PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 27, 2000
Maritime Safety Act of 2000 - Amends Federal shipping law to prohibit any nontank (and non- fishing) vessel over 300 gross tons carrying oil as fuel from operating on U.S. navigable waters without an approved response plan for the prevention, containment, and cleanup of oil spills and for the protection from such a spill of fisheries and wildlife, natural resources, and public and private property. Requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue minimum requirements for such plans. Prescribes procedures for submittal, review, and the Secretary's approval of such plans.Increases the maximum liability of nontank vessels for oil spills to the greater of : (1) $806 (currently $600) per gross ton; or (2) $672,000 (currently $500,000).Requires any passenger vessel, small passenger vessel, and freight vessel (including a foreign vessel) subject to inspection to be equipped with a voyage data recorder of a type prescribed by the Secretary.Requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the immediate investigation of responses to marine casualties.Requires certain vessels, including small passenger and towing vessels, to be equipped with a position indicating transponder and an appropriate situation display or other device suitable for accessing information made available by the transponder system.Authorizes the Secretary to prohibit the loading or unloading of a vessel in any port or place subject to U.S. jurisdiction if the vessel is registered in a country that fails to adequately enforce safety standards prescribed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Requires the Secretary to report to Congress on: (1) the five such countries with the greatest number of registered vessels detained by the Coast Guard in 1999 for violation of such safety standards; and (2) whether those countries have, since December 31, 1999, adequately enforced such standards.Directs the Secretary to seek to negotiate at the IMO the elimination of single hull bunker tanks on commercial vessels capable of carrying more than 1,000 barrels of fuel on board.
People & committees
Rep. DeFazio, Peter A. [D-OR-4] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5025 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5025 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5025 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5025 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.