[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 101 (Thursday, July 1, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H5330-H5336]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SECURING PROTECTIONS FOR THE INJURED FROM LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY ACT

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 5503) to revise laws regarding liability in certain civil 
actions arising from maritime incidents, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5503

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Securing Protections for the 
     Injured from Limitations on Liability Act''.

     SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO RECOVERY UNDER DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS 
                   ACT.

       The Death on the High Seas Act (chapter 303 of title 46, 
     United States Code), is amended--
       (1) in section 30302--
       (A) by inserting ``or law'' after ``admiralty''; and
       (B) by inserting before ``spouse'' the following: 
     ``survivors, including'';
       (2) in section 30303--
       (A) by inserting ``and nonpecuniary loss'' after 
     ``pecuniary loss'';
       (B) by striking ``by'' and all that follows through the 
     end, and inserting ``, plus a fair compensation for the 
     decedent's pain and suffering.''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``In this section, 
     the term `nonpecuniary loss' means loss of care, comfort, and 
     companionship.'';
       (3) in section 30305 by inserting ``or law'' after 
     ``admiralty'';
       (4) in section 30306, by inserting ``or law'' after 
     ``admiralty'';
       (5) by striking section 30307; and
       (6) in the table of sections at the beginning of such 
     chapter, by striking the item relating to sections 30307.

     SEC. 3. IMPROVEMENTS TO RECOVERY UNDER JONES ACT.

       Title 46, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 30104, by adding at the end the following: 
     ``In addition to other amounts authorized under such laws, 
     the recovery for a seaman who so dies shall include recovery 
     for loss of care, comfort, and companionship.''; and
       (2) by striking section 30105 and the item relating to that 
     section in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 
     301.

     SEC. 4. REPEAL OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY ACT.

       (a) Repeal.--Chapter 305 of title 46, United States Code, 
     is amended by repealing sections 30505, 30506, 30507, 30511, 
     and 30512 and the items relating to those sections in the 
     table of sections at the beginning of chapter 305.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Oil pollution act of 1990.--Section 1018 of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2718) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``or the Act of March 3, 
     1851''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``, the Act of March 3, 
     1851 (46 U.S.C. 183 et seq.),''.
       (2) Title 46.--Section 14305(a) of title 46, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking paragraph (5) and redesignating 
     the subsequent paragraphs as paragraphs (5) through (14), 
     respectively.

     SEC. 5. BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION FOR TORT CLAIMS ARISING FROM 
                   OIL INCIDENTS.

       (a) Conditions on Sale or Lease of Significant Property of 
     the Estate.--
       (1) In general.--Section 363 of title 11, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 
     if the debtor is liable under any law for a claim for 
     wrongful death, personal injury, or property damage arising 
     from an incident (as defined in section 1001 of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990, and that gives rise to liability under 
     such Act), the trustee may not sell or lease, other than in 
     the ordinary course of business, significant property of the 
     estate (or, to the extent that the court has jurisdiction 
     over any affiliate of the debtor, significant property of 
     such affiliate) unless--
       ``(1) creditors holding at least two-thirds in amount, and 
     more than one-half in number, of all such claims not paid by 
     the debtor consent to such sale or lease; or
       ``(2) the court finds, after notice and a hearing, that--
       ``(A) sufficient property will remain in the estate; or
       ``(B) the debtor's anticipated future income will be 
     sufficient;

     that all such claims will be paid in full.''.
       (2)  Under plan of reorganization.--Section 
     1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than the holder of a claim 
     described in subclause (II))'' after ``claim'' the 1st place 
     it appears;
       (B) by inserting ``(I)'' after ``(ii)'';
       (C) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(II) if the plan provides for claims of the kind 
     described in section 363(q) and provides for a sale or lease 
     of significant property of the estate, creditors holding at 
     least two-thirds in amount, and more than one-half in number, 
     of such claims consent to such sale or lease.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 303(f) of title 11, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
     ``If the debtor is liable under any law for a claim for 
     wrongful death, personal injury, or property damage arising 
     from an incident (as defined in section 1001 of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990, and that gives rise to liability under 
     such Act), the debtor may not sell or lease, other than in 
     the ordinary course of business, significant property of the 
     estate (or, to the extent that the court has or can obtain 
     jurisdiction over any affiliate of the debtor, significant 
     property of such affiliate) unless--
       ``(1) creditors holding at least two-thirds in amount, and 
     more than one-half in number, of all such claims not paid by 
     the debtor consent to such sale or lease; or
       ``(2) the court finds, after notice and a hearing, that--
       ``(A) sufficient property will remain in the estate; or
       ``(B) the debtor's anticipated future income will be 
     sufficient;

     that all such claims will be paid in full.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply 
     with respect to claims arising on or after April 20, 2010, 
     that are pending on or after such date of enactment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

[[Page H5331]]

