Who Voted to Limit the Liability of Oil Companies?
In 1990 Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act. This act set liability limitations to $75 million for oil spills like the one we are witnessing in the Gulf Coast today. Setting a liability limit on damages created by oil drilling can only encourage the lowering and neglect of safety standards and procedures, ultimately causing more oil spills.
The congress-persons who voted for the Oil Pollution Act are directly responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf. They enabled British Petroleum to loosen their safety procedures, to operate without redundant oil spill prevention systems, to take risks, etc. This is the very reason the same oil spill clean up technologies used the in the late 70’s are still in place today. The Oil Pollution Act destroyed any motivation for improvement in oil spill safety, prevention and oil spill containment procedures by removing the penalties for neglect.
Many congress-persons who voted for this act are still in office today. They must be removed from office. They are in the back pocket of the oil industry and they are directly responsible for this catastrophe. Please join this facebook page and invite your friends to spread awareness for the election season >> I encourage irresponsible oil drilling, please vote me out of office.
Here are their names (these congress-persons voted for the Oil Pollution Act of 1990):
United States Senators – [source]
Richard Shelby – Alabama
John McCain – Arizona
Barbara Boxer – California
Chris Dodd – Connecticut
Joe Lieberman – Connecticut
Joe Biden – Delaware (currently Vice President)
Tom Carper – Deleware
Daniel Inouye – Hawaii
Daniel Akaka – Hawaii
Dick Durbin – Illinois
Richard Lugar – Indiana
Chuck Grassley – Iowa
Tom Harkin – Iowa
Pat Roberts – Kansas
Jim Bunning – Kentucky
Mitch McConnell – Kentucky
Olympia Snowe – Maine
Ben Cardin – Maryland
Barbara Mikulski – Maryland
John Kerry – Massachusettes
Carl Levin – Michigan
Thad Cochran – Mississippi
Kit Bond – Missouri
Max Baucus – Montana
Harry Reid – Nevada
Frank Lautenberg – New Jersey
Jeff Bingaman – New Mexico
Chuck Schumer – New York
Kent Conrad – North Dakota
Byron Dorgan – North Dakota
Jim Inhofe – Oklahoma
Ron Wyden – Oregon
Arlen Specter – Pennsylvania
Tim Johnson – South Dakota
Orrin Hatch – Utah
Patrick Leahy – Vermont
Robert Byrd – West Virgnia
Jay Rockefeller – West Virginia
Herb Kohl – Wisconsin
U.S. Congress – [source]
Don Young – Alaska
Jon Kyl – Arizona
Howard Berman – California
David Dreier – California
Elton Gallegly – California
Wally Herger – California
Jerry Lewis – California
George Miller – California
Nancy Pelosi – California
Dana Rohrabacher – California
Henry Waxman – California
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen – Florida
Cliff Stearns – Florida
Bill Young – Florida
John Lewis – Georgia
Jerry Costello – Illinois
Dan Burton – Indiana
Pete Visclosky – Indiana
Hal Rogers – Kentucky
Barney Frank – Massachussetts
Ed Markey – Massachussetts
Richard Neal – Massachussetts
Steny Hoyer – Maryland
John Conyers – Michigan
John Dingell – Michigan
Dale Kildee – Michigan
Sander Levin – Michigan
Fred Upton – Michigan
Jim Oberstar – Minnesota
Gene Taylor – Mississippi
Frank Pallone – New Jersey
Chris Smith – New Jersey
Donald Payne – New Jersey
Gary Ackerman – New York
Eliot Engel – New York
Nita Lowey – New York
Charles Rangel – New York
Jose Serrano – New York
Louise Slaughter – New York
Ed Towns – New York
Howard Coble – North Carolina
David Price – North Carolina
Marcy Kaptur – Ohio
Peter DeFazio – Oregon
Paul Kanjorski – Pennsylvania
John Spratt, Jr. – South Carolina
Jim Cooper – Tennessee
John Duncan – Tennessee
Bart Gordon – Tennessee
John Tanner – Tennessee
Joe Barton – Texas
Ralph Hall – Texas
Solomon Ortiz – Texas
Lamar Smith – Texas
Frank Wolf – Virgnia
Jim McDermott – Washington
Nick Rahall – West Virginia
Alan Mollohan – West Virgninia
Dave Obey – Wisconsin
Jim Sensenbrenner – Wisconsin
Not in office but still active politically
Short URL: http://breakthematrix.com/?p=1482
Posted by Trevor Lyman
on Jun 9 2010 Filed under Corruption, Environmental Damage, Latest, Pictures.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
[...] 06/09/10 – Break the Matrix: Who Voted to Limit the Liability of Oil Companies? [...]
