[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 57 (Monday, April 3, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2164-S2168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  OLD VESSELS EXEMPTION ACT--Continued


                   Uvalde County, Texas, Bus Accident

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I wanted to come to the floor to talk 
about the important work for the Senate this week, now that the 
Judiciary Committee has voted on the Judge Neil Gorsuch nomination and 
he is available for floor consideration. But I wanted, first, to extend 
my deepest condolences to the families and friends of those tragically 
killed in an automobile crash near New Valley, TX, last week.
  A bus carrying a group of 14 members of the First Baptist Church in 
New

[[Page S2165]]

Braunfels collided with a pickup truck on Highway 83. Thirteen people 
were killed and two others, including the driver of the other vehicle, 
were injured. You can imagine how heartbreaking this has been to 
everyone involved. I can't begin to imagine the pain and the grief felt 
by their loved ones, their church family, and their entire close-knit 
community of New Braunfels, TX, just north of San Antonio.
  I had the opportunity to speak with the pastor of First Baptist of 
New Braunfels, Pastor McLean, the day after the accident. He is leading 
his congregation and that community during this very difficult time. He 
is shepherding his flock, though, with grace and strength. There is a 
phrase I am reminded off in times like this. After the terrible 
explosion in West Texas, I had a county commissioner from that area 
tell me: Being a Texan doesn't describe where you are from, it 
describes who your family is.
  Today, our family is mourning. But I know Pastor McLean and all of my 
fellow Texans and all Americans really lift up this community in 
prayer, along with the families and friends of those we lost.
  I am grateful to the first responders and medical professionals who 
were first to arrive at the scene of the accident and lent a hand to 
those in need.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Separately, Madam President, as I have indicated, this is an 
important week for the American people. Earlier today, the Judiciary 
Committee voted to send Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Senate floor 
for full consideration. Later this week, he will be confirmed as the 
next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. For the past several 
weeks and through 20 grueling hours of questioning before the Judiciary 
Committee, Judge Gorsuch has proven to be one of the most qualified 
nominees to the Court in modern history.
  Republicans in the Senate said we would give the American people a 
voice in who would select the next Supreme Court Justice. In a sense, 
we had a referendum of whether it would be a nominee selected by Donald 
Trump or by Hillary Clinton. On November 8, we saw the outcome of that 
election. This week, that referendum will be answered when the country 
will have its ninth Justice on the Supreme Court.
  Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues are doing their very best to 
decide that they should mount the first partisan filibuster of a 
Supreme Court nominee in American history. This is truly unprecedented. 
I know sometimes people want to talk about 1968 and the Abe Fortas 
nomination, but not even then was there a partisan filibuster that 
successfully blocked the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice.
  What I am talking about is blocking the ability to have an up-or-down 
vote. I am not talking about how people vote on the confirmation vote. 
I am talking about allowing us to have a vote--that up-or-down vote--or 
denying it by virtue of the filibuster. I, for one, have been 
encouraged to see people from across the country speaking out and 
urging our colleagues to drop their obstruction and to allow such an 
up-or-down vote on an incredibly qualified, upstanding, and brilliant 
judge.

