Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Always Ready. That's the motto of the United States Coast Guard. Since its establishment in 1790 by Alexander Hamilton, the Coast Guard is the only branch in our military that is always deployed.

As part of the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is tasked with maritime law enforcement, search and rescue for those in peril at sea, patrolling and protecting our ports, harbors and sea borders, marine environmental protection, helping manage offshore spills, facilitating maritime navigation and commerce, and so much more. In times of war, the Coast Guard also deploys with other service branches overseas.

The underlying legislation, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, being brought to the floor today authorizes approximately $10 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2010. It increases the authorized end-strength by 1,500 members to a total of 47,000 personnel. The legislation also authorizes additional Coast Guard maritime security response teams to assist in detecting explosives and drug interdiction.

The Coast Guard is currently undergoing the largest single acquisition program in its history in order to upgrade and modernize its surface and air assets. The program currently known as Deepwater includes 91 new cutters, 124 new small boats, and 247 new or modernized airplanes, helicopters, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

According to the most recent acquisition program baseline, the Deepwater acquisitions are projected to cost $24 billion and take 25 years to complete. The underlying legislation includes $1.2 billion for acquisition of new vessels, aircraft and support systems under the Deepwater program for 2010.

The legislation also requires the Coast Guard to be responsible for the enforcement of any Federal security zone established around terminals and around tankers transporting ``especially hazardous materials.'' The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Coast Guard, to conduct a pilot program in the maritime environment for the mobile biometric identification of suspected individuals to enhance our border security.

The legislation establishes a pilot program to test and deploy preventative radiological or nuclear detection equipment on Coast Guard vessels and fixed locations in port areas. It establishes a congressional nomination system for admission to the Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut. That process is similar to those already in place for the other service academies. Mr. Speaker, in south Florida we are all admirers of the Coast Guard. We see it day in and day out save lives and help citizens.

While I support this important underlying legislation, I oppose the rule by which it is being brought to the floor. The last time that a Coast Guard authorization bill was enacted into law, the Republican majority at the time brought the legislation to the floor with a rule that allowed consideration of the bill under a modified open process, a modified open rule. That type of rule allows any Member of the House to offer any amendments to the legislation without having to receive the approval of the Rules Committee as long as the amendment is preprinted in the Congressional Record. That's why it is known as a modified open rule; any amendment can be brought forward, but you have to preprint it.

Even though we historically considered this bill under a modified open rule, today the majority has brought that precedent to an end. It has decided that that precedent should be disregarded and that the right of Members to offer amendments should be restricted. Yesterday afternoon in the Rules Committee, we in the minority asked for the traditional modified open rule, and yet the majority voted it down on a party-line vote. I thought that was somewhat ironic. The last time the House considered this legislation under the traditional modified open rule, we were criticized for offering a modified open rule. That was called restrictive. Well, now we have again--unnecessarily and breaking with precedent--a structured rule; in other words, only those amendments made in order can be considered.

So here we are, Mr. Speaker, yet again with another example of how the current majority restricts, unnecessarily and unfortunately, the procedural rights of all Members of this body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my friend, Ms. Matsui, that when she says the amendments that were asked to be made in order before the Rules Committee were made in order, yes, that's correct. The tradition, as I pointed out earlier, of this House for many decades with regard to this legislation--especially since it's legislation that enjoys such widespread and bipartisan support--the tradition is that Members didn't have to go and beg the Rules Committee for authorization to have their amendments debated if they simply preprinted those amendments in the Congressional Record. That was another important tradition in this House that has been violated unnecessarily, that has been reversed, ended unnecessarily by the new majority. That's what I pointed out.

I would like to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, Mr. LoBiondo of New Jersey, the ranking member of the Coast Guard and Maritime Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Taylor brought out a very relevant and important example of why it was appropriate and important to follow what has been a decades-long tradition of allowing all Members with amendments to introduce them for consideration by the entire House simply by preprinting them in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Taylor should not have had to go to the Rules Committee and wait, and then ask, request, permission to have his amendment considered. In addition to having to wait and then ask for permission, he was denied permission to have his amendment considered, which is an important amendment.

He explained it in detail before the Rules Committee. In representation of his constituents and having developed an expertise throughout many years of service here, he communicated with the Coast Guard and basically came to an agreement on interpreting existing law, law that was passed before we entered into GATT and the international commitments that were referenced by my dear friend Ms. Matsui. Existing law before those commitments is what Mr. Taylor is trying to refine, to technically make clear, in pursuance of the interests of his constituents and our Nation.

