[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 4 (Friday, January 23, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S214-S215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             TRAFFIC SAFETY

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the No. 1 killer of those between the age 
of 4 and 34 in this country today is auto fatalities. If you look at 
those between the age of, say, 16 and 25, the figures are even more 
exaggerated. We all know that in this country over 42,000 Americans 
lose their lives every year. That figure stays fairly constant. The 
last year we have figures for is 2002, and 42,815 of our fellow 
citizens lost their lives.
  In fact, in the next 12 minutes, to be precise, at least one person 
will be killed in an automobile accident in this country, while nearly 
six people will be injured in just the next 60 seconds.
  This is a tragedy that we as a society are much too willing to 
tolerate. If a foreign enemy were doing this to us, we would not 
tolerate it. We would be up in arms. Someone said it is the equivalent 
of a 747 going down every 2 days in this country. If that were 
happening, of course, it would be on CNN; we would be demanding an 
explanation. Yet these auto fatalities that occur, hour by hour, day by 
day, just go on and for some reason we have become immune to it, 
hardened to it. They just continue.
  I come to the floor this morning to discuss five bills, five bills 
that my staff and I have been working on for about the last year, five 
bills that I will be introducing but that I hope will be incorporated 
in the highway safety bill we will be considering in the next several 
weeks. These bills are commonsense, practical ways to save lives. Each 
bill is built on solid evidence of what will, in fact, make a 
difference.
  They don't cost a lot. It is a commonsense, good way to make a 
difference. I guarantee you one thing. If we pass them, they will save 
a lot of lives.
  The first bill we call ``Stars on Cars.'' It is kind of a cute name. 
It is kind of basic stuff.
  When you go buy a new car, we all know what the sticker looks like. 
But what we may not know is most of the sticker is mandated by the 
Federal Government. The mileage per gallon has been on there for a 
number of years. The Federal Government says that your city mileage has 
to be on there and what you are going to get on the highway when you 
take it out on the highway. It has to tell you whether it has air-
conditioning. It has to tell you whether it has a stereo. It has to 
tell you a whole bunch of other stuff.
  One piece of information is not on there--highway safety.
  The funny thing is you have already paid to have the Federal 
Government spend millions of dollars to test that very car. The Federal 
Government knows information about that car. In fact, the Federal 
Government has put that information up on the Internet. When you go in 
to buy that car, that information is not available to you. It is not 
available to the American consumer in the one place where it would make 
a difference--where you buy the car.
  This is a mockup. We simply show how it would work under our bill. It 
wouldn't cost the taxpayers a dime. The car companies are already 
printing the stickers. Where are they doing the tests? All we do is put 
the information here. Under this mockup, this is a Silverado pickup. We 
would add what is below my hand: ``Government Safety Information.'' For 
this particular pickup, on frontal impact crash data, this is what it 
would show. This is true information.
  For the driver side, here is what the Government says. Out of five 
stars, this particular vehicle got three out of five. For the passenger 
side, it got four stars out of five.

