REMEDIES Act will create a carve-out for cases brought by states and their subdivisions on behalf of their citizens, allowing them to remain in state courts and acted on quickly.

There has been overwhelming legislative action surrounding the oil spill by various Committees of this House with jurisdiction over this issue, including the Judiciary Committee of which I am a Member. I am an original co-sponsor of H.R. 5503, ``the Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability Act,'' introduced by our distinguished Chairman John Conyers, and supported by Representative Charlie Melancon. My bill adds a new dimension to the debate and to the evolving legislative process. In this regard, I plan to work closely with Members from both sides of the aisle to forge an effective legal response to address this crisis and to prevent similar disasters in the future, and ask my colleagues to join me in my efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5503) to revise laws regarding liability in certain civil actions arising from maritime incidents, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, on April 20, an explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform sank the vessel, resulting in the death of 11 men and injury to at least 17 others.

We are honored to have four of the widows of the men here, including the father of Gordon Jones, Attorney Keith Jones; Mrs. Shelley Anderson; Mrs. Courtney Kemp; and Mrs. Natalie Roshto. They have joined us in the gallery to observe these proceedings. They were also at the Judiciary Committee hearings.

This April 20 disaster has now become the most massive environmental disaster in our Nation's history, poisoning widespread swaths of the Gulf of Mexico, killing wildlife, ruining wetlands, and wreaking economic havoc in the Gulf States. It has highlighted not only gaps in our ability to engage in and to regulate deepwater drilling, but also major legal gaps have been discovered in the applicable statutes that are adversely impacting victims.

Our measure from the Judiciary Committee focuses on repairing these flaws so that the victims of this disaster can get their treatment. We have found that the current state of law regarding these liability issues is outdated, unfair and operates against our national interests. The three key laws all date from the mid-1800s--the Death on High Seas Act, the Jones Act, and the Limitation on Liability Act.

The Death on High Seas Act does not allow recovery of non-pecuniary loss, which is in contrast to all State laws and to general maritime law.

The Jones Act allows recovery for a family's non-pecuniary loss if a seaman is injured but survives, but it denies the family that same recovery if he dies. Don't ask me how that ever got into law.

The Limitation on Liability Act, enacted in 1851, caps a shipowner's legal responsibility at the value of the ship and of its cargo no matter how massive the magnitude of the harm caused.

The unfairness of these laws is grossly apparent, and it makes no sense. In my judgment, it is highly immoral. It is the Judiciary Committee's job to scan these ancient statutes and repair them. So that is what we have done. We have made a few changes. I would like to identify them, and we will have some of our other learned members of the committee go into more detail.

Take Gordon Jones, for example. Ironically, his youngest son was born just a couple of weeks after his death. They can only recover Gordon's lost wages, but they are not entitled to any nonfinancial benefits. That needs to be taken care of, and we will.

There are claims that have been made that the process was inadequate. The Committee on the Judiciary held on May 27 of this year a hearing on the legal liability issues surrounding the gulf coast oil disaster. It lasted over 5 hours, and it covered 11 witnesses who discussed and addressed the laws that I have mentioned in this act before us. Then they held an extensive markup the following month, on June 23, at which time we debated a number of amendments and reported the bill. It was a bipartisan vote. Then, in the manager's amendment, we addressed some concerns that were raised by my colleagues on the other side. This bill focuses on fixing these gaps, and I am hopeful that we can move this bill as expeditiously as we can.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Sheila Jackson Lee, who is a senior member who has helped us craft the legislation in the manager's amendment. Along with her and our colleague from Florida, Corrine Brown, we have also been able to make some modifications that have been generally agreed to by many of the members on the committee. We have reached an understanding, although we have not developed statutory language.

Mr. Speaker, this disaster has now become the most massive environmental disaster in our nation's history, poisoning widespread swaths of the Gulf of Mexico, killing wildlife, ruining wetlands, and wreaking economic havoc in the Gulf states.

The disaster has highlighted not only gaps in our ability to engage in and regulate deepwater drilling, but also major legal gaps in the applicable statutes that are adversely impacting victims.