                              {time}  1530


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative 
days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous 
material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, on April 20, an explosion on the 
Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform sank the vessel, resulting in 
the death of 11 men and injury to at least 17 others.
  We are honored to have four of the widows of the men here, including 
the father of Gordon Jones, Attorney Keith Jones; Mrs. Shelley 
Anderson; Mrs. Courtney Kemp; and Mrs. Natalie Roshto. They have joined 
us in the gallery to observe these proceedings. They were also at the 
Judiciary Committee hearings.
  This April 20 disaster has now become the most massive environmental 
disaster in our Nation's history, poisoning widespread swaths of the 
Gulf of Mexico, killing wildlife, ruining wetlands, and wreaking 
economic havoc in the Gulf States. It has highlighted not only gaps in 
our ability to engage in and to regulate deepwater drilling, but also 
major legal gaps have been discovered in the applicable statutes that 
are adversely impacting victims.
  Our measure from the Judiciary Committee focuses on repairing these 
flaws so that the victims of this disaster can get their treatment. We 
have found that the current state of law regarding these liability 
issues is outdated, unfair and operates against our national interests. 
The three key laws all date from the mid-1800s--the Death on High Seas 
Act, the Jones Act, and the Limitation on Liability Act.
  The Death on High Seas Act does not allow recovery of non-pecuniary 
loss, which is in contrast to all State laws and to general maritime 
law.
  The Jones Act allows recovery for a family's non-pecuniary loss if a 
seaman is injured but survives, but it denies the family that same 
recovery if he dies. Don't ask me how that ever got into law.
  The Limitation on Liability Act, enacted in 1851, caps a shipowner's 
legal responsibility at the value of the ship and of its cargo no 
matter how massive the magnitude of the harm caused.
  The unfairness of these laws is grossly apparent, and it makes no 
sense. In my judgment, it is highly immoral. It is the Judiciary 
Committee's job to scan these ancient statutes and repair them. So that 
is what we have done. We have made a few changes. I would like to 
identify them, and we will have some of our other learned members of 
the committee go into more detail.
  Take Gordon Jones, for example. Ironically, his youngest son was born 
just a couple of weeks after his death. They can only recover Gordon's 
lost wages, but they are not entitled to any nonfinancial benefits. 
That needs to be taken care of, and we will.
  There are claims that have been made that the process was inadequate. 
The Committee on the Judiciary held on May 27 of this year a hearing on 
the legal liability issues surrounding the gulf coast oil disaster. It 
lasted over 5 hours, and it covered 11 witnesses who discussed and 
addressed the laws that I have mentioned in this act before us. Then 
they held an extensive markup the following month, on June 23, at which 
time we debated a number of amendments and reported the bill. It was a 
bipartisan vote. Then, in the manager's amendment, we addressed some 
concerns that were raised by my colleagues on the other side. This bill 
focuses on fixing these gaps, and I am hopeful that we can move this 
bill as expeditiously as we can.
  I want to acknowledge my colleague Sheila Jackson Lee, who is a 
senior member who has helped us craft the legislation in the manager's 
amendment. Along with her and our colleague from Florida, Corrine 
Brown, we have also been able to make some modifications that have been 
generally agreed to by many of the members on the committee. We have 
reached an understanding, although we have not developed statutory 
language.
  Mr. Speaker, this disaster has now become the most massive 
environmental disaster in our nation's history, poisoning widespread 
swaths of the Gulf of Mexico, killing wildlife, ruining wetlands, and 
wreaking economic havoc in the Gulf states.
  The disaster has highlighted not only gaps in our ability to engage 
in and regulate deepwater drilling, but also major legal gaps in the 
applicable statutes that are adversely impacting victims.
  H.R. 5503 focuses on fixing these gaps, so that the victims of this 
disaster can get fair treatment. In short, we have found that the 
current state of law regarding these liability issues is outdated, is 
unfair, and operates against our nation's interest.
  First, the three key laws in effect all date from the mid 1800's or 
early 1900's.
  The Death on High Seas Act, enacted in 1920, does not allow recovery 
of non-pecuniary loss--in contrast to all States and to general 
maritime law.
  The Jones Act, also dating from 1920, allows recovery for a family's 
non-pecuniary loss if a seaman is injured but survives, but denies the 
family that same recovery if he dies.
  And the Limitation on Liability Act, enacted in 1851, caps a 
shipowner's legal responsibility at the value of the ship and its 
cargo, no matter how massive the magnitude of the harm caused.
  Second, the laws are grossly unfair. It makes no sense to allow the 
family of an individual who dies in a plane accident on the high seas 
to be eligible for non-pecuniary damages, while the family of someone 
who dies in a ship accident is not.
  It makes no sense to allow the family of a victim of an oil explosion 
on shore to recover non-pecuniary damages, while the same victim in a 
Jones Act case could be limited to lost wages and funeral expenses.
  It makes no sense to keep a Limitation on Liability Act designed to 
help U.S. shipping fleets in the 19th century, when the U.S. merchant 
marine is now practically non-existent.
  And it makes no sense to allow a company to incur multibillion-dollar 
claims and then abuse the bankruptcy process to leave victims out in 
the cold.
  The bill on the floor today reflects changes made in response to 
concerns raised about the legislation.
  Specifically, concerns were expressed about possible unintended 
consequences of the class action changes, and that section was removed 
in its entirety.
  Concerns were expressed about restricting enforceability of secrecy 
agreements, and that section was removed in its entirety.
  What remains are the core provisions that are needed to help the 
victims of the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, including the families of 
the 11 men who died and the numerous workers who were injured aboard 
the Deepwater Horizon.
  I want to remind Members that this bill is, above all else, about 
helping victims, particularly the victims of this oil platform 
explosion and spill.
  One of these victims is Gordon Jones, who was killed aboard the 
Deepwater Horizon.
  Gordon was married to Michelle Jones and had two children, Stafford 
and Maxwell Gordon, and is also survived by his brother and father.
  Maxwell Gordon was born just a couple of weeks after his father died.
  Under current law, the Jones family can only recover Gordon's lost 
wages, and are not entitled to any non-financial damages.
  This bill would fix that for Gordon, the 10 others killed on the 
Deepwater Horizon, and others injured.
  As Gordon's father, Keith, testified before the House Judiciary 
Committee on May 27:
  ``When Michelle tells her boys about their dad, she's not going to 
show them a pay stub. She will tell them how much their father loved 
them. . . .
  ``I want to say how offensive it is when the law recognizes only 
pecuniary loss in cases like these eleven deaths. . . . Please believe 
me; no amount of money can ever compensate us for Gordon's death. We 
know that. But this is the only means available to begin to make things 
right.''
  This is not a complicated vote. It is about ensuring that BP and 
other corporations that caused the Deepwater Horizon explosion and 
resulting oil spill are held accountable under the law for all the harm 
their irresponsible behavior has caused these hardworking Americans and 
their families.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, although I believe this legislation is well-intended, I 
have serious concerns about H.R. 5503 and about the process under which 
it is being considered today.
  It is important that BP and other responsible parties pay all costs 
associated with the oil spill and that they be