That idea should have been able to be debated. His proposal should be able to be debated and considered by the entire House. It is another example, and a concrete example, an important example, of why I believe it is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, to limit the procedural rights of the Members of this House.

I thank my friend Ms. Matsui for her courtesy, and all of those who have participated in this debate. I want to point out, and then I will reserve our time again--I believe you have more speakers--that when I refer to the breaking of tradition by the majority, in this instance the reversal of the tradition that allowed for Members to preprint their amendments and have them considered by the entire House, when we maintained that tradition, when we followed that tradition that is now reversed, we were criticized for not allowing in this instance a fully open rule, again because we maintained the tradition of the preprinting requirement known as the modified open rule, and we were criticized by the then-minority. And they promised, Mr. Speaker, to open the process further, to improve the process, to make it more transparent.

Well, that was another promise broken, because instead of improving, making more transparent the process that we were criticized for, instead of improving that process, they have further closed it. It is unfortunate.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my friend, Ms. Matsui, for her courtesy during this debate with regard to this important underlying legislation that's being brought to the floor. I also thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica, as well as Chairman Cummings and Ranking Member LoBiondo.

I'd like to, before proceeding, yield 5 minutes to my friend from Miami, Florida, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

No, and I will wrap up my remarks shortly.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my friend, Ms. Matsui.

Over the past few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress, or they've made their opinions known at town hall meetings, asking their Congress Members whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people were outraged finding out that the majority has forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and often very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or even to read them. For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called stimulus bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill; or on the cap-and-trade bill, that one we were provided at 3 in the morning, and then a few hours later it was here on the floor. In some instances, much less than 24 hours.

That's no way to run this House. Our constituents are rightly upset. I think they should be. The distinguished Speaker said, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site. Yet time and again, the distinguished Speaker and the majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge.

That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members of Congress have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members and the general public for 72 hours before being brought to the House floor for a vote.

So that's why today I'll be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 554, a bipartisan bill by my friends and colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson.

Now, Members may be concerned that this motion would jeopardize the Coast Guard reauthorization bill, but I want to make clear the motion I am making provides for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days so that we can vote on the Coast Guard bill, and then once we're done, consider H. Res. 554.

I would ask, thus, Mr. Speaker, for the previous question to be defeated.

Amendment to H. Res. 853 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, insert the following new

section:

Sec. 3. On the third legislative day after the adoption of

this resolution, immediately after the third daily order of

business under clause 1 of rule XIV and without intervention

of any point of order, the House shall proceed to the

consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 554) amending the

Rules of the House of Representatives to require that

legislation and conference reports be available on the

Internet for 72 hours before consideration by the House, and

for other purposes. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) One hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) an amendment, if offered by the

Minority Leader or his designee and if printed in that

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII at least one legislative

day prior to its consideration, which shall be in order

without intervention of any point of order or demand for

division of the question, shall be considered as read and

shall be separately debatable for twenty minutes equally

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and

(3) one motion to recommit which shall not contain

instructions. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of House Resolution 554.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 853 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 853 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3619, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Homeland Security Committee.

The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee shall be considered as adopted and shall be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the committee amendment. The rule makes in order the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution and waives all points of order against all amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order 13 amendments, including all six of the Republican amendments that were submitted for consideration. In the case of sundry amendments reported by the committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the house en gros and without division of the question. The Chair may not entertain a motion to rise unless offered by the Chair of the Committee on Transportation or his designee and may not entertain a motion to strike the enacting clause.

I want to thank both Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Thompson for the good work their committees have done on this bill. Thanks to these two committees, we are here today to strengthen the Coast Guard's ability to implement its responsibilities. It is critical that the Coast Guard has the necessary funds, resources, and personnel to carry out the missions we need it to conduct.

H.R. 3619 increases the authorized end strength for military personnel in the Coast Guard by 1,500 to a total of 47,000 personnel. It will also permanently increase to 6,700 the allowable number of officers in the service.

The legislation also establishes marine safety as a core mission of the Coast Guard. It responds directly to the many shortcomings in Coast Guard acquisition efforts that the committee has examined over the last several years. For example, it prohibits the Coast Guard's use of a private sector lead system integrator, requires the Coast Guard to develop life-cycle cost estimates and prohibits contractor self- certification.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 will strengthen our Nation's Coast Guard by making important investments and key changes now, the benefits of which we will see for years to come.

