[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 10451-10456]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                        2015--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 4660, which the 
clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4660, a bill 
     making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
     Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, which appropriations bill is this that we 
just announced?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to the Commerce-Justice-
Science provisions.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  Let me make two comments on two amendments actually to the THUD 
appropriations bill having to do with CNG, natural gas vehicles. If I 
could speak very briefly on two amendments, the first is amendment No. 
3245. That amendment is the regulatory streamlining for the use of 
compressed natural gas. This will allow us to give some of the same 
treatment to natural gas vehicles that are given to other alternative 
fuel vehicles. In fact, I am joined with Senator Carl Levin on this 
amendment, which also gives access to HOV lanes for certain vehicles 
that are using natural gas and other alternative fuel vehicles.
  The other one is amendment No. 3275 having to do with light semi 
trucks that use natural gas, because of the additional weight of the 
equipment, we would give some leniency--up to 2,000 pounds--in terms of 
the total weight to allow them and encourage them to use compressed 
natural gas without facing a freight-weight competitive disadvantage.
  Those are the two amendments, when the time comes, that I wanted to 
get into the Record that I will be proposing at that time.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for yielding me a few minutes of her 
time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BOOKER. Madam President, I rise to speak on an amendment I have 
filed on the appropriations bill that this Chamber is now considering. 
The amendment is cosponsored by Senators Rockefeller, Feinstein, 
Menendez, Schumer, Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Markey, Warren, and Brown.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the 
amendment Senator Durbin, Senator Boxer, Senator Hirono, Senator 
Murphy, and Senator Schatz.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOOKER. Thank you, Madam President.
  Our amendment would maintain critical evidence-based safety rules 
that reduce truckdriver fatigue. I am disappointed that this bill 
currently includes a provision that would roll back the enforcement of 
these rules--rules that are based on years of scientific evidence. It 
is doing so without further study. It is rolling back these safety 
rules without public input. It is rolling back these safety rules 
without even a hearing.
  At a time when truck crashes are actually on a rise in the United 
States of America, it is paramount that Congress do more in 
transportation safety to improve the protection of lives--not remove an 
evidence-based element of reform.
  Keep in mind that the rule the bill currently suspends enforcement of 
was the result of feedback from more than 20,000 formal comments 
submitted by industry and stakeholders. It was a result of 6 public 
sessions and incorporated 80 sources of scientific data and research, 
as well as a regulatory impact analysis.
  Over the past week alone, New Jersey has been impacted by at least 
four major, separate accidents involving tractor trailer collisions. 
National statistics, unfortunately, show that these tragedies are 
unfolding more and more frequently.
  Many of my colleagues may not spend much time in New Jersey, but I am 
willing to bet that many have driven on the more than 38,000 miles of 
public roads that exist in my State. If you know the New Jersey 
Turnpike, this corridor connects our State and drivers, much of our 
commerce, and our economy all together. This highway also sees a lot of 
trucks at all times of the day, all around the clock.
  So I am compelled by these facts:
  Nearly 4,000 people are killed in truck accidents and over 100,000 
people are injured every single year.
  From 2009 to 2012, truck crash injuries increased by 40 percent and 
truck fatalities increased in our Nation by 16 percent.
  Truckdriver fatigue is a leading cause of major truck accidents. 
These drivers, who work extensively long days delivering the goods we 
depend upon, deserve basic protections allowing them to get sufficient 
rest to do their job safely and efficiently.
  Just this morning the National Transportation Safety Board released a 
preliminary report about a truck crash that happened on the New Jersey 
Turnpike on June 7 which killed one passenger traveling in a limousine, 
and four others were airlifted to a hospital. Six cars were impacted by 
the collision between the truck and the limo. The truckdriver, 
according to the NTSB report, had logged 13 hours 32 minutes of work at 
the time of the crash. Had he reached his destination, he certainly 
would have exceeded the number of federally permitted hours to work in 
a given day. The truckdriver will clearly be punished for pushing the 
limits.
  Truckdrivers are working extremely long days to deliver the goods 
that keep America moving, but it should never ever be at the cost of 
safer roads.
  At a time when we should be doing more to improve safety, we should 
not be rolling back evidence-based rules. Our amendment prevents 
readopting a policy that could force many truckdrivers to work over 80 
hours per week. It maintains a balanced rulemaking that provides for 
truckdrivers to be allowed two nights' rest at the end of a taxing 
workweek.
