[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




                              


 
  FREIGHT FORWARD: OVERCOMING SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES TO DELIVER FOR 
                                AMERICA

=======================================================================

                                (118-14)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                          HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 10, 2023

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
           [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation
                             
                          ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 55-550          WASHINGTON : 2024                         



             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington,             Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  Ranking Member                     Arkansas
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Daniel Webster, Florida
  District of Columbia               Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Brian Babin, Texas
John Garamendi, California           Garret Graves, Louisiana
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiavid Rouzer, North Carolina
Andre Carson, Indiana                Mike Bost, Illinois
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Doug LaMalfa, California
Jared Huffman, California            Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Julia Brownley, California           Brian J. Mast, Florida
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey       Puerto Rico
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Greg Stanton, Arizona,               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
  Vice Ranking Member                Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Colin Z. Allred, Texas                 Vice Chairman
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Lance Gooden, Texas
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Tracey Mann, Kansas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Burgess Owens, Utah
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Chuck Edwards, North Carolina
Patrick Ryan, New York               Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska         Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 John James, Michigan
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
                                     Mike Collins, Georgia
                                     Mike Ezell, Mississippi
                                     John S. Duarte, California
                                     Aaron Bean, Florida

                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

    Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
        Arkansas, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Daniel Webster, Florida
  District of Columbia, Ranking Memberhomas Massie, Kentucky
Jared Huffman, California            Mike Bost, Illinois
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Doug LaMalfa, California
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Patrick Ryan, New York               Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon,                Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
  Vice Ranking Member                Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Lance Gooden, Texas
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Tracey Mann, Kansas
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Burgess Owens, Utah
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiady Yakym III, Indiana
Julia Brownley, California           Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Greg Stanton, Arizona                Chuck Edwards, North Carolina
Colin Z. Allred, Texas               Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
John Garamendi, California           Brandon Williams, New York
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Mike Collins, Georgia
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      John S. Duarte, California,
Mark DeSaulnier, California            Vice Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Aaron Bean, Florida
                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)



                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways 
  and Transit, opening statement.................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the 
  District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
  Highways and Transit, opening statement........................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8

                               WITNESSES

William ``Lewie'' Pugh, Executive Vice President, Owner-Operator 
  Independent Drivers Association, oral statement................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    11
Anne Reinke, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Transportation Intermediaries Association, oral statement......    20
    Prepared statement...........................................    21
David H. Fialkov, Executive Vice President, Government Affairs, 
  NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops, and 
  SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel Marketers, oral statement........    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    27
Cole Scandaglia, Senior Legislative Representative and 
  Transportation Policy Adviser, International Brotherhood of 
  Teamsters, oral statement......................................    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    35

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves:
    Letter of May 9, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
      Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, 
      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on 
      Transportation and Infrastructure, from the American 
      Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators................    81
    Letter of May 16, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
      Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, 
      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on 
      Transportation and Infrastructure, from Jeff Farrah, 
      Executive Director, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association    82
    Letter of May 8, 2023, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon. 
      Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation 
      and Infrastructure, from the Coalition Against Bigger 
      Trucks.....................................................    83
    Letter of May 10, 2023, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and 
      Hon. Rick Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on 
      Transportation and Infrastructure, and Hon. Eric A. 
      ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes 
      Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and 
      Transit, from Tom Madrecki, Vice President, Supply Chain, 
      Consumer Brands Association................................    84
    Statement of the National Association of Small Trucking 
      Companies..................................................    86
    Statement of the Shippers Coalition..........................    87
    Statement of James Lamb, Executive Director, Small Business 
      in Transportation Coalition................................    88
    Letter of May 8, 2023, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, 
      Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, from Jim 
      Ward, President, Truckload Carriers Association............    91
Letter of May 9, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on 
  Transportation and Infrastructure, from Catherine Chase, 
  President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Submitted for 
  the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton.......................    92

                                APPENDIX

Question to William ``Lewie'' Pugh, Executive Vice President, 
  Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, from Hon. Jesus 
  G. ``Chuy'' Garcia.............................................    99




                              May 5, 2023

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Freight Forward: 
Overcoming Supply Chain Challenges to Deliver for America''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Wednesday, 
May 10, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House 
Office Building to receive testimony on ``Freight Forward: 
Overcoming Supply Chain Challenges to Deliver for America.'' 
The hearing will provide Members with the opportunity to hear 
from stakeholders to examine the trucking industry's essential 
link in the supply chain, and challenges moving freight by 
commercial motor vehicles. Members will receive testimony from 
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA); the 
Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA); NATSO, 
Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truck Stops (NATSO) 
and SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel Marketers (SIGMA); and the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters).

                             II. BACKGROUND

JURISDICTION

    The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit has broad 
jurisdiction over trucking, including motor carrier safety 
grant programs to States; safety oversight of trucking 
companies; commercial driver qualifications and regulations; 
commercial vehicle size and weight standards and safety 
requirements; cross border surface transportation; and 
automated commercial motor vehicles.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Jurisdiction and Activities, Subcomm. on Highways and Transit, 
118Th Cong., (Jan. 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trucking issues primarily fall under, or are affected by, 
three modal administrations under the Department of 
Transportation (DOT). First, the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) which supports State and local governments in the 
design, construction, and maintenance of the Federal-Aid 
Highway program and the Federal lands program.\2\ Second, the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) which was 
previously within the FHWA and established as a DOT modal 
administration in 2000.\3\ FMCSA's primary mission is to reduce 
commercial motor vehicle-related crashes, injuries, and 
fatalities.\4\ Third, the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation (OST) which is responsible for policy and 
program development for DOT, including transportation 
investments and multimodal freight policy.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ FHWA, About FHWA, available at https://highways.dot.gov/about/
about-fhwa (last updated Apr. 19, 2023).
    \3\ Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-
159, 113 Stat. 1748.
    \4\ FMCSA, Our Mission, available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/
mission (last updated Dec. 13, 2013).
    \5\ 49 C.F.R. Sec. Sec.  1.13, 1.21 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE UNITED STATES TRUCKING INDUSTRY

    The Nation's transportation infrastructure is the backbone 
of the United States economy. In 2020, all modes of 
transportation moved an estimated 19.3 billion tons of goods 
worth about $18 trillion (measured in 2017 dollars) on the 
Nation's transportation network.\6\ Trucks moved approximately 
73 percent of all domestic freight by value, totaling 12.6 
billion tons of freight in 2020.\7\ More than 80 percent of the 
communities across the country rely exclusively on trucking to 
meet their freight transportation needs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ DOT, Bureau of Transp. Statistics, Pocket Guide to Transp. 
(2023), available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/64803/
dot_64803_DS1.pdf.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ The State of Transportation Infrastructure and Supply Chain 
Challenges: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 
118th Cong. (2023) (testimony of Chris Spear, President and CEO of the 
ATA), available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/PW/PW00/20230201/
115263/HHRG-118-PW00-Wstate-SpearC-20230201.pdf [hereinafter Spear].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2020, approximately 10.5 million single-unit trucks 
(straight trucks) and nearly three million combination trucks 
(tractor-trailers) operated on the Nation's roadways, 
constituting less than five percent of the 275.9 million total 
registered vehicles in the United States.\9\ Approximately 8.7 
million Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV) drivers operated in both 
interstate and intrastate in the United States.\10\ Large 
trucks traveled 302.1 billion miles, representing approximately 
10.4 percent of the total vehicle miles traveled by all motor 
vehicles.\11\ Approximately 44.8 billion gallons of fuel, 
including diesel and gasoline, were used by trucks for 
commercial purposes in 2020. Of this, nearly 80 percent, or 
35.8 billion gallons, was diesel fuel, as most heavy-duty 
trucks run on diesel.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ DOT, FMCSA, Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics 
(2022), available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/
files/2023-02/FMCSA%20Pocket%20Guide
%202022-FINAL%20508%20121922.pdf.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ American Trucking Association, American Trucking Trends 
(2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Persistently high fuel prices experienced in recent years 
have contributed to increased business costs at multiple points 
in supply chains. In particular, high diesel prices have 
acutely affected trucking businesses.\13\ Fuel costs began 
increasing in 2021, and over the past year, gasoline and diesel 
prices surpassed record highs.\14\ The rates at which these 
prices increased was also record-breaking.\15\ In January 2021, 
the average price of diesel fuel was $2.68 per gallon.\16\ 
After reaching a record high of $5.81 per gallon last summer, 
the national average price for a gallon of diesel fuel was 
$4.07 per gallon as of April 24, 2023, representing an increase 
of $1.39 per gallon, or 52 percent, from January 2021.\17\ The 
average price for a gallon of regular gasoline rose from $2.33 
in January 2021 to an all-time national high of $5.00 in June 
2022. As of April 24, 2023, the price was $3.65 per gallon, 
representing a 57 percent increase from January 2021.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Paul Page, Rising Diesel Costs Are Straining U.S. Truckers, 
Shipping Operations, Wall St. J., (May 12, 2022), available at https://
www.wsj.com/articles/rising-diesel-costs-are-straining-u-s-truckers-
shipping-operations-11652376035.
    \14\ United States Energy Info. Admin., Weekly U.S. No 2 Diesel 
Retail Prices, available at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/
LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMD_EPD2D_PTE_NUS_
DPG&f=W (release date Apr. 17, 2023) [hereinafter Diesel Retail 
Prices].
    \15\ DOT, Bureau of Transp. Statistics, Record Breaking Increases 
in Motor Fuel Prices in 2022, available at https://www.bts.gov/data-
spotlight/record-breaking-increases-motor-fuel-prices-2022 (last 
updated August 18, 2022).
    \16\ Diesel Resale Prices, supra note 14.
    \17\ Id.
    \18\ United States Energy Info. Admin., Weekly U.S. Regular All 
Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices, available at https://www.eia.gov/
dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_
EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W (last updated April 17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 III. Supply Chain Crisis Amplifies Challenges Impacting Truck Freight 
                                Delivery

    The COVID-19 pandemic exposed several fragilities within 
our Nation's supply chain, further amplifying longstanding 
issues in truck freight delivery. These include a lack of truck 
parking, congestion at ports and freight distribution 
facilities, and inefficiencies and poor conditions at 
intermodal connectors. The increasing cost and shortage of 
equipment has hindered the capacity of the trucking industry to 
move freight.\19\ Further, inconsistent information sharing 
also impacts how frequently and swiftly trucks can pick up 
loads, contributing to delays in loading and unloading at 
shipping facilities.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ ATA, Comment Letter on America's Supply Chains and the 
Transportation Industrial Base; Docket No. DOT-OST-2021-0106 (Oct 18, 
2021), available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2021-
0106-0352/attachment_1.pdf [hereinafter ATA Comment Letter].
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WORKFORCE CHALLENGES

    Detention time is time spent at shipping and receiving 
facilities beyond that which is legitimately needed for loading 
and unloading, as specified by contracts.\21\ Contracts between 
shippers, receivers, and motor carriers generally define limits 
on loading and unloading time at two hours.\22\ Any time beyond 
what is specified used to load or unload is detention time.\23\ 
Loading and unloading times can vary based on the type of 
cargo, operations at the facility, congestion at a facility, 
and other factors.\24\ Section 23022 of the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) required FMCSA to contract with 
the Transportation Research Board to conduct a study on the 
impacts of driver compensation, including detention time, which 
was awarded in July 2022.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ United States DOT Off. of Inspector General, Estimates Show 
Commercial Driver Detention Increases Crash Risks and Costs, But 
Current Data Limit Further Analysis, 6 (Jan. 31, 2018), available at 
https://www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/
FMCSA%20Driver%20Detention%20Final%20Report.pdf.
    \22\ Id. at 3.
    \23\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off. (GAO), GAO-11-198, Commercial 
Motor Carriers: More Could Be Done To Determine Impact of Excessive 
Loading and Unloading Wait Times on Hours of Service Violations (Jan. 
2011), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-198.pdf.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ FMCSA, Impacts of Driver Compensation on Safety and Driver 
Retention, available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-
analysis/impacts-driver-compensation-safety-and-driver-retention (last 
updated Oct. 25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The COVID-19 crisis renewed a focus on workforce challenges 
in the trucking industry, including concerns about a truck 
driver shortage. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) 
estimated that the shortage of qualified drivers reached a near 
record high of 78,000 in 2022, and further forecasted that this 
shortage could grow to 160,000 in 2031.\26\ ATA further 
reported the driver turnover rate was 91 percent in 2019, and 
90 percent in 2020,\27\ and that ``more than 10 million 
Americans held commercial driver's licenses in 2019. That was 
nearly triple the 3.7 million trucks that required a driver 
holding that certification.'' \28\ A high turnover rate does 
not necessarily mean that a company has complete turnover; 
rather, it could indicate that some positions turn over 
multiple times.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Spear, supra note 8.
    \27\ William B. Cassidy, US Truckload Driver Turnover Flattens as 
wages, demand rise: ATA, J. of Commerce (Mar. 30, 2021), available at 
https://www.joc.com/article/us-truckload-driver-turnover-flattens-
wages-demand-rise-ata_20210330.html.
    \28\ Peter S Goodman & George Etheredge, The Real Reason America 
Doesn't Have Enough Truck Drivers, N.Y. Times, (Feb. 9, 2022), 
available at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/09/business/truck-driver-
shortage.html.
    \29\ Cassidy, supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Identified challenges impacting recruitment include the low 
percentage of women in the trucking workforce, lack of truck 
parking, lifestyle disadvantages, including greater time away 
from home for those in the long-haul market, and barriers to 
entry, such as the minimum driving age.\30\ The International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters believe in the need to ``improve wages 
and working conditions for truck drivers'' as keys to improving 
the shipment of freight across the Nation.\31\ According to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the median pay for Heavy and 
Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers in 2022 was $49,920, or $24 per 
hour.\32\ Additionally, data from ATA showed that the ``average 
truckload driver made over $69,000 in 2021, including salaries 
and bonuses but not benefits.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ American Trucking Associations, Driver Shortage Update 2022 
(Oct. 2022), available at https://ata.msgfocus.com/files/
amf_highroad_solution/project_2358/ATA_Driver_Shortage_
Report_2022_Executive_Summary.October22.pdf.
    \31\ Press Release, Teamsters Urge House Panel to Consider Wages, 
Safety in Supply Chain Discussions (Nov. 17, 2021), available at 
https://teamster.org/2021/11/teamsters-urge-house-panel-to-consider-
wages-safety-in-supply-chain-discussions/.
    \32\ BLS, Dep't of Labor, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 
2022, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes533032.htm.
    \33\ American Trucking Associations, Driver Shortage Update 2022 
(Oct. 2022), available at https://ata.msgfocus.com/files/
amf_highroad_solution/project_2358/ATA_Driver_Shortage_
Report_2022_Executive_Summary.October22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Women are significantly underrepresented in the trucking 
industry. In fact, only 6.6 percent of truck drivers are 
women.\34\ Section 23007 of IIJA required the FMCSA 
Administrator to establish a Women of Trucking Advisory Board 
(WOTAB) to encourage women to enter the trucking field.\35\ The 
Secretary of Transportation chartered the board on February 11, 
2022, and the WOTAB's first meeting was held on November 9, 
2022.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 761 [hereinafter IIJA].
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ FMCSA, Welcome to FMCSA's WOTAB, available at https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/wotab (last updated Nov. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, 49 states and the District of Columbia allow 18- 
to 20-year old truck drivers to operate commercial vehicles for 
intrastate commerce only; however, Federal law does not allow 
such drivers to operate vehicles in interstate commerce.\37\ 
Section 23022 of IIJA required FMCSA to establish a three-year 
pilot program to allow drivers between the ages of 18 and 20 
with an intrastate Commercial Driver's License (CDL) to operate 
in interstate commerce.\38\ FMCSA established this program on 
January 14, 2022, but included program requirements beyond 
those specified in the law, such as registration with the 
Department of Labor (DOL) and requiring the use of inward-
facing cameras.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ ATA Comment Letter, supra note 19.
    \38\ IIJA, supra note 34.
    \39\ FMCSA, Safe Driver Apprenticeship Pilot Program, available at 
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safedriver (last updated Apr. 21, 2023); see 
also Spear, supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOURS OF SERVICE

    Federal Hours of Service (HOS) regulations govern the 
amount of time a driver can operate a commercial motor vehicle 
(CMV).\40\ These regulations have been updated over time due to 
Congressional action, DOT rulemakings, and legal challenges. 
Congress has granted exemptions from Federal HOS regulations 
for certain industries and under certain circumstances. The DOT 
has also granted exemptions using its authority.\41\ For most 
property-carrying CMV drivers, for every eight cumulative hours 
of driving without at least a 30-minute interruption, truck 
drivers are required to take a 30-minute break. Drivers are 
also required to take a 10-hour break following the 14th 
consecutive hour on duty.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ FMCSA, Hours of Service, available at https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-of-service (last updated Nov. 
2021).
    \41\ FMCSA, Interstate Truck Driver's Guide to Hours of Service 
(2022), available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/
files/2022-04/FMCSA-HOS-395-DRIVERS-GUIDE-TO-HOS%282022-04-28%29_0.pdf.
    \42\ FMCSA, Summary of Hours of Service Regulations, available at 
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service/summary-hours-
service-regulations (last updated March 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRUCK PARKING

    The FHWA's Jason's Law report is a required survey and 
comparative assessment on truck parking availability.\43\ The 
most recent of these reports found that 98 percent of drivers 
reported problems finding safe truck parking.\44\ Only one 
parking spot is currently available for every eleven trucks on 
the road.\45\ Additionally, a 2016 study by the American 
Transportation Research Institute found that on average, truck 
drivers lose 56 minutes of available drive time per day either 
looking for suitable parking or stopping earlier than they need 
to, due to lack of parking closer to their endpoint for the 
day.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. No. 
112-141 Sec.  1401(c)(3), 126 Stat. 405.
    \44\ FHWA, Jason's Law Truck Parking Survey Results and Comparative 
Analysis (2020), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/
infrastructure/truck_parking/workinggroups/2020/mtg/
mtg12012020_jasons_law.htm.
    \45\ Frank Morris, There is 1 Parking Space for Every 11 Semi 
Trucks on the Road. Why that's a Problem, Nat'l Public Radio, (Jan. 19, 
2023), available at https://www.npr.org/2023/01/19/1149924297/there-is-
1-parking-space-for-every-11-semi-trucks-on-the-road-why-thats-a-
problem.
    \46\ Industry and Labor Perspectives: A Further Look at North 
American Supply Chain Challenges: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on 
Transp. and Infrastructure, 117th Cong. (2021) (statement of Chris 
Spear, President and CEO of the American Trucking Associations), 
available at https://transportation.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=405675.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although there is no program solely dedicated to funding 
truck parking, States can currently use their highway formula 
funding for truck parking under the following eight DOT formula 
programs: the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) 
program, the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP), the 
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), the National Highway 
Performance Program (NHPP), the Promoting Resilient Operations 
for the Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving 
Transportation (PROTECT) Program, the Carbon Reduction Program 
(CRP), and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
Improvement (CMAQ) program.\47\ Projects related to truck 
parking may also be eligible for consideration under other 
authorized discretionary grant programs at DOT, such as 
Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA), Local and 
Regional Project Assistance (RAISE) grants, Rural Surface 
Transportation Grants, National Infrastructure Project 
Assistance (MEGA) grants, Promoting Resilient Operations for 
Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation 
(PROTECT) grants, Advanced Transportation Technologies and 
Innovative Mobility Deployment (ATTIMD) grants, Reduction of 
Truck Emissions at Port Facilities grants, and High Priority 
Innovative Technology Deployment (HP-ITD) grants.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \47\ Martin C. Knopp, Associate Administrator for Operations, FHWA 
and Thomas P. Keane, Associate Administrator for Research and 
Registration, FMCSA, Memorandum on Eligibility of Title 23 and Title 49 
Federal Funds for Commercial Motor Vehicle Parking (Updated), (Sept. 
20, 2022), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/
infrastructure/truck_parking/title23fundscmv/title23_49_funds_cmv.pdf.
    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Historically, due to competing priorities, States have used 
little of their funding to address the lack of truck 
parking.\49\ In fiscal year 2022, DOT awarded $38.6 million in 
funding for projects, some of which will be used to increase 
the availability of truck parking spaces.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ Addressing the Roadway Safety Crisis: Building Safer Roads for 
All: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H. 
Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 117th Cong. (2022).
    \50\ Email from Office of Policy and Government Affairs, FHWA, to 
H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure staff (Apr. 17, 2023, 4:06 PM 
EST).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             IV. WITNESSES

     LMr. Lewie Pugh, Executive Vice President, Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
     LMs. Anne Reinke, President & Chief Executive 
Officer, Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA)
     LMr. David Fialkov, Executive Vice President, 
Government Affairs, NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas 
and Truck Stops, and (NATSO) SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel 
Marketers (SIGMA)
     LMr. Cole Scandaglia, Senior Legislative 
Representative and Transportation Policy Advisor, International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters


  FREIGHT FORWARD: OVERCOMING SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES TO DELIVER FOR 
                                AMERICA

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
              Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 
2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' 
Crawford (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Crawford. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will 
come to order. I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be 
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's 
hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the 
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee today to 
be able to ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members wish to enter a document into the 
record, please also email that document to 
[email protected].
    I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening 
statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD OF 
    ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

    Mr. Crawford. Good morning. And thank you to our witnesses. 
We appreciate you being here for today's hearing. The 
subcommittee is continuing our efforts to address the supply 
chain crisis that was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and 
the administration's extreme Green New Deal agenda. Today, we 
are specifically focusing on the challenges faced by our 
Nation's trucking industry.
    The trucking industry plays a crucial role in the supply 
chain, ensuring that goods and supplies are transported from 
one location to another. A popular refrain that demonstrates 
the importance of the trucking industry is: If you bought it, a 
trucker brought it, because nearly everything purchased for 
your home got to the store on the back of a truck.
    Simply put, our economy requires a properly functioning 
trucking industry. More than 70 percent of our Nation's freight 
tonnage is moved by the trucking industry every year, and more 
than 80 percent of our communities get their goods exclusively 
by truck. Over 8.7 million commercial motor vehicle drivers 
operate in the United States, traveling billions of miles every 
year, serving every community in our country.
    In today's hearing, we will hear more about these 
challenges and explore solutions to make it easier for 
commercial trucking companies and truckdrivers to do their 
jobs, which, in turn, will help ensure we don't see more of the 
Soviet-style empty store shelves we witnessed during the 
pandemic. Every company and each driver must comply with a 
myriad of rules and regulations at the Federal, State, and 
local levels to make sure their loads are safely delivered on 
time.
    We need to make it easier for women and men to choose this 
profession, which is one of the most common paths to a middle-
income lifestyle that does not require a college degree. This 
means attracting more potential drivers earlier in their work 
careers and making it easier to train and test for a commercial 
driver's license, or CDL.
    The Drive Safe Act, introduced during the prior Congress, 
is one idea. The bipartisan proposal would allow 18- to 20-
year-old drivers to cross State lines, which makes sense to me 
since 49 States and the District of Columbia already allow 18- 
to 20-year-old commercial motor vehicle drivers to drive within 
their States' borders.
    A 3-year pilot program testing this concept is in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA as we call it, 
but the administration appears to be trying to kill that pilot 
by including requirements not in the law. I encourage the 
administration to change direction.
    We must also improve the quality of life for truckers on 
the road so that they will choose to stay in the profession. 
Increasing the amount of available truck parking will help 
improve the quality of life for truckdrivers, while preserving 
safety and productivity.
    While truck parking was not included in IIJA, the committee 
last Congress considered and passed Congressman Mike Bost's 
Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act, which would create 
dedicated funding for truck parking. I am a cosponsor of the 
bipartisan bill that he reintroduced earlier this year, and I 
look forward to hearing witness feedback on this legislation.
    Currently, the industry is short 78,000 drivers. Over the 
next decade, it is estimated that roughly 1.2 million new 
truckers will be needed to replace an aging workforce and keep 
pace with demand. It is important that we explore ways to make 
this professional career more attractive to employees and 
encourage more individuals to join the industry.
    At a time of sky-high fuel prices, and while many Americans 
were able to work remotely, our truckers delivered in person. 
And unfortunately, when it costs more to move product from 
point A to point B, consumers feel the impact.
    Inflated fuel prices also significantly cut into owner-
operators' take-home pay. Despite these headwinds, the 
administration continues to prioritize their progressive 
ideology. They tried to stop States from using their highway 
money to expand capacity, which, thankfully, we were successful 
in getting them to reverse. Now they want to essentially outlaw 
diesel trucks.
    Also troubling, the Biden administration is continuing to 
put its thumb on the scale for one type of engine--electric--
that the marketplace simply is not ready for. Electric trucks 
are not widely available for purchase, are more expensive, and 
also weigh more. Either truck weight limits will need to 
increase, or we will have to increase the number of trucks on 
the road. And while this is not the purpose of today's hearing, 
I remain concerned that electric vehicles do not contribute to 
our user-pays Highway Trust Fund system.
    There are also concerns regarding where the critical 
minerals needed to make batteries come from. If a business 
wants to invest in alternative fuel vehicles, that's one thing. 
But I believe that businesses should have the opportunity to 
make their own decisions without the Government forcing them 
into a corner via their hasty and unrealistic pursuit of 
electric trucks.
    I look forward to hearing your ideas about how best to help 
the trucking industry continue to deliver for all of us.
    [Mr. Crawford's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative 
 in Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
                          Highways and Transit
    The Subcommittee is continuing our efforts to address the supply 
chain crisis that was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the 
Administration's extreme, Green New Deal agenda. Today, we are 
specifically focusing on the challenges faced by our Nation's trucking 
industry.
    The trucking industry plays a crucial role in the supply chain, 
ensuring that goods and supplies are transported from one location to 
another. A popular refrain that demonstrates the importance of the 
trucking industry is: ``If you bought it, a trucker brought it,'' 
because nearly everything purchased for your home got to the store on 
the back of a truck.
    Simply put, our economy requires a properly functioning trucking 
industry. More than 70 percent of our Nation's freight tonnage is moved 
by the trucking industry every year, and more than 80 percent of our 
communities get their goods exclusively by trucks. Over 8.7 million 
commercial motor vehicle drivers operate in the United States, 
traveling billions of miles every year, serving every community in our 
country.
    At today's hearing, we will hear more about these challenges and 
explore solutions to make it easier for commercial trucking companies 
and truck drivers to do their jobs, which, in turn, will help ensure we 
do not see more of the Soviet-style empty store shelves we witnessed 
during the pandemic. Every company and each driver must comply with a 
myriad of rules and regulations at the federal, state, and local 
levels, to make sure their loads are safely delivered on time.
    We need to make it easier for women and men to choose this 
profession, which is one of the most common paths to a middle-income 
lifestyle that does not require a college degree. This means attracting 
more potential drivers earlier in their working career and making it 
easier to train and test for a commercial driver's license (CDL).
    The Drive Safe Act, introduced during the prior Congress, is one 
idea. This bipartisan proposal would allow 18- to 20-year-old drivers 
to cross state lines, which makes sense to me since 49 states and the 
District of Columbia already allow 18- to 20-year-old commercial motor 
vehicle drivers to drive within their states' borders.
    A three-year pilot program testing this concept is in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), but the Administration 
appears to be trying to kill this pilot by including requirements not 
in the law. I encourage the Administration to change direction.
    We also must improve the quality of life for truckers on the road, 
so that they will choose to stay in this profession. Increasing the 
amount of available truck parking will help improve the quality of life 
for truck drivers, while preserving safety and productivity.
    While truck parking was not included in IIJA, the Committee last 
Congress considered and passed Congressman Mike Bost's Truck Parking 
Safety Improvement Act, which would create dedicated funding for truck 
parking. I am a cosponsor of the bipartisan bill that he re-introduced 
earlier this year, and I look forward to hearing witness feedback on 
this legislation.
    Currently, the industry is short 78,000 drivers. Over the next 
decade, it is estimated that roughly 1.2 million new truckers will be 
needed to replace an aging workforce and keep pace with demand.
    It is important that we explore ways to make this professional 
career more attractive to employees and encourage more individuals to 
join the industry. At a time of sky-high fuel prices, and while many 
Americans were able to work remotely, our truckers delivered in person. 
And, unfortunately, when it costs more to move a product from point A 
to point B, consumers feel the impact.
    Inflated fuel prices also significantly cut into an owner-
operator's take home pay. Despite these headwinds, the Administration 
continues to prioritize its progressive ideology. They tried to stop 
states from using their highway money to expand capacity--which, 
thankfully, we were successful in getting them to reverse--now they 
want to essentially outlaw diesel trucks.
    Also troubling, the Biden Administration is continuing to put its 
thumb on the scale for one type of engine--electric--that the 
marketplace simply is not yet ready for. Electric trucks are not widely 
available for purchase, are more expensive, and also weigh more. Either 
truck weight limits will need to increase, or we will have to increase 
the number of trucks on the road. And, while this is not the purpose of 
today's hearing, I remain concerned that electric vehicles do not 
contribute to our user-pays Highway Trust Fund system.
    There are also concerns regarding where the critical minerals 
needed to make batteries come from. If a business wants to invest in 
alternative fuel vehicles, that's one thing. But I believe that 
businesses should have the opportunity to make their own decisions, 
without the government forcing them into a corner via their hasty and 
unrealistic pursuit of electric trucks.
    I look forward to hearing your ideas about how best to help the 
trucking industry continue to deliver for all of us.

    Mr. Crawford. I now recognize Ranking Member Holmes Norton 
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON OF THE DISTRICT 
   OF COLUMBIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND 
                            TRANSIT

    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 
the subcommittee chair Rick Crawford for holding this hearing 
on the trucking supply chain.
    It is hard to fathom where our country would be without the 
trucking workforce. Trucks move 73 percent of all domestic 
freight by value, totaling 12.6 billion tons of freight in 
2020. This essential workforce delivers for America and 
supplies everything from groceries to clothing to lifesaving 
medicine.
    The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global supply chains and 
highlighted longstanding challenges facing the trucking 
industry. Inadequate parking space, bottlenecks at ports, long 
hours on the road away from home--through all of it, trucks 
kept delivering for America.
    Our committee has already passed several pieces of 
legislation to address the supply chain challenges caused by 
the pandemic. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and 
the Ocean Shipping Reform Act, which include funding and policy 
changes that would reduce freight congestion and bottlenecks, 
were enacted into law.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act made major 
investments in our freight network, including $7.25 billion in 
INFRA grants and $7.15 billion for the National Highway Freight 
Program. These numbers demonstrate the commitment of President 
Biden and everyone who voted for the infrastructure law to 
improving freight transportation.
    Our focus at our hearing today is to hear from stakeholders 
on the challenges facing truckers and the industry as a whole. 
I know that truckers form the foundation of our supply chain.
    To that end, a secure and reliable supply chain must be a 
safe one. Supporting our workers through family-wage jobs, 
better working conditions, predictable and safe parking places, 
and lifesaving safety equipment ensures how freight moves.
    I have long supported strong entry-level driver training 
standards so that we ensure truckers are fully prepared to 
safely operate their vehicles and deliver their freight. 
Providing robust training empowers drivers to be safe and 
confident on the road and is an important way to attract 
quality drivers.
    Driver compensation is also at the heart of our discussions 
here today. Better wages will help the industry attract and 
retain its workers. Simply put, better wages will ensure we 
have the capacity and the capability to safely deliver goods on 
time. Better wages lead to a more secure supply chain.
    Finally, safety is our highest priority--safety for 
truckdrivers, and safety for everyone who shares the road with 
them. Far too many lives are lost each year in traffic crashes. 
For truckdrivers, the roadway is their workplace. And we owe it 
to them and all road users to improve our highway safety.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and 
hearing their proposals to improve safety, support workers, and 
improve the reliability of our trucking supply chain.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in 
      Congress from the District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, 
                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    I would like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Rick Crawford for 
holding this hearing on the trucking supply chain.
    It is hard to fathom where our country would be without the 
trucking workforce. Trucks moved approximately 73 percent of all 
domestic freight by value, totaling 12.6 billion tons of freight in 
2020. This essential workforce delivers for America and supplies 
everything from groceries, to clothing, to life-saving medicine.
    The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted global supply chains and 
highlighted longstanding challenges facing the trucking industry. 
Inadequate parking space, bottlenecks at ports, long hours on the road 
away from home--through all of it, truckers kept delivering for 
America.
    Our committee has already passed several pieces of legislation to 
address the supply chain challenges caused by the pandemic. The 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Ocean Shipping Reform 
Act, which include funding and policy changes that reduce freight 
congestion and bottlenecks, were enacted into law.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act made major investments 
in our freight network, including $7.25 billion for INFRA grants and 
$7.15 billion for the National Highway Freight Program. These numbers 
demonstrate the commitment of President Biden and everyone who voted 
for the infrastructure law to improving freight transportation.
    The focus of our hearing today is to hear from stakeholders on the 
challenges facing truckers and the industry as whole. I know that 
truckers form the foundation of our supply chain.
    To that end, a secure and reliable supply chain must be a safe one. 
Supporting our workers through family-wage jobs, better working 
conditions, predictable and safe parking spaces and life-saving safety 
equipment ensures our freight moves.
    I have long supported strong entry-level driver training standards 
so that we ensure truckers are fully prepared to safely operate their 
vehicles and deliver their freight. Providing robust training empowers 
drivers to be safe and confident on the road and is an important way to 
attract quality drivers.
    Driver compensation is also at the heart of our discussions here 
today. Better wages will help the industry attract and retain its 
workforce. Simply put, better wages will ensure we have the capacity 
and capability to safely deliver goods on time. Better wages lead to a 
more secure supply chain.
    Finally, safety is our highest priority--safety for truck drivers, 
and safety for everyone who shares the road with them. Far too many 
lives are lost each year in traffic crashes. For truck drivers, the 
roadway is their workplace--and we owe it to them and to all road users 
to improve our highway safety.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and hearing 
their proposals to improve safety, support workers and improve the 
reliability of our trucking supply chain. Thank you.

