I rise in support of H.R. 4687, the National Construction Safety Team Act. The reason why I think this bill is so well drafted and so well thought out is because of the work of both the chairman and the ranking member, along with the extraordinary Science Committee staff. When we first began these hearings, I thought, ``Wait a second, we had two gigantic, wide-body planes filled with fuel imploding in these buildings? What would Members expect?'' But as we began this investigation, we realized there were a lot of things we could learn from the collapse of these buildings. It is sad and unfortunate that no one was in charge of this investigation. Because no one was empowered to be in charge, we could not gain access to some of this material right away to understand how this building, for instance, imploded. It was fascinating for me to review the fire escape options. Had they not all been concentrated in one place, maybe more people could have gotten out. We learned that materials and building construction made a difference. Studying building No. 7, a building over 40 stories tall, while it burned indefinitely and then basically collapsed was an incredible opportunity for us to discover a number of things about building materials. The collapse of the World Trade Center forever changed the landscape in New York City.
Christopher Shays: “I rise in support of H.R. 4687, the National Construction Safety Team Act. The reason why I think this bill is so well…”
On the recordJuly 12, 2002
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Supporting the National Construction Safety Team Act and discussing lessons learned from the World Trade Center collapse.
Share
More from Christopher Shays
Sep 9, 2013
A military strike will do nothing to address that issue, and would exacerbate it by accelerating the transfer of chemical weapons to people who would do us harm.
Sep 9, 2013
First, let me say if the President really believed that a military strike would have been effective, he would have done it right away.
Apr 22, 2008
Right. Because what we do is we cap the payroll at $120,000. And so it ends up being $12,000 an employer would pay. But when I was speaking of someone with 500 employees, they would pay $21,000 salary, they pay 5.25, 5¼ percent of payroll…