  Editorials from all over the country have registered their opposition 
to the idea of a filibuster and have done so rather bluntly. The 
Chicago Tribune, for example, said: ``Neil Gorsuch earns his Supreme 
Court seat.'' The Boston Herald says: ``Shame on Senate Dems.'' The 
Boston Herald specifically said that those going along with the 
strategy were ``blindly partisan for whom any nomination made by 
President Trump would never be qualified.''
  The Denver Post, in the home State of Judge Gorsuch, urged Senators 
to confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and specifically urged 
the senior Senator from Colorado, Senator Bennet, not to cooperate with 
this blind partisanship and this filibuster but rather to allow the 
judge an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
  Their editorial title made that much clearer. They said: ``Michael 
Bennet should buck Democrats and speak up for Neil Gorsuch.''
  The Billings Gazette in Montana had this to say: ``Democrats refuse 
to rise above petty partisan politics.''
  The Richmond Times-Dispatch took the junior Senator from Virginia to 
task and said: His opposition to Judge Gorsuch, ``suggests he can't 
come up with a defensible reason to oppose the nomination.''
  Finally in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Union Leader editorial 
last week was titled: ``Confirm Gorsuch: Dems plan pointless 
filibuster.'' ``Pointless'' about sums it up. There is no doubt that 
Judge Gorsuch is qualified. He has received the highest rating from the 
American Bar Association, which reportedly interviewed 500 leading 
lawyers and practitioners in the country, and the ratings system of the 
American Bar Association has been called by many of our Senate 
Democratic colleagues the ``gold standard'' when it comes to 
confirmations.
  Among the legal and local communities, Judge Gorsuch enjoys broad 
bipartisan support, but that seems to make no difference to our friends 
across the aisle who voted on a party-line vote not to send his 
nomination from the Judiciary Committee. Of course, their minority 
position lost when the majority of the committee voted today to send 
that nomination to the floor.
  I can't help but think that they are in an unenviable position, torn 
by their desire to do what they know is the right thing when it comes 
to confirming a good judge, and, on the other hand, being attacked by 
their own party's political base, telling them that if they vote to 
confirm this judge, they are somehow going to suffer some political 
damage.
  Of these newspapers I mentioned, not one of them endorsed Donald 
Trump for President--not one. But unlike some of our Senate colleagues, 
they are able to distinguish between President Trump and Judge Neil 
Gorsuch, instead of using Donald Trump as a proxy not to vote to 
confirm Neil Gorsuch.
  These newspapers are urging Senate Democrats to drop this pointless 
filibuster because they understand that it will not be President Trump 
we will be voting on next week. It is Judge Neil Gorsuch. Now, after 
repeatedly moving the goalposts for this nominee, my Democratic friends 
are saying that he has to pass the ``traditional'' threshold of 60 
votes. Well, that is a made-up standard.
  Throughout our Nation's history, the Senate has not had a tradition 
of filibustering judges. It was a strategy cooked up by Senator 
Schumer, Laurence Tribe from Harvard Law School, and other liberal 
activists to try to block President George W. Bush's judges when he was 
President of the United States. So there is no 60-vote threshold in 
Senate tradition. Actually, there have only been four cloture votes for 
a Supreme Court nominee--only four--and none of them for a partisan 
filibuster that actually succeeded in blocking an up-or-down vote for a 
nominee.
  One of the newspaper fact checks concluded with this. They said: 
``There is no traditional 60-vote `standard' or `rule' for Supreme 
Court nominations, no matter how much or how often Democrats claim 
otherwise.'' This should be a time when the Senate should come together 
in a bipartisan fashion and do what it is supposed to do when we 
receive the nomination of such a highly qualified person.
  Judge Gorsuch has won bipartisan approval. People across the country 
understand that, as do a number of independent Democrats here in the 
Senate, and they understand the dangerous path the minority leader is 
setting us and them on. Unfortunately, the Democratic leader wants to 
mount the first successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court 
nominee in our history.
  But I would point out that no Republican Senator in the Senate has 
ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, including those 
nominated by Democratic Presidents. As a matter of fact, Justice 
Clarence Thomas was confirmed with 52 votes. If the threshold were 
really 60, then he would not currently be serving on the Supreme Court 
of the United States. Even such polar opposites as Justice Scalia and 
Justice Ginsburg were confirmed by virtually unanimous votes because 
people understood that once the President was elected, that the 
President's choice should matter, and the Senate should not 
artificially try to lift up a 60-vote threshold in order to block, 
effectively, the will of the voters in choosing the president.
  A few years ago, when we considered the nominations of Justice 
Sotomayor

[[Page S2166]]

and Justice Kagan, we gave both nominees a simple up-or-down vote. So 
our friends across the aisle have a simple but very important decision 
to make. They can listen to the extremist groups on the left that are 
urging them to resist at all costs or they can assert some of their 
independence.
  As of today, several of our Democratic colleagues have done exactly 
that. I congratulate them. I am glad Senator Heitkamp, Senator Manchin, 
and Senator Donnelly have said they will assert their prerogative, as 
Senators, to allow an up-or-down vote for this nominee and actually 
vote for them. I hope they stand firm, but I hope, more importantly, 
more of their colleagues will demonstrate the same sort of independence 
from the radical base of the Democratic Party that says no to 
everything this President does. I hope they at least afford Judge 
Gorsuch an up-or-down vote because, if the Democrats successfully block 
Judge Gorsuch, there is literally no nominee from this President who 
they will not block--plain and simple.

