Coast Guard Authorization Act Of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

Mr. LoBIONDO. 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.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 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?

Mr. LoBIONDO. Yes.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Yes, you do exempt them from criminal acts?

Mr. LoBIONDO. For civil.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Just civil.

Mr. LoBIONDO. Just civil.

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

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

Mr. LoBIONDO. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source