Survivors Equality Act of 2010

Madam President, I have alerted the other side I am about to make a unanimous consent request on an important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, in the last couple of years we have gotten into this habit of: Nobody wants to vote yes or no, they want to vote maybe. It is easier to block things from even being considered.

Frankly, in my State of Vermont people expect if they elect you to the Senate that you have the courage to vote yes or no, but not maybe.

We just saw another example of this. We cannot even get a yes-or-no vote on Defense authorization at a time when our Nation is in two wars. We cannot get a yes-or-no vote; we get a maybe.

I find it frustrating. Over and over we have done it today. People are prepared to vote yes or no, but the other side says, no; it is easier to vote maybe. Then you never have to explain anything.

We all know what has happened in the Deepwater Horizon BP spill. A number of brave families' members were lost. I would note for the sake of the Senate, if they had been building the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, and they were assembling it on land and something was negligently done and someone lost their life, they could recover for the value of the life. Because of a quirk in the law, because it happened at sea, even though it may have been caused by the same thing, these people--their lives are almost valueless. There is a way to fix them. We have drawn, after months of negotiation, a very tightly put together piece of legislation that will only affect the families of the 11 hard-working men who died when the Deepwater Horizon was destroyed. I am going to make this so we can vote yes or no and not maybe.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of the Survivors Equality Act, S. 3463; that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; the Rockefeller-Leahy amendment that is at the desk be adopted; the bill, as amended, then be read a third time and passed; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; and all statements and the text of the amendment that has been hotlined for more than a week be printed in the Record.

Madam President, of course, this bill has been given an enormous amount of scrutiny by both Republicans and Democrats. Six months ago, I introduced the Survivors Equality Act, S. 3463, with Senator Durbin and Senator Whitehouse, to help the families of those who die on the high seas. In fact, the day of the hearing, we had Michelle Jones, pictured here, in our mind when we held that hearing.

That same day, June 8, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the liability cap that harms victims' families. We heard testimony from Michelle Jones's brother-in-law, Chris Jones. He is the brother of Gordon Jones, one of those who died aboard the Deepwater Horizon. It was very moving testimony. I think everybody, both parties, felt the emotion in that room.

A few weeks later, the Commerce Committee also held a hearing on the same matter. I think it is unfortunate and a slam to the families to say that this matter has not been vetted. The Commerce Committee also had a hearing. Then we had months and months of work, Republicans and Democrats meeting, trying to make as tightly drawn piece of legislation as possible.

After these months and months of work, I hope the Senate is finally going to do justice to the families of the men who died when the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. At least stand up and say yes or no. Vote either to give them justice or vote not to give them justice. Do not do this unfortunate habit we are getting into of voting maybe. Let's not vote on this bill. Let's not take a position one way or the other. We will object to the bill coming up.

It allows everybody to be a maybe. It allows people to go and say: Well, we are so sympathetic for your family. We wish we could help your family. Certainly, if the bill comes up, I may vote.

Well, we have a whole lot of people ready to vote for the bill. Vote yes; vote no. That is what I have been trying to do since that catastrophic event. We did have a lot of negotiations, and we did have to whittle it back at the request of people on the other side of the aisle. The proposal has been so narrow that it will help only the families of the 11 hard-working men who died when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded last April.

So by saying there are a lot of things that can be done for them if one second before that oil rig left land when it was being constructed, if it exploded there and they lost their lives, but it is a different rule if you have gone 100 yards further, a few seconds later, and you are at sea.

That is why I came to the floor today to seek the Senate's consent to pass this legislation without further delay. It is designed to provide a more equitable remedy under the Death on the High Seas Act, the Jones Act, for the survivors of those killed on Deepwater Horizon. When I refer to it as the difference between when it is on land or on sea, as the law is now, the families will be given far less protection simply because their loved ones died on the open seas rather than if they had died in a well, for example, if they are working at a well and there is an explosion, but the well is on land.