This bill also includes legislation that I offered earlier this year, and I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Cummings for including this important language in this bill. There is an urgent need for the reforms I've outlined in the Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act. For far too long, American families have unknowingly been at risk.

Currently, cruise ships operate under foreign flags of convenience and are not required under U.S. law to report crimes occurring outside of our territorial waters. Leaving our territorial waters does not mean that cruise ships should be allowed to operate without basic laws that protect American citizens.

My legislation requires that all crimes that occur aboard cruise ships be reported to the Coast Guard and to the FBI. Without proper screening processes and accountability, these

reprehensible and violent acts will be allowed to continue.

Under the status quo, criminals are left unpunished, and victims are left to fend for themselves. Unclear lines of jurisdiction are no longer an excuse for risking the safety of the millions of Americans who board cruise ships each year.

I first became aware of the need for increased protections for Americans when one of my constituents, Laurie Dishman, wrote to me for help in April of 2006. Laurie was the victim of a sexual assault while on a cruise vacation. She was given no assistance by the cruise line in properly securing evidence of the assault; no assistance in identifying her attacker, who was an employee of the cruise ship; and no assistance in prosecuting the crime once back on shore. Devastated, Laurie reached out to me.

I immediately called for hearings on this issue and began to work on the legislation that is now a part of this Coast Guard authorization bill. The congressional hearings, chaired by Chairman Cummings, made apparent the gross inadequacies of current cruise safety provisions. Because of these hearings, it was discovered there has not been a single conviction of an accused rape on a cruise ship in recent history.

With ongoing news coverage of recent rapes on cruise ships, it is clear that legislation is both urgent and necessary. Many of my colleagues have come to me with similar stories of constituents who have gone missing, been sexually attacked, or gone days, weeks or years without getting resolution. My legislation establishes stringent new standards to ensure the safety and security of passengers on cruise vessels.

Its reforms include requiring that vessel personnel be able to preserve evidence of crimes committed on the vessels and provide appropriate medical treatment to the victims of sexual assaults. Security, safety and accountability must all be strengthened to hold criminals accountable and end the cycle of serious crimes on cruise ships.

As this crucial legislation moves forward, it serves as proof to the victims of cruise crimes that progress is being made towards ensuring the safety of all Americans abroad. Laurie Dishman is here today to witness her cause move forward, and I want to thank her for her extraordinary courage and leadership.

This has been a long, difficult road for all cruise victims and their families. These reforms are truly commonsense and are even supported now by the Cruise Line Industry Association. That is why this measure is a victory in the fight for cruise passenger rights.

In much the same way, the Coast Guard Authorization Act is a major victory for people across our country who depend on the Coast Guard to keep their families safe.

Passage of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 will allow many important reforms to be enacted and will help protect Americans across the Nation.

Coast Guard authorization is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I just want to say there were only six amendments to the bill submitted to the Rules Committee from the minority side of the aisle, and all six were made in order under this rule. It doesn't get more bipartisan than that.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just want to say that many of us on the Democratic side are sympathetic to the amendment offered by my colleague from Mississippi. We all think that we should build critical national security assets here at home in the United States.

However, there are also some concerns about whether the Taylor amendment would have exposed our country to reprisals at the WTO. Trade issues are very delicate right now with the world economy struggling so much. We should deal with the issues brought up by Mr. Taylor, but we should do so at a time when we are certain that we do not do more harm to our economy than good.

These issues certainly deserve more discussion and attention. My colleagues and I look forward to working with Mr. Taylor to address this very, very important topic.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a comment before I yield.

This legislation before us today is bipartisan and widely supported. It was reported by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee by voice vote. During that bipartisan markup process, only two amendments were offered, and both were adopted by voice vote. The working relationship between Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica is well known because they work together, and that is what we're trying to do today. Today's rule is structured the way it is so to continue this tradition of working issues out before they become political in nature.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any remaining speakers.

I have no speakers on my side. I'm prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

The rule before us today is a fair rule that includes a bipartisan group of Democratic and Republican amendments. All of the Republican amendments submitted to the Rules Committee are made in order by this rule. Furthermore, the underlying legislation strengthens and reforms a key component of our Nation's security forces.

Coast Guard authorization has been long in coming. That delay has meant inadequate authorization levels for ever-increasing demand. One of the good things this bill would do is encourage a larger, more educated merchant marine workforce by establishing a maritime career recruitment training and loan program. It will modernize the Coast Guard by reorganizing senior leadership and by establishing a firm foundation for a robust marine safety program. U.S. cruise ship passengers will also receive enhanced safety and security protections thanks to this legislation.