  The Department of Transportation itself--our Federal Department of 
Transportation--estimates that the current rulemaking is preventing 
1,400 crashes each year, saving 19 lives and avoiding 560 injuries on 
American highways.
  Our amendment would simply retain a provision to authorize--it would 
actually retain a provision to authorize further study. We believe 
further study

[[Page 10452]]

on the issue is good. I am not against further study, nor are we 
against further analysis. But we believe it is absolutely unacceptable 
to consider suspending these driver rules while the study is being 
conducted. Safety cannot wait.
  I have not been in the Chamber very long and even today may have 
violated some of the rules of comity of this great body, but I know 
this effort is an important one, and I know it will be an uphill fight. 
There are some entrenched interests who tend to have a lot of influence 
on Capitol Hill, but this, to me, is one worth fighting. I urge my 
colleagues to join me.
  I have heard a lot of the arguments and questions about why this 
should possibly be rolled back, why we should roll back safety 
regulations in the face of increasing accidents on our highways. 
Somebody might say that DOT rules make the roads less safe by forcing 
trucks on the road during busy rush hour traffic.
  The notion that the DOT's rules--which were based on all of those 
hearings, all of that public input, the scientific study--somehow make 
the roads less safe, to me, is unfounded. To be sure, the rule does 
require that scientifically proven optimal sleep hours of 1 a.m. to 5 
a.m. be included in the DOT's mandatory 34-hour ``restart'' period. But 
let me be clear. This restart period only applies when a truckdriver 
has reached his or her maximum driving hours for the week--the maximum 
allowed. It only triggers that provision when someone has worked a 70-
hour workweek.
  Keep in mind that most people work 40-hour workweeks. Requiring those 
drivers operating 80,000-pound trucks on busy roads to get some rest is 
not only common sense, it is supported by the science. The Department 
of Transportation estimates that the current rule, again, is preventing 
crashes, is preventing the loss of life. Nineteen lives they believe 
these rules around hours have saved, 560 injuries, 1,400 crashes. 
Suspending this rule without studying it first is not common sense.
  I have heard another argument that the DOT rules are a solution 
looking for a problem, that truckdriver fatigue is somehow not that 
common. A study that was conducted by FMCSA in 2006 found an 
astonishing number of truckdrivers--65 percent of truckdrivers--
reported that they often feel drowsy while driving. Over 40 percent of 
truckdrivers responded they have trouble staying awake at the wheel. An 
alarming 13 percent admitted they have fallen asleep while driving.
  Fatigue is an issue. The survey illustrates how vitally important 
rules governing hours of service and rest periods are in keeping our 
roads and highways safe. Now is not a time to roll back those rules 
without studying, without evidence, without a hearing, without 
information.
  There are some people who might say this is a partisan issue, that 
somehow Democrats are safety advocates and are exploiting the severe 
accident that faced a comedian named Tracy Morgan, that we are using 
this as a political opportunity. But that suggestion is wrong. Somehow 
it misses that fatal accidents are common on our highways.
  This concern continues to rise in our country as the number of 
accidents increases. While the accident involving Tracy Morgan on the 
turnpike was tragic, it was one of thousands of accidents and crashes 
that occur in our country each day. The incident has brought needed 
attention to a rising trend of trucking accidents. This is a problem 
policymakers have long been trying to address through Federal rules and 
initiatives, based again on years of study and analysis.
  In fact, last month I sent a letter to the U.S. Department of 
Transportation regarding important truck safety concerns. My 
predecessor, Frank Lautenberg, spent years of his life in public 
service trying to make our roads safer.
  I also have heard that most truckdrivers are negatively impacted by 
the current rule, that language in the Senate appropriations bills 
stops this impact that most truckdrivers are seeing.
  That is simply not true. A driver is only required to use the 34-hour 
restart if and only if he or she works the maximum number of hours 
allowed under the Federal regulation. This restart is most frequently 
in effect for those long-haul drivers who make up only about 15 percent 
of the trucking workforce. Those averaging 70 hours per week or less 
are not affected by the changes to the 34-hour restart, because they 
would never work the number of hours that would require them to use the 
restart under the current rule.