That is not fair. It reminds me of an earlier era in our history. The law should be modernized for those families without further delay. Of course, I would like the modernization to be broader, to cover victims on cruise ships, for instance. Some here in this body have objected to covering victims on cruise ships.

That is why I said: OK. You might not be willing to cover victims in other accidents on the high seas, but at least the U.S. Senate should not turn its back on the families of these 11 men.

I am also concerned about timeliness. These victims' families' claims have been unnecessarily delayed because they are thoughtlessly lumped in with thousands of other claims for economic damage. It should be pretty easy to spot the 11 where the people died. This legislative proposal, on which I have worked with Senators Rockefeller, Whitehouse, and others, would ensure fairness and timeliness for these families. We have had strong bipartisan support. We have a number of Republicans who support this legislation. Senators on both sides of the aisle have heard from these families. They understand the inequities they face. The proposal has been circulating through the Senate for more than a week. It should not be stopped. Let us vote yes or no. If you don't like this legislation, vote against it. But don't vote maybe. Don't have the Senate give that kind of procedural slap in the face to these families by saying: We don't have the courage to vote yes or no so we are going to vote maybe.

Time is running out for these 11 families to know they are going to be treated fairly and not be forced to wait for years to see if their losses are addressed. The legislation only applies to the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the largest oil spill in our Nation's history. Let us act for the widows and children of these men before we head home to be with our own families during the holiday season. They need our help now. We should at least be able to agree to this limited fix. Again, vote yes or vote no. Don't vote maybe. Stop the months of delay. There is no justification for the failure to act on this deeply personal tragic issue. It has been pending for months. Both sides have been running hot lines on it for more than a week. It is a 5-page proposal. It is easy to understand.

I will never forget the testimony of Chris Jones before the Judiciary Committee. His father was sitting there. He talked about his brother losing his life and meeting his brother's widow Michelle Jones. Michelle has lost the love of her life, but her two young sons have lost their father.

This is not about politics. This should not be partisan. This is about justice for these kids who are facing a Christmas without their fathers, justice for widows who want closure, who are bravely fighting for their families.

Can we not at least once in this body not vote maybe but have the courage to vote yes or no, not hide behind an objection to a bill coming up that many Republicans and Democrats support, at least allow people to be on record?

Look at this family, say: I am going to vote yes or no, not, gee, I don't have time. We just voted maybe. I think it is unfortunate. It shows disdain for these families. I regret the objection.

I ask unanimous consent that the draft of the Rockefeller, Leahy, and Schumer amendment be printed in the Record.

Madam President, the Senator is absolutely correct. When we held these hearings, he was an indispensable part. This is an inexplicable anomaly of the law that reflects a different era. Had they been assembling, for example, this oil rig, had they had it on land and it exploded, they would be able to recover as anybody could. If it was an onshore oil rig--of course, we have many in this country and throughout the world--if they had been working on that and there had been an explosion and they lost their lives, there would have been remedies available. But because it was at sea and even if it is just barely at sea, the remedies are entirely different. To put it in laymen's terms, they are basically limited to the value of what is left. Of course, there is nothing left.

The Senator is correct. Basically what the Senate has said is, we will protect British Petroleum and Halliburton over the rights and needs of the families of 11 men who died because of negligence. Is this what the Senate has come to? Is this what it has come to? By our failure to even vote, our unwillingness to stand up and vote, our effort to do a maybe instead of a yes or no, we are sending a Christmas present. I suppose we should say Merry Christmas, British Petroleum, Merry Christmas, Halliburton. We protected you and saved you from having to pay for your negligence. That is a pretty cold signal to send to these families of the 11 men who died.

Frankly, as I have often said, the Senate should be the conscience of the Nation. How do we express our conscience when we don't even have the courage to vote yes or no on a matter of this significance?

Mr. President, today I introduce the Survivors Equality Act to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the Death on the High Seas Act. I thank Senator Whitehouse for joining me in this important effort to provide justice for victims. Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability issues related to the British Petroleum, BP, oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The testimony received at this hearing made it clear that several of our laws need updating.