    Mr. Crawford. I thank the gentlelady. And I recognize the 
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Larsen, to make an 
opening statement.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING 
     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Crawford and 
Ranking Member Norton, for holding this hearing to continue 
this committee's work to strengthen our supply chain.
    So, last Congress, this committee succeeded in passing laws 
to move our freight network in the right direction and improve 
our Nation's infrastructure. Thanks to the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, we are making historic levels of investment 
in the supply chain.
    The $350 billion in Federal Highway Administration 
investment flowing to States, counties, and cities under the 
BIL is improving roads, bridges, freight corridors and 
intermodal facilities. This funding is working to tackle our 
largest infrastructure challenges and freight bottlenecks. 
Congress has structured these investments so every State 
benefits from these dollars, and every State has control over 
how to invest them.
    Ensuring a well-functioning supply chain means better 
infrastructure everywhere, and elimination of bottlenecks 
wherever they exist. And everyone who voted for the BIL voted 
to make our supply chain more efficient and more resilient. The 
administration's work to address supply chain challenges 
stemming from the pandemic also supports this goal.
    The Freight Logistics Optimization Works, or FLOW, effort 
is a public-private partnership to create information-sharing 
between elements of the supply chain, and it has reduced delays 
that stem from a lack of coordination. We also passed the CHIPS 
and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, bills to spur 
more U.S. manufacturing, leaving us less dependent on other 
countries and launching new industries at home. We have already 
seen the benefits of these decisions with more than $435 
billion in major private sector investments in U.S. 
manufacturing since the start of this administration.
    The challenges in the trucking supply chain that erupted 
during the pandemic came as little surprise to this committee. 
Chair Norton at the time held a hearing in the subcommittee in 
2019--when the rest of the Nation wasn't paying attention--to 
highlight the pressure trucking companies and drivers are under 
to deliver goods efficiently with roadway congestion, outdated 
infrastructure, soaring freight demand, and workforce 
challenges.
    That laid the groundwork for many proposals in the INVEST 
Act: $1 billion dedicated for truck parking, strong entry-level 
driver training investments, protecting U.S. drivers from 
unfair competition, and ensuring fair driver pay. And while we 
are no longer seeing the empty shelves and shipping delays we 
faced earlier in the pandemic, we are far from solving some of 
the underlying problems in trucking that affect our supply 
chain.
    So, that leads us to the question: What are today's 
challenges? Two words: safety and workforce.
    The backbone of our supply chain is the people--the 
truckdrivers, railroad workers, longshore workers, and 
warehouse workers--who support moving goods from point A to 
point B.
    Truckdrivers, including Teamsters and OOIDA members who are 
represented here today, risked their own personal health and 
safety to get goods to market and deliver lifesaving medical 
supplies during COVID while they themselves had little support 
available with rest areas and services closed. We owe them a 
debt of gratitude for their work every day as they continue to 
operate in difficult situations.
    Too often, supply chain discussions only focus on 
productivity: how much, how quickly, how cheaply things can 
move. But this lens skips over an integral part of the supply 
chain, and that is people. Protecting the safety of 
truckdrivers and the traveling public must be the top priority. 
The safety indicators show that driving a truck continues to be 
a dangerous job. According to the National Safety Council, 
5,788 people died in large-truck crashes in 2021, an increase 
of 47 percent over the last 10 years.
    We also need to make sure workers are paid fairly. In many 
cases, truckdrivers directly absorb the uncertainty of goods 
movement--everything from congestion and wait times at ports 
and shipper facilities to fluctuating fuel prices--in a way 
that you don't see in other industries. Greater productivity 
does not mean greater pay in many segments of the industry.
    If truckdrivers aren't safe, if they are not well-paid, if 
they aren't well-trained, we are going to see consequences. We 
are going to see fatalities, worker retention issues, and an 
inability for supply chains to sustain economic growth. So, I 
intend to focus the committee's attention on how Congress can 
best support workers to ensure they have a safe workplace and 
the tools to succeed in their jobs.
    I understand from Chair Graves of the full committee that 
the committee will soon consider a supply chain legislative 
package. So, I look forward to hearing ideas from our witnesses 
today----
    [Construction noise.]
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Am I out of time already, Mr. 
Chair? No, sorry--our witnesses today to inform that effort.
    Workers got to work, people.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. So, with that, I yield back.
    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 
    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chair Crawford and Ranking Member Norton, for holding 
this hearing to continue the work of this Committee to strengthen our 
supply chain.
    Last Congress, this Committee succeeded in passing laws to move our 
freight network in the right direction and to improve the nation's 
infrastructure.
    Thanks to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we are making historic 
levels of investment in our supply chain.
    The $350 billion in Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
investment flowing to states, counties, and cities under the BIL is 
improving roads, bridges, freight corridors, and intermodal facilities.
    This funding is working to tackle our largest infrastructure 
challenges and freight bottlenecks. Congress structured these 
investments so that every state benefits from these dollars, and every 
state has full control over how to invest them.
    Ensuring a well-functioning supply chain means better 
infrastructure everywhere, and elimination of bottlenecks wherever they 
exist. Everyone who voted for the BIL voted to make our supply chain 
more efficient and more resilient.
    The administration's work to address supply chain challenges 
stemming from the pandemic also supports this goal.
    The Freight Logistics Optimization Works (FLOW) effort, a public-
private partnership to create information-sharing between elements of 
the supply chain, has reduced delays that stem from a lack of 
coordination.
    Democrats also passed the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation 
Reduction Act, bills to spur more U.S. manufacturing, leaving us less 
dependent on other countries and launching new industries at home.
    We're already seeing the benefits of these decisions, with more 
than $435 billion in major private sector investments in U.S. 
manufacturing since the start of this administration.
    The challenges in the trucking supply chain that erupted during the 
pandemic came as little surprise to this Committee.
    Chair Norton held a hearing in this Subcommittee in 2019--before 
the rest of the nation was paying attention--to highlight the pressure 
trucking companies and drivers are under to deliver goods efficiently 
with roadway congestion, outdated infrastructure, soaring freight 
demand, and workforce challenges.
    That laid the groundwork for many proposals in the INVEST Act: $1 
billion dedicated for truck parking; strong entry-level driver training 
investments; protecting U.S. drivers from unfair competition; and 
ensuring fair driver pay.
    And while we're no longer seeing the empty shelves and shipping 
delays we faced early in the pandemic, we're far from solving some of 
the underlying problems in trucking that affect our supply chain.
    So that leads us to the question--what are today's key trucking 
supply chain challenges?
    Two words: safety and workforce.
    The backbone of our supply chain is the people--the truck drivers, 
railroad workers, longshore workers, and warehouse workers--who support 
moving goods from Point A to Point B.
    Truck drivers--including Teamster and OOIDA members who are 
represented here today--risked their own personal health and safety to 
get goods to market and deliver lifesaving medical supplies during 
COVID while they themselves had little support available with rest 
areas and services closed.
    We owe them a debt of gratitude for their work every day as they 
continue to operate in difficult situations.
    Too often, supply chain discussions solely focus on productivity--
how much, how quickly, how cheaply--things can move.
    But this lens skips over an integral part of the supply chain--
people.
    Protecting the safety of truck drivers and the traveling public 
must be our top priority. But safety indicators show that driving a 
truck continues to be a dangerous job. According to the National Safety 
Council, 5,788 people died in large-truck crashes in 2021, an increase 
of 47 percent over the last 10 years.
    We also need to make sure workers are paid fairly. In many cases, 
truck drivers directly absorb the uncertainties of goods movement--
everything from congestion and wait times at ports and shipper 
facilities to fluctuating fuel prices--in a way that you don't see in 
other industries. Greater productivity does not mean greater pay in 
many segments of the industry.
    If truck drivers are not safe, if they aren't well-paid, if they 
aren't well-rested, if they aren't well-trained--we're going to see the 
consequences.
    We're going to see fatalities, worker retention issues, and an 
inability for our supply chains to sustain economic growth.
    I intend to focus the Committee's attention on how Congress can 
best support workers to ensure they have a safe workplace and the tools 
to succeed in their jobs.
    I understand from Chairman Graves that the Committee will soon 
consider a supply chain legislative package. I look forward to hearing 
ideas from our witnesses today to inform that effort.

    Mr. Crawford. Were you banging that or who--somebody's 
doing some work over there. There is actually work being done 
in Washington, so that is good. I thank the gentleman.
    I would like to welcome our witnesses and thank them for 
being here today. We will be hearing from Mr. Lewie Pugh, 
executive vice president, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 
Association or OOIDA; Ms. Anne Reinke, president and CEO of the 
Transportation Intermediaries Association; Mr. David Fialkov, 
executive vice president of Government affairs at both NATSO, 
Representing America's Travel Plazas and Truckstops, and SIGMA: 
America's Leading Fuel Marketers; and Mr. Cole Scandaglia, 
senior legislative representative and policy adviser for the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
    Briefly, I would like to take a quick moment to explain how 
our lighting system works, and this will be familiar to you, 
being that you are in the trucking industry. There are three 
lights in front of you, green means go, but unlike a stop 
light, yellow does not mean proceed with caution as you might 
expect. It means kick it into high gear because it is fixing to 
turn red. And that means we will need you to conclude your 
remarks. So, when it does turn red, you will probably hear a 
little tap, tap, tap just to remind you that your time's 
expired. So, I just wanted to make sure everybody was aware of 
that.
    And I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full 
statements be included in the record. Without objection, so 
ordered.
    As your written testimony has been made part of the record, 
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5 
minutes. With that, before we hear from the first witness, Mr. 
Pugh from Missouri, I would like to recognize Representative 
Burlison of Missouri to say a few words of introduction about 
our first witness.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Chairman Crawford. I have the 
honor of introducing one of our witnesses here today, Lewie 
Pugh, who is a resident of the great State of Missouri. Mr. 
Pugh is a small business owner. He has 26 years of experience 
in the trucking industry, and has tallied over 2\1/2\ million 
miles behind a safe truck with no records of accidents or 
anything.
    Mr. Pugh also served this Nation in the United States Army 
for 6 years. And Mr. Pugh has been a part of the Owner-Operator 
Independent Drivers Association since 1996, and then became the 
executive vice president of that organization in 2018. I would 
like to welcome Mr. Pugh and thank him for coming to testify on 
this very important issue on the supply chain and answer 
questions on how we can improve it.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Burlison. And with that 
introduction, Mr. Pugh, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM ``LEWIE'' PUGH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 
 OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION; ANNE REINKE, 
     PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TRANSPORTATION 
 INTERMEDIARIES ASSOCIATION; DAVID H. FIALKOV, EXECUTIVE VICE 
 PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATSO, REPRESENTING AMERICA'S 
TRAVEL PLAZAS AND TRUCKSTOPS, AND SIGMA: AMERICA'S LEADING FUEL 
      MARKETERS; AND COLE SCANDAGLIA, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE 
REPRESENTATIVE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY ADVISER, INTERNATIONAL 
                    BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM ``LEWIE'' PUGH, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 
         OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Pugh. Thank you. Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member 
Norton and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to share the views of the Nation's small business 
truckers and independent drivers. My name is Lewie Pugh, I am 
the executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent 
Drivers Association. We represent 150,000 men and women making 
their living behind the wheel.
    Prior to serving as executive vice president of OOIDA, I 
spent 23 years as a professional driver and owner of a small 
business trucking company with 2\1/2\ million miles of safe 
driving. I did begin my trucking career in the United States 
Army as a truckdriver.
    Throughout my career, I have firsthand experiences of many 
of these pervasive problems that are affecting our supply chain 
today. As the subcommittee works to understand what has led to 
the supply chain challenges and how they can be fixed, I 
strongly encourage you to listen to the men and women who are 
out there on the road every day. The challenges and the 
difficulty that they experience directly contribute to the 
overarching supply chain problems we see today.
    Over 70 percent of America's freight transports exclusively 
by truck. Additionally, 96 percent of trucking companies are 
small businesses with six trucks or fewer. To put it simply, 
small business trucking is the backbone of the American supply 
chain.
    Unfortunately, if you ask any trucker, they will tell you 
their needs and concerns have fallen to the lowest priority 
among workers in the supply chain. Lawmakers and regulators 
have long prioritized corporate carriers, law enforcement 
agencies, and safety advocacy groups, along with shippers and 
receivers, over the truckers when developing supply chain 
policies. This has led to an increasingly difficult environment 
for both professional drivers and small business trucking.
    Let's consider the facts. Truckers struggle to find a safe 
place to park, wasting nearly an hour of productive time each 
day searching for a place to rest. They are routinely denied 
access to restrooms at the facilities where they pick up and 
deliver. Detention time, which is the unproductive time they 
waste at shippers and receivers waiting to be unloaded, 
continues to increase. And many of these truckers are not paid 
for these hours due to the Federal regulation exempting 
employee drivers from overtime pay. In fact, drivers' 
compensation has been stagnant for decades, failing to even 
keep up with inflation.
    There have never been more regulations imposed on our 
industry, and truckers are complying with these rules at 
extremely high rates, yet crash rates continue to increase. And 
despite no requirement to do so, the administration is moving 
forward with an extremely unpopular speed limiter mandate that 
will slow the movement of freight, increase crash rates, and 
worsen driver recruitment and retention.
    The EPA has launched a multifaceted attack on vehicles our 
members operate, which will dramatically increase the cost to 
purchase and operate trucks.
    Commercial driver's licenses are being issued at record 
numbers, but turnover rates remain large among large carriers--
over 90 percent, some exceeding 100. Instead of taking the 
steps to reduce this, large carriers are trying and epically 
failing to bring teenagers into the long-haul industry, despite 
the obvious safety problems this creates. How can anyone be 
expected to operate efficiently under these conditions?
    I would actually like to see you or your colleagues try to 
get any work done if you didn't have a safe place to rest at 
night, if you showed up here for work at 9 a.m. in the morning, 
were not allowed to do anything until early afternoon, all 
while not being allowed to use the restroom or being paid for 
that time you wasted.
    If you really listen to what truckers have been trying to 
tell you, it isn't hard to see why our supply chain is lacking. 
Thankfully, there are some members of the committee who have 
heard what truckers have been saying and have introduced 
legislation to make meaningful improvements. We encourage 
everyone to: Support H.R. 2367, the Truck Parking Safety 
Improvement Act; cosponsor H.R. 3039, which will prevent FMCSA 
from imposing the speed limiter mandate; vote for H.J. 
Resolution 53, which will nullify EPA's NOx rules, which will 
dramatically increase costs and burdensome regulations; support 
legislation to ensure our members have restroom access; and 
cosponsor legislation that will reduce unproductive detention 
time by removing the exemption from the Fair Labor Standards 
Act.
    I thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I hope you 
understand I'm here to convey to you what millions of truckers 
have been saying for far too long.
    [Mr. Pugh's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of William ``Lewie'' Pugh, Executive Vice President, 
             Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
    Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Lewie Pugh and I am the Executive Vice 
President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association 
(OOIDA). Prior to working at OOIDA, I was a small-business trucker for 
nearly 23 years with 2.5 million miles of safe driving. Before 
operating my own trucking business, I drove a truck during my service 
in the United States Army. I still proudly hold a Commercial Driver's 
License (CDL). In short, I've been a trucker my entire career.
                              About OOIDA
    The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) is the 
largest trade association representing the views of small-business 
truckers and professional truck drivers. OOIDA has over 150,000 members 
located in all fifty states that collectively own and operate more than 
240,000 individual heavy-duty trucks. OOIDA's mission is to promote and 
protect the interests of our members on any issues that impact their 
economic well-being, working conditions, and the safe operation of 
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) on our nation's highways.
    Small trucking businesses, like those we represent, account for 96 
percent of registered motor carriers in the United States, making them 
a key component of the nation's supply chain. We are undoubtedly the 
safest and most diverse operators on our nation's roads. Every region 
of our country and segment of our economy relies upon long-haul truck 
drivers. Our members are an integral part of the global supply chain 
and have a unique perspective on the many challenges our nation faces 
in moving freight in the safest, most efficient manner.
                              Introduction
    Though the supply chain is slowly improving after experiencing 
significant disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are many 
inefficiencies that have persisted or worsened in recent years. While 
some policies that are broadly supported by the trucking industry would 
help improve efficiency, other stakeholders have used Washington's 
recent focus on the topic to portray or recast self-serving policies as 
supply chain improvements. In reality, these proposals will not promote 
the safe, efficient movement of freight. In some cases, these policies 
will make matters worse.
    It's not realistic to believe Congress can legislate or the 
Administration can regulate the supply chain to produce optimal 
efficiency, but there are major steps that can and should be taken to 
improve conditions and productivity for small trucking businesses, 
owner-operators, and professional drivers. That said, it is clear to 
OOIDA the supply chain will never function optimally when our members 
struggle to find safe parking, are detained at loading facilities for 
hours on end, aren't being fully paid for the time they work, face a 
flood of new and costly regulations, and can't even access restrooms 
when picking up or dropping off critical freight. If you want to 
improve supply chain functionality through legislation, you must find 
the political courage to address these pervasive problems.
                             Truck Parking
    The lack of adequate truck parking creates unsafe conditions for 
all highway users and negatively affects supply chain performance. 
Finding a safe place to park is something most people take for granted, 
but it's a daily struggle for hundreds of thousands of long-haul 
truckers. In 2015, the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Jason's 
Law Survey recognized the lack of truck parking had become a serious 
highway safety concern. Unfortunately, the problem has only worsened 
since then. Congress' failure to address this issue in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was a major misstep, but 
we appreciate that members and leadership of this Committee have 
consistently shown a determination to help solve the current crisis. 
However, nearly two years after the enactment of IIJA, states and local 
communities across the U.S. are still struggling to maintain existing 
capacity, let alone keep pace with growing demand.
    Increasingly, drivers are forced to spend more and more of their 
on-duty time finding a place to park rather than keeping goods moving. 
In 2016, the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) 
estimated that drivers sacrifice an average of 56 minutes of available 
drive time each day in their search for a safe place to park.\1\ There 
is no indication conditions have improved since the ATRI study. In 
fact, it is more likely the productive time wasted looking for parking 
has increased since 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ American Transportation Research Institute, Managing Critical 
Truck Parking Case Study--Real World Insights from Truck Parking 
Diaries (December 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to creating supply chain inefficiencies, the truck 
parking shortage is negatively affecting highway safety for our members 
and those with whom they share the road. Truckers find it increasingly 
difficult to rest when they are tired or need to comply with rigid 
federal hours-of-service (HOS) regulations. Too often, they are forced 
to park in hazardous locations, such as highway shoulders, exit ramps 
and even vacant lots. This creates safety issues not only for truckers, 
but for the motoring public and enforcement officers.
    Thankfully, a bipartisan group of Representatives led by Reps. Mike 
Bost (R-IL), a member of this Committee, and Angie Craig (D-MN), have 
again introduced the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act (H.R. 2367) 
to help solve this growing problem. The bill would authorize over $750 
million to expand truck parking capacity across the country. Funding 
would help state and local governments build new rest areas and truck 
parking facilities, while also helping public entities convert existing 
spaces--such as inspection sites, weigh stations and closed rest 
areas--into truck parking locations. The bill also includes 
opportunities for communities to work with private entities to expand 
capacity.
    It is not often that seemingly every stakeholder in our industry 
unifies behind a piece of legislation like we have with H.R. 2367. The 
bill is supported by OOIDA, American Trucking Associations (ATA), Women 
in Trucking, Truckload Carriers Association, National Association of 
Small Trucking Companies, Transportation Intermediaries Association, 
Institute for Safer Trucking, and the National Motorists Association. 
Our organizations recognize federal leadership is necessary to end the 
truck parking crisis and believe H.R. 2367 should be a priority for 
this Committee when advancing solutions to improve supply chain 
efficiency.
    While there are many factors contributing to the current truck 
parking crisis, the federal government shares some responsibility for 
exacerbating the problem and should be an active participant in solving 
it. The inflexibility of federal HOS requirements combined with the 
Congressionally-mandated Electronic Logging Device (ELD) rule means 
that drivers' movements are tracked down to the second. As a result, 
drivers are placed in no-win situations when they must choose between 
parking in an unsafe location, or risk being ticketed by law 
enforcement, struck by a passing vehicle, or violating federal HOS 
regulations by continuing to drive to a safer location.
    If the Committee is looking for commonsense, bipartisan solutions 
to improve supply chain efficiency, it is abundantly clear passage of 
Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act must be a priority. Nearly 
identical legislation passed this Committee last year with unanimous 
bipartisan support. We applaud members and leaders of this panel for 
remaining committed to resolving this longstanding problem in the 118th 
Congress. We encourage lawmakers to cosponsor H.R. 2367 and look 
forward to it be marked-up in the coming months.
                      ATA's Speed Limiter Mandate
    Several years ago, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) 
petitioned the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to 
impose a speed limiter mandate that would restrict all heavy-duty CMVs 
to a single top speed across the country. After lying dormant for years 
due to widespread opposition among truckers, FMCSA has relaunched this 
rulemaking with the support of some large motor carriers and activists 
with no experience behind the wheel. This mandate would limit all 
heavy-duty trucks to a speed as low as 60 miles per hour (mph).
    Make no doubt, the type of speed limiter mandate proposed by ATA 
and being pursued at FMCSA would exacerbate supply chain challenges. By 
prohibiting hundreds-of-thousands of trucks from traveling at the 
posted speed limit determined by states, this mandate will literally 
slow down freight movement across the country. For example, OOIDA 
members currently operate roughly 240,000 heavy vehicles on our 
nation's roads. Based on our members' strong reaction to the proposal, 
we suspect very few, if any, currently use speed limiters. Limiting 
just our members to a maximum speed as low as 60 mph would alone have a 
profound impact on the movement of goods in our economy, but the 
rulemaking will impact countless other CMVs. To make matters worse, if 
ATA's speed limiter mandate is implemented, more trucks will be needed 
to carry the same amount of freight in the same amount of time, which 
increases road congestion and can further slow freight movement.
    While some ATA members have voluntarily chosen to utilize speed 
limiters to manage their fleets, more closely monitor fuel consumption, 
or reduce the number of speeding violations issued to their drivers, 
small business truckers do not need or want to use the devices and 
strongly oppose the federal government forcing them to do so. As 
demonstrated by the nearly 16,000 comments submitted to FMCSA during 
the initial phase of their rulemaking, opposition among professional 
drivers remains substantial. Truckers understand these devices will 
decrease efficiency and safety.
    A speed limiter mandate may be thought of as something affecting 
only the long-haul trucking industry, but FMCSA's proposal would apply 
to every commercial motor vehicle weighing over 26,000 pounds. OOIDA 
has assembled a coalition of numerous organizations whose members would 
be negatively affected by this mandate, including the Agricultural 
Retailers Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, American 
Pipeline Contractors Association, Associated Equipment Distributors, 
Customized Logistics and Delivery Association, Distribution Contractors 
Association, Livestock Marketing Association, Mid-West Truckers 
Association, Motor Carriers of Montana, National Asphalt Pavement 
Association, National Association of Small Trucking Companies, National 
Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Hay Association, National Ready 
Mixed Concrete Association, National Stone Sand and Gravel Association, 
National Utility Contractors Association, Nevada Trucking Association, 
North American Punjabi Trucking Association, Power and Communication 
Contractors Association, Texas Trucking Association, Towing and 
Recovery Association of America, United States Cattlemen's Association, 
and Western States Trucking Association.
    When considering the impact this rule would have on the supply 
chain, it is important to remember not all of these organizations 
represent traditional motor carriers. Many operate smaller, lighter 
duty vehicles that would also be slowed by the requirement. The large 
carriers who support ATA's speed limiter proposal want you to believe 
the rule will have a minimal impact on trucking and the supply chain, 
but those claims can be easily dismissed when you understand the true 
scope of who will be slowed.
    ATA's speed limiter mandate is wholly unnecessary, as there is 
already a mechanism in place to address unsafe vehicle speeds: speed 
limits set and enforced by the states. In 1995, Congress repealed the 
national speed limit and gave states the power to establish speed 
limits for their roads. Since then, states have been able to design 
their roadways and set top speeds according to what they have 
determined to be safest for their specific needs and conditions. 
FMCSA's ongoing rulemaking would trample the states' long-standing 
authority.
    By establishing a one-size-fits-all federal mandate restricting 
CMVs to a speed as low as 60 mph, this regulation would also 
undoubtedly lead to higher crash rates by creating dangerous speed 
differentials between CMVs and other vehicles, such as automobiles. 
Decades of highway research shows greater speed differentials increase 
interactions between trucks and cars, and studies have consistently 
demonstrated that increasing interactions between vehicles directly 
increases the likelihood of crashes.
    Since the mid-1990's, many states have taken steps to reduce speed 
differentials on their roads. FMCSA's proposal would instantly reverse 
many of these improvements. In fact, if the agency settles on a 60 mph 
limit for heavy vehicles, which is favored among some large motor 
carriers and anti-truck activists, split speeds would immediately be 
created in every state with the exception of California and Hawaii. In 
many states, this mandate would create split speed limits on two-lane 
rural roads, which are particularly hazardous. In these conditions, 
passenger vehicles that want to travel at the posted limit get stuck 
behind slower-moving trucks, increasing the number of passes they must 
make.
    In addition to slowing down the movement of freight and increasing 
crash rates, a speed limiter mandate would make it more difficult for 
businesses to attract and retain drivers. Upon reviewing the nearly 
16,000 public comments already submitted to the agency by stakeholders, 
it is crystal clear drivers do not want to operate speed limited 
trucks, as it takes control of the vehicle out of their hands. Speed 
limiting trucks also increases pressure and stress on drivers to 
complete their work. Truckers required to operate below the posted 
speed limit must drive longer hours to cover the same distance, which 
increases their fatigue and places even greater stress on them to 
comply with burdensome HOS regulations.
    Furthermore, FMCSA readily admits this rulemaking will disadvantage 
small businesses, making it more difficult for our members to continue 
operating and harder for the next generation of owner-operators to 
launch their own trucking businesses. Similarly, members of this 
Committee must be cautious to support ATA's latest maneuvering on speed 
limiters, which includes a proposal to create different speed maximums 
for motor carriers based on what types of supplementary equipment or 
devices they utilize. This proposal is brazenly designed to further 
squeeze small businesses to the benefit of corporate motor carriers, 
forcing our members to purchase costly technology they don't need just 
to move at the same speed as their large competitors.
    Both ATA and FMCSA are aware that decades of research on the topic 
of speed has consistently led to the same conclusion: roads are safest 
when all vehicles are moving the same relative rate of speed. ATA has 
chosen to ignore this reality because a speed limiter mandate would 
benefit their large, corporate members by slowing down smaller 
competitors. It is more perplexing why FMCSA has chosen to ignore this 
research as well, as they are responsible for improving motor carrier 
safety, not developing regulations that will increase crash rates or 
picking economic winners and losers. In fact, FMCSA's current 
rulemaking is a stark contrast from its previous position on this 
matter. In 2011, Julie Cirillo, a former Assistant Administrator and 
Chief Safety Officer at FMCSA, stated in a sworn affidavit,

        ``Jurisdictions responsible for ensuring the safety of the 
        travelling public should not take any action that could result 
        in creating an unsafe situation. Included in these actions 
        would be the establishment and enforcement of differential 
        speed limits for passenger cars and commercial vehicles. 
        Adherence to differential speed limits creates a situation 
        where a significant percentage of traffic is operating more 
        slowly than general traffic. The studies described herein 
        establish that this is always unsafe [emphasis added].''