  The Senate amendment would allow drivers, though, to return to the 
extreme schedule allowed under the pre-July 2013 rule, when a company 
could require a driver to work a maximum of 82 hours a week, pushing 
the limit of human endurance. Not only 82 hours in 1 week, trucking 
companies would force the limits of human endurance of 82 hours week 
after week after week after week, 82-hour week after 82-hour week after 
82-hour week.
  I have also heard this HOS provision in the T-HUD appropriations bill 
is a low-impact change to the hours-of-service rule, that this is 
actually not that much of a change. Suspending enforcement of these DOT 
hours-of-service rules substantially increases the number of hours a 
truckdriver could be forced to work each week and forced to push the 
realm of human endurance. In fact, the change would be from an already 
high 70-hour workweek to a more than 80-hour workweek, which is the 
equivalent of an extra workday each week and nearly twice the amount 
the average American works.
  The appropriations bill will remove this commonsense guarantee that 
truckdrivers themselves, as we have seen with the support from the 
Teamsters Union, that truckdrivers themselves get at least a 2-night 
rest, the humane 2-night rest at the end of a tasking workweek.
  What these changes mean in practice is that drivers may be forced to 
work grueling hours now, week after week by truck companies that are 
pushing the limit. Studies have shown this leads to the fatigue that 
causes accidents such as we are seeing on the New Jersey Turnpike. The 
DOT hours-of-service rules, some people say, implemented last year were 
based on insufficient analysis, that somehow these were rushed rules.
  But I have said already, this came out of a balanced rulemaking 
effort and process that took into account both safety and industry 
interests. DOT rulemaking involved the feedback from 21,000 formal 
document comments submitted by a wide range of stakeholders, including 
six public listening sessions, and incorporated 80 basic scientific 
research data provided by scientists, as well as conducted a formal 
regulatory analysis.
  By contrast, the bill rolling this all back was done in an 
appropriations process. It was not reviewed. It was not considered by 
the committee of jurisdiction upon which I sit. It was not subject to 
public comment. It had no hearings established where both sides were 
listened to and their comments were weighed and engaged. It rolled back 
a rule that now will allow truckdrivers to be pushed more into the 
limits of their human endurance and put more fatigued drivers on our 
roads.
  Some people say this amendment I am putting forth, with many of my 
colleagues, somehow would prevent further study. That is not true. Our 
amendment only strips the provision of the appropriations bill that 
ties the Department of Transportation's hands and prevents them from 
enforcing the current rules on the books. But we actually leave intact 
authorization for more study, which I am open to.
  This should be done on scientific studies in an open process, with 
hearings, with information, with testimony. It should not be saddled 
onto an appropriations bill that ultimately would roll back rules which 
the DOT themselves are saying will help to preserve the safety and the 
lives of American citizens. So I caution right now, why not wait? Why 
not do a study, leaving the current rule intact? Why not keep these 
regulations, these safety regulations in place, and let's do another 
round of studies? Let's do another round of hearings. Let's have debate 
and discussion in committee and the committee of jurisdiction before we 
roll back rules that put truckdrivers

[[Page 10453]]

on our roads, pushed by trucking companies, to further their limits of 
exhaustion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, it appears I first need to say to my 
colleague and to those who are listening, there is no one in this body, 
in the trucking industry, among their customers who wants to see 
trucking accidents. All of us are committed to safer roads, and to make 
sure that freight is delivered in a safe manner in this country.
  In fact, the former Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration said in a letter to the committee dated June 17:

       The fact is the Senate Transportation, Housing and Urban 
     Development bill which contains a temporary suspension of two 
     new provisions in the 34-hour restart rule makes the roads 
     safer.

  Makes the roads safer. That is what this debate is about.
  I am very disappointed to see that the Senator from New Jersey is 
otherwise engaged and not listening to these comments.
  Let me start with a fact. The fact is, under current law, under the 
Collins amendment, under the provisions we reported in the 
Appropriations Committee, it is illegal for any driver to operate a 
commercial motor vehicle when that driver's ability or alertness is 
impaired through fatigue, illness, or any other cause so as to make his 
or her driving unsafe.
  That is illegal. That is illegal now. That will continue to be 
illegal if our provisions become law. I think that perhaps it would be 
helpful, given the disappointing amount of misinformation that has been 
circulated by the proponents of this amendment, if I were to go through 
some of the provisions of the hours-of-service regulation. Those are 
the regulations that are the foundation of the rules that govern truck 
safety in this country.