As a result of the BP oil spill, countless Americans in the Gulf Region have been devastated. Waters, fisheries, wetlands, and coastlines, and the wildlife that enriches those environments, have been injured profoundly. Their livelihoods and way of life will take years of hard work to reclaim.

Among the victims of the explosion that led to the oil spill are 11 men who lost their lives on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Their families, including more than a dozen children, have experienced a terrible loss. As Congress responds to the needs of the Gulf Region, these men and the families who lost them must have justice. The legislation I introduce today is a step toward that goal.

The Death on the High Seas Act is one of few Federal remedies for the survivors of those who were killed on the Deepwater Horizon. The families of these men cannot seek justice under the laws of their states.

In 2000, in response to a tragic airline crash, Congress amended the Death on the High Seas Act to permit recovery of non-pecuniary losses for the surviving family members of air crash victims. While this was the right thing to do, it did not go far enough. Though well- intentioned, this amendment resulted in an inequity based solely on the manner in which a victim was killed. Congress made some strides in modernizing this law then. Now it must finish the job.

Current law provides greater protection to a person killed in an aircraft disaster over international waters than it does for a person killed in a boat or other ocean vessel such as an oil drilling rig. Under the Act today, the surviving family members of a person wrongfully killed in international waters in a boat or other ocean vessel may only recover pecuniary damages. This means they can only seek the lost income of their loved one, and what that person provided to the family in monetary terms.

Not only is this law internally inconsistent, it is out of the legal mainstream. Families who lose a loved one in a workplace accident on land are eligible for more compensation. For example, the families of the 15 employees who were killed in a 2005 BP Texas City refinery explosion had a full range of legal remedies simply because the facility was on dry land. It is unfair that the men on the Deepwater Horizon are afforded less protection because that facility was at sea. Their jobs were no less dangerous, and their losses no less tragic.

In the Judiciary Committee this morning, Senators heard testimony from Christopher Jones. Mr. Jones' brother, Gordon Jones, was among the 11 men who perished on the Deepwater Horizon rig. He died while working to support his young family. Yet simply because of where he was working, his family has less protection under the law than the survivors of a person who loses their life in an aircraft. This is nonsensical and wrong.

Where Federal law provides an exclusive remedy to those who lose their lives in international waters, it should not be unfair. In the law, as in society, great value is placed on the bonds that hold together families. The destruction of those bonds through the misconduct of another is a loss that is recognized by the law. Today, the Death on the High Seas Act fails to recognize universally what it means to a child who will no longer have the guidance of a loving father or a spouse who will no longer have the care and comfort of a devoted wife or husband. It is time for Congress to finish the work that was started a decade ago and make this law fair for all to whom it applies.

As Congress moves forward to address the terrible tragedy that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, I urge all Senators to join me in support of this legislation to help the families of the 11 hardworking Americans who were killed during the explosion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Survivors Equality Act to ensure that everyone is treated equally under the Death on the High Seas Act. I thank Senator Whitehouse for joining me in this important effort to provide justice for victims. Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to examine liability issues related to the British Petroleum, BP, oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The testimony received at this hearing made it clear that several of our laws need updating.

As a result of the BP oil spill, countless Americans in the Gulf Region have been devastated. Waters, fisheries, wetlands, and coastlines, and the wildlife that enriches those environments, have been injured profoundly. Their livelihoods and way of life will take years of hard work to reclaim.

Among the victims of the explosion that led to the oil spill are 11 men who lost their lives on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Their families, including more than a dozen children, have experienced a terrible loss. As Congress responds to the needs of the Gulf Region, these men and the families who lost them must have justice. The legislation I introduce today is a step toward that goal.

The Death on the High Seas Act is one of few Federal remedies for the survivors of those who were killed on the Deepwater Horizon. The families of these men cannot seek justice under the laws of their states.

