Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriatios Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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 on our roads, pushed by trucking companies, to further their limits of exhaustion.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source