House passes oil spill response bill but Senate plans for legislation uncertain

The House approved legislation Friday that toughens offshore drilling safety rules and lifts caps on oil industry liability for spills, overcoming claims by Republicans and some Democrats that the sweeping bill would slow domestic energy production.

The House vote was 209-193. Thirty-nine Democrats opposed the bill, while two
Republicans supported it. The lone Republican support came from Reps. Tim Johnson (Ill.) and Vern
Ehlers (Mich.). Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) voted “present.”

{mosads}But Senate action on legislation responding to the massive BP oil spill remains uncertain amid partisan squabbles in the upper chamber.

The Democratic House bill is aimed at improving environmental and safety protections in the wake of the spill, and bolstering oil spill response capacity.

Democrats also took square aim at BP by including a provision that denies the embattled oil giant new offshore leases for years due to its safety and environmental record. “It’s about integrity . . . whether it’s about the effectiveness of the drilling, whether it’s about the prevention of a blow-out, or whether it’s about the integrity of their representations about the integrity of the cleanup,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

But lawmakers also delivered a rebuke to the Obama administration by approving an amendment that would ease a moratorium on deepwater drilling.

Overall, the broad bill sponsored by House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) contains provisions that Republicans and oil-patch Democrats say would create new barriers to U.S. oil and natural gas development. Provisions in opponents’ crosshairs include new fees on both onshore and offshore production.

Opponents also argue that completely lifting the liability caps on economic damages would make it impossible for small and mid-sized drillers to get the insurance needed for Gulf operations.

Republicans – who attacked new fees and spending unrelated to the spill – said the sweeping bill strays from its core goal of addressing drilling safety and spill response.

“There is broad agreement that we have to respond in a responsible way to the gulf spill,” House Natural Resources ranking member Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said. “What we object to is the extraneous material that is added to this bill.”

Democrats accused Republicans of protecting the oil industry. “Republicans are at it again, apologizing for Big Oil,” Rahall said.

The
bill’s approval followed passage of two amendments that helped ensure enough support within the Democratic caucus.

Lawmakers approved Rep. Charlie Melancon’s (D-La.) amendment that lifts the Obama administration’s six-month ban on deepwater drilling for rigs that meet a range of new safety standards. The amendment also retains Interior Department authority to halt drilling at operations that the Interior Secretary determines are major environmental and safety risks.

Melancon and other opponents of the drilling ban in both parties say it is creating major economic pain in the Gulf Coast region where the economy is tethered to the oil industry.

Some liberal Democrats fought to defeat it hours before the vote 216-195 vote in favor of Melancon’s plan Friday. But enough Democrats gave an important – if potentially symbolic – public victory to Melancon, who is in a tightening race against Sen. David Vitter (R-La.).

Democratic leaders urged support of Melancon’s plan, which is less sweeping than a GOP alternative – contained in the GOP’s failed “motion to recommit” the bill – that would have outright removed the ban.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told The Hill
that the success of the Melancon amendment was key to getting enough Democratic
support for the full package.

“That’s what made me feel good about it because I thought we would pass
Melancon, and passing that I thought put us in a comfortable area,” Clyburn
said after the final vote.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) similarly said approval of
Melancon’s plan was needed to ensure the broader bill was approved. “We
knew the bill would probably not advance unless we did something to help to
address this issue in order to build a consensus,” Inslee told The Hill. “Charlie
did write it in a relatively responsible way,” he said.

Inslee
said the vote was not a slap at the White House. “The administration acted
responsibly and reasonably in saying we needed a time out,” Inslee said. Republicans
criticized Melancon’s plan, alleging it leaves regulators with too much power
to block drilling and called for an immediate removal of the moratorium.

In the other key amendment vote, lawmakers approved Rep. Harry Teague’s (D-N.M.) plan that allows small companies to band together to meet liability payments related to an oil spill that individual companies are now forced to meet themselves.

The amendment does not change the bill’s retroactive removal of companies’ liability for a spill, a fact Republicans recognized. 

“Republicans have no problem with this amendment,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) said. But it is “sort of like putting a Band-Aid on a broken leg,” he said. It “does absolutely nothing to cure unlimited liability,” Lamborn said, or address what Republicans cite as $22 billion in tax increases in the bill.

But while Melancon voted for the bill, most oil-state and Blue Dog
Democrats — including Teague — did not at least in part because it
still retroactively lifted the liability cap for companies.

The fate of the overall bill remains unclear. The Senate may take up oil spill legislation as soon as next week, but an impasse over liability limits and other provisions makes it unclear whether the Senate will act before the August recess.

The House bill combines a range of provisions from the Natural Resources Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Other measures include: stiffer penalties for environmental and safety violations and $900 million in annual funding for land and water conservation, drawn from offshore energy revenues. It would also steer some offshore energy revenues into a new Ocean Resources Conservation and Assistance Fund, which would provide grants to coastal states and Regional Coordination Councils for ocean protection and restoration.

There are also several provisions to improve oil response capacity, new programs to oversee Gulf of Mexico restoration, marine monitoring and research in the Gulf and other measures.