[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21940-21941]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2084, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2084) making appropriations for the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Instruct Offered By Mr. Sabo

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Sabo moves that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 
2084, be instructed to provide maximum funding, within the scope of 
conference, for the functions and operations of the Office of Motor 
Carriers.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each 
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion is very straightforward. The House bill 
includes $70.484 million for the functions and operations of the Office 
of Motor Carriers. Senate bill provides $57.418 million, and this 
motion to instruct simply instructs the House conferees to provide the 
maximum amount possible for motor carrier safety operations.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly commend the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chair of the subcommittee, for his ongoing 
effort to make sure that we maximize our ability to monitor and inspect 
and make sure we have the safest motor vehicle safety program in this 
country and in particular his focus on drug safety, and I commend his 
leadership, and I just think we should follow his leadership and 
provide the funding that is provided in the House bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this Motion to Instruct is very straightforward. The 
House bill includes $70.484 million for the functions and operations of 
the Office of Motor Carriers. The Senate bill provides $57.418 million. 
This Motion to Instruct simply instructs the House conferees to provide 
the maximum amount possible for motor carrier safety operations.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, 
for his efforts over the past two years in shining a bright light on 
the serious deficiencies in the Department of Transportation's 
oversight of truck safety. Nearly every driving American has had the 
unpleasant experience of looking in his or her rear view mirror at a 
very large truck speeding down the highway.
  Nearly 5,400 deaths occurred from large truck accidents in 1997--the 
most recent year available. This is the equivalent of a major airline 
crash with 200 fatalities every 2 weeks. And, regardless of the cause 
of these accidents, it is nearly always the occupant in the car 
involved that loses.
  One out of every four large trucks that get inspected each year are 
so unsafe that they are pulled off the roads. That is the safety record 
of those trucks that are inspected--a large number are never even 
inspected.
  Over 6,000 motor carriers received a less than satisfactory safety 
rating between 1995 and 1998 and many of these carriers continue to 
operate.
  The number of compliance reviews OMC performed has declined by 30% 
since FY 1995, even though there has been a 36% increase in the number 
of motor carriers over this period. Nearly 250 high-risk carriers 
recommended for a compliance review in March 1998 did not receive one.

[[Page 21941]]

