Before the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 the U.S. had no liability on oil spills. The problem was still reoccurring even though over 10,000 oil spills were occurring every year around the country. It wasn’t until the major Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska that it was shown that there was no protocol or organization to immediately and effectively clean up the large spill.
In the Conference report for the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, it is stated that there was a great increase on the liability of oil spillers, in which tankers will be liable for “$1200 per gross ton, and facilities will be liable for as much as $350 million.” Although this is the limit stated it can be changed in cases of gross negligence, and since the Federal law does not preempt States, …show more content…
Strongly opposed to this law, was Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, who was strongly opposed of this interference. George Miller, the chairman of the House Interior Subcommittee on Water, Power and Offshore Energy Resources, stalled the oil spill liability package in the House after two committees had already approved of it. He was angry that he did not markup HR 1465 to insert his own bill (HR 3277). As well as this dissatisfaction, he was also wanted to 5-cents-perbarrel tax rather than a 3-cents perbarrel tax for the $1 billion dollar cleanup fund. To resolve this the Ways and Means committee had to step in. Gerry E. Studds, a Democratic representative from Massachusetts, agreed with Miller on this taxation, and he also preferred no preemption provisions. One of the committees involved in this legislation were the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation who approved of Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and first believed in tough preemption but later on became more lenient. The House Public Works and Transportation Committee agreed with the other committee as well. Howard M. Metzenbaum, the amendment’s sponsor had to deal with how the oil per barrel would be …show more content…
When it was going through the House it was stalled because George Miller would not accept the compromise of the oil spill liability package, which put off further consideration of a floor-debate. The Senate had advised the House that they should not interfere with state laws, but the Senate still chose to approve an oil-spill liability bill that would largely pre-empt state oil-spill laws with a comprehensive federal law, to which the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation agreed to with a 14-9 vote. Although they voted for a harsh law, HR 1465 would provide liability limits to spills that were not caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct. The pre-emption amendment adopted by the subcommittee would generally not allow state oil-spill funds to be used for the after events of a spill such as cleanup or compensation to victims, but they could be used on plans to prevent or prepare for a spill. Amendment author Norman D. Shumway, told drafters that they should add compensation in the oil pollution act. Studds advised the committee to wait on approving this pre-emption amendment since the committee does not know how a state’s laws will be affected by this amendment, and if this could lead to
In the Conference report for the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, it is stated that there was a great increase on the liability of oil spillers, in which tankers will be liable for “$1200 per gross ton, and facilities will be liable for as much as $350 million.” Although this is the limit stated it can be changed in cases of gross negligence, and since the Federal law does not preempt States, …show more content…
Strongly opposed to this law, was Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell, who was strongly opposed of this interference. George Miller, the chairman of the House Interior Subcommittee on Water, Power and Offshore Energy Resources, stalled the oil spill liability package in the House after two committees had already approved of it. He was angry that he did not markup HR 1465 to insert his own bill (HR 3277). As well as this dissatisfaction, he was also wanted to 5-cents-perbarrel tax rather than a 3-cents perbarrel tax for the $1 billion dollar cleanup fund. To resolve this the Ways and Means committee had to step in. Gerry E. Studds, a Democratic representative from Massachusetts, agreed with Miller on this taxation, and he also preferred no preemption provisions. One of the committees involved in this legislation were the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation who approved of Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and first believed in tough preemption but later on became more lenient. The House Public Works and Transportation Committee agreed with the other committee as well. Howard M. Metzenbaum, the amendment’s sponsor had to deal with how the oil per barrel would be …show more content…
When it was going through the House it was stalled because George Miller would not accept the compromise of the oil spill liability package, which put off further consideration of a floor-debate. The Senate had advised the House that they should not interfere with state laws, but the Senate still chose to approve an oil-spill liability bill that would largely pre-empt state oil-spill laws with a comprehensive federal law, to which the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation agreed to with a 14-9 vote. Although they voted for a harsh law, HR 1465 would provide liability limits to spills that were not caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct. The pre-emption amendment adopted by the subcommittee would generally not allow state oil-spill funds to be used for the after events of a spill such as cleanup or compensation to victims, but they could be used on plans to prevent or prepare for a spill. Amendment author Norman D. Shumway, told drafters that they should add compensation in the oil pollution act. Studds advised the committee to wait on approving this pre-emption amendment since the committee does not know how a state’s laws will be affected by this amendment, and if this could lead to