[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 25, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5810-H5815]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FIRE-RETARDANT MATERIALS EXEMPTION EXTENSION
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1961) to amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the
exemption from the fire-retardant materials construction requirement
for vessels operating within the Boundary Line.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1961
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION.
Section 3503(a) of title 46, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2028''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. PETRI. 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. 1961.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 1961 renews the exemption for the Delta Queen from certain Coast
Guard requirements adopted decades after the vessel was built.
The Delta Queen, a paddle-wheel riverboat, was built in 1926. It
operated in California until 1947 and then carried tourists up and down
the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers for more than 60 years. Forty years
after the vessel was built, Congress set new rules prohibiting wooden
ships from carrying 50 or more overnight passengers. The vessel has a
steel hull, but a wooden superstructure.
Between 1968 and 2008, the Delta Queen operated under an exemption
from the restriction on wooden passenger vessels, which was renewed
nine times by Congress. H.R. 1961 reinstates the Delta Queen exemption.
The vessel will still be subject to all other Coast Guard passenger
vessel safety requirements. It must undergo required inspections and
receive a certificate of inspection, like any other passenger vessel.
I commend my colleague from Ohio, Steve Chabot, and the bill's
bipartisan cosponsors for introducing this bill. Permitting the Delta
Queen to return to the river is estimated to create 170 jobs and
produce economic activity of $9.3 million annually.
The bill before us was reported favorably from the Transportation
Committee on a voice vote. I urge my colleagues to support this bill
and allow this historic vessel to return to the river.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was the chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation Subcommittee in 2008 when Congress last rejected the
measure before us today, and there has been no change in the
intervening years that would now make this measure good policy. H.R.
1961 is a bill that would amend Federal law for the benefit of one
single vessel, the Delta Queen. As such, I think we should call this
bill what it really is: it's an earmark. Let me say that again: it's an
earmark.
And what would this earmark do? First, it would create a potential
fire trap on the water. In 1936, the United States required all
passenger vessels to be constructed of fire-retardant materials. The
Delta Queen was built in 1926, and part of its construction occurred in
Europe. Its superstructure is wooden and not flame retardant. Exempting
the Delta Queen from current fire safety standards would present an
unacceptable and, frankly, unnecessary risk to passenger safety.
When this issue was last considered, the Coast Guard stated the
following:
The combustible construction of the vessel presents an
unacceptable fire risk that cannot be mitigated by the
addition of fire suppression measures.
Just yesterday, I talked to Rear Admiral Joseph Servidio, the Coast
Guard's assistant commandant for prevention policy. He oversees vessel
inspections, and he made it clear to me that the Coast Guard continues
to oppose this waiver. He also made it clear that a number of safety
concerns may persist from the Coast Guard's 2008 special inspection of
the Delta Queen.
And, frankly, the exemption this legislation seeks to make is not
needed for the Delta Queen to operate on the Mississippi again if it
wanted to do so. Let me say that again: the Delta Queen does not need
the exemption that would be provided by this bill to operate in U.S.
waters. The Delta Queen could take passengers on day cruises, and it
could host up to 49 overnight passengers right now. But under current
law, it cannot host 50 or more overnight passengers. The only thing the
exemption sought in H.R. 1961 would do is increase the number of
overnight passengers the Delta Queen could carry along our Nation's
waterways, thus increasing the number of passengers who would be at
risk should a fire break out on the boat.
What else would this earmark do? This earmark would interfere in a
competitive market to pick winners and losers by giving an advantage to
one vessel, something I thought my friends on the other side of the
aisle said Congress should not be in the business of doing.
[[Page H5811]]
Today, the Queen of the Mississippi, a boat built in 2012 in the
United States is in compliance with all applicable safety standards, is
operating on a Mississippi River system. And another boat that will
comply with current safety standards is under construction here in the
United States. But if H.R. 1961 were to pass, these American-built
boats, safety-compliant vessels, would have to compete with a vessel
that would not have to meet the same safety standards required of all
other vessels. So not only would the earmark before us create an unsafe
situation, but it would also create an unfair situation.