[[Page H5332]]

held fully accountable for this catastrophe and for the 11 lives 
tragically lost in the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon. However, 
H.R. 5503 will have unintended consequences that will reach well beyond 
the gulf coast disaster. In fact, very little in this bill is directed 
solely at oil spill-related liability.
  It is incredible that the sweeping changes this bill makes have made 
their way to the House floor without the benefit of even one 
legislative hearing. It is also incredible that we are considering this 
bill under suspension of the rules, denying those with concerns the 
opportunity to offer even one amendment.
  Had this bill been considered under regular order, I would have 
offered an amendment to limit it to claims arising out of oil spills. 
This amendment would ensure that those responsible for oil spills would 
be held fully accountable while, at the same time, restricting the 
bill's unintended consequences. Because H.R. 5503 is not limited to oil 
spills, its unintended consequences will be severe.
  For example, the changes it makes virtually rewrite U.S. maritime 
liability law; and in some instances, the changes make it out of step 
with the laws of nearly every other maritime nation. Maritime actions 
usually involve numerous parties with competing claims--loss of life or 
personal injury--and multiple jurisdictions in which claims may be 
filed. The Shipowner's Limitation of Liability Act addresses these 
problems by allowing for the consolidation of all claims arising out of 
a maritime accident into one Federal forum.

                              {time}  1540

  It also creates a fund to pay personal injury and death claims over 
and above the act's general liability limit.
  This bill repeals the act without adopting any replacement 
legislation to fill the void. This introduces uncertainty and in many 
cases may lead to inadequate compensation to personal injury and 
wrongful death claimants, since repealing the act repeals the personal 
injury fund.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker: This bill repeals the personal 
injury fund which every vessel owner is required to create to pay 
personal injury claims over and above the act's general liability gap.
  Other sections of this bill are also questionable. Section 3 allows 
for recovery of non-economic damages in wrongful death actions under 
the Jones Act. While this may seem like a fair result, it actually 
creates inequities, because the Jones Act is the equivalent of land-
based worker's compensation statutes, which do not apply at sea. But 
worker's compensation laws do not allow for the recovery of noneconomic 
damages, thus Jones Act seamen will receive greater recoveries than are 
provided to nearly every other American worker.
  This change is being made without the benefit of a legislative 
hearing to understand its full impact on injured workers, employers, 
shippers, and consumers. These extensive changes to U.S. maritime 
liability law, which apply well beyond oil spills, threaten to increase 
dramatically the cost of shipping goods, an increase that will be borne 
by all American consumers.
  Finally, by giving Oil Pollution Act claimants veto power over 
bankruptcy asset sales of companies with OPA liability, the bill 
effectively gives these claimants control of the bankruptcy process. 
However, giving OPA claimants this veto power seriously curtails the 
rights of other bankruptcy claimants, included secured creditors, 
pension funds, and other tort victims, and State and local governments.
  Because this legislation applies retroactively, there is no reason to 
push this bill through on suspension without having conducted a single 
legislative hearing on its sweeping changes.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Republicans do not want to give BP a 
free pass. That is why we offered amendments in committee to narrow the 
scope of this legislation to cover companies like BP that are 
responsible for oil spills. These amendments were voted down by the 
majority. But in the Democrats' haste to act before the Fourth of July 
recess, they are pushing for a bill that would punish all other 
maritime industries for the faults of BP. That is not fair, and it is 
not good policy. It would also be a job-killer for many hardworking 
Americans who had nothing to do with the oil spill.
  Rather than cave to political gamesmanship and vote for a bad bill, 
Congress should do what is best for the American people. As we amend 
the Federal law to ensure that BP and other responsible parties are 
held accountable for the full extent of the harm they have caused, we 
must avoid harming the national interests.
  Because we have had no legislative hearings on this bill, we cannot 
be sure that it does not harm the economy, maritime industries, and 
American jobs. The bill should be sent back to committee to be examined 
and amended properly before being brought again to the floor for a 
vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Before I recognize the next speaker, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  I am sure my good friend Lamar Smith is not recommending that with 
all the tragedy and suffering that has occurred in this area of the 
country, that we go back and go over these same issues one more time. 
The laws are ancient. They are out-of-date. We had witnesses. We wrote 
a bill based on it. This process has been done numerous times.
  I now with some pride yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of 
the House, Nancy Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I am most 
grateful to him for bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I saw the hope in the eyes of the victims of the oil 
spill who came to my office. These families came. Eleven of the 
families were suffering from the loss of a loved one on the rig. They 
came to me and said that they were on their way to see Chairman 
Conyers. They were filled with hope that he would advance the SPILL 
Act.
  I heard their stories. They made their appeal for legislation, about 
safety, and about the SPILL Act. We held hands. We prayed. They told 
stories of their loved ones, and they kept coming back to the point 
that they did not want the families to be forgotten, and they did not 
want other families who could be the victims of future accidents or 
incidents of this kind to be forgotten.
  Very hopefully and prayerfully, they left the Speaker's office and 
went to see Mr. Conyers, with great emotion in terms of the stories 
they had to tell, but with great wisdom about how their families had 
been affected and what a difference the SPILL Act would make.
  The chairman has very well described it in terms of the Death on the 
High Seas Act, which would be changed by this legislation, which was 
passed in the middle of the 19th century and amended dating from the 
1920s, as we know. This legislation will modernize it in terms of 
distance from the shore and who would be compensated for a loss, not 
just a pecuniary loss, but also pain and suffering.
  So I want to thank the chairman because of what I saw in their eyes, 
the hope they had and the message this legislation will send. More 
important than all of that, for the difference that it will make in the 
lives of these people, who are the backbone of America, who work so 
hard to grow our economy, to keep the community together there.
  I want to thank Mr. Melancon for the important role he has played in 
representing those people so well and making sure this legislation 
addresses their concerns.
  I once again thank the distinguished chairman for anticipating the 
needs of these families and meeting them by bringing this bill to the 
floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my colleague 
from Texas, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to what my chairman said just a minute 
ago and set the record straight. We did not have a single legislative 
hearing on this bill, so we never even went over it one time to fully 
appreciate the consequences and the unintended consequences of this 
bill.
  For example, this bill changes maritime law for everyone, not just 
those involved in the oil spill. Clearly we should have explored the 
consequences of that.
  Beyond that, and I want to emphasize this, this bill, and it is too 
late to