In total, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 will strengthen our Nation's Coast Guard and our national security for years to come.

I urge passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3360) to amend title 46, United States Code, to establish requirements to ensure the security and safety of passengers and crew on cruise vessels, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3360.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2009, H.R. 3360, as amended.

This legislation, authored by Congresswoman Doris Matsui, would require that cruise vessels calling on the United States take reasonable steps to improve the physical safety and security of their vessels. The legislation also would require cruise vessels to report to U.S. authorities allegations of specific crimes on cruise ships.

Almost all of the nearly 200 cruise vessels embarking and disembarking passengers in the United States are registered in foreign countries. As a result, U.S. laws apply directly to these vessels and to those sailing on these vessels only when they are sailing in U.S. waters.

While available statistics suggest that crime is infrequent on cruise vessels, many Americans do not realize, when they step on a cruise ship, they are stepping on what becomes a floating piece of some other country's jurisdiction as soon as it is more than 12 miles from United States shores.

Unfortunately, for those who are the victims of crime on cruise vessels, the implications of this reality become clear only after they learn that the laws applying to the cruise vessels may not and often do not extend to them the kinds of protections United States laws would extend.

Additionally, the unique circumstances of life at sea, particularly if a vessel is far from the kinds of law enforcement resources that are available on land, often make the prosecution of those accused of committing a crime on a cruise ship very difficult. As a result, though crime is infrequent on cruise vessels, so are prosecutions of those accused of crimes.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, I held two hearings to examine the issue of crime on cruise ships. I believe H.R. 3360 responds directly to the problems we examined in our hearings by requiring reasonable alteration in vessel design, equipment, and construction standards to increase the physical safety and security of passengers. For example, H.R. 3360 requires that cruise vessels install peepholes or similar features in cabin doors so passengers can identify who is at their door without having to open it. H.R. 3360 also requires that cruise vessels have railings that are at least 42 inches high to help prevent passengers from falling overboard.

To ensure that those who are victims of sexual assaults have immediate access to state-of-the-art medical care, H.R. 3360 requires that cruise ships have onboard trained personnel who can provide treatment to assault victims, collect evidence to support prosecutions, and administer antiretroviral medications as soon as possible. The legislation also requires that a store of such medications be maintained on cruise vessels.

H.R. 3360 also specifies certain crimes that must be reported to U.S. authorities, and it requires the Secretary of Transportation to maintain an Internet site that provides a numerical accounting of the crimes reported to U.S. authorities. Such statistics will be aggregated by individual cruise lines, and cruise lines will be required to maintain a link to the site on their own Web pages.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I applaud the work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) who has worked tirelessly on this issue and given it just a tremendous, tremendous effort. I applaud her and thank her on behalf of the Congress and a grateful Nation.

I urge all of the Members of the House to join me in passing H.R. 3360, as amended.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, November 12, 2009.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oberstar, I write to you regarding H.R. 3360,

the ``Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2009.''

H.R. 3360 contains provisions that fall within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security. I

recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and,

accordingly, I will not seek a sequential referral of the

bill. However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill

should not be construed as the Committee on Homeland Security

waiving, altering, or otherwise affecting its jurisdiction

over subject matters contained in the bill which fall within

its Rule X jurisdiction.

Further, I request your support for the appointment of an

appropriate number of Members of the Committee on Homeland

Security to be named as conferees during any House-Senate

conference convened on H.R. 3360 or similar legislation. I

also ask that a copy of this letter and your response be

included in the legislative report on H.R. 3360 and in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration of this bill.

I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass

this important legislation.

Sincerely,

Bennie G. Thompson,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the sponsor of the bill and who has been so helpful to our committee and our subcommittee on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson). She is a strong member of our subcommittee and certainly one who has championed this cause too.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). I want to thank him as he rises for all of his hard work.

I yield the gentleman 1\1/2\ additional minutes.

May I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

We have no additional speakers. I yield to the gentleman.

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

I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that this was an effort of the victim groups and the cruise ship industry. As Chairman Oberstar said, there was a lot of work that went into this legislation with folks actually sitting down and coming up with reasonable and balanced solutions to these problems.

I want to thank all of the folks that did that. And I also take a moment to thank Mr. LoBiondo and certainly Mr. Mica and definitely our chairman, Mr. Oberstar. This is one of those bipartisan efforts that has yielded a win-win-win, a win certainly for this Congress, a win for those people who find themselves taking a vacation on cruise ships, and certainly a win for law enforcement as they try to make sure that they address any kind of issues that may come up, and the industry. It's a win-win-win-win.