  So as we have been saying, Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed at the end 
of this week, but it is up to the Democrats as to how that happens.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I wish to express my opposition to S. 89 
because it exempts certain vessels--actually one specific vessel called 
the Delta Queen--from current fire retardant construction standards 
and, according to the U.S. Coast Guard, represents ``an unacceptable 
degree of fire safety risk. . . . ''
  Maritime history has numerous examples of catastrophic on-board fires 
followed by the passage--or attempted passage--of laws designed to 
improve safety and protect passengers and crew.
  In response to the sinking of the RMS Titanic, in 1914, the 
International Maritime Organization, IMO, prescribed emergency 
equipment and safety procedures IMO-flagged ships were required to have 
in place.
  The 1934 fire on the SS Morro Castle prompted the adoption of 
multiple Federal safety regulations, including the use of fire 
retardant construction materials.
  A series of fires aboard international passenger ships in the early 
1960s prompted the U.S. to enact the Safety of Life at Sea Act, SOLAS, 
which mandated that ``no passenger vessel of the United States shall be 
granted a certificate of inspection [. . .] unless the vessel is 
constructed of fire-retardant materials.''
  Congress delayed the implementation of the SOLAS mandate first until 
1968, then until 1970, then again until 1973, but only for U.S. 
passenger vessels operating on inland rivers.
  In 1973, Congress again delayed the effect of the mandate, but this 
time EXPRESSLY for one ship--the Delta Queen--and only for one 5-year 
period ``while a new [overnight passenger] riverboat is being 
constructed.''
  Despite the clear intent of Congress in 1973, the various owners of 
the Delta Queen successfully secured exemptions from SOLAS for the 
Delta Queen in 1986, 1991, and 1996.
  Their attempts to seek a 10-year extension in 2007 and a 15-year 
extension in 2013 were unsuccessful, so they made another run in the 
114th Congress and now in the 115th Congress with S. 89.
  Current law requires passenger vessels with overnight accommodations 
for 50 or more passengers to be constructed of fire-retardant 
materials, unless an exemption is made, but in the case of the Delta 
Queen, the U.S. Coast Guard has consistently opposed legislation to 
provide the Delta Queen an exemption to remain in service as an 
overnight passenger cruise vessel.
  A Coast Guard Special Inspection Report on the Delta Queen in 2008 
found ``an unnecessary and unacceptable accumulation of combustible 
fire load.'' In a January 8, 2016, letter to Senator Bill Nelson, the 
Coast Guard's then-Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs wrote 
``the Department of Homeland Security is resigned to oppose 
continuously any legislation that would provide any form of statutory 
relief for the steamer Delta Queen.''
  S. 89 is contrary to public safety. It is contrary to the Safety of 
Life at Sea Act regulations which have been in full force in the U.S. 
since 1966, and it is contrary to the guidance of the U.S. Coast Guard.
  The Delta Queen is an old ship made of wood. The boilers are original 
and open to the wood superstructure. There are no structural boundaries 
to contain a fire and only one means of egress.
  I understand that supporters of S. 89 are concerned about the 
historic preservation of this ship and the economic opportunities that 
operation of the ship could bring to its homeport.
  We should first and foremost be concerned with the safety of the 
people who will work on the ship and vacation on the ship and that they 
can have the same opportunities and experiences on a ship that is 
compliant with the reasonable safety standards that have been in place 
in this country for more than 50 years.
  Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Nomination of Neil Gorsuch

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam President, as I have done from the time he was 
nominated and as I will continue to do until he is confirmed, I rise to 
support the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to serve on the Supreme Court. 
Judge Gorsuch is an accomplished, mainstream jurist. I look forward to 
helping make sure he can receive a vote here on the Senate floor.
  In the weeks since his nomination, I have spoken at length about his 
qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. I have recognized him as 
a conservative champion of religious liberty, a defender of the 
separation of powers, and a westerner who will bring some much needed 
geographic diversity and a regional perspective to the Court.
  During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Judge Gorsuch showed the country what it means to be a 
judge.
  Big or small, popular or unpopular, powerful or powerless, Judge 
Gorsuch promised to render judgments based on the facts of the case, 
nothing else. He also has a remarkable record of respectful cooperation 
with judges appointed by Presidents of both parties.
  During his decade-long tenure on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, 
Judge Gorsuch participated in more than 2,700 appeals. These comprised 
some of the most difficult cases across six States. Of those cases, 97 
percent of them were decided unanimously--97 percent.
  Judge Gorsuch was in the majority 99 percent of the time. He was in 
the majority on those cases 99 percent of the time. This is a testament 
to Judge Gorsuch's ability to consider other points of view and to seek 
out consensus, where possible. To try to paint Judge Gorsuch as an 
ideologue simply doesn't work. Those are essential qualities for any 
prospective Supreme Court Justice.
  Now that we have reported Judge Gorsuch out of committee as of today, 
I would like to say a few words on the obstacles that stand in the way 
of his being considered here on the Senate floor.
  As we proceed with Judge Gorsuch's confirmation, I would like to 
explain my support for confirming him in light of what transpired in 
the waning months of the previous administration.
  For nearly 230 years, Presidents have been making nominations to the 
Supreme Court. According to the Congressional Research Service: ``From 
the appointment of the first Justices in 1789 through its consideration 
of Nominee Elena Kagan in 2010, the Senate has confirmed 124 Supreme 
Court nominations out of 160 received.''
  I would like to reiterate that number. Out of 160 Supreme Court 
nominations in our Nation's history, 124 were confirmed.
  The Congressional Research Service goes on to state: ``Of the 36 
nominations which were not confirmed, 11 were rejected outright in 
roll-call votes by the Senate, while nearly all of the rest, in the 
face of substantial committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or 
the President, were withdrawn by the President, or were postponed, 
tabled, or never voted on by the Senate.''
  The manner in which the Senate decides to provide its constitutional 
advice and consent on Presidential nominations has varied over the 
centuries