[[Page H5333]]

make any changes because no amendments have been made in order, repeals 
the vessel owner personal liability fund. That alone is enough of a 
reason to oppose this bill, that it repeals the personal liability fund 
that vessel owners today have to have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Poe), 
who is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the deputy ranking 
member of the Crime Subcommittee.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
  While I support some of the provisions of this legislation, I 
certainly believe responsible parties for this disaster in the Gulf of 
Mexico near my home State of Texas, should be held accountable to every 
extent of the law, and injured individuals and the families of those 
who have died should be compensated.
  However, I wish to address just one provision of this act: The 
detrimental effect on maritime shipping in the United States if this 
legislation is passed.
  The unintended consequences of H.R. 5503 could be widespread. Among 
other things, H.R. 5503 repeals the Limitation of Liability Act, which 
is a drastic fundamental change in American maritime law. This change 
would end the longstanding practice in the United States that all 
maritime claims be determined in one Federal forum.

                              {time}  1550

  It also ends the limitation on U.S. vessels owners' liability, a 
limitation which is in place in virtually every other country in the 
maritime industry. The loss of this limitation will handicap U.S. ship 
owners in the competitive world of shipping.
  H.R. 5503 would cause insurance rates to spin out of control, 
damaging American maritime industry and putting thousands of American 
jobs in jeopardy. American shipping is already in serious decline. In 
fact, there are only 220 United States flagged vessels in a global 
shipping fleet of 37,000.
  I fear this legislation could put our remaining 220 shippers out of 
business. The maritime industry in the United States would be sunk 
because they would not be able to obtain insurance to operate. Then, 
more Americans would be out of work. We should not purposely put any 
more Americans out of work when jobs are scarce.
  Just as the offshore drilling moratorium was hastily enacted by the 
administration and has since been declared illegal by a Federal judge, 
this bill is also rushed to the floor, I believe, without consideration 
of some of the unintended consequences. The consequences of this bill 
will cause a further disaster because of the Deepwater explosion and 
put more Americans out of work.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  This is incredible. With all the suffering that has occurred, all the 
damage that has incurred, we now come here after more than 5 hours 
worth of hearings on this matter to say that the ship owners won't like 
the insurance rates, that they won't like that they may be liable, and 
that's what we're correcting. I deeply resent this kind of attack on a 
bill of this urgency.
  I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
  Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Speaker, Keith Jones' father, Gordon Jones, and I 
spent several hours together in recent weeks traveling back to 
Louisiana. A quote that he said, ``When Michelle tells her boys about 
their dad, she's not going to show them a pay stub. She will tell them 
how much their father loved them. I want to say how offensive it is 
when the law recognizes only pecuniary loss in cases like these 11 
deaths. Please believe me; no amount of money can ever compensate us 
for Gordon's death. We know that. But this is the only means available 
to begin to make things right,'' and to make them right for Michelle 
and the two boys.
  Mr. Speaker, 11 men died in the explosion aboard the Deepwater 
Horizon oil rig, and as a 90-year old law stands now, the families that 
lost their loved ones cannot hold those responsible for the harm they 
have caused them. I have met with the family members of those workers 
and have seen the pain on their faces. While we cannot relieve these 
families from the unimaginable grief they will go through for the rest 
of their lives--losing a husband, a father, a brother, and a son--we 
fix a law that's clearly outdated and wrong.
  When it comes to compensating victims' families, current law is 
inconsistent, lax, and encourages companies to take risks--gambling 
with the lives of workers throughout the process. Today, we have the 
opportunity to change those laws, and the SPILL Act does exactly that. 
This bill amends the Death on the High Seas Act and the Jones Act so 
that the surviving relatives can recover some measure of compensation 
for the loss they have suffered. It is impossible to replace a husband 
or a father, but just compensation is absolutely necessary to help 
these families pay their house note, put food on table, educate the 
children, and live a decent life.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. MELANCON. We know that current law encourages risky behavior. 
We've seen through the ongoing investigations into the Horizon disaster 
that BP chose to ignore safety concerns about the volatility of their 
well. As a result, hardworking men lost their lives and we have the 
worst environmental disaster in our Nation's history in the Gulf of 
Mexico. We can't let current law stand. Congress must act now so that 
we encourage safe operating policies and hold companies accountable to 
the highest standard of workplace safety.
  I want to thank Chairman Conyers and the Judiciary Committee for 
working so swiftly to fix this law, and I urge all my colleagues to 
side with the victims' families and not the irresponsible corporations.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Bankruptcy Conference, a nonpartisan 
organization of lawyers, professors, and judges, opposes the bankruptcy 
provisions in this bill. According to the Conference, ``the proposed 
amendments are not likely to achieve their purpose and instead are 
likely to have pernicious, unintended, and counterproductive 
consequences.''
  The nonpartisan National Bankruptcy Conference explains that ``by 
granting a preference to holders of oil spill claims at the expense of 
other innocent and equally deserving creditors, the provisions in this 
bill represent bad bankruptcy policy.'' Moreover, according to the 
Conference, one of the effects of the bankruptcy provisions in this 
bill will be to ``entrench the very management that presided over the 
spill and led the company into bankruptcy.''
  Mr. Speaker, you wonder how anyone can even consider voting for this 
bill. In short, we should not be rushing these bankruptcy provisions 
through Congress today. The unintended consequences will be severe, as 
the National Bankruptcy Conference just told us.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a senior member of the 
committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Chairman Conyers. We 
owe you a debt of gratitude.
  We are very pleased that we have answered the call of the pain of 
people like Michelle, and if you can read this language, it says ``When 
Michelle tells her boys about their dad, she's not going to show them a 
pay stub. She will tell them how much their father loved them.'' That 
means, of course, that we are stranded on an island with laws that do 
not understand the crisis that these families are facing.
  These are the pictures of families who have lost loved ones and 
pictures of their loved ones who we are now standing on the floor of 
the House to say that any horrific tragedy such as the BP oil spill on 
April 20, 2010, will not go unanswered, and these families will not 
remain and be alone. This bill is assuring these families that they 
will not be alone; that the person or the entity that harmed them will 
not be able to escape the full extent of the cost of their actions that 
are inflicted on the people and the communities. It amends the Jones 
Act, an old law, and brings it in line with the needs of the

