“If an agreement can be reached, we could have these votes Wednesday,” the aide says.

A lobbyist sends this additional detail: If the cloture votes on Reid’s bill and the Republican bill fail (as many on the Hill expect), the Senate could bring up the House oil spill response package. Though the House package includes the controversial language removing the cap on a company’s oil spill liability, it does not include any energy-related provisions, like a proposal to force companies to disclose the chemicals they use during natural gas “fracking.”

But the lobbyist warns that prospects don’t look good for any of these options. “In either case, does not sound promising for real action,” the lobbyist says.

Jim Manley, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) spokesperson, blasted the Republican proposal this week for not including an unlimited cap on oil spill liability, as the Democrats’ bill does. “Republicans want taxpayers to foot the bill for BP’s disaster and allow BP to use endless legal battles to run out the clock on those whose livelihoods they destroyed – just like Exxon did to victims of the Valdez spill,” Manley said.

Now, Republicans are firing back. Robert Dillon, spokesperson for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), just sent an e-mail to reporters with this subject line: “Grrrr.” Dillon continues:

The Republican bill holds oil companies accountable and makes sure taxpayers are never on the hook for spill clean up costs. But, and this is a big difference, it ensures that smaller, independent oil companies can still get insurance to explore in the Gulf of Mexico – saving tens of thousands of Americans from being forced unnecessarily onto the unemployment line simply because Democrats want to punish Big Oil.

Ranking member Joe Barton (R-Texas), who promised to wage “sneaky,” “crafty” “guerrilla warfare” on the legislation, just delivered his opening statement. He said of the bill, “We know the cost is significant; we know the environmental benefit is practically nonexistent.”

And so he’s offering a Republican substitute bill, which he said “wouldn’t wreck the economy, would have some economic benefits and wouldn’t do any environmental harm.” If that language seems less than aggressive in combating global climate change, that’s because it is. Says Joe Romm, “You can’t really call it an alternative climate bill, since it doesn’t stop US greenhouse gas emissions from rising and the words “climate change” and “global warming” hardly appear in it at all — except to strip any authority from the EPA to address the problem.”

Barton also pledged to introduce a number of amendments to improve the legislation. In fact, he’s got 450 amendments up his sleeve, and I’ll give you a sense of their general thrust. Numbers 10 to 148 take this form:

• #30: “Suspends the act should more than 1,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”
• #31: “Suspends the act should more than 2,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”
• #32: “Suspends the act should more than 5,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”
• #33: “Suspends the act should more than 10,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”
• #34: “Suspends the act should more than 50,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”

Swap in the names of 19 other states (no idea why the remaining 30 are excluded), and you get the general idea. You also start to understand Barton’s remark to Politico last week: “This is not going to be one of those gentlemanly, pro forma markups. We’re prepared for it to take weeks or months.”

OK, maybe it won’t be THAT fun to watch. Fortunately, TWI will provide updates and save you the trouble. Stay tuned.

–

TWI is on Twitter. Please follow us here.