    The factors that led to this conclusion have not changed since 
2011. Instead, perhaps the agency has lost track of its mission in 
trying to appease large motor carriers and anti-trucking activists, 
after their efforts to include a speed limiter mandate in IIJA were 
rejected on a bipartisan, bicameral basis.
    Earlier this month, Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-OK) introduced the 
Deregulating Restrictions on Interstate Vehicles and Eighteen Wheelers 
Act (DRIVE Act), H.R. 3039. This bill would stop FMCSA from moving 
forward with this reckless rulemaking that drivers vehemently oppose. 
We encourage every member of the Committee to support this legislation, 
which will prevent supply chains from slowing and crash rates from 
increasing.
                             Detention Time
    Small-business truckers and professional drivers face numerous 
operational and infrastructure bottlenecks on a daily basis. Excessive 
detention time is chief among the chokepoints that contribute to supply 
chain inefficiencies. Many drivers spend countless on-duty hours 
delayed by shippers and receivers because Congress and FMCSA have 
failed to sufficiently address the growing problem of excessive 
detention time. For too long, the trucking industry has typically 
defined detention as any time spent waiting to load or unload in excess 
of two hours. Essentially, it has become readily accepted that drivers 
will likely be detained for a minimum of two hours, simply because the 
market has failed to solve the problem and Washington has yet to take 
the matter seriously. This completely devalues a driver's time and 
work.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) must collect better 
information on detention time to demonstrate precisely what role it 
plays in supply chain delays. OOIDA strongly support efforts to gather 
and publicly disseminate accurate information on detention time. 
Comprehensive collection and publication of loading, unloading, and 
delay times among shippers and receivers would be beneficial for both 
drivers and motor carriers, helping them improve trip planning, load 
selection, and other operational considerations. Additionally, a public 
database or website with estimates of detention time could improve 
efficiency throughout the marketplace by incentivizing shippers and 
receivers to improve their own efficiency to attract drivers and motor 
carriers.
    In addition to creating significant inefficiencies in the supply 
chain, detention time is both a safety and financial concern for 
professional drivers. A 2018 USDOT Inspector General (OIG) report 
estimated that a 15-minute increase in average dwell time--the total 
time spent by a truck at a facility--increases the average expected 
crash rate by 6.2 percent. The study also estimated that detention time 
is associated with reductions in annual earnings of $1.1 billion to 
$1.3 billion for for-hire CMV drivers in the truckload sector and 
reduces net income by $250.6 million to $302.9 million annually for 
motor carriers in that sector.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General, Estimates Show Commercial 
Driver Detention Increases Crash Risks and Costs, but Current Data 
Limit Further Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation (Jan 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These findings from the OIG report echo what OOIDA members have 
been experiencing for years. According to 2020 survey results from the 
OOIDA Foundation, drivers operating under the 70 hour/8-day rule spend 
17% to 29% of their time in detention. This uncompensated time means 
individual drivers are effectively losing $907 to $1,512 per week.\3\ 
This can ultimately create the incentive for drivers to operate longer 
and push harder, foregoing rest breaks or pauses when they are tired, 
in order to make up for compensation lost to detention time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Foundation, 2020 
Detention Time Survey (December 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When studying this issue, there is one particular flaw that 
exacerbates the problem. While the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 
generally requires employers to pay covered non-exempt employees at 
least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked during the work 
week and overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 in a work week, 
truck drivers are unfairly exempted from the law's overtime guarantee 
under Section 13(b)(1). This outdated exemption was implemented in the 
1930s to prevent truckers from working too many hours, but today it 
simply prevents them from receiving adequate compensation for the work 
they do.
    Exempting drivers from guaranteed overtime pay increases problems 
with detention time because shippers, receivers, and others in the 
supply chain have little to no financial incentive to load and unload 
trucks in an efficient manner. If a shipper or receiver knows they 
won't be responsible for paying overtime, they simply don't care as 
much about respecting a driver's time. If repealed, drivers would 
either be fairly compensated for the extra hours they work, or shippers 
and receivers would find ways to reduce delays to avoid paying 
overtime. Simply put, the current law ensures that a driver's time is 
less valued than other professions and enables inefficiencies to 
persist, and even worsen. If Congress is serious about fixing pervasive 
problems in the supply chain, this absolutely must change.
    A majority of OOIDA members (79 percent) are in favor of removing 
the exemption, especially company drivers (96 percent), and 60 percent 
believe this will help address the detention time issue.\4\ Removing 
the motor carrier exemption enables truckers to be fairly paid during 
all work-related hours, not just when the truck is in motion. Better 
pay will encourage more experienced, safer drivers to stay in the 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OOIDA championed bipartisan, bicameral legislation in 2022 that 
would have removed this unfair and outdated exemption. As this 
Committee is looking for ways to reduce regulations that hamper supply 
chain performance, eliminating this 85-year-old exemption is an obvious 
step. We hope to have legislation reintroduced this summer and 
encourage all members of this Committee to become cosponsors. Your 
support for repealing the FLSA exemption for truckers is perhaps the 
most meaningful step you can take as a lawmaker to help reduce 
excessive detention time.
                            Restroom Access
    Members of Congress have rightfully recognized truckers as the 
backbone of America's supply chain. But in order for drivers to do 
their job, they need to have their basic human needs met. This includes 
access to restrooms at the facilities where they pick up or deliver 
freight.
    Shippers and receivers denying truckers access to restroom 
facilities was a problem prior to COVID-19, but conditions worsened for 
our members during the pandemic. Unfortunately, as the nation emerges 
from the disruption and uncertainty of COVID-19, many restrictive 
policies involving restroom access remain in place. The persistence of 
excessive detention time compounds this problem, with some of our 
members reporting they were routinely denied access to a restroom 
facility while waiting several hours to be loaded or unloaded. While 
women drivers are especially harmed by these unnecessarily harsh 
policies, their prevalence is making it more difficult to maintain 
careers in trucking for everyone.
    In response to this unacceptable situation, OOIDA and our friends 
at Women in Trucking have worked closely with Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), a 
member of this Committee, to introduce legislation that would provide 
truckers the same access to restrooms that customers and employees 
currently enjoy at facilities where our members pick up or deliver 
loads. The bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan 
(D-PA), does not require businesses to construct new restroom 
facilities or provide special treatment to truckers. It simply ensures 
one of the most basic needs of those who make their living on the road 
is being met.
    We strongly encourage members of the Committee to cosponsor this 
important legislation, which will demonstrate to professional drivers 
that their lawmakers not only understand the challenges they routinely 
face on the road, but are willing to take the necessary steps to help 
solve these problems.
                    The Myth of the Driver Shortage
    Since the late 1980's, large motor carriers have been attempting to 
convince Congress our nation suffers from a shortage of drivers. Over 
the last 30+ years, organizations like ATA have consistently peddled 
this false narrative in an effort to distract from their members' 
embarrassingly high driver turnover rates, which routinely exceed 90%. 
More recently, large carriers have approached current disruptions in 
the supply chain as a new and promising opportunity to further engrain 
the myth and advance the dangerous legislative proposals they have 
built upon it.
    Far too many Members of Congress, including many on this Committee, 
have readily accepted the driver shortage myth, which illustrates a 
troubling lack of understanding about our industry among policymakers. 
Over the last several years, ATA has consistently touted a shortage of 
as many as 80,000 drivers, despite a distinct lack of evidence. Rather 
than trusting ATA's dubious claims, lawmakers should focus on 
information provided by federal experts at the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS). A 2019 report by BLS found that ``the market for 
truck drivers works about as well as that for other blue-collar 
occupations, and that, broadly speaking, we should expect that if wages 
rise when the labor market for truck drivers is too tight, the 
potential for any long-term shortages will be ameliorated.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Is the U.S. labor market for truck 
drivers broken? (March 2019)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Acceptance of the driver shortage myth could have major safety and 
economic consequences for highway users and professional drivers.
    Over the objections of OOIDA, organized labor, and safety advocacy 
groups, Congress recently authorized the Safe Driver Apprenticeship 
Pilot Program in IIJA. Since the pilot program's launch in January 
2022, large carriers and others looking for the cheapest driver 
workforce have struggled mightily to find 18, 19, and 20-year-olds 
interested in participating. In fact, USDOT reported in March that only 
4 drivers had registered to participate since the program launched 7 
months earlier. That's right--just 4 drivers are enrolled in the 
program, despite significant investment in advertising and promotion 
done by FMCSA. The ATA, who clamored for the inclusion of this 
initiative in IIJA and called it the ``gold standard'' for driver 
training, is now claiming the required use of inward facing cameras is 
preventing greater registration among driver candidates. This is 
despite the fact that one of their largest members recently announced 
that they will equip all of their tractors with driver-facing 
cameras.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Avila, Larry. ``JB Hunt Rolls out Driver-Facing Cameras.'' 
Transport Dive, 26 Apr. 2023, https://www.transportdive.com/news/jb-
hunt-driver-facing-cameras-ATRI-issues-opportunities-report/647985/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These claims are laughable. ATA and its members have spent decades 
making the profession of driving as unappealing and unsustainable to 
new drivers in an effort to keep their labor costs as low as possible. 
For decades, they have done little to meaningfully increase 
compensation or improve working conditions for employee drivers, going 
so far as convincing members of this Committee that the federal 
government should step-in to provide tax incentives to supplement 
truckers' compensation rather than pay their own drivers competitive 
wages. Now, they are reaping what they have sowed. Teen drivers may not 
have the maturity to operate CMVs at the safest levels, but they have 
enough sense to see a bad deal when it's offered to them. Large 
carriers will continue to struggle to find participants in the Safe 
Driver Apprenticeship Pilot Program, but it's not because of any 
requirements imposed by the Biden Administration.
    While promoting policies designed to create the cheapest driver 
workforce possible, large carriers are simultaneously ignoring many of 
the factors that contribute to their excessively high turnover rates 
among current drivers. Recent minor increases in driver compensation 
may be good for large fleets' public relations and recruiting, but 
drivers remain grossly underpaid after decades of stagnant wages. ATA 
boasts the average compensation for a professional driver is currently 
$50,000, but they fail to mention drivers typically work 70 to 80 hours 
each week to earn it. Not only that, but when taking inflation into 
account, wages have remained stagnant over the last 20 years.
    These wages aren't competitive with other, less-skilled professions 
that feature remarkably better working conditions. As a result, it 
should come as no surprise that new entrants are spending less and less 
time behind the wheel before looking for better opportunities in 
different fields. Other drivers may choose to remain in the industry, 
but begin careers at carriers who better prioritize driver retention 
through more competitive compensation and improved working conditions. 
In fact, ATA's own analysis shows less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers, 
who generally offer better pay and working conditions, have annual 
turnover rates closer to 14%.
    Rather than expanding the driver pool to include teenagers, 
Congress should pursue policies that promote competitive pay for 
drivers and address many of the challenges that make careers in 
trucking unsustainable.
                            EPA Regulations
    In recent months, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
unleashed a regulatory blitz on small-business truckers. The agency 
finalized a Nitrous Oxide (NOx) emissions rulemaking in December 2022 
that implements stringent emissions standards for new commercial trucks 
beginning in Model Year 2027. OOIDA and other industry stakeholders 
warned EPA that this hurried timeline would not ensure vehicle 
affordability or reliability, which are critical to supporting the 
purchase and operation of cleaner vehicles among small trucking 
businesses.
    OOIDA strongly supported the U.S. Senate's recent actions to 
overturn the flawed 2022 NOx emissions rule, led by Sen. Deb Fischer 
(R-NE). We urge the House to follow suit. Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) 
recently introduced H.J.Res. 53, which mirrors Sen. Fischer's efforts 
by nullifying EPA's final rule. We encourage all members to support 
this important resolution, which will protect our members from EPA's 
overly costly and aggressive regulations.
    In March, EPA granted a waiver for California mandating that 40 
percent of tractor-trailers and other big rigs sold in the state be 
all-electric. In April, the agency released its Phase 3 greenhouse gas 
(GHG) proposal. Small business truckers have been shocked by this 
regulatory blitz. With these moves, our members are again facing higher 
projected costs for new vehicles and insufficient lead-up time to 
properly implement manufacturing standards. The Phase 3 rule is also a 
blatant attempt to force consumers into purchasing electric vehicles 
while a national charging infrastructure network remains absent for 
heavy-duty commercial trucks. Professional drivers are skeptical of EV 
costs, mileage range, battery weight and safety, charging time, and 
availability. It's baffling that the EPA is pushing forward with more 
impractical emissions timelines without first addressing these 
overwhelming concerns with electric CMVs.
    All of these regulations maintain an impractical approach to 
achieving emissions reductions that discounts the contributions of the 
trucking industry, ignores realities from previous flawed emissions 
rulemakings, and does not account for the economic impacts on small 
trucking businesses. Clean air is a priority for everyone, including 
truckers, but the technology used in heavy-duty trucks to improve air 
quality has to be affordable and reliable. Small-business truckers and 
owner-operators should not be used as test cases for trialing new 
technology while pricing them out of business in the process. 
Unfortunately, this has become commonplace for EPA when pursuing 
trucking regulations.
                            Underride Guards
    On April 21st, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) followed through on an IIJA requirement by announcing an 
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to better understand the overall 
effectiveness, and assess the feasibility, benefits, costs, and other 
impacts of installing side underride guards on trailers and 
semitrailers. The preliminary research provided by NHTSA indicated that 
the annual cost of the mandate would be as much $1.2 billion, making it 
one of the most expensive mandates ever imposed on our industry. The 
agency also estimated an industry-wide mandate would save fewer than 20 
lives per year. The resulting cost per life saved would fall in the 
range of $73.5 million to $103.7 million. These estimates reinforce 
OOIDA's long-standing position that a side underride guard mandate is 
cost-prohibitive and are consistent with previous research conducted by 
NHTSA that led the agency to the same conclusion on multiple occasions.
    While existing technologies may reduce passenger compartment 
intrusion in certain situations, the rulemaking fails to recognize 
numerous other issues limiting the real-world practicality of side 
underride guards. For example, installation of the equipment would 
unquestionably create challenges for truckers navigating grade 
crossings and high curbs, backing in to sloped loading docks, properly 
utilizing spread-axle trailer configurations, conducting USDOT-required 
trailer inspections, and accessing vital equipment located under the 
trailer--such as brakes. Additionally, the weight of side underride 
guards with the strength to prevent intrusion would displace valuable 
payload, reducing the earnings of truckers.
    This rulemaking process is a perfect example of what happens when 
trucking policy is developed by those who have no knowledge of how to 
operate a CMV, including device manufacturers who stand to profit from 
the federal government mandating the use of their products, safety 
advocates who have no training or experience behind the wheel of a 
heavy vehicle, and uninformed lawmakers.
    IIJA also required the launch of the Advisory Committee on 
Underride Protection, whose membership was recently announced. While 
OOIDA has a seat at the table, this panel unfortunately gives more 
influence to representatives who have no clue how to operate a heavy 
vehicle than to those who understand the serious operational challenges 
and hazards created by side underride guards. This is no way to develop 
sound policies.
    The NHTSA rulemaking process, coupled with the activity of the 
advisory committee, represents a massive waste of government time and 
resources pursuing a regulation that is entirely untenable.
                          Truck Size & Weight
    Time and time again, proposals to increase truck size and weight 
requirements are floated on Capitol Hill, and the 118th Congress is no 
different. While these proposals may initially sound like reasonable 
solutions to improving supply chain efficiency, there are several 
factors involving bigger and heavier trucks Congress must consider.
    USDOT recently conducted a thorough evaluation of increased truck 
size and weight and issued a final report in 2016 that discouraged 
policymakers from pursuing increases. The report found that heavier 
trucks created more safety problems, including a 47 to 400% higher 
crash rate, a higher out-of-service violation rate, and an 18% higher 
brake violation rate. These factors alone should convince lawmakers not 
to advance proposals to increase truck size and weight, but you must 
also consider how truckers feel about being forced to driver bigger and 
heavier trucks.
    Over the years, truckers have been clear that they do not support 
increasing the size and weight of the vehicles they operate, due 
largely to concerns involving highway safety. A 2022 survey of OOIDA 
members revealed 68% of respondents believed increases would make it 
more difficult to recruit and retain drivers. In fact, no group 
representing professional drivers currently supports proposals to 
increase size and weight, which illustrates the lack of support within 
the profession.
                          Broker Transparency
    During the initial days of the COVID-19 pandemic, freight rates 
reached historic lows. Hundreds of truckers protested in front of the 
White House because some freight brokers consistently fail to comply 
with federal transparency regulations. For years, small-business 
truckers have expressed frustration that regulations designed to 
provide transparency are routinely evaded by brokers or simply not 
enforced by FMCSA. While freight rates have rebounded, the need for 
better broker transparency remains urgent.
    49 CFR Sec. 371.3 mandates that brokers keep transaction records 
and permits each party to a brokered transaction to review these 
documents. These regulations are in place to protect motor carriers, 
brokers, the public, and ultimately ensure the transparent and smooth 
movement of goods throughout the supply chain. This allows carriers to 
know precisely how much a shipper paid the broker and how much the 
broker then paid the carrier. This transparency also helps owner-
operators when brokers send them bills regarding disputed claims. 
Without this information, it is very difficult to know if these charges 
are legitimate. Unfortunately, many brokers implement hurdles they know 
will prevent a carrier from ever seeing this information.
    To improve broker transparency, OOIDA petitioned FMCSA to do the 
following:
    1.  Require brokers to automatically provide an electronic copy of 
each transaction record within 48 hours after the contractual service 
has been completed.
    2.  Explicitly prohibit brokers from including any provisions in 
their contracts that requires a carrier to waive their rights to access 
the transaction records as required by 49 CFR Sec. 371.3.

    Recently, FMCSA announced it would launch a rulemaking to address 
our petition. If rules are promulgated to improve broker transparency 
and current regulations are better enforced by DOT, this would support 
the economic stability of the trucking industry and help develop a more 
reliable supply chain.
                               Conclusion
    The fortitude of our nation's truck drivers has never faltered even 
in the face of many challenges, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the 
current global supply chain crisis. Unfortunately, most of the problems 
we are witnessing today are not new to small-business truckers that 
have experienced supply chain dysfunction for decades. In fact, OOIDA, 
including myself personally, have testified before Congress and 
discussed many of the issues addressed in this testimony with you and 
your colleagues. It's frustrating that it's taken a global pandemic and 
supply chain upheaval to bring some of these issues in to the 
spotlight, but this Committee should take the opportunity to finally 
fix these pervasive problems. We support Congress's efforts to address 
current and future supply chain challenges, but you must start with 
finally valuing and compensating professional drivers for all of their 
time and supporting policies that improve their working conditions. 
While this won't immediately fix all of the supply chain problems, it 
is an absolutely necessary first step to do so.

    Mr. Crawford. Well done. Right on time. I didn't even have 
to tap you. Perfect.
    Ms. Reinke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

    TESTIMONY OF ANNE REINKE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
       OFFICER, TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES ASSOCIATION

    Ms. Reinke. Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and 
members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today to 
highlight the important role that logistics companies play in 
the supply chain and how our members were part of the solution 
during the pandemic. I will also address a few challenges to 
the safety of the supply chain and free flow of freight and 
some potential pragmatic solutions.
    My name is Anne Reinke. I am the president and CEO of the 
Transportation Intermediaries Association, or TIA. I am honored 
to be here today to represent our more than 2,000 member 
companies. TIA is the professional organization of the $232 
billion third-party logistics industry. Our members sit at the 
center of the supply chain, ensuring that freight is 
facilitated from origin to destination in the safest and most 
economical way possible. Every Fortune 500 company uses the 
services of one or more brokers to handle their traffic 
allocation needs.
    Logistics within the United States and throughout the world 
play an integral role in the overall American economy. From our 
members' perspective, the supply chain disruptions resulting 
from the pandemic have eased but several residual impacts 
remain, including a freight recession impacting buyers, 
suppliers, and other key stakeholders. Volatile labor markets 
with labor shortages still in trucking and other modes, but 
layoffs in some notable U.S. economic sectors. And inflation, 
which has increased the cost of labor, goods, and energy. 
Freight rates and volumes have declined over the last quarter 
or more, and a soft freight economy is anticipated into 2024. 
Nevertheless, TIA applauds the Biden administration for its 
FLOW data initiative and the actions of this committee for its 
attention to the supply chain, a recognition of how critical it 
is to the U.S. economy.
    While all this uncertainty looms on the horizon, the 3PL 
marketplace, though down right now, shows strong future growth. 
The pandemic showcased the broker's inherent value, driven by 
our members' investments in technology and our vast array of 
shipper and carrier relationships. The broker freight 
marketplace grew over 30 percent from 2020 to 2022. Shippers 
continue to look for transportation solutions to fill their 
needs while highlighting safety and security as the top reasons 
for what they look for in a broker. And carriers rely on 
brokers to be their sales force and connect them with shippers. 
Today, brokers handle about 30 percent of the freight in the 
supply chain, and it is anticipated to grow to 45 percent by 
2045.
    There are two issues currently that impact the safety and 
efficiency of the supply chain that the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration must prioritize. First, as you know, 
NHTSA has noted that truck crashes continue to rise by double 
digits year over year. However, most trucking companies fail to 
receive a compliant safety audit leading to 92 percent of 
carriers being unrated. TIA has pushed for many years for a 
more robust and effective motor carrier safety rating process 
to improve highway safety and eliminate confusion.
    Today's physical audits on trucking companies are outdated, 
ineffective, and resource constrained. TIA has fully endorsed 
and supports the bipartisan legislation H.R. 915 supported by 
Congressman Moulton and Gallagher. we applaud their leadership 
and would request the committee to include this legislation in 
the upcoming FAA Reauthorization Act or another appropriate 
vehicle.
    Second, we are in the midst of a fraud epidemic in the 
supply chain which interrupts the safe chain of custody of the 
Nation's freight. It is estimated to cost brokers, carriers, 
shippers, and consumers around $800 million or more. TIA 
successfully advocated to have language included in 2012's MAP-
21 that codified legal brokerage, created a $10,000 penalty for 
conducting illegal brokerage activities, and formed a National 
Consumer Complaint Database to report fraud cases.
    Unfortunately, due to a lack of enforcement, there are a 
proliferation of bad actors in the supply chain illegally 
brokering freight, registering as carriers using hundreds of 
different MC numbers, and conducting outright freight fraud, 
theft, and holding freight hostage. Today, there are over 
80,000 complaints in the database that have never been 
investigated, and no penalties have ever been assessed.
    Exacerbating the potential for fraud is a rise in 
unlicensed and unregulated dispatch services who are hired to 
help carriers to perform back-office functions, but often 
broker freight without authority, even sensitive Government 
freight, and who may not be domiciled in the United States.
    We are working with OOIDA and NASTC to drive greater 
attention and some sense of urgency to this issue. We hope this 
hearing focuses Federal attention and resources to both of 
these critical issues.
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the 
committee today, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
    [Ms. Reinke's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Anne Reinke, President and Chief Executive 
           Officer, Transportation Intermediaries Association
    Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: Thank you for the 
opportunity to speak with you today to highlight the important role 
that logistics companies play in the supply-chain and how our members 
were part of the solution during the pandemic to alleviate disruptions. 
I will also address a few issues that impact the safety of the supply 
chain and the free flow movement of freight throughout the United 
States. We have some potential pragmatic solutions that could help 
alleviate both the residual supply chain disruptions from the pandemic 
and ongoing safety-related concerns.
    My name is Anne Reinke; I am the President and CEO of the 
Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA). I am honored to be 
here today to represent our more than 2,000 member companies. TIA is 
the professional organization of the $232 billion third-party logistics 
industry. TIA is the only organization exclusively representing 
transportation intermediaries, commonly referred to as brokers, or 
forwarders in all modes doing business in domestic and international 
commerce. TIA provides education, advocacy, networking, and other 
member services to our member companies; our mission is to promote and 
assist with our members' growth and professional development. As 
evidence of this commitment, TIA's education curriculum has been 
certified by the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia 
(SCHEV). SCHEV certification is awarded to educational institutions and 
organizations that meet rigorous standards of quality and comply with 
state and federal regulations. TIA also serves as the U.S. voice of the 
International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations or FIATA. 
Our members stand at the center of the supply chain: they facilitate 
and arrange the efficient and economical movement of goods by working 
with tens of thousands of shippers and carriers to help arrange the 
movement of freight by truck, rail, air and ocean carriers. Every 
fortune 500 company utilizes the services of at least one freight 
broker, and often they use many brokers to handle their traffic 
allocation.
    As we are all aware, the U.S. economy continues to be more 
interconnected with the global economy and the world's supply-chain. 
Logistics in the United States and throughout the world plays an 
integral role in the overall American economy. From our members' 
perspective, the supply chain disruptions which were a result of the 
COVID-19 pandemic continue to improve, but several residual effects 
remain, including workforce issues, a truck driver shortage, truck 
capacity in certain sectors, container shortages, inflation, 
regulations, and other challenges. TIA applauds the Biden 
Administration for its attention to the supply chain through the FLOW 
initiative and the actions of this Committee for its attention on the 
supply chain, a recognition of how critical it is to the U.S. economy.
                       About TIA and the Industry
    TIA members include more than 2,000 motor carrier property brokers, 
surface freight forwarders, international ocean transportation 
intermediaries (ocean freight forwarders and NVOCCs), air forwarders, 
customs brokers, warehouse operators, logistics management companies, 
and intermodal marketing companies. TIA members handle the purchase of 
more than $100 billion worth of transportation each year and employ 
more than 130,000 people across the country.
    Transportation intermediaries or third-party logistics 
professionals act somewhat as the ``travel agents'' for freight; 
however, given the wide varieties of freight, the specific needs of 
each customer, and the diverse issues applicable to anyone load means 
that third-party logistics professionals must have expertise far beyond 
what a traditional ``travel agent'' must possess. These companies serve 
tens of thousands of customers (known as ``shippers'') who are the 
actual owners of the goods being transported, bringing together the 
transportation needs of those cargo interests with the corresponding 
capacity and special equipment offered by rail, motor, air, and ocean 
carriers.
    Transportation intermediaries are companies whose expertise is 
providing mode and carrier-neutral transportation arrangements for 
shippers with specific needs and requirements and matching those with 
the ability and expertise of the underlying operating carriers.
                        Supply Chain Disruptions
    The supply chain has rebounded significantly since the disruptions 
of the COVID-19 pandemic and has markedly improved. However, some 
residual effects of the pandemic continue to impact the supply chain, 
some of which have been there since before the pandemic. In order to 
set the stage for how the residual supply chain challenges impact the 
logistics industry, we have to take a look at the current economic 
situation. A global recession feels inevitable, impacting buyers, 
suppliers, banks and several other key stakeholders. Additionally, the 
U.S. labor markets remain volatile, with labor disputes arising at 
ports creating unrest and tensions that create work stoppages and 
delays, and an overall downturn in the American economy leading to 
layoffs in certain sectors. Furthermore, in an inflationary market, 
corporate debt is rising, which ultimately increases the cost of labor, 
goods, and energy.
    All these issues are contributing to and compounding disruptions 
and uncertainty in the supply chain. The decline in freight rates and 
volumes over the past two months more than offset the improvements in 
utilization in fuel cost improvement. The outlook for transportation 
continues to be negative moving into 2024.
    While all this uncertainty looms on the horizon, the 3PL 
marketplace is stronger than ever and the reliance on brokers by 
shippers continues to grow. The broker freight marketplace grew over 
30% from 2020 to 2022. Our members are able to be nimble, to ``flex'' 
and have the ability to go out and find capacity, because of carrier 
relationships that they have that shippers may lack. Shippers continue 
to look for transportation solutions to fill their needs while 
highlighting safety and security as the top two reasons for what they 
look for in a broker. It is estimated that by 2045 brokers will handle 
almost 45% of the freight in the supply-chain; the current amount sits 
roughly around 30%.
                          Potential Solutions:
    While there is not one single solution or action that will 
immediately alleviate the supply chain disruption, several solutions 
exist that would help improve the movement of goods. The safest and 
most secure marketplace is also the most efficient and functional 
marketplace. In that vein, TIA believes there are critical safety and 
fraud issues that the FMCSA can address.
                       Delayed Safety Regulation
    I would like to begin with a discussion on safety, the top priority 
for the TIA, and the core mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA). We firmly believe that FMCSA is should 
prioritize several key safety issues. The National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration has said that truck crashes are up ten percent 
from 2021 to 2022; truck crashes were also up year over year from 2020 
to 2021. We also know that a majority of trucking companies on the road 
operate without a safety rating each year and there is limited action 
by FMCSA to address the issue.
    TIA has pushed for many years for a more robust and effective motor 
carrier safety rating process, as a means to improve the safety of the 
nation's highways. Currently, the FMCSA is using an outdated and 
ineffective physical audit system to rate motor carriers for safety. 
The physical audit requirement means that the FMCSA has neither the 
manpower nor the resources to conduct safety inspections of the vast 
majority of motor carriers. This antiquated system has led to an 
unbelievable 92% of trucking companies being ``unrated'', and this 
number increases annually as more trucking companies enter the 
marketplace. This system creates confusion and uncertainty in the 
carrier selection and vetting process that leads directly to pinched 
capacity and time constraints on our member's operations. The lack of 
clarity on the safety rating status of a carrier leads to delays in the 
carrier vetting process, where an updated safety rating process would 
shorten the time to vet carriers. This lack of clarity is preventing 
thousands of small motor carriers from being utilized because of the 
confusion that exists by virtue of 92% of motor carriers having no 
safety rating, which ultimately decreases the capacity available to our 
members. TIA members and the industry needs a new system, built on fair 
and reliable data, which will (1) expeditiously and safely improve the 
process of selecting a motor carrier and (2) give industry stakeholders 
like ours more certainty regarding the quality of the carriers they use 
and ensure that only safe carriers are selected.
    TIA has fully endorsed and supported the bipartisan legislation, 
H.R. 915. The ``Motor Carrier Safety Selection Standard Act of 2021,'' 
sponsored by Congressman Moulton (D-6th/MA) and Congressman Gallagher 
(R-8th/WI). H.R. 915 would require the FMCSA to begin the process of 
developing a new Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) process to change 
the way carriers are rated, and create an interim safety standard in 
the meantime. TIA applauds Congressmen Moulton and Gallagher for their 
leadership on this legislation and would ask the Committee to include 
this legislation in the upcoming FAA Reauthorization Act or another 
appropriate vehicle for passage.
                       Fraud in the Supply-Chain
    The supply-chain is in the midst of a fraud epidemic, estimated to 
cost brokers, carriers and shippers around $800+ million. TIA 
successfully advocated in 2012, as part of MAP-21, to have language 
included tightening the requirements for becoming a broker and creating 
a National Consumer Complaint Database (NCCDB) for stakeholders to 
report cases of fraud to the FMCSA. Unfortunately, there is an increase 
in bad actors in the space illegally brokering freight, registering as 
carriers using hundreds of MC numbers, and conducting outright fraud, 
theft, and holding freight hostage, without any legal consequences. The 
FMCSA is not enforcing the law, let alone investigating the tens of 
thousands of fraud complaints in the NCCDB. FMCSA indicated that it 
planned to use a portion of the millions of dollars appropriated to it 
by Congress through the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act (IIJA) 
to increase enforcement officials. To date, we have not seen any 
enforcement or investigations conducted. Recently, we alerted the FMCSA 
of an address in Wyoming that over 200 carrier companies were using as 
their address. The Agency believes that it has limited authority to 
impose civil penalties in a commercial dispute. However, arguably, they 
can exercise greater due diligence in the motor carrier and broker 
registration process, they can investigate those who are illegally 
brokering freight as well as those complaints in the NCCDB, and use 
other weapons in their arsenal to clean up the marketplace. Fraud 
fosters an insecure and unsafe marketplace. The FMCSA must assist the 
industry in rooting out fraud.
    We hear every day from both brokers and motor carriers about 
getting loads stolen or held hostage, and in the case of carriers, they 
are never paid by the fraudulent entity for their services. This 
rampant fraud hurts the overall safety on our nation's highways and 
ultimately the end consumer who has to bear the additional costs 
created by fraud. We are glad to see Congress is paying attention: TIA 
applauds Congress for including language in the fiscal year 2023 THUD 
Appropriations Bill that requires the FMCSA to report back to Congress 
on the reports and what they are doing to address this serious problem. 
The report has not yet been issued. One other phenomenon that we 
believe fuels fraud in the supply chain is the rise in unlicensed and 
unregulated ``dispatch services'', which often times are not domiciled 
in the United States and are hired by owner-operators to source loads 
for them, including Department of Defense freight and other critical 
and sensitive freight. This is an issue of national security, and we 
are working with the Armed Services Committees in the House and Senate 
to address this major concern. One solution would be for the FMCSA to 
implement a provision from the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act or MAP-21, that required brokers to have sufficient 
knowledge of the industry or a minimum of three years experience in 
order to gain authority. This provisions was based on a current 
regulation at the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) and seems to work 
effectively on weeding out the bad actors trying to enter the market.
    Unnecessary Commercial Regulation and Delayed Safety Regulation
    Given the uptick in motor carrier accidents and fatalities, as well 
as the proliferation of fraud in the marketplace, the FMCSA's decision 
to move forward with a rulemaking on a 1980's regulation is both ill-
considered and feckless. FMCSA has indicated that it will initiate a 
rulemaking that could force the release of the private commercial 
contract information to parties not privy to the contract. We believe 
FMCSA does not have the legal authority to ``pierce'' contracts between 
a broker and a shipper, for many reasons, not least of which is that 
such an act would potentially expose proprietary information of 
shippers, fundamentally alter and constrain the shipping market, and 
result in serious significant costs for all parties with little 
benefit.
    FMCSA's rulemaking, which was initiated by small owner operators, 
seeks to address an outdated and unnecessary regulation from more than 
40 years ago. This regulation proscribes conduct between parties to a 
commercial transaction, and the sharing of information thereto. This 
regulation was enacted in 1980, as a response to dramatically different 
marketplace and to address the concern of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission (ICC) about the illegal practice of freight rebating: motor 
carriers paid brokers a commission, and those brokers could potentially 
have common ownership with a shipper. This arrangement and ``freight 
rebating'' no longer exist. Today, brokers contract directly with 
shippers in one transaction and then enter into a completely separate 
transaction with a motor carrier. The existing regulation is itself 
unnecessary and obsolete given the changed dynamic in the marketplace, 
but expanding it would benefit no one, and would instead damage the 
economy. Owner operators originally pushed for the expansion of the 
regulation because of a very short freight shutdown that occurred 
during the commencement of the COVID-19 pandemic, where 25% of the 
economy shut down causing 90% of the trucks to chase 75% less freight, 
driving down rates. To blame the brokers for a briefly panicked and 
uncertain marketplace under unprecedented circumstances was both unfair 
and illogical. As we now know, the economy quickly rebounded, and over 
the last three and a half years, motor carriers turned out to have had 
all the leverage in commercial interactions during the pandemic because 
of insufficient drivers and trucks, and rates rose to levels previously 
never seen. This is called supply and demand. Rates are falling again 
as we noted--the freight marketplace is much softer. And so to hear the 
carriers blame the brokers again remains unfair and illogical. The end 
result is that moving forward with the regulation would result in 
``rate intrusion,'' where owner operators attempt to regulate freight 
rates through government intervention, rather than through marketplace 
negotiation.
    Not only is the end consumer hurt, but so would be the owner-
operators. If this were to be implemented, shippers might be hesitant 
to use brokers for their transportation needs. In turn, large trucking 
companies that have the resources to source loads themselves would be 
the primary beneficiaries, not owner-operators. Additionally, if 
shippers start to see what their competitors are spending, they could 
cut their own rates, which would additionally again hurt the owner-
operator. Furthermore, FMCSA is considering barring brokers from 
including certain contract provisions about the public disclosure of 
proprietary information. Brokers are naturally required by our shipper 
customers to keep certain proprietary information private. Most 
companies require that proprietary information be kept private in order 
to protect the competitive advantage created by that proprietary 
information. The FMCSA requiring brokers to disclose information that 
they are contractually unable to disclose, puts our members in an 
untenable and unmanageable situation.
    Moreover, motor carrier transportation in the spot market is one of 
the most transparent marketplaces in the world. Load boards, the 
internet, and rate quotes in person-to-person communications within the 
industry provide the rate transparency that was intended by 49 CFR 
Sec. 371.3 when commissions paid by carriers to brokers were common. 
Motor carriers have sufficient access to current market rates without 
inspecting brokers' shipment records to find out what the brokers' 
gross margins are on a load-by-load basis. However, that the FMCSA is 
putting its thumb on the scale in what is, at root, a contract 
negotiation between two private parties, while simultaneously 
disregarding serious safety and security issues, is alarming. The 
bottom line is that the Agency should spend its limited time and 
resources on its mission of safety, not regulating the private, 
proprietary contract provisions of its stakeholders.
    Brokers and owner-operators have respectively enjoyed working 
together over the years as both parties heavily rely on each other to 
survive. Brokers in many ways serve as the sales force for owner-
operators who are busy doing their job of hauling our nation's freight, 
while on the reverse owner-operators offer capacity to brokers in order 
to meet their customers' transportation needs. The two parties--and the 
American consumer--are better off when brokers and owner-operators work 
together as we did back in 2012 during MAP-21 to address common 
problems in the industry, like fraud, coercion, and truck parking.
Additional Regulatory Burdens
    We have heard from several members about the California ports and 
the AB 5 law that seeks to essentially eliminate independent 
contractors from operating in California. The majority of drayage 
carriers operating at the ports are independent contractors. This 
California law attacks the independent contractor model and is 
upsetting a highly fluid and competitive marketplace with zero to 
minimal benefits. This law flies in the face of 10+ years of an 
explosion in the number of for-hire trucking companies, while the State 
of California is trying to hold back and organize labor. As you are 
likely aware, almost 90% of all trucking companies are small fleets of 
fewer than five trucks. TIA supports all trucking companies and works 
tirelessly through our Association and members to ensure that the 
conditions of truck drivers continue to improve and to create a win-
win-win value proposition for all three parties involved. A diversified 
and decentralized freight system that can adapt to market changes 
rapidly is the key to our economic health and growth and national 
security. The PRO Act at the federal level and pending attempts from 
the Department of Labor (DOL), which would change the way independent 
contractors are classified at the federal level, would make this a 
national issue and have devastating effects on the transportation 
market. The most impacted group if this bill were to be passed, is of 
course the end consumer.
                              Conclusion:
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Committee today 
to provide the perspective of the 3PL industry and offer some potential 
solutions. I would be happy to answer any questions.

