Well, it is to replace what has been destroyed. It's really just clarifying what is already available under OPA, but making it clear that the funds can be used for those resources that have been damaged so badly they can't be restored.
Share & report
More from James Oberstar
I yield myself an additional minute. An orphan site is one of the issues to be addressed, as we do under the Superfund Act. Yet the order of priority for response under the law, its first responsibility, is for the responsible party to act…
I thank the gentlewoman for her courageous lead on this issue. This $35 billion for Afghanistan is roughly equivalent to the amount in the Recovery Act for highways and transit. If instead of Afghanistan these funds were invested at home…
Again, the acquisition of replacement land is available and authorized under OPA 90. What this amendment does is clarify that in that replacement you can replace that part of the ecosystem that has been irresponsibly damaged with better…
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have worked with the gentleman and our committee staff to craft this language. It's important to note that these are not taxpayer dollars paying for restoration, but rather proceeds from a penalty…
Other voices in this conversation
