[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 3, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H900-H903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CLAIRFYING THE APPLICATION OF THE ``DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT'' TO 
                           AVIATION INCIDENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to 
House Resolution 85 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 603.

                              {time}  1052


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 603) 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, with Mr. Foley in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.  Shuster), and 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.  Oberstar) each will control 30 
minutes. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.  Lipinski) will control the 
time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.  Oberstar).
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.  Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1996, the Supreme Court decided that the Death on 
the High Seas Act applied to aviation accidents. This took everybody by 
surprise because the Death on the High Seas Act is a shipping law and 
the Federal Aviation Act states that shipping laws do not apply to 
aviation.
  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court said it did apply when the plane 
crashed into the ocean outside of U.S. territorial waters. The effect 
of this decision is to treat families differently depending on whether 
their relative dies in an aircraft that crashes into the ocean or one 
that crashes into the land.
  If the plane crashes into the ocean, the Death on the High Seas Act 
applies. This act prevents a family from collecting damages for their 
relatives' pain and suffering or from the loss of the companionship of 
their loved one. However, if the plane crashes into land, there is no 
legal bar to collecting these damages.
  So, there really is no reason why the monetary recovery from a 
lawsuit should depend upon where the plane happens to come down, 
whether it is into the water or into the land.
  Mr. McDade, who was the predecessor of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr.  Sherwood), introduced this bill last year, and it 
was passed overwhelmingly in this House, but it died in the Senate. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.  Sherwood) is to be congratulated for 
moving this legislation so expeditiously through our committee so that 
we can be here on the floor today to correct this obvious, nearly 
bizarre inequity. It is something that we certainly should do.
  Now, this bill, sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania and 
supported by many of us on both sides of the aisle, will be very 
helpful to the families of the victims of TWA 800, some of whom reside 
in the gentleman's district, and the families of aircraft crash victims 
throughout the United States. It will ensure that all families are 
treated equally, regardless of whether a loved one died, be it in the 
water or on land.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 603, a bill to clarify the 
application of the Death on the High Seas Act. An identical bill 
overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives last Congress. 
Unfortunately, the full Senate did not consider the bill before the end 
of Congress.
  H.R. 603 addresses a gross inequity which was brought to our 
attention by the family members of the victims of TWA flight 800, which 
is created when the Death on the High Seas Act is applied to aviation 
accidents.
  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 to treat families differently depending on whether the 
loved ones die in an aircraft that crashed into the ocean or one that 
crashed on land. This is obviously unfair. The value of an individual's 
life does not change depending on where the plane happens to come down.
  H.R. 603 would correct this critical flaw of the Death on the High 
Seas Act. First, the bill simply adds the bill to the list of shipping 
laws that do not apply to aviation. Secondly, 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.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. It 
is a simple piece of legislation that will fix the harmful inequity 
that results when the Death on the High Seas Act is applied to aviation 
disasters.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.  Duncan), chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr.  Shuster) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation which was 
introduced by the very distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.  
Sherwood). Let me just say that this legislation, I think, shows that 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania really cares about his constituents and 
is willing to try to help them in any way he can. This legislation is 
an example of that, because many young people from the gentleman's 
district in Montoursville, Pennsylvania, died tragically in the TWA 800 
crash. But this legislation will help people all over the Nation and it 
could help families years from now if, God forbid, we have another 
similar crash in the ocean.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation is designed simply to clarify the 
application of the Death on the High Seas Act to aviation accidents. 
This issue arises because, in 1996, the Supreme Court really surprised 
everyone in deciding the case of Zickerman versus Korean Airlines in 
holding that the Death on the High Seas Act applies to lawsuits that 
arise out of an aircraft crash in the ocean that occurs more than 3 
miles from land.

                              {time}  1100

  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 that almost no one in the aviation or legal 
communities believe that this Death on the High Seas Act would apply to 
the TWA crash until the recent decision in the Zickerman case.
  Moreover, 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. Sherwood), 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, these people are limited to recovering 
only lost wages.
  Because of the Zickerman decision and this law, it means that parents 
will

[[Page H901]]

