Fire-Retardant Material Exemption Extension

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source