  The fact is our Transportation-HUD appropriations bill would not 
suspend the entire hours-of-service regulation or the entire 34-hour 
restart provisions as some keep saying, both on the Senate floor and in 
the media. To be clear, our proposal would not change the maximum 
driving hours that are allowed per day. It would not change the total 
on-duty window in each shift. It would not change the minimum number of 
off-duty hours between shifts, which is 10 hours. It would not change 
the mandatory 30-minute rest break that is required by your eighth 
hour. That is a new provision that was adopted last July.
  My friend from New Jersey claims I am wiping out all of these rules. 
Regrettably, he is simply mistaken about that. I am not changing any of 
these provisions of the hours-of-service regulation, including one that 
was adopted last July requiring a mandatory 30-minute rest break prior 
to your eighth hour. I support that. I think that is a good idea. I 
support the provisions for a limit on how many hours a driver can be 
behind the wheel. I support the limit on the maximum on-duty hours. I 
support the requirement for 10 hours off between shifts. So to say I am 
repealing all of these truck safety regulations is simply false. It is 
a disservice to the debate on an important issue for wrong information 
to be circulated about what we are trying to do.
  There is another important provision we are not changing that I think 
is going to help to improve truck safety, and that is the upcoming 
requirement for electronic, onboard recorders to replace the paper logs 
that are kept by some truckdrivers now.
  The paper logs have been proven to be less accurate, and obviously 
there is a potential for reporting false information. With electronic 
logs, that goes away. I am a strong supporter of the rulemaking that is 
going to lead to the requirement for electronic logs, which many 
truckdrivers are already using. Our bill, in fact, includes some 
funding to help truckdrivers of smaller fleets afford the electronic 
logs.
  What are we changing? We are changing only two provisions, and that 
is why our amendment--my amendment--was adopted by an overwhelmingly 
strong bipartisan group in the Appropriations Committee. The vote was 
21 to 9 because the members of the committee took the time to 
understand what we were doing and what we were not doing.
  Here is one of the problems. The new rules require that a truckdriver 
have two consecutive nights where he must be off duty and sleeping 
between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. There are a lot of people in this country who 
work a night shift, and if we talk to them they will tell you that what 
is disruptive to them is to work a day shift part of the week, a night 
shift part of the week, go back to the day shift, and go back and 
forth.
  Many of our drivers want to drive during the overnight hours because 
the statistics overwhelmingly show that is the safest time for them to 
be on the roads.
  This isn't a matter of conjecture. It is based on the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration's own analysis about what times of the 
day crashes occur. The fact is, the safest time for trucks to travel is 
between midnight and 6 a.m. The number of crashes nearly quadruples 
between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. It is five times higher between noon and 6 
p.m.
  Let's think about this for a moment. It just makes sense. There are 
far fewer vehicles on the road. Why in the world would we want to push 
truckdrivers to have to be on the road when children are going back and 
forth from school, when commuters are going to work.
  One truckdriver from Maine gave me a great example. For those of us 
who are familiar with downtown Boston, with all of its small, curvy 
streets and all of its one-way streets, he said to me: If I have to 
wait until 5 a.m. to deliver fuel to a convenience store on the corner 
of two busy streets in downtown Boston and I am going to arrive there 
at 7 a.m.--during the rush hour, during the time when people are 
getting up, going to school and to work--it is far more dangerous. It 
is far more difficult for those commuters trying to stop at that 
convenience store while I am trying to deliver the fuel. It is far 
safer for me to be delivering that fuel at 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. in the 
morning before the convenience store even opens and before the traffic 
picks up.
  But, again, the Senator from New Jersey doesn't have to take my word 
for it. Please, I would implore the Senator from New Jersey to look at 
the statistics--and these are the newest statistics the Department has 
put out. They are very clear that the crashes more than quadruple--
quadruple--during those daylight hours.
  That is why the truckdrivers would prefer to be on the road at night 
when it is safer and to do their deliveries when their customers need 
the deliveries to be done--whether it is to that convenience store that 
needs gas before the rush hour starts or whether it is to a grocery 
store that needs to reload its shelves. That just makes sense.