[[Page S2167]]

with respect to nominations. This includes decisions not to take up 
Supreme Court nominees.
  As Jonathan Adler put it in his article in the George Mason Law 
Review:

       Much as the Senate may reject a legislative proposal that 
     originated in the House of Representatives by voting it down, 
     killing it in committee, or simply refusing to take up the 
     measure, the Senate may withhold its consent by voting 
     against confirmation of a nominee, rejecting the nominee in 
     committee, or simply refusing to act.

  Is refusing to act the preferred outcome? I can certainly see where 
some would say no, as would I.
  However, the history of the Senate demonstrates that to do otherwise 
in similar circumstances, as we just experienced is, in fact, a rare 
exception.
  To cite Adler's law review article again, he states: ``The last time 
a Supreme Court vacancy arose in the calendar year of a Presidential 
election and was filled prior to [the] election was in 1932.''
  President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court 
in the heat of the 2016 Presidential election. When he was nominated, I 
understood the frustration of those on the other side of the aisle over 
the fate of that nomination.
  I met Judge Garland. He is a good man and a good judge, but the 
decision by the majority not to take up Judge Garland's nomination was 
not inconsistent with a longstanding practice of filling Supreme Court 
vacancies after elections.
  This brings us today to why I support confirming Judge Gorsuch to the 
Supreme Court. There is no question about the appropriateness of 
confirming Supreme Court nominees during the first years of the 
President's term, let alone the first 3 months. In fact, there is 
absolutely no justification for filibustering a highly qualified 
Supreme Court nominee put forward by the President who was just 
elected. That is just unprecedented.
  There was an attempt to use this tactic in 2006 with Justice Samuel 
Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, but he garnered sufficient 
bipartisan support so that cloture was invoked.
  Today, it appears that we will not enjoy that same rational support. 
My preference would be to change the behavior of Senators rather than 
change the rules of the Senate. But here we are, where a nominee who 
would have received unanimous or nearly unanimous support just a few 
years ago is about to be filibustered.
  My question is this: If we can't confirm a judge like Judge Gorsuch 
under contemporary use of Senate rules, who can we confirm?
  It looks as if we will move forward later this week and make the rest 
of the Executive Calendar subject to the same simple majority 
threshold. Again, a change in Senate rules is not my preferred outcome, 
but this rule change will simply make de jure what was de facto prior 
to 2003, when filibusters were virtually never used on the President's 
Executive Calendar.
  Now, I want to make clear my steadfast support to preserve the 
legislative filibuster. We need to distinguish between the President's 
Executive Calendar, which has traditionally never been filibustered or 
subject to filibuster, and the legislative filibuster, which is used 
frequently here to ensure that we work across the aisle.
  The Framers of our Constitution had the wisdom to create a Senate 
with a strong minority to serve as a check on runaway power. If we were 
to eliminate the legislative filibuster, we would cease to be that 
check, and, indeed, the Senate would cease to be the Senate.
  We have a qualified mainstream jurist before us. That is Judge 
Gorsuch. I encourage all of my colleagues to give him fair 
consideration and to advance his nomination to an up-or-down vote. I 
will be voting to confirm him, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moran). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I rise to ask my colleagues to support 
the bill that is in front of us, S. 89, which will allow the historic 
Delta Queen paddle wheeler to return to operation on the Mississippi 
and Ohio Rivers.
  This bill is supported by the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation, the Seafarers International Union of North America, along 
with a whole lot of excited people who live in Kimmswick, MO, where 
this boat will have its home base.
  The Delta Queen is an important piece of history. The vessel connects 
us to a time before railroads and highways, when rivers were key 
arteries of travel and commerce in this country. It was first placed on 
the National Register of Historic Places in 1970 and was designated as 
a national historic landmark in 1989.
  The Delta Queen's steel hull was originally built in pieces in 
Scotland and then was assembled in Stockton, CA, in 1926, until the 
beginning of World War II, when it ferried passengers between 
Sacramento and San Francisco. During the war, she was acquired by the 
U.S. Navy to support its operations in the San Francisco Bay. Following 
the war, she was taken to Cincinnati, where she took passengers up and 