H.R. 5503 focuses on fixing these gaps, so that the victims of this disaster can get fair treatment. In short, we have found that the current state of law regarding these liability issues is outdated, is unfair, and operates against our nation's interest.

First, the three key laws in effect all date from the mid 1800's or early 1900's.

The Death on High Seas Act, enacted in 1920, does not allow recovery of non-pecuniary loss--in contrast to all States and to general maritime law.

The Jones Act, also dating from 1920, allows recovery for a family's non-pecuniary loss if a seaman is injured but survives, but denies the family that same recovery if he dies.

And the Limitation on Liability Act, enacted in 1851, caps a shipowner's legal responsibility at the value of the ship and its cargo, no matter how massive the magnitude of the harm caused.

Second, the laws are grossly unfair. It makes no sense to allow the family of an individual who dies in a plane accident on the high seas to be eligible for non-pecuniary damages, while the family of someone who dies in a ship accident is not.

It makes no sense to allow the family of a victim of an oil explosion on shore to recover non-pecuniary damages, while the same victim in a Jones Act case could be limited to lost wages and funeral expenses.

It makes no sense to keep a Limitation on Liability Act designed to help U.S. shipping fleets in the 19th century, when the U.S. merchant marine is now practically non-existent.

And it makes no sense to allow a company to incur multibillion-dollar claims and then abuse the bankruptcy process to leave victims out in the cold.

The bill on the floor today reflects changes made in response to concerns raised about the legislation.

Specifically, concerns were expressed about possible unintended consequences of the class action changes, and that section was removed in its entirety.

Concerns were expressed about restricting enforceability of secrecy agreements, and that section was removed in its entirety.

What remains are the core provisions that are needed to help the victims of the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, including the families of the 11 men who died and the numerous workers who were injured aboard the Deepwater Horizon.

I want to remind Members that this bill is, above all else, about helping victims, particularly the victims of this oil platform explosion and spill.

One of these victims is Gordon Jones, who was killed aboard the Deepwater Horizon.

Gordon was married to Michelle Jones and had two children, Stafford and Maxwell Gordon, and is also survived by his brother and father.

Maxwell Gordon was born just a couple of weeks after his father died.

Under current law, the Jones family can only recover Gordon's lost wages, and are not entitled to any non-financial damages.

This bill would fix that for Gordon, the 10 others killed on the Deepwater Horizon, and others injured.

As Gordon's father, Keith, testified before the House Judiciary Committee on May 27:

``When Michelle tells her boys about their dad, she's not going to show them a pay stub. She will tell them how much their father loved them. . . .

``I want to say how offensive it is when the law recognizes only pecuniary loss in cases like these eleven deaths. . . . Please believe me; no amount of money can ever compensate us for Gordon's death. We know that. But this is the only means available to begin to make things right.''

This is not a complicated vote. It is about ensuring that BP and other corporations that caused the Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting oil spill are held accountable under the law for all the harm their irresponsible behavior has caused these hardworking Americans and their families.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Before I recognize the next speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I am sure my good friend Lamar Smith is not recommending that with all the tragedy and suffering that has occurred in this area of the country, that we go back and go over these same issues one more time. The laws are ancient. They are out-of-date. We had witnesses. We wrote a bill based on it. This process has been done numerous times.

I now with some pride yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

This is incredible. With all the suffering that has occurred, all the damage that has incurred, we now come here after more than 5 hours worth of hearings on this matter to say that the ship owners won't like the insurance rates, that they won't like that they may be liable, and that's what we're correcting. I deeply resent this kind of attack on a bill of this urgency.

I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the committee.

I yield myself 6 seconds.

I am so disappointed that my dear friends would even suggest that there's a defense for the oil companies, the shipbuilders, and the insurance companies in a situation like this.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Maxine Waters, a distinguished leader in the Judiciary Committee.

I am happy now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Dr. Judy Chu, a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa, Bruce Braley, a cosponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. It's uncomplicated. It revises old law that's been discriminatory and left on the books. It ensures that BP and other corporate violators that caused the Deepwater Horizon explosion-resulting oil spill are held accountable under the law.