  The second change--and the only other change--that our amendment 
makes to the hours of service provisions has to do with the limitation 
on the use of the restart. Under the new regulations which were 
implemented last July about 1 year ago the Department limited the 34-
hour restart to once a week. It is once every 168 hours.
  How does that make sense? The Presiding Officer and I both come from 
States where there can be severe winter weather, and a truckdriver who 
is delivering in Wisconsin or Maine may run into a terrible storm.
  Why shouldn't he or she be allowed to take a 34-hour period off while 
the storm is raging and then restart the clock on the number of hours 
that he or she can take?
  By the way, the restart, under the current law, is voluntary, and we 
do not change the requirement--which is current law--that a truckdriver 
cannot drive more than 70 hours in 8 days. What we are saying, however, 
is we don't want that truckdriver to be out there in bad weather trying 
to push through and get home because he or she is running up against 
the clock and can't take a second 34-hour restart.
  In fact, as the former administrator--who, by the way, has spent her 
professional life of 22 years in public safety--has written: We 
encourage drivers to get more rest, to not take the chance of driving 
through bad weather.

[[Page 10454]]

  Now let me address the conflicting arguments I heard from the Senator 
from New Jersey on the issue of whether these regulations have been 
studied enough.
  On the one hand, he says they have been studied to death and they are 
well based in scientific research. But the fact is that the current 
Administrator of FMCSA recently testified over on the House side and 
was specifically asked if the agency had evaluated the safety and 
congestion impacts of large trucks being forced by the new regulations 
to drive during the hours when crashes are most likely.
  The Administrator confirmed: The field study did not address or talk 
about the impact of traffic on the road.
  That is why it is critically important to study all aspects of the 
regulation. It appeared that FMCSA also failed to coordinate with its 
sister agency the Federal Highway Administration.
  Just last month the Federal Highway Administration announced a grant 
program called the Off Hours Freight Delivery Program for cities that 
``look at how truck deliveries made outside of peak and rush hours--
when there is less traffic on the highways--can save time and money for 
freight carriers, improve air quality and create more sustainable and 
livable cities.''
  So clearly the agencies within the Department of Transportation are 
not communicating their policies with one another. We have one DOT 
agency trying to direct more trucks onto our Nation's highways during 
the daylight hours, and then we have a second agency that is pushing 
funding out to cities in order to keep those same large trucks from 
operating during daylight hours and to encourage them to operate during 
overnight hours.
  Why we would want to prevent or discourage large trucks from being 
able to drive during overnight hours simply makes no sense.
  On the other hand, my colleague from New Jersey says: Don't worry, we 
have kept in the study. We have kept the Collins study in the bill.
  Well, if it has been studied so extensively, as he claims, then why 
is there a need for the study? You can't have it both ways. You can't 
say these regulations were thoroughly studied and supported by 
scientific evidence, but, gee, we need a study. I mean, which is it?
  I think what the Administrator admitted in her testimony over on the 
House side is accurate, and that is the field study did not look at the 
overall impact of congestion on our roads, and that is a real flaw. 
That is why I worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come 
up with a study that will look at all of these factors, to make sure 
that we do not have what the Administrator herself has conceded are 
unintended consequences of these changes, and that is what we have now.
  The fact is that these changes that were adopted by a vote of 21 to 9 
by the Appropriations Committee are common sense. They will lead to 
less fatigued drivers. They deserve more study and consideration, and--
as the former Administrator of this agency has said--they will improve 
traffic safety.
  I hope my colleagues will oppose the amendment that has been offered 
by the Senator from New Jersey. I will speak further, but I know there 
are others who want to debate this issue or who are waiting to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BOOKER. Will my colleague yield for one short question?
  Ms. COLLINS. I would be glad to engage in more debate later, but my 
colleague from Missouri has been waiting for a half hour to speak, and 
I think it would be courteous for him to be allowed to speak.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I thank my good friend from Nevada for 
yielding a few minutes to me. He is going to speak on an amendment 
which requires the Senate to pass a budget I am supportive of and 
support his efforts to do that, but I wish to speak in support of this 
great explanation of what the committee did as we just heard from the 
Senator from Maine.
  The committee debated this. We looked at the facts as Senator Collins 
has repeated. That full debate, that full discussion in the committee 
ultimately had a bipartisan vote of 21 to 9. This was something the 
committee thought about. I think the committee reached the right 
decision, and I was glad to be part of the 21 votes that said this 
should be part of the underlying bill.