They should resign.
This was 20 years ago….most of them HAVE resigned….. It’s the republicans that have apologized to the oil companies for MAKING them take responsibility for their mess…..
LeftOfCenter44.com
This is a list of persons who voted for it and are STILL in office. Stop being an apologist for your party and recognize they are both to blame. And FYI Obama has taken more political contributions from BP than any other representative. That creates a huge conflict of interest don’t you think?
Trevor, the way I read the Act, it does not limit liability to $75M. From the EPA’s summary of the Act:
“§1004 The liability for tank vessels larger than 3,000 gross tons is increased to $1,200 per gross ton or $10 million, whichever is greater. Responsible parties at onshore facilities and deepwater ports are liable for up to $350 millon per spill; holders of leases or permits for offshore facilities, except deepwater ports, are liable for up to $75 million per spill, plus removal costs. The Federal government has the authority to adjust, by regulation, the $350 million liability limit established for onshore facilities.”
The actual text of the act is pretty confusing for the quick glance I gave it. It mentioned ranges of no more that $350 M but no less than $8M (or maybe $50 M).
This seems a little more complex. Liability caps are an outrage, but you might want to double check some of the facts on this before people run with it. This could be a very powerful piece.
Hi Kurtis,
Thank you for your comments. I did do some looking around on other sources I trust and continually saw the $75 million number.
http://open.salon.com/blog/richard_rider/2010/05/31/us_limits_bp_oil_spill_liability_to_75_million_madness
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/04/bp-could-face-billions-in_0_n_562271.html
But I think the number is not very important and that instead it’s the entire principle of limiting liability. As you say “liability caps are an outrage” and that is because they can only encourage this kind of a disaster. When congress passed this act they passed a time bomb of inevitability.
Also useful is the potential liability. Business Insider had an article on it:
Here’s What You Need To Know About The $2.2 Trillion Gulf Economy Being Threatened By The Leak
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-gulf-economy-2010-5
Here’s some more from the list:
Newt Gingrich (Likely candidate for president)
Paul Kanjorski
David Price
Jim Sessenbrenner
Louise Slaughter
Olympia Snowe (Senator)
Billy Tauzin
Gene Taylor
Henry Waxman
Ron Wyden (Senator)
Don Young
Thank you! I’ll be checking and adding them to the list shorty.
[...] “BP and the government need each other,” Sensenbrenner wrote in a column published Thursday on his website. “So, I question again, how is the president publicly chastising and threatening BP with criminal actions — a company that has pledged to pay for the damage caused by the oil spill accident and who likely wants this resolved more than anyone — helping to stop the oil?” And of course, Sensenbrenner is on the list of Congress-persons who voted for liability limitations for oil companies [...]
[...] How CRONY Capitalism ruins our Government Who Voted to Limit the Liability of Oil Companies? | BreakTheMatrix Crony Capitalists get government to protect them. It's a bi-partisan effort, and it's a symptom of [...]
Millions of us consider ourselves “capitalists” in that we own businessess and hire people. We do all the obvious things that “capitalists” do. However, very few of us hire lobbyists and set up our private tax exempt foundations to hide our money . Very few of us “capitalists” use the granting power of tax exempt foundations to “so alter life in the United States” by giving millions to certain groups (mostly leftists) to go out into the political world to shake things up. Very few of us capitalists reap the benefits of the “shaking up.” Very few of us “capitalists” engage in political strategems such as getting laws passed in Congress that give us monopoply control over certain industries. Very few of us “capitalists” desire to acquire “granting power” to help us “alter life” in our favor.