Rather than creating an unnecessary safety hazard, and rather than
picking winners and losers, I urge my colleagues to reject this
earmark.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our
colleague from the State of Ohio, Steve Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in very strong support of H.R. 1961,
legislation that my colleagues and I introduced to save the Delta Queen
steamboat. And I want to particularly thank the gentleman from
Missouri--St. Louis, in particular--my Democratic colleague, Lacy Clay,
for his leadership on this particular issue.
This legislation is basically one line. It doesn't cost a penny, and
it has two very important functions. It preserves an important piece of
American history, and it supports American jobs.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1961 reinstates the Delta Queen's grandfathered
status--not an earmark--the grandfathered status from a law that
prohibits wooden boats--which the superstructure of the Delta Queen is.
The hull of it is steel--for carrying overnight passengers. The Delta
Queen is actually capable of carrying up to 176 passengers comfortably
overnight; and under the law as it currently exists, 50 is the cutoff
point.
Congress granted the Delta Queen a reprieve from this law for the
last 40 years. So for 40 years, the United States Congress granted this
exemption. It did so because she was constructed before the law was in
place and because the law was intended for boats at sea, not
riverboats--boats, oceangoing vessels at sea. It was never intended for
river-faring boats like the Delta Queen. That's why the Congress
granted this exemption for 40 years. The Queen's grandfathered status
was uninterrupted for 40 years until management concerns stalled the
continuation back in 2008.
Since Congress revoked its ability to operate, the boat has been
chained to a dock. Discord and disagreement won that day; but today,
hopefully, it will be different.
Today we have a renewed coalition of support. Democrats and
Republicans have worked together on this issue. It passed by voice vote
with no votes against it in the Transportation Committee; and maybe
most importantly, the boat's new management and union are working
together to return this vessel and the jobs she provides to full
operation.
So this is a situation where management and the union are not
fighting. They may have been back in 2008. They're not now. They're
together on this. They're both requesting that we pass this particular
legislation today so that the Delta Queen can once again ply the
rivers--the Mississippi, the Ohio--and bring jobs to communities all up
and down those rivers.
With all the gridlock in Washington, this bill is a welcome show of
bipartisanship for a change. I wish we had more of that around this
place. But this really is a bipartisan bill. It's supported by the
Seafarers International Union, by the American Maritime Officers, and
by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, for example. It's
cosponsored by a diverse list of Republicans and Democrats, including
the entire Ohio delegation, including my colleague--and I want to thank
him for his leadership on this issue--Brad Wenstrup from the Second
District, right next to my district, the First District, in the greater
Cincinnati area. He has been a leader on this, as has Congressman
Massie across the river. And as I mentioned before, Congressman Lacy
Clay from Missouri and many other Members.
It also has the support of Transportation Committee Chairman Shuster
on the Republican side and Ranking Member Rahall. And I would like to
read a quote from the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the
ranking member, who was unable to be here today. Actually, I think he
is driving here and will be here for votes, but couldn't make the
debate. But this is what he said back in the Transportation Committee
itself, and I am quoting here from his testimony:
``I'm in favor of preserving an icon of our American heritage, the
Delta Queen. In light of the support that this bill has from the
Seafarers''--the Seafarers Union--``and the fact that this means good-
paying jobs and that a unique part of Americana would be restored to
service, I support the pending legislation.''
That's the bill that we are dealing with here today. And in the past,
this effort was even cosponsored by two men who rarely see eye to eye,
Senator Mitch McConnell and then-Senator Barack Obama. Both of them
supported this back in 2008.
I owe thanks to every lawmaker who cosponsored this measure. And I
owe a special thanks, as I mentioned, to the gentleman from St. Louis,
Missouri (Mr. Clay), without whose help this wouldn't be possible
today.
To my colleagues who have raised issues about the vessel's safety, I
hear you. Safety must always be a top priority. So let's discuss it for
a minute.
This vessel is equipped with a fully automated environmental
detection system that uses over 300 sensors to detect heat, smoke, and
CO2, for example. It also has a state-of-the-art sprinkler
system, a Coast Guard-trained and -certified firefighting crew, and
round-the-clock watchmen patrolling the vessel 24 hours a day.