  There is a wide consensus that further study is needed. That 
consensus goes even to the administration.
  As the Senator from Maine has already pointed out, the ``restart 
rule'' allows drivers to restart their weekly on-duty time calculations 
by taking at least 34 hours off duty.
  In July of 2013, new restrictions were placed on the restart 
provision, and the changes, frankly, have had unintended consequences 
and unintended effects for drivers, for their families, for customers 
in the supply line, and even other users of the road.
  The new restrictions state that a restart period has to include two 
back-to-back periods in the middle of the night--from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. 
I am usually up not too long after 5 a.m. I am almost never up between 
1 a.m. and 5 a.m., but many people are.
  The Federal Government can decide a lot of things, but what is the 
best work and rest pattern for people should not be one of them, 
particularly when that work pattern forces people to do their work at a 
more dangerous time. I believe that is what this rule does. That is 
what the accident reports would verify; that back-to-back rest periods 
can only be used in a way that disrupts the ability to get the job done 
in a way that works for these drivers and their families, and works for 
safety on the road.
  This rule would push more trucks onto the road during the daylight 
hours, and accidents are worse when there is more traffic.
  The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration just admitted that 
this wasn't studied as it should have been. I asked the Secretary of 
Transportation over 1 month ago to tell what studies were done on this 
issue. We still haven't gotten a report. He very nicely said, ``I would 
like to take that for the record.'' Apparently the record is pretty 
hard to complete here because we haven't had a report yet about the 
research done on what would happen if you took truckdrivers off the 
road in the middle of the night and put them on the road in the middle 
of the day, the middle of the afternoon, the very rush hour hours the 
Senator from Maine has talked about.
  I have heard from a lot of drivers in our State. We are in the middle 
of the country. We are a transportation hub. We have lots of drivers in 
our State. One constituent of mine, a driver from Energy Transport 
Solutions in Bates City, MO, said a lot of drivers are losing a whole 
day on the road and a whole day with their family.
  Many drivers choose to drive at night or early in the morning so they 
can be home when their kids come home from school. If a driver wants to 
be home when their kids come home from school and if they want to drive 
during safer parts of the driving 24-hour cycle, why would the 
government tell them they can't do that without any study to indicate 
it somehow would be safer?
  The fact is this provision would in no way affect the hours-of-
service rule. The Senator from Maine once again has explained what 
wouldn't change. It wouldn't change the daily driving time limit; it 
wouldn't change the daily working limit; it wouldn't change the daily 
break requirement; it wouldn't change the weekly work limit.
  This rule only says: We are not going to move forward with more 
dangerous traffic times required by law until there is some proof that 
somehow this works out to their advantage. Drivers still can't work 
longer than the maximum 14 hours in a shift. They can't drive longer 
than 11 hours at a time. By the way, that is what the rules say now. 
They would still be required to take at least 10 consecutive hours' 
rest before starting the next shift, and they have to take at least 30 
minutes before the 8 hours they come on duty. These safeguards will 
remain in place.
  The provision the committee is offering as part of this bill merely 
suspends the two restrictions on the restart rule, which is only one 
subset of a larger part, a rule that would still be in effect.
  During that suspension, the Federal motor safety group would be 
required

[[Page 10455]]

to adequately study the effects of what they have required to happen 
here. It is also worth mentioning again that they have said they need 
to make this study. So why don't we let them? Traffic accident reports 
would indicate we are forcing people to drive at a more difficult time.
  Talking about the terrible accident we saw lately, the fact is, 
somebody who drives 24 hours straight, whether it is their own car or a 
truck, is in violation of every rule that is out there now.
  The rules the Senator from New Jersey says we should protect because 
of the recent accident are the rules that were in effect during the 
recent accident. Those were the rules in effect then. If anything, we 
should say what rules were in effect a few days ago and how would we 
reevaluate them so this wouldn't happen again, rather than saying we 
have to have exactly the rules in effect we had in effect when the 
tragedy occurred. That makes no sense at all.
  There are reasons to research this. There are reasons to look at it. 
One of the reasons to keep the current rules in place is not that they 
would have prevented the accident that happened, because the current 
rules were in place when the accident happened.