This is not going to hurt the victims. The victims came before the committee and testified in favor of this kind of relief. So for us now to think that we're inadvertently doing some harm to those who have lost their loved ones is untenable and uncontemplatable.

I urge that all of us cast as near unanimous vote as possible in support of this legislation and correct the injustices that have been caused by this incredible, extensive, and terrible accident.

And I include in my closing remarks the support of nine other organizations.

The International Cruise Victims Association

The National Center for Victims of Crime

The National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children

Public Citizen

Alliance for Justice

National Consumers League

Consumer Watchdog

Center for Justice & Democracy

Center for Biological Diversity

Friends of the Earth

U.S. Action

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you very much, Chairman Conyers. We owe you a debt of gratitude.

We are very pleased that we have answered the call of the pain of people like Michelle, and if you can read this language, it says ``When Michelle tells her boys about their dad, she's not going to show them a pay stub. She will tell them how much their father loved them.'' That means, of course, that we are stranded on an island with laws that do not understand the crisis that these families are facing.

These are the pictures of families who have lost loved ones and pictures of their loved ones who we are now standing on the floor of the House to say that any horrific tragedy such as the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010, will not go unanswered, and these families will not remain and be alone. This bill is assuring these families that they will not be alone; that the person or the entity that harmed them will not be able to escape the full extent of the cost of their actions that are inflicted on the people and the communities. It amends the Jones Act, an old law, and brings it in line with the needs of the

21st century, meaning that if you were an engineer on that Deepwater Horizon drill, you are not covered by the present laws; or, for example, the law that was used that was passed in the 1800s where they limited the amount of liability such that one of the actors in this went to court in Houston and wanted to limit their liability to $23,000. Under the Act in its current form, the family members left behind by seamen killed on the job can only recover economic losses. But it also does not cover those who are not classified as seamen. This bill amends DOHSA and, of course, it provides some very, very important changes that will make the lives of these loved ones left behind better. Without their loved ones, they are not good. But this will make them better.

To the industry, and let me say one that I come from--and I am from the gulf region--and I believe what we are doing today is going to help the shrimpers, the oystermen, the fishermen, and we must continue to do that. We're changing the laws to respond to the current crisis, and we will not leave them alone.

I look forward today to, as well, introducing the Remedies Act of 2010 that will further expand on the rights of families, will invest in R&D to improve what's going on in the gulf. But I want to thank the Judiciary Committee for being first and a leader to help these families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5503, the ``Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability Act,'' introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers. I commend Chairman Conyers for shepherding this bill through the Judiciary Committee, and am proud to have worked with him on the Manager's Amendment.

This bill makes great steps in reforming aspects of our laws that have grown outdated, and in assuring that those responsible for a variety of harms are not able to escape liability for the full extent of the costs their actions inflict on the people of the communities around them. It amends the Jones Act, a law enacted in 1920, and brings it in line with the needs of the 21st century. Under the Act in its current form, the family members left behind by a seaman killed on the job can only recover for economic losses, sometimes only the expenses of a funeral. There is no provision for damages for the emotional loss of a loved one, the loss of that person's care, comfort, and companionship. H.R. 5503 amends that restriction.

H.R. 5503 also changes another outdated maritime law, the Death on the High Seas Act of 1920. The changes Chairman Conyers' bill makes to DOHSA will allow those same claims for loss of care, comfort and companionship. This bill will also allow claims under DOHSA to be brought before a court of law, rather than admiralty, and allow a jury to decide the relevant facts. It will allow recovery for the pain and suffering a decedent experiences before his death, and expand the geographic reach of DOHSA.

H.R. 5503 makes other crucial changes. It eliminates certain limits on the liability of ship owners, remnants from a time when communications were much slower and owners might not be aware of their crews' actions on the other side of the ocean, or the other side of the globe. H.R. 5503 changes our bankruptcy laws, and prevents responsible parties from escaping their liability through misuse of bankruptcy proceedings. Finally, it amends the Class Action Fairness Act to prevent suits brought by the States, on behalf of their citizens, from being removed to languish in Federal courts.