It should also be noted that the original legislation from 1965--and
I mentioned this before--was intended for oceangoing vessels. That's
why it was called the Safety at Seas Act, not the Safety on the Rivers
Act. As a river vessel, the Delta Queen is never more than a mile from
shore and can be landed and evacuated in minutes, if need be.
Fortunately, that's never been necessary with the Delta Queen in its 80
years, basically, in traveling, and 60 years on the rivers of the
Mississippi and Ohio.
So oceangoing vessels. We are talking about vessels that oftentimes
are hundreds of miles, perhaps even over 1,000 miles, from land. In
this case, we're talking about never more than one mile. That's why the
Delta Queen is different. It was the only river vessel that this really
applied to because of its size and the fact that it could take more
than 50 passengers. That was the problem.
{time} 1715
And to clear any misunderstanding, the legislation does not relieve
the boat managers of their responsibility to deal with safety issues.
In order to obtain a certificate of inspection, a COI, from the Coast
Guard, the vessel will have to address United States Coast Guard
concerns.
The managers already have a detailed list of things they know will
need to be upgraded, which include replacing the vessel's boilers, in
all likelihood, and steam lines with modern, fully automated, welded
construction boilers and steam lines.
So the issues that were concerns back in 2008, which my distinguished
colleague mentioned before, these are all going to be taken care of,
and should be. Otherwise, we wouldn't be supportive of this bill.
This bill does not issue a green light. This bill unlocks the private
resources necessary to make this multi-million-dollar restoration
effort possible. At the end of the day, if the boat doesn't satisfy the
Coast Guard, they don't get a COI, and they don't sail. They don't
paddle. They don't move. They don't travel at all.
While objections on the grounds of safety are reasonable, I feel that
safety may be a convenient argument, really, not a justified argument.
Let me close, at this point, by saying that the Delta Queen is
beloved by many, particularly many Cincinnatians, who spent years
watching her sail into our city to unload passengers at dawn and head
out back with a new group of people at dusk. I think many of us would
like to give her that opportunity up and down the Mississippi and
[[Page H5812]]
the Ohio. Again, it means jobs for many people in many of these
communities.
I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill for two
principal reasons, jobs and American history. Members can support this
by voting in favor of H.R. 1961.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My good friend talked about safety and safety systems. It's my
understanding that the vessel has fire suppression systems installed in
the nonpublic spaces. They have not installed fire suppression systems
in the public spaces, that's like the staterooms and dining rooms,
because they would have to alter the historic fabric of the vessel to
do so.
This would violate requirements under the National Historic
Preservation Act and presents a safety liability.
The mention of trained firefighting crews and round-the-clock watches
is not unique. In fact, all vessels must have such crews and maintain
such watches.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garamendi), the distinguished subcommittee ranking
member of the Maritime and Transportation Subcommittee of the
Transportation Committee.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, several things. We just heard our
colleague who is supporting this bill talking about American history,
that this is an icon of American history. In fact, it was American
history that created the law that requires all vessels that are over 90
and more than 50 people to actually be fire-safe.
It is, sir, American history that has put in place the law that
you're trying to waive. That history is one of disaster after disaster,
in which thousands of people have lost their lives in boats that were
not safe, that were made of wood.
Now, I happen to know the Delta King, the exact twin of the Delta
Queen. It's parked on the Sacramento River, not more than a half mile
from the Capitol, and I've been on it many, many times; and it does
overnight a few guests. But it is a fire trap, and that's why it's not
going up and down the Sacramento River.
By the way, the law that you said only applies to the sea applies to
every river and every lake in the United States. So it's a little
incorrect to say that this is only oceangoing vessels that are
applicable to this particular law. It's not. It's all vessels. All
vessels that have more than 50 people on board overnight have to meet
these requirements.
We ought not do this. Regular order was completely set aside to move
this bill rapidly through the Transportation Committee; and by the way,
there was opposition, and he's talking right now, opposition to a
waiver of a fire safety law that is intended to protect the public.
Yes, the Delta Queen, like the Delta King, is historic; and like the
Delta King, the Delta Queen is a fire trap.
We ought not be passing this law. And we ought to be following
regular order, and we ought to be listening to the Coast Guard that
says, don't do this. Don't do this. That's what the U.S. Coast Guard
says, because it is not safe.
