[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 136 (Friday, October 8, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H9649-H9651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            ON TRUCK SAFETY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, today I stand up for the 5,374 families who 
lost loved ones in truck accidents last year and to note that the 
Congress could be about ready to walk away from them.
  Last week, Mr. Speaker, this House voted overwhelmingly for the 
transportation appropriations conference report which included a 
provision requiring a change in the way the Federal Government conducts 
oversight of the trucking industry. For the record, the vast majority 
of truck drivers and trucking companies do their level best to operate 
safely and efficiently and they are an important part of our commerce. 
But it is those few on the margins, Mr. Speaker, who last year took the 
lives of 5,374 people and 5,398 the year before that, a decade high. 
That is like a major airplane crash taking place every 2 weeks with 
regard to the deaths in the trucking industry.
  Section 338 of the bill, which the President is expected to sign 
soon, prohibits the Department of Transportation from funding the 
Office of Motor Carrier and Highway Safety, the OMC, within the Federal 
Highway Administration. The Federal Highway Administration does a good 
job at maintaining and building our Nation's infrastructure but they 
have fallen woefully behind in the area of truck safety. This means 
that Congress can pass legislation directing the DOT to move the Office 
of Motor Carrier and Highway Safety to a better place, or the 
administration can do it by executive order. Either way, Mr. Speaker, 
someone has got to do something and the language in the appropriations 
conference report requires action, action that has been lacking since 
myself and others have brought this issue to the attention of the 
Congress over the past year. The status quo where people are dying 
daily because of truck accidents is unacceptable.
  Everyone in this Chamber and those who are watching on television, 
those who will later read the Congressional Record, have experienced 
the anxiety associated with being around large trucks on our Nation's 
highways. They are big, they are fast, they are heavy and they are 
dangerous. And when a truck is involved in an accident, regardless of 
who is at fault, it is likely someone is going to die or be seriously 
injured. Plain and simple, I think it is incumbent, therefore, to 
ensure that trucks are as safe as they can be. Under the current 
system, I do not think the Federal Government is doing a good enough 
job to make sure that is the case.
  As I mentioned, last year 5,374 people died in truck-related 
accidents. The year before that, 5,398 people died, a decade high. Just 
think about those figures and let them sink in for a moment. The number 
of deaths associated with truck accidents is equal to a jetliner loaded 
with passengers crashing every other week. With an airplane crashing 
every other week, the Congress would be outraged. People would be 
calling their Congressmen on the telephones and the Congress would say, 
``We're committed to do something about it.'' The Nation would be up in 
arms. Hearings would be held, accident investigations would be taking 
place, and grieving families would be on television to illustrate the 
sorrow of losing a loved one.
  Why, then, does the issue of truck safety, where over 5,000 people a 
year have died, not command the same attention? Why is the Federal 
office responsible for the regulation of the trucking industry, which 
some say is larger than the aviation industry, buried in the Federal 
Highway Administration with only .06 of the budget? Could it be because 
of the lobbyists and others who have been hired by the trucking 
companies?
  Last year, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation 
appropriations conference report included a similar provision. But in 
the dead of the night and in the waning hours of the Congress, the 
trucking lobbyists prevailed. As a result of that, since that time in 
the middle of the night when this provision was taken out, thousands 
have died on the road.
  The Department of Transportation Inspector General looked at this 
issue and found that not only were lobbyists hired working against this 
proposal, which would force greater scrutiny on truck safety, but 
several of the employees of the Office of Motor Carriers,

[[Page H9650]]

which is responsible for regulating the trucking industry, were afraid 
of this provision and what would be found when we looked at truck 
oversight, and they, the employees of the Department of Transportation, 
conspired to defeat this measure. The Inspector General noted that 
employees of the Office of Motor Carriers who regulate the trucking 
industry had contacted those that they regulated soliciting their help 
in staving off additional scrutiny. A few employees, these are 
government employees, paid by the families of the people that have 
died, then drafted letters for the trucking industry to send to Members 
of Congress to defeat this proposal.