  Only 11% of more than 20,000 motor carrier violations in 1998 
resulted in fines, and the average settlement per enforcement case 
decreased from $3,700 to $1,600 from 1995 to 1998.
  The General Accounting Office and the DOT Inspector General have 
issued several highly critical reports on the Motor Carrier Office. A 
third independent review commissioned by the Department of 
Transportation and led by former Congressman Norm Mineta also concluded 
that DOT motor carrier safety operations need to be improved and more 
effectively managed.
  Mr. Speaker, this Motion does not address the issue of where the 
Office of Motor Carriers should be located within the Department of 
Transportation. Last year, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia 
was thwarted in his efforts to transfer the Office of Motor Carrier 
Safety from the Federal Highway Administration to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration. Last year, we passed a bill to do just 
that, but the provision was deleted in conference. This year, various 
proposals have been introduced to create a new Motor Carrier 
Administration within DOT. I do not know precisely what the right 
answer is on how this office should be organized in DOT.
  I do know, however, that the safety of the American traveling public 
is at stake, and that the public interest--not special interests--
should govern federal oversight of truck safety. Regardless of how we 
change the boxes on the organizational chart, we need real reform in 
the Office of Motor Carriers that focuses on increased truck 
inspections, more safety reviews and compliance audits; improved 
accident data collection and information systems; increased border 
inspectors; additional research; and stronger accountability. 
Additional resources are needed to do the job.
  This Motion to Instruct simply recognizes that getting dangerous, 
speeding and unsafe trucks off the roads should be one of the highest 
priorities in this bill and we must provide the funding needed to 
ensure that the DOT has an aggressive safety and enforcement program. I 
urge the adoption of the Motion to Instruct and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo) for the motion because I think if it is carried and it is 
followed through, it will end up saving a lot of lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) that instructs the conferees to provide 
maximum funding within the scope of conference for the Office of Motor 
Carriers. As the body knows, the House-passed bill provides 70.5 
million for motor carriers operations. The level is more than 17 
million over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level and 15 million more 
than the Senate passed bill. These funds are needed for critical 
improvements in crash data, safety system/data base modernization, 
census information, incident management, and post accident training.
  In addition, these funds will provide for additional inspectors to 
better the enforcement and compliance program and improve motor carrier 
safety. And lastly, the funds will provide additional resources to 
address the delay in the backlog of critical safety regulations 
including those relating to hours of service.
  In short, these funds are needed, and I thank the gentleman from 
Minnesota for his leadership to improve the safety of the motoring 
public and to eliminate unsafe trucks in the Nation's highway. However, 
Mr. Speaker, this subcommittee has been concerned now for over a year 
that the Office of Motor Carriers in its current structure and 
placement in the Federal Highway Administration is not performing an 
aggressive enforcement and compliance program. It cannot do so within 
the Federal Highway Administration.
  A recent Inspector General report found that only 2.5 percent of the 
interstate motor carriers were reviewed and 64 percent of the Nation's 
carriers did not have a safety rating. The number of compliance reviews 
has fallen by 30 percent, 30 percent, since 1995. The amount of fines 
from unsafe trucking companies has fallen to the lowest level in 1992.
  Without a more aggressive and effective program, the General 
Accounting Office predicts fatalities. People will die. It could rise 
as high as 6,000 next year. Trucking fatalities reached a decade high 
of nearly 5,400 in 1997 and remained essentially flat in 1998. This 
equates to a major airline accident every 2 weeks with about 200 
fatalities.
  In comparison, other modes of transportation have seen a decline in 
fatalities, a rising tide of deaths; and lax oversight of the trucking 
industry are partially a result of the Office of Motor Carrier 
Placement within the Federal Highway Administration. Their primary 
mission, Federal Highway, is to award some 25 billion in highway 
construction funds to the States not to improve safety. Federal Highway 
is skilled at building and maintaining roads but done a poor job with 
regard to an effective and forceful truck safety program.
  Eclipsed by the agency of over 2,400 staff and 50 division offices, 
several regional office centers, the Office of Motor Carriers and its 
safety mission will act as strong focus and is subjugated to second-
class status in the Federal Highway Administration. Some personnel 
within the Office of Motor Carriers have become too close to the 
trucking industry once they have been charged with regulating. In fact, 
earlier this year the Inspector General found out the personnel had 
solicited the trucking industry to generate opposition.
  It is for these reasons that the committee also included in its 
version of the bill section 2335 that prohibits funds in the act from 
being used to carry out the functions and operations of the Office of 
Motor Carriers within Federal Highway. The Department of Transportation 
Inspector General, the chairman of National Transportation Safety 
Board, trucking representatives, the enforcement community, and safety 
advocates all agree that the Office of Motor Carriers should be moved 
from the Federal Highway Administration. The committee has included 
this provision so that the appropriate authorizing committees could 
report legislation that reforms the Office of Motor Carriers.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, the House passed this provision in June. 
Here it is September 21, and regrettably neither the House nor the 
Senate has yet to pass a comprehensive reform of the Office of Motor 
Carriers. Time is running out. More than 18 months have passed since 
the subcommittee sounded the alarm that the Office of Motor Carriers 
needed to be reformed. The American public has waited too long.
  So when we are conferencing with the Senate, we will ask that the 
conferees seek the highest level of funding, as the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) wisely has sought for the Office of Motor Carriers 
and also insist on the House position, section 335, to ensure the 
funding for the Office of Motor Carriers is spent effectively and 
reduces the deaths on the highways.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) 
for this and for all of his efforts with regard to safety on FAA, but 
particularly on this one, and I support the motion.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  The motion was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Messrs. Wolf, DeLay, Regula, Rogers, Packard, 
Callahan, Tiahrt, Aderholt, Ms. Granger, Messrs. Young of Florida, 
Sabo, Olver, Pastor, Ms. Kilpatrick, and Messrs. Serrano, Forbes and 
Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________