Now, this boat can operate. It can operate with 179 people or more on
day trips. It can tie up to a wharf, and it can have 49 people on board
going up and down the river, or even more, they can get off, they can
go to a hotel, as they have for many years. This is still a viable
operation.
But under no circumstance should this body, 435 of us, say not to
worry about fire safety; it's not going to be an issue. After all,
somebody's watching 24 hours a day, as required on every vessel.
Let's keep in mind that the fire suppression system that was
mentioned by our colleague in support of this legislation does not work
and is not in the public spaces. The staterooms, where people are
sleeping, the dining rooms, the other rooms on board, will not have
fire suppression, that is, sprinkler systems.
This boat will not be upgraded in a way that will make it safe. We
simply ought not do this.
And, yes, you can guarantee that this side of the aisle is seriously
concerned about jobs, and we're seriously concerned about the men and
women that work on this boat, that they work in a fire-safe
environment. This boat will not be a fire-safe environment.
And so those men and women that we are concerned about having jobs
ought to have jobs in a safe environment. They will not.
Very simply put, this is a bad piece of legislation. This is not
about jobs. This is about saving lives, or, in the case of this bill,
about putting lives at risk. Is that what we want to do?
I don't think so.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to make sure the record is clear, I'm informed by staff that the
bill was noticed in regular order, and no rules were waived concerning
its regular consideration by the committee or, in fact, by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to our colleague from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'll be very brief.
Mr. Speaker, relative to the Coast Guard's issues, their principal
issue is the boilers. We all know that. We've always known that. The
new owners are going to replace the boilers.
The Coast Guard has to approve this. If the Coast Guard has any
opposition, all they have to do is not issue the certificate to operate
the boat, and it won't operate. So the Coast Guard has to be completely
satisfied before it safely goes out.
Relative to sprinklers, it has a state-of-the-art sprinkler system.
So the safety issues, I think, are red herrings really.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Wenstrup).
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1961, which
would allow America's iconic wooden paddle-wheel steamboat, the Delta
Queen, to return to traveling America's rivers.
For over 60 years, the Delta Queen has traveled up and down America's
waterways, carrying passengers, entertaining Presidents and foreign
dignitaries, and even serving our troops in times of war. She's a true
American treasure.
However, due to Federal safety regulations implemented in the 1960s,
wooden ships were banned from carrying 50 or more passengers overnight.
While this regulation was originally intended for oceangoing cruise
ships, the Delta Queen, due to her size and structure, is a riverboat
that is unfairly trapped by this regulation, even though she is never
more than a mile from shore.
Understanding the unique situation of the Delta Queen, and the fact
that she was built and safely operating before this law was put in
place, Congress has granted her exemptions for the past 40 years from
this regulation, allowing the steamboat to continue to safely carry
passengers along America's waterways.
However, since 2008, Congress has failed to continue the Delta Queen
exemption. As a result, the Delta Queen is currently moored in
Tennessee and is unable to fully provide the experiences and services
that she was built for.
Today, the Delta Queen is under new management and continues to
undergo rigorous safety inspections and tests administered by the Coast
Guard. She has operated safely for over 80 years.
Like many of my constituents, I have fond memories of the Delta
Queen, which has called Cincinnati her home for 37 years. With the
passage of H.R. 1961, we can return this historic landmark back to
Cincinnati, preserving America's cultural heritage, and bringing jobs
and economic growth to the greater Cincinnati area.
I commend my colleague, Steve Chabot, for taking the lead on this
issue for Cincinnati, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1961.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I ask unanimous consent
that Mr. Garamendi be allowed to control the time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the legislation
before us. While the Delta Queen may be a historic vessel, exempting
her from cruise ship fire safety law sets a terrible precedent, and it
puts families at risk.
Moreover, this bill is designed to help one ship in the passenger
cruise market at the expense of all others.
[[Page H5813]]
I understand the Delta Queen has a long and a distinguished history.
Since it was built in the 1920s, it carried three Presidents; it is a
national historic landmark. But that is all the more reason why fire
safety law is important here.
This is an old ship, made almost entirely of wood and powered by out-
of-date technology, that has been in dry dock for the past 4 years and
not inspected in 5 years. The Queen's antique engines and steam boilers
are prone to cause a fire at any moment.