This type of “capitalism” has been described as “crony capitalism, but it really isn’t capitalism as much as it is a perversion of capitalism.
Very few of us “capitalists” own media outlets that propagandize for war and hatred. So, please , if you arent’ going to define capitalism or define capitalism’s root – capital- I shall offer up this classic dictionary definition:
CAPITAL: THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. Capitalism is a deriviative of capital therefore anyone person who uses “capital” is by defintion a capitalist.
In essence we either have honest people or you have dishonest people using an economic system that is inescapably capitalistic.
Even if a person tried to escape the capitalist world by living in a cave with little or no contact with the outside world that person would still need capital to survive. They would have to beg for food using their wits to acquire food. In this case isn’t their abiltiy to use their wits a form of capital? After all a person’s talents can get him either pocket change from a stranger food or a major recording studio recording contract.
They can steal food or grow it or hunt for it. If they grow it or hunt for it they’ll need tools to help them acquire it. Any implement, even a crudely made hoe or hunting tool is something that provides a person with the potential to eat or to make a living by using these tools. Tools are “capital.” We can’t eat these tools but we use them to get us something to eat. A spear to hunt game or a bow and arrow are also “capital” in that they are the means of production.
Our stomach is only so big and get hold only so much food at any one time. But our eyes are bigger than everyone’s bellies so some folks want to acquire more and more. There isn’t anything wrong with that except when they try to use people as capital and use people as slaves.
Sadly some people don’t like to work and some even secretly yearn to be the slave of the state. For these people who have sufficiently been propagandized by those who wish to “so alter life in the United States” from free markets to controlled markets, there is ObamaCare waiting to enslave them.
I for one don’t wish to be a slave to the state or to crony capitalism.
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/josheboch/could-some-states-nullify-obamacare
In a free market capitalist society one does not have to be a so-called succesful man. Society’s pressures drive certain people to do that. A free market system based on a republican model protects our property and keeps “crony capitalism” at a minimum.
This list cannot possibly be complete. There are not enough names on it to pass legislation.
This vote took place in 1990. This is a list of persons who voted for the bill and are still in office today. But you are right that it is not complete yet. I’m still adding names.
well my guess is the same people that voted to let your government break all the rules of war, torture ,geneva convention, nurumburg principals, rendition, etc.
setting a fine example to follow!!
Re: the liability limit issue
Should the legislative branch of Congress be involved in setting a monetary cap on damages? Isn’t that a decision that the courts of the various states should take up? Even the state legislatures can’t guess what some future damage to a coastline wil be.
I see your point in publishing the list of congressmen who voted in 1992 for limiting oil companies liabilties, but the problem with that particular bill. But the problem was that they voted on a bill that should never had been before them inthe first place!
As I see it the government at the national level has been involved in areas they have no authority to be involved in. A mine caves in or explodes and we get government involved in the mining industry; We have crop failures and we end up with government involved in farming; water is polluted by cities and companies and we get governnment regulating water supplies. The same for the air we breathe and on and on.
Tthe feds involvement in energy is what has choked off our supplies of abundant energy .We all should be driving cars that run on non-polluting nuclear engines but the oil companies and gas companies in cahoots with the national government don’t want to see those kinds of cars.
Prestine beaches can be achieved by breaking the crude oil cycle by going with the neglected safer and cleaner and cheaper brand- nuclear.
Enviros protest this brand of energy today but in the early days when nuclear was just beginning to show its potential for cleaning up the air the sierra Club was all for getting off of coal and oil and going nuclear. Once nuclear became viable and really could provide for all of energy needs the enviros like the Sierrra Club came out in oppostion.
The media, the enviros and the rich mega tax exempt foundations do conspire to deny you and me an abundant supply of energy. I don’t doubt these conspirators are happy to see that the public is more conducive to seeing things their way now that the public is getting its fill of film footage of the gushing oil from the bottom of the drink.
Well that is my point.. it’s a bill that never should have been voted on in the first place. That’s why I’m listing the names and trying to create accountability.