  Reports have stated the vehicle was traveling too fast, and the 
person drove in their own vehicle long before they got in the other 
car. There is nothing in the amendment the Senator from New Jersey 
proposes that would have done anything about those violations of the 
rules our bill would leave in effect that Senator Collins and I are 
advocates for.
  We don't want to put truckdrivers and others on the road in danger 
unnecessarily. The more cars that are out, the more likely you are to 
have an accident; the more cars and trucks that are out there, the more 
likely you are to have an accident.
  This overnight rest rule has clearly put trucks on the road at a 
busier, more congested time. We believe that is not good. The 
committee, by a vote of 21 to 9, believes that is not good. I hope the 
Senate decides to stay with the decision the committee has brought to 
the floor.
  Let's have a study. It should have happened before these rules came 
out, and it absolutely should happen now.
  I see now Senators from Nevada on the floor. I do wish to mention 
again I am grateful to Senator Heller for letting me make these remarks 
before we get to the amendment he wants to talk about.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 p.m. 
today, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the 
following nominations: Calendar No. 770, Aguilar; No. 538, Nichols, to 
be Ambassador to Peru; No. 766, McWatters, to be a Member of the 
National Credit Union Administration; and No. 712, which is Wormuth, to 
be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; with all other provisions of 
the previous order remaining in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Madam President, I thank my colleagues on the floor for 
their healthy debate on advancing traffic safety. I am sure we will 
hear a lot more about it, and I look forward to continued debate.
  I also thank my colleague from Missouri for his support on the 
amendment I am about to offer and talk about. The amendment I am 
speaking of is the Heller amendment No. 3269 to H.R. 4660.
  While I commend the chairwoman and the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee for all of their hard work in putting together 
the appropriations minibus to be considered on the floor, this is only 
the first of the appropriations bills that Congress needs to, and 
should, consider before the end of the fiscal year.
  This will not surprise the American public, but this Congress is once 
again facing another October 1 deadline to complete all of the current 
fiscal year appropriations bills. We are now well into the year and 
only now are we starting to bring appropriations bills to the Senate 
floor. By our own calendar there are only 8 full legislative weeks left 
to avoid yet another continuing resolution.
  Missed deadline after missed deadline has been a staple of this 
Congress. Without even a basic budget process, we have failed to pass 
any of the current fiscal year appropriations bills on time so far this 
year.
  I know the Appropriations Committee has been working hard to pass 
each of their spending bills in committee, but all too often these 
bills end up being rolled into one large omnibus measure or a 
continuing resolution that is not subject to any amendments.
  As our Nation faces a rising national debt, the American people can 
no longer afford Congress's failure to tackle our Nation's spending 
addiction. I must admit that since coming to Washington back in 2006, I 
have never seen Congress pass all 12 appropriations bills on time. In 
fact, I am certain most of my colleagues who serve with me today have 
not experienced a normal appropriations process, and there are probably 
even more Members who don't think it is even a realistic expectation to 
pass all 12 appropriations bills on time anymore. So I am here to 
remind everyone that Congress has been able to accomplish its regular 
budget and appropriations process before in recent history.
  A couple examples: It happened under President Clinton with a 
Republican Congress in 1996. It happened under President Reagan with a 
Democratic Congress in 1988. These are just two examples, but the fact 
remains that these deadlines have been met before, and now is the time 
to start meeting those deadlines again.
  I have always said Washington, DC, is a pain-free zone that faces no 
consequences--zero consequences--if Members fail to do their jobs. I 
think it is time we start requiring accountability for Members of 
Congress in order to get things done.
  I know many of my colleagues have heard me talk about my legislation, 
No Budget, No Pay. It is pretty simple: If Members of Congress do not 
pass an annual bipartisan budget resolution and all 12 spending bills 
on time each year, then they simply should not be paid.
  I wish to repeat that last part: If Congress fails to pass all 12 
spending bills on time each year, they should not get paid.
  We have honest, hardworking Americans in the gallery and across this 
country who play by the rules. That rule says: If people do their job, 
they get paid. Why shouldn't it be the same for us as Members of 
Congress? We need to be honest.
  We also need to recognize that both Democrats and Republicans are at 
fault. Governing from crisis to crisis while our long-term debt 
continues to grow is now the new normal in Washington. We need 
bipartisan solutions, but nothing will happen if Members of Congress 
don't start feeling some pain.
