Hire More Heroes Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I once again come to the floor to talk about a Feinstein-Wicker amendment to this Transportation bill, which I hope we can have a vote on and dispose of and let the U.S. Senate work its will on, either late tonight or perhaps tomorrow after the pending business is taken care of.

I would begin by quoting from an editorial that was in yesterday's Post-Gazette, the daily newspaper in Pittsburgh, where it says: ``The tractor-trailer roaring by you on the highway could be 9 feet longer next year.'' It could be this long, as shown on this chart I have in the Chamber. It could be mandated by this Congress on 39 States that do not want it.

The editorial goes on to point out there is legislation pending that would force these longer trucks on these 39 States--on all 50 States--11 of them already allow it, but 39 do not. Unless we act and adopt the Feinstein-Wicker amendment on this bill, a provision in the Transportation appropriations bill will go forward and is likely to be signed into law requiring this. This will have been done, I might add, without a full debate, without a hearing being held in any committee of the Senate on this issue.

So what are we talking about? I have in the Chamber a poster that says: ``Would You Feel Safe Driving Next to a Double 33?'' As shown here, this is the size of the proposed new longer trucks that we would mandate on all 50 States. As you can see on the chart, here is the size of a typical passenger car. Here is the comparative size of a motorcycle, a bicycle, and, of course, here is a defenseless pedestrian. Compared to the pedestrian down to the passenger car, this Federal mandate that I am trying to at least give a timeout to would mandate on States that they allow these twin 33 trailers, and they would be driving along next to this car that my kids are going to be driving in and my grandchildren are going to be riding in. I do not think it is a good idea.

But I would point out, if a State does think it is a good idea, I am not going to stand in their way. Some 11 States have decided they are willing to take this risk--many of them out in the wide-open spaces of the West. But it is worth saying that these 39 States do not allow longer tandem trucks, and we should ask ourselves whether Congress knows better than these States.

These States do not allow them: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, and Illinois. As a matter of fact, we have a unanimous resolution from the Illinois State Senate, a bipartisan, unanimous resolution from the Illinois State Senate, saying: Do not mandate these double 33s on us. I go on: Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, my home State of Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, Mr. President. None of those States allows twin 33s now, but there is a proposal I am trying to stop that would mandate that these States must allow for the longer and, I believe, more dangerous trucks.

The editorial goes on to quote the former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, who ``likens the massive trucks to `trains on highways' that would damage roads and endanger motorists.'' I think it makes a lot of sense. I think it would damage roads. I think it would endanger motorists.

Now, if my State of Mississippi, with the considered judgment of the Mississippi Department of Transportation and their commission, the Mississippi Sheriffs' Association, the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police--if all of those people are advising us against this, why should we as a Congress tell these States that we know better than they do?

I will just quote one final statement from the editorial before I ask it be printed in the Record. The editorial concludes: ``With its bridges already in the worst shape in the nation, Pennsylvania doesn't need longer trucks on its roads.''

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Once again, I stress the point, this is Pennsylvania specific. Pennsylvania has made a considered decision not to allow these. I think it ill-behooves us as a Congress to say we know better about the roads and the condition of the bridges in the State of Pennsylvania than the local authorities do.

So in the interest of deferring to the States, I think we should adopt the Feinstein-Wicker amendment not to mandate these longer trucks on States that do not want them.

Also, I do want to stress a few things. If this goes forward, it will have been done with no hearings in this Congress in any committee. The Appropriations Committee, which voted on this, did not have a hearing. The transportation committee, which I serve on, did not have a hearing. The commerce committee, which is another committee of jurisdiction on this matter, never had a hearing about this. Wouldn't it be a good idea--before we tell States they have to do this--to get proponents of this Federal mandate before us to answer questions about it--perhaps opponents of this Federal mandate to come and give us their considered opinion, experts about the safety issues, experts about what this will do to bridges, about what it will do to tear up our highways. Wouldn't that be a good idea before we decide in our wisdom inside the beltway in Washington, DC, that we know better than 39 States? I think it would be a good idea.

