[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14355-14360]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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.

[[Page 14356]]


  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 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.

[[Page 14357]]

  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.
  I understand the Delta Queen has a long and a distinguished history. 
Since

[[Page 14358]]

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?

[[Page 14359]]

  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. 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:

[[Page 14360]]

  ``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 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.

                          ____________________