Same Number Act of 2009

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, though I do not intend to oppose the gentleman.

I want to compliment the House's own version of Survivor Man, not only on surviving on a desert island and doing so very skillfully and astutely. Most of the time when Members of our body wind up with a story in The Washington Post, it's for some misdeed or misappropriation of funds. This was a remarkable story of personal strength and courage that I suspect derives from the gentleman's own upbringing and mission abroad for the church, and for his ability to survive under difficult conditions.

He's also been a survivor on his campaign, Mr. Chairman, to limit earmarks. And this is one case in which our committee agrees with the gentleman. On Page 177, Lines 4 and 5, the bill reads: the Secretary shall award grants under this subsection on a competitive basis. But also, as the gentleman has pointed out, notwithstanding such language in other bills,

there have been deviations from the programmatic language, often by the other body, but also, on occasion, in this body.

We feel that these grants ought to be awarded competitively and, for that reason, very specifically wrote this language into the bill. I suspect that after the vigorous hearings that Chairman Cummings has held over the past 2\1/2\ years, exposing failures of the Coast Guard contracting program, that this language will be honored and will be adhered to.

As to the reason for the training grants, this is the deadliest industry by a great many measures. In fact, there is a program on television on fishing entitled ``The Deadliest Catch,'' and it tracks those who put out to sea to earn their living in dangerous circumstances. The safety training grants will deal with those and other similar situations. So on the policy side, I simply want to defend the provision.

But I concur with the gentleman on his concern, and we will accept the amendment.

At this point, I would yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Chair of the subcommittee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to claim time in opposition, though I do not oppose the amendment

The language of this provision is similar to the previous: to establish a Fishing Safety Research Grant program for academia, members of nonprofit organizations, businesses involved in fishing and maritime, to conduct research on methods of improving the safety of commercial fishing industry, vessel design, survival equipment.

The gentleman ought to be very concerned about survival equipment. He's a survivor himself. Vessel monitoring systems, de-icing technology and severe weather detection, the gentleman had none of those on the island. He didn't have any equipment to detect severe weather or absence of water. He didn't have a water finder; he had to create his own water using the sun. So he's the antithesis of this language.

But the issue is not the underlying policy. The issue really is competitive basis award of grants. I think the gentleman's language will reinforce the purpose of the committee.

Does the gentleman from Maryland wish to be heard?

I thank the gentleman for pointing that out, that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has been a vigorous advocate for his fishing community, which is largely a Portuguese immigrant community of long ancestry; and he really has been a strong advocate, along with Mr. Young of Alaska.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Even as we discussed this amendment, the U.S. Coast Guard has interdicted a self-propelled semi-submersible vessel in the Eastern Pacific with a multi-ton load of narcotics on board. Smuggling using submersible and semi-submersibles have become a part of the increasingly sophisticated smuggling operation.

We accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I compliment the gentleman on this amendment. As Mr. LoBiondo said just a moment ago, there are serious needs, a $1 billion backlog in the Coast Guard's shore construction program, and the gentleman's amendment is right on point, and I commend him for offering it.

And if the gentleman would yield to the Chair of the subcommittee, I'd appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye) for the following reasons:

The amendment specifies that the marine safety provisions in H.R. 3619 shall not impair the authority of the Coast Guard to carry out its homeland security missions.

The Coast Guard constantly monitors maritime transit zones and the Service's law enforcement authority enables it to apprehend foreign fishing vessels engaged in poaching and interdict vessels carrying illegal drugs, firearms and undocumented migrants.

The Committee has held several hearings regarding the Coast Guard's marine safety program over the past three years. Commandant Thad Allen was very concerned about the condition of the marine safety program, so he asked retired Admiral Jim Card to conduct a thorough analysis of the program. Admiral Card confirmed all of the problems that had been raised by industry and mariners during these hearings. H.R. 3619 addresses these programmatic shortfalls in the marine safety program.

The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency and it is important that it carries out all of its missions in an effective manner--from marine safety and search and rescue, to homeland security.

Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment that clarifies that nothing in the marine safety portions of H.R. 3619 will affect the Coast Guard's legal authority to execute its homeland security mission.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

I rise as the designee of Mr. Stupak to offer the amendment on his behalf.

Mr. Chairman, the Presque Isle Lighthouse at Presque Isle Township on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is very important, has served a very important navigational purpose over many, many years on those stormy waters of Lake Superior. Those are treacherous waters. Unlike the ocean where waves have a long distance, hundreds of miles to play themselves out, the waters of the Great Lakes, and particularly of Lake Superior, even with a surface of 33,000 square miles, are short and choppy and harsh and brutal in the coming months of November, December, January, February.

The Presque Isle Lighthouse has saved many a mariner. It continues to operate, but its light has been replaced by one of more modern quality and capability with much greater candle power, much greater visibility, and longer distance than the Fresnel lens that the Coast Guard has used for probably 150 years; not only the Coast Guard, but other marine navigation services. Fresnel lenses are treasured historical pieces, but they are not navigational pieces any longer.

The gentleman's amendment would require the Coast Guard to do a study of the feasibility of reinstalling the Fresnel lens in the lighthouse in a condition so that it can provide safe navigation to commercial vessels on Lake Huron or at the juncture point of the upper waters and also serve as a supplement to the existing light.

I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Thank you, Mr. Oberstar, for your comments. Thank you for yielding. I agree with you. We've already done basically what the gentleman wants done. And I just want to add something, Mr. Oberstar, and that is that this has been something that our subcommittee has-- this fishing problem, and safety is something that we've taken extremely seriously. The Bureau of Labor Statistics names commercial fishing as the most hazardous occupation in the United States. For the 11-year period from 1994 through 2004, 641 fishermen and -women lost their lives on fishing vessels, and so we take it very seriously.

I also want to thank the gentleman for constantly making sure that we do what you're hoping that we would do. We did it. Congratulations. And so, therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Once again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for laying that out. And I thank the gentleman for his vigilance with regard to these types of issues. Similar to the previous amendment offered by Mr. Flake, which prohibits earmarking of the grants to be awarded under the Fishing and Safety Training Grant program, this amendment would prohibit earmarking of the grants authorized by H.R. 3619. The Fishing Safety Research grant is a complement of the Fishing Safety Training program. The research grant program would provide funding to individuals in academia, members of nonprofit organizations and businesses involved in fishing and other maritime matters and other persons with expertise in the fishing industry to support research to identify measures that will improve safety in this industry. And of course these would be bid on a competitive basis.

But the one thing I did want to say, and I know that the chairman of the committee will agree with me, I must give a lot of credit to Congressman Barney Frank, who worked tirelessly on these issues. And I know I've had at least 10 to 12 conversations with him. I know he's met with the chairman, and I just wanted to make sure that we gave him credit because he has championed this like nobody I've ever known, and I just wanted to say that.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Thank you very much.

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to congratulate Mrs. Kirkpatrick for this outstanding amendment. As our ranking member said, this is something the committee has been addressing for a while. But what we now want to do is make sure that the efforts of the Coast Guard are most effective and efficient, and the study and looking into this is what this is all about. And I think this will allow us to accomplish a lot more with regard to the equipment that we have.

I've actually seen these submersibles many times. As a matter of fact, I was just in Colombia and Mexico and actually saw them and saw they had been used to get around the Coast Guard.

And I know for a fact that they welcome this amendment, and I want to thank you very much because basically what you've done, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, is you've made a very good bill even better.

I rise in very strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil). This amendment will require the Coast Guard to develop a national inventory of its office buildings and other facilities to assess its facilities' shortfalls. However, we realize there is a service backlog, as the chairman just said, of $1 billion, a shore facility repair backlog, that is.

So basically what this will do is allow the Coast Guard to more effectively and efficiently address this backlog.

And again, this is a very thoughtful amendment. I want to congratulate the Congressman and sponsor for submitting it. And again, I strongly support it and would urge our colleagues to vote for it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nye). It's an outstanding amendment. This amendment states that none of the provisions relating to marine safety included in H.R. 3619 would impair the authority of the Coast Guard to carry out its homeland security missions.