These are all very, very important changes, and I want to state again how glad I am to have been able to work with Chairman Conyers on these issues. However, there are other harms that the disaster in the Gulf has inflicted, harms that are not addresses in this bill.

Last month, I spent time at the United Command Center in Hammond, Louisiana and flew over the impacted areas to assess the devastating damage to the Gulf region and visited Plaquemarins Parish, Pointe a La Hache (Hash), Louisiana to meet with local oystermen and other individuals affected by the oil spill. My experience left my heart wrenched and even more determined to work with my colleagues to develop an aggressive proactive strategy to assist the victims of the oil spill and to develop measures to prevent it from happening again.

We need a claims process on the Gulf coast to remedy the harm caused by the oil spill before it is compounded by delay and we need to ensure that claims are evaluated and paid through an expedited equitable and transparent process.

There are numerous accounts of concerns of claimants that have underscored the importance of the need for the Federal Government to require that a totally independent claims process is set up to process claims related to the BP oil spill, and that structures are set up to process claims without delay. We know that victims are seeking assistance, but have experienced complicated claims procedures to follow, and have not been able to obtain relief or compensation from BP but rather, a hard way to go and the never-ending claims requirements to satisfy the claims they have brought against BP.

Take the story of Byron Encalade. Mr. Encalade, as owner of his own fishery company, and as President of the Louisiana Oysters Association, has sought to file claims with BP to recover damages suffered as a result of the Gulf oil spill. Unfortunately, Mr. Encalade has had a horrible experience with the ever-changing claims process.

Though Mr. Encalade came with the paperwork he was originally told to provide BP claims adjusters, he was told that he needed to provide his tax statements in order to be compensated for his loss. When inquiring about a second $5,000 check he was supposed to receive from BP, he was told that the check was in the mail. He has yet to receive the check.

He was also informed that his claim would be based upon his net receipts and not his gross receipts. This policy puts Mr. Encalade and many others in a situation where they cannot recover the full value of their losses due to investments that were made to fishing boats that were lost in Hurricane Katrina. As such, this policy will prevent many fishers and shrimpers from recovering the full value of their loss.

I can also tell you the story of the owner of a small seafood restaurant in Houston, Texas, who I have known for years and have supported. She is in trouble at this very moment, wondering whether her business will remain open to long-time customers like me. Whether she, as a small business owner and woman, can afford to pay the bills and continue to earn a livelihood. Although she is hundreds of miles away from the actual site of the oil spill, she too is a victim. Her restaurant relies on a variety of suppliers of Gulf seafood, and she bills her establishment as one which prides itself on seafood from Louisiana, a part of the Gulf region. So, now she confronts two issues that could prove fatal to her business. One, if the seafood is from the Gulf region or Louisiana in particular, perhaps it is tainted by the oil. Two, the prices of seafood from the Gulf continues to rise, making it impossible for the restaurant to carry certain items. Many items on the menu her patrons can no longer afford. It is the classic Catch-22 situation, and what is clear to me is that unless this Congress acts and acts quickly restaurants like hers will be history.

We need to make sure that victims like her, and like Mr. Encalade, are able to receive compensation for the harms inflicted on them, without the years of litigation that civil suits frequently entail. We need to establish independent claims systems, with established categories that treat fishermen, shrimpers, and other categories of indirect victims appropriately, and with clear and consistent guidelines for what types of proof claimants need, to avoid unnecessary delay.

We need to update the liability cap under the Oil Protection Act, so that responsible parties cannot escape with paying a mere fraction of the damages they inflict. We also need to change the permitting process, so that entities drilling offshore must demonstrate they have a workable Plan B when their Plan A fails; and to establish a requirement that those disaster and spill mitigation plans be reviewed and approved by independent, disinterested experts.