down the river system for the next 60 years.
  Three different U.S. Presidents have sailed on the Delta Queen--
Herbert Hoover, Missouri's own Harry Truman, and Jimmy Carter. In fact, 
President Carter went on a week-long campaign tour on the vessel in 
1979, along the Upper Mississippi.
  For years, this vessel was home-ported in Cincinnati and was later 
used as a hotel in Chattanooga. Should the bill before us be enacted, 
the Delta Queen will be home-ported in Kimmswick, MO, just south of St. 
Louis. There, its operations will create more than 170 jobs and have an 
economic impact of more than $36 million, which is a big impact for one 
boat in a small community.
  The bill before the Senate today would reinstate the exemption that 
the Delta Queen repeatedly received in the past when it was 
grandfathered from regulations that occurred in 1966, which prevented 
wooden boats from having passengers overnight. Congress repeatedly 
renewed this waiver from 1968 to 2008 and recognized that these 
regulations were primarily designed for ships on the high seas and that 
this ship was a link to an important time period in American history.
  Over the 40 years that the Delta Queen had its exemption, it operated 
without incident, but the exemption was allowed to expire in 2008. S. 
89 adds a new number of safety provisions as a condition of the waiver, 
making it a very strong improvement over every previous waiver that was 
issued by Congress during that time period.
  I will not go through the long list of safety requirements that are 
contained in this legislation. Suffice it to say that they must alter 
the boat; they must protect the engine and boiler systems with non-
flammable materials, and they must receive special training.
  The owner cannot disclaim any liability for any crewmember's or 
passenger's injury or death.
  The Coast Guard has to conduct an annual audit and inspection of the 
vessel. In order to receive the waiver, the vessel must have the 
boilers and generators that meet current Coast Guard standards, which 
means that the current owners of the boat are going to invest millions 
in order to bring it up to the safety standards that are necessary for 
today's traveling public. It has to have noncombustible enclosures that 
are equipped with fire suppression systems, and multiple forms of 
egress are provided off the vessel's bow and stern.
  It is also reiterated in this legislation that the Coast Guard has 
the authority to immediately withdraw its certification of inspection 
for the owners' failure to comply with any requirement in this bill, in 
addition to other penalties permitted by law.
  In short, we have taken important steps to make this historic piece 
of riverboat history safe for the traveling public. Frankly, I think 
people need to remember the lengths to which we go in restoring and 
preserving historic buildings in this country. We do not make them tear 
them down. Rather, we make them comply with certain safety standards. 
We treasure the fact that we are saving historic buildings all over 
this country.

[[Page S2168]]

  This is saving a historic vessel. It is very important that we save 
this vessel not only for what it represents to our country but also for 
what it means in jobs and economic activity to an important area of the 
State that I love to call home.
  I thank Senators Brown, Blunt, Boozman, Cassidy, Cotton, Kennedy, and 
Portman, who joined me in introducing this legislation, and Chairman 
Thune and Ranking Member Nelson, who have been so helpful in moving it 
through the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.
  I know it is a phrase that we like to use around here and that 
sometimes it is not true, but this really is a bipartisan effort. This 
really is an example of people coming together who have common sense in 
order to put a boat back on the river that means a lot to history, that 
means a lot to the traveling public, and that uses common sense in 
addressing safety concerns that are necessary because of the historic 
nature of the boat.
  I ask that all of my colleagues support this bill and return the 
Delta Queen to her rightful place on the Mighty Mississippi.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  All time has expired.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Toomey).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Washington (Ms. 
Cantwell) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 12, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--85

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Franken
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Strange
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--12

     Blumenthal
     Cardin
     Collins
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Van Hollen
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Cantwell
     Isakson
     Toomey
  The bill (S. 89) was passed, as follows:

                                 S. 89

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FIRE-RETARDANT MATERIALS EXEMPTION.