    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Ms. Reinke.
    Mr. Fialkov, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

   TESTIMONY OF DAVID H. FIALKOV, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, NATSO, REPRESENTING AMERICA'S TRAVEL PLAZAS 
  AND TRUCKSTOPS, AND SIGMA: AMERICA'S LEADING FUEL MARKETERS

    Mr. Fialkov. Thank you, Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member 
Holmes Norton. It is a privilege to be asked to testify, one 
that I do not take lightly. That is particularly true with this 
committee which has such a long history of pursuing bipartisan 
solutions to some of the country's most pressing problems. Your 
work this year on the supply chain lives up to that reputation, 
and I am happy to be contributing to that dialog here today.
    My name is David Fialkov, I am the EVP of Government 
affairs at NATSO and SIGMA, two national trade associations 
that represent something in the neighborhood of 80 percent of 
retail sales of motor fuel in the United States, and therefore, 
obviously, play a critical role in facilitating the efficient 
movement of goods and people and energy throughout the country.
    You can have an efficient fuel distribution system and 
still have supply chain problems, but you cannot have an 
effective, well-functioning supply chain unless you have an 
efficient fuel distribution system.
    And that is the role that our membership plays, we get fuel 
to where drivers need it. It doesn't matter what the fuel is, 
right? People can buy gasoline or ethanol or diesel or 
biodiesel, electricity or hydrogen. We do not care what people 
buy when they come to our store. We work very closely with this 
committee and with the administration on EV charging grant 
programs, which we have supported. We think that the existing 
refueling network represents a logical place to site EV 
charging stations, and our membership wants to be able to sell 
consumers the fuel that they want to buy, long into the future.
    One of the challenges that we have found policymakers have 
had difficulty navigating is the balance between incentivizing 
investments in alternative fuels for the future without 
excessively disrupting the existing energy and fuel markets 
that the supply chain relies upon today. For example, when we 
pursue policies that are designed to expedite the phaseout of 
liquid fuel, whether that policy is right, wrong, or 
indifferent, the result is that refiners are far less inclined 
to invest in expanding refining capacity. Those tend to be very 
capital intensive investments, they tend to have very long 
return horizons, and the result is that we have the dynamic 
that we have today, which is that there is just less slack in 
the system than there has historically been. When things are 
going smoothly, people tend not to worry about it or think 
about it, prices are stable, supply is plentiful. But when 
something goes wrong, whether it is a hurricane or a pipeline 
hack or a war in Europe or refinery outage, we have fewer 
backup options at our disposal than we historically have had.
    During these scenarios, we work very closely with FMCSA and 
EPA and others to try to identify policy impediments that can 
artificially exacerbate the impact on consumers that these 
supply disruptions have. And in our experience, we think that 
those officials, State and Federal, should have more 
flexibility to waive things, like the hours-of-service 
regulations and the weight regulations, in order to overcome 
supply disruptions.
    Another important impediment to the efficient supply chain 
that we think will have increasing problems going forward is 
the preferential tax treatment for sustainable aviation fuel 
relative to other biofuels that utilize the same feedstock 
inputs. Sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, is basically a 
renewable jet fuel that indisputably has fewer environmental 
benefits than renewable diesel fuels do. And indisputably cost 
more money to make, yet policy right now is driving biofuel 
producers to make SAF rather than renewable diesels, and the 
result of that will be that diesel emissions will go up, and 
diesel prices will go up. And when that happens, it obviously 
tends to have an infectious inflationary impact throughout the 
entire economy because of how many goods are moved by truck.
    Beyond some of these, kind of, fuel market concerns, we 
commend the committee for compiling a comprehensive package of 
policies that are designed to alleviate supply chain 
constraints. One issue that's obviously near and dear to NATSO 
members' hearts is the truck parking legislation that 
Congressman Bost and Representative Craig have been developing. 
We support that bill. We encourage the committee to pass that 
bill as soon as possible. Truckdrivers need safe, reliable 
parking. The supply chain relies upon truckdrivers having safe, 
reliable parking. And we are happy to be supportive of that 
effort.
    Finally, more broadly, I think that to effectively address 
a lot of the bottlenecks in the supply chain, the committee has 
to find a way to address labor shortages affecting not only the 
trucking industry but many businesses throughout the country. 
We are supportive of a lot of the concepts that have been 
considered thus far to encourage more men and women to become 
truckdrivers. And we look forward to working with you on that 
as well.
    Thank you very much for inviting me to testify again. I 
look forward to answering your questions.
    [Mr. Fialkov's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of David H. Fialkov, Executive Vice President, 
  Government Affairs, NATSO, Representing America's Travel Plazas and 
        Truckstops, and SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel Marketers
                              Introduction
    Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Holmes Norton, and distinguished 
members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on 
Highways and Transit. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this 
important hearing examining ways to overcome supply chain challenges in 
the United States. My name is David Fialkov, and I am the Executive 
Vice President of Government Affairs at NATSO, Representing America's 
Travel Plazas and Truckstops, and SIGMA: America's Leading Fuel 
Marketers.\1\ Our organizations are the leading national trade 
associations representing transportation energy retailers. On behalf of 
NATSO and SIGMA, which collectively represent more than 80 percent of 
retail sales of motor fuel in the United States, we are eager to work 
with the Committee to identify ways to improve and support our nation's 
supply chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NATSO represents more than 5,000 travel plazas and truck stops 
nationwide, comprised of both national chains and small, independent 
locations. SIGMA represents a diverse membership of approximately 260 
independent chain retailers and marketers of motor fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We can have an efficient fuel distribution system and still have 
problems with the supply chain, but we simply cannot have a well-
functioning supply chain without an efficient fuel distribution system.
    NATSO and SIGMA members comprise the country's downstream fuel 
distribution system. They should be viewed as surrogates for the 
consumer in that they identify the most reliable, lowest-cost 
transportation energy available, and deliver that energy to every 
community in the country. In so doing, they compete with one another on 
price, speed, and quality of service.
    The retail fuels market is the most transparent, competitive 
commodities market in the United States. As every American knows, 
drivers can see gasoline retailers' price signs from blocks away, or 
compare prices on their mobile devices. These signs represent more than 
just pricing information; they are a value proposition to potential 
customers, not only with respect to fuel but also food and other 
convenience items and amenities that are offered at specific 
facilities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ The retail diesel market is even more competitive and 
transparent as many travel centers' customers--truck drivers and 
trucking fleets--are more savvy and price-conscious than typical 
American motorists. (Fuel generally amounts to 30-40% of a motor 
carrier's overall costs.) Truck drivers are often aware of retail fuel 
prices when they are 100 miles away from potential refueling sites, and 
fleet managers use this information to direct drivers to specific 
retail locations in order to purchase the lowest-priced fuel available. 
This imposes strong downward pressure on retail diesel prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The transparency of fuel markets exerts a constant downward 
pressure on retail fuel prices. Sourcing infrastructure, market 
presence, and expertise in energy commodities and logistics optimizes 
the distribution of all fuels that we sell. These competitive dynamics 
benefit customers and force successful retailers to run efficient and 
cost competitive business platforms.
    The fuel distribution system possibly represents the most efficient 
supply chain in the country. As with the broader supply chain, many do 
not think about the fuel distribution system until there is a problem 
(e.g., a hurricane, geopolitical unrest in Europe, a pipeline hack, a 
refinery outage, etc.). When fuel distribution is disrupted, it 
presents existential threats to the life, health, and well-being of 
every American. To date, the industry has proven its ability to get 
product where it needs to be and keep the country running even in the 
face of challenges. It is critically important to recognize the 
efficiencies of the liquid fuel distribution system and, to every 
extent possible, replicate those efficiencies as the country 
transitions to future fuels.
    Improving the supply chain is not simply a question of preventing a 
line of ships waiting for berths at some of the nation's major ports. 
It is also a matter of making incremental progress in our surface 
transportation system to help ensure reliability and efficiency. 
Congress can enhance safety and reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. 
NATSO and SIGMA encourage Congress to proactively improve the transport 
of goods and support an effective supply chain as soon as possible. 
Proactive solutions are key to avoiding supply chain disruptions, as 
they enable us to address issues before they become economy-wide 
emergencies.
                  Background: The Retail Fuel Industry
    Fuel retailers' sole objective is to sell legal products, in a 
lawful way, to customers who want to buy them. The retail fuels 
industry competes to ensure that American motorists' needs are met as 
efficiently as possible. Most fuel retailers are open 24 hours a day, 
seven days a week, and provide restrooms, food and beverage options, 
sufficient lighting, security, and on-site employees to contact law 
enforcement or emergency medical technician services in the event of an 
emergency. After natural disasters occur, our industry is often the 
first up and running to provide necessary services to motorists and 
first responders.
    Many travel centers, fuel marketers, and convenience stores are an 
economic engine for small, disadvantaged, and rural communities. 
According to the National Association of Convenience Stores' 2022 State 
of the Industry Report, 93 percent of Americans live within 10 minutes 
of a convenience store--and this includes 86 percent of those who live 
in rural areas. Single store operators account for more than 60 percent 
of the stores in the convenience and fuel retailing industry; 75 
percent of the industry is comprised of companies with ten or fewer 
locations. The industry employed more than 2.44 million employees, 
generated $906 billion in total sales, and processed approximately 165 
million transactions per day in 2022.\3\ In many instances, they are 
the largest employers and largest taxpayers in their communities and 
the only 24-hour location where local residents can buy basic groceries 
or redeem Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See NACS, State of the Industry (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fuel retailers and marketers are generally independent businesses. 
Although some might bear the name of a large oil company, this is not 
indicative of any ownership stake in the business or the real estate, 
but simply of a marketing relationship or announcement to passing 
motorists that a certain company's product is available for purchase at 
that location (comparable to a soft drink advertisement in a grocery 
store window).
    The travel center industry--defined loosely as retail fuel outlets 
located within one-half mile of an Interstate--is a diverse, 
sophisticated, and evolving industry. It is positioned to meet the 
needs of all drivers traveling on the Interstate Highway System 
regardless of the fuel their vehicles use. Although the industry was 
once tailored solely to truck drivers, it now caters to the entire 
Interstate traveling public, as well as the local population. It 
remains the leading national source of truck parking spaces, providing 
essential rest and amenities to hard-working truck drivers, 
contributing to the safety of the nation's highways, and supporting the 
essential movement of goods to support the American economy.
    Fuel retailers are agnostic to the type of transportation energy 
that their customers purchase from them. As recent history has shown, 
our members are prepared to invest in any transportation energy 
technology that their customers desire. Our goal is simply to provide 
customers with what they want, where they want it, when they want it, 
and at a price they are willing to pay.
    Our members do have a bias, however. They believe it is best for 
the American consumer and America's industrial and geopolitical 
position in the world marketplace to have reliable sources of energy at 
reasonably low, stable prices.
    The primary trait of any successful retailer is the ability to 
identify what his or her customers want to buy, and then sell that 
product at a price that is attractive to the customer while enabling 
the retailer to earn a profit. In this respect, retailers are effective 
surrogates for consumers. In our experience, consumers desire 
transportation energy that is delivered quickly, at a convenient 
location, and at a competitive price.
    Fuel marketers and retailers prefer long markets with a diverse 
array of supply options at their disposal. This dynamic tends to 
enhance consumer choice and inject an additional layer of competition 
into the market. This leads to downward pressure on retail fuel prices, 
which is good for both our customers and the broader American economy.
    Transportation energy retailers' strong preference for supply 
diversity and low energy prices are grounded in the low-margin 
environment in which they operate. Fuel sales are profitable because of 
the volume of sales that occur every day. The market's transparency and 
competitiveness effectively precludes retailers from passing through 
price increases as fast as they must absorb them.\4\ This dynamic 
prompts our market to be among the first to suffer from inflation. In 
rising price environments, retailers' margins get smaller while their 
costs--not only of purchasing fuel at wholesale but also ancillary 
costs such as credit card fees--increase.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ In fact, there are times when prices rise rapidly that 
retailers lose money on fuel sales in order to try to hold onto market 
share and not lose customers.
    \5\ Swipe fees are fuel retailers' second-highest operating cost, 
behind only labor. The fees are much more than retailers' costs of 
utilities and rent, just to take two examples. Swipe fees are levied as 
a percentage of the total price of the transaction, so they rise as the 
cost of fuel rises, creating additional price pressure on retailers. In 
fact, these fees are charged on the tax portion of every transaction as 
well so retailers must pay the credit card industry for revenue that 
they know they will never see.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Retailers are fundamentally ``buyers'' of fuel as much as they are 
sellers of fuel. Given the transparency and competitiveness of fuel 
pricing, fuel retailers are ``price takers'' when they buy fuel in 
wholesale markets: The market sets the price and retailers compete on 
optimizing purchasing and inventory management as well as speed and 
quality of service.
    The industry's exposure to price volatility and supply disruptions 
is more heightened than it has been historically. This is due in large 
part to limited domestic refining capacity. Diminished refining 
capability keeps the supply tight. Low demand for refined products 
during the COVID-19 pandemic made operating a refinery unprofitable. 
This significantly hampered U.S. (and global) refining investment and 
thus capacity. At the same time, there has been a more macro trend away 
from hydrocarbon production and processing in favor of alternative 
energy investments that have more attractive emissions outcomes. This 
too has diminished investments in U.S. refining capacity (which tend to 
be capital-intensive with extraordinarily long return horizons).
    The result is that there is less slack in the fuel system than 
there used to be. When things are going smoothly, there is ample supply 
and distribution capacity. But when unforeseeable events disrupt one or 
more sources of supply, it is more challenging to find backup options. 
It results in a more volatile price environment and increased 
vulnerability to shortages.
Alternative Fuels Diversify and Lengthen Supply
    Alternative fuels diversify and lengthen the supply of 
transportation energy. NATSO and SIGMA support ambitious, market-based, 
and consumer-oriented alternative fuel incentive policies. Existing 
retail fuel locations are optimal for the buildout of an alternative 
fuel network, including electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. Fuel 
retailers have demonstrated in recent years that they are prepared to 
invest in any alternative fuel technology that their customers desire. 
NATSO and SIGMA members have a proven history of responding to policy 
incentives to roll out alternative fuels for wider use. Over the last 
thirty years, our industry has adapted to meet consumer demand with 
increased biofuel blends and other alternative fuels.
    Well-crafted alternative fuel incentives can enhance those fuels' 
economics and enable the market to confidently invest in those 
products. No single solution will decarbonize transportation energy. 
The best way for policies to maximize emissions reductions is by 
incentivizing all fuel technologies to reduce their respective 
emissions profiles. What policymakers think is the best solution today 
may be surpassed by subsequent ingenuity or information. Sound policy 
should not stifle innovation by mandating specific solutions.
    Today, biofuels enhance supply and lower consumer prices. NATSO and 
SIGMA are therefore in favor of robust biofuel incentive policies. For 
example, we support allowing year-round sales of gasoline with an 
ethanol content of up to 15 percent (E15). Higher biofuel blends allow 
us to enhance supply and lower prices. Ethanol, particularly in light 
of policy incentives, is less expensive than gasoline. Allowing year-
round E15 would thus, all else being equal, lower retail prices for 
cleaner-burning ethanol blends and support a more favorable refueling 
margin structure for retailers. This is a positive outcome. NATSO and 
SIGMA are aware of no reasonable policy rationale for continuing to 
restrict year-round sales of E15, and therefore encourage Congress to 
lift those restrictions as soon as possible.
    We also support incentives for advanced biofuels that have more 
positive emissions outcomes than ethanol. Advanced over-the-road 
biofuels such as renewable diesel and biodiesel diversify the 
industry's sources of over-the-road supply and limit the country's 
exposure to global diesel market volatility, all while mitigating the 
environmental footprint of heavy-duty trucks. These fuels reduce 
emissions by at least fifty percent relative to traditional diesel 
fuel.
    Biofuel and renewable fuel incentives work. They helped our 
industry build and maintain a competitive marketplace, maximize the 
climate benefits of renewable fuels, and minimize fuel supply 
disruptions and inflationary consequences for consumers.
    NATSO and SIGMA members are concerned that the Inflation Reduction 
Act's (IRA's) preferential treatment for sustainable aviation fuel 
(SAF) relative to renewable diesel and biodiesel will have an 
increasingly negative impact on diesel supply, price, and emissions in 
the coming years. SAF is a renewable jet fuel that indisputably has 
fewer environmental benefits than renewable diesel and biodiesel. 
Current law encourages biofuel producers to make SAF instead of 
renewable diesel. This does not reduce emissions, it transfers 
emissions savings from the trucking sector to the aviation sector, 
while forcing taxpayers to pay more to do it. This policy is unsound. 
Unless these two fuels are treated comparably in the tax code, it will 
result in more supply chain disruptions in the years ahead.
Fuel Supply Efficiencies Should be Replicated for EV Charging 
        Deployment
    NATSO and SIGMA members are at the forefront of investments in EV 
charging infrastructure. These investments are occurring in many areas 
of the country long before demand catches up with the supply. We have 
worked closely with this Committee, as well as the U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT) and state DOTs in support of various EV charging 
grant programs and other market-building opportunities. We think it 
makes logical sense to site EV charging stations within the existing 
retail fuel network. We can do it faster and more efficiently than 
anyone else.
    Many NATSO and SIGMA member companies have entire business units 
focused on EV charging station investments. The unambiguous feedback is 
that these EV charging grant programs--including the National Electric 
Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program--should focus more on encouraging 
states to reexamine arcane regulatory regimes that are incompatible 
with public EV charging transactions. Otherwise, there is a real 
possibility that the federal government could squander its opportunity 
to build a state-of-the-art national EV charging network, and instead 
install slower, outdated charging stations in places customers don't 
want to stop to refuel. There is a substantial risk of stranded assets 
as the public EV charging network develops.
    Many seem to think that a transition to electric transportation 
fuel requires creating an entirely new refueling network. That is not 
the case. Our country already has in place a robust, highly competitive 
refueling network. Fuel retailers are in the business of providing 
competitively priced fuel and services to their customers. The most 
effective way to prompt investment in EV charging stations is to 
establish policies that will incentivize the existing refueling network 
to incorporate fast EV charging into their suite of fueling options.
    EV drivers will need fast, high-powered charging solutions to meet 
consumer expectations. Many in our industry are investing in EV 
charging stations that can deliver a 350-kilowatt (kW) charge--the 
highest on the market today. There is limited production capability and 
capacity for Buy America-compliant direct current fast chargers (DCFC), 
even at DOT's minimum proposed power standard of 150kW. There is even 
less availability for Buy America-compliant charging stations at the 
350kW power level. In fact, we are unaware of any data suggesting that 
Buy America-compliant 350kW chargers are available at scale today or 
will be available in time to meet the timelines established under the 
current waiver. Congress should encourage DOT to flexibly interpret the 
Buy America regulatory structure that was only recently finalized this 
Spring.
Government Should Work with Private Industry to Ensure Adequate Truck 
        Parking
    The travel center industry provides 90 percent of the country's 
truck parking. In addition, the travel center industry provides 
essential rest and amenities to our nation's drivers, contributing to 
the safety of the nation's highways and supporting the essential 
movement of goods to support the American economy. When professional 
drivers spend less time looking for parking, they have more time to 
move products to their destination. It also lowers the cost of shipping 
those products, which in turn lowers the costs for consumers.
    The private sector is best suited to provide truck parking. Private 
industry, however, often deals with conflicting policies in this arena. 
While federal and state governments frequently recognize and emphasize 
the importance of truck parking at private businesses such as travel 
centers, new facilities are often opposed by local governments. Those 
local governments sometimes condition the approval of a new or expanded 
parking facility on the business owner's agreement to fund improvements 
to an interchange.
    In any instance, there is a significant cost to constructing new 
private parking facilities. Businesses need a return on their 
investment to offset initial land acquisition and capital costs as well 
as recurring costs such as operations and maintenance. Because the 
competitive nature of the fuel retail industry requires NATSO and SIGMA 
members to offer amenities to compete for market share, many travel 
centers do not charge for truck parking. Those that do typically charge 
a fee only for non-customers. This dynamic makes it increasingly 
difficult for the industry to adequately invest.
    To the extent that policymakers want to support truck parking 
expansion, such investments should wherever possible be undertaken in 
partnership with the private sector to ensure the funds are spent 
efficiently and focused on the consumer experience. Truck drivers 
prefer to stop at safe locations that offer food, fuel, and other 
amenities. The funds should not enable states, localities, or others to 
provide truck parking in a manner that directly competes with NATSO and 
SIGMA members and thereby undermines the industry's incentives to 
expand truck parking capacity.
    NATSO and SIGMA applaud Representatives Mike Bost and Angie Craig 
for their work on the Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act. This 
legislation is a common-sense solution to improve the supply chain. 
NATSO and SIGMA urge the Committee to advance this bipartisan 
legislation as soon as possible.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Notably, Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act does not call for 
commercializing rest areas, which would undermine the investments that 
NATSO and SIGMA members have made in off-highway real estate. Any 
effort to undo the ban on rest area commercialization undermines the 
incentives for private companies to expand truck parking capacity, as 
well as the local communities and off-highway businesses that support 
the supply chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expeditious Issuance of Waivers Keeps Fuel and Critical Products Moving 
        in Times of Disaster
    Fuel retailers not only serve professional drivers and fleets by 
providing them fuel and the amenities they desire on the road, NATSO 
and SIGMA members also frequently employ their own fleets to haul 
gasoline, diesel, biofuels, and other products that are sold in their 
stores. Hours-of-Service (HOS) waivers therefore can allow fuel haulers 
to move critical supplies to areas in need during times of disaster. 
NATSO and SIGMA encourage flexibility in providing HOS waivers so our 
members can respond quickly and efficiently during a crisis that 
impacts the fuel supply. Congress should streamline the ability to 
offer waivers during these times of crisis to reduce inefficiencies 
that delay deliveries, including the supply of fuel.
    Recently, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration proposed 
to narrow the flexibility that is automatically provided to motor 
carriers when an emergency has been declared.\7\ While well-
intentioned, the proposal would further impede the industry's ability 
to respond to supply disruptions, unnecessarily exaggerating their 
effect of fuel deliveries and pump prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (49 CFR Part 390) Clarification to the Applicability of 
Emergency Exemptions (Dec. 8, 2022) available at https://
www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2022-0028-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When pipelines, terminals, and storage facilities are impacted by a 
disruptive event, haulers cannot necessarily simply go to the next 
closest facility to pick up their supply of fuel. Different states, and 
different regions within states, may have different fuel specifications 
for products sold within their respective territories. In the absence 
of emergency waivers, fuel haulers may be compelled to drive further to 
pick up their fuel load. It may therefore take multiple weeks to 
rebuild fuel supplies. This is why we always encourage HOS waivers to 
be issued in advance of a predictable, disrupting event so that fuel 
retailers can make necessary adjustments and have the requisite 
capabilities to meet demand.
    HOS waivers should also automatically encompass diesel exhaust 
fluid (DEF), which is a liquid that reduces diesel engine emissions and 
is an essential component of truck movement in the United States. 
Drivers that deliver diesel fuel also deliver DEF as market and supply 
conditions dictate, so it is essential that DEF be included in any HOS 
waiver.
    Weight waivers for heavy-duty trucks could also alleviate tightness 
in the fuel supply chain. For example, diesel fuel weighs more than 
gasoline. By enabling trucks hauling fuel to be filled at capacity with 
diesel fuel (current weight restrictions generally result in trucks 
reaching their weight capacity well before the truck reaches its diesel 
hauling capacity), it can allow fuel retailers to move more supply on a 
single load.
    In addition, there may be times when it is advantageous to 
temporarily waive restrictions on diesel's sulfur content and foreign-
flagged vessels shipping fuel between U.S. ports (Jones Act) to address 
particularly acute supply disruptions as they present themselves. In 
those regions of the country that utilize heating oil, dyed diesel 
waivers may also prove useful.
    NATSO and SIGMA support concepts such as those included in the 
Safer Highways and Increased Performance for Interstate Trucking (SHIP 
IT) Act that promote flexibility for HOS and weight regulations when 
needed to address supply chain issues.
The Retail Fuel Industry Depends on an Adequate Labor Pool
    Fuel retailers not only serve professional drivers and fleets, they 
also frequently employ their own drivers. NATSO and SIGMA support 
efforts to address the labor shortage Specifically, we support 
incentives for more men and women to pursue careers as truck drivers. 
Calculated by determining the difference between the number of drivers 
currently in the market and the optimal number of drivers based on 
freight demand, the American Trucking Associations estimate the driver 
shortage for 2022 at nearly 78,000 professional drivers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ ATA Driver Shortage Update 2022. American Trucking 
Associations, October 25, 2022. Available at: https://ata.msgfocus.com/
files/amf_highroad_solution/project_2358/ATA_Driver_
Shortage_Report_2022_Executive_Summary.October22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are several reasons for the persistent shortage of truck 
drivers. These include an aging driver population (and therefore 
retirements) and a limited number of women that chose to drive 
professionally. The COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbated these labor 
concerns. Moreover, attending a truck driving school and obtaining a 
commercial driver's license (CDL) can be expensive, ranging between 
$3,000 and $7,000.
    NATSO and SIGMA supported the Safe Driver Apprenticeship Pilot 
Program, which was a carefully crafted bipartisan compromise included 
in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The pilot program 
looks to address the historical driver shortage by enabling 18- to 20-
year-old drivers to join the professional driver workforce and drive in 
interstate commerce after receiving rigorous training and 
certification. NATSO and SIGMA, however, are concerned that DOT is 
implementing the program in a manner that is not aligned with 
Congressional intent.
    The retail fuels industry also supports concepts such as providing 
financial incentives that remove barriers to entry for aspiring 
drivers. Legislative concepts that would provide a tax credit to 
individuals investing in the cost of CDL training and testing are 
creative solutions to incentivize drivers and address the labor 
shortage.
Quick Turnaround of Out-of-Service Vehicles is Necessary to Keep Goods 
        Moving
    Current supply chain issues have created a backlog for businesses, 
including NATSO and SIGMA members, to purchase new commercial motor 
vehicles. Because of this, heavy-duty trucks on the road today must be 
driven longer and further until the fleet can turn over.
    As automotive technology has advanced, the information needed to 
repair these sophisticated engine systems has advanced as well. To 
repair a commercial motor vehicle, mechanics must have access to 
onboard diagnostic and telematic systems when previously they relied 
upon observation and experience. In effect, truck manufacturers have 
become the gatekeepers of the advanced information necessary to repair 
or supply parts to commercial motor vehicles, increasing the cost of 
repair and limiting the flexibility to quickly return these vehicles to 
the road. By providing the independent repair industry with access to 
critical repair tools and information, owners and operators of 
commercial motor vehicles will have access to affordable and quality 
vehicle repair. Not only will there be greater availability to repair 
these vehicles, but the cost of those repairs will decrease, which 
ultimately lowers costs for consumers.
    NATSO and SIGMA support legislation such as the Right to Equitable 
and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR Act). Passing the REPAIR 
Act will provide independent repair shops, including some of our own 
members, with access to the diagnostic information needed to identify 
and repair mechanical issues with commercial motor vehicles. The REPAIR 
Act will promote choice and competition while also ensuring commercial 
motor vehicles return to the road as expeditiously as possible.
                               Conclusion
    NATSO and SIGMA are eager to work with Congress on ways to support 
an efficient fuel distribution system and therefore an efficient supply 
chain. Congress can act in a bipartisan way to improve safety, reduce 
regulatory burdens, and bolster supply chains. The retail fuel industry 
looks forward to working with policymakers to support that effort.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any 
questions you may have.

    Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
    Mr. Scandaglia, you are recognized 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF COLE SCANDAGLIA, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE 
AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY ADVISER, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF 
                           TEAMSTERS

    Mr. Scandaglia. Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, 
Ranking Member Larsen, and members of the subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing on behalf 
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and General 
President Sean O'Brien.
    The Teamsters represent 1.2 million hard-working people in 
the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. We are the largest 
union in the freight industry. I would be remiss if I didn't 
mention that as we sit here today, General President O'Brien is 
busy negotiating the national UPS contract, which is the 
largest private collective bargaining agreement in North 
America. We have approximately 350,000 Teamsters at UPS, which 
is the largest trucking company on the planet by revenue.
    It is no coincidence that unionized UPS provides roughly 
twice the pay in benefits to its drivers than nonunion Amazon 
and FedEx. Fundamentally, we believe that good jobs and good 
working conditions in the freight industry directly translate 
to a stronger supply chain. Many of these issues that we will 
discuss today are not any more complicated than that simple 
fact.
    At the Teamsters, we know what it takes to bring new, safe 
drivers into the industry. Through the Biden administration's 
Trucking Action Plan, Teamsters Local 776 stood up a new 
registered apprenticeship program in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, in 
record time that is delivering high-quality training and 
careers to future freight drivers. Long before the crisis, the 
Teamsters had taken a proactive role in training the next 
generation of drivers, and today, operate 21 CDL training 
programs across 11 States, and provide the opportunity for a 
prosperous future and the ability to provide for one's family.
    Our track record of training safe drivers for good careers 
is unparalleled. We welcome the opportunity to work with 
Congress and the Department of Transportation to identify 
strategies and funding streams to allow us to reach more 
individuals. We also strongly support efforts to identify and 
train future CDL holders from nontraditional driving 
backgrounds. The Teamsters are proud to serve on DOT's Women of 
Trucking Advisory Board, and look forward to the important task 
of increasing the pipeline of female drivers.
    There are also ample opportunities to provide better 
pathways to bring veterans into the freight industry. The 
Teamsters have endorsed the bipartisan Veteran Improvement 
Commercial Driver License Act introduced last Congress by 
Senators Fischer and Padilla, which would improve veterans' 
access to CDL training schools. We also thank Representative 
Edwards, Pappas, and Crane for the reintroduction of that bill 
this year.
    We expect that today's hearing will delve substantially 
into the question of a driver shortage. We all heard the 
industry data on turnover rates and unfilled positions. We ask 
that you interrogate this raw data. Why is it that carriers are 
reporting such difficulties recruiting? And why is it that so 
many people don't stay in the industry? We know that drivers 
with strong IBT bargain contracts that provide good wages, 
employer-paid healthcare, and dignified retirement, stay in 
their jobs. Truckdrivers respond to the same economic 
incentives as employees of any other industry. And many drivers 
who leave are doing so in response to untenable economic 
circumstances.
    It is not enough to just funnel more drivers into a broken 
pipeline. We must address the root causes of these challenges. 
From the Teamsters perspective, we can't have this conversation 
without discussing the scourge of illegal independent 
contracting. Independent contractors generally do not receive 
protections and benefits under Federal law, including overtime, 
unemployment insurance, workers' comp, Social Security, and the 
right to join a union. For the illegally misclassified driver, 
this puts their livelihoods and economic future in jeopardy.
    Worsening conditions are also apparent across the industry. 
For example, Amazon's delivery service partners and freight 
service partner programs have managed to combine an abusive 
independent contractor model with unacceptable safety records.
    Recent reporting showed that Amazon's freight service 
partners driving semitrailers had some of the worst safety 
records in the industry, and employ drivers who were cited for 
violations at a rate 70 times higher than Teamster-represented 
UPS drivers.
    A strong supply chain also depends on both a healthy and 
safe workforce. The Teamsters unequivocally reject purported 
safety supply chain solutions rooted in watering down training 
standards, attacking fatigue protections, and putting heavier, 
more dangerous trucks on our interstates. Pushing drivers to 
and past the limits of safety is never a salve for corporate 
shortcomings.
    We think there are commonsense, bipartisan solutions here, 
but not by putting our members and the general public in harm's 
way. I also have to add that despite the claims of Silicon 
Valley venture capitalists, it would be irresponsible for 
Congress to abandon its responsibility to improving working 
conditions in the hopes that automated freight is around the 
corner, as is discussed at length in my written testimony. As 
Congress considers automated vehicles, it is critical that 
Congress focuses on issues of safety, as well as impact to 
workers across the freight sector.
    To close, the supply chain is not partisan. We believe that 
there are areas of common ground where we can work together to 
improve circumstances for both our members and Americans across 
the country who rely on the work that we do.
    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters thanks the 
committee for the opportunity to testify on the state of our 
supply chain. We look forward to working together on these 
issues going forward.
    [Mr. Scandaglia's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
       Prepared Statement of Cole Scandaglia, Senior Legislative 
    Representative and Transportation Policy Adviser, International 
                        Brotherhood of Teamsters
    Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Holmes Norton, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 
``Freight Forward: Overcoming Supply Chain Challenges to Deliver for 
America''. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 1.2 
million hardworking people in the United States, Canada, and Puerto 
Rico and is the largest transportation union in the United States, 
including more than 600,000 members who start their workday behind the 
steering wheel, and tens of thousands of members whose jobs have a 
direct nexus with the supply chain across all sectors of the 
transportation. As a union we are focused on fostering a supply chain 
that supports good jobs with fair wages and working conditions, and 
that prioritizes the safety of both drivers and those who share our 
nation's roadways.
    Over the course of the ``supply chain crisis'' and especially 
during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, several key points were 
made abundantly clear. First, that the Teamsters kept this nation 
running. For these individuals, there was no work from home and no 
flexible schedules. Our members showed up every day to move goods 
across the country, weathering uncertain economic climates as the less-
than truckload sector (LTL) experienced both all-time lows in freight 
demand and all-time highs. Second, the economic shocks of the pandemic 
laid bare the fragilities of numerous components of our supply chain, 
many of which long proceeded the events of the last several years.
    It is essential that Congress and federal regulators understand 
that the supply chain is not an amorphous entity comprised of transit 
time data and balance sheets. The freight supply chain is a network of 
working people loading, driving, and maintaining vehicles to move the 
nation's commerce. As you consider legislative proposals to strengthen 
supply chains, the Teamsters unequivocally call for solutions that 
improve conditions and job quality for these employees and reject 
proposals that would do otherwise.
                  Good Jobs and a Healthy Supply Chain
    The Teamsters fundamentally believe that good jobs in the freight 
and transportation sector directly translate to a stronger supply 
chain, and welcome opportunities to work with Congress and the 
Administration in these efforts. At the height of the supply chain 
crisis, the Biden Administration launched its Trucking Action Plan, 
which included common-sense efforts to expand high quality training 
through Registered Apprenticeship programs, and to reduce the 
bureaucratic delays in introducing Commercial Driver License (CDL) 
programs. The Teamsters rose to the occasion. The Trucking Action Plan 
paved the way for Teamsters Local 776, in partnership with Yellow 
Freight, to launch a new apprenticeship program in Carlisle, 
Pennsylvania that is delivering high quality training and careers to 
future freight drivers.
    Long before the crisis, the Teamsters have taken a proactive role 
in training the next generation of truck drivers, and today operate 21 
CDL training programs across 11 states that provide CDL holders the 
opportunity for a prosperous future and the ability to provide for 
their families. Our track record of training safe, competent, drivers 
for good careers is unparalleled, and we welcome the opportunity to 
work with Congress and the Department of Transportation to identify 
strategies and funding streams to grow our programs and reach more 
individuals across the nation.
    We also strongly support efforts to identify and train future CDL 
holders from non-traditional driving populations. Depending on the 
source, it is estimated that less than 15 percent of over the road 
truck drivers today are women. The Teamsters are proud to serve on 
DOT's Women of Trucking Advisory Board and look forward to generating 
recommendations on developing a strong pipeline of female commercial 
drivers.
    There are also ample opportunities to provide better pathways to 
bring veterans into the freight industry. The Teamsters have endorsed 
the bipartisan Veteran Improvement Commercial Driver License Act when 
introduced last Congress by Senators Fischer and Padilla, which would 
improve veteran's access to CDL training schools by ensuring that they 
can use G.I. bill funds at new locations of established training 
programs. We thank Representatives Edwards, Pappas, and Crane for their 
recent introduction of a House companion.
    Through decades of experience, we know how to train safe and 
competent drivers and how to place those drivers in high-quality jobs. 
We offer our expertise, experience, and partnership to Congressionally 
directed efforts to improve and increase access to quality CDL 
training.
                             Driver Supply
    We expect that today's hearing will delve substantially into the 
concept of a driver ``shortage'', and the difficulties that trucking 
companies of all stripes state that they are facing in hiring and 
retaining drivers. The Subcommittee is well-versed in the familiar 
statistics--annualized turnover rates at large truckload carriers are 
consistently in the 80-90 percent range, as opposed to between 10-15 
percent for less than LTL carriers, where Teamsters drivers are more 
heavily represented.\1\ These turnover figures are often presented 
alongside claims that there are tens of thousands of unfilled driving 
positions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/truckload-turnover-
plunges-second-quarter
    \2\ https://www.transportdive.com/news/truck-driver-shortage-eases-
slightly-in-2022-chief-economist-Bob-Costello-ATA-MCE-2022/634854/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While we do not intend to litigate the precise number of drivers 
the freight industry needs, it is important for all stakeholders to 
scrutinize this information and consider the implications beyond simply 
what raw data presented without context may or may not suggest. If 
carriers, particularly in the truckload sector, are having such 
difficulties recruiting, training, and retaining drivers, the root 
causes of those difficulties must be addressed as opposed to simply 
forcing more drivers into a damaged pipeline.
    A 2019 Bureau of Labor Statistics report into the question of 
driver availability and economic behavior largely concluded that the 
supply of drivers behaves in the manner a basic supply and demand model 
would anticipate, with expected responses to economic incentives. BLS 
stated that ``the overall picture is consistent with a market in which 
labor supply responds to increasing labor demand over time, and a 
deeper look does not find evidence of a secular shortage'' and further, 
``Econometric models of in- and outmigration of drivers support this 
conclusion. Drivers with higher earnings and [better] hours [when first 
observed by the study] are less likely to leave driving [12 months 
later]''.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/is-the-us-labor-
market-for-truck-drivers-broken.
htm?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20210524&utm_

