Lisa Murkowski - - - The Devil's Advocate !!!!!

[justjohn]

[updated] Lisa Murkowski (R-ExxonValdez) opposes forcing oil companies to pay to clean up oil spills 14

by David Roberts

13 May 2010 11:56 AM
Lisa Murkowski, oil, Politics


On the Senate floor a few moments ago, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J), and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) asked for unanimous consent to pass their Big Oil Bailout Prevention Liability Act of 2010, which would raise the liability cap on offshore drilling accidents from $75 million to $10 billion. Unanimous consent simply means the bill passes without all the usual Senate procedural folderol.

Now, ask yourself: Who could object to this? Does anyone really think BP should only have to pay $75 million -- a drop in the bucket relative to what's necessary; an even smaller drop in the bucket of BP's profits -- to clean up the Gulf oil catastrophe? What possible justification could there be for objecting? Surely if anything deserves unanimous consent, it's this, right?

You underestimate the Republican party. None other than Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski stood up to object. Yes, the senator from the state that got hammered by the Exxon Valdez spill objected to raising the liability cap.

And what was her argument? If the liability cap is raised, that might exclude small oil companies from being able to get the insurance and financing necessary to drill offshore. After all, only the oil giants could afford $10 billion. That is to say: only the oil giants can afford to clean up after themselves.

You're not dreaming. That's really the argument. Murkowski wants small, independent oil companies to be able to privatize the profits of offshore drilling but offload the financial risks to the public. And she frames it as avoiding a "Big Oil monopoly" on drilling. She's just defending mom-and-pop oil shops! The gall is breathtaking.

Murkowski also noted that victims of the spill are able to file lawsuits in affected states, where there's no cap on punitive damages. Menendez followed up to point out that many of the state lawsuits on the Exxon Valdez spill dragged on for more than 20 years and many plaintiffs died or withdrew before receiving a penny. You'd think the senator from Alaska, of all people, would know that.

Murkowski has made something of a specialty of being the Senate's concern troll. She purports to agree with greens' objectives -- reducing carbon, boosting efficiency, forcing oil companies to pay for cleanup -- but somehow always manages to oppose the specific means. This has been particularly clear when it comes to carbon regulation. She's leading the fight to block EPA's ability to regulate CO2, arguing that Congress should do it instead ... but then of course she objects to all of the actual bills put forward to do so. If Congress actually passes a bill, it's likely to preempt EPA regulations anyway, but for some reason Murkowski wants to take that weapon out of EPA's hands before a bill passes. Now why would she want that? It's almost like she's trying to insure the carbon regulations are indefinitely delayed or as weak as possible, while pretending to support them.

Her act is wearing thin. Nobody's buying it any more. Nobody I've talked to in D.C. still believes she is acting in good faith. After today's performance on the Senate floor, it's difficult to argue otherwise.

UPDATE:

Here's video:



Nelson is not happy. Just after the vote he tweeted that Murkowski had "sandbagged" the bill. Harry Reid isn't happy either, saying in a statement:

Inexplicably, Republicans are protecting negligent oil companies like BP and blocking our efforts to prevent a BP bailout. Through their obstruction, Republicans are leaving taxpayers on the hook to pay for BP’s negligence.

Here is Corruption at its best !!!!!

[justjohn]

More on CORRUPTION !!!!


I did not think that Congress could do anything more craven than granting immunity to gun manufacturers for certain types of lawsuits. With all of the persons, companies and institutions engaged in curing illness and saving lives, Congress chose (out of the myriad entities which contribute to the well-being of our country) to immunize an industry that manufactures a product that kills people. But now along comes the revelation that the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 granted a liability limitation of 75 million dollars to the oil industry for spills by offshore facilities.

The statute talks in terms of $75 million per spill "plus removal costs." I did some preliminary research as to what was included in the limitation, but I remain uncertain as to what is or is not covered, and frankly, I don't care. A bill to increase the limit from $75 million to $10 billion was defeated. My question is: Why should there be any limit?

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) argued in opposition to the increase in limits that it would injure the smaller companies engaged in offshore drilling and affect their ability to obtain financing and insurance for exploration. So let me see if I understand this. A company which causes damage from an oil spill which exceeds the value of the company (plus insurance) should somehow receive protection from the U.S. Congress. As Sen. Robert Menendez said, these small independent companies are not "mom and pop groceries stores." Why, as in the case of the gun industry, has the oil industry been singled out for protection, and if the cap is not sufficient to pay all of the damages, who pays the difference?

