Practically the entire Senate Democratic caucus has written a letter to BP CEO Tony Hayward, asking the company to create the same kind of $20 billion dollar escrow account that the President will reprortedly seek to pay for economic damages and clean-up costs associated with the Gulf oil spill. The letter was signed by 55 of the 59 members of the caucus: only Mary Landrieu, Robert Byrd, Jeff Bingaman and Kent Conrad failed to add their names.
In the letter, Harry Reid and Senate Democrats cite the Exxon Valdez disaster as an example of how a corporate actor dragged their feet and failed to live up to their promises to responsibility for damages. Here’s the money graf:
Congress is currently gathering information and holding hearings in order to develop evidence-based legislative solutions to address the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Although legislative action is forthcoming, the damages are immediate. In order to ensure BP fully and quickly covers the costs of this disaster, we are calling on BP to immediately establish a special account of $20 billion, administered by an independent trustee, to be used for payment of economic damages and clean-up costs. Establishment of this account would serve as an act of good faith and as a first step towards ensuring that there will be no delay in payments or attempt to evade responsibility for damages. Although creating this account at this level in no way limits BP’s liability, we believe it will do more to improve BP’s public image than the costly public relations campaign your company has launched.
They ask for an answer by Friday.
In addition to the escrow account, the Senate continues to seek a permanent elimination of the $75 million dollar liability cap, which would be applied retroactively to cover the current spill. On a conference call today, Sens. Bob Menendez and Patty Murray argued for swift passage of the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act, which would create “unlimited liability because they created unlimited risk and damage,” said Menendez. The escrow account should not be seen as a cap on BP’s damages, insisted Murray (who characterized the $20 billion as “a down payment”), nor should it preclude passage of this legislation to deal with existing and future spills. Republicans have blocked unanimous consent for this measure three times on the Senate floor.
David Vitter has authored his own measure to ensure BP live up to its responsibilities and pay for all damages, but Menendez scoffed at it, saying that it gives unlimited liability just for the BP spill, that it creates a contract out of statements BP has made, and that it represents an unconstitutional bill of attainder, conferring one set of liability rules on one company. He suggested that it would instantly lead to litigation from BP because of the “loopholes big enough to navigate an oil tanker through.”
I asked Menendez why that would be different for his legislation, which seeks to lift the liability cap retroactively. Wouldn’t that also lead to a Constitutional challenge? Menendez didn’t believe so. “Our bill is Constitutional and would hold muster in court,” he said. He cited a Congressional Research Service study and the opinion of the Justice Department, as well as the precedent of Superfund, which applied retroactively to some clean-up costs. “It’s been well-litigated and held before… BP’s efforts wouldn’t be anything other than a delaying tactic.”
I also asked for a reaction to John Boehner’s apparent call for lifting the liability cap completely, on ABC’s This Week. His admission seems to have jump-started calls for accountability for BP from Democrats today. “I’m glad to see Congressman Boehner finally cleared up what he said with respect to the Chamber (of Commerce’s) position,” Sen. Menendez said. “If he believes unlimited liability is the way to go we hope he’ll join us.”
As for whether the liability cap bill would get a floor vote, rather than a continued effort to invoke unanimous consent, Sen. Murray said the caucus would “look at all opportunities to move this forward.” She noted that Barbara Boxer would be taking the legislation through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It is expected that oil spill legislation would get folded into whatever energy of climate bill gets to the Senate floor this summer. There’s a caucus meeting on Thursday to determine the nature of that bill.



21 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Make them Filibuster… get those cots out, have C-Span cover 7/24 of the Repukes blocking and protecting BP and Oil in general. The Pary of No No Fuck no… Show the people what they are protecting Big Money, Goldman Sachs and such.
Mary effin useless Landreeau
I understand everyone but Byrd. What does he care? Isn’t he about half-dead anyway? One would think he might like to go out with a little bit of class.
Also, given that there’s no end in sight, $20 billion seems a little light to me.
brain dead fer sure
$20 billion seems a little light to me
me too
Because it might set a precedent of sorts for mining operations?