In 2000, in response to a tragic airline crash, Congress amended the Death on the High Seas Act to permit recovery of non-pecuniary losses for the surviving family members of air crash victims. While this was the right thing to do, it did not go far enough. Though well- intentioned, this amendment resulted in an inequity based solely on the manner in which a victim was killed. Congress made some strides in modernizing this law then. Now it must finish the job.

Current law provides greater protection to a person killed in an aircraft disaster over international waters than it does for a person killed in a boat or other ocean vessel such as an oil drilling rig. Under the Act today, the surviving family members of a person wrongfully killed in international waters in a boat or other ocean vessel may only recover pecuniary damages. This means they can only seek the lost income of their loved one, and what that person provided to the family in monetary terms.

Not only is this law internally inconsistent, it is out of the legal mainstream. Families who lose a loved one in a workplace accident on land are eligible for more compensation. For example, the families of the 15 employees who were killed in a 2005 BP Texas City refinery explosion had a full range of legal remedies simply because the facility was on dry land. It is unfair that the men on the Deepwater Horizon are afforded less protection because that facility was at sea. Their jobs were no less dangerous, and their losses no less tragic.

In the Judiciary Committee this morning, Senators heard testimony from Christopher Jones. Mr. Jones' brother, Gordon Jones, was among the 11 men who perished on the Deepwater Horizon rig. He died while working to support his young family. Yet simply because of where he was working, his family has less protection under the law than the survivors of a person who loses their life in an aircraft. This is nonsensical and wrong.

Where Federal law provides an exclusive remedy to those who lose their lives in international waters, it should not be unfair. In the law, as in society, great value is placed on the bonds that hold together families. The destruction of those bonds through the misconduct of another is a loss that is recognized by the law. Today, the Death on the High Seas Act fails to recognize universally what it means to a child who will no longer have the guidance of a loving father or a spouse who will no longer have the care and comfort of a devoted wife or husband. It is time for Congress to finish the work that was started a decade ago and make this law fair for all to whom it applies.

As Congress moves forward to address the terrible tragedy that has occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, I urge all Senators to join me in support of this legislation to help the families of the 11 hardworking Americans who were killed during the explosion.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage the chairman in a brief colloquy regarding this legislation.

I thank him for his leadership, for his compassion. I was proud to join him as a cosponsor of his legislation. It is disturbing to me that his effort to speak for these families who have lost their loved ones has fallen on deaf ears and on a procedural objection that could just as easily have not stood. As we stand here in this empty room, where right now we could be voting on help for these 11 families, instead, we are milling about, killing time and waiting for something to happen.

I want to ask the chairman: If this oil rig that exploded and burned had been on land and these same 11 workers had been killed, would they be treated differently and far more generously, and would their families be treated differently and far more generously than in this actual case just because it happened to be out in the ocean as a deepwater drilling rig?

Under the circumstances of this case, I know the objection was founded upon concern that this would defeat the expectations of potential defendants who might otherwise have to pay this verdict. As I understand it, the two most likely responsible parties--indeed, the one already decreed by the government for pollution purposes to be the responsible party--are BP and Halliburton, two enormous multinational corporations. If I am not mistaken, what we have done today is to send 11 American families, whose father, brother, or husband was lost through no fault of that individual from a tragic accident that has been described as being the result of real ineptitude and very poor safety practices out on that rig by big corporations, we are now taking the side of BP and Halliburton against those 11 families here on the eve of the Christmas holidays, taking away rights they would have if this accident had happened on the land.

My question is, don't we think that BP and Halliburton could afford this? It is not as though it is the little Sisters of Mercy whom we are going to put out of business if we allow this to go forward.

I thank the chairman for his leadership and for his compassion. I am proud to join him today in this effort.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, this is a nation of laws not of men. It destroys that whole foundation of our legal system when we make retroactive law. This bill has not been vetted properly by a committee. Again, it undermines our whole system of the rule of law. So I am compelled to object.