```

[House Report 111-386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

111th Congress                                            Rept. 111-386
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                     Part 1

======================================================================

 
        UNITED STATES MARINER AND VESSEL PROTECTION ACT OF 2009

                                _______
                                

 December 19, 2009.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
                                  the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Oberstar, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3376]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 3376) to amend title 46, United 
States Code, to ensure the traditional right of self-defense of 
United States mariners against acts of piracy, and for other 
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                       Purpose of the Legislation

    H.R. 3376, the ``United States Mariner and Vessel 
Protection Act of 2009'', amends title 46, United States Code, 
to ensure the traditional right of self-defense of United 
States mariners against acts of piracy, and for other purposes.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    In July 2009, the International Maritime Bureau Piracy 
Reporting Centre reported the number of worldwide piracy 
attacks doubled to 240 attacks in the first six months of 2009 
compared to 114 for the same period in 2008.\1\ The report also 
stated that in the majority of the incidents the attackers were 
heavily armed and violence against the crewmembers continues to 
rise. Piracy activity in the Gulf of Aden contributed 
significantly to this upward trend.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ICC International Maritime Bureau, Piracy Doubles in First Six 
Months of 2009 (July 15, 2009).
    \2\ICC International Maritime Bureau, Piracy and Armed Robbery 
Against Ships Annual Report (January 1, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As of September 2009, there were a total of 306 incidents 
worldwide, with 114 vessels boarded, 88 fired upon and 34 
hijacked. Of the hijackings, approximately 661 crewmembers were 
taken hostage, 12 were kidnapped, six were killed and eight are 
missing. Somali pirates account for 32 of the 34 hijacked 
vessels.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ICC International Maritime Bureau, Unprecedented Increase In 
Somali Pirate Activity (October 21, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On April 8, 2009, the U.S.-flagged container ship MV Maersk 
Alabama was attacked and seized by pirates approximately 250 
nautical miles southeast of Somalia. The vessel, manned by 20 
U.S. crewmembers, was carrying U.S. government food aid to the 
Kenyan port of Mombasa when it was attacked. The ship's captain 
was subsequently taken hostage by the pirates. Special Forces 
sharpshooters stationed on the USS Bainbridge killed the 
captain's captors, securing his release.
    On April 14, 2009, the U.S.-flagged vessel, MV Liberty Sun, 
with 20 U.S. crewmembers, was attacked by pirates approximately 
285 miles southeast of the Somali capital of Mogadishu as it 
was on its way to deliver U.S. government food aid to 
destinations along the east coast of Africa. The vessel had 
unloaded part of its food aid cargo at Port Sudan and was en 
route to Mombasa, Kenya, at the time of the attack. Pirates 
fired on the vessel with rocket propelled grenades and AK-47s. 
The crewmembers successfully thwarted the attack, and the 
Liberty Sun continued on its voyage to Kenya.
    After the attack on the Liberty Sun, a pirate named Abdi 
Garad told a news agency that Somali pirates had intended to 
destroy the vessel and its crew. He stated that the pirates 
attacking U.S.-flagged vessels were no longer after ransom but 
instead were seeking revenge for the deaths of those pirates 
who had held the MV Maersk Alabama's captain.\4\ There has been 
a growing fear among the U.S. merchant fleet that the use of 
deadly force by the U.S. military against Somali pirates has 
the potential to cause any future piracy incidents against 
U.S.-flagged vessels to be associated with a level of pre-
meditated and intentional violence that has not heretofore been 
typical of Somali pirate attacks. Increased use of force may 
also lead Somali pirates to increase the level of force they 
employ in their attacks on merchant vessels.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\French Warship Captures Pirates, BBC (April, 15, 2009).
    \5\See report cited supra note 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The majority of the U.S.-flagged vessels that transit 
through the Gulf of Aden area carry cargo to support Department 
of Defense operations and supply U.S. aid to Somalia and 
neighboring countries.
    This legislation will ensure that U.S. mariners who respond 
to these violent acts of piracy are not held liable for the 
injury or death of a pirate. This includes a mariner who uses 
force or authorizes the use of force to defend a U.S.-flagged 
vessel from piracy.

                       Summary of the Legislation

Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 specifies that the Act may be cited as the 
``United States Mariner and Vessel Protection Act of 2009''.