I support the amendment and its intention, and I urge its adoption.

That said, the Transportation Committee and the Coast Guard Subcommittee have examined the Coast Guard's performance of its marine safety mission in great detail and have significant concerns that the service has assigned inexperienced and unqualified individuals to conduct casualty investigations, vessel inspections, and other marine- safety functions.

The shortcomings in the program have been well documented by the Homeland Security's inspector general, by retired Coast Guard Vice Admiral James C. Card, and by the committee's own examination of the Cosco Busan allision in San Francisco. And so certainly the provisions of this amendment will be extremely helpful in helping us again help the Coast Guard be most effective and efficient in its efforts, and it can only improve the bill and improve an already great organization, the United States Coast Guard, our thin blue line at sea.

I'd like to rise in support of amendment, thank Mr. Flake, and say that the Republicans on the committee are supportive of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition although I am not in opposition.

As the gentlelady stated and the chairman stated, this is something that the Coast Guard plays a critical role in their interdiction. We have dealt with the issue of submersibles and semi- submersibles to combat the growing drug threat. We need to give the Coast Guard the authority to do this.

We're happy to support the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition although I am not in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has repeatedly requested information on the condition and the need for additional Coast Guard shoreside facilities. The gentleman's amendment would require the service to submit a report detailing current shortfalls and future shoreside needs.

We congratulate the gentleman. We fully support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.

We are happy to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, pirates attacked two American-flag vessels transiting waters off the Horn of Africa. If it were not for the heroic actions of our Special Forces, the bravery

of the captain and the crew of these vessels, a terrible tragedy would have been at hand. Just yesterday we got reports that a Panamanian- flagged vessel had been seized by pirates with hostages being taken. We cannot allow this to continue.

Knowing this would be an ongoing problem, the bill, as it was reported from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, included a very carefully worked out bipartisan agreement that we worked with Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Mica, and myself that would shield U.S. merchant mariners, ship owners, operators, and captains from liabilities in U.S. courts following any action taken to defend a U.S.- flagged vessel, for instance, taken to defend the United States of America against a pirate attack.

Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee objected and requested Chairman Oberstar add language to his recently adopted manager's amendment that appears to be an entanglement for getting the right thing done. The way the Judiciary Committee has worded this in the manager's amendment, a crewmember would be forced to go through a checklist in his mind or her mind of what legal entanglements could occur because of this.

The language in the manager's amendment only grants relief liability to the crew owner, meaning the vessel owners or operators and captains would still be sued. They would not be held without harm. They would have monetary damages, possibly.

Our amendment restores this bipartisan agreement. It's a commonsense agreement, something that the people on the committee worked out. It makes no sense in the heat of an attack, when you have got pirates coming at a U.S.-flagged vessel with automatic machine gunfire, with rocket-propelled grenades, or whatever else may happen, to suggest that a crewmember is going to be able to take the time to check through what is substantially or in excess or whatever the case is. We need to protect American interests.

Under our amendment, an American crewmember would only need to prove that the person attacking the vessel was a pirate in order to receive liability relief.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Mica.

Well, under title 18, an act of piracy is defined as happening on the high seas. The intention is to defend against an act of piracy and, as defined by law, it has to be on the high seas.

Yes.

For civil.

Just civil.

We certainly would be happy to work with you to make sure that we are in synchronization with what we are all understanding.

Just to close, again, the manager's amendment, the crewmember of the vessel would have to prove in court that he knew at the time, she knew at the time, that the defensive actions were not substantially in excess of what is reasonable. That's not what's going to happen if a piracy attack occurs.

I don't think any Members are going to even want to be close to voting for a piracy protection provision in line with what's going on. What does substantially in excess of reasonable mean? A crewmember is going to have to think through this checklist as a pirate attack is happening?

That's not what we have in mind. I don't think it's the right way to go. I would urge all of our Members to vote in favor of this amendment to make sure that U.S. interests are protected.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I fully share the desire of the sponsor of the amendment to effectively combat piracy on the high seas, but I hope this amendment will not be adopted.