[[Page H5334]]

21st century, meaning that if you were an engineer on that Deepwater 
Horizon drill, you are not covered by the present laws; or, for 
example, the law that was used that was passed in the 1800s where they 
limited the amount of liability such that one of the actors in this 
went to court in Houston and wanted to limit their liability to 
$23,000. Under the Act in its current form, the family members left 
behind by seamen killed on the job can only recover economic losses. 
But it also does not cover those who are not classified as seamen. This 
bill amends DOHSA and, of course, it provides some very, very important 
changes that will make the lives of these loved ones left behind 
better. Without their loved ones, they are not good. But this will make 
them better.
  To the industry, and let me say one that I come from--and I am from 
the gulf region--and I believe what we are doing today is going to help 
the shrimpers, the oystermen, the fishermen, and we must continue to do 
that. We're changing the laws to respond to the current crisis, and we 
will not leave them alone.

                              {time}  1600

  I look forward today to, as well, introducing the Remedies Act of 
2010 that will further expand on the rights of families, will invest in 
R&D to improve what's going on in the gulf. But I want to thank the 
Judiciary Committee for being first and a leader to help these 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5503, the 
``Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability 
Act,'' introduced by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers. I 
commend Chairman Conyers for shepherding this bill through the 
Judiciary Committee, and am proud to have worked with him on the 
Manager's Amendment.
  This bill makes great steps in reforming aspects of our laws that 
have grown outdated, and in assuring that those responsible for a 
variety of harms are not able to escape liability for the full extent 
of the costs their actions inflict on the people of the communities 
around them. It amends the Jones Act, a law enacted in 1920, and brings 
it in line with the needs of the 21st century. Under the Act in its 
current form, the family members left behind by a seaman killed on the 
job can only recover for economic losses, sometimes only the expenses 
of a funeral. There is no provision for damages for the emotional loss 
of a loved one, the loss of that person's care, comfort, and 
companionship. H.R. 5503 amends that restriction.
  H.R. 5503 also changes another outdated maritime law, the Death on 
the High Seas Act of 1920. The changes Chairman Conyers' bill makes to 
DOHSA will allow those same claims for loss of care, comfort and 
companionship. This bill will also allow claims under DOHSA to be 
brought before a court of law, rather than admiralty, and allow a jury 
to decide the relevant facts. It will allow recovery for the pain and 
suffering a decedent experiences before his death, and expand the 
geographic reach of DOHSA.
  H.R. 5503 makes other crucial changes. It eliminates certain limits 
on the liability of ship owners, remnants from a time when 
communications were much slower and owners might not be aware of their 
crews' actions on the other side of the ocean, or the other side of the 
globe. H.R. 5503 changes our bankruptcy laws, and prevents responsible 
parties from escaping their liability through misuse of bankruptcy 
proceedings. Finally, it amends the Class Action Fairness Act to 
prevent suits brought by the States, on behalf of their citizens, from 
being removed to languish in Federal courts.
  These are all very, very important changes, and I want to state again 
how glad I am to have been able to work with Chairman Conyers on these 
issues. However, there are other harms that the disaster in the Gulf 
has inflicted, harms that are not addresses in this bill.
  Last month, I spent time at the United Command Center in Hammond, 
Louisiana and flew over the impacted areas to assess the devastating 
damage to the Gulf region and visited Plaquemarins Parish, Pointe a La 
Hache (Hash), Louisiana to meet with local oystermen and other 
individuals affected by the oil spill. My experience left my heart 
wrenched and even more determined to work with my colleagues to develop 
an aggressive proactive strategy to assist the victims of the oil spill 
and to develop measures to prevent it from happening again.
  We need a claims process on the Gulf coast to remedy the harm caused 
by the oil spill before it is compounded by delay and we need to ensure 
that claims are evaluated and paid through an expedited equitable and 
transparent process.
  There are numerous accounts of concerns of claimants that have 
underscored the importance of the need for the Federal Government to 
require that a totally independent claims process is set up to process 
claims related to the BP oil spill, and that structures are set up to 