In fact, the last fire on board was in 2008. So there is good reason
why the U.S. Coast Guard opposes this legislation. The boat could pose
a significant danger to families staying on board overnight.
You know, the issue about on the sea, on the river, people can die on
the river as well as die on the sea.
In addition to that, there is nothing in this legislation that
requires the owners to implement the safety upgrades. And you know, as
my colleague said, and I would take issue with him on the other side of
the aisle, safety is not a red herring.
And even beyond the specific circumstances of the Delta Queen, I do
not believe it is a wise policy for the Congress to get into the habit
of exempting businesses from basic safety regulations; nor should we be
choosing, through legislation, which cruise ship companies have to
follow the rules and which do not.
There are many ways to recognize and to honor the Delta Queen's rich
history on the Mississippi River. This is not the right approach. As
such, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our
colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank
those Members who have decided to revisit this very important issue.
I might remind everyone that the Delta Queen received an exemption
from the Safety of Life at Sea Law. And we recognized that that
original law applied to oceangoing vessels and, since 1968, Congress
has always provided the exemption for the Delta Queen, except that it
did not in the year 2008.
Since then, the Delta Queen has been sitting down in Chattanooga. The
new owners are spending $10 million to put in new boilers. There's a
sprinkler system and, as has already been indicated, the Coast Guard
will make the final decision about the safety issues.
But this is an issue of jobs. And I might say that the unemployment
rate in America over the last 4 years, in each of the last 4 years, has
been higher than in any year in the last 62, except for 3 years.
So in communities like Paducah, Kentucky, that I happen to represent,
the Delta Queen each year would land at Paducah. Every month it would
come by, people would get out, and it was an economic boon to our area.
We genuinely believe that this is a balanced approach. It protects
the safety issues that people are concerned about because of the $10
million being spent to refurbish the Delta Queen, and it provides
additional employment for people looking for good jobs.
So I would urge every Member to support H.R. 1961, a commonsense,
balanced approach, to get this historic paddle boat back on the Ohio
River and the Mississippi River.
{time} 1730
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
available?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 9 minutes remaining.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. I thank my friend from California for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1961. This bipartisan
legislation will reinstate the historic Delta Queen's grandfathered
status from a law that prohibits wooden vessels from transporting
overnight passengers. Congress has granted the Delta Queen Riverboat a
reprieve from this law for the last 40 years, until management concerns
prevented a continuation in 2008. That situation has been resolved, and
now the work of restoring this historic vessel is underway. H.R. 1961
is also supported by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the
Seafarers International Union, and the American Maritime Officers
Association. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are truly committed to
saving this one-of-a-kind American treasure, the Delta Queen.
I represent St. Louis, and St. Louis is a river town. The reason that
my community was founded and grew into a great city was the mighty
Mississippi River. That river not only flows beneath the magnificent
Gateway Arch, it also flows in the hearts of every St. Louisan and
every American who has ever read Mark Twain, listened to jazz and
blues, or wondered what it must have been like to go west with the
pioneers as they pushed across the unknown frontier.
The Delta Queen is more than an irreplaceable historic vessel. It is
also a symbol of the bold American spirit that had the courage to tame
the continent and make us one Nation, from sea to shining sea. This
great steamboat should continue to travel America's inland waterways.
This is the right thing to do for the Delta Queen, and it's the right
thing to do for future generations of Americans and international
visitors who deserve the chance to travel on this magnificent vessel.
I also want to raise some concerns about two issues that I've heard
over and over. One issue is that the opponents of this bill have
redefined the meaning of an earmark. When I started in this body, an
earmark was related to appropriations and not a waiver.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have a college degree from a small public college
called the University of Maryland. In the U.S. marketplace, I always
thought competition was healthy. Now I'm hearing that this competes
against other riverboats. So I'm kind of concerned about that issue,
too. Perhaps someone could address it or clarify it for me.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1961.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1961 to save
a historical treasure, the Delta Queen steamboat.
I grew up in Kentucky's Fourth District. We have 276 miles of the
Ohio River. My memories are rich with the images of this great vessel
going up and down the river. These are images that my four children
will never have, unless we pass this bill today.