  Over here on the side impact crash test, it was not tested. Over here 
on the rear seat, it was not tested either.
  On the rollover resistance test that particular vehicle was not 
tested. If it was tested, it would be there. If it was not tested, it 
wouldn't be there.
  In the year 2000, that particular vehicle was not tested. But most of 
the common cars you and I and the average American would buy have, in 
fact, been tested. All of that data on the frontal impact crash test, 
the side impact crash test, and the rollover resistance test would be 
there. We would have it based on the star. It is really easy to 
understand. That data would be there. It is already on the Internet. 
Now it would be available if you go look and compare. What impact would 
this have?
  I happen to believe the consumer is better off with more information 
than less information on whatever we are talking about. The consumer 
ought to know what the Government does. The consumer ought to know that 
type of information. I think the consumer would make better choices. 
Most consumers care about safety. They will make better choices, and in 
all likelihood, they are going to choose more safe vehicles and more 
lives will, in fact, be saved. It just makes good common sense to do 
this.
  The second bill we call ``Safe Kids, Safe Cars.'' Cars kill kids at 
unbelievable rates. This is the top 10 leading cause of death in the 
United States for the year 2001 by age group, ranked 1 through 10 for 
the leading cause of death.
  In the orange is traffic crashes as a cause of death. Starting over 
here, you see ages 1 through 3, 4 through 7, and 8 through 15. When you 
start over here and pick up at age 4 through 7, and moving on clear 
over here to age 34, the leading cause of death is traffic crashes, 
traffic crashes, traffic crashes, traffic crashes--all of these age 
groups all the way from 4 through 34.
  That is what is killing the young people--more than cancer, more than 
homicide, more than fire, more than drowning, more than anything else. 
So we have a problem. Anything we can do to make a car safer for our 
kids, we should be doing it.
  We know a lot of kids and a lot of adults are killed when cars roll 
over. The Government is doing tests to see how likely a vehicle is to 
roll over. But it might come as a surprise to my colleagues and to the 
public to know that the Government is not doing any testing today to 
determine what happens inside the vehicle once the car begins to roll 
over. We test to see if it is going to roll over. What we don't test to 
see is what happens when it starts to roll over and when it does roll 
over. Our bill provides for the use of child-size dummies and the use 
of adult dummies to see what impact that rollover has on them.
  What are you going to do if you get that information? It is going to 
tell us, I assume, how well those airbags in that particular vehicle 
deploy, how well they protect the adult, and how well they protect the 
child. It may be different. How well is the structure of that vehicle 
put together for a rollover? Does it crush on the side of the child or 
the adult? How well was the structure built? We don't know. We don't 
know it because we are not testing for it today. Our bill provides that 
we do that.

  Child-size dummies--NHTSA needs to look at its testing and ask where 
we need to use them. My bill says they need to incorporate these child 
dummies. We are doing so to improve safety for children.
  Another area where kids are dying in cars is power windows.
  NHTSA started a rulemaking to require child-safe window switches in

[[Page S215]]

1996. That is when this Federal agency started making the rulemaking 
procedure. That rulemaking procedure is not done yet. They have not 
finalized the rule.
  My bill tells NHTSA to finish the rulemaking process, and it requires 
car makers to install switches to protect kids from getting caught in 
power windows by making switches harder to switch inadvertently. Some 
car makers are already doing this. This can be done very cheaply. 
Companies are doing this already. Every company needs to do it. This is 
not an expensive proposition. There are good switches and there are bad 
switches. Every company needs to have the good switches.
  Twenty-five children have died that we know of in the last 10 years 
because they have been choked to death in cars. At least 25 we know 
about. At least 500 people go to emergency rooms each year as a result 
of power window accidents. NHTSA tells us the power switches cost 
virtually nothing, very little.
  A third bill has to do with another problem; that is, dangerous road 
intersections. Every State has them. Most States, fortunately, rank 
these roads. They keep a list of the bad ones. But, amazingly, there 
are many States that keep this information secret and don't tell the 
public.
  Again, consumers have a right to know this information. What would 
you do with the information? As a parent, I might tell my 16-year-old 
not to go that way to the movie. At least I have the right to have that 
information and saying go another way. It might take another 10 
minutes, but go that way. Don't go by that intersection. Don't go on 
that curvy road. States already have that information. The State should 
provide that information. They already know it, they should provide it. 
Policymakers need to know that to make decisions about how to spend 
money in that State, what roads to fix.