process claims without delay. We know that victims are seeking 
assistance, but have experienced complicated claims procedures to 
follow, and have not been able to obtain relief or compensation from BP 
but rather, a hard way to go and the never-ending claims requirements 
to satisfy the claims they have brought against BP.
  Take the story of Byron Encalade. Mr. Encalade, as owner of his own 
fishery company, and as President of the Louisiana Oysters Association, 
has sought to file claims with BP to recover damages suffered as a 
result of the Gulf oil spill. Unfortunately, Mr. Encalade has had a 
horrible experience with the ever-changing claims process.
  Though Mr. Encalade came with the paperwork he was originally told to 
provide BP claims adjusters, he was told that he needed to provide his 
tax statements in order to be compensated for his loss. When inquiring 
about a second $5,000 check he was supposed to receive from BP, he was 
told that the check was in the mail. He has yet to receive the check.
  He was also informed that his claim would be based upon his net 
receipts and not his gross receipts. This policy puts Mr. Encalade and 
many others in a situation where they cannot recover the full value of 
their losses due to investments that were made to fishing boats that 
were lost in Hurricane Katrina. As such, this policy will prevent many 
fishers and shrimpers from recovering the full value of their loss.
  I can also tell you the story of the owner of a small seafood 
restaurant in Houston, Texas, who I have known for years and have 
supported. She is in trouble at this very moment, wondering whether her 
business will remain open to long-time customers like me. Whether she, 
as a small business owner and woman, can afford to pay the bills and 
continue to earn a livelihood. Although she is hundreds of miles away 
from the actual site of the oil spill, she too is a victim. Her 
restaurant relies on a variety of suppliers of Gulf seafood, and she 
bills her establishment as one which prides itself on seafood from 
Louisiana, a part of the Gulf region. So, now she confronts two issues 
that could prove fatal to her business. One, if the seafood is from the 
Gulf region or Louisiana in particular, perhaps it is tainted by the 
oil. Two, the prices of seafood from the Gulf continues to rise, making 
it impossible for the restaurant to carry certain items. Many items on 
the menu her patrons can no longer afford. It is the classic Catch-22 
situation, and what is clear to me is that unless this Congress acts 
and acts quickly restaurants like hers will be history.
  We need to make sure that victims like her, and like Mr. Encalade, 
are able to receive compensation for the harms inflicted on them, 
without the years of litigation that civil suits frequently entail. We 
need to establish independent claims systems, with established 
categories that treat fishermen, shrimpers, and other categories of 
indirect victims appropriately, and with clear and consistent 
guidelines for what types of proof claimants need, to avoid unnecessary 
delay.
  We need to update the liability cap under the Oil Protection Act, so 
that responsible parties cannot escape with paying a mere fraction of 
the damages they inflict. We also need to change the permitting 
process, so that entities drilling offshore must demonstrate they have 
a workable Plan B when their Plan A fails; and to establish a 
requirement that those disaster and spill mitigation plans be reviewed 
and approved by independent, disinterested experts.
  There are additional changes to both the Jones Act and DOHSA we 
should make. Both laws currently allow only one ``personal 
representative'' of a decedent to file claims, and there may be cases 
where that personal representative does not act in the interest of the 
parents, children, or other family members who face this terrible loss; 
we should allow those family members to make claims on their own 
behalf. We need to amend the Jones Act so that it covers all those 
injured on our ships, even those who may not meet the technical 
definition of seaman. Further, we should allow punitive damages under 
those laws in cases of gross negligence.
  As important as it is that we make the victims of this disaster 
whole, it is equally important to take steps to prevent the next spill 
of this magnitude. Therefore, we must establish a clear framework for 
response, so that there is never again a question of who is in charge. 
The United States is the world leader in science and technology, and it 
is in our best interest to direct some of our energy towards research 
and development of technologies that will better enable us to deal with 
leaks deep below the surface of the ocean, and provide access to those 
technologies to the appropriate agencies.
  Nonetheless, for all that remains to be done, H.R. 5503 is an 
important step, a necessary