The irony of granting any limitation can be found in Mobil's roughly $45 billion profit and earnings of a trifling $53 million per day without paying any U.S. income tax in 2009 as is reported in some of the articles I have reviewed. I do not vouch for the validity of the numbers, but a billion one way or the other does not make the liability limitation any less ludicrous. Shell Oil paid $2.1 billion in 2008 just for the rights to drill off Alaska's north coast. I understand the need to end our reliance on foreign oil and encourage exploration, but I also recognize the need to protect the fishing industry and all those who rely upon it and all others who depend upon a healthy ocean and an oil-free shore line for their livelihood. It is they who need protection -- not the giant oil companies

[justjohn]

GOP Blocked Raising BP's Liability Cap Because Company Promised To Cover Damages (VIDEO)


Late this past week, Republicans in the Senate effectively blocked legislation that would have raised the cap on the amount of money oil companies like BP would have to pay for economic damages caused by oil spills.

It was, if nothing else, risky politics. As it stands now, a company will pay only $75 million in economic-related liabilities. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) wants the figured bumped up to $10 billion. Asked why the GOP would block such an effort, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) suggested on Sunday that raising the cap was unnecessary because BP had given him it's word that it would cover the costs of the spill in the Gulf.

"I've offered supportive legislation to expand it also," the Senator said on ABC's "This Week." "But BP people repeatedly stated at the hearing and have told me personally, they are going to be responsible for all legitimate claims that are made against them. So I think we need to watch that closely. They signed as the responsible party, in other words, when they got the privilege to drill in the gulf, they said 'we will be responsible for all damage to the beaches, all clean-up costs.' Then the question is how far beyond that do they go, and other consequential economic or other damages. They have said they will be responsible for paying them. They should have more than enough money to pay them. And we expect them to pay every cent."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) made much the same case as Sessions on Sunday. During an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," he argued that BP would "be held to" its promise to pay for all damages.

"They ought to pay for it and they will pay for it," McConnell said.

The danger in raising an economic liability cap, McConnell added, was that it would make it so that only large oil companies could drill off-shore. "If you raise the cap too high, there will be no competition in the Gulf and you will leave all the business to the big guys like BP," he said.

Democrats have scoffed at the idea that their bill would essentially favor Big Oil over the smaller shops -- by allowing the former to continue drilling while making it economic unfeasible for the latter. Companies that are taking major risks by drilling off-shore should, after all, have the resources, to cover a massive spill should they happen. Otherwise, there shouldn't be drilling at all.
Story continues below

As for trusting BP to cover the entire cost of economic damages (as Sessions and McConnell argue), that too seemed like a leap of faith that Democrats in Senate were unwilling to take. And immediately following Sessions' appearance on the show, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-.V.T) urged bipartisan support for Menendez's bill.

"When the Democrats tried to [pass a] law to make sure [that taxpayers] didn't have to pay for it and that big oil everywhere would have to pay for a cleanup, Republicans filibustered and blocked that," he said. "Frankly this is something Republicans and Democrats ought to come together, not allow Big Oil to call the shots but allow the law to call the shots."

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), likewise, called on Congress to pass legislation to "make sure BP pays for the whole thing."

"I don't believe there should be ," he said. "There is an effort in Congress to remove that cap and I think it will pass." (He was referring to Menendez's legislation, which won't remove the cap but raise it substantially).

[Eric]

It's terrible.

The Republican Party is proud to be the Party of No - to block ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that Obama and the Democrats want, no matter how good it is, simply because they want it.

[kaima]

This is interesting coming from an Alaskan Senator who lived through the Prince William Sound disaster with teh Exxon Valdez 20+ years ago.

She is not the only Alaskan Republican woman to forget what it was like, Sarah Palin couldn't remember it, nor the fines for pollution that were reduced from $10Bn to $5 Bn and (3 months before she demonstrated her forgetfullness) $0.5Bn!

So much for the bankrupt fishermen who died waiting for a settlement and partial restoration.

Onward Corporate Amerika!

[justjohn]

[youtube]