  Further, States need to spend their safety money. They need to spend 
their safety money on safety. Our bill says they should do that and it 
requires them to do it. Current law allows States to shortchange safety 
programs or to do other things--highway construction. I understand 
that, but that should not occur. Safety programs pay for new left turn 
lanes, lane markings, other improvements, lifesaving improvements, 
straightening roads, straightening highways, doing some relatively 
small things that will, in fact, save lives.
  The percentage of money earmarked, set aside for safety as it comes 
through the highway construction bill should be spent for those safety 
items. We are not talking about soft safety programs; we are talking 
about hard construction dollars. They are still construction dollars. 
They will still be used for construction. They will still be used to 
make things happen. They should be used for safety.
  The fourth bill I am introducing has to do with driver education. 
This is a neglected area. Again, look at our chart. These are the kids 
who are dying, the new drivers. It is natural; they are the 
inexperienced drivers. We need to try to attack this in many different 
ways. One way we can do it is through driver education. It is a 
problem. I have looked at it in my home State. I have looked at it in 
other States. Driver education, at best, is mediocre in this country. 
The Federal Government cannot run it. It is a State responsibility. But 
the Federal Government can play a small role. My bill follows the 
Natural Transportation Safety Board's lead and recommendation and 
establishes the National Office of Driver Training within the 
Department of Transportation, NHTSA. This office would work to 
establish and maintain a set of best practices--not mandates, not 
national standards but just best practices--for driver education and 
licensing and also would provide assistance to States that implement 
these best practices.
  My bill authorizes a modest amount of money, $20 to $30 million 
annually to assist States with making their driver education and 
licensing programs better.
  Our bill also deals with a graduated driver's license and raises the 
bar for a Federal program to give money to States for having graduated 
driver's licenses and laws. One of the good things we have seen in the 
last few years is the graduated driver's licensing laws that come into 
place in the States. Each State has done it differently. That is the 
improvement. What we and most experts have seen is there are some laws 
that are working and some laws that are not working. Again, the Federal 
Government cannot tell the States what to do in this area, but maybe 
the Federal Government can reward those States that are at the higher 
point, the higher bar, maybe give some encouragement in that area.
  Our fifth bill has to do with tires. Tires do not get better with 
age. The fact is, there are tires being sold in the market today that 
were manufactured a while ago. Tires are not like wine. They do not get 
better with age. We do not know for sure what the implications are of 
the aging of a tire, a tire that was sitting on the shelf. We do know 
that the tire that gets old does not get better.

  My bill calls for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
scientific study into tire aging to establish exactly when and under 
what conditions tire age becomes a major safety problem. We know at 
some point it becomes a safety problem. We just do not know when and 
under what conditions. Currently, the date code on tire sidewalls is 
extremely difficult to read or decipher. There is a date there but you 
and I could not figure it out. The average consumer could not figure it 
out.
  What we provide is that the Department will figure out how to do 
this. We will not tell them how to do it. But we want the consumer to 
know when he or she buys a tire--at the point of sale--when that tire 
was manufactured. That, coupled with the information from the 
scientific study, will give consumers some information. Again, we will 
move forward in giving the consumer information about the age of the 
tire, knowing when it was manufactured, plus, once the study is done 
the consumer will know the relevance of that information.
  We have talked with the tire industry and worked with them. They want 
to know, frankly, what all the implications are for aging tires. They 
have worked hard to make their tires as safe as possible. They have 
done a lot in this area and improved the safety of their tires and have 
been cooperative in this, as well.
  These five bills will go a long way. They are common sense. They will 
make a difference. These bills continue my work in this area. This is 
something I have been interested in for many years, going back to my 
time in the Ohio Legislature 20 years ago when I introduced the drunk 
driving bill, and we were able to pass a tough drunk driving bill I 
wrote in the Ohio Legislature. I worked for .08. It was very 
controversial in the Senate, but we were able to pass .08. Senator 
Lautenburg and I worked on that.
  I support Senator Warner's bill and was a cosponsor of a bill he 
introduced last year that was pending in Congress with regard to 
including a primary seatbelt law. I support that. These bills represent 
a continuation of the great concern I have about highway safety. This 
issue is not a partisan issue; this is a bipartisan issue.
  Anytime you lose 42,815 Americans every year, highway safety is 
something we all have to be concerned about.
  I know the bill is not on the floor yet, but I have seen it. I have 
seen a draft of the safety bill that will be here, the highway bill. As 
currently written, the bill goes farther than any highway bill that has 
been before the Senate in regard to highway safety. All those who 
worked on the bill have put an emphasis on highway safety, and the bill 
as currently written makes a great effort to deal with highway safety. 
I congratulate the authors.
  Our amendments which we will have when the bill comes to the floor 
will improve on a good bill. I make that point very clear. My 
amendments are not in any way critical of that bill. In fact, I hope 
they will be complimentary and simply add to a good product that is 
already a good product and will help to improve it.
  I will have more to say about this as we proceed on the highway 
construction bill and it comes to the floor in the next few weeks.




                          ____________________