[[Page H5335]]

step, towards repairing the harm the disaster in the Gulf has done. 
Chairman Conyers has crafted a piece of legislation that I am proud to 
be associated with, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in 
supporting it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As I mentioned in my opening statement, repealing the Limitation of 
Liability Act hurts victims of maritime accidents. The Limitation of 
Liability Act provides for the orderly resolution of claims arising out 
of a maritime accident in one Federal court. It also creates a 
compensation fund for personal injury claims. Repealing the act 
eliminates these two important provisions. In many cases, this will 
result in victims of maritime accidents receiving less compensation 
than they would under current law.
  First, victims will receive less compensation because cases will no 
longer be consolidated in one Federal court. Consolidation allows 
victims to share litigation and expert costs and allows for 
proportional allocation of damage awards. Second, victims will 
potentially receive less compensation because repealing the act will 
repeal the personal injury fund. The personal injury fund requires 
vessel owners to provide compensation over and above the liability cap.
  Again, a vote for this bill is a vote to repeal the personal injury 
fund. Let's not rush this bill through the House today and hurt the 
very people we're supposed to be trying to help but send it back to 
committee to be examined and amended properly.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield myself 6 seconds.
  I am so disappointed that my dear friends would even suggest that 
there's a defense for the oil companies, the shipbuilders, and the 
insurance companies in a situation like this.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Maxine 
Waters, a distinguished leader in the Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.
  Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank our chairman, John 
Conyers. He is always on the case in a timely fashion, providing 
leadership that is so desperately needed on issues such as this one.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5503, the Securing 
Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability Act, that is, 
the SPILL Act. H.R. 5503 is a good first step and must be passed to 
immediately assist the victims who would otherwise be denied adequate 
compensation under our current laws. I am very disappointed at some of 
the arguments that are being made against this bill by my friends on 
the opposite side of the aisle.
  One of the arguments that they make is the DOHSA provisions of the 
SPILL Act will allow surviving families to receive undue compensation. 
Well, let me set the record straight. DOHSA currently provides outdated 
and uneven compensations for victims on the high seas because it fails 
to award damages for pain and suffering, loss of care, comfort, and 
companionship in many cases, including an accident like the Deepwater 
Horizon explosion.
  The changes to DOHSA are not intended to single out any particular 
industry. The SPILL Act will make Federal law consistent so that the 
families of all victims on the high seas can receive the compensation 
they truly deserve. These gross inequities exist because DOHSA, enacted 
back in 1920, has undergone only one significant update, in 2000, 4 
years after the TWA Flight 800 crash.
  I would simply ask for support and a vote on H.R. 5503, recognizing 
the families who have been harmed.
  However, we cannot discount the critical needs of entire communities 
and other individuals whose way of life has been severely impacted by 
the oil spill. The outlook for little-known communities of black oyster 
farmers is especially bleak. These small villages of black fishermen 
have been self-sufficient for generations, relying on the region's 
wetlands for their economic independence. The challenges these oyster 
farmers will face must not be excluded in our efforts to help the Gulf 
Coast. We must ensure that BP and other responsible parties are held 
liable and accountable to the hundreds of thousands of lives they have 
destroyed at the expense of cutting costs.
  Therefore, while I fully support H.R. 5503, I am very disappointed 
that critical amendments to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) as 
well as my amendment that would have legally nullified BP's original 
attempts to make their $5,000 payouts legal settlements were taken out 
of the bill. All we have now is BP's word that they will not enforce 
these waivers or honor the $75 million liability cap current law 
provides. However, this is unacceptable.
  In the same manner that the federal government responded to the 9/11 
attacks and the economic collapse, we must be equally as vigilant in 
responding to the crisis in the Gulf Coast.
  DOHSA currently provides outdated and uneven compensation for victims 
on the high seas because it fails to award damages for pain and 
suffering, and loss of care, comfort, and companionship in many cases--
including in accidents like the Deepwater Horizon explosion.
  The SPILL Act will make federal law consistent so that the families 
of all victims on the high seas can receive the compensation they 
deserve.
  These gross inequities exist because DOHSA, enacted in 1920, has 
undergone only one significant update--in 2000, four years after the 
TWA Flight 800 crash. Because many of the TWA victims were children who 
earned no income, Congress narrowly amended DOHSA to grant non-
pecuniary damages to family members of commercial airline victims on 
the high seas, but not for any other deaths on the high seas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. I am happy now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California, Dr. Judy Chu, a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. CHU. The gulf oil spill is the worst environmental disaster in 
our Nation's history. It's devastated the gulf coast and taken lives, 
lives like Gordon Jones and the 10 other victims of the gulf Horizon 
explosion.
  Congress is making sure that the families of these men receive the 
justice that they deserve. Current law values the lives of those who 
die at sea far less than deaths on land, and to relatives not 
financially dependent on the deceased, it provides nothing but a check 
for funeral expenses. This is wrong.
  It doesn't matter where someone dies. If it's someone else's fault, 
justice is due. Moreover, these losses go far beyond the value of a pay 
stub or the costs of a funeral. That's why the SPILL Act ends the 
outdated devaluations of maritime deaths, and it opens the door for 
family members to receive damages based upon pain and suffering.
  But that's not all it does. Current law limits the liability of 
Transocean, the company who owned the rig, to just $25 million. Now, 
Kim Tran, Vietnamese shrimpers, and all the fishermen of Louisiana know 
that the damages caused are so much greater, and so does Congress. 
That's why our bill eliminates those caps and assures that we hold 
those who caused the spill accountable for the damage they've done, no 
matter who they might be. That's why I am proud to cosponsor the SPILL 
Act, and I call on all of my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Iowa, Bruce Braley, a cosponsor of the bill.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of 
the bill, and I thank the chairman for yielding.
  As we continue to stop the oil disaster in the gulf coast and clean 
it up, we must also ensure that the victims of this spill are fairly 
compensated for their loss. And at our field hearing in Chalmette, 
Louisiana, we saw firsthand that these individuals, like the brave 
families who are here today, are being inadequately compensated for the 
enormous losses they face.
  One of the few requests made by Natalie Roshto and Courtney Kemp at 
that hearing, who testified, was that Congress take the necessary steps 
to strengthen these laws and ensure their husbands did not die in vain. 
And when we had our Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee hearing on 
June 17, I had a chance to question BP Chairman Tony Hayward, and I 
showed him clips of those widows' testimony, challenging him to listen 
to their pain and