Just think of the inspiration and majesty of this ship. It's a ship
that's rich with history. Her debut cruise took place on June 2, 1927.
For the next 13 years, she ran overnight trips between Sacramento and
San Francisco. From 1940 to 1946, she served the U.S. Navy as a
floating barracks and a training facility in the San Francisco Bay. She
traveled the Ohio River for 60 years.
In 1966, Congress passed the Safety of Life at Seas Act. Not ``at
rivers,'' but ``at seas.'' This ship was caught up in an overly broad
regulation. We seek to right that wrong today.
I just want to speak to the bipartisan nature of this bill. I serve
on the Transportation Committee. It received overwhelming bipartisan
support, and no rules were suspended to debate this bill within the
committee. In fact, in 2008, as Congressman Chabot from Ohio stated,
the Senate bill to extend this exemption garnered bipartisan support
from Senator Mitch McConnell and then-Senator Barack Obama.
Please help us save the Delta Queen by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1961.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the esteemed
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
Ms. ESTY. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate working with him
and many others here in the Chamber today to address this bill.
Mr. Speaker, why are we here? What would this bill do?
H.R. 1961 would reinstate--and backdate to 2008--an exemption from
commonsense fire safety standards for one single vessel.
On its face, this bill is deeply troubling from a public safety
perspective.
[[Page H5814]]
I can appreciate the desire to keep and preserve the historic Delta
Queen; but that should be done by the private market, not by Congress,
and it should not be done in a way that jeopardizes public safety.
Reinstating the expired exemption would distort basic principles of
the free market and competition because all other vessels operating as
overnight passenger cruise vessels are built to appropriate fire safety
standards. These are investments made by U.S. manufacturers and U.S.
tour companies alike. Doing the right thing and building or
refurbishing to code should not be obstructed by an unprecedented 15-
year exemption for a single boat while it is reportedly going through a
sale.
I urge Members to examine what this measure would do to public
safety, what it would do to competition in the marketplace, and remind
them we can protect public safety and protect jobs by voting ``no'' on
H.R. 1961.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. May I inquire as to the time I have available?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, I think we have no further speakers here,
which gives me 4 minutes to lay out the case, which may be quite
sufficient, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
With regard to regular order, I haven't been around here long enough
to know that regular order does not, apparently, include a hearing.
There's been no hearing on this bill. The bill simply came to the full
committee and was up or down for a vote. I had the opportunity to
object at that time--and continue to object at this moment.
Yes, this is about jobs, but it's also about safety. There's a reason
why the law was passed, and that is protect those men and women that
are on the body, presumably to enjoy, in this case, the Mississippi or
Ohio Rivers. But if this bill were to become law, they would not know
that they are actually in a very dangerous situation.
It's been said that we're not to worry; after all, we're not at open
sea. We're miles and miles from shore. But I would remind those who
care to think about safety that the Concordia was 900 feet off the
Italian coast when it sank--quickly--and 30 people lost their lives
only 900 feet from the coast. Now, it was saltwater, to be sure.
Nonetheless, they were near the coast. There are plenty of places on
the Mississippi that are more than 900 feet from the coast.
And I want you to imagine a fire breaking out on the front part of
the ship, which is the only way to escape. By the way, this ship has
had 15 mechanical failures in the last 20 years. These were mechanical
failures that, if they were to continue, would cause the fire
extinguishing system not to work, even though it's not in the
staterooms and the public areas but only in the nonpublic areas. We
really ought not be doing this.
A lot has been said about whether it's an earmark or not. This bill
applies to one ship. It only applies to the Delta Queen. It applies to
no other ship. There's a financial benefit to the owners of this ship.
If this were to happen, they would be able to travel up and down the
Mississippi and Ohio Rivers, perhaps others, without having to meet the
normal fire safety requirements. That's a financial benefit. And not
with 49 passengers, but with as many as 170 or 179. That's a financial
benefit. That meets my definition of an earmark--when it goes to a
single private entity for their financial success.
What are we concerned about here? Jobs. Yes, we're concerned about
jobs. They are the men and women that would be able to get those jobs.
