PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 5, 2010
Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act of 2010 - Amends the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to: (1) increase the liability of the party responsible for an offshore facility, except a deepwater port, from which oil is discharged into or upon navigable waters or adjoining shorelines to the total of all discharge removal costs plus $10 billion (currently, $75 million) for each incident; and (2) direct the President to promulgate regulations to allow advance payments from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to states and localities to prepare for and mitigate substantial threats from the discharge of oil.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to eliminate: (1) the $1 billion per incident limitation on expenditures from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for cleanup of oil spills: and (2) restrictions on the borrowing authority of such Trust Fund.
Makes this Act effective on April 15, 2010.
People & committees
Rep. Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12] · D–NJ
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 Water Resources and Environment.
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.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.5214 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.5214 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.5214 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.5214 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.