term=5413005&utm_campaign=money&utm_id=5246456&orgid=151&utm_att1=money
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In short, commercial drivers with competitive compensation tend to 
remain in the industry, much like their peers in other jobs with 
similar profiles. As a labor organization that secures industry-leading 
contracts for Teamster-represented drivers, these findings are 
unsurprising. It is no coincidence that turnover in the Teamsters-dense 
LTL sector is several orders of magnitude lower than for TL drivers, 
and that this difference is also apparent between union and non-union 
LTL carriers where Teamster-represented total compensation packages 
outstrip non-union competitors.
    We acknowledge that there are fundamental and non-economic 
differences in operations and their impacts on employees between TL and 
LTL carriers which contribute to these disparities--most Teamster-
represented LTL drivers return home each evening, and do not spend days 
at a time away from home as their TL counterparts do. However, the 
stark data on turnover and supposed ``unfilled positions'' strongly 
suggests that this cannot be the full story. Congress must consider the 
extent to which a purported shortage is a function of a lack of good 
jobs, as opposed to a fundamental flaw in the potential driver 
population or in the regulatory framework that oversees the licensure 
of new drivers and the rules of the road. Particularly in a tight labor 
market, a failure to offer competitive wages, conditions and a 
dignified retirement, all things guaranteed in a Teamsters-bargained 
contract, will manifest as a failure to fill driver seats as potential 
truck drivers look to other careers.
    To this end, we applaud Congress for its passage of a requirement 
within the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which tasked the 
Transportation Research Board (TRB) to examine driver compensation, and 
the impacts of various methods of driver compensation on both safety 
and driver retention. The Teamsters Union has engaged with TRB on its 
study, and we look forward to the production of a report that will 
provide further illumination of the undeniable nexus between retention 
and compensation.
    We also reject industry characterizations, presented without data 
or other corroboration that high turnover rates are simply a function 
of movement of employees between carriers in pursuit of higher 
wages.\4\ It is certainly accurate that this takes place to some 
degree, particularly in the non-unionized segments of the industry. 
However, trying to hide shockingly high turnover rates behind the claim 
that employees exist in a perpetual state of upward wage mobility 
musical chairs does not hold up to meaningful scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.trucking.org/news-insights/truth-about-trucking-
turnover
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The question of why so many drivers choose to leave the industry 
goes deeper than just wage rates. Corporate greed has spawned a decades 
long scourge of rampant misclassification of truck drivers as 
independent contractors. The cost of being improperly classified as an 
independent contractor is high. Independent contractors generally do 
not receive protections and benefits under federal and state labor 
laws, including overtime, unemployment insurance, workers' 
compensation, and Social Security, as well as their right to join a 
union. For the misclassified driver, this puts their livelihoods and 
economic future in jeopardy, while allowing their de facto employer 
pockets profits that would otherwise flow to employees through the 
nature of the employer-employee relationship. High-road employers who 
properly classify their employees are then also disadvantaged when 
forced to compete with carriers profiting through illegal exploitation 
of their workforce.
    Misclassification in U.S. economy is deeply entrenched. As a 
baseline, the Department of Labor has previously found that across 
industries, between 10 and 30 percent of audited employers 
misclassified workers, and following an audit 95 percent of workers who 
claimed they were misclassified were reclassified as employees. Those 
numbers are far more egregious in the trucking industry wherein a 2015 
report suggested that 49,000 of the nation's estimated 75,000 port 
truck drivers are misclassified as independent contractors.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Big-Rig-
Overhaul-Misclassification-Port-Truck-Drivers-Labor-Law-Enforcement.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Teamsters have fought illegal independent contracting schemes 
with success at the National Labor Relations Board and at the state 
level and will continue to do so. However, the spread of this model is 
pervasive, and requires dedicated federal attention to ensure that 
employees are not being misclassified, that companies who do so face 
meaningful repercussions, and that drivers are aware of their rights as 
to not become ensnared in exploitative work arrangements.
    California's AB5 represents a critical step in disentangling 
systematic misclassification of drivers. AB5 ensures that drivers, who 
by all the indicators of their relationship with a company should be 
considered employees, receive the benefits of employment, and if a 
driver wishes to driver as an independent owner-operator they are doing 
so with actual independence from the companies they are doing business 
with. In August of last year, the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of California correctly allowed AB5 to go into effect for 
truck drivers in the state of California, and the Teamsters welcome a 
brighter and economically just future for Californian freight workers.
    Misclassification of employees often goes hand in hand with other 
destructive practices, like predatory truck leasing schemes. While many 
owner-operators enter the industry with an understanding of the 
financial conditions of their arrangement, some unscrupulous carriers 
have targeted would-be owner-operators with offers to lease vehicles 
that entrap these drivers in impossible conditions that will never 
result in truck ownership.
    Frequently targeted at individuals with bad credit, poor financial 
acumen, or who do not speak English as a first language, these lease 
agreements often feature untenable interest rates, high monthly 
payments and binding and expensive requirements on preferred 
maintenance vendors, insurance policies and even fuel. When classified 
as independent contractors these drivers are not owed minimum wage, and 
in combination with a predatory lease agreement a driver may finish a 
week of work and net a zero-dollar paycheck. At the most extreme, a USA 
Today investigative report identified ``seven different companies that 
have told their employees they owe money at week's end''.\6\ In a 
nation that outlaws indentured servitude, no worker in any occupation 
should finish a hard week of work with nothing to show for it. In some 
instances, the nakedly predatory nature of these arrangements has drawn 
the ire of the legal system--in 2019, C.R. England Inc. settled a suit 
for $37.8 million over its efforts to fraudulently induce 17,519 
drivers into driving opportunities through such lease arrangements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forced-
into-debt-worked-past-exhaustion-left-with-nothing/
    \7\ https://www.freightwaves.com/news/c-r-england-reaches-37-8-
million-lawsuit-settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When these are the kinds of conditions facing new entrants into the 
freight sector, we cannot be surprised at high turnover rates and 
unwillingness to enter commercial trucking as knowledge of these 
practices becomes more widely understood among prospective drivers. The 
Teamsters are proud to serve on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's recently formed Truck Leasing Task Force and look 
forward to working with FMCSA and stakeholders to put an end to the 
proliferation of these schemes.
    Finally, the exponential growth of subcontracted logistics 
companies, notably at Amazon, also sheds light on the unpalatable and 
unsustainable nature of certain segments of the industry. In the case 
of Amazon, this has taken on a particularly pernicious twist through 
Amazon's Delivery Service Partners (DSP) and Freight Service Partners 
(FSP) programs. In contrast to a typical IC/owner-operator model, both 
the DSP/FSP programs involve Amazon contracting routes to a single 
owner or entity, who in turn hires bona fide employee drivers.
    Through the structure, Amazon asserts that it can avoid an 
employer-employee relationship with the drivers and thus evade all the 
aforementioned responsibilities that would otherwise affix. This is 
despite the fact that DSP/FSP drivers wear Amazon-branded clothing, 
operate vehicles with Amazon logos, are subject to Amazon-dictated 
performance standards, have their location, speed and movement tracked 
by Amazon and are subject to numerous other mandates from Amazon, not 
the DSP/FSP operator.
    Furthermore, given the IC relationship between Amazon and the DSP/
FSP, Amazon can further exert control over drivers and their activity 
by terminating the DSP/FSP contract at any time, for any reason. In 
April, drivers with DSP Battle-Tested Strategies in Palmdale, 
California joined Teamsters Local 396, and the unit was voluntarily 
recognized by Battle-Tested Strategies. No sooner had it done so Amazon 
moved to directly intervene by holding a captive audience meeting and 
telling the employees of Battle Tested Strategies it was terminating 
the contract and shutting the DSP down, satisfying Amazon's prime 
directive to union-bust at all costs. All told, the DSP/FSP model 
allows Amazon to enjoy all the perks of employer-level control of 
drivers, with none of the attendant responsibilities.
    It should also be noted that Amazon is able to deploy this model to 
shirk responsibility for the movement of its products. A recent Wall 
Street Journal investigation found that over 1,300 Amazon Freight 
Service Partners ``received [safety] scores worse than the level at 
which DOT officials typically take action'' that ``Trucking contractors 
that worked frequently for Amazon were more than twice as likely as all 
other similar companies to receive bad unsafe driving scores'' and that 
FSP drivers were cited for violations at a rate 70 times higher than 
Teamster-represented UPS drivers.\8\ All told, Amazon's version of 
moving freight exploits drivers, prohibits unionization, and operates 
substantially less safely than its peers. Given the extraordinary 
volume of goods that the company ships and American consumers 
increasing reliance on its service, Congress and FMCSA should consider 
how these operations weaken our supply chains, and how companies like 
Amazon can be held responsible to both the drivers who haul their 
products and for the safety of their contractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-trucks-crash-safety-
11663793491
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Safer Workplace is a Safer Supply Chain
    As discussed above, a stronger supply chain depends on both a 
healthy workforce, as well as a safe one. Putting more drivers on the 
road who are poorly trained, fatigued or operating unsafe equipment is 
not a step forward. In this regard, Congress should be singularly 
focused on how it can better work conditions for drivers and improve 
roadway safety.
    We summarily reject watering down of Hours-of-Service fatigue 
protections as a salve to any purported shortage. Fatigue continues to 
be one of the most significant safety risks that commercial drivers 
experience. The Large Truck Crash Causation Study cited fatigue as a 
factor in 13 percent of large truck crashes, and other research has 
suggested the prevalence of fatigue factors at a much higher level.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/research-and-analysis/large-
truck-crash-causation-study-analysis-brief
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, in the last several years we have seen several steps 
in the wrong direction, made more egregious by the continued increase 
in highway fatalities. This includes the 2020 revision to the Short 
Haul Provision for Commercial Driver's License qualified drivers which 
expanded the 12-hour duty time period to 14 hours, and the alteration 
of the 30-minute rest period to allow an on-duty/not driving period to 
qualify as the required break. This also includes an unprecedented 
expansion of FMCSA's preemption authority under 49 U.S.C. Sec.  31141 
to preempt California's Meal and Rest Break rules and deny drivers 
state-mandated breaks that applied broadly to most California 
employees. We call on Congress and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration to reverse these decisions, and to address fatigue as a 
fundamental threat to safety in the freight industry rather than an 
opportunity to keep drivers at work for yet more hours.
    We continue to oppose increases to the maximum truck weight limit 
on federal highways to 90,000 pounds as well a certain efforts to 
increase truck weight for the hauling of specific goods and 
commodities--all of which threatens safety, increase wear and tear on 
our nation's roads, and adds unnecessary operational difficulties for 
drivers. DOT concurred with this assessment in its 2016 Comprehensive 
Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, which found that heavier trucks had 
a 47 percent to 400 percent higher crash rate than 80,000-pound trucks, 
that heavier trucks had out-of-service and brake violation rates that 
substantially outpaced 80,000-pound trucks and recommended against a 
nation-wide increase in maximum truck weights.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/map21tswstudy/ctsw/
CTSLWS%20Report%20to
%20Congress%20FINAL.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A recent study also examined a gap in DOT's report relating to non-
interstate local bridges. In the event that the federal truck weight 
limit was to be increased, it is likely that carriers would begin 
running maximum weight vehicles both on the interstate, but also on 
local roads and bridges. The report identified more than 72,000 local 
bridges which cannot safely accommodate 91,000-pound trucks. Operating 
heavier trucks over these bridges invites a wholly unnecessary threat 
to the safety of drivers as well as threat to local infrastructure.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.ajot.com/news/new-study-finds-legislation-to-
increase-truck-weight-would-crush-local-bridges
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, and most importantly, outside of this research, Teamster 
drivers, who would be expected to operate under any increased weight 
restriction, consistently report that heavier vehicles present 
operational difficulties such as controlling braking distance and 
maneuvering in congested traffic conditions. There is no amount of 
research or speculation that offers as reliable a barometer as the 
real-world experiences of our members. We call on Congress to forego 
any truck weight increases as part of supply chain legislation.
                   Automation is Not a Silver Bullet
    Despite the claims of Silicon Valley venture capitalists, Congress 
cannot ignore its responsibility for improving working conditions in 
the hopes that automated freight is coming to save the day. Today, 
actual commercialization of automated freight delivery vehicles is near 
non-existent, and while some firms are making estimates of driver-out 
operations as early as next year, we believe that these are overly 
optimistic projections influenced by shareholder demands and that 
considerable developmental and safety concerns remain outstanding. For 
example, commercial trucking operations that are regularly executed by 
human drivers--including navigating hazardous weather conditions, 
cooperating with law enforcement, and overcoming equipment malfunctions 
have all been reported as causing difficulties for various autonomous 
vehicle manufacturers and must be addressed before any wide scale 
commercialization occurs.
    We also note that Congress should be aware of the differences 
between a successful demonstration in specific conditions and the 
ability of an autonomous commercial vehicle to perform the entirety of 
necessary driving duties on its own, without a driver. While 
sensationalist headlines are quick to amplify glowing press releases 
from manufacturers, many of these testing and demonstration projects 
are operating in largely ideal conditions, such as clear weather 
conditions in Sun Belt states, and are operating with a safety or 
``fall back'' driver on board.
    It is evident that widescale deployment is not on the immediate 
horizon, if for no other reason that the totality of purchase orders of 
autonomous trucks that would have to take place before a meaningful 
dent was made in the totality of trucks on the road is enormous. 
Further, we should bear in mind that any future deployment of 
autonomous freight vehicles will take on different characteristics in 
different freight subsectors in response to varied business cases. The 
application of autonomous trucks for long haul TL operations on the 
interstate system, (carrying the goods for and from a single customer) 
bears substantial variation to what deployment might look like for LTL 
carriers operating carrying goods from multiple customers, in more 
localized delivery.
    Finally, we reiterate two fundamental tenets of our approach to the 
future of autonomous freight. First, it is a necessity that the 
Congress and federal regulators develop a safety framework for the 
operations of these vehicles that holds manufacturers and carriers to 
binding federal regulatory standards crafted with safety, not 
regulatory flexibility, as a first priority. Second, Congress must 
consider the impacts of autonomous freight deployment on the workforce. 
This includes ensuring drivers, mechanics, and other employees are 
trained to work in tandem with new technologies as they are deployed 
and that real measures are taken to address any displacement of 
existing workers. Simply allowing a large-scale displacement of 
existing drivers with no consideration to their future invites both a 
economic and sociological disaster that must be avoided.
    The International Brotherhood of Teamsters thanks the Committee for 
the opportunity to testify today on the state of our supply chain. We 
look forward to continuing to work together, on a bipartisan basis, on 
these critical issues going forward.