[[Page H5336]]

explain to them how on the anniversaries of the loss of their husbands 
and the anniversaries of their marriage and the birth of their children 
and at their children's graduation and their weddings, where is BP and 
Transocean and Halliburton going to be? That's why we need to pass this 
bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, in summary, this bill should be opposed for four 
reasons:
  First, the bill repeals the Limitation of Liability Act, which will 
actually hurt the victims of maritime accidents. Repealing the act 
eliminates important protections for maritime victims, including the 
fund for compensating personal injury victims. This bill, incredibly, 
repeals the personal injury fund;
  Second, the bill amends the Bankruptcy Code in a manner that the 
National Bankruptcy Conference, a very bipartisan organization, 
believes will create ``pernicious, unintended, and counterproductive 
consequences'' that benefit oil spill claimants ``at the expense of 
other innocent and equally deserving creditors'';
  Third, the bill was rushed through committee without a single 
legislative hearing and is being rushed through the House on 
suspension, without giving Members the opportunity to offer amendments; 
and
  Fourth, because this bill is being rushed through the House, Congress 
has not been fully informed of the unintended consequences this bill 
creates for the U.S. maritime industry, which is a large part of the 
economy of the gulf coast region; the American economy, which relies on 
U.S. shipping to take goods to and from market; and the victims of 
maritime accidents, who, in many cases, will actually be hurt by this 
legislation.

                              {time}  1610

  Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, 
send it back to committee. Let's improve it, let's amend it, and then 
bring it back to the floor. I hope my colleagues will vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. It's 
uncomplicated. It revises old law that's been discriminatory and left 
on the books. It ensures that BP and other corporate violators that 
caused the Deepwater Horizon explosion-resulting oil spill are held 
accountable under the law.
  This is not going to hurt the victims. The victims came before the 
committee and testified in favor of this kind of relief. So for us now 
to think that we're inadvertently doing some harm to those who have 
lost their loved ones is untenable and uncontemplatable.
  I urge that all of us cast as near unanimous vote as possible in 
support of this legislation and correct the injustices that have been 
caused by this incredible, extensive, and terrible accident.
  And I include in my closing remarks the support of nine other 
organizations.

       The International Cruise Victims Association
       The National Center for Victims of Crime
       The National Organization of Parents of Murdered Children
       Public Citizen
       Alliance for Justice
       National Consumers League
       Consumer Watchdog
       Center for Justice & Democracy
       Center for Biological Diversity
       Friends of the Earth
       U.S. Action

  Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
5503, the Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on 
Liability (SPILL) Act.
  Two months ago, the Deepwater Horizon oil platform exploded in the 
Gulf of Mexico. That tragedy cost the lives of eleven people and 
injured at least seventeen others, dealing a horrific blow to the lives 
of their loved ones, family members, and friends. The explosion and 
subsequent oil spill devastated the entire Gulf area and continues each 
day to wreak havoc on the way of life and environment of the region. 
Congress must act to address this disaster and in the coming weeks, we 
will.
  Today, the House is considering H.R. 5503. This legislation, which I 
worked on in the Judiciary Committee, addresses problems that have come 
to light as a result of the explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.
  The bill would provide long-overdue rights to the survivors of those 
killed off our shores, including allowing recovery for non-economic 
damages. It also would repeal an antiquated law which could have 
shielded Transocean from its true liability in this disaster. The big 
corporations like Transocean and BP, whose malfeasance caused this 
disaster, must not be able to elude their true responsibility.
  I want to thank Chairman Conyers for his work on the bankruptcy 
provisions of this bill as well. The rights of individuals, small 
businesses, and communities injured by this catastrophic act of 
corporate wrongdoing must be protected, and this bill reflects that 
concern. We also must make sure that we protect those rights in a way 
that does not destroy the rights of other parties, including employees, 
retirees, and small businesses who are also owed money by the polluter, 
that preserves going concern value, and that does not shelter 
entrenched management. The modified language reflects the ongoing 
effort to address these important concerns, and I look forward to 
working with the Chairman to perfect these protections.
  I do want to say, however, that I am disappointed with a few changes 
that have been made since the bill passed the Judiciary Committee. A 
provision to deny the enforceability of ``gag orders'' that reportedly 
were being used by BP has been removed. Such secrecy agreements only 
serve to deny the public access to necessary information. And, a common 
sense change to the Class Action Fairness Act to ensure states could 
pursue actions on behalf of their own citizens in state court was 
stripped as well.
  Despite these changes, this bill represents needed reforms to 
compensate, as much as possible, those injured and the families of 
those killed in this disaster and similar events in the future. I want 
to applaud Chairman Conyers for his leadership in pushing H.R. 5503 
forward. I urge all Members to support it.
  Mr. VAN. HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Securing Protections for the Injured from Limitations on Liability 
(SPILL) Act (H.R. 5503).
  On this, we should surely agree: the lives of those lost at sea are 
just as precious as the lives of those lost on land--and the law should 
treat them that way.
  Today's legislation modernizes our maritime laws to ensure that the 
families of those killed or injured in the BP Oilspill have an 
opportunity to be justly compensated for their losses, and will provide 
equal justice for all future victims of maritime disasters.
  Madam Speaker, as we work to hold the responsible parties accountable 
for the ongoing tragedy in the Gulf, the Spill Act keeps faith with the 
families most directly impacted by the disaster. I commend Chairman 
Conyers and the Judiciary Committee for bringing this legislation to 
the floor today. I urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5503, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________