       Section 3503 of title 46, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 3503. Fire-retardant materials

       ``(a)(1) A passenger vessel of the United States having 
     berth or stateroom accommodations for at least 50 passengers 
     shall be granted a certificate of inspection only if--
       ``(A) the vessel is constructed of fire-retardant 
     materials; and
       ``(B) the vessel--
       ``(i) is operating engines, boilers, main electrical 
     distribution panels, fuel tanks, oil tanks, and generators 
     that meet current Coast Guard regulations;
       ``(ii) is operating boilers and main electrical generators 
     that are contained within noncombustible enclosures equipped 
     with fire suppression systems; and
       ``(iii) has multiple forms of egress off the vessel's bow 
     and stern.
       ``(2) Before December 1, 2028, this section does not apply 
     to any vessel in operation before January 1, 1968, and 
     operating only within the Boundary Line.
       ``(b)(1) When a vessel is exempted from the fire-retardant 
     standards of subsection (a)--
       ``(A) the owner or managing operator of the vessel shall--
       ``(i) notify in writing prospective passengers, prior to 
     the sale of any ticket for boarding and to be affirmatively 
     recognized by such passenger prior to purchase, and any crew 
     member that the vessel does not comply with applicable fire 
     safety standards due primarily to the wooden construction of 
     passenger berthing areas; and
       ``(ii) display in clearly legible font prominently 
     throughout the vessel, including in each state room the 
     following: `THIS VESSEL FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SAFETY RULES AND 
     REGULATIONS OF THE U.S. COAST GUARD.';
       ``(B) the owner or managing operator of the vessel--
       ``(i) may not disclaim liability to a passenger or crew 
     member for death, injury, or any other loss caused by fire 
     due to the negligence of the owner or managing operator; and
       ``(ii) shall acquire prior to entering service, and 
     maintain, liability insurance in an amount to be prescribed 
     by the Federal Maritime Commission;
       ``(C) the penalties provided in section 3504(c) of this 
     title apply to a violation of this subsection;
       ``(D) the owner or managing operator of the vessel shall--
       ``(i) make annual structural alteration to not less than 10 
     percent of the areas of the vessel that are not constructed 
     of fire retardant materials;
       ``(ii) prioritize alterations in galleys, engineering areas 
     of the vessel, including all spaces and compartments 
     containing, or adjacent to spaces and compartments 
     containing, engines, boilers, main electrical distribution 
     panels, fuel tanks, oil tanks, and generators;
       ``(iii) ensure, to the satisfaction of the Coast Guard, 
     that the combustible fire-load has been reduced pursuant to 
     clause (i) during each annual inspection for certification; 
     and
       ``(iv) provide advance notice to the Coast Guard regarding 
     the structural alterations made pursuant to clause (i) and 
     comply with any noncombustible material requirements 
     prescribed by the Coast Guard;
       ``(E) the Coast Guard, in making the determination required 
     in subparagraph (D)(iii), shall consider, to the extent 
     practicable, the goal of preservation of the historic 
     integrity of the vessel in areas carrying or accessible to 
     passengers or generally visible to the public;
       ``(F) the owner or managing operator of the vessel shall 
     annually notify all ports of call and State emergency 
     management offices of jurisdiction that the vessel does not 
     comply with applicable fire safety standards due primarily to 
     the wooden construction of passenger berthing areas;
       ``(G) the crews manning such vessel shall receive 
     specialized training, above minimum standards, in regards to 
     shipboard firefighting that is specialized for exempted 
     vessels and approved by the Coast Guard; and
       ``(H) the owner or managing operator of the vessel shall, 
     to the extent practicable, take all steps to retain 
     previously trained crew knowledgeable of such vessel or to 
     hire crew trained in operations aboard exempted vessels.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall conduct an annual audit and 
     inspection of any vessel exempted from the fire-retardant 
     standards of subsection (a).
       ``(c) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to carry 
     out this section. Such regulations shall include the manner 
     in which prospective passengers are to be notified.
       ``(d) In addition to other penalties permitted by law, the 
     Secretary is authorized to immediately withdraw a certificate 
     of inspection for a passenger vessel that does not comply 
     with any requirement under this section.''.

                          ____________________