As he has pointed out, the manager's amendment does address this issue and does so consistently with well-established, long-observed legal traditions which go back to the ancient civilizations of Rome and Babylon. The language in the bill, now with the manager's amendment, incorporated language of the Transportation and Infrastructure and the Judiciary Committee in place of what was in the introduced bill.

Now this amendment, unfortunately, goes too far. It grants absolute immunity within the United States on our lakes and rivers to violence against our own citizens. Now, the difference in the two provision, one carefully crafted by the Judiciary Committee and now the one being offered on the floor, is not about enabling ship's crews to respond to piracy. Both do that fine. The difference is that this amendment would eliminate all legal restraints. There will be no legal accountability, not even under criminal law. When they say no liability, the way the bill is drafted, it would be you could commit crimes against people and still be exempt.

Now, I can't imagine that the sponsor actually meant to do this. I think he is talking about civil liability. But when he says--the language in the bill, with the manager's amendment, says that you are totally immune unless you knew what you were doing was substantially in excess of what was necessary.

The language in the amendment, however, is not even limited to a civil liability. It's not even limited to during the attack. It could be after the attack when no one is under any danger, and there is no limit on what crimes can be committed at that point.

I would hope, whether this amendment is adopted or not, if there are still concerns about the amendment, that we would work together cooperatively as we go forward to make sure that we give the crewmembers all of the flexibility they need in these situations without going too far and allowing crime and torture and everything else under criminal law.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a couple of questions to the sponsor of the amendment, if he would respond.

My first question would be whether it's his intent, because the language under the amendment does not limit it to the high seas, is it your intent to limit this application to high seas?

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I would ask another question, Mr. Chairman.

Is it your intent to limit this to the application of civil law and not criminal law? Would you exempt owners and operators from criminal acts?

Yes, you do exempt them from criminal acts?

Just civil.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think the wording, as it is, says that an owner-operator who uses force or authorized the use of force to defend a vessel of the United States against an act of piracy shall not be liable for any injury or death caused by such force.

That does not limit it, in its present version, to civil. It would actually exempt him from any liability, that would include criminal. I would hope that the gentleman, whatever happens to the amendment, would work cooperatively so that we would limit it to the intent as he has articulated today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today because, while I speak about securing our borders to stop the illegal crossings of drugs, weapons, and people, it is important to remember that our physical border is just one line of defense.

Our fight against the drug cartels--which operate the smuggling routes--actually begins in the jungles of South America. Much of the cocaine that enters the United States today originates in South America before working its way north. For years, the United States, Colombian, and Mexican governments have increasingly cracked down on the major smuggling routes.

As these paths have been squeezed, the cartels have found new and innovative ways to move their product. Recently, the traffickers have begun resorting to semi-submersibles, which are submarine-like boats that skim just below the surface of the water.

To further avoid detection, these boats incorporate advanced technology, including a design that reduces their ability to be detected by radar and utilizing water-cooled exhaust mufflers to reduce their heat signal. They can travel up to 3,000 miles without stopping for refueling, allowing crews to move cocaine from secret shipyards along the Colombian coast to safe harbors in Mexico where they join the land trafficking routes that take the drugs across the land border and into the United States.

With these advances, semi-submersibles are extremely difficult for authorities to track or even locate once they take to sea.

With an estimated 70 boats being deployed this year alone with the sustaining cargo capabilities of up to 10 tons, it is not surprising that over one-third of the cocaine reaching the United States is shipped this way. Even worse, these boats can just as easily be used to smuggle weapons or potential terrorists into the country.

Although the Coast Guard does an excellent job with the resources available to stop these vessels, the fact remains that it is a tough task, and only a small percentage of semi-submersibles are captured.

My amendment calls on the Coast Guard to establish a comprehensive strategy to combat the illegal flow of narcotics, weapons, bulk cash, and other contraband through the use of semi-submersible and submersible vessels.

Yes, I'll yield.

Thank you.

As part of this plan, the Coast Guard will address what additional resources they need to get the job done so we can make sure they get the help they need. Our fight against the cartels is constantly evolving, and we must continue to support those on the front line in adapting new strategies.

Therefore, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.