                              {time}  1030

  That is right, the regulators at the Office of Motor Carriers, these 
employees, paid for by the taxpayer, were meeting with the lobbyists 
for the trucking industry, drafting letters for them to send to Members 
of Congress to keep this provision from taking place, whereby thousands 
would continue to die.
  As a result of these unfortunate circumstances, the Department of 
Transportation disciplined four people. They were disciplined. One 
left. A couple are still there, but they were disciplined.
  Why did top employees of the Office of Motor Carriers, which 
regulates the industry, work to stymie the move? Because they knew that 
the state of the trucking industry was in such poor condition that it 
was they who would be called to account. How do we explain that deaths 
were up, inspections were down? At the same time that deaths were 
rising, the number of inspections was decreasing.
  Three years ago, each safety inspector at the Office of Motor 
Carriers conducted five reviews per month of the companies. Two years 
ago each inspector did an average of 2.5 reviews per month. Last year, 
each inspector did only one per month. When inspections over the course 
of 2 years dropped from 5 inspections to one inspection per month, 
something must be wrong and sorely needs to be changed.
  In fact, the Inspector General found one truck that left California 
going to Virginia, the State that I live in, made the trip in 48 hours, 
and when the guy pulled in, the driver, had several bottles of urine in 
the cab. He had not even stopped to go to the bathroom.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the trucking lobbyists, every time they see 
an accident where someone dies, think in terms of how they made this 
happen, and those employees know because of this lack of inspections, 
that more people are dying.
  The Office of Motor Carriers knows it. The IG conducted a survey of 
the Office of Motor Carriers employees asking them if they thought the 
Office of Motor Carriers should move, and where. Mr. Speaker, less than 
20 percent of those employees surveyed were opposed to moving, only 20 
percent. Of those people responsible for trucking oversight, only 20 
percent wanted the status quo.
  The employees of OMC deserve credit for the work they do. Most work 
very hard, and they are very dedicated. Unfortunately, there are some 
in the management who have not caught the vision. If the employees of 
the Office of Motor Carriers do not favor the status quo, why should 
the Congress?
  In 3 short months, trucks from Mexico may be able to cross the border 
to the U.S. under NAFTA. The IG recently found that Mexico has no hours 
of service requirements, no log books requirements for truckers, no 
vehicle maintenance standards, no roadside inspections, and no safety 
rating systems. Can we be sure these trucks will not present a safety 
problem on our highways come January? All of these trucks will cross 
the border and be able to go throughout the entire United States.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot stop the drugs coming across the border on the 
trucks, and I will tell the Members, those trucks will be unsafe and 
many, many more people could die.
  When the IG conducted a survey of the effects of NAFTA, he found 
today 3.5 million trucks are crossing the border from Mexico, only to 
designated commercial zones in the U.S. Of those 3.5 million trucks 
crossing the border, the Office of Motor Carriers only inspected 
17,332. Of those inspected, 44 percent were in such poor condition that 
they were taken off the road immediately.
  Some of these trucks are intended only to serve border traffic, but 
many others may be driving on all the highways in America, come 
January. If the Congress and others feel comfortable about this, 
allowing this situation to persist, so be it. But I in good conscience 
cannot. We can no longer sit idly by while thousands of Americans are 
dying every year on our roads and do nothing about it.
  If others claim to be concerned about the provision contained in the 
Department of transportation appropriations conference report, I 
welcome the company. But do something about it. To this date, more than 
a year after this terrible problem was brought to America's attention, 
not one bill bringing relief to this situation has been brought before 
this House, let alone been signed into law, not one.
  If Members do not like the provision contained in this year's 
Department of Transportation appropriations conference report, do 
something about it, but the status quo is unacceptable.
  Let me just address for a minute some of the allegations regarding 
section 338 of the conference report. Some have suggested that this 
provision harms safety. It is nonsense and they know it. I have been 
urging improvements to truck safety for over a year now, and I have 
been out on several truck inspections where, when we go out, we see lug 
nuts sheared off, bald tires, brakes that are not working.
  To really let the American people understand this, one out of every 
five trucks that we see on the highway today is so unsafe that if it 
would be inspected, it would be taken off the road.
  The last truck inspection we went out to, we found bald tires. We 
found air brake systems rotted out and rusted out. There were so many 
violations, and they then go on and are involved in accidents that kill 
people.
  Yesterday the Department of Transportation's general counsel 
testified that section 338 would prevent the DOT from conducting only 
two functions in truck safety, the assessment of civil penalties, and 
protection of migrant worker transportation, which the States have 
taken the lead on, anyhow. So that leaves DOT with one real 
shortcoming, which could have been very easily fixed in a minor 
technical correction bill, the ability to levy civil penalties.
  DOT can still conduct border inspections, they can still place unsafe 
vehicles out of service, and they can still conduct an effective 
oversight program. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than an effort 
to scare this body in returning to the status quo.
  Others have said, let us give the OMC time. They will make the 
necessary changes on their own. This Congress has given them time. If 
Members think times have changed, every Member should know that they 
are wrong. Earlier this week, the Office of Motor Carrier Management 
sent out an e-mail memo to all its employees suggesting that section 
338 would prevent the organization from conducting further oversights.
  Without judging whether the memo was intentionally false or not, it 
is clear the OMC still does not get it. The memo was 180 degrees 
inaccurate. Indeed, the Secretary had to order that a correcting memo 
be distributed.
  When my staff called the Office of Motor Carriers to clarify the 
memo's inaccuracies, they were told that the Office of Motor Carrier 
staff would not take the call. When they asked to speak with the head 
of the office, which is standard procedure, they were informed that she 
was out of town. When they asked for who, therefore, was in charge, 
they were told it was one of those punished for their improper efforts 
last year. The person that was running the Office of Motor Carriers 
responsible for the memo to go out was one of the people cited by the 
Inspector General who was disciplined by the Department of 
Transportation.
  When we drive on the highways today, on the Beltway, when we drive on 
I-81 in the Shenandoah Valley, when we drive on I-95, whether north and 
south of Washington, think of all those trucks, and think about how 
some employees who are now running the office which inspects these 
trucks have been so close to the trucking industry that

[[Page H9651]]

it has been basically an incestuous relationship, and therefore, they 
are trying to undermine a provision which will bring about truck 
safety.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, next week the Congress may consider on the 
suspension calendar a bill to overturn section 338 of the conference 
report. I urge Members to vote against the bill. If the reorganization 
of the motor carrier office does not take place, more people will die. 
We will get into next year, and next year is an election year. The 
contributions will begin flowing from the trucking industry to the 
Congress, and they will make up reasons why we do not have time to deal 
with truck safety.
  We will also be faced with the trucks from Mexico coming across the 
border. Some 80 thousand more trucks could enter the market next year 
than this year. Many families will experience the pain and agony of 
getting that telephone call to say that a loved one has been involved 
in an accident with regard to trucks.
  Mr. Speaker, the bottom line to this entire issue is safety.
  So if a bill comes up, I urge Members to vote no.

                          ____________________