The Act was created by congress in response to the valdez oil spill that for a time damaged the Alaskan fishing industry and the coast. Today there are no signs of that spill. All that is left in its wake is more government control of that industry and stepping on states’ rights.
The states can deal with these types of accidents better than the feds, but we have gotten hooked on looking to Big Brother to solve all of our problems. The states could have put up barriers to protect the coast from the BP “accident,” but Fed Regs prevented the states’ governors to act in time to build barriers.
The feds created the bureaucracy (EPA, Energy, bureau of Mines, etc) as Mr.Lee says, but congressmen are stupid like most voters, and thought that these agencies and government departments were truly interested in solving problems. These folks up in DC didn’t check first to see that the laws they were asked to vote on were constitutional. And since most D.C. political animals can’t see past their noses, the creation of another layer of BUREAU- CRAZY is not to protect the environment as much as it is to control people.
Still an oil company invests its money to drill for something the public needs-oil – and if an accident happens why shouldn’t the officers of an oil company protect their investment from liability that may not be their fault?
We have seen the “congressional investigations” in the wake of this latest “accident,” posturing on Television but if there was sabotage you would never learn it from these congressional ” investigators.” However, if some deranged person was to blame then I can see why this part of the act was inserted:
“Sec. 2703. Defenses to liability
(a) Complete defenses
A responsible party is not liable for removal costs or damages under
section 2702 of this title if the responsible party establishes, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the discharge or substantial threat
of a discharge of oil and the resulting damages or removal costs were
caused solely by–
(1) an act of God;
(2) an act of war;
(3) an act or omission of a third party, other than an employee
or agent of the responsible party or a third party whose act or
omission occurs in connection with any contractual relationship with
the responsible party (except where the sole contractual arrangement
arises in connection with carriage by a common carrier by rail), if
the responsible party establishes, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the responsible party–
(A) exercised due care with respect to the oil concerned,
taking into consideration the characteristics of the oil and in
light of all relevant facts and circumstances; and
(B) took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions
of any such third party and the foreseeable consequences of
those acts or omissions; or
(4) any combination of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).”
“Still an oil company invests its money to drill for something the public needs-oil – and if an accident happens why shouldn’t the officers of an oil company protect their investment from liability that may not be their fault?”
I’m not sure if you are saying this accident was not their fault? It clearly was as BP ignored many safety warnings for years and with this accident. We may be in agreement here though.
But just to reiterate my point.. the public may need oil but never to the point where the costs in damages outweigh the value of the oil to society. So if we drilled less what would happen? The cost of gas would go up and so more money would be put into other energy sources. Oil is NOT the only path to energy. Ocean energy (wave powered energy) is among the densest form of renewable energy there is. Let the price of oil go up, take fewer risks to our environment and let the market direct energy into much better resources.
Trevor,
Why would an oil company,especially in this day of age of hyper-sentstivity to the environment, take a chance and ignore safety warnings and risk losing millions of dollars in law suits and in loss of revenue by not being extra careful and doing even much more than the regulations and safety precautions by the government call for?
If the oil company had been a Russian, Venezuelan, North Korean or a Red Chinese company the only concern they would have would be to world opinion. BP which operates with a license from the US I would guess is extra senstive to these regs. But you really don’t need to have a single government reg to be extra careful when drilling. Oil companies or even bread companies have an incentive to make money and return investments to their stock holders. In the case of BP I just don’t see them being deliberately reckless in their drilling operations. Not that you said that they were. what I am saying is that loads of Americans think that from watching the drama unfold on TV.
The CEO of BP admitted they are to blame but here we go blaming the Republicans for easing up on the regulations. Once we accept that lie we are setting ourselves up for more government control until the oil companies are owned by the government. One that happens the rationing of energy will really be obvious.
It’s fine in theory to let the price of oil go sky high to the point that other energy entrepneurs step in to fill the role of energy provider. In a free market that would work but we have a controlled and a highly government- managed market and America is under the influence of a band of control freaks who want to shut down America’s oil, gas and coal companies as they have done to nuclear for their “Grand Design.” My guess is that putting us on heels instead of on wheels is a way to control us better.
