[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 108 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5843-H5845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2005) to amend title 49, United States Code, to clarify the 
application of the act popularly known as the Death on the High Seas 
Act to aviation incidents, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2005

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT

       (a) In General.--Section 40120(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``(including the Act 
     entitled `An Act relating to the maintenance of actions for 
     death on the high seas and other navigable waters', approved 
     March 30, 1920, commonly known as the Death on the High Seas 
     Act (46 U.S.C. App. 761-767; 41 Stat. 537-538))'' after 
     ``United States''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to civil actions commenced after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and to civil actions that are not 
     adjudicated by a court of original jurisdiction or settled on 
     or before such date of enactment.

     SEC. 2. FAMILY ASSISTANCE TASK FORCE REPORT.

       Section 704(c) of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act 
     of 1996 (49 U.S.C. 41113 note; 110 Stat. 3269) is amended by 
     striking ``model plan'' and inserting ``guidelines''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced on June 20 by our very 
distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], along with 40 
bipartisan colleagues. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] 
introduced this legislation in response to the TWA 800 tragedy last 
year.
  Let me just add that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has 
been reelected time and time again because he really cares about his 
constituents and tries to help them in every way that he can. This 
legislation is another example of that because many young people from 
his district died tragically in the TWA 800 crash. But this legislation 
will help people all over this Nation, and it could help families years 
from now if, God forbid, we have another similar crash in the ocean.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is designed simply to clarify that 
application of the Death on the High Seas Act to aviation accidents. 
This issue arises because the Supreme Court last year decided in the 
case of Zuckerman versus Korean Airlines that the Death on the High 
Seas Act applies to lawsuits that arise out of an aircraft crash in the 
ocean more than 3 miles from land. The effect of this decision is to 
treat families differently depending on whether their relative died in 
an aircraft that crashed into the ocean or one that crashed on land. I 
think it is fair to say almost no one in the aviation or legal 
communities believed this Death on the High Seas Act would apply to the 
TWA crash until the recent decision in the Zuckerman case.

                              {time}  1515

  However, as a matter of simple fairness and equity, a 1920 maritime 
shipping law should not apply to the victims of the TWA crash, and this 
is the injustice that this legislation will correct if we pass this 
bill.
  As of now, if we do not enact the bill of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], if a plane crashes into the ocean, the Death 
on the High Seas Act applies. This act denies families the ability to 
seek compensation in a court of law for the loss of companionship of a 
loved one, their relatives' pain and suffering, or punitive damages. 
Basically, they are limited to recovering only lost wages.
  Thanks to the Zuckerman decision and this law, it means that parents 
will receive almost no compensation in the death of a child. On the 
other hand, if a plane crashes on land, State tort laws apply. These 
would permit the award of nonpecuniary damages such as loss of 
companionship and pain and suffering.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2005 amends the Federal Aviation Act so 
the Death on the High Seas Act does not apply to airline crashes. It 
would accomplish this by specifically stating that the Death on the 
High Seas Act is one of the navigation and shipping laws that do not 
apply to aircraft.
  With this legislation, we will ensure that all families will be 
treated the same, regardless of whether a plane crashes into the ocean 
or onto land.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
McDade] for his very swift response in introducing this legislation, 
which will help a number of constituents in his district, and others 
across the Nation who were devastated by the loss of their loved ones 
in the TWA Flight 800 tragedy.
  Let me also thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for his outstanding 
leadership on this legislation, as well as the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], and especially my good friend, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation.
  This is a good bill, and I urge all Members to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on July 10, 1997, the Subcommittee on Aviation held a 
very emotional hearing regarding TWA Flight 800. Family members of the 
victims were there to tell the stories of their loved ones and how, 1 
year later, they are still struggling with their loss. The family 
members' main objective that day was to bring to our attention the 
gross inadequacy that is created when the Death on the High Seas Act is 
applied to aviation accidents.