Heh, and if those pesky Republicans somehow fail to clog up the works enough, you can rest assured that another Democrat or two will earn “villian of the week” privilages and will join the GOP in blocking this.
Please. It’s NOT just the Republican’s that don’t want his law. The only reason Obama hasn’t announced he would veto it is because he knows it will never, ever pass.
Sure would be nice if we could all wake up and smell the
coffeekabuki being played on us by both parties.Mere down payment….. I Hope!!
David Dayen, I’m wondering why there is such a focus on the liability cap here at FDL, as it relates to BP’s criminal negligence.
Mike Papantonio has repeatedly stated that the cap is irrelevant when there is criminal activity.
In the case of BP, there is already sufficient evidence of criminal negligence. Drilling beyond the approved depth was just one count of many.
Much of the focus of this story is on the liability cap. I’m wondering why you and others here continue to promote the (false?) idea that the cap is important in this case.
BP cannot just violate our laws, kill people, kill wildlife, drill to unapproved depths, disregard required engineering approvals, and enjoy limited liability.
It doesn’t work that way. What gives?
Pfft! There you go again, looking backwards. /s (:>
Oh, if ONLY that were so.
And, what exactly, makes BP different from Dick Cheney???
Why is there any cap at all? Given what we’ve been seeing, I’m opposed to a cap. Make BP what they OWE…. every single cent of it.
Yeah: I’m dreaming. Also agree that if the Republics don’t block it, then the Dems will. There is no end of BigOil coziness on both sides of the aisle in our halls of gov’t.
Hope the citizens are watching, esp those most directly affected, and it will be a lot before this is all done (if ever).
Well, since you put it so kindly, it’s likely that they only make requests of him when he’s actually needed because of his frailty. He wasn’t needed here. It’s just a letter. It’s the others who need to make excuses.
but I haven’t done that. I’ve very specifically referred to $80 billion in liabilities, Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act violations, and many other penalties and violations, including what you’ve described. The liability cap happens to be something discussed in Congress now, which is part of what I cover. But I haven’t minimized BP’s responsibility.
Maybe our President needs to talk to people who are suffering. Why not sit down and have a beer with them like he did with that professor from Cambridge? Sure he feels comfortable with people in charge and even talking to relief workers, like Bush liked to get cheers from the troops in front of the cameras.
I guess if he took some heat taking to everyday people in front of cameras, it would show how hollow the MMS has been and how weak most of our government agencies are.
I think that the bolded words, above, suggest that a liability cap applies to the BP gusher.
He met privately with each family of the 11 dead BP workers. Does that count? I seriously doubt he had beer with them, and I know for a fact that cameras were prohibited.
Your previous idiot president, the war criminal and the enabler of the current BP catastrophe, didn’t have a shred of class and didn’t bother to attend a single funeral of the soldiers he used for oil and profit.
Let’s get a couple things straight:
BP is the enemy. BP is the sociopathic corporation that has covered up its crimes and lied. BP is the cause of the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.
Conflating Obama with Bush and with BP is right-wing shit.
I didn’t know that bees peed.
Well, isn’t that what BP stands for…bee pee?
Nor was I aware that bees peed crude oil and natural gas, a huge amount of crude oil and natural gas, a monstrous amount of crude oil and natural gas, a tsun…
Oh, forget it.
Are you deliberately leaving the O admin out of it from too much blue kool-aid or are you misinformed?? Because the White House has aided BP in lying to all of us about how bad that disaster was. So to say that Obama isn’t a part of that problem is just Obamabot shit.
You got a link? Because I wan’t aware of any right wing meme conflating Obama with Bush.
Why Bingaman – is NM an Oil state?
David tweeted earlier that Sen. Bingaman was working on his own letter, maybe it’s coming?
The nice thing about an escrow account is that you can just keep putting money in it. I’m delighted this has traction. $200 million a day seems about right as long as the spill continues. At Day 57, that would put us at $11.4 billion. It also ends all this nonsense about blocking dividends, take-over of the day-to-day operations of a multinational, or the need to show BP is lying through its teeth. Long term, we still need the Northern Gulf Marine Reserve to allow the sea a chance to recover.