    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I now turn attention to questions 
to the panel. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    And I want to put this question to everybody, and we will 
start with you, Mr. Pugh. I would like for you to speak to what 
you think is the biggest regulation you see coming out of the 
DOT that makes it harder to move goods efficiently and safely 
through our Nation's supply chain.
    Mr. Pugh. Probably at the present time, the largest thing 
we see is speed limiters coming out of DOT. For one, it is 
going to create a speed differential across the country, which, 
as someone who has driven truck, I have lived in a State that 
had speed limiters for years and years and years, it does 
create unsafety. It creates lots more interactions between 
trucks and cars. First of all, it creates a lot of--upset other 
car drivers. I am sure we have all taken a trip somewhere 
across this country and gotten behind a couple trucks. It takes 
8 or 10 miles to pass, one pass the other. And a lot of those 
times those trucks are speed limited. There is all kinds of 
research and studies out there that show that when traffic all 
travels the same speed, it is much safer for everyone, all the 
motoring public. This is also going to add to the retention 
problem we have.
    I get all the time from the agency that they want to hear 
from truckdrivers. When they came out with this and asked for 
comments, they received 16,000 comments from truckers; the 
mass, mass majority were against this. They are still moving 
forward. And this is what I hear from my members all the time: 
We don't interact with Government, we don't do it because why 
bother because they don't listen anyway when we do. Sixteen 
thousand comments is record setting.
    And then the final thing I will say with a speed limiter, 
if you do slow all these trucks down to 60 miles per hour, 
which is what we have heard, it is going to take more trucks to 
move the same amount of freight because we are going to become 
less efficient. So, again, that just adds to more and more of 
the congestion problem we see on the highway.
    Mr. Crawford. Gotcha. Ms. Reinke.
    Ms. Reinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
    There is nothing currently pending that we feel is going to 
inhibit our members' progress. But far be it for me to say that 
there should be no more regulations promulgated, but we would 
like them to enforce the regulations they already have.
    So, for example, when I talked about fraud, they have not 
investigated 80,000 complaints, never. There has never been an 
enforcement action and there has never been an investigation. 
And we hear from the FMCSA that they believe that they cannot 
enforce civil penalties, there is an ALJ ruling that would 
prohibit them. However, they can do other things. They could 
take a motor carrier out of service, they could assess other 
penalties. So, they are not doing that.
    On safety, as I mentioned, 92 percent of the trucks that 
aren't rated because they have this antiquated physical audit 
system. Well, surely they could update that. They can modernize 
that so that it is not just 5,000 trucks that they actually 
audit every year. There are a far greater body of work. So, 
that is what we are hopeful of and wishing for.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
    Mr. Fialkov.
    Mr. Fialkov. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Top of mind now is probably an effort to remove some of the 
flexibility that has been utilized in terms of waiving 
restrictions on weight and hours of service in response to 
supply chain disruptions, particularly in terms of motor fuel. 
Just to illustrate an example, diesel fuel weighs more than 
gasoline does. So, under current weight laws, you are not 
allowed to fill a transport truck with diesel fuel before you 
hit your weight. So, if there is a hurricane and you are trying 
to get diesel to an area, it is really helpful to be able to 
waive that limitation so that you can move an extra 1,000 
gallons of diesel in every truckload. Whenever we are in the 
trenches trying desperately with FMCSA and others to get fuel 
to places that are running out of it and growing desperate, I 
have never worked with a Government official who was happy to 
be hamstrung in their ability to inject flexibility into that 
process. I am supportive of your effort to push back on that.
    Mr. Crawford. Gotcha.
    Mr. Scandaglia.
    Mr. Scandaglia. Yes, I think when we think about this 
question, we think about regulatory efforts that make trucking 
a worse place to work. And so, I think we would talk 
specifically about FMCSA's 2018 determination to vastly expand 
the scope of its preemption authority in the face of decades of 
precedent, as well as FMCSA's decision to make modifications to 
the hours-of-service rules in 2020.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
    I will now recognize Ranking Member Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pugh and Mr. Scandaglia, at the full committee supply 
chain hearing earlier this Congress, we heard about a worker 
shortage in the trucking industry. Yet, both of your 
organizations have argued that we do not have a worker 
shortage, we have a worker retention problem. In your view, 
what are the top reasons truckdrivers do not stay in their 
jobs?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, thank you, Ranking Member Norton.
    Yes, the first and foremost is driver pay. There is plenty 
of research and plenty of studies out there, the pay is the 
driver's top concern. Actually this past year, pay and parking 
were the two reasons, biggest problems that drivers face. 
Because again, truckers' pay has not kept up with inflation 
since the 1970s, and it continues to go down. And like I 
mentioned in my testimony, truckdrivers are exempt from 
overtime, which is ridiculous when they work 70 to 80 hours a 
week every week. The average trucking week, they are allowed to 
drive 70 hours.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Scandaglia.
    Mr. Scandaglia. Yes, I think we fundamentally agree with 
Mr. Pugh there. I think low wages for very hard work is the 
biggest issue that we face when it comes to retention. But as I 
mentioned in my opening remarks, I would also include the 
widespread impacts of illegal driver misclassification in that 
category as well.
    Ms. Norton. OOIDA and the Teamsters, women in the 
workforce, that is what this question is about, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law directed the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration to establish the Women of Trucking Advisory 
Board to encourage women to enter the trucking field. The Board 
has been formed, and I am eager to hear their recommendations 
and findings. After all, women only make up 6.6 percent of the 
truckdriver workforce.
    Mr. Pugh and Mr. Scandaglia, the Women of Trucking Advisory 
Board includes representatives that are independent owner-
operators, as well as officials from the Teamsters. What 
actions are your organizations taking to improve the 
participation of women in the trucking workforce?
    Mr. Pugh. Two big actions. One is Congressman Bost's 
parking bill, because we needed safe places, women especially, 
to park out there, and also Congressman Nehls' bill on restroom 
access, it is a huge problem for women and men in trucking. 
There are a lot of places that they deliver and pick up at that 
they are not allowed to use the restroom.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Scandaglia.
    Mr. Scandaglia. We conduct our own CDL training program at 
IBT where we can bring folks into our industry. So, through 
these programs, our training programs, we can target a diverse 
workforce, including women, instead of relying on our employers 
to do it for us. And I would also add that the benefit of the 
union contract is that when we negotiate language, we guarantee 
equal pay, access to medical benefits, paid leave, parental 
leave that all, I think, incentivize women to enter the 
industry, at least through unionized driving.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Pugh and Mr. Scandaglia, between your 
organizations, you represent a significant portion of the 
trucking workforce. You have a vested interest in ensuring the 
safety of motor vehicles. Can you each speak to the importance 
of entry-level driver training and how it improves the safety 
of our roads and helps retain workers in the trucking sector?
    Mr. Pugh. I think as far as entry-level driver training, it 
needs to be stricter, and we need stronger standards and 
probably more minimal time. In the State of Missouri, it takes 
1,600 hours to cut hair. There is no such standard for driving 
a truck. I think that we are setting ourselves up for failure. 
It is one thing we could help. If you train people how to do 
things and they feel comfortable with what they do, they 
generally stay with that occupation.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Scandaglia?
    Mr. Scandaglia. When entry-level driver training is 
conducted properly, we can guarantee that regardless of where 
someone is being trained or who is training them, that they 
have a baseline level of competency and core competency, and be 
comfortable in their experience as they become commercial 
drivers.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Mr. Bost 
is recognized.
    Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pugh, I would like to start off by asking you some 
clarifying questions, if I can, about truck parking. Why do you 
see trucks parked along highway shoulders? And how do you know 
that there is a shortage?
    Mr. Pugh. Well, you see trucks parked on the shoulders and 
all these different places because they have nowhere else to 
go. Truckers are mandated by hours of service on the time they 
can drive and the time they must rest. And the problem is that 
there is only 1 spot for 11 trucks right now. This has been a 
problem my entire career, and it is kind of at crisis stage 
now.
    Lots of folks out there, I know they see these big 
warehouses and gas stations and all these different places 
where drivers can park, or where they think drivers can park I 
guess would be the better statement. Unfortunately, a lot of 
these places and businesses do not allow this. Some, it is who 
owns the land, it is the real estate company; some, it is just 
policy.
    I have drivers who go to places, they sit there for 6 to 8 
hours waiting to get unloaded. They run out of hours. And then 
the place where they deliver kicked them off the property 
telling them they have to leave. They will explain, and I have 
had this happen to myself: I am out of hours, there is nowhere 
else--I can't drive. Well, we don't know what to tell you 
because you are not parking here.
    This has been a while ago, but I personally was ticketed in 
the State of Massachusetts at 3 a.m. because I was parked on 
the car side on a toll plaza. It was 3 a.m., nobody in there, I 
pulled off there to take a break at like 10:30, 11 o'clock at 
night. I woke up at 3 a.m. by an enforcement officer giving us 
an $80 parking ticket and telling me I need to go on down the 
road. After explaining to this officer that I'm out of hours, 
he didn't care: Go on to Boston or wherever you are going. So, 
this is a real problem and this is why we need parking.
    Mr. Bost. Also, how does the lack of truck parking create 
stress for drivers and make the job more difficult? And is this 
just a problem for drivers or does it cause safety hazards for 
others as well?
    Mr. Pugh. Well, truckers want to be safe more than anybody 
out there, that is their office, it is where they work, out 
there on the highway. And it is very stressful. I don't know if 
anyone has ever gone on vacation and didn't make hotel 
arrangements and hung around for a motel, and you are trying to 
find a place to sleep, and it is hard. That happens to normal 
people. This happens to truckers every day. They can't find a 
place, they want to take a break, maybe they want to be an hour 
down the road.
    Truckers, a lot of times, are paid by the mile, so, they 
want to be as efficient in their day as they can be. But a lot 
of times, they have to stop short maybe 100, 150 miles. They 
have to do things they don't want to do. Myself, again, for an 
example, I used to deliver in New York City a lot. I would like 
to go in at night and park. The place I went, I was able to do 
it, it was 24-hour. A lot of guys, they have to stay 100 miles 
out and then they end up going in in the morning across the GW 
Bridge with everybody else because there is no safe place for 
them to get closer to their delivery. And that is not only 
dangerous for them, it is just dangerous for the motoring 
public, because they do need their rest, and they deserve their 
rest.
    Mr. Bost. Thank you.
    Mr. Fialkov, can you please talk about NATSO and SIGMA 
members and how they could work with local stakeholders, if 
Congress would finally act and provide dedicated funding for 
truck parking?
    Mr. Fialkov. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
    As you know, the private sector currently provides north of 
90 percent of truck parking capacity in the country. But it is 
a complicated and expensive business, right? And I am not just 
talking about land acquisition, which tends to be exceedingly 
expensive in the areas where there are more acute shortages and 
the expense of concrete--trucks beat up a parking lot more than 
light duty vehicles do, as you can imagine. So, they have to 
have a lot more concrete, ongoing maintenance, lighting, 
security, and whatnot.
    But there is also a lot of local opposition quite 
frequently, right? Everyone wants more truck parking spaces, 
very few people want them next to their house. So, there is a 
lot of complexity and expense associated with working with 
local, kind of, communities and towns to try to convince them 
of the upside to allow truck parking. And the idea of working 
with rather than against the Government in those endeavors is 
very appealing to us.
    Mr. Bost. I am short on time. I am going to ask another 
question for Ms. Reinke, I will submit it for the record, but 
one statement I want to make because a question was asked 
earlier about why we lose truckdrivers and why we have a 
truckdriver shortage. Many of you know that I was born and 
raised in the trucking business, my family is still in it. One 
thing that people don't understand that we keep losing a lot of 
drivers to is the legalization of marijuana in States around 
this country. If you want to smoke it, I don't care, but the 
rules are very clear. You smoke it, you can't pop positive or 
you are going to pop positive for 30 days after smoking it. And 
several drivers were making choices to go ahead and party 
rather than drive. That is causing a problem in our shortage 
today, and we have got to deal with it somehow.
    Now, I don't know what that is or how that is. It is very 
frustrating that they make the choice. But if you drink a beer 
on Sunday, you can drive on Monday. If you smoke a joint on 
Friday night, you ain't driving for another 30 days. And I 
don't agree with the legalization of marijuana, but something 
has got to be done to figure this out.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Crawford. I thank the gentleman.
    And I recognize Mr. Menendez for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I appreciate all the witnesses coming here today, and the 
careers and professions that you all represent in your various 
capacities. Trucking is often framed as a great career path 
where people can start earning high salaries without a college 
degree, which is something we should continue to develop and 
pursue greater pathways. But we also know that trucking is not 
an easy job. So, I want to talk about some of the experiences 
your members have had on the road and some of the challenges 
that they face, because I think one of the things that we 
highlighted is that there is a retention problem that isn't 
just about the legalization of marijuana.
    Mr. Scandaglia, what is the average cost to earn and 
maintain a CDL?
    Mr. Scandaglia. The average cost?
    Mr. Menendez. To procure and maintain a CDL.
    Mr. Scandaglia. I am not sure I have that data in front of 
me. I'd have to get back to you.
    Mr. Menendez. A couple thousand dollars maybe?
    Mr. Scandaglia. It is probably reasonable. No, I will say a 
number of Teamster-operated schools, we do offer CDL training 
free of charge to the trainee.
    Mr. Menendez. That is great. And we appreciate Teamsters 
doing that for other people, they may not have that access, so, 
it is a great thing that Teamsters provides.
    And also just sticking with you, just generally, how much 
time do your members spend away from their families when they 
are on the job?
    Mr. Scandaglia. So, for Teamsters members who are largely 
concentrated in the less-than-truckload sector of the trucking 
industry, I have seen most of our members come home at night, 
not all, but the vast majority of our members are not 
performing some of the long-haul, over-the-road operations that 
some of Mr. Pugh's members are.
    Mr. Menendez. Mr. Pugh, some of your members who are on the 
long-haul side would be away from their families for about how 
long on average?
    Mr. Pugh. I beg your pardon?
    Mr. Menendez. The folks that are on the long-haul side of 
this, about how many days would they spend away from their 
families when they are on the job?
    Mr. Pugh. How many days away during the week?
    Mr. Menendez. Yes.
    Mr. Pugh. Probably 5 days a week. Leave on Sunday, get home 
on Friday. That's the way I work myself.
    Mr. Menendez. Yes. So, significant time away from their 
families. And there is also additionally the physical and 
mentally demanding aspect of this job, like driving in bad 
weather and transporting hazardous materials and dangerous 
substances. Is that correct, Mr. Pugh?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes. My members transport all types of substances 
across the country, flatbed, tanker, van, reefer, everything.
    Mr. Menendez. Right. This morning we heard several 
testimonies that describe a driver shortage, and the need to 
recruit younger drivers to address this workforce issue, which 
is definitely one of the mechanisms that we need to pursue.
    But Mr. Scandaglia, in your testimony, you described a 
retention problem rather than a recruitment problem. So, I 
wanted to highlight some of the challenges in this industry 
that drivers face. If we focus all of our efforts just on 
recruitment, will we have enough drivers to meet the current 
demand?
    Mr. Scandaglia. I don't think just shoving more drivers 
into a broken pipeline is the answer. During 2021, for example, 
States were issuing 50,000 new CDLs a month. And yet from the 
data we are seeing from the industry, at least on the truckload 
side, we are reporting no meaningful improvements in turnover 
and the purported shortage.
    So, I think this is why it is so important for Congress and 
for regulators to have a conversation about why those drivers 
are leaving instead of just coming up with more ways to force 
people into the industry.
    Mr. Menendez. Right. Burnout, fatigue, lack of appropriate 
benefits would be some of the reasons that they may not stay in 
the industry.
    Mr. Scandaglia. Absolutely.
    Mr. Menendez. So, when we think about recruitment, it is 
about improving the quality of the job and the experience to 
reward that hard work, the time--5 days a week--that they are 
spending away from their families. And if we recognize the 
sacrifices that go into this job, maybe we would have higher 
retention if we pursued fair wages, reasonable hours, high-
quality benefits, paid leave, and correct worker 
classification. Would that help with some of the retention 
issues that you are seeing?
    Mr. Scandaglia. Undoubtedly. And I think when you look at 
Teamsters-represented chunks of the industry, you see a much 
lower turnover rate. The LTL industry has less than 15-percent 
turnover as a whole. And I think that number is lower in our 
carriers. There are other reasons why that is. I think we 
should be honest about that, but I do think all of the items 
you mentioned absolutely contribute to the question.
    Mr. Menendez. As well as misclassification being a 
significant driver.
    Mr. Scandaglia. Undoubtedly.
    Mr. Menendez. And so, one of the things that I am sure we 
could do here in Congress is provide the tools that are sort of 
set forth and proactive in other pieces of legislation that 
would give people tackling the misclassification problem, also 
give people the right to be represented by a union--like 
yours--in this industry. Creating that greater representation, 
I imagine, would result in a lot of these tangible benefits 
that would improve the quality of life, and potentially create 
a higher retention rate than what we are currently seeing.
    I am out of time, thank you all for your testimony. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. D'Esposito is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Good morning. And thank you all for being 
here. I represent the southwest corner of Long Island right on 
the border of New York City. And obviously, Long Islanders are 
no stranger to financial burdens passed down on to them for 
many different reasons. Already facing crippling State income 
taxes, property taxes, tolls, proposed congestion pricing, and 
much more, the impact of the supply chain crisis and inflation 
on their wallets is a family table issue and something that we 
hear about regularly.
    New York prides itself on its port industry and robust 
commerce. And as a matter of fact, many of the residents and 
constituents that I have the honor of representing are in the 
trucking business. Many of them operate not only on the ports 
along the Northeast, but have businesses as well on the west 
coast.
    So, I guess my first question is, how do you believe, just 
because the area that I represent is so beneficial on small 
business, it is truly the lifeblood of our communities, so, how 
do you feel that the shortage in the workforce has impacted 
local business? You can start on one and kind of work our way 
down.
    Mr. Pugh. Well, I don't think there is a shortage. I think 
there is a retention problem first of all. Yes, I think the 
retention problem is to everybody because drivers aren't 
treated correctly. And when you get to your small business 
truckers like you are talking about, when it comes to tolling 
and congestion pricing, that's a killer on small business 
trucking. And it is probably a killer on some of Ms. Reinke's 
members too, because they have to try to get this into the 
rates, it is hard to get these tolls. I know myself in New 
York--I ran to New York City a lot from Ohio. I spent $10,000 
to $12,000 a year in just tolls. When it comes to congestion 
prices----
    Mr. Menendez [interrupting]. It is not going down.
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, I know. It is going up, up, up, up. And with 
congestion pricing, it is really tough on truckers because 
unfortunately, most businesses are open 9 to 5, and that is 
when they want the trucks to come, and that is when the 
congestion pricing is. It would be much better if people would 
receive things at night because truckers would rather go in and 
out of the city late at night than through the day.
    Ms. Reinke. Thank you, Congressman. It affects our members 
in that there is a capacity crunch. It is not as bad right now 
because we have somewhat of a freight recession, but in the 
height of the pandemic, finding the dear capacity--whether it 
is a retention issue or a shortage issue--regardless, we could 
not find the drivers we needed.
    Our members pride themselves on having a good cadre of 
carriers that they can turn to, and if they are not there, then 
that affects everybody from the shipper to the consumer who 
can't get the toilet paper they want on their shelves.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Yes. I think we would agree that the 
retention and the shortage sort of become one at some point.
    Mr. Fialkov. Thank you for the question.
    I think that, by and large, fuel retailers that employ 
drivers are employing fuel haulers, right? Hazmat haulers. So, 
they tend to be older. They have to go through more vigorous 
training. And we still have a very hard time keeping those 
positions filled.
    And that can become a problem. When you have a thin staff 
and somebody doesn't show up to work, or there is a very high 
turnover rate and somebody quits on the job, suddenly you have 
an exceedingly difficult time identifying ways to get fuel from 
a terminal to a retail outlet. And as that becomes more 
expensive, that ultimately is absorbed by consumers, which, 
again, as you noted, has an extraordinarily counterproductive 
inflationary impact on an entire economy.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
    Mr. Scandaglia. And I have to agree with Mr. Pugh. I have 
no doubt that if you are a small importer on Long Island who 
needs to put goods on a truck, and you can't access drivers, 
then that would be incredibly destructive for your business. 
But as I said earlier, I think it is critically important that 
we interrogate why those drivers may not be available.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you.
    And just as I mentioned when I began, I know that a lot of 
the trucking companies, a lot of the business owners in my 
district also operate on the west coast.
    So, Mr. Pugh, I think you had discussed California's 
efforts to push electric trucks. So, I know that there is a lot 
of skepticism. The cost, the mileage range, battery weight, 
safety, charging time, availability. I only have about 40 
seconds left.
    Could you just briefly expand on that point? Share with the 
subcommittee some examples of how these challenges are already 
playing out for the small business truckers, especially those 
who operate both here in my district on the east coast as well 
as the west coast.
    Mr. Pugh. Yes. There are all kinds of operational 
challenges. And I have sat on the car board. In many of these 
places, they don't have these charging stations in place. They 
don't know if they have the grids.
    And then, yes, you run into these fleets--if you have a 
fleet in different States, a lot of times they trade equipment 
or use different equipment. If they have a shortage of 
equipment out here and they move it there and vice versa, that 
is going to create that issue as well because they are not 
going to have electric trucks in New York, but they may have 
them in California.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
holding this hearing.
    And thank you to the witnesses for your time and testimony.
    The United States is a global leader in trade and commerce. 
Every day, millions of tons of goods are transported across our 
Nation's highways. These goods are essential to our economy and 
our way of life.
    Our freight supply chain is a complex system that involves 
many different players, including shippers, carriers, and 
logistics providers. It is a critical part of our economy, and 
it plays a vital role in keeping our shelves stocked and our 
businesses running. Workers are the backbone of our supply 
chain.
    Democrats have shown and proven that we support sustainable 
solutions to supply chain challenges that prioritize safety and 
truckdriver quality of life. Legislative proposals that 
undermine safety or threaten worker rights in the name of 
productivity are shortsighted and will weaken the supply chain.
    Mr. Scandaglia, we can all agree that ensuring that we have 
the capacity to get the Nation's commerce where it needs to go 
is, or at least should be, a top priority for us all. However, 
given that we are seeing record increases in highway 
fatalities, I am very concerned about proposals to weaken 
hours-of-service protections or extend the amount of time a 
driver can be on the road or on duty.
    What would it mean to your members if Congress or 
regulators allowed longer workdays for commercial truckdrivers, 
and how would weakening hours-of-service protection impact 
safety and workforce retention?
    Mr. Scandaglia. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I 
think it is a very important topic that you have brought up.
    I think sometimes we get in the bad habit of thinking about 
regulations solely as they affect productivity or solely as 
they affect how a business is able to get something from point 
A to point B.
    But the regulations that you discussed, including hours-of-
service protections, are basic fatigue protections. It is how 
we keep our members safe. And when Congress or regulators make 
bad changes to our hours-of-service protections, the direct 
result is more fatigued drivers on the road.
    And we know from years of data that fatigue is one of the 
most dangerous conditions drivers face. At the most extreme 
levels, levels of fatigue have similar effects on drivers as 
alcohol intoxication.
    So, I think there are a lot of things that Congress can 
look at, but decreasing safety on our Nation's roadways, 
particularly for the reasons you highlighted, is going to be 
unacceptable for the Teamsters.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Mr. Pugh, highway safety has always been a priority of 
mine, and that is why I have not only supported legislation but 
also led legislation to ensure that drivers on our roads are 
protected.
    Recent studies show an increase in the number of trucks on 
the road, limited space for parking, and restrictive 
regulations on where trucks can park overnight. In your 
testimony, you stated that drivers are forced to spend more and 
more of their on-duty time finding a place to park rather than 
keeping goods moving.
    Is there anything that you want to add to what you have 
already testified to today about the challenges that small 
business truck owners face with limited spaces to park?
    Mr. Pugh. Again, I appreciate it. No, I mean, again, I 
think we talked about this and how important it is to 
truckdrivers to have a safe place and for the motoring public.
    I would like to add to your previous question. My members, 
when it comes to hours of service, they don't want to drive 
more. They don't want to work more. They just want to be paid 
for the time that they do work now and would like to have a 
little more flexibility to decide when it is safe for them to 
operate and not operate.
    For example, they would rather not drive through 
Washington, DC, traffic at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. They 
would rather be able to take a break for a couple of hours 
before coming. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me ask you this. What impact 
would it have if there was a push to build more places for 
trucks to park? What if that became a priority in this country? 
How would that impact your ability to move the goods?
    Mr. Pugh. It would definitely help move the ability and 
would lessen congestion because if there are more places to 
park, we get at that hour that I discussed in the beginning 
that drivers--men and women behind the wheel--are wasting each 
day. Sometimes more than that. They would be able to get closer 
to where they deliver. They would be able to get there sooner, 
deliver, pick up, get out, and continue moving.
    When you look at the amount of trucks we have on the 
highway and consider they each, on average, waste an hour a day 
every day, that is a lot of freight that is not being moved 
efficiently.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. LaMalfa is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 
opportunity here today and our witnesses.
    For Mr. Pugh, I had a chance to speak with you a little 
bit. In California, of course, we have to be always leading the 
way on dumb ideas. But we are forcing this electric mandate on 
so many vehicles, including trucks. And our chairman spoke 
about that a little bit in the fact that trucks will now be 
heavier. So, you either have to raise the weight limits of what 
the trucks weighs to carry the same amount of cargo or have 
more truck traffic because now instead of 80,000 pounds with a 
net of 58,000, you are going to have less net cargo. So, it is 
going to require more truck trips.
    So, tell us what you know more about the cost of doing 
this, not only to the individual--maybe mom-and-pop--truckers, 
but also the infrastructure it is going to take to be able to 
service them and keep them moving on a trip.
    Mr. Pugh. Yes. You are correct. If we go to EVs, EV trucks 
are way heavier. And so, yes, that leaves us, like you said, 
two examples. You are either going to have to give them a 
weight exemption or there is going to be less freight moved.
    When it comes to these other EPA rules and stuff we are 
seeing--and I urge everyone to support Representative Nehls' 
Resolution 53--small business truckers, they can't afford a lot 
of this stuff because it continually gets dumped on them, 
dumped on them, dumped on them. And unfortunately, this stuff 
isn't proven. That is the problem here. It is not more 
efficient. It costs more. It costs more to purchase. It is not 
as dependable. It is more downtime, more parts, more repairs, 
longer times in repair shops.
    We saw this in 2011 when they forced mandates on the 
manufacturers, and consumers had to buy these things. And 
unfortunately, they weren't ready for prime time. They weren't 
tested. And here we are.
    America was founded on capitalism and on business 
innovating and finding things. Trucking is a business. If the 
manufacturers come up with more efficient things--whether that 
is electric, hydrocarbon, whatever. I am not a scientist. But I 
do know that truckers will buy it because it is a business. And 
any way that they can make more profit by lowering their 
expenses, they will do that. The way that is done is through 
the free market and by coming up with things that we know that 
work and not using truckers and motor carriers as guinea pigs.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Indeed. If we were just updating the 
fleet we have more and more with the clean, green vehicles, 
phasing them in, you wouldn't need this. But we don't get any 
credit for work we have done in the past.
    So, let's talk about the speed limiting that they are 
proposing here. Now, in my experience on I-5 in California or 
``the 5'' as they call it in L.A., you end up with these turtle 
races. One truck is going 54.9. The other wants to pass them 
going 55. It takes 2 or 3 miles for the pass to be completed. 
You've got cars behind that want to go 70 or more that are 
getting frustrated, and they start doing weird things, because 
they get impatient with all of that.
    So, the truckers have governors on them in a lot of cases. 
One governor might be set a certain way, and another might be 
55. One might be 56. They are trying to pass each other.
    Talk to me about this further push on truck speed limit 
devices and this is on the heels of ELD devices. How much 
watching do we need to do on you?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes. Again, this is a very unsafe rule. There are 
plenty of facts out there to prove and studies to show where 
traffic is safer all moving at the same speed.
    And you are correct. The turtle races as they are called or 
elephant races--it doesn't matter. Trucks are mechanical. 
Nothing mechanical is a complete, exact science. So, we can all 
set our trucks--everybody in this room--at 60 miles an hour, 
but they are not going to be exactly 60.
    Plus, when it comes to trucks, you throw in weight and all 
these other factors. If my truck's load weighs 50,000 and yours 
weighs 55,000 and we are governing at the same speed, you are 
going to be able to go up a hill just a little bit faster than 
I am because you are a little bit lighter.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Certainly. There is a lot of hilly areas of I-
5 in my district like that. If they don't have three lanes, you 
have got elephant races, and it is very frustrating for 
everybody else.
    In my State, they are limited to 55, whereas you have got 
cars being able to go 70. And so, it seems like you are adding 
more risk by piling everybody up that way.
    Go ahead. Finish.
    Mr. Pugh. That is correct. It does cause more accidents.
    I am from Ohio originally before moving to Missouri. We 
were at 55 for trucks, 65 for cars for a long, long time. The 
State finally let everybody on the turnpike go 70 for a test, 
and it wasn't long until the whole State went to that because 
they found out that accidents went down significantly.
    Mr. LaMalfa. At what rate, sir?
    Mr. Pugh. I beg your pardon?
    Mr. LaMalfa. At what rate for everybody?
    Mr. Pugh. I am sorry?
    Mr. LaMalfa. They adjusted the speed to be the same for 
everybody?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, they adjusted the speed after doing a pilot 
program on the----
    Mr. LaMalfa [interrupting]. What speed did they adjust it?
    Mr. Pugh. Seventy miles per hour. Because, again, States 
probably know better what trucks should go than we do here in 
Washington.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Most of them. I wouldn't count my State as one 
of them. So, anyway, thank you.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Garcia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to all 
the witnesses this morning.
    Supply chain challenges and bottlenecks over the past few 
years have presented a number of critical issues in the 
trucking industry. However, improving the supply chain issues 
should not compromise safety on our roads.
    I will pose the first question to Mr. Scandaglia. Would you 
agree that providing U.S. DOT with unfettered and poorly 
defined authority to waive truck size and weight requirements 
would undermine decades of regulation in maximum truck size and 
weight?
    Mr. Scandaglia. We would agree unequivocally. It is 
evident, I think, both in the research that has been done at 
DOT and elsewhere, as well as when we talk to our own members, 
that there are substantial safety challenges associated with 
larger, heavier trucks. I don't think that is up for debate, in 
our opinion.
    And we understand that in certain circumstances, there are 
regulations that exist to contemplate emergency scenarios. But 
giving DOT the authority and giving the Secretary the authority 
to waive truck weight for anyone who happens to walk in the 
door would be a mistake, in our opinion.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. OK. Thank you for that.
    And what recommendation, if you would provide that, would 
you give to Congress to ensure safe truck size and weight 
maximums?
    Mr. Scandaglia. I think we would advise that, if Congress 
is considering making changes to truck size and weight, that 
they talk to truckdrivers before they do it.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you.
    Mr. Pugh, it is my understanding that OOIDA supports the 
DRIVE Act, a bill that would prohibit the FMCSA from 
implementing any rule or regulation requiring vehicles over 
26,000 pounds that are engaged in interstate commerce to be 
equipped with a speeding-limiting device set to a maximum 
speed.
    Is this true, and don't you think the bill will compromise 
safety on our roads?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, it is true. OOIDA does support that bill. We 
support it because our members who are all truckdrivers out 
there--they tell us--I have the experience as well--traffic, as 
was said in here multiple times now, is much safer when 
everyone is going the same speed limit and there is no 
differential.
    I think there are plenty of studies. I think we are down 
to, what, six States or something or seven States that have 
split speed limits. In 1995, the States were given the 
authority to set their speed limits. And we feel, as an 
association and as our members, that, again, States probably 
know what the safe speed limit is for traffic to be moving in 
their State better than other folks do outside of that State.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. OK. Thank you.
    Back to Mr. Scandaglia. As a former Teamster myself, I have 
always prioritized the quality of life for workers in the 
transportation industry. As it stands now, Teamsters' contracts 
require drivers to be paid for the time they spend waiting, and 
as a result, detention time is less common for drivers that you 
represent.
    If paying drivers for detention time became the industry 
standard, what safety or driver retention benefits would result 
from this?
    Mr. Scandaglia. I think we would see substantial safety 
benefits. Like you mentioned, most Teamster drivers, per the 
terms of their contracts, are going to be paid for any time 
that they spend in detention.
    But I think, broadly speaking, when you are forcing drivers 
into difficult situations where they are, say, sitting at a 
port for 4 hours before they can drive again, before they can 
make money, you are incentivizing unsafe choices.
    And to the broader question, you are hurting retention. 
Someone who sits at a port for 5 hours every day might look up 
one day and decide, this job is not for me. So, I think by 
covering things like detention time potentially from a Federal 
perspective, we can address multiple problems simultaneously.
    Mr. Garcia of Illinois. Thank you for your insight.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Stauber is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    And to the witnesses, thanks for spending some time with us 
here this morning.
    I will tell you that I first want to talk about--Mr. Pugh 
talked about the truck parking. I want you all to know that 
Mike Bost has the piece of legislation, the Truck Parking 
Safety Improvement Act, and I am a cosponsor of it.
    I left Des Moines, Iowa, at 5:30. I live in northern 
Minnesota. I left Des Moines, Iowa, at 5:30 on Sunday, and 
between 7 and 9 o'clock, I saw two rest stops with trucks and 
trailers parked on the off-ramp into the rest stops, trucks 
parked in the rest stops, and trucks parked onto the on-ramp to 
the rest stops.
    So, Mr. Pugh, to your comments, we need more truck parking, 
and I think that piece of legislation will help get it started. 
And that is only just my small piece of southern Minnesota as I 
am traveling through. So, I appreciate you mentioning that.
    Ms. Reinke, I have been a strong supporter of the need to 
establish a motor carrier safety selection standard. Could you 
elaborate on how the current lack of standards impacts the 
supply chain?
    Ms. Reinke. Absolutely. So, as I mentioned in my 
testimony--thank you for the question, and thank you for your 
support of H.R. 915.
    And as I mentioned in my testimony, the FMCSA can get to 
maybe 5,000 inspections a year. And so, there are upwards of 
500,000 motor carriers. So, that means the vast majority of 
motor carriers are not rated. They don't receive a safety 
rating when they are new entrants into the marketplace, which 
they are supposed to after 90 days. They don't receive a 
followup compliance review, which they are supposed to every 5 
years. They just don't have the resources to do it. And why is 
that? Because they have this requirement that they have to have 
a physical audit.
    We are not suggesting to take away a physical audit, but 
what we are suggesting with H.R. 915 is to amplify with the 
data that they already receive. So, they already get weigh 
station reports. They already get State police reports. They 
already get State inspection reports. Use that data, filter it 
up to determine who is at risk and determine if it is up or 
down. Meaning, are they safe to travel on the Nation's 
highways, or are they not?
    And H.R. 915, while that rulemaking is promulgated, would 
establish a minimum standard because, right now, our members 
don't have to check anything in order to hire a carrier. That 
doesn't seem to promote safety. And so, H.R. 915 would provide 
this interim standard while that rulemaking is pending.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Well said.
    Ms. Reinke. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. A similar provision to the Motor Carrier 
Safety Selection Standard Act was attached to the last House, 
which passed the FAA bill in 2018.
    Ms. Reinke, again, can you explain why this is germane to 
both the Highways and Transit Subcommittee and the Aviation 
Subcommittee?
    Ms. Reinke. Yes, sir. And as you noted, there is a long 
history of motor carrier provisions being inserted as part of a 
larger aviation bill from the F4A Act in 1994 to just as 
recently the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act. So, this precedent 
has been established. To the extent there are any other issues 
that need to be addressed, we would be happy to work with the 
committee to address them.
    Mr. Stauber. Well, in the last minute or so that I have, I 
just want to thank you all for your testimony and also thank 
the men and women who drive these trucks and bring these 
products to the American people. During the pandemic, had it 
not been for the truckers, we would have been in dire straits. 
And so, thank you very much.
    And lastly, when you talk about safety, safety is the 
number one, two, and three priority for you all. It is a 
tragedy whenever we have a crash involving a truck. In northern 
Minnesota, we had one last week. A 34-year-old young man lost 
his life. Every one of those is a tragedy.
    And I don't know the particulars about it, but we will come 
back and--I think this, with the chair and ranking member 
putting safety as a priority, we are willing to work with the 
experts and listen and learn as we make our roads and our skies 
safer.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Moulton is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I would really like to pick up on the very point that 
my colleague was just discussing. Every year, there are over 
100,000 truck crashes in the U.S. that result in injuries--
100,000. Four thousand of these crashes result in deaths. And 
what is worse is that these numbers are on the rise. Truck 
crashes are up 10 percent from 2021 to 2022.
    And that is why this past February, I reintroduced H.R. 
915, the Motor Carrier Safety Selection Standard Act, alongside 
my colleague, Congressman Gallagher. Thank you very much for 
acknowledging it in your opening remarks, Ms. Reinke.
    Companies rely on motor carriers to move their goods across 
the country, and when they enter into a contract, they assume 
that their products will be transported safely. Similarly, 
millions of Americans across the country drive alongside trucks 
every day assuming that these vehicles have been made safe.
    Yet today, there is no way for shippers to verify the 
safety of their motor carriers. America's 3 million shippers 
and 20,000 third-party logistics providers are not required to 
vet their trucking partners to ensure that they meet basic 
safety requirements, like having insurance and making sure 
their vehicles pass inspection. Hence, shippers are still able 
to use carriers that have been rated by the DOT as unsafe.
    So, this bill directs the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration to amend the safety rating process for motor 
carriers and shift away from the outdated and ineffective 
current physical audit system. Ninety-two percent of carriers 
are currently unrated. It is amazing. Ninety-two percent don't 
even have a rating because there is not adequate staffing to go 
and physically inspect the trucks.
    So, Ms. Reinke, can you expand on the current state of the 
antiquated physical audit system and what alternative system we 
should have moving forward?
    Ms. Reinke. Absolutely. So, the physical audit system--they 
are required, again, to go out and essentially put eyeballs on 
the trucks, eyeballs on the records, which is all a very well-
intended thing, except if you don't have a number of 
inspectors--which they don't--and you don't have the 
wherewithal to go out there because of constrained resources, 
which they certainly did during the pandemic--I mean, I don't 
know if there were any physical audits or how many were done, 
but they were certainly reduced during the pandemic, of course. 
And so, that means that they just aren't done at all. And so, 
that doesn't seem the right outcome.
    And further, I would say this. Because they have 
constrained resources, they are going to go visit the big 
legacy carriers. They are not going to go visit Mr. Pugh's 
members because they can't get to them. And so, Mr. Pugh's 
members get disadvantaged because then you have the big guys 
who get rated, and then you don't have people who may be new 
entrants into the space who get an inspection and can validate 
that they have a safe rating and are safe to operate.
    Mr. Moulton. So, while this new FMCSA rulemaking is being 
developed, my bill would also set an interim standard that 
requires brokers to do three things. It requires them to verify 
that their motor carriers are properly registered with DOT, 
have obtained the required insurance, and have not been 
determined unfit to safely operate commercial motor vehicles.
    So, I mean, what is the sort of practical impact of this 
rulemaking on the industry?
    Ms. Reinke. So, the practical impact is that the members--
the guys and gals who are TIA members are already doing some 
freight vetting. But there are times when, because it is a 
last-minute thing, you have to pick the carrier that you 
choose. This way, you have some safety in knowing: All right, 
I've got to check these three things. I am going to feel pretty 
good and pretty confident that that truck is going to get to 
where it is going safely.
    And to all of us who care about traffic and who is next to 
you--driving the truck next to you, I think that should give us 
all a peace of mind.
    Mr. Moulton. And just to open it up to the panel, what are 
other things that we should do in this realm? I mean, this is 
ridiculous that we don't have this rulemaking and this is 
essentially a patch that we are trying to provide. But we all 
want to be able to travel our highways more safely.
    So, I don't know if anyone else would have a comment they 
would like to offer.
    Mr. Scandaglia. Well, Congressman, I think we fundamentally 
agree with kind of the underlying point that is being made on 
FMCSA clearly not having the resources to perform the oversight 
and the inspections that it needs to to make sure that carriers 
are operating safely.
    And one thing we would particularly point to as we have 
seen the evolution of more complex and more convoluted 
contracting and subcontracting models--again, particularly at 
Amazon--we are very concerned about the safety records of some 
of those operations and of FMCSA's ability to monitor them. So, 
making sure that we have a handle on the safety records of 
those systems is something that we would strongly recommend.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized, Mr. Van Drew.
    Dr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I don't know if it is on a lighter note, but it is just 
an observation of mine as I drive the beltway and go through 
Washington and New York and other areas because I drive around 
a good deal in my neck of the woods. The only thing that seems 
more problematic to me than the truckdrivers--frankly, they 
seem a lot safer and better and more organized than just the 
commuters who are driving back and forth.
    And when I look at the number of crashes that occur, it is 
amazing how many of those commuter crashes--I live in southern 
New Jersey. It can take me anywhere from 3 hours--to get from 
Washington, DC, to way down deep South Jersey--to 6 hours. And, 
of course, last week was one of my 6-hour treks, and it is 
something that kind of sticks in your head. So, you guys are 
doing a pretty good job considering the circumstances.
    And that is what I wanted to talk about a little bit today. 
I almost call this a come-to-God moment to some reason. Truck 
workers need to be treated fairly. I mean, let's talk about the 
real basic issues here. If it wasn't for truckdrivers, the 
supply chain--and I am saying what other people have said--we 
wouldn't have a supply chain at all. So, the truckdrivers are 
the ones that went out there, did the job, and kept this 
country going.
    They need things. They need a place to park. They need to 
take a break. They need rest. They need help with fuel costs. 
They are hard workers. They break their backs. They deal with 
bad weather, dangerous substances, dangerous situations.
    But quite frankly, I have been in this Congress--I am in my 
third term now--and we talk about it a lot. And I know we care. 
This is not a criticism. I am pretty easy to criticize the 
other side. I am not criticizing any side right now. This is 
just the reality. We have got to do stuff. We can't just keep 
talking about it.
    And I for one--I do rise in support of removing the 
exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA. It denies 
truckers guaranteed overtime pay. Any other industry or 
business, when you work hours and hours over your regular time, 
you get paid overtime. It is only fair. And truckers work 
harder than just about anybody else, so, it makes it even more 
fair.
    Last Congress, I cosponsored the Guaranteeing Overtime For 
Truckers Act, that would have eliminated FLSA's motor carrier 
overtime exemption, which means truckdrivers don't get the 
overtime. It would have increased driver pay. It would have 
improved highway safety. And it would have helped address 
supply chain delays.
    Let's think about the times when this legislation was put 
in. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted--anybody know 
what year it was? 1938. 1938. Truckdrivers were exempted from 
the laws of requirement for overtime pay when they worked over 
40 hours a week. This ain't 1938 anymore.
    The thinking was in part that this would discourage drivers 
from working as many hours as possible to get overtime pay, and 
I get it. We need safety, too. But if you fast-forward 85 years 
into the future to today, a lot has changed in the trucking 
industry.
    Truckers--every movement is tracked. They are under 
enormous pressure to get their work done as quickly as they 
can. This exemption is problematic for truckers because they 
are often paid by the miles they drive no matter how many hours 
they work. It ain't fair. It just isn't fair.
    This means that if a driver experiences delays due to 
traffic, congestion, weather, or waiting to be loaded--again, 
things beyond their control--or unloaded, they are not paid 
overtime even though they are working. Truckers can easily work 
50, 60, or 70 hours a week but not be compensated for any of 
that time.
    Instead of preventing truckers from working too many hours, 
this exemption has devalued the truckers' time and led them to 
work even more hours. That is the bottom line. At the end of 
the day, they are working even more hours because of it.
    Truckers are an essential component of our Nation's supply 
chain, and compensating them appropriately is the least we can 
do to support them, not just talking at committee hearings. 
Let's be fair. Let's be decent to the hard-working men and 
women who do this job. It is a hard job. I know truckers well. 
It is a hard job. I know I couldn't do it.
    Mr. Pugh, these questions are for you. I got time for one. 
Is there any reason that truckers shouldn't be paid overtime 
like most other blue-collar employees? And if this exemption 
were to be repealed, what do you think the impact would be?
    Mr. Pugh. I think, for one, the impact would be truckers 
would have a greater love for Congress. And, yes, I think it 
will improve safety. It will improve drivers' lives. It will 
improve retention.
    The same people that are pushing for speed limiters because 
they say trucks need to slow down are the same people that are 
against paying truckers overtime. Trucking, for long, has been 
a piecework industry where you are paid by the mile.
    My opinion would be, if you pay truckers by the mile, and 
you have some crazy concern that truckers are flying down the 
highway, which they are not, but if that is what you think, 
probably paying them by the hour and paying them overtime would 
automatically put them to where they should be going if that is 
what you are trying to get at.
    Dr. Van Drew. Absolutely.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Garamendi, you are recognized.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And for the witnesses, thank you for participating and 
giving us some good information.
    A couple of questions. Mr. Scandaglia, does UPS have 
problems recruiting and retaining drivers?
    Mr. Scandaglia. I would say that UPS has a substantially 
different recruiting and training environment than just about 
any other carrier because folks know that coming to UPS means 
strong wages, meaningful career progression, employer-paid 
healthcare. And when you can offer those things to your 
employees, people want to come.
    Mr. Garamendi. I think we ought to keep that in mind. That 
is part of the answer to the question that was just raised by 
my colleague about hours and pay.
    This question is for Ms. Reinke. The Ocean Shipping Reform 
Act, which this committee and Congress passed last year with 
rather strong support from your organization as well as others, 
also revised the advisory committee for the FMC, the Federal 
Maritime Commission. However, organizations like yours are not 
on that advisory committee. We are carrying a bill to address 
that.
    Would you care to speak to that issue about who should be 
on the advisory committee for the FMC?
    Ms. Reinke. Congressman, thank you for the question. I 
assume you are mentioning CTPAT, the customs and trade 
protection advisory committee. Yes, sir.
    So, for whatever reason, after CTPAT was created, the 
brokers were not included in it. And essentially, it is a TSA 
precheck for freight. So, it seemed like the more eyeballs on 
freight coming in from international waters, it would be better 
to have people included who have a stake in it.
    So, our argument has been that brokers have a visibility 
into the supply chain, have visibility into international 
partners, and should be included in that task force. There is 
legislation on the Senate side not yet introduced on the House 
side. It is a bipartisan solution to have 10 of our broker 
members be part of a pilot project to be included for a year. 
It seems like that is a no-brainer. We are hopeful that there 
will be House introduction and it can pass without incident.
    Mr. Garamendi. I am quite certain every member of this 
committee heard your explanation for the support for the bill 
that I just introduced, and we will get it into the package 
along the way. I thank you for your testimony on that.
    Finally, Mr. Fialkov, you spoke to the--all types of fuel 
should be available at your facilities. There is one type of 
fuel that you raised, and I am just curious about it. You said 
that the effort to go to biofuels was making it difficult for 
other fuels.
    Could you speak to that in a little more detail about what 
you had in mind there?
    Mr. Fialkov. Sure, Congressman. Thank you for that 
opportunity. I think you are alluding to the discussion around 
renewable jet fuel and renewable diesel fuel.
    Mr. Garamendi. Exactly.
    Mr. Fialkov. Yes. So, those are two petroleum fuel 
substitutes that have far more favorable environmental 
attributes than the petroleum fuel that they are intended to 
displace.
    The question for Congress is, how should we allocate the 
finite amount of feedstock--this is generally vegetable oil, 
used cooking oil, animal fats, things like that--to make as 
much biofuel as possible so that we are displacing as much 
petroleum fuel as possible? And what we have seen is that 
renewable diesel fuel is far better for the environment than 
renewable jet fuel, and every incremental unit of feedstock 
that you put into a production process, you make 10 percent 
more renewable diesel than you do renewable jet fuel.
    There has been a concerted effort on the part of the 
aviation sector to try to achieve ESG and favorable climate 
outcomes. Well-intentioned, but their approach has been 
basically to try to encourage Congress to force taxpayers to 
subsidize the migration of that feedstock and that production 
process away from renewable diesel and over-the-road fuels, 
which are more efficient and far more better----
    Mr. Garamendi [interrupting]. Thank you. I am about to run 
out of time.
    Could you please give us detailed data on the argument that 
you just made? This issue is relevant in the NDAA. I and others 
are pushing the issue forward, and your argument is extremely 
important. Thank you so very much. But get us the detail right 
away.
    Mr. Fialkov. I am happy to do that. Thank you for that.
    Mr. Bean of Florida [presiding]. Thank you very much.
    Good morning, T&I. Let's go to Missouri, where Mr. Burlison 
is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Burlison.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pugh, I wanted to kind of follow up on some of the 
comments that you made. During COVID, truckers saved America. I 
mean, they kept food getting into our grocery stores and 
provided medication and supplies, and transported everything 
that we needed.
    Can you elaborate on the impact that your drivers had and 
the difficulties that they faced during COVID?
    Mr. Pugh. Thank you for the kind words. And, yes, truckers 
helped save America along with the first responders and others 
as well. I am proud and happy to do so. Anytime there is a 
national emergency anywhere in this country, truckdrivers are 
always there hauling the supplies and the needed goods and 
getting the things there.
    COVID was very tough for truckers, I guess you would say, 
because unfortunately, what happened was, we had this 
emergency. Truckers were asked to step up to the plate and get 
the goods there, which they did. But then restaurants closed. 
They couldn't get food. State rest areas closed and places like 
that where they could use the restroom. Now they had nowhere to 
go to the bathroom.
    As far as getting the things that first responders--like 
the wipes, the masks, all these things they needed--personal 
protective gear, I guess you would say--they didn't have that. 
They couldn't get that. Fortunately, FMCSA--they finally did 
get that along with our help and ATA's to get that out to them. 
But there were all these things that we, as American consumers 
and people, were taking for granted that truckdrivers didn't 
have.
    The big thing, I think, that nobody talks about, was what 
did truckdrivers do when they got sick? These people, these men 
and women on the road, they are 500, 1,000 miles from home. I 
have been sick like that. It is terrible. And that is just with 
a cold. Now, you want these people to quarantine and not be 
around people? Where are they supposed to go?
    We had members who called in that their carriers told them 
just to park the truck and get home however they see fit. These 
people were just left out there with nothing. So, yes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. Another question. So, after COVID, 
I remember speaking with our chambers of commerce, advocacy 
groups, and I had a question raised to me for the first time. 
And it was the first time that it became a top priority of the 
chamber, but they had no solution to it.
    But they said, can you do anything--do anything that you 
can to improve the supply chain issues that are impacting all 
of the businesses, whether it was hospitals, any business down 
the line--whatever your business was that was being impacted 
and still today is impacted by supply chain.
    In your testimony, you talked about some of the things that 
actually--that are being proposed. So, for example, the new EPA 
rule--the proposed rule--will that improve the supply chain?
    Mr. Pugh. No, it will not improve the supply chain due to--
again, we are talking--I am having technology forced upon an 
industry that doesn't--it either doesn't exist or it is not 
proven. And, again, we all know, things that are proven work, 
and end consumers should not be guinea pigs or test rats for 
anything.
    Mr. Burlison. Yes. So, the other question is, there is this 
push to move to electric vehicles. Is that going to improve the 
supply chain?
    Mr. Pugh. Not at this point, no, because there are so many 
occupational things out there that nobody seems to have answers 
for. I look back to the snowstorm we had a couple months ago in 
northern California. How do electric snowplow trucks work 
because there is lots of componentry on a plow truck, for 
example. Not only does the engine move the truck, but it also 
operates the bed, the thing that spreads the salt, the plow. 
There are all these things that work off of that.
    Mr. Burlison. The other rule that is being proposed is the 
side underride guards, requiring that they be installed, which 
has an estimated annual cost of $1.2 billion. Is that going to 
improve the supply chain?
    Mr. Pugh. No. Again, we are looking at so many operational 
challenges that no one wants to discuss as far as side 
underride guards.
    And, also, the unintended consequences--one big thing is it 
becomes--if all these trucks have these on them and they get 
stuck on a railroad track, we start seeing an increase of these 
center hangs on railroad tracks. There are only two ways to get 
a center-hung truck off of a railroad track: that is a tow 
truck or a train.
    Mr. Burlison. Mr. Pugh, it would appear that all of the 
policies being implemented are actually devastating to the 
supply chain as opposed to improving it.
    Mr. Pugh. I think the ones that you brought up, you are 
correct. They are not helping the supply chain.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you.
    Mr. Williams is on deck. But first, let's go to Nevada 
where Ms. Titus is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Drum roll. Here I 
am.
    I would like to go back to Mr. Bost's point. I am a 
cosponsor of his bill that would invest $755 million in a 
parking program for trucks. I know in Las Vegas, sometimes you 
just see them parking on residential streets. This isn't good 
probably for the truck, the trucker, or the people who live in 
that area.
    So, could you all--any of you or all of you--talk about how 
putting that program in place for safe parking areas would help 
supply chain or help in the issues that we have been talking 
about today?
    Mr. Fialkov. Sure, Congresswoman. I will start. Thank you 
for the question.
    What our membership--which, again, provides over 90 percent 
of existing truck parking capacity in the country. What we 
support in particular about the Bost bill is that it is clearly 
designed to facilitate public-private partnerships so that we 
are getting truck parking places--not just a greater number of 
them, but we are getting them built where drivers want them.
    And what we find is that when drivers park, they don't 
necessarily want to park in an empty rest area or an empty 
weigh station. They want to park adjacent to or at a truckstop 
or another facility that has amenities that they want, right? 
We don't only have fuel, but we have showers. We have sit-down 
restaurants. We have facilities that function as the home away 
from home.
    Ms. Titus. Do they have slot machines?
    Mr. Fialkov. I am sorry?
    Ms. Titus. I said, do they have slot machines?
    Mr. Fialkov. Well, in Las Vegas, we certainly do. So does 
the airport, though.
    Ms. Titus. OK. Well, thank you.
    Anybody else want to weigh in on how this helps maybe with 
safety or with the supply chain?
    Mr. Pugh?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes. I would add--and that is the good thing 
about this bill. This is something we all need to work on. This 
is something the Government, the truckstops--probably everybody 
is going to have to fix this problem. It is a huge problem.
    The only concerns I have heard that really push back on 
this is the expense because, well, nobody likes the Government 
spending money. I point out the fact that we give FMCSA 
millions if not billions of dollars to go out here and oversee 
trucks and write truckers tickets for not parking in safe 
places or not taking breaks when they are supposed to. So, why 
would we not give them $755 million to have some safe places to 
park?
    Ms. Titus. OK. Thank you. I agree. I think it is the one 
thing that we have consensus on this committee, that we can all 
agree on that need for parking.
    Mr. Scandaglia, could you talk a little bit about the 
misclassification of truckers as independent contractors? You 
brought that up in, I think, a report that you cite and said 
you found 49,000 of the estimated 75,000 port truckdrivers were 
at one time or another misclassified.
    Can you tell us how that process works at NLRB and what we 
might be able to do to improve it or what happens if somebody 
is misclassified?
    Mr. Scandaglia. Yes, absolutely. And to hit on, I think, 
both of those questions there, for what that means for drivers 
and what that looks like, really starting with deregulation in 
1980. We saw a degradation and a snowballing effect in the 
industry for what trucking jobs look like and how trucking 
companies are arranged.
    And we unfortunately now see this enormous explosion, as we 
have seen for decades now, of trucking companies who classify 
their--really their employees as independent contractors in 
order to get out of providing them any of the protections that 
would otherwise apply. They exert a level of control over them 
that suggests an employer-employee relationship. And that 
employee is out of luck. And that is a really terrible 
environment for the driver.
    Ms. Titus. So, they don't have to give any kind of benefits 
like health insurance, unemployment, that sort of thing?
    Mr. Scandaglia. You would be on your own. You would have to 
go look for health insurance on an exchange. As we discussed 
earlier, you wouldn't be eligible for overtime benefits. 
Critically, as an independent contractor, you would not 
inherently have the right to join a union.
    But to your other question--because I think it is important 
on the NLRB--when these cases are brought before the Board, one 
unfortunate thing we have experienced is an enormous delay in 
getting them processed. I would say we have seen the Board 
historically take well over 150 days, and there are cases that 
have gone for years. And that is unacceptable for the employees 
that are being impacted.
    So, whether that--that may very well be a question of 
funding for the Board. But we need to not continue to exist in 
a circumstance where folks are bringing cases and not having 
those cases adjudicated for unacceptable periods of time.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Bean of Florida. Thank you very much.
    Mrs. Sykes, you are on deck. But first, let's go to New 
York where Mr. Williams is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Williams of New York. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I love talking about supply chain. And it is fun to be here 
on this topic with experts and so much of our Nation's 
transportation supply chain and infrastructure that you touch. 
So, thank you for being here. I have a little bit of 
background. I studied operations in a business program at the 
Wharton School and just have enjoyed that and appreciate it.
    Mr. Pugh, your comments on these driver issues--I just want 
to recap them because I think they are important. The waits to 
unload at different facilities, the driver comfort issues that 
you brought up, rest areas, the availability of parking places, 
and the drivers often are not paid overtime for these waits--
these sort of enforced waits over which they have no control, 
right, until they can unload at their destination.
    It strikes me that there is a tremendous human cost. This 
is a human issue. This is a workplace issue. It is potentially 
a safety issue, as you talked about in your comments. And all 
of these are valid and come at a very high human cost.
    But as I think about this hearing, I am thinking, what can 
Congress do to take action to address these issues? Can we hit 
two birds with one stone? Can we address these human costs for 
hundreds of thousands of drivers, and can we also perhaps help 
alleviate our supply chain?
    This may be a little bit of a technical question, but I 
think that hopefully we will have some interesting answers. We 
all know how important buffers are in any process, right, 
including in any supply chain. You have built in buffers to 
avoid bottlenecks. And that also includes in our transportation 
supply chain.
    And it sounds to me like drivers are being used--perhaps as 
Mr. Pugh has pointed out, maybe even abused--that they are 
being required to be this buffer, if you think of it as an 
entire system. And it is not because it is best for our supply 
chain. It is not because it helps us move goods in the most 
efficient manner. But it is because it comes at no cost, right? 
You can have a driver sit there as long as you like, and it is 
a no-cost option to build in a buffer into our supply chain. 
But there is a human cost. You have pointed it out. And I 
wonder, also, is there a real, actual business cost?
    Are part of our supply chain issues--and I hope this is the 
discussion that we can have. Is part of the supply chain 
bottlenecks and issues that we have on a national scale 
precisely because there is this inefficiency built in for which 
there is no financial cost? There is no overtime pay. There is 
no wait time limits. There is no additional services.
    If some of these costs for drivers' idle time or--I think 
of it as utilization, right? We should. They are a resource and 
asset like anything else. We could improve their utilization, 
speed up unload time, shorten wait times. Would that also help 
alleviate our Nation's supply chain problem?
    And I direct it at you, Mr. Pugh, but I recognize all of 
your expertise to comment on thinking of this as a model. Could 
that be helpful? And I have left a lot of time for that. Look 
at that.
    Mr. Pugh. Yes. I think you hit the nail right on the head. 
And, yes, I think we have taken the drivers and their time for 
granted for way too long, and it is a very big inefficiency 
that is allowed to continue.
    I bring up--back during COVID, we saw the long lines of 
trucks out in California waiting to get into the port. And we 
kept saying, we need more trucks out there. We need more 
trucks. No, we didn't need more trucks. We needed them to load 
the trucks that were there more quickly. That is the key. If 
drivers and trucks were getting in and out of shippers and 
receivers in a timely manner, we'd need less trucks. There 
would be less congestion.
    Mr. Williams of New York. For the last moment, anybody else 
want to comment?
    Ms. Reinke. I would just mention, we want to work with our 
industry partners. There are some advanced technologies that 
can help, including geofencing, along with trying to manage 
appointment times and working with the shipper and receiver to 
assure that they have the right timing for the carriers coming 
in.
    Mr. Collins. Would the gentleman yield for a minute?
    Mr. Williams of New York. Certainly.
    Mr. Collins. As someone in the trucking business on a day-
to-day operation that I own, we have stuff called detention. 
So, if you are not loaded or unloaded in a certain amount of 
time, you are on the clock, and so are our drivers. So, I would 
say that the free marketplace works pretty well in that 
instance.
    Mr. Williams of New York. That is a good comment. My time 
is up, but hopefully that is a helpful conversation and 
perspective to look at the actual cost in the system.
    Mr. Edwards [presiding]. Thank you.
    Next, I would like to recognize Congresswoman Sykes from 
Ohio for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you very much. I was really looking 
forward to my game show introduction from the previous chair, 
but I will settle for that one. Thank you.
    I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the safety 
considerations, maybe not so much in a question, but just a 
statement. And, Mr. Pugh, I know you mentioned what happened in 
Ohio. I'm an Ohioan, and it is always good to see a fellow 
Ohioan in committee.
    In 2013, when the State made the change to increase the 
speed limit to 70 miles per hour, the Highway Patrol notified 
and reported several years later an increase of crashes upwards 
to 25 percent, and 22 percent of those were fatal. So, while 
that may have been an efficient need for the industry, we have 
been talking about the human toll.
    And I am glad to hear us talking about humanity, but also, 
we should be considering our law enforcement officers and their 
suggestions, which is increasing speeds make people less safe, 
and it is probably one of the reasons why an increase of speed 
limit was tabled in Ohio this year as they were navigating 
their transportation budget.
    But I do want to continue to talk about the human toll and 
the human condition in the trucking industry. We have talked a 
lot about drivers and whether or not there is in fact a driver 
shortage or retention shortage. But I know that there are other 
people who are supportive of the industry, particularly 
mechanics and those who navigate the maintenance system part of 
this.
    So, whoever feels most qualified to answer this question, I 
will open it up to the full panel. But what are some of the 
challenges for supporting roles in the industry, particularly 
for maintenance mechanics that are impacting the supply chain 
of the industry?
    Mr. Fialkov. I will take the first crack at that. Thank you 
for that opportunity, Congresswoman.
    As I said before, truckstops offer a variety of amenities, 
including truck repair shops. One of the challenges that we 
have found is that a lot of OEMs are reluctant--and trucks are 
getting exceedingly complicated to repair. They used to be an 
engine like a car, and now it is basically a computer system. 
And the longer it takes to repair a truck, obviously, the 
longer that truck isn't on the road serving the supply chain.
    One of the challenges that we have found is that a lot of 
OEMs are reluctant to share a lot of information with 
independent repair shops to enable them to expeditiously learn 
how to fix something that may not take a long time if you knew 
what--I am a little bit out of my element here--but if you knew 
how to fix that truck--if you went to a dealer that was 
affiliated with the OEM, they would be able to fix it quite 
quickly, but they are reluctant to share that information with 
others.
    And we think that if they were able to do that--if they 
were more willing to do that or compelled to do that, it would 
not only lower the price of repairing a truck, but it would 
increase the speed at which trucks would be repaired.
    Mr. Scandaglia. I'll add on to that. I think as we see 
increasing levels, as was mentioned, of technology added onto 
trucks and the complexity, and the shopping of those products 
due to larger and larger markets, it seems fairly evident to 
us, at least, that we are not going to be able to do all that 
work via OEM warranty work on those vehicles. There is going to 
have to be a class of mechanics who is trained to do that work. 
We are proud to represent a number of mechanics who wrench our 
trucks, who wrench our transit buses, all number of specialized 
commercial motor vehicles. But it is going to be critical that 
if we are going to continue to deploy more and more advanced 
technology on trucks, that we are making sure that mechanics, 
like the members we represent, understand how to do their job.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you very much for both those answers.
    And Mr. Scandaglia, I would like to stick with you for this 
next question, because you mentioned autonomous vehicles, but 
you said you didn't have enough time to talk about it, so 
hopefully, I will give you the time here. I will bring it up, I 
also serve on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 
where we have been talking about unmanned aeronautic equipment 
and the role in supply chain delivery services, and whether 
there are opportunities. And also, what are the impacts to the 
human workforce here? So, if you could in the next 40, 35 
seconds or so, talk a bit more about what we could be doing to 
be forward thinking, for a change, in making sure that we are 
not decimating your industry and workforce.
    Mr. Scandaglia. I think one of the big things here is that 
Congress and Federal regulators need to lead on a safety 
framework for the deployment of autonomous vehicles that 
considers testing, that considers deployment, that considers 
prescriptive safety standards once these vehicles are on the 
road.
    I think the Wild West, 50-State situation we have right 
now, I don't think works for safety, it doesn't work for our 
members.
    Mrs. Sykes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Edwards. The Congresswoman's time has expired. Next, 
the Chair would like to recognize Congressman Allred from 
Texas.
    Mr. Allred. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 
thank our witnesses for being here today and for sharing your 
expertise on how to keep consumer goods moving in our Nation's 
supply chain. I am a cochair of the Supply Chain Caucus, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to continue these conversations on 
these important issues and look forward to working with many of 
my colleagues on solutions.
    Last year, as you all know, Congress provided a once-in-a-
generation investment in our Nation's infrastructure, and I was 
proud to work with many of my colleagues here to get that done 
and to make much of that funding available to all sectors of 
the transportation industry.
    Mr. Pugh, something you said in your testimony really 
struck me. You noted that you found that a 15-minute increase 
in detention time increases the average expected crash rate by 
6.2 percent. That is clearly unacceptable, and it is clearly 
something that has to be addressed, not only from a supply-
chain-efficiency perspective, but also from a safety 
perspective. So, how can addressing detention time as shipping 
and receiving facilities improve safety outcomes and overall 
supply chain efficiency?
    Mr. Pugh. Well, unfortunately, there is no real Government 
entity that has oversight over shippers and receivers on this 
thing. So, to me the easiest way this can be done is by 
removing the overtime exemption in the Fair Labor Standards 
Act. Rising tide raises all ships, and this is asked of us lots 
of times: you guys represent our operators. This is true, but 
we also represent employee drivers. And the way we see this is, 
and we have looked at this in many ways and it is different 
freight, different things. There are so many different things 
in trucking that makes it tougher. The thing is, if carriers 
are having to pay drivers overtime, they are, of course, going 
to put more pressure on shippers or receivers to load those 
trucks and get them moving down the road. You are correct, the 
longer you sit around somewhere waiting to get loaded and 
unloaded, just boredom, mental boredom and everything makes you 
tired.
    So, that would be the thing, if there is a way to kind of 
force shippers and receivers to load you. When you are sitting 
there and the product is sitting on the dock and you sit there 
for 4 hours because nobody is really interested in putting it 
on your truck for whatever reason, that is not the driver's 
fault, and that driver shouldn't be there. It's one thing--
things happen, machines break, things aren't ready. But a lot 
of times it is there, it's just nobody wants to put it on the 
dock.
    Mr. Allred. Yes. I was going to ask you beyond making sure 
drivers receive overtime pay for time spent waiting, there are 
other ways that Congress can help address the root causes of 
the retention time, but it sounds like you already answered 
that, so, thank you for that.
    I also think it is really important that folks can access 
the opportunities that the trucking industry provides, and that 
they are not kept from participating on the basis of their 
gender or any other considerations that the trucking industry 
may not have considered.
    Mr. Scandaglia, I am glad to hear the Teamsters are serving 
on DOT's Women of Trucking Advisory Board. I was glad to hear 
you highlight the importance of paid leave in response to 
Congresswoman Norton's question. I would like to give you some 
time to expand on that, and what you have heard from your 
members on how important access to paid leave would be for 
them, particularly in terms of expanding these opportunities to 
women.
    Mr. Scandaglia. Absolutely. I think when we look at the 
retention issues and the ability of folks to work in the 
sector, providing protections that allow them to do that job 
and to also maintain their work life balance and their family 
balance is incredibly important. And when we put people in 
untenable situations, we put people in situations where they 
are not going to stay. I think this is one of a lot of issues 
that we discussed today where drivers, some drivers exist in a 
universe where they are dealing with a lot of very serious 
problems, whether it is wages, whether it is a lack of paid 
leave, whether it's the way they're classified. And then we 
kind of throw our hands up in the air and say, well, why did 
they leave the trucking industry?
    So, providing things like paid leave, paid sick leave, 
things that, for example, I think should be provided to all 
drivers regardless of where they work. But certainly that we 
provided drivers through collective bargain agreements is of 
tantamount importance.
    Mr. Allred. I agree. When I was in the NFL, we had a 100-
percent injury rate. That meant that every single player was 
going to get injured. Everybody is going to need some time off 
at some point for some reason. You don't know what it will be. 
It might be welcoming a child, it might be a family member who 
is ill, or it might be something in your life, but it does make 
a big difference. And I think the companies that do it and the 
agreements that are reached lead to more efficient workers and 
folks staying in the profession. So, thank you for your 
testimony.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Edwards. The gentleman yields back.
    Next, the Chair recognizes Congressman Van Orden from the 
great State of Wisconsin.
    Mr. Van Orden. The great State of Wisconsin. You got that 
right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I grew up with truckers in my family, so, I appreciate this 
industry tremendously. I also understand that it is a key 
portion of intermodal movement of goods and services, and the 
country would stop, it would just stop without our truckers. 
So, some of you have--I read every word of all your testimony. 
And some of you have conflicting views about, like, the labor 
market, for instance. So, you are saying you have got a tight 
labor market, but then we also want to have these programs to 
bring younger people into trucking. So, let me just throw this 
out there. What is the average age of a trucker right now? 
Anybody.
    Mr. Pugh. Did you ask the average age?
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, I think it is probably in the high 50s.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. And is that going up or down?
    Mr. Pugh. I would imagine it is going up. It is definitely 
an aging workforce.
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes. So, what's the average pay-ish. I know 
you've got union stuff going on, Mr. Scandaglia, you want a 
higher wage, I saw your comments in here, some of which were 
actually inflammatory. About the average pay, what is someone 
walking away with when they are driving full-time?
    Mr. Pugh. The average pay?
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
    Mr. Pugh. For the long-haul sector, I think it's around 
$50,000 but I am not 100 percent sure, $50,000, $60,000.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. Some of you are in favor of having 18-
year-olds be able to drive across State lines. Is that correct? 
And some of you are not? And why is that, sir?
    Mr. Scandaglia. I think we have several objections to the 
under-21 program, some of them are predicated in safety and our 
beliefs----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. OK, hold on. What is the 
accident rate of 18- to 21-year-olds driving within State right 
now?
    Mr. Scandaglia. I think when we look at drivers in 
totality, anyone with a driver's license----
    Mr. Van Orden [interposing]. Ah-ha.
    Mr. Scandaglia [continuing]. The incidents rates are 
higher. I actually think that one of the problems we talked 
about under 21, CDL drivers, we talked at length about----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Mr. Scandaglia, do you know 
the answer to that question or not? What is the percentage of 
accidents for 18- to 21-year-olds, compared to 20- to 40-year-
olds, and 40- to mid-50-year-olds? Is there a discernible 
difference that we can quantify to prove your point that these 
drivers are less safe than older drivers?
    Mr. Scandaglia. Are you asking what the percent of total 
accidents per age group is?
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
    Mr. Scandaglia. I don't have the data in front of me.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. Would you do me a favor please before we 
start discounting a younger workforce because you are aging. 
And as I said, this intermodal transfer of goods is going to 
stop without these drivers, and we are not recruiting people at 
the appropriate age. Please get me that information. And then 
we can have a real honest discussion instead of throwing around 
talking points.
    So, if we can get a younger person, 18 years old, send him 
to school, or her to school, get a CDL, and they are walking 
out with zero college debt earning $60,000 a year, that is a 
hell of a good deal. And that is what I would like to make sure 
that we can do.
    Mr.--is it Fialkov?
    Mr. Fialkov. That is fine, Congressman.
    Mr. Van Orden. How do you pronounce it?
    Mr. Fialkov. Fialkov.
    Mr. Van Orden. Fialkov.
    Mr. Fialkov. Yes.
    Mr. Van Orden. What is the ethnicity?
    Mr. Fialkov. Russian.
    Mr. Van Orden. Oh, very well.
    Mr. Fialkov. It was a lot better until a few years ago, 
but----
    Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Exactly.
    You talk in your testimony about trying to make sure that 
we have electric vehicle charging stations. I have 
grandchildren, I have eight grandchildren, my wife, Sara Jane, 
and I. And we want them to have energy. We also understand that 
we have four children right now that need to have energy. And I 
am concerned, looking at your testimony, that you may be trying 
to skip a generation like the rest of the Biden administration 
is doing in an impractical manner. So, what is the average time 
that an electric power tractor can drive right now?
    Mr. Fialkov. So, I don't know the average amount of time 
that an electric truck can drive, but I would appreciate the 
opportunity to clarify the testimony.
    Mr. Van Orden. Yes, please do.
    Mr. Fialkov. And we work very closely with, probably as 
well-regarded a retailer in the country as obviously----
    Mr. Van Orden [interposing]. I am with you, man.
    Mr. Fialkov [continuing]. [Inaudible] in your district. We 
don't care what kind of fuel people buy. We don't care if 
people buy gas or electricity, just like we don't care if 
people buy a Coke or a Pepsi. Our challenge in entering the 
electric vehicle charging market is that it remains 
unacceptably difficult to identify a viable business case for 
installing EV charging stations. Many companies are doing it 
anyway in anticipation of that market developing, including 
Kwik Trip, but the fact of the matter of our review is that 
these grant programs that are being developed should be pursued 
with a keener eye towards overcoming that particular challenge.
    Mr. Van Orden. I would like to speak to you later about 
this because this is incredibly important and right before my 
time gives up I want to make sure that you understand. And I 
appreciate your support of year-round E-15. That is awesome. 
With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Edwards. The gentleman from the great State of 
Wisconsin yields.
    Now, the Chair recognizes the Congressman from the other 
great State, New York, Mr. Molinaro.
    Mr. Molinaro. He says that about everyone, the great State. 
I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I was going to ask a couple of 
other questions. I want to actually jump. Mr. Scandaglia, 
putting aside the data which is important, and I join my 
colleague, if we are going to make these sorts of decisions, 
workforce decisions, certainly they ought to be based on actual 
data. And we appreciate that you all are engaged in that 
conversation. But when it does come to safety, it is paramount 
to all of us. And we recognize not only automation, but just 
the fact that we have an aging workforce.
    Let me allow you then some more time to talk a little bit 
about what steps we ought to be taking to build up that 
workforce and to adapt the workforce to address what we expect 
and already are seeing as was discussed and you have all talked 
about already, advances in technology and the developments 
within the industry.
    Mr. Scandaglia. Yes, so, I think you take that as kind of 
two questions. On the retention piece and making sure that we 
have a younger workforce, and that we don't have a workforce 
that is all about to depart as they retire. I think that just 
comes back to the question of making the industry an attractive 
place to work. And when people are looking at the trucking 
industry--and certainly there are good actors, certainly we 
have, I think, very strong union-bargained contracts. But when 
you look at, you get hired as an independent contractor with a 
predatory truck lease and no healthcare insurance, or Social 
Security, that is a tough job. I think a lot of people are 
going to look at that and say, that is not where I want to 
work. And again, to my earlier point, I think it is important 
that Congress interrogates some of those questions, instead of 
us kind of throwing our hands up in the air and saying it is a 
mystery.
    To your second question on automation and technology, we 
know that and we are seeing increasing development and 
deployment of new technologies of both driver-assistive 
technologies as well as people who are looking at full 
automation. And I just think it is very important that we don't 
wait until these things are on the road, and until we are past 
the point where we need our needs met. If these technologies 
are going to be deployed, let's make sure mechanics know how to 
wrench on them now, not 10 years from now when all of a sudden 
we have no mechanics who are qualified to work on this kind of 
equipment.
    I think that given the changes that these technologies 
present to the industry, it is incredibly important that both 
Congress and regulators are forward thinking.
    Mr. Collins. Would the gentleman yield for a minute?
    Mr. Molinaro. I will yield for 30 seconds, Mr. Collins.
    Mr. Collins. I am not sure if the gentleman out there is 
aware of it or not, but we already have platooning going on in 
this country where you can line up trucks, one behind another 
within about 3 feet. It looks like NASCAR drafting, which the 
first truck is handling all of the rest of the trucks and 
behind him as far as speed and brakes. So, we are already--the 
industry is already working on technology. As a matter of fact, 
Anheuser-Busch is running an automated truck, a driverless 
truck right now, 24 hours a day. And I think it is running 
between Texas and Louisiana, so, it is already being conducted 
out there.
    Mr. Molinaro. Well, I reclaim my time. I know that Mr. 
Collins knows the industry certainly better than I do. I will 
let you continue that conversation offline because I want to 
jump a little bit more to safety as well.
    Ms. Reinke, if I could, I am cosponsoring the Motor Carrier 
Safety Selection Standard Act, as you likely know, and 
certainly understand. This bill would help fill the gaps in 
current law by requiring brokers to verify that the motor 
carrier is properly registered with the DOT, obtained the 
minimum required insurance levels, and is not determined as 
unfit. I certainly understand the value of the bill in that 
next step. Would you just expand on that and its benefit, 
please?
    Ms. Reinke. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for your support of 
the legislation. As I mentioned in my testimony, NHTSA reports 
that truck accidents have gone up year over year in the double 
digits over the last 3 years. We believe one of the reasons why 
is that 92 percent of the trucks out there are not rated. If we 
had a safety rating, a system that worked, you could get that 
compliance rate much, much lower. In fact, you could actually 
have 100 percent compliance as opposed to 90 percent 
noncompliance. So, the purpose of the legislation is to 
establish this interim standard in the meantime, and we think 
that is going to be a benefit.
    Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Ms. Reinke.
    And to Mr. Pugh, since my time is basically up, New York is 
always on the top of the wrong lists. And when it comes to 
truck parking, I think we rank number 5 as having the greatest 
shortages. How bad is it in New York?
    Mr. Pugh. As somebody who trucked in New York a lot, 
especially around the city, it is very bad, very, very limited 
spaces to park.
    Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Edwards. Next, the Chair recognizes Congressman Stanton 
from Arizona for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you to the witnesses for being here today for this important 
hearing. Moving freight into and through Arizona is an 
essential part of our economy and our Nation's supply chains. 
In 2019, 285 million tons of freight were carried by trucks 
across our State. In Maricopa County, our largest county, more 
than 17,000 trucks passed through each day, traveling either 
from or to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and to the 
east, or from Mexico; 17,000 a day is a staggering number. In 
Arizona, more than 90 percent of truckdrivers say they have 
trouble finding a place to park their big rig, and more than 60 
percent say they spend, on average, more than half an hour 
trying to find a safe place to park.
    There are about 7,000 parking spaces throughout the State, 
but at prime locations, such as Interstate 40 near the 
California border, or near Phoenix, spaces start to fill by 9 
p.m., and just a few hours later, parking is at full capacity. 
We don't have enough parking spaces now, and we certainly don't 
for the future. Truck freight is expected to increase by more 
than 50 percent in Arizona over the next two decades. This is a 
critical safety issue and an important economic issue for our 
State and country. And it is why I support Representative 
Bost's bill to provide dedicated Federal resources to improve 
existing parking infrastructures and to increase capacity. It 
is not often that we see near unanimity on an issue in the 
trucking sector, but the need to provide more safe truck 
parking might be that critical issue.
    And I know throughout this hearing, there has been a lot of 
questions and discussion about parking. I wanted to make that 
point, but I am actually going to ask a different question, and 
this question is directed at Mr. Pugh.
    Mr. Pugh, in 2018 the Department of Transportation's 
inspector general issued a report about driver detention, the 
delays truckdrivers face when loading and unloading their 
vehicles. The report found that just a 15-minute increase in 
the time a truck spends at a freight facility increases the 
average expected crash rate by 6.2 percent and decreases 
earnings of for-hire truck load drivers by over $1 billion 
annually. Can you speak to the impacts detention time has on 
owner-operators and on the supply chains, and any suggestions 
you might have for Congress on helping on the issue of 
detention time?
    Mr. Pugh. As I have stated before, the Fair Labor Standards 
Act exemption removal would be one good thing. We try to get 
our members and along with we have asked Ms. Reinke, and I know 
that her members try to get the importance to the shippers and 
the receivers of how important it is to get trucks in and out 
of these facilities.
    Probably something else that would help which hasn't really 
been commented on is flexibility, a little bit of flexibility 
in our service. And by that, I don't mean more time to drive, I 
mean when drivers can kind of make their schedule fit what they 
need for deliveries and pickups, because sometimes that creates 
a strain on the supply chain because everybody's showing up at 
the same time. And again, I want to preface it: I don't mean 
more driving, truckers don't want to drive more, no matter what 
people tell you, they don't. They just want to be paid for what 
they do drive.
    Mr. Stanton. That is great. A few more moments, that was 
the singular question I asked. I open it up to any other 
witnesses who want to talk about the issue of detention time 
and what Congress may do to improve that issue.
    Mr. Scandaglia. I will just add, as I said earlier, 
generally speaking, detention time is covered in our contracts. 
But certainly we support everything Mr. Pugh just said on 
making sure that there are no drivers who are denied detention 
time pay.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you. Any other witnesses?
    Mr. Fialkov?
    Mr. Fialkov. Sure, I am happy to chime in primarily with 
some anecdotal information that relates to the truck parking 
issue which is somewhat adjacent to this. But many years ago--
and I am not advocating for a change in policy per se--but many 
years ago, before there was an hours-of-service regime, before 
a lot of consumers expected goods to be delivered to their 
house a day after they order it online or the same day they 
order it online, truck parking lots were full in the morning 
and the afternoon and at night, because different drivers were 
driving during different times of day.
    Today, right now, you can go to a lot of truckstops 
throughout the country who have a lot of empty parking spots. 
That is because drivers are compelled by shippers and by other 
requirements, hours of service and whatnot, to all kind of 
drive during the same time, not only as one another but as 
motorists in general, which results in truck parking lots being 
empty during the day and full at night. So, I think that the 
truck parking shortage is something that needs to be addressed. 
And I think that Congressman Bost's and Representative Craig's 
bill goes a lot toward doing that, but there are a lot of other 
factors that influence this that need to be examined, too.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
    My time is up, so, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Edwards. The gentleman yields.
    Next, the Chair recognizes my friend from Georgia, Mr. 
Collins, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    As I was sitting here listening, I guess I was running 
through different things on what y'all have been talking about. 
And as a small businessman, and someone who is second-
generation in the trucking industry, I started my own trucking 
company a little over 30 years ago. I look at things as: what 
is the problem, what is the solution. And I know you were 
talking about my trying to make repairs and not having 
software, and you were talking about truck parking problems and 
driver retention, and driver attracting. And I would say that 
one of the main things that we have a problem with is the 
liability out there. We need tort reform in this country. You 
can't park at shippers and [inaudible] anymore because they 
don't want to hold the liability if something happens. So, they 
have pushed them off their yard and made them go park somewhere 
else. A lot of your rest areas in these States, you can't park 
there because the Department of Transportation comes by and 
bugs you to death. So, we have created a lot of our problems, 
but a lot of it is tort reform.
    And Mr. Pugh, no matter what is being said down here, that 
is the purest form of entrepreneurship and small business when 
you have an owner-operator out there. That is a person starting 
their own business. And if they don't want workers' comp or 
group insurance, that is up to them. But could you speak just 
for a few seconds on liability insurance and what insurance 
costs are doing?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, that is a huge concern and has been a huge 
concern of ours for a long, long time. We know we have seen in 
the past when we try to increase this cost on small business 
truckers and carriers, our members see anywhere from $10,000 to 
$30,000 a year that they are paying in liability for one 
truck--one truck. Trucking is not a high-profit industry, 
especially small business. It is a penny-saved business, not a 
penny-made business. And I have seen some guys with quotes as 
high as $50,000 and $60,000. Myself, I was leased to a carrier 
for many years. As you saw in my safety record, I was thinking 
about getting my own authority just before coming here to 
OOIDA. And at the time when I priced it, for a guy with 23 
years' experience, 2\1/2\ million miles, my first year of 
liability insurance, I was quoted over $25,000.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you. The problem is nuclear verdicts out 
there, these runaway juries. We have got to have tort reform. I 
would say that Obamacare also increased group insurance 
tremendously for small businesses out there. I know it has for 
us.
    Another problem I see out there is we have got a $1.2 
trillion infrastructure bill that is out there with only $600 
billion that went to fix roads and bridges. Do you see any 
congestion out there on the roads when you are driving?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, all the time.
    Mr. Collins. Would you say that the advancement of EVs and 
electric buses and vehicles are going to help that congestion 
or just go out there and sit with the rest of us?
    Mr. Pugh. I don't see where it is going to help, but that 
is my opinion.
    Mr. Collins. It has been a proven fact over and over if we 
would just improve the congestion problems that we have on the 
interstate that the current amount of trucks out there could 
handle the freight that is needed to be moved. But instead, we 
have an administration that puts their emphasis on some of 
these other social issues, or some of these crazy issues that 
we can't even drive an EV truck because the things weigh 30,000 
pounds.
    Mr. Pugh, what is the average weight of one of your trucks?
    Mr. Pugh. Probably around 30,000 pounds empty. It can haul 
50,000 pounds loaded.
    Mr. Collins. That includes the trailer.
    Mr. Pugh. Yes.
    Mr. Collins. The truck itself is what, 17,000?
    Mr. Pugh. 15,000, 17,000 pounds.
    Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
    The other thing that I wanted to hit on because I know my 
time is limited now, 18-year-olds driving. Mr. Scandaglia--I 
can't pronounce--I'm sorry. Back in the 1980s that you 
referenced to when you said drivers started going away from 
this industry, what was the age of the minimum age you could 
get to drive a truck?
    Mr. Scandaglia. I am not sure.
    Mr. Collins. It was 18. I got my driver's license, my class 
5 when I was 18, 1985. Then we went to age 21, which in my 
opinion, if you had graduated from high school, you would have 
had to stay at home or do whatever until you turned 21 to get 
your commercial driver's license. Today, trucks are so much 
safer than they were when I learned on a 2-stick Mack. You get 
in it and you drive, you push or you enter ``D,'' they are all 
automated. They have all got collision avoidance, they will all 
slow down if they come up on traffic. They all have rollover 
stability. We have ABS brakes now which we didn't have in the 
1980s which these trucks stop on average about 150 feet short 
at 60 miles an hour. So, I do not understand why there is such 
a push to keep 18-year-olds from driving a truck. And I see 
that I am out of time. I hate to rant.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back whatever I have left. Thank you.
    Mr. Edwards. The gentleman yields back.
    Next, the Chair recognizes the Congresswoman from Oregon, 
Ms. Hoyle, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Thank you very much. I didn't go to 
Wharton, but I did spend 25 years working in manufacturing 
distribution in international and domestic trade. Also, I would 
be remiss not to mention that we are working to build a port in 
Coos Bay, Oregon. And it would be the third major container 
port on the west coast going straight to rail, but we will need 
trucks, but it would help reduce supply chain crisis. And if 
anyone wants to talk about it, check with me afterwards 
offline. I will talk about it a lot.
    So, as I said, I worked in distribution, both domestic and 
international. And I certainly support the free market, 
absolutely, have been a small business owner, worked in 
business. But there is a role for Government, and that is an 
investment in infrastructure and roads and bridges and ensuring 
that there is adequate safe parking. Like, if we want to 
attract workers, the best way that I have found to do that, and 
I have hired a lot of people, worked a lot on apprenticeships 
and workforce, is to increase the wages, hours, working 
conditions, and safety conditions which we all agree we need 
more parking, especially if we want more women in the field. 
And as you mentioned, Mr. Pugh, that the age of drivers is 
getting older and older, younger people are not coming into 
trucking. We need to do that.
    Now, I wish my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Van Orden, was 
here. I did a cursory glance about the rates of accidents for 
younger drivers versus older drivers. So, drivers from 16 to 19 
have three times the number of accidents as drivers 20 and 
older. And when we have so many trucks on the road, and I 
talked to a lot of truckers in my work, and they are concerned 
about the lack of qualified drivers on the road, and that is 
scary. So, there is a role. I know we need more drivers. We 
need to figure this out, but not if it is going to make our 
roads unsafe. And again, actions have consequences, I will 
point to NAFTA. We allowed all these Mexican trucks to come 
over and they don't have the same safety considerations, right? 
Those trucks don't have the same standards.
    So, I strongly believe in that role for Government. And I 
want to work with everyone here to make sure that we are moving 
young people into this job. And that as we do things, whether 
it is autonomous vehicles, or it is changing how we attract 
people to this business or train them, that we do it with an 
eye on safety. And I also will say we don't invest in our 
infrastructure enough. We have to figure out how to pay for the 
roads. And it is really, really critical.
    But with the rest of my time, I would like to follow up and 
allow Mr. Scandaglia to--you were starting to talk about your 
concerns with autonomous vehicles, which again, I support 
moving that way, but only if we have clear safety 
considerations, because we have a lot of people on our roads.
    Mr. Scandaglia. Thanks for the question, Congresswoman. I 
think there are two things here that are primarily on our minds 
as the Teamsters. One is, from a Federal perspective right now, 
we are really dropping the ball in oversight of the autonomous 
vehicle industry. In our opinion, I don't think that is 
debatable. States are doing whatever they may want to do, both 
good and bad. And it has left companies to pursue autonomous 
vehicles in whatever the way they want, without the benefits of 
Federal oversight. So, I think the first piece is that we 
strongly support real Federal oversight, real Federal safety 
regulation on the deployment, testing, and performance of 
autonomous vehicles.
    And the second piece is, I understand, to Mr. Collins' 
point earlier, that there are some extremely limited 
deployments of autonomous vehicles today in the market. That is 
very different from full-scale commercialization across the 
country. Those are not the same thing. Regardless, if that is 
the point that anyone expects that we will arrive at one day, 
it is incumbent on Congress and the Federal Government to think 
of and prepare for the effects that may have on a displaced 
workforce.
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Thank you. I yield the remainder of my 
time.
    Mr. Edwards. The Congresswoman yields.
    Next is Congressman Nehls from the great State of Texas for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Nehls. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I am going to use 
my time to discuss some priorities I have been working on in 
the 117th, and now the 118th Congress. And I think they are 
commonsense initiatives that will help the taxpayer. As both 
Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen often reiterate, this 
committee is a workforce committee, and I would like to point 
that both of my bills are bipartisan.
    I believe strongly that when taxpayer funds are spent the 
primary beneficiaries should be American companies and American 
workers. And in the 117th Congress, I partnered with 
Congressman Garamendi, and introduced the Domestic Preferences 
for Building America Act. We reintroduced the bill, and I 
believe it should pass.
    Specifically, the legislation would require that 
infrastructure projects valued at more than $100 million, 
receiving Federal financial assistance, be built by domestic 
contractors and domestically controlled joint ventures. Our tax 
dollars should not go to foreign firms, supported by nonmarket 
economies or countries watchlisted by the U.S. Trade 
Representative.
    The second piece of legislation I want to discuss is the 
Trucker Bathroom Access Act that I coauthored with 
Congresswoman Houlahan. And Mr. Pugh, can you tell us what it's 
like for a trucker to try to find a place to simply use the 
bathroom when you are out on the road? What is that like?
    Mr. Pugh. Well, unfortunately, it can be a struggle, and I 
never thought we would be sitting here in the Halls of Congress 
of the greatest Nation of the world talking about giving people 
the right to use the restroom when they are trying to do their 
job. But unfortunately, I guess that is where we have gotten in 
society thanks to COVID. This all came out of COVID, as we saw 
so many places close their restrooms and close their restroom 
access.
    Now it happened in places before, I have had it happen to 
myself personally. But since COVID, so many places have never 
opened their facilities back up. Drivers, like we have talked 
about, they are allowed to work a certain amount of time, they 
have a certain amount of hours. So, they are trying to get to 
where they need to be, get the products delivered to the 
shippers and the receivers. The least the shipper or receiver 
could do is allow that person to use their facility that they 
have in place already when they get there, and it is not 
happening.
    Mr. Nehls. It is just not that simple, is it. Yes.
    The organization, Women In Trucking, they are very 
supportive of my legislation to ensure restroom access for 
truckers. Do you believe being denied access to a restroom is 
preventing women from starting careers in trucking?
    Mr. Pugh. I think, yes, for sure. We all know that the 
operational challenges to use a restroom for a woman are more 
than for a man, so, of course. Why would women not----
    Mr. Nehls [interrupting]. Is it making it more difficult 
for women to remain in jobs behind the wheel?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, I would say for certain.
    Mr. Nehls. I just want to put on the record and say to all 
the lobbyists and trade associations trying to sink this bill--
because they are out there trying to sink this bill--first of 
all, I really don't care what you think on this issue, I really 
don't care.
    Just imagine if Congress opted to ban lobbyists from using 
bathrooms as you wait outside these committee rooms or offices. 
Imagine if you were told, hey, all the lobbyists, all you guys, 
go outside, find a tree, hell, go find a fire hydrant. Go 
outside and relieve yourself, because we are not going to let 
you do that here. How long do you think that would last? I bet 
you they would be very, very frustrated. What, do we want to 
treat our truckers like cats and dogs? You've got to take the 
dog outside to the backyard, this and that. Let's do it with 
women and men that are in the trucking industry. Shame on those 
lobbyists and those trade association for trying to sink this 
bill.
    I believe it is the right thing to do. I will continue to 
fight like hell, Mr. Pugh, to pass these two important pieces 
of legislation.
    And with that, sir, I yield back.
    Mr. Edwards. The gentleman yields back.
    Next, the Chair would like to recognize Congressman 
Burchett from Tennessee for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Pugh, right? On the end down there? The Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration is working to restrict all heavy-
duty commercial vehicles to a single top speed nationwide. Do 
these speed limiters threaten highway safety? And is that 
commonly what we call governors?
    Mr. Pugh. I beg your pardon? What did you say, the last?
    Mr. Burchett. I said do these speed limiters threaten 
highway safety?
    Mr. Pugh. Yes, they definitely would threaten highway 
safety. And there are many things we could do that would 
improve highway safety instead of this.
    Mr. Burchett. How are these going to affect our supply 
chain, since it is already damaged?
    Mr. Pugh. It is going to slow down our supply chain. If you 
slow down trucks, that means it is going to take them longer to 
get somewhere. With them taking longer to get somewhere, it is 
going to create: Do we need more trucks? We all heard about the 
retention problem and all of these things, so, we will need 
more trucks, which will create more congestion on the highway, 
which will just slow the supply chain down even more.
    Mr. Burchett. Isn't it true that most of these trucks are 
tested out and rated to go a great deal faster than these 
minimum speed limits that we are setting, and it also chokes 
the trucks down to where the diesel fuel is emitting out the 
exhaust, it is not fully ignited?
    Mr. Pugh. I am not a scientist, but I would say from my 
mechanical knowledge of what I've learned, that is true. And 
most trucks today are designed on spec. When you buy a truck 
like myself, when you purchase a truck, you purchase it to run 
at a set speed, you get a gear ratio and all these things to 
where you can run that truck, probably in the zone or the 
region you are running.
    Mr. Burchett. In your opinion, what are the Federal laws 
and regulations that need to change to move freight faster more 
reliably?
    Mr. Pugh. I think flexibility in hours of service would be 
a big help. I think better parking, of course, would be a big 
help. I think driver training, which is something we haven't 
talked about much in here at all. Training people to get in the 
industry in the first place, more teeth into that training to 
where people come into this industry, they know what they are 
doing, they feel safer, they are safer, better drivers, and 
they stay. Increasing pay, paying overtime to truckdrivers will 
also help with that.
    One thing, another thing we talked about and this is a 
safety thing and would help the supply chain: more enforcement 
of the highways for speeders. And I am not talking trucks. I am 
talking just more cops out there on the road watching what all 
the motoring public is doing. You can take a trip anywhere 
across this country, and you hardly see cops at all anymore. 
People are speeding and cutting trucks off, you see these 
rideshares and different things. So, more enforcement over 
highways in general.
    Mr. Burchett. All right.
    Mr. Fialkov, is that correct? Is that how you say your 
name?
    Mr. Fialkov. Yes, Congressman.
    Mr. Burchett. All right, thank you. How can these Federal 
electric vehicle charging grant programs better support and 
encourage the private sector investment, or can they?
    Mr. Fialkov. Yes, I appreciate the question. The challenge 
with electric vehicle charging, as we see it, is marrying two 
different industries. You have a regulated electric utility 
industry, that by definition, is kind of operating in a 
guaranteed rate of return environment. And then you have the 
refueling industry, which is an extraordinarily competitive 
industry, right? It is not uncommon to see multiple gas 
stations at the same corner selling the same fungible commodity 
for the same price right. Right? So, getting those two 
industries to work together is something that we think is 
extraordinarily important if that new vehicle fueling 
technology is to take off.
    The challenge that we found with these EV charging grant 
programs is that they are being treated like they are any other 
infrastructure program, right? You get money to DOT, DOT gives 
the money to a State DOT, and they spend the money in 
accordance with whatever parameters are established for them. 
We think that those parameters should prompt States, which tend 
to have more jurisdiction over the electric utility industry, 
to update the regulatory regime governing that sector so that 
it better comports with the EV charging market that is going to 
need to take off to kind of initiate private capital to just 
systemically flow to this industry so that if new chargers that 
are faster are invented in 5 years, we have an incentive to buy 
it without having to rely on----
    Mr. Burchett [interrupting]. They are not there yet. I 
mean, let's be honest, with these electric vehicles, you are 
going to take 6 to 8 hours to charge. I keep saying that what 
we need is to be like the propane tank industry: You just pull 
in and pull your battery out, get another battery that is fully 
charged and put it in because you are going to be waiting on 
the side of the road for 8 hours. My time is up. I could rant 
on that all day, but thank y'all so much for being here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I yield back no time to you.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Are 
there any further questions from any member of the subcommittee 
who has not been recognized?
    Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would 
like to thank each of you for taking time to be here to answer 
our questions and educate us on the intricacies of our supply 
chain, and for your testimony.
    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing 
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided 
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 
writing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 
for 15 days for any additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record 
of today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