We might want to hear from AAA. We might want to hear from officials of the State of Missouri who have memorialized this Congress not to mandate this on the very people whom they are trying to represent on a State-by-State basis. I would like to get the Mississippi Trucking Association here. They have come out against this Federal mandate. They are in favor of the Feinstein-Wicker amendment to continue to leave this up to the States. I would like to get them before a hearing and hear them out. Perhaps Members of Congress and members of the various committees could be convinced, as I have become convinced, that they are correct.

Why would any trucker be opposed to this? I will simply tell you, a lot of truckers are small businesspeople. We honor small business people. We know they are the engine of job creation in the United States of America. Many of the small truckers have told me--and they make up organizations like the Mississippi Trucking Association--they cannot compete in an environment in which this becomes the norm. The big guys can easily move to the tandem 33 trailers, but the small business people cannot. It is much harder for them to get a loan. It is much harder for them to come up with the capital expenditure of moving to this, and many of them feel as though they will be put out of business.

So I think we should be very careful about saying we are going to run over the considered opinion of people in 39 States, we are going to disregard the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police and a host of other State chiefs of police associations, we are going to disregard the Mississippi Sheriffs' Association and a laundry list of other sheriffs associations from all around the United States of America.

I think the better approach is the Feinstein approach, which lost on a tie vote in the Appropriations Committee. The Feinstein approach says: Let's make sure we have a full and comprehensive study about this and get back to us, and if we implement it, let's do it in the normal course of events with the rulemaking process and comments from all sides.

So all this Feinstein-Wicker amendment does is say we cannot mandate this this year. Instead, we are going to ask the leading experts in this city to come back to us and tell us if, in their opinion, this is safe, to tell us, in their opinion, what this will do to bridges and infrastructure. I think that is the better approach.

There were 30 members of the Appropriations Committee who voted on this issue--exactly 30. Let me make sure I am precise. The Feinstein amendment lost on a vote of 15 to 15. Now, should that go forward as the policy of this U.S. Senate? I do not think so. I think we owe it to the American people, on an issue that involves safety, on an issue that involves infrastructure, and on an issue that involves deferring to the States to make the best decisions for their people--I think we owe it to them to have a full vote and not let something go forward on a virtual tie vote.

The provision that is now in the appropriations bill was adopted 16 to 14 in the Appropriations Committee with no hearings. I simply ask my colleagues, is that the way to make a major safety decision, an infrastructure decision for the American people?

So we are nearing the time when supporters of the Feinstein-Wicker amendment are hoping for a vote. I was heartened to hear the conversation of the majority leader yesterday that he certainly hoped we would be able to have votes on germane amendments like this. I appreciate the efforts of the ranking member of the committee, a friend of mine from California, in saying she is going to do whatever she can to get us a vote on this. So I do appreciate it.

I would say to Members listening today, it is time to get informed on this issue. It is time to find out what the facts are, to realize this appropriations decision that I am trying to reverse and put the brakes on, to a certain extent, is not permissive in nature. It is a requirement. If it goes through, we will be telling 39 States they are wrong, somehow we are right here in Washington, DC.

So I hope, first of all, we can get an amendment on the floor, and I hope Members will search their consciences and decide that indeed this is something which at least ought to be thoroughly studied. We ought to have all of the facts. More than that, this is something where we don't need to run over the 39 States that happen to feel otherwise.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. I know she wants to talk about the larger issue. If it is, in fact, a modest and relatively harmless extension of the size, then I think perhaps States might want to make that decision themselves. They may very well conclude--39 have not made that decision, but 11 States have made that decision. And even though some may consider this a modest extension, I think modesty and the length of the trucks and the safety thereof is really in the eye of the beholder, and the State of Mississippi might feel very different than one of the wide-open Western States.

I thank my friend for her comments.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source