They are the people that I care about and that I met with yesterday
about jobs in the maritime industry throughout this Nation. But nowhere
in the discussions we had yesterday in Oakland, California, was the
issue of jobs less important or more important than safety.
I just think we ought to be very careful here. We ought to be very,
very careful because we're talking about life safety issues. I would
pray and I would hope that all 435 of us that are going to deal with
this bill shortly in an up-or-down vote would never have to face the
moment at some day in the future over the next 15 years, should this
become law, where a fire breaks out on this ship, because if it were to
break out, there would be a great deal of sorrow. I suspect there will
be a few amongst us who vote for this measure that would say, I made a
very, very bad mistake.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with certainly some of the comments of my
colleague from California. Safety is paramount. It's paramount to us,
just as it is to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle both in
support and in opposition of this legislation, and it is also to the
unions and to the merchants and a whole range of people. The Coast
Guard will ultimately determine whether it's safe or not. It cannot get
a certificate to ply the waters of the Ohio or Mississippi unless the
United States Coast Guard determines that it's safe. We agree on that.
Is the Delta Queen safe?
Well, the Delta Queen has operated safely for more than 80 years. In
all that time, there's never been a fire that required any passenger
evacuation--not one in over an 80-year period of time.
As a riverboat, the Delta Queen, as I mentioned before, is never more
than a mile away. This was the Safety at Seas Act, as our colleague
from Kentucky mentioned, that we're talking about. This legislation was
supposed to apply to oceangoing vessels at sea, not the rivers. The
Coast Guard more broadly brought in the rivers. And that's why Congress
said, Look, we don't mean this to apply to rivers. So if it applies to
any boats, any ships here on the rivers, then we're going to give them
an exemption. There was only one boat it applied to that was big enough
to have over 50 passengers. That was the Delta Queen, because it has a
steel hull and steel paddles in the back and a wooden superstructure.
{time} 1745
We have given this exemption for 40 years. From 1968 through 2008--40
years--Congress gave the exemption because we considered it to be safe.
Now, it's going to be certified by the Coast Guard that it's safe
before it ever goes anywhere. The Delta Queen will still be required,
as I said, to get a certificate from the Coast Guard in order to move.
Now, let me read from a couple of those groups. We've heard from
Members of Congress here. This is the Seafarers International Union,
who had been opposed to this back in 2008 and who is now solidly
supportive. Here's what the Seafarers Union said:
We write to express our support for H.R. 1961. This
legislation would effectively permit the Delta Queen
steamboat to return to operation as a river-faring vessel.
While there is still much restorative work ahead before the
boat can return to full operation, securing the congressional
waiver is the first and most critical step in that path.
That's what this is all about: the restorative work--the new boilers,
the new steam pipes. We are talking probably $10 million worth of
restoration. But in order for anybody to put money into that, to make
the ship better, to make it safe, etc., it needs this exemption in
order to allow the private sector to get the money into the boat so
that it can actually continue on the history that we've seen for many
years in this country on this particular boat.
Let me continue with the letter:
This particular vessel has been a source of jobs for many
merchant mariners over its tenure as an overnight cruise
vessel, and it can be again. Unfortunately, absent the
congressional waiver afforded by this legislation, these jobs
will forever be lost.
That's what the Seafarers International Union said. The American
Maritime Officers said:
``This legislation will help create the circumstances for the Delta
Queen to return to operation as a river-faring vessel. The owners of
this vessel understand they will need to make investments to improve
the ship before she receives first approval from the Coast Guard to
begin operating in regular service again. Passing H.R. 1961 will give
those parties the assurance they require to undertake those efforts''--
to spend the $10 million on the boat. ``Bringing the Delta Queen back
in operation status is a worthy effort. It
[[Page H5815]]
will help create jobs through work that needs to be done.''
These maritime officers wouldn't want to be sailing on a dangerous
boat.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R.
1961, which would exempt the steamboat Delta Queen from important fire
safety requirements. While I appreciate the historical significance of
this Mississippi River steamboat, I believe that public safety must be
our first priority. Exempting the Delta Queen through the passage of
H.R. 1961 would expose the public to an unacceptable risk of
catastrophic fire by allowing a vessel that does not meet current
safety standards to carry more than 50 overnight passengers. For these
reasons, I vote ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1961.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________