Yesterday the House finished action on the FY 2016 THUD
spending bill, HR 2577. While there were no new provisions in the original bill
that would be of specific interest to readers of this blog there were a couple
of amendments brought to the floor that might peak that interest. The bill
passed by a very close (216
to 210) due to the defection of 31 Republicans.
Pipeline Safety
Amendments
There were a couple of amendments from Rep Capps (D,CA) that
proposed modifying some of the funding for the pipeline safety segments of the
bill. She attempted (CREC,
613-15, pg H3856) to increase the industry funded Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund by almost $28 Million, but was defeated on a vote that was very similar to
the final vote on the bill, 202 to 222.
She was successful (CREC,
6-3-15, pg H3856) in adding an amendment that would earmark $1 Million of
the PHMSA funding for completing the regulation for requiring the addition
automated shut shutoff valves and leak detection on pipelines. This was not new
funding, just specifying how some of the standard appropriation for the Oil
Pollution Spill Liabilty Trust Fund would be spent.
HHFT Funding
There was an attempt by Rep. Gosar (R,AZ) to strip funding (CREC,
6-4-15, pg H3886) for the enforcement of the recent DOT Highly-Hazardous
Flammable Train (HHFT) regulations. While most of Gosar’s ire was directed at
the new railcar standards, the amendment would have stopped all funding for the
enforcement of the regulation. This amendment was defeated in a mainly
bipartisan vote of 136 to
286.
Drones
Rep. Newhouse (R,WA) introduced an amendment that would prevent
the FAA from spending money to implement or enforce their
recent rulemaking on Drones unless agricultural uses were specifically
addressed. The original amendment (CREC,
6-9-15, pg H3978) was withdrawn due to a registered point of order on the
language (presumably the standard ‘legislating in a spending bill’ objection).
A modified version was subsequently offered that would prohibit implementing
any drone rules unless they followed the restricted category certificate
requirements of 14
CFR 21.25(b)(1).
The second version of the amendment was adopted by a voice
vote.
Moving Forward
The close vote in the House indicates that there might be
problems in getting this bill onto the floor of the Senate for consideration.
The Democrats in the Senate have already indicated that they intent to oppose
any spending bills that continue the sequestration program, but the Republican
leadership had hoped that this bill would get to the floor with the backing of
some moderate Democrats. If any Republican Senators join those from the House
that objected to this bill, there is no way that there will be enough
Democratic votes available to bring this bill to the floor.
No comments:
Post a Comment