Letter of May 9, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and 
 Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways 
 and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, from the 
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Submitted for the 
                       Record by Hon. Sam Graves
                                                       May 9, 2023.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of 
        Representatives, 2422 Rayburn House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of 
        Representatives, 2136 Rayburn House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Chair Crawford and Ranking Member Holmes Norton:
    As the Subcommittee addresses issues of economic importance with 
respect to the resiliency of the nation's supply chain, the American 
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) urges the 
Subcommittee to consider the central role driver records and safety 
data play in ensuring driver throughput and getting licensed drivers on 
the road expeditiously and efficiently.
    The Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) has long 
served as the foundation for ensuring commercial driver safety and the 
continuity of one record being applicable to one, and only one, driver. 
Sustaining operations and maintenance of the system in the post-
establishment environment have been largely funded utilizing state 
fees. The discretionary application of a fee system to fund CDLIS is 
established via 49 USC 31309(d).
    The States fund and support this critical component of ensuring 
driver convictions are reported, that commercial drivers are unable to 
disperse unsafe driving records between jurisdictions, and that drivers 
are unable to hold more than one driving credential in any given State. 
CDLIS serves as the backbone for all commercial safety operations and 
continues to contribute globally to the federal safety dynamic--from 
drug and alcohol screening and conviction reporting, to exchanging 
jurisdictional safety records between States. The system is also a 
mandated component of driver processing. Before a driver is properly 
credentialed and put into service, CDLIS must be checked. Now, more 
than ever, continuity and support for the CDLIS system is imperative to 
keep the nation's safe drivers on the road and expeditiously vet new 
drivers through the commercial driver's program.
    Legislative erosion has degraded State support for the CDLIS 
program under 49 USC 31309(d). The solution resides in a simple 
technical correction to this section that provides clarity and 
assurance that State paid fees continue to support the CDLIS program as 
the States intend. AAMVA and its members are not asking for additional 
funding, we are asking only for a short technical correction to 
substantiate State support to the federally mandated system.
    AAMVA thanks the Subcommittee for its continued good work, and for 
its consideration of the role safety data has on the success of the 
federal commercial program. In a time of exceptional reliance on the 
commercial sector to provide the needs and goods the public sector has 
come to rely on, the importance of supporting state efforts remains 
essential. AAMVA stands with the Subcommittee and looks forward to 
rectifying the issue in the coming months.
                              About AAMVA:
    The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) is 
a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization developing model programs in motor 
vehicle administration, law enforcement, and highway safety. Founded in 
1933, AAMVA represents the state, provincial, and territorial officials 
in the United States and Canada who administer and enforce motor 
vehicle laws. The association also serves as an information 
clearinghouse in these areas and acts as the international spokesperson 
for these interests.

