[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10394-S10395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1501. A bill to improve motor carrier safety, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


            the motor carrier safety improvement act of 1999

 Mr. McCAIN. I am pleased to introduce the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999. This measure is designed to remedy certain 
weaknesses regarding the Federal motor carrier safety program as 
identified by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General (DOT 
IG) in April 1999. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act also 
contains several new initiatives intended to advance safety on our 
nation's roads and highways.
  The bill would establish a separate Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration within the DOT. That agency would be responsible for 
carrying out the Federal motor carrier safety enforcement and 
regulatory responsibilities currently held by the Federal Highway 
Administration. It would be headed by an Administrator, appointed by 
the President and confirmed by the Senate.
  To guard against increasing the already bloated Federal bureaucracy, 
the bill would cap employment and funding at the levels currently 
endorsed by the Administration for motor carrier safety activities. 
This legislation also recognizes the significant differences between 
truck operations and passenger carrying operations and accordingly, 
would call for a separate division within the new agency to ensure 
commercial bus safety.
  Aside from organizational issues, the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act would require the Department to implement all the IG's 
recently issued truck safety recommendations. DOT has indicated it will 
act on some of the recommendations, but it has failed to articulate a 
definitive action plan to implement all of the IG's recommendations. We 
should not risk the consequences of ignoring the IG's recommendations 
and this bill would require action to eliminate the identified safety 
gaps at DOT. In addition, it would authorize additional funding as 
requested by the Administration to address safety shortcomings. It also 
includes a number of items to address truck safety and enforcement, 
including provisions to strengthen the Commercial Drivers License 
Program, to improve data collection activities and to promote the 
accurate exchange of driver information among the states.
  I want to take a moment to share with my colleagues how I reached the 
decision to develop this measure.
  In the last Congress, a comprehensive package of motor carrier and 
highway safety provisions was enacted as part the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). This package was developed over a 
two-year period. Throughout the 105th Congress, the primary impediment 
faced by the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation when 
crafting our highway safety legislation was an insufficient allocation 
of contract authority from the highway trust fund. Despite this serious 
constraint, the Committee did succeed in raising the authorizations for 
motor carrier and highway safety programs. At the same time, the 
Committee also succeeded in incorporating into TEA-21 almost every 
safety initiative brought to the Committee's attention.

  Several months after TEA-21 was signed into law, I asked the IG to 
assess a proposal to move the then Office of Motor Carriers (OMC) form 
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The proposal was being advanced 
by the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation who was, and is, concerned about OMC's effectiveness in 
overseeing the safety of our nation's truck and bus industries, 
concerns I share overall.
  The proposal, originally contained in an appropriations bill, was 
eliminated when it was brought to the House Floor. Consequently, I was 
surprised to learn of its resurrection as a line item in early drafts 
of the conference report on the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 1999. I remind my colleagues that the transfer had never been 
included in any House or Senate-passed legislation, nor had any of the 
authorizing Committees of jurisdiction ever been asked to consider it 
at all in the 105th Congress.
  Rather than enact measures that have surface appeal, it is the 
responsibility of the Congress to ascertain whether the proposals would 
be effective. I felt it very important that we first determine whether 
NHTSA was the most appropriate entity to oversee truck safety before 
requiring it to take on such critical yet unfamiliar responsibilities. 
That is why I asked for the IG's counsel.
  I chaired a hearing in April at which the IG released his report and 
offered several ways to improve motor carrier safety. The IG's report 
does not endorse transferring the responsibilities to NHTSA. While this 
and several options were discussed, the IG stressed that the greatest 
problem impeding the effectiveness of the Office of Motor Carriers was 
a fundamental lack of leadership as currently structured. I repeat, the 
IG found that leadership was the greatest gap hindering truck safety 
advancements.
  One way to raise the visibility of truck safety and bring leadership 
to motor carrier safety issues is to create an entity that has motor 
carrier safety as its sole purpose. Given that we have agencies 
responsible for air, rail, and highway safety, it seems within reason 
to provide similar treatment in this modal area, particularly given the 
many identified problems stemming from a lack of attention within its 
current structure.
  Further, creating a direct link with the Office of the Secretary 
would guarantee that motor carrier safety share holders, including 
owners, operators, drivers, safety advocates and even government 
employees, would not be forced to vie for an agency's attention, forced 
to compete against highway construction and other interests as is 
currently the case. As we have regrettably learned, the scales of 
safety and highway construction are not balanced and we need to take 
action to alter this inequity.
  Other legislative proposals have been offered in recent days. I 
assure my colleagues that I am willing to review those measures and 
listen to other suggestions to improve this legislation.
  In the many meetings and hearings that have been held to discuss 
options to enhance highway safety, it became very clear that all motor 
carrier stake holders share a common goal. We want to improve truck and 
bus safety, decrease highway accidents, and reduce accident fatalities. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues, the Administration, 
highway safety groups, safety enforcement officials, and truck and 
motor coach representatives to achieve a realistic and effective safety 
bill. To attempt to do less would be an abrogation of our 
responsibility.

[[Page S10395]]

                                 ______