Sec. 2. Use force against piracy

    Section 2 amends chapter 81 of title 46 by adding a new 
section 8107 entitled ``Use of force against piracy''. This 
section provides that an owner, operator, master, mariner, or 
time charterer who uses or authorizes the use of force to 
defend a U.S.-flagged vessel against an act of piracy shall not 
be liable for any injury or death caused by that use of force 
to any person that participated in the act of piracy.

Sec. 3. Agreements

    Section 3 states that the Secretary of the department of 
which the Coast Guard is operating shall work through the 
International Maritime Organization to establish agreements 
with flag- and port-states that will promote a coordinated 
action to protect against, deter, and rapidly respond to acts 
of piracy against the vessels of those states and in the waters 
under their jurisdictions. In addition, the section states that 
the Secretary shall work to ensure that limitations of 
liability are established similar to those limitations in 46 
U.S.C. Sec. 8107, as amended by this Act.

            Legislative History and Committee Consideration

    In the 111th Congress, on February 4, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation held a 
hearing to receive testimony regarding international piracy. 
The purpose of this hearing was to gather information on the 
causes and extent of piracy and to understand its effect on 
international shipping. As of that date, no U.S.-flagged 
vessels had been attacked or seized by pirates. However, the 
expansion of international piracy--particularly in the Horn of 
Africa region--threatened to raise the costs of transporting 
goods and threatened ships' crews through that highly traveled 
region at a time of significant distress in the world economy.
    On May 20, 2009, the Subcommittee held a follow-up hearing 
to receive testimony regarding recent acts of piracy against 
U.S.-flagged vessels and the lessons to be learned from these 
attacks.
    On July 29, 2009, Representative Frank LoBiondo introduced 
H.R. 3376. On July 30, 2009, the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure met in open session to consider H.R. 3376 
and ordered the bill reported favorably to the House by voice 
vote with a quorum present.

                              Record Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires each committee report to include the 
total number of votes cast for and against on each record vote 
on a motion to report and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, and the names of those members voting for 
and against. There were no recorded votes taken in connection 
with consideration of H.R. 3376, or ordering the bill reported. 
A motion to order H.R. 3376 reported favorably to the House was 
agreed to by voice vote with a quorum present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in this report.

                          Cost of Legislation

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974 has been timely submitted prior to the filing of the 
report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is 
included in this report.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee references the report of the Congressional Budget 
Office included in the report.
    2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
performance goals and objective of this legislation are to 
provide U.S.-citizen merchant mariners protection from 
liability arising from their attempts to protect themselves 
from pirates.
    3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
Committee has received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3376 
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 13, 2009.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation, and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3376, the United 
States Mariner and Vessel Protection Act of 2009.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
            Sincerely,
                                         Robert A. Sunshine
                              (for Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 3376--United States Mariner and Vessel Protection Act of 2009

    H.R. 3376 would provide that owners, operators, or crew who 
use (or authorize) force to defend a U.S. flag vessel against 
piracy shall not be liable for any resulting injury or death to 
anyone participating in that piracy. The bill would direct the 
U.S. Coast Guard to work with the International Maritime 
Organization to promote coordinated actions against piracy.
    CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3376 would have no 
impact on the federal budget. The United States already works 
with other nations to address piracy and related security 
issues that affect commercial shipping. Based on information 
provided by the Coast Guard, we estimate that the workload of 
federal agencies would not change as a result of this 
legislation.
    The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis. 
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                     Compliance With House Rule XXI

    Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list 
of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
tariff benefits, as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of 
rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. H.R. 
3376 does not contain any earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
limited tariff benefits under clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of 
rule XXI.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint 
resolution of a public character shall include a statement 
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the 
Constitution to enact the measure. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure finds that Congress has the 
authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted 
under article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

                       Federal Mandates Statement

    The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal 
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act (P.L. 104-4).

                        Preemption Clarification

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint 
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the 
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, 
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 3376 does not 
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.

                      Advisory Committee Statement

    No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this 
legislation.

                Applicability to the Legislative Branch

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to 
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public 
services or accommodations within the meaning of section 
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104-1).

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 46, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Part F--Manning of Vessels

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                          CHAPTER 81--GENERAL

Sec.
8101.    Complement of inspected vessels.
     * * * * * * *
8107. Use of force against piracy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 8107. Use of force against piracy

  An owner, operator, time charterer, master, or mariner who 
uses force, or authorizes 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 to any 
person participating in the act of piracy.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                  

```