There are additional changes to both the Jones Act and DOHSA we should make. Both laws currently allow only one ``personal representative'' of a decedent to file claims, and there may be cases where that personal representative does not act in the interest of the parents, children, or other family members who face this terrible loss; we should allow those family members to make claims on their own behalf. We need to amend the Jones Act so that it covers all those injured on our ships, even those who may not meet the technical definition of seaman. Further, we should allow punitive damages under those laws in cases of gross negligence.

As important as it is that we make the victims of this disaster whole, it is equally important to take steps to prevent the next spill of this magnitude. Therefore, we must establish a clear framework for response, so that there is never again a question of who is in charge. The United States is the world leader in science and technology, and it is in our best interest to direct some of our energy towards research and development of technologies that will better enable us to deal with leaks deep below the surface of the ocean, and provide access to those technologies to the appropriate agencies.

Nonetheless, for all that remains to be done, H.R. 5503 is an important step, a necessary

step, towards repairing the harm the disaster in the Gulf has done. Chairman Conyers has crafted a piece of legislation that I am proud to be associated with, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting it.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, although I believe this legislation is well-intended, I have serious concerns about H.R. 5503 and about the process under which it is being considered today.

It is important that BP and other responsible parties pay all costs associated with the oil spill and that they be

held fully accountable for this catastrophe and for the 11 lives tragically lost in the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon. However, H.R. 5503 will have unintended consequences that will reach well beyond the gulf coast disaster. In fact, very little in this bill is directed solely at oil spill-related liability.

It is incredible that the sweeping changes this bill makes have made their way to the House floor without the benefit of even one legislative hearing. It is also incredible that we are considering this bill under suspension of the rules, denying those with concerns the opportunity to offer even one amendment.

Had this bill been considered under regular order, I would have offered an amendment to limit it to claims arising out of oil spills. This amendment would ensure that those responsible for oil spills would be held fully accountable while, at the same time, restricting the bill's unintended consequences. Because H.R. 5503 is not limited to oil spills, its unintended consequences will be severe.

For example, the changes it makes virtually rewrite U.S. maritime liability law; and in some instances, the changes make it out of step with the laws of nearly every other maritime nation. Maritime actions usually involve numerous parties with competing claims--loss of life or personal injury--and multiple jurisdictions in which claims may be filed. The Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act addresses these problems by allowing for the consolidation of all claims arising out of a maritime accident into one Federal forum.

It also creates a fund to pay personal injury and death claims over and above the act's general liability limit.

This bill repeals the act without adopting any replacement legislation to fill the void. This introduces uncertainty and in many cases may lead to inadequate compensation to personal injury and wrongful death claimants, since repealing the act repeals the personal injury fund.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: This bill repeals the personal injury fund which every vessel owner is required to create to pay personal injury claims over and above the act's general liability gap.

Other sections of this bill are also questionable. Section 3 allows for recovery of non-economic damages in wrongful death actions under the Jones Act. While this may seem like a fair result, it actually creates inequities, because the Jones Act is the equivalent of land- based worker's compensation statutes, which do not apply at sea. But worker's compensation laws do not allow for the recovery of noneconomic damages, thus Jones Act seamen will receive greater recoveries than are provided to nearly every other American worker.

This change is being made without the benefit of a legislative hearing to understand its full impact on injured workers, employers, shippers, and consumers. These extensive changes to U.S. maritime liability law, which apply well beyond oil spills, threaten to increase dramatically the cost of shipping goods, an increase that will be borne by all American consumers.

Finally, by giving Oil Pollution Act claimants veto power over bankruptcy asset sales of companies with OPA liability, the bill effectively gives these claimants control of the bankruptcy process. However, giving OPA claimants this veto power seriously curtails the rights of other bankruptcy claimants, included secured creditors, pension funds, and other tort victims, and State and local governments.

Because this legislation applies retroactively, there is no reason to push this bill through on suspension without having conducted a single legislative hearing on its sweeping changes.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Republicans do not want to give BP a free pass. That is why we offered amendments in committee to narrow the scope of this legislation to cover companies like BP that are responsible for oil spills. These amendments were voted down by the majority. But in the Democrats' haste to act before the Fourth of July recess, they are pushing for a bill that would punish all other maritime industries for the faults of BP. That is not fair, and it is not good policy. It would also be a job-killer for many hardworking Americans who had nothing to do with the oil spill.