If wave-powered energy becomes viable that source will be attacked too.
Because they think they can save money and not cause an accident. They take the risks because the liability is limited. But this is not a theory. Look to the top of the article: http://www.pressherald.com/news/nationworld/bp-ignored-safety-policies-across-north-america_2010-06-08.html This is just one example of an article siting BP’s ongoing neglect for safety for years now. Do a google search and you will find many more articles citing these facts.
Yes you would have to get rid of regulations as well, increased oil prices would help to do that. This would make the development of alternative sources cheaper. Sky high prices are not necessary, but making sure we have the real cost of oil on the market is. This means we need oil drilled with the costs of proper safety in place.
[...] http://breakthematrix.com/latest/who-voted-to-limit-the-liability-of-oil-companies/ [...]
In our democracy, elected officials need money to be elected. If they don’t play ball with the big boys, the money spigot is turned off, or worse, funds directed to an opponent. I don’t think it is fair to list our representatives and possibly embarrass them for taking money and then enacting the legislation their bosses need in order to limit their risk and reward their shareholders. It is far more economic to donate to a politicians campaign than to be exposed to the high cost of clean-ups which they feel should be passed on to the public. After all it is the public that uses the oil, the oil companies are just getting out of the ground for us. If big business and AIPAC stop funding politicians what kind of government would we have?
At first I actually thought you were serious.
You’d be amazed at the people that don’t get irony
cheers
mike
WOW! That list should be cross-refernced against this one, for TWO reasons to vote out the incumbants.
http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/article/351-2010-may-june/9045-pro-israel-pac-contributions-to-2010-congressional-candidates.html
The massive amounts of money both these groups (oil & AIPAC) have, they can afford to slather the newbie-elected too though, right?
The single greatest technological advance in man’s history – making heat via a nuclear reaction which ends up as electricity. When man learned to convert a relatively small amount of mass to energy, the scientists provided the sfest, cleanest, and except for hyropower, the cheapest and potentially the most abundant and useful energy in human history. What the devil happened to America’s invention? The short answer is the political sabotage of this form of energy.
We wouldn’t be having this discussion about an oil spill, liabilties and whose fault it is for the busted pipe that is fouling up the coast line and all the rest if we had the nuclear reactors that France has today.
[...] than doing the responsible thing and making them liable for all of the damages they cause. via Break The Matrix Voting Record via Gov Track __________________ [...]
[...] Who Voted to Limit the Liability of Oil Companies? >> In 1990 Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act. This act set liability limitations to $75 million for oil spills like the one we are witnessing in the Gulf Coast today. Setting a liability limit on damages created by oil drilling can only encourage the lowering and neglect of safety standards and procedures, ultimately causing more oil spills. [...]
[...] 16, 2010 Filed under: Uncategorized — libertarianlesbian @ 3:43 pm Tags: oil, politics So, back in 1990, Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act. What was it? It was an act to limit liability of oil [...]
[...] Posted June 20, 2010 at 5:38 pm You would think that the exact opposite would happen. But no, here is a nice little link with a list of all your congressmen who voted to limit the liability of oil companies. [...]
I’m sorry, but in many cases the alternative is even worse…
It makes no sense to vote a Democrat out of office because he/she voted for this if they are going to be replaced by a Republican who is even more pro oil industry (and who obviously would have voted for this too.)
Right now this issue is up again and it’s the Republicans that are blocking the liability from being expanded.
The solution is voting out REPUBLICANS.
Thinking like this is the exact reason our nation is in such poor condition today.
[...] Read more… [...]
Here are two more finds:
Senate candidate Dan Coats (R-IN)
Supposed “environmentalist” Al Gore (D-TN)
[...] The ramifications for the economies in the gulf region are unfathomable at this point. In 1990, according to one website, “Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act. This act set liability limitations to $75 million for [...]
[...] The ramifications for the economies in the gulf region are unfathomable at this point. In 1990, according to one website, “Congress adopted the Oil Pollution Act. This act set liability limitations to $75 million for [...]