So I think that what we have done is approach this in a very balanced way, a very measured way, but a way which addresses all of the issues that we attempted to address. And certainly we thank Ms. Dishman and the other victims who have had difficult circumstances happen to them for bringing their testimony. As Chairman Oberstar said, this kind of testimony is very difficult for someone to present themselves, not only to the Congress but on C-SPAN and for the world to hear what they went through. But yet and still, the fact is that they sacrificed so that we can have this kind of legislation.

With that, I would urge our colleagues to vote for this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3360) to amend title 46, United States Code, to establish requirements to ensure the security and safety of passengers and crew on cruise vessels, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3360.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the passage of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3360, the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010. The House passed H.R. 3360 on November 17 by a vote of 416-4. On June 10, 2010, the Senate passed this legislation with an amendment which is now before us for consideration today.

I applaud my distinguished colleague, Congresswoman Doris Matsui, the author of H.R. 3360, for her hard work on this legislation and for her tireless work on behalf of her constituent, Ms. Laurie Dishman, and of all victims of crimes on cruise ships.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, I've convened two hearings to examine the issue of crime on cruise ships. I applaud Ms. Dishman and so many other victims and family members of victims for testifying before my subcommittee and for their long effort to support the development of legislation that would help ensure no one else is a victim of a crime on a cruise ship.

Almost all of the nearly 200 cruise vessels embarking and disembarking passengers in the U.S. are registered in foreign countries. As a result, when Americans step onto a cruise vessel, they are stepping onto what becomes a floating piece of another country's jurisdiction as soon as it leaves U.S. waters.

All available statistics indicate that crime is rare on cruise vessels, but it does happen. Therefore, H.R. 3360 seeks to improve the safety of passengers on cruise vessels by requiring commonsense measures to help prevent criminal activity and to ensure cruise lines respond appropriately when a crime occurs, including, by providing proper care for crime victims and securing crime scenes.

I believe that H.R. 3360 responds directly to the problems we examined in our hearings by requiring reasonable alterations in vessel design, equipment, and construction standards to increase the physical safety and security of passengers.

For example, H.R. 3360 requires that cruise vessels install peepholes or similar features in cabin doors so that passengers can identify who is at their door without having to open the door.

H.R. 3360 also requires that cruise vessels have railings that are at least 42 inches high to help prevent passengers from falling overboard. This legislation also requires that cruise ships have onboard trained medical personnel who can provide treatment to assault victims, collect evidence to support prosecutions, and administer antiretroviral medications. This legislation also requires that a store of such medications be maintained on cruise vessels.

And at this point, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to give credit to my colleague on our subcommittee and committee, Congresswoman Corrine Brown of Florida, who fought very hard to make sure that folks who may have been victims of rape had the appropriate personnel to address their concerns, as did Ms. Matsui. These provisions are critical to ensuring that those who are victims of sexual assault have immediate access to state-of-the-art medical care.

H.R. 3360 also specifies certain crimes that must be reported to U.S. authorities by any vessel calling on a U.S. port, and it requires the government to maintain an Internet site that provides a numerical accounting of the reported crimes. Such statistics will be aggregated by individual cruise lines, and cruise lines will be required to maintain a link to the site on their own Web pages.

The Senate amendment made several changes to the legislation passed by the House. Some of these changes enhance the legislation, including the addition of a provision requiring cruise ships to inform passengers of jurisdictional authority applicable to crimes occurring in United States territorial waters, on the high seas, and in the countries visited by the vessel.

That said, the Senate amendment also eliminates a number of reports unrelated to crime on cruise ships that have been required by other pieces of legislation to be submitted to the Congress by the Coast Guard, including a report on foreign-flagged vessels calling on U.S. ports and a report on Coast Guard staffing levels in search and rescue centers.

I understand that the elimination of these reports was demanded by a few Senators, ostensibly to offset the costs of implementing safety and security reforms on cruise vessels. I do not believe that measures that improve safety and security, and particularly not measures such as H.R. 3360, which imposes almost all new requirements on the cruise lines themselves, should require offsets, and particularly not offsets such as these.

That said, enactment of H.R. 3360 will make cruising safer for the millions of Americans who travel on cruise vessels each year, and I urge all of the Members of the House to join in passing the Senate amendments to H.R. 3360.

I also take this moment to thank my ranking member, Mr. LoBiondo, for our bipartisan efforts in seeing that this legislation got to the floor and is passed.

