Oil Tanker Double Hulls

Senate Roll Call Vote 163

1989 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

51

Votes Against

48

Not Voting

1

The bill as introduced by Senator George Mitchell (D-ME) deals with two major voids in current oil spill legislation: the lack of an adequate compensation plan for oil spills, and the absence of a comprehensive oil spill response plan. If these programs had been in place, response to the Exxon Valdez disaster would have been quicker and more effective. S. 686 will provide for a $1 billion fund that will be made available for the assessment of damages to the environment and the creation of regional oil spill response teams. The $1 billion fund will come from a three cent per barrel tax on all domestic and imported oil.

The first important oil spill vote was on a motion by Senator Breaux (D-LA) to table and Adams (D-WA) amendment to S. 686. Senator Brock Adams’ amendment would require double-hulls on all new tankers over 20,000 gross tons. The motion to table the Adams amendment was agreed to 51-48. August 3, 1989. No is the pro-environment vote. Environmentalists have pushed for the double-hull requirement as a means to help prevent spills like the disastrous Exxon Valdez spill, but have met strong opposition from oil companies who don’t want to pay the additional costs to protect the environment.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

11%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

89%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

63%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

4%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

40%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

96%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

49%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%