PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 2011
Gulf Coast Restoration Act - Establishes the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, which shall: (1) consult with, and provide recommendations to, the Chair of the Task Force regarding approval of State Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Plans submitted by the governors of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas providing for restoration activities the Gulf Coast ecosystem adversely impacted by the blowout and explosion of the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon on April 20, 2010; (2) coordinate scientific and other research associated with restoration of such ecosystem; and (3) submit an annual report to Congress that summarizes the Plans approved by the Chair.
Establishes in the Treasury the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Fund. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit into the Fund sums equal to not less than 80% of any amounts collected by the United States as penalties, settlements, or fines under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) in relation to the Deepwater Horizon explosion and resulting hydrocarbon releases into the environment. Makes the Fund available for the conservation, protection, and restoration of the Gulf Coast ecosystem in accordance with approved Plans.
Requires the governors of such states to: (1) submit a Plan to the Chair by October 1, 2011; and (2) solicit local input and provide for public participation in the development of the Plan.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Chair to disburse amounts from such Fund to such a state for which the Chair has approved a Plan only for: (1) projects and activities for the conservation, protection, or restoration of coastal areas, including wetlands; (2) mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural resources; (3) planning assistance and the administrative costs of complying with this Act; and/or (4) implementation of a federally approved marine, coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan.
People & committees
Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.56 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.56 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.56 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.56 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.