On the recordJune 2, 2015
I am not planning on strongly objecting to this, but I want to make a few points. One is that this is something that should be dealt with in an authorizing circumstance, but I think because it is on an appropriations bill, it could have unintended consequences. As I understand the plain English of what is being said, an administration faced with, for instance, the Gulf oil spill could not have been involved in a settlement in which various entities received dollars to try to find redress for harm that was created in the Gulf. I think that that would be very problematic because there were a lot of groups--fishermen, other associations, chambers of commerce, others-- who received support through that settlement. I just think we ought to be careful. It would probably be better that there be hearings and that there be an understanding around what this actually means. I have offered my own bipartisan-supported legislation that would create a congressional framework for settlements. I am not opposed to the thrust of what is being said here. I do recognize that there have been circumstances in past administrations. I am not aware of the instances that the chairman speaks of now, but I would just hope that rather than rushing forward, we would be mindful that this is probably the kind of thing that we really would want authorizers to handle and not have it tucked into an appropriations bill at this time.…