[[Page H5844]]

  As Chairman Duncan said, if a plane crashes into the ocean more than 
3 miles from land, as did TWA Flight 800, the Death on the High Seas 
Act applies. This act denies families the ability to win noneconomic 
damages in a lawsuit. This means that a family member could not be 
compensated, for example, for the loss of companionship of a loved one; 
parents could not be compensated for the loss of their teenaged sons 
and daughters; sons and daughters could not be compensated for the loss 
of their elderly parents. However, if a plane crashed on land, State 
tort law or the Warsaw Convention would apply. Both permit the award of 
noneconomic damages.
  The effect of applying the Death on the High Seas Act to aviation 
accidents is a threat to families, definitely depending on whether 
their loved ones died in an air crash into the sea or one that crashed 
on land. This is obviously absurd and unfair. The value of an 
individual's life does not change depending on where the plane happens 
to come down. H.R. 2005, as amended, intends to correct this critical 
flaw of the Death on the High Seas Act.
  First, the bill simply adds the act to the list of shipping laws that 
do not apply to aviation.
  Second, the bill makes this change applicable to all cases still 
pending in the lower courts, which includes the family members of the 
victims of TWA Flight 800.
  I strongly urge all Members to support this bill. It is a simple 
piece of legislation that will fix the harmful inadequacies that result 
when the Death on the High Seas Act is applied to aviation disasters.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] for 
spearheading this bill through the subcommittee and the full committee, 
and I want to state once again, it is an honor and privilege to work 
with him. His cooperation is always outstanding.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Lipinski] again for his very kind remarks. I do not know of any other 
subcommittee in the entire Congress where the chairman and the ranking 
member have a better relationship than do the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Lipinski] and I, and I know that I treasure that relationship 
personally.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], author of this important legislation.
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2005, the 
Airline Disaster Relief Act. I want to thank my friends, Chairman 
Shuster, subcommittee Chairman Duncan, the ranking members, the 
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, and the gentleman from 
Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for their hard work and leadership in bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  The measure was introduced by myself and a 40-member bipartisan 
coalition only 26 working days ago. The Subcommittee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure's swift consideration of the measure is greatly 
appreciated by my cosponsors, by me, and, most of all, by the families 
who had lost loved ones in TWA Flight 800.
  Today, in my opinion, we are doing what the people sent us here to 
do; that is, to craft laws of pressing and immediate importance which 
justly empower the people from which this body's power is derived. This 
bill, Mr. Speaker, fulfills this mission.
  On July 17, 1996, 230 people lost their lives in the tragic crash of 
TWA Flight 800. Included among them were 21 people from Montoursville, 
PA, a small community in my district. The people of Montoursville were 
brutally impacted by this air disaster, facing the sudden loss of 16 
high school students, members of the French Club, and five chaperones, 
who were on their way to France to enrich their educational experience.
  For the families of the victims aboard TWA Flight 800, the tragedy 
was made even worse by the application of an antiquated 1920 maritime 
law, which my colleagues have referred to, known as the Death on the 
High Seas Act. The act would prevent the families of TWA victims from 
receiving just compensation, which they would be entitled to under 
State law.
  Ironically, the Death on the High Seas Act was passed in 1920 to help 
widows and orphans of sailors who were lost at sea but limits the 
compensation to income. The effect of that arcane statute is that 
claimants must appear before a district judge without the benefit of a 
jury and can receive compensation only for loss of income, not 
companionship, not pain and suffering, none of the other tort 
applications that exist in the State courts.
  Today, when State tort laws have progressed to a point where value is 
placed on human life, the application of this skewed statute is 
inequity, unfair and inhumane. This is particularly true in the death 
of children, for they are generally not economic providers for their 
families, and thus, family members would receive virtually no 
compensation for the loss of a loved one who is not a wage earner.
  The Death on the High Seas Act is invoked when a disaster occurs 3 
miles out to sea, the old 1 league measurement from antiquity. No 
parent ought to be told by our Nation's legal system that longitude and 
latitude will determine the value of their children or determine their 
rights in a court of law.
  For this reason, I introduced this bill, which will negate the 
application of the Death on the High Seas Act. It will amend the 
Federal Aviation Act so airline disasters at sea, as my friend, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], just said, are treated the same 
as incidents on land.
  The gross injustice of the Death on the High Seas Act must be 
changed. No law should make a loved one valueless because an aviation 
disaster occurs at sea and not on land. Where a plane crashed ought not 
to dictate a person's rights in a court of law.
  Both the Supreme Court and the White House Commission on Aviation 
Safety and Security recommended that the Congress correct these 
inequities. Additionally, the CBO, in examining this legislation, 
points out it does not have any budgetary impact.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring justice to the application of 
Federal laws which regulate airline disaster claims. Passage of this 
act will be an important step in achieving this objective.
  I want to thank again the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan], one of the ablest Members of 
this body, and my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], 
for their cooperation.
  I urge Members to overwhelmingly approve this bill.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by just saying that not only will this 
bill make changes that most people thought were in effect already, but 
it will correct potentially a great injustice that would have been done 
to the families of these victims of the TWA Flight 800 crash and change 
a law that should have been changed many years ago. This will 
potentially help families for many years to come.
  This is good legislation. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
McDade] said, I likewise would like to urge our colleagues to pass this 
legislation overwhelmingly.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, last July 17, 230 people died when TWA 
flight 800 exploded 9 miles off the coast of Long Island. This was and 
continues to be a national tragedy. For almost 1 year, the families of 
those who perished have had to deal with more than the pain of losing a 
loved one. They endured sitting for hours after the crash, waiting for 
the final passenger list that would confirm their worst fears. They 
waited anxiously for any indication that someone might have survived 
the fiery crash. To this day they continue to wait for an explanation 
for the disaster. Until questions begin to be answered, it is 
impossible to complete the healing process.
  This tragedy is made all the worse by an outdated law that prevents 
survivors from suing in State court, in front of a jury, for damages 
like pain and suffering and loss of companionship that are 
traditionally available under the tort law system. Had the plane 
crashed seconds earlier--when the plane was only 2 miles off of New 
York's coast--this would not be an issue. However, at 9 miles out, the 
1920 ``Death on the High Seas Act'' governs. This outdated law dictates 
that lawsuits arising from aviation accidents that occur

