Sen. McCain: Halliburton Got Away with Paltry Fine

U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Ranking Member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, yesterday wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder on the recent plea agreement reached between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Halliburton Energy Services Inc. regarding Halliburton’s destruction of evidence relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster.

Read the full letter below:

Dear Mr. Attorney General:

I write to inquire about the recently announced plea agreement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Halliburton Energy Services Inc. regarding the investigation into the April 20, 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  According to DOJ and media sources, Halliburton has agreed to plead guilty to destroying evidence in connection with the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  Subject to the court’s approval, the company will pay the $200,000 maximum statutory fine and will be placed on probation for three years.  

I worry that such paltry fines fail to discourage defendants from destroying evidence.  If the fines do not adequately deter companies, they may begin routinely destroying unfavorable evidence as an acceptable cost of doing business.

In matters like the Deepwater Horizon disaster, which tragically killed 11 people, devastated our treasured shores, and dramatically disrupted the economy in the region, plea agreements warrant maximum transparency.  It is important for the American people to know how effectively the terms of such plea agreements hold accountable those who affirmatively attempted to undermine the investigation into this massive disaster.

With this in mind, please provide responses to the following questions by August 19, 2013:

1.      To what extent is DOJ currently pursuing further criminal prosecutions of Halliburton or its managers or employees regarding the Deepwater Horizon disaster?

2.      To what extent does the DOJ agreement preclude the possibility of holding specific Halliburton officials, including managers, criminally accountable for ordering the destruction of key evidence or otherwise obstructing justice in connection with the Deepwater Horizon tragedy?

3.      Why did DOJ settle this case for such a relatively small fine rather than choose to prosecute Halliburton to the full extent of its culpability in the Deepwater Horizon disaster?

4.      Is Halliburton’s $55 million contribution to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) part of its plea agreement with DOJ?

5.To what extent did DOJ influence Halliburton’s decision to contribute $55 million to the NFWF?  If so, what facts led DOJ to believe that the impacted areas along the Gulf Coast would most benefit from Halliburton’s voluntary contribution to NFWF rather than from contributions to other civic groups? 

6.      If DOJ did not influence Halliburton’s decision to contribute to the NFWF, when did DOJ learn about Halliburton’s intentions?  Was it before the final plea agreement was reached?

Thank you for your attention to this matter.