[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 24298]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



            NATIONAL AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE SAFETY ACT OF 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 6, 1999

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by ten of my colleagues in 
introducing ``The National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act of 1999.'' 
They include Representatives Miller (CA), Hoeffel (PA), Wexler (FL), 
Kucinich (OH), Lipinski (IL), Maloney (NY), Weiner (NY), DeLauro (NY), 
Neal (MA) and Waxman (CA). This bill will restore the ability of the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to investigate serious 
accidents in amusement parks that offer rides, such as roller coasters, 
which are permanently fixed to the site. While the CPSC has the 
authority to investigate accidents that occur on rides that move from 
site to site, rides that are permanently fixed in theme parks are off 
limits. This bill would correct this anomaly by closing the ``roller 
coaster loophole.''
  Roller coasters are, in general, quite safe. But in the course of 
just 6 days at the end of August, an unusual number of tragedies on 
amusement park rides highlighted the fact that when something goes 
wrong on these rides, the consequences can be catastrophic. Today's 
rides are huge metal machines capable of hurling the human body through 
space at forces that exceed the Space Shuttle and at speeds that exceed 
100 miles per hour. They are complex industrial-size mechanisms whose 
design, maintenance and operation can push the limits of physical 
tolerance even for patrons in peak condition, let alone members of the 
broad spectrum of the public who are invited to ride each day.
  The fatalities at the end of August, which U.S. News & World Report 
termed ``one of the most calamitous weeks in the history of America's 
amusement parks,'' included:
  August 22--a 12-year-old boy fell to his death after slipping through 
a harness on the Drop Zone ride at Paramount's Great America Theme Park 
in Santa Clara, California;
  August 23--a 20-year-old man died on the Shockwave roller coaster at 
Paramount King's Dominion theme park near Richmond, Virginia;
  August 28--a 39-year-old woman and her 8-year-old daughter were 
killed when their car slid backward down a 30-foot ascent and crashed 
into another car, injuring two others on the Wild Wonder roller coaster 
at Gillian's Wonderland Pier in Ocean City, New Jersey.
  The Consumer Product Safety Act charges the CPSC with the 
responsibility to protect the public against unreasonable risks of 
injuries and deaths associated with consumer products. However, rides 
in ``fixed locations'' such as theme parks are currently entirely 
exempt from safety regulation by the CPSC. State oversight is good in 
some places, bad in others, and in some states, the state has also 
exempted ``fixed locations'' so that there is no federal or state 
regulatory body overseeing ride safety. The number of serious injuries 
on ``fixed location'' rides has risen dramatically from 1994 through 
1998.
  Why do we bar the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from 
investigating accidents on roller coasters and from sharing that 
information with the rest of the country?
  It makes no sense.
  When a child is killed or injured on an amusement park ride, should 
the decision to investigate depend on whether the amusement park ride 
is ``fixed'' versus ``mobile''?
  Emergency-room injuries more than doubled in the last five years, yet 
the CPSC is prohibited from investigating any--not one--of those 
accidents, even when it involves a ride that may be in heavy use by 
mobile carnivals or fairs.
  According to the CPSC Chair, Ann Brown, ``The current regulatory 
structure as it applies to fixed-site amusement park rides is not 
sufficient to protect against unreasonable risks of injuries or deaths 
caused by these rides.''
  She is right.
  The accident statistics highlight the folly of granting an exemption 
from federal safety regulation to amusement park rides. Injuries are 
rising rapidly on the one category of amusement park rides that the 
CPSC is barred from overseeing. The manufacturer or owner of every 
other consumer product in America is required by law to inform the CPSC 
whenever it becomes aware that the product may pose a substantial risk 
of harm--but not the owners or operators of ``fixed-site'' rides in 
amusement parks.
  Some in the industry argue that this legislation is unnecessary 
because the states or the industry itself can provide sufficient 
protection. This argument fails on two counts.
  First, many states have simply failed to step in where the federal 
safety agency has been excluded. The CPSC reports that there is still 
no state-level inspection program in Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Vermont. In addition, Florida exempts the 
big theme parks from state inspection, Virginia relies on private 
inspections, and New York exempts New York City (which includes Coney 
Island.) California had no state program until last month.
  Second, states are not equipped and not inclined to act as a national 
clearinghouse of safety problems associated with particular rides or 
with operator or patron errors. That is a federal function. Yet the 
federal agency charged with the protection of the public against 
unreasonable risk of injury or death is currently, by law, forbidden 
from carrying out this important task.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measured effort to close the 
loopholes and to ensure patrons of amusement parks that the level of 
protection afforded by law will no longer hinge on the question of 
whether the ride itself is ``mobile'' or ``fixed.''




                          ____________________