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. Chairman, H.R. 603 amends the Federal Aviation Act so 
that 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 on land.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Sherwood) for 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.
  As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) noted, this bill passed 
the House last year overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, we did not get it 
worked out in the Senate and in conference, and we need to do that this 
year. I think we can very quickly.
  Let me also thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.  Shuster), the 
very distinguished chairman of the full committee, for his support on 
this legislation, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the ranking member, 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. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for yield me this time. I compliment him 
on the splendid job of leadership he has done in working to craft this 
legislation and to bring it to the floor. I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of the full committee, for moving 
so quickly and decisively last year and again this year to correct the 
clear gap in the law that amounts to an abuse of the rights of the 
families of victims. I thank, of course, the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Duncan), our splendid chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, 
the ever judicious and thoughtful advocate for aviation.
  This legislation arises out of a tragedy that occurred in Long Island 
Sound, but it arises also out of the genuine, deep, profound 
humanitarian concern of our former colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade.
  I have known Joe McDade all the years I served in this body, at first 
as a staff member and then as a colleague. There is one quality that 
shines through this thoughtful and sparkly, ever-with-a-twinkle-in-his-
eye gentleman who chaired the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development, and that was his concern for his fellow human beings, his 
splendid representation of the people of his District, the remarkable 
locomotive museum that I visited when I took my daughter up to look at 
a college in his District, the everlasting memorial that he has created 
in one after another community project to serve the needs of his 
people.
  But none of those accomplishments will be a greater memorial than the 
enactment of this legislation, which has been introduced by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), his successor in the 
Congress and our committee.
  It is really unfortunate the other body did not act on this 
legislation in the last Congress. We hope that moving the bill early 
this year will give them motivation to proceed with dispatch and to 
take action on the mark of delayed justice overdue.
  Those of us who have served on the PanAm 103 Commission, my good 
friend, John Paul Hammerschmidt, former ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Public Works and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, and I served on the PanAm 103 Commissions. We learned 
that families of the victims realize nothing that we could do will 
bring back their loved ones.
  What they ask is that the injustice in that case, that the tragedy 
not be repeated through terrorist actions against aviation, and in this 
case that justice be done for families in the future that may have, God 
forbid that it should happen again, but who may have such a tragedy 
occur.
  PanAm 103 did not raise this issue because it crashed on land. Had 
PanAm 103 not been delayed a half hour on the ground in London and 
taken off on time, it would have been blown up over the North Atlantic.
  It would have raised the same issues that TWA 800 raises for us in 
this legislation of Death on the High Seas, that ancient piece of 
legislation that prohibits recovery for those who are lost beyond the 
territorial limits of the United States.
  I will not repeat all of the points that have been made about the 
details of the legislation. I do not think it is necessary to do so. 
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan) have already made that case.
  What we do hear, though, is a lasting memorial to the families of the 
victims, to the victims themselves, that justice in the future will be 
done should ever a tragedy of this magnitude occur on the high seas.
  It is a great tribute to our committee that, as we build memorials of 
concrete, steel, and we create great transportation systems, move 
America, that we also have the compassion to act in matters of this 
kind that do justice for those of our fellow citizens and those whom we 
represent in this great body.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), the principal author of 
this legislation.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 603, the 
Airline Disaster Relief Act. I want to thank my distinguished chairman, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) for his hard work and 
leadership in shepherding H.R. 603 to the floor.
  Additionally, I am grateful for the guidance and support of the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the subcommittee chairman, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Lipinski), ranking members.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's swift 
consideration of this measure is greatly appreciated by me and by the 
families of the victims of TWA Flight 800 and the Swiss Air tragedies.
  This bill, above all, is about fairness. It is about providing 
equitable treatment for the families who lost loved ones in airline 
disasters over international waters. Right now, we apply a 79-year-old 
maritime law written to help the widows of sailors lost at sea in cases 
of modern airline disasters. This maritime law is known as the 1920 
Death on the High Seas Act.
  On July 17, 1996, 230 people lost their lives in the tragic crash of 
TWA Flight 800. Among the victims were 21 people from Montoursville, 
Pennsylvania, a small town in my district. The people of Montoursville 
were brutally impacted by the sudden loss of 16 high school seniors and 
five chaperones on a trip to France for educational purposes. For the 
families of the victims aboard Flight 800, this tragedy has been made 
worse by the Supreme Court's application of this dated maritime law.
  If a plane crashed on land, family members can seek redress for 
losses in State courts for various different types of compensation. 
However, if a loved one crashed at sea, one can only seek compensation 
for loss of income in a U.S. District Court.
  In the case of a child or a retired person lost at sea, the Supreme 
Court's application of this archaic maritime law makes that child 
valueless in the face of the law.
  Clearly, the application of this law is patently unfair and cruel. 
Why are we standing here in 1999 and applying a 1920's maritime law to 
modern aviation disaster claims? The time has come to create one level 
playing field and one process for all airline crash claims.
  The current treatment of land and sea crashes as separate and unequal 
must come to an end. This bill clarifies

[[Page H902]]

