GULF SHORES, Ala. - Even in raising his voice to point out the indignities suffered at the hands of BP and rumors of a settlement favoring “the polluter” over the people of the Gulf Coast, U.S. Rep. Jo Bonner never lost his smile.

Bonner spoke at a news conference arranged Thursday by the local group GUMBO, or Gulf United Metropolitan Business Organization. Bonner, U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Mobile and state Attorney General Luther Strange all railed against a rumored proposed settlement between the federal government and BP.

Bonner could barely contain his outrage.

“They’re downright offensive to think with an oil sheen still coming up at the site of BP Deepwater Horizon, that the Justice Department could possibly be negotiating to the benefit of the polluter to the detriment of the victims who live here on the Gulf Coast,” he said. “It’s totally unacceptable, if true.”

That settlement proposal would have BP pay less in Clean Water Act fines and more to the Natural Resource Damage Assessment program.

“What is the federal government doing behind closed doors in negotiating a settlement that could be an end run around legislation that was signed into law by the President of the United States just a few months ago?” Bonner asked the assembled crowd.

Bonner suggested that politics may be playing a role. Gulf Shores Mayor Robert Craft said earlier this month that NRDA money could benefit several environmental projects in Florida, an important swing state in the upcoming presidential election.

“If this settlement that is being reported is true, why now?” Bonner asked. “Why just a few days away from the Nov. 6 election are we looking at potentially giving the polluter a tax deduction and what will that mean to the victims? What’s the urgency of getting a settlement now if it’s now a political decision?”

The RESTORE Act, a bi-partisan law passed in July requires 80 percent of the Clean Water Act fines be spent in the five coastal states affected by the spill. If the majority of the money went to NRDA and less for the Clean Water fines, less money would be heading to the states.

NRDA money must be used specifically for ecological projects and would be directed through the U.S. Treasury. Also, money sent to NRDA is tax deductible which would be a big advantage to BP. Clean Water Act fines are not tax deductible.

NRDA grants can be spent anywhere in the states, but the RESTORE Act requires Clean Water fines to be spent within 25 miles of the coast.

Bonner called on Attorney General Eric Holder to publicly reject the notion of possibly routing the funds through NRDA, essentially giving BP a tax deduction and sending less money to the Gulf Coast state commissions set up to distribute fine money.

“The RESTORE Act is still the law of the land,” he said. “All the Attorney General has to do – he doesn’t have to disclose the confidential negotiations – is take this option, if it’s true, off the table. So we don’t have the tax credit to BP, but the credit goes as the RESTORE Act intended to the victims which are the people who live on the Gulf Coast.”

While the negotiations are behind closed doors, Bonner said he was sure the option to route the funds through NRDA is on the table.

“I’m confident that is happening,” he said. “I’m not a part of any of the negotiations, but it is obvious the Justice Department is putting pressure on the states to get a settlement.”

Sessions questioned if the government’s attorneys were trying to get the best deal for their clients.

“The obligation of the Attorney General of the United States is obtain the largest, fair judgment against BP under the fine provisions of the oil spill acts, the money of which would go to RESTORE,” Sessions said. “What cannot happen, what must not happen is you compromise that figure to get more money into NRDA recovery, which the Attorney General controls both of them, thereby benefitting BP because it’s tax deductible reducing the amount of money that should be going under the law to the RESTORE Act.”

Penalties would be $1,000 per barrel of oil spilt or about $5 billion. The punitive damages could potentially be more than that according to the judged severity of negligence by BP.

“We believe that Congress dealt with how the money should be dispersed and handled under the RESTORE Act and that is the best way for the money to go,” Sessions said.

The settlement now under fire would not go against the RESTORE Act law because it would still assess a Clean Water Act fine, official said, but much lower than previously hoped for and reducing the amount available to the five coastal states.