  Instead of playing another game of brinkmanship, let's start working 
now on a plan that will place our Nation on sound fiscal footing or 
cultivate a progrowth economy that will produce jobs in the long term.
  I have filed No Budget, No Pay as an amendment to this appropriations 
minibus to highlight that we have to end this cycle of inaction and 
indecision. Let's show the American people their elected officials are 
ready to lead and make the tough decisions these times deserve.
  While I am not a betting man, I am from Nevada so I would bet that 
once again we will fail on passing any appropriations bills into law 
before October 1, and we will once again punt our responsibilities by 
doing another CR or omnibus.
  I ask my colleagues--if you are sick and tired of this broken budget 
and appropriations process as much as I am, support No Budget, No Pay, 
and let's fix this problem once and for all.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 10456]]


  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Madam President. I know Senator Kirk is on 
his way to give tribute to one of his staffers--a tragic situation--so 
I am going to be very brief.
  Madam President, I come to the floor to support Senator Collins' 
efforts to bring some common sense to these truck safety regulations, 
and I know this is a very emotional debate because of the tragic 
accident that occurred recently with a very well-known and well-
respected comedian, Tracy Morgan.
  I understand that there are families in my State and around the 
country who have had horrible and, unfortunately, fatal accidents with 
trucks that are more and more prevalent on our overcrowded highway 
system. I am not insensitive to those families, to those stories, and I 
honestly believe that what Senator Collins and I and others are trying 
to do is going to make a very unsafe situation more safe, not less 
safe.
  There is really an honest and sincere disagreement among us that has 
to be debated. I am glad we are having this debate so that the 
evidence, the record, and the facts can speak for themselves.
  This first came to my attention a couple of months ago when a group 
of citizens came up from Louisiana to say: Senator, we are shocked to 
tell you this, but there is a new rule out that is going to require 
truckers to sleep between the hours of 1:00 and 5:00 two nights a week.
  I looked at them and said: That cannot possibly be correct. Nobody at 
the Federal Government would ever mandate when people are supposed to 
sleep.
  I mean, how would you do such a thing? How can you tell people when 
to sleep and when to be awake? You can tell them how many hours they 
need to rest, you can determine how many hours they can drive before 
they have to take a break, but how exactly are you going to enforce 
when people sleep? That is going a step too far. So that is why I 
signed on with Senator Collins to say: Wait a minute, there has to be a 
better way.
  When they told me--which I could not believe and later found it to be 
true--they said: Senator, don't you think that sometimes it is better 
for truckdrivers to drive at night when the highways are less crowded 
than during the day when they are more crowded, when children are on 
their way to school, when people are on their way to work, when most 
people have day jobs?
  But there are millions of Americans who work at night. It is probably 
two-thirds who work during the day and one-third at night.
  Wouldn't it be safer for the trucks to drive at night? Some of these 
truckdrivers can sleep during the day.
  I said: Absolutely. That makes sense to me.
  They said: Well, that is soon going to be illegal under these rules.
  So that is why I got into this debate.
  I am very respectful of Senator Booker, one of the outstanding, 
brightest lights that has hit this Chamber in a long time. His 
intellect is spectacular. His heart is in the right place. He and I 
both agree that we want our highways safe. We want the truckers rested. 
We don't like the crowding on the highways. But it is going too far 
when the Federal Government starts mandating when workers should sleep. 
We just can't go there.
  So I am going to support Senator Collins' legislation that is going 
to back up these no-commonsense rules and ask them to come back with 
another suggestion that will result in the same safety but not mandate 
when Americans should sleep. I think adults who drive trucks can make 
those decisions for themselves.
  If the law is that they have to rest 8 or 9 hours in a 24-hour 
period, I think they are responsible enough to do so. If they are not, 
then they should be held accountable and prosecuted for reckless 
driving--which happens frequently--and they should then be 
appropriately punished, whether by fine or revocation of their license 
or jail time. But I cannot be part of any government that is making 
regulations demanding that people sleep a certain hour--not from 
midnight to 4, not from 2:00 to 7:00, but from 1:00 to 5:00 on 
consecutive nights a week. I just don't understand it, and I am not 
going to support it.
  So this is not about safety; this is about government overreach to a 
point where it is almost visceral. There has to be a better way to come 
up with a rule to get our highways safe. I am open to it. Not this 
rule.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________