that the 1920s Death on the High Seas Act does not apply to aviation.
  I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly approve this bill for it is 
the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. It is the 
compassionate thing to do.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that I have any other 
speakers, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say in conclusion that this is a 
very important piece of legislation. I agree that it should be passed 
overwhelmingly.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), ranking member, and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), and the Democratic and 
Republican staff for their outstanding cooperation and work on behalf 
of this bill.
  Everyone has worked very diligently to bring this bill to the floor 
as early as possible in this session of Congress so that we could give 
the other body ample and sufficient time to pass it. Because, as it has 
been stated here, it is definitely the right thing to do, the fair 
thing to do, the equitable thing to do. So, please, everyone vote on 
behalf of this bill.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 603, the 
Death on the High Seas Act.
  As many know, I have been an outspoken proponent of the ideas 
contained within this bill because of a tragedy that struck my district 
on July 17, 1996, the crash of TWA 800, and the loss of all of its 
passengers and crew.
  This important act would allow full compensation for the families of 
victims of aviation disasters like TWA 800. Current law makes certain 
distinctions between different types of aviation disaster victims. 
These distinctions prohibit the families of some disaster victims from 
receiving the type of compensation that they truly deserve. As a 
result, many aviation disaster victims suffered both the loss of a 
loved one and the economic assistance that such persons provided.
  H.R. 603 would replace outdated provisions of a law adopted 79 years 
ago that was designed to allow the surviving family members of sailors 
lost at sea to sue for lost wages. Subsequent court rulings determined 
that the act applies to all maritime and aviation disasters that occur 
more than one marine league, or three miles, from America's shoreline.
  TWA 800 crashed nine miles off of Long Island's South Shore. 
Therefore, the Supreme Court ultimately determined that the incident 
was covered by existing law that limits compensation to the families of 
victims of aviation disasters. I am sorry to say that victims of TWA 
800 and their surviving families have suffered greatly as a result.
  As a matter of justice and human decency, I ask my colleagues to 
support H.R. 603. We cannot fully restore the lives of those affected 
by the crash of TWA 800 and similar disasters, but can, and should, do 
what we can to ease their pain.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, on July 17th, 1997, 230 people died when 
TWA Flight 800 exploded 9 miles off the coast of Long Island. To this 
day the crash continues to be a national tragedy. For almost 2 years, 
the families of those who perished have had to deal with more than the 
unbearable pain of losing a loved one in such a sudden, violent and 
public manner. To this day they have to live with not having many 
answers for their loss, as they continue to wait for an explanation 
about why the disaster occurred.
  As if this disaster alone is not enough, the 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 plance crashed seconds earlier--when the plane was only 
two miles off of New York's coast--this would not be an issue. However, 
at nine miles out, the 1920 ``Death on the High Seas Act'' governs. 
This out-dated law dictates that lawsuits arising from aviation 
accidents that occur more than 3 miles off of the United States 
shoreline be brought in Admiralty Court, and limits recovery of damages 
for survivors to lose income only. While this may have been an 
appropriate law 79 years ago, in 1999 it is nothing short of 
outrageous.
  A constituent of mine, Carol Ziemkiewicz (ZEM-ka-witz), lost her 
daughter on that flight. Jill Ziemkiewicz had been working as a flight 
attendant for only a month and a half when she was assigned to her 
first international flight on TWA Flight 800. 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 twenty-three years old at the time she was killed and 
it is accurate to say that her life, along with every other on the 
plane, ended to 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 proud to support H.R. 603. H.R. 603 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. 603.
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 603 The 
Death on the High Seas & Airline Disaster Act of 1999. I would like to 
commend Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Mr. Oberstar for quickly 
moving this bill through the Transportation Committee. I would also 
like to call commend Representative Don Sherwood for all of his hard 
work on bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman. H.R. 603 will correct an inequity in the law which 
currently treats families differently depending on whether their 
relative died in an aircraft that crashed into the ocean or one that 
crashed into land. This is especially harsh for families which lose a 
child in a crash. This creates cruel inequality depending on where a 
plane happens to come down.
  Mr. Chairman, the need for this bill became clear after TWA 800 
crashed 8 miles off Long Island, New York on July 16, 1996. Two of my 
constituents, Kyle and Amy Miller of Tamaqua, PA, were aboard this 
flight en route from New York to Paris. They were on their way to Paris 
to celebrate their fifth wedding anniversary. Their loss, and the loss 
of all of the passengers and crew on the plane, was a horrible tragedy.
  Kyle and Amy symbolized the American spirit and were outstanding 
members of their community. Kyle was a small businessman and owned part 
of his family hardware and plumbing businesses. Amy worked at the 
hardware store and was a member of the Tamaqua Area School Board. Her 
work in local education programs was outstanding and she was the top 
vote-getter in both the primary and general election.
  Both Amy and Kyle were well liked and well respected in the 
community. The effect of this change in the law would allow families 
such as Kyle and Amy's to receive the same monetary awards families 
receive when planes crash over land.
  I strongly encourage all members to support H.R. 603 The Death on the 
High Seas & Airline Disaster Act of 1999. To help all families who lose 
loved ones in aircraft accidents regardless of where the plane crashes.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 603.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). All time for 
general debate has expired. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be 
considered under the 5-minute rule by section, and each section shall 
be considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT.

       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''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 1?

[[Page H903]]

  Hearing none, the Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

       The amendment made by section 1 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.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  There being no amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.

                              {time}  1115

  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Wicker) having assumed the chair, Mr. Burr of North Carolina, Chairman 
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the 
bill (H.R. 603) 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, pursuant to House Resolution 85, he 
reported the bill back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed until later today.

                          ____________________