Rather than cave to political gamesmanship and vote for a bad bill, Congress should do what is best for the American people. As we amend the Federal law to ensure that BP and other responsible parties are held accountable for the full extent of the harm they have caused, we must avoid harming the national interests.

Because we have had no legislative hearings on this bill, we cannot be sure that it does not harm the economy, maritime industries, and American jobs. The bill should be sent back to committee to be examined and amended properly before being brought again to the floor for a vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my colleague from Texas, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to what my chairman said just a minute ago and set the record straight. We did not have a single legislative hearing on this bill, so we never even went over it one time to fully appreciate the consequences and the unintended consequences of this bill.

For example, this bill changes maritime law for everyone, not just those involved in the oil spill. Clearly we should have explored the consequences of that.

Beyond that, and I want to emphasize this, this bill, and it is too late to

make any changes because no amendments have been made in order, repeals the vessel owner personal liability fund. That alone is enough of a reason to oppose this bill, that it repeals the personal liability fund that vessel owners today have to have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the deputy ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the National Bankruptcy Conference, a nonpartisan organization of lawyers, professors, and judges, opposes the bankruptcy provisions in this bill. According to the Conference, ``the proposed amendments are not likely to achieve their purpose and instead are likely to have pernicious, unintended, and counterproductive consequences.''

The nonpartisan National Bankruptcy Conference explains that ``by granting a preference to holders of oil spill claims at the expense of other innocent and equally deserving creditors, the provisions in this bill represent bad bankruptcy policy.'' Moreover, according to the Conference, one of the effects of the bankruptcy provisions in this bill will be to ``entrench the very management that presided over the spill and led the company into bankruptcy.''

Mr. Speaker, you wonder how anyone can even consider voting for this bill. In short, we should not be rushing these bankruptcy provisions through Congress today. The unintended consequences will be severe, as the National Bankruptcy Conference just told us.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, repealing the Limitation of Liability Act hurts victims of maritime accidents. The Limitation of Liability Act provides for the orderly resolution of claims arising out of a maritime accident in one Federal court. It also creates a compensation fund for personal injury claims. Repealing the act eliminates these two important provisions. In many cases, this will result in victims of maritime accidents receiving less compensation than they would under current law.

First, victims will receive less compensation because cases will no longer be consolidated in one Federal court. Consolidation allows victims to share litigation and expert costs and allows for proportional allocation of damage awards. Second, victims will potentially receive less compensation because repealing the act will repeal the personal injury fund. The personal injury fund requires vessel owners to provide compensation over and above the liability cap.

Again, a vote for this bill is a vote to repeal the personal injury fund. Let's not rush this bill through the House today and hurt the very people we're supposed to be trying to help but send it back to committee to be examined and amended properly.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in summary, this bill should be opposed for four reasons:

First, the bill repeals the Limitation of Liability Act, which will actually hurt the victims of maritime accidents. Repealing the act eliminates important protections for maritime victims, including the fund for compensating personal injury victims. This bill, incredibly, repeals the personal injury fund;

Second, the bill amends the Bankruptcy Code in a manner that the National Bankruptcy Conference, a very bipartisan organization, believes will create ``pernicious, unintended, and counterproductive consequences'' that benefit oil spill claimants ``at the expense of other innocent and equally deserving creditors'';

Third, the bill was rushed through committee without a single legislative hearing and is being rushed through the House on suspension, without giving Members the opportunity to offer amendments; and

Fourth, because this bill is being rushed through the House, Congress has not been fully informed of the unintended consequences this bill creates for the U.S. maritime industry, which is a large part of the economy of the gulf coast region; the American economy, which relies on U.S. shipping to take goods to and from market; and the victims of maritime accidents, who, in many cases, will actually be hurt by this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, send it back to committee. Let's improve it, let's amend it, and then bring it back to the floor. I hope my colleagues will vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.