[[Page H5845]]

more than 3 miles off of the United States shoreline be brought in 
Admiralty Court and limits recovery of damages for * * * survivors to 
lost income only. While this may have been an appropriate law 77 years 
ago, in 1997 it is nothing short of outrageous today.
  A constituent of mine, Carol Ziemkiewicz, lost her daughter, Jill, on 
that flight. Jill's lifelong dream of becoming a flight attendant 
became a reality when she completed her training at TWA and began her 
work on TWA domestic flights. After only 1\1/2\ months Jill was 
assigned to her first international flight. She would be going to 
Paris, where she was eager to visit the Garden of Versailles. An hour 
before TWA flight 800 left to take Jill to Paris, she called her mother 
and summed up her anticipation--her last words to her were ``I'm 
psyched.''
  Jill was only 23 years old. Her life, along with everyone else on the 
plane, was ended too early. But the 230 people who died in that crash 
were not the only victims on that fateful night. Those victims left 
behind families, friends, and loved ones; people who continue to live 
but whose lives will never be the same because of this tragedy.
  I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 2005. H.R. 2005 will help to ensure 
that Carol Ziemkiewicz and the hundreds of other surviving family 
members like her know that the lives of their loved ones had value--
that what happened to them was a tragedy and we all must do what we can 
to ease their pain and suffering. They have been through enough. I urge 
my colleagues to support H.R. 2005.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2005, the 
Airline Disaster Relief Act, I want to commend my colleague, 
Congressman McDade, for introducing this important bill. This is must-
pass legislation that will ensure equitable treatment for those 
families who suffer the agonizing loss of a loved one resulting from 
international aviation disasters.
  Currently, various laws exist which impact the ability of family 
members to seek retribution for the death of a loved one. Specifically, 
in 1920, the Disaster on the High Seas Act was enacted for the 
immediate family of sailors lost at sea to obtain compensation for lost 
income. This act is applicable when the aviation accidents occurs more 
than 3 miles from the shoreline. Because TWA 800 crashed 9 miles off 
the Long Island coast, the Supreme Court has ruled, in similar cases, 
that the High Seas Act would apply.
  What that means for family members of the TWA 800 air disaster is 
that they will only be allowed to receive minimal compensation from TWA 
because this antiquated law restricts compensation to loss of income. 
Under the 1920 act, plaintiffs are not entitled to damages for pain and 
suffering, loss of companionship, or loss to society. In fact, those 
families that lost children, like the 16 students from Montoursville 
High School in Montoursville, PA, who were participating in a long-
awaited French Club trip to France, would receive almost no 
compensation because children do not contribute any income to the 
family. Senior citizens fall into the same category as children. 
Moreover, victims' family members would be restricted from having a 
jury trial and would have to present their claim to a judge under 
maritime law.
  Justice Scalia stated that the Supreme Court feels the law is 
antiquated but it's up to Congress to change it. Furthermore, the White 
House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security has stated:

       Certain statutes and international treaties, established 50 
     years ago, historically have not provided equitable treatment 
     for families of passengers involved in international aviation 
     disasters. Specifically, the Death on the High Seas Act of 
     1920, although designed to aid families of victims of 
     maritime disasters, have inhibited the ability of family 
     members of aviation disasters to obtain fair compensation.

  At a time when so many Americans are traveling abroad, either taking 
part in the global economy or seeing the sights of other country's 
cultures, it is important that Americans know that their court system 
is accessible to them should the unthinkable happen.
  Over 200 families lost loved ones on TWA flight 800. It is 
unconscionable that those families will not be provided the same access 
and compensation available to the families involved in the Value-Jet 
tragedy. This despite the fact that both disasters happened roughly the 
same time after take off and the same distance from the respective 
airports. The only difference being that TWA 800 was past the 3-mile 
limit allowed by the 1920 act. Finally, it is interesting to note that 
this 1920 act was designed to address maritime disasters and was 
enacted at a time when there were no transoceanic flights. However, it 
is being applied to circumstances relating to airline disasters.
  I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to two of my 
constituents, Robert Miller and his wife of 30 years Betty were two of 
the 230 people aboard flight TWA 800. Robert Miller had been Tenafly's 
popular and affable borough administrator for almost 5 years, and his 
wife was a school teacher in Dumont. While this legislation will not 
ease the pain of their loss, it will provide their daughter the same 
access and compensation available to other families involved in similar 
tragedies.
  In addition, I would like to commend one of my constituents who has 
worked hard to see that this legislation received the attention it so 
deserves. Mr. Hans Ephraimson-Abt. lost a 23-year-old daughter when a 
Soviet fighter plane disabled Korean Airline Flight 007. Since that 
personal tragedy, Mr. Ephraimson has devoted himself to assisting other 
families involved in similar tragedies. He has served as the chairman 
of the American Association for Families of KAL 007 Victims, a support 
group that has extended its activities to assist families involved in 
other air accidents to cope better with their tragedies' aftermath.
  He has been an active participant in the efforts to improve after-
crisis management, as well as to update and modernize laws and 
treaties. In that regard, yesterday, Mr. Ephraimson testified before 
the U.S. Department of Transportation's Task Force on Assistance to 
Families of Aviation Disasters. Year after year he has continued to 
fight for the rights and needs of families who have suffered as a 
result of airline disasters. He has pushed for comprehensive 
regulations, and to improve domestic and international civil aviation.
  It is through the hard work and diligence of people like Mr. 
Ephraimson that we have learned of the need to change the provisions of 
the 1920 act to make it more applicable to today's modern disasters. He 
and others like him are to be commended for their unselfish dedication 
to making all of our lives better and safer, and he is to be commended 
for his tireless dedication to helping ease the pain of those that have 
suffered a family tragedy due to an airline disaster.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2005, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend 
title 49, United States Code, to clarify the application of the Act 
popularly known as the `Death on the High Seas Act' to aviation 
incidents, and for other purposes.''.

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________