I again commend Congresswoman Matsui for her dedication to this cause and for her extraordinary work on H.R. 3360.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the sponsor of the bill who has worked very hard on this legislation for years now, the distinguished lady from California, Congresswoman Matsui.

In closing, I will just urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very, very important piece of legislation that will have far-reaching effects.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3360, the ``Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010.''

Serious crimes are committed at sea aboard cruise vessels just as they are committed on land. Over the last five years, sexual and physical assaults were the leading crimes committed aboard cruise vessels and investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Alarmingly, it is not known precisely how often crimes are committed on cruise vessels or how many people have disappeared during ocean voyages because cruise lines that are registered in countries other than the United States are not required to make crime-related data available.

In fact, only one of the nearly 200 cruise vessels that serve the North American market is registered in the United States. This means that only one cruise vessel serving the North American market is, at all times, subject to the laws of the United States and required to report incidents of alleged crimes to United States law enforcement agencies.

While there are limited circumstances in which the U.S. can assert jurisdiction over some crimes occurring on cruise ships, cruise vessels registered in foreign countries directly fall under the jurisdiction of the United States only when they are operating in U.S. waters--in U.S. ports or sailing within 12 miles of the U.S. coast.

At all other times, foreign-registered vessels operate subject to the laws of the country in which the vessel is registered or in whose waters they are travelling. The laws in these countries may not--and often do not--provide the same rights and protections to crime victims that would be provided under U.S. law.

However, foreign-registered cruise vessels can be subject to some U.S. laws as a condition of entry into U.S. ports.

By applying conditions upon U.S. port entry, H.R. 3360 seeks to bridge some of the potential gaps between the rights, protections, and

access to assistance that are available to victims of crime under U.S. law and the laws of other countries.

H.R. 3360 establishes stringent new standards including training for ships' personnel to preserve evidence of crimes and provide appropriate medical treatment. Specifically, H.R. 3360 requires cruise lines to aid U.S. investigators by training crewmembers in crime scene preservation, by mandating log book entries detailing complaints of crimes, and by making available video tapes and other forms of evidence.

The legislation also provides much-needed support for the victims of crime by requiring cruise lines to provide on board medical professionals who are trained to treat victims of sexual assaults, medications, and access to victims' support services.

In addition, H.R. 3360 ensures that the public can make informed choices before booking a cruise. The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to compile and maintain statistical data of certain incidents on an internet website. The data would identify each cruise line and each cruise line would be required to provide a link on its internet site to the website maintained by the Secretary.

Finally, H.R. 3360 enhances the safety and security of cruise passengers by requiring cruise lines to upgrade, modernize, and retrofit the safety and security infrastructure on their vessels by installing peep holes in passenger doors, video surveillance cameras, time-sensitive electronic key technology, higher railings, and acoustic hailing devices.

It is estimated that 10.6 million Americans enjoyed a cruise vacation in 2007. Millions more have cruised since and millions more will cruise in the future. We need to ensure the security and safety of passengers and crews on cruise vessels and to provide support for the victims of crime at sea.

With passage of this legislation today, the bill will be cleared for the President's consideration.

Before closing, I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for bringing us to this point. In 2006, Ms. Matsui's constituent, Laurie Dishman, who was the victim of a crime aboard a cruise ship, reached out to Ms. Matsui and Congress for help in addressing the significant shortcomings of cruise vessel safety and security. Ms. Dishman had the courage and fortitude to tell her heart-wrenching story to our Committee in a hearing on these issues. Knowing Ms. Dishman's story, Ms. Matsui drafted this bill and has worked for more than three years to get Congress to this point.

I also thank the gentlemen from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg and Mr. Mitchell), who have strongly supported this bill on behalf of the daughter of an Arizona constituent. Merrian Carver disappeared from a cruise ship in August 2004, and was never found. What makes Ms. Carver's case even more shocking is not just that a vibrant, young woman was lost, but that her disappearance was not reported by the cruise line to the U.S. Coast Guard or the FBI until well after the voyage ended.

Finally, I thank Chairman Jay Rockefeller, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for working to overcome Republican objections to the bill, enabling Senate passage of the legislation.

With enactment of this legislation, I am hopeful that the stories of Laurie Dishman and Merrian Carver will become a thing of the past. Although we cannot stop all crimes aboard cruise ships (or anywhere else), we can ensure that Americans will be protected by our system of justice.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senate amendment to H.R. 3360, the ``Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010.''