                                 
 Letter of May 16, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, 
    and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
 Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
   from Jeff Farrah, Executive Director, Autonomous Vehicle Industry 
        Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves
                                                      May 16, 2023.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chairman,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on 
        Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC 20510.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on 
        Highways and Transit, U.S. House of Representatives, 
        Washington, DC 20510.
    Dear Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton,
    The Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association (``AVIA'') writes to 
thank you for holding the May 10th hearing entitled Freight Forward: 
Overcoming Supply Chain Challenges to Deliver for America. AVIA looks 
forward to working with you to increase long term supply chain 
resiliency by encouraging the safe and swift deployment of autonomous 
vehicles (``AVs'') in the United States.
    By way of background, AVIA is comprised of leading companies with 
technical expertise and experience in the technology, automotive, 
trucking, and transportation network sectors. Bringing together their 
varied backgrounds, these companies formed AVIA to advance the 
tremendous safety, mobility and economic benefits of AVs to consumers 
in the safest and swiftest manner possible.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Our members include Apple, Aurora, Cavnue, Cruise, Embark, 
Ford, Gatik, Kodiak, Lyft, May Mobility, Motional, Nuro, TuSimple, 
Uber, Volkswagen Group of America, Volvo Cars, Volvo Autonomous 
Solutions, Waabi, Waymo, and Zoox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, companies, ports, and policymakers are working to 
accelerate short-term solutions to improve the supply chain. Few 
proposed solutions have addressed a significant supply chain 
challenge--the long-term truck driver shortage. The United States has a 
dire truck driver shortage of nearly 80,000 drivers.\2\ Without 
innovative solutions, this shortage is expected to double to 160,000 by 
2030.\3\ The industry also faces extremely high turnover rates. For 
both new entrants and those considering retirement, the burden of long 
and stressful hours drivers spend away from their families outweighs 
the allure of a decent-paying long-haul job. Truck driving is also 
incredibly dangerous, with nearly 14% of all crashes involving a truck 
and 1 in 3 long-haul truck drivers experiencing a serious crash in 
their careers.\4\ \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Driver Shortage Update 2022, American Trucking Association 
(Oct. 25, 2022), https://ata.msgfocus.com/files/amf_highroad_solution/
project_2358/ATA_Driver_Shortage_
Report_2022_Executive_Summary.October22.pdf.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Traffic Safety Facts: 
Large Trucks (April 2022), https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/813286.pdf.
    \5\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Crashes are the 
leading cause of on-the-job death for truck drivers in the US (March 
2015), https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/
2015/p0303-truck-driver-
safety.html#::text=An%20estimated%2014%20percent%20of
%20long-
haul%20truck%20drivers,or%20more%20serious%20crashes%20during%20their
%20driving%20careers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Autonomous trucks will serve an important role in the trucking 
ecosystem by filling long-haul rides to address the driver shortfall 
while fostering new short-haul jobs that alleviate the heavy physical 
and mental toll of long-haul driving. Autonomous trucks do not need to 
stop for breaks or otherwise maintain a human driver's schedule, and 
can unlock new agricultural markets by reducing spoilage. Autonomous 
trucks will augment and create new opportunities for human truck 
drivers, while supporting the supply chain and U.S. economy.
    Autonomous trucking has also already created thousands of high-
paying jobs--vehicle operators, maintenance workers, technicians, 
engineers and more--and the sector's growth will require more new 
hires. The successful partnership of human-driven and autonomous trucks 
was confirmed by a study from the U.S. Department of Transportation 
projecting that autonomous long-haul trucks will create up to 35,100 
jobs per year across the economy, raise wages for all American workers 
and spur $111 billion in investment across the nation's economy.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Robert Waschik et al., John A. Volpe Nat'l Transp. Sys. Ctr., 
FHWA-JPO-21-847, Macroeconomic Impacts of Automated Driving Systems in 
Long-Haul Trucking, 1 (2021), https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/54596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Truck drivers are working hard, but the shortage is simply 
unsustainable. Already frustrated with rising prices and product 
shortages, U.S. consumers cannot afford to rely solely on stopgap, 
short-term measures to reinforce our supply chain in the long term. The 
U.S. needs to move forward on autonomous trucks so goods can keep 
moving.
        Sincerely,
                                               Jeff Farrah,
       Executive Director, Autonomous Vehicle Industry Association.

                                 
  Letter of May 8, 2023, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Rick 
Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
 from the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks, Submitted for the Record by 
                            Hon. Sam Graves
                                                       May 8, 2023.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Chairman,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 1135 Longworth 
        House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 2163 Rayburn 
        House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Larsen:
    We are members of the Coalition Against Bigger Trucks (CABT), a 
national non-profit highway safety organization that represents over 
3,000 law enforcement leaders and local government officials who share 
our concerns about the dangers to motorists and infrastructure damage 
that would be caused by increases in semi-truck size and weight.
    As your committee explores supply chain issues in the coming weeks, 
we urge you to reject any proposals to increase the size or weight of 
trucks. This committee is all too familiar with these bigger truck 
proposals and has wisely rejected them over the years.
    Proponents of heavier trucks have claimed that size and weight 
increases would be a solution to perceived driver shortages. A survey 
of professional truck drivers conducted in March 2022 made it clear 
that bigger trucks would only make matters worse. Conducted in 
conjunction with the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association 
(OOIDA), the survey found that 68% of respondents felt that increasing 
truck size or weight limits would make it more difficult to recruit or 
retain truck drivers. Making the profession even more dangerous would 
not only fail to address existing concerns of driver recruitment, it 
would exacerbate the problem.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) conducted a 
comprehensive, multi-year evaluation of the impacts bigger trucks would 
have on our national transportation system. Its final report issued in 
2016 recommended against any increases in the size or weight of trucks 
(Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study). The report found 
that heavier trucks had serious safety problems. Key findings include:
      Heavier trucks had a 47 percent to 400 percent higher 
crash rate than 80,000-pound trucks based on limited state testing.
      Heavier trucks were found to have a higher out-of-service 
violation rate and an 18 percent higher brake violation rate when 
compared to 80,000-pound trucks.

    Law enforcement experience supports these findings. Heavier trucks 
are more likely to roll over and be involved in more severe crashes 
leading to more injuries and more deaths. So-called pilot programs for 
heavier trucks amount to little more than experimenting with more 
dangerous vehicles on the road with other motorists, in effect turning 
motorists into guinea pigs.
    There are also significant infrastructure concerns with bigger 
trucks. The 2016 USDOT study examined the effect on a limited number of 
bridges on the Interstate and National Highway System and found 
significant repair costs to replace thousands of bridges.
    Working with CABT, members of our coalition recently completed an 
analysis of the impacts of heavier trucks on the more than 470,000 
local bridges (The Impacts of Heavier Trucks on Local Roads, March 
2023). Locally owned infrastructure sees significant truck travel and 
is often built to far lower standards than the interstate system. 
Consider these facts:
      More than 72,000 local bridges cannot safely accommodate 
91,000-pound trucks.
      The cost of replacing these local bridges would be $60.8 
billion.
      This cost would largely be borne by small local 
governments, many of which operate on very tight budgets.

    Due to our very serious concerns about the dangers to motorists and 
our infrastructure, we ask that you reject any proposals that would 
increase the size or weight of semi-trucks.

Rick Bailey,
  Past President, County Judges and Commissioners Association of Texas, 
County Commissioner, Johnson County TX.
Christopher Burgos,
  President Emeritus, New Jersey State Troopers Fraternal Association, 
State Trooper, New Jersey State Police (Ret.).
Steven Casstevens,
  Past President, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Chief 
of Police, Buffalo Grove Police Department IL (Ret.).
Josh Harvill, P.E.,
  Southeast Region Vice President, National Association of County 
Engineers, County Engineer, Chambers County AL.
Brian Keierleber, P.E.,
  Past President, National Association of County Engineers, County 
Engineer, Buchanan County IA.
Thomas Klasner, P.E.,
  Past President, Illinois Association of County Engineers, County 
Engineer, Jersey County IL.
Andy Matthews, Esq.,
  Executive Director, National Troopers Coalition, Sergeant, 
Connecticut State Police (Ret.).
Donald Smith,
  Past President, New York State Sheriffs Association, Sheriff, Putnam 
County NY (Ret.).
  
  

CC:  Members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee

                                 
  Letter of May 10, 2023, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, and Hon. Rick 
Larsen, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
 and Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes 
Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Tom 
 Madrecki, Vice President, Supply Chain, Consumer Brands Association, 
              Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves
                                                      May 10, 2023.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Chairman,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2167 Rayburn House Office 
        Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rick Larsen,
Ranking Member,
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 2163 Rayburn House Office 
        Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chairman,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, 2422 Rayburn House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Highways and Transit Subcommittee, 2136 Rayburn House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Chairman Crawford, and 
Ranking Member Norton:
    Thank you for convening today's hearing on supply chain and 
transportation challenges, recognizing the impact of recent supply 
chain problems on manufacturers, shippers, and consumers across 
America.
    Trucking plays a critical role in the U.S. supply chain and 
economy. America's truck drivers were on the frontlines of the 
pandemic, delivering goods to every corner of this country. Nearly 
seventy-three percent of goods in America are shipped by truck. A 
strong, stable, and safe trucking industry that offers good-paying jobs 
to millions of truck drivers is a critical lifeline of our economy. 
Trucking and transportation are the backbone of economic growth, 
national security, and consumers' quality of life. But even before the 
COVID-19 pandemic, America's food, beverage, household, and personal 
care manufacturers expressed growing concern over the state of U.S. 
supply chains.
    Acting now to improve supply chain fluidity will reduce the chances 
of high-profile problems in the future, while delivering economic and 
quality of life benefits today. Issues as far-ranging as the truck 
driver shortage, truck parking, freight capacity, rail performance, 
maritime shipping challenges, port congestion, inadequate data sharing 
and the untapped opportunity of emerging technologies imperil business 
operations, slow manufacturing lines, foster inefficiencies and add to 
consumer costs.
    The SHIP IT Act, as introduced by Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) and 
Jim Costa (D-CA), aims to address many of these supply chain 
challenges. Simply put, it is a holistic and comprehensive approach to 
many of the toughest problems limiting ground transportation 
performance. It includes provisions to incentivize the recruitment and 
retention of truck drivers; reduce regulatory and compliance burdens on 
truck drivers; and create efficiencies and reduce emissions through 
modest gross vehicle weight (GVW) limit reform. The SHIP IT Act also 
expands the circumstances under which the federal government would 
allow a state to waive federal weight limits on the interstate system 
to include declarations by the Secretary of Transportation, including 
declarations regarding disease and declarations regarding a supply 
chain emergency. Currently, once the president declares an emergency, 
it is only allowed to remain in effect for 120-days, but often that is 
not enough to mitigate the impacts of a national emergency and ensure 
consumers have access to critical goods.
    Despite major advancements in vehicle safety and paving technology, 
GVW laws have not been updated since 1982. Currently, many shippers 
reach the current 80,000-pound weight limit before the truck is full 
and are forced to deploy trucks that are one-quarter empty. This 
requires more trucks to be sent out than otherwise would be needed to 
meet demand. The SHIP IT Act includes a safe and common-sense proposal 
to increase gross vehicle weight limits on federal interstate highways. 
This pilot program would be an opt-in program that would require states 
who participate to collect data and report to USDOT, including the 
estimated gross weight of the vehicles participating in the pilot 
program at the time of any reportable accident. Member companies of the 
Consumer Brands Association include America's most iconic food, 
beverage, household, and personal care brands--among the most 
recognizable and well-known companies in the world. The industry is 
extremely sensitive to issues that could tarnish those brands. It would 
not endorse policies if it did not fully believe that the proposed GVW 
increases are safe and fully bridge formula compliant, offering myriad 
performance and sustainability benefits while contributing less wear 
and tear due to the presence of a sixth trailer axle.
    Time and time again, recent experience has taught us that there is 
no silver bullet solution to our nation's supply chain and 
transportation woes. But, if Congress is to consider any proposals to 
support trucking and to make incremental, practical improvements to the 
movement of goods and services across America, it could not do better 
than to pick up on the policies suggested in the SHIP IT Act. 
Government policy should help--not hinder--private sector efforts to 
deliver for consumers, working in parallel to ensure the availability, 
affordability, and accessibility of everyday essential products.
    Thank you for your belief in strengthening American supply chains, 
and for convening today's hearing to open discussion of the policies 
and approaches to deliver for decades to come.
        Sincerely,
                                              Tom Madrecki,
         Vice President, Supply Chain, Consumer Brands Association.

                                 
  Statement of the National Association of Small Trucking Companies, 
              Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves
    The National Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC) 
commends the subcommittee for its attention to various challenges 
facing the U.S. freight supply chain. A major cause of supply-chain 
disruption domestically is unlawful supply-chain fraud and theft of 
trucked and brokered freight hauling.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Todd Dills, ``FMCSA needs a `cop on the block' fighting 
brokered-freight fraud,'' Overdrive (Nov. 29, 2022) (https://
www.overdriveonline.com/regulations/article/15303681/meaningful-
enforcement-needed-to-fight-freight-fraud).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NASTC is a member-based organization whose 15,000 member companies 
range from a significant segment that operates on the single-power-
unit, owner-operator model to carriers having more than 100 power 
units; NASTC members average 12 power units. These companies for the 
most part operate in the long-haul, over-the-road, full-truckload, for-
hire, irregular-route sector of interstate trucking. NASTC's members 
come from the largest segment of America's long-haul trucking--they all 
are small motor carrier businesses. They are representative of the vast 
majority of our nation's commercial motor carriers, those having fewer 
than 100 power units.
    Fraud perpetrators and criminal enterprises plaguing trucking and 
brokerage account for an estimated 3,500 instances annually--a figure 
that admittedly understates the actual occurrences of these crimes 
because many go unreported. Nevertheless, the level of criminality is 
extensive, entailing for example identity theft, bait-and-switch 
proposals, and embezzlement of funds that intermediaries are required 
to receive in trust and pay to the carrier.
    NASTC and allied stakeholders have illuminated ``the severity of 
the problem and its effect on interstate commerce'' in recent public 
comments. They include real-life ``instances of theft of cargo, double 
brokerage and misappropriation of funds'' that are illustrative of the 
``systemic problems of supply chain fraud involving organized crime and 
broker related fraud.'' \2\ Fraudsters that appear legitimate prey upon 
commercial motor carriers and freight brokers, though the harmful 
effects spread much wider. These crimes impose a heavy cost on the 
innocent parties involved, as well as on manufacturers, shippers, 
wholesalers, retailers, and consumers, not to mention the efficiency 
and reliability of our supply chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Air & Expedited Motor Carriers Assn., et al., comments on 
``Notification of Interim Guidance: Definitions of Broker and Bona Fide 
Agents'' (FMCSA-2022-24923), Jan. 17, 2023 (https://
www.regulations.gov/comment/FMCSA-2022-0134-0103). Appendices include 
examples of transportation-related crimes, a list of existing statutes 
and rules under which transportation and brokerage crimes are 
enforceable, and an example of DOT OIG's successful prosecution of such 
crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These frauds and thefts are enabled by two things: high-tech tools 
and relative nonenforcement of applicable criminal laws. These 
criminals can expand at scale because of their ability to exploit 
technology. They are easily able to open up under one company name, 
operate for a short while, then close and quickly reopen under a 
different name. These criminals face little risk of law enforcement 
involvement and much less risk of being caught and prosecuted.
    Truck transportation and other stakeholders including NASTC have 
called to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's attention 
``the importance of vigorous retention and enforcement of these 
[interstate transportation] rules by not only FMCSA but the United 
States Department of Transportation.'' We acknowledge ``FMCSA's primary 
charter is to address highway safety . . . [and] assigning safety 
ratings to all carriers'' and its lack of authority in these matters. 
While the DOT Office of Inspector General has investigated, developed, 
and won cases against such freight fraud criminals under effective 
current law,\3\ what exists today ``is a piecemeal approach to 
addressing a major issue of general transportation importance.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ For example, see ``Tijuana Man Pleads Guilty to `Double-Broker' 
Scheme Targeting San Diego Truckers'' (https://www.justice.gov/usao-
sdca/pr/tijuana-man-pleads-guilty-double-broker-scheme-targeting-san-
diego-truckers).
    \4\ Air & Expedited Motor Carriers Assn., et al., comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Therefore, the consensus solution NASTC and these stakeholders have 
proposed is that the ``Office of the Inspector General (`OIG') at the 
U.S. DOT level establish a permanent task force to monitor supply-chain 
fraud complaints with the Secretary, and to investigate and prosecute 
fraudulent activity consistent with existing civil and criminal 
penalties.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Air & Expedited Motor Carriers Assn., et al., comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The key is sustained, focused attention on this class of 
criminality by the agency most capable and empowered to fight it, 
vigilance in pursuit of holding accountable these criminals, and 
congressional backing of this badly needed attention. NASTC and other 
transportation and intermediary stakeholders firmly believe that OIG's 
successes, such as prevailing in the Padilla double brokerage case, 
plainly affirm OIG's statutory authority, capability, and institutional 
effectiveness for focusing attention and resources systematically to 
combat these crimes.
    NASTC, along with other associations, individual truckers, 
carriers, intermediaries, and other stakeholders, applaud the 
initiative of Sen. Mike Braun and Rep. Mike Bost in urging OIG to 
create an antifreight fraud task force dedicated to investigating, 
developing, and referring cases of the kinds of crimes now disrupting 
the freight sector and its supply chains. We ask the committee to lend 
its support to this remedy. An OIG task force would put a cop on the 
block where today criminals operate with virtual impunity.

                                 
    Statement of the Shippers Coalition, Submitted for the Record by
                            Hon. Sam Graves
    The Shippers Coalition is a joint effort of more than 80 of the 
nation's most prominent manufacturers, agribusinesses, and trade 
associations, including Anheuser-Busch, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, the 
American Chemistry Council, the Consumer Brands Association, Niagara 
Bottling, Tyson Foods, Procter & Gamble, and the National Cattlemen's 
Beef Association, among others. Our coalition members deliver, or 
arrange for the delivery of thousands of truckloads of goods to 
consumers daily. Clearly, we have a vital interest in improving the 
supply chain and the freight transportation network, as such 
improvements will benefit consumers, the economy and the nation.
    Our members are completely mode neutral, using trucks, railroads 
and vessels to move products and supplies. We welcome improvements in 
the supply chain, and in service to shippers, from any mode. The 
Shippers Coalition is also committed to safety and would not support 
any initiative that it considered to be unsafe.
    Supply chain challenges have plagued American consumers for the 
last several years. From the inability to get critical goods during the 
COVID-19 pandemic to the potential railroad strike, which would have 
cost the economy $2 billion per day, we have seen the fragility of our 
supply chain. The effective, efficient and safe movement of freight is 
the backbone of the American economy, and Congress must pass common-
sense legislation to better achieve those goals, fortify our supply 
chain, and strengthen the competitiveness of the nation's economy.
    The SHIP IT Act is a holistic solution to some of the challenges in 
the movement of freight, including providing incentives to recruit and 
retain drivers, reducing regulatory burdens on truck drivers, and 
creating efficiencies and reduced emissions through modest gross 
vehicle weight (GVW) limit reform.
    One of the solutions included in the SHIP IT Act that could 
immediately relieve pressure on the supply chain is modestly increasing 
gross vehicle weight limits through a state opt-in pilot program on the 
Interstate System. Under current Federal law, the general rule is that 
the gross vehicle weight limit for vehicles on the Interstate System is 
80,000 pounds. The Federal Government does not regulate weight off the 
Interstate System (other than provide that a vehicle that can operate 
on the Interstate under Federal law must have reasonable access to and 
from the Interstate, a limited concept, not a displacement of State 
weight laws on roads throughout the State). Many states already allow 
heavier than 80,000 pounds GVW trucks off the Interstate System.
    Currently, many shippers reach the current 80,000 pounds weight 
limit before the truck is full and are forced to send trucks out that 
are only three-fourths filled, requiring companies to send more trucks 
out than what otherwise would be necessary to meet the current demand.
    Increasing that weight limit to 91,000 pounds on six axles, or the 
maximum allowed under the bridge formula, whichever is lower, would 
move trucks back to the better-built Interstates where they belong 
instead of state and local roads where they drive past schools, 
neighborhoods, and parks. The additional axle required for vehicle 
participation in this opt-in pilot program means there will be an extra 
set of brakes on these trucks, which the US Department of 
Transportation (USDOT) has found will allow the trucks to stop shorter 
than current five axle configurations.
    Companies across the United States have already proven they can 
safely implement authority to utilize trucks with GVW over 80,000 
pounds. A provision of the CARES Act allowed states to issue permits 
allowing trucks to operate above federal weight limits on Interstates 
during the COVID-19 crisis to provide much-needed supplies to families 
and communities. While this waiver authority was only available for 120 
days, companies across the US were able to take advantage of this 
provision and found an increase in efficiency and a reduction in carbon 
dioxide emissions with no increase in reportable accidents when they 
were able to fill trucks to a higher capacity. Further, other countries 
allow GVW higher than 80,000 pounds. One of our member companies has 
long operated six axle vehicles in Canada at GVW above 80,000 and with 
safety experience per movement equivalent to its U.S. experience. The 
pilot program included in the SHIP IT Act would further allow data to 
be collected during the life of the pilot program, in those states that 
opt in.
    The recent investments made through the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (IIJA) is helping to repair structurally deficient roads 
and bridges. The proposal in the SHIP IT Act will not lessen those 
dollars. The addition of a sixth axle better distributes the weight, 
protecting roads and bridges from wear and tear. In its 2015 
Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study, USDOT found that the use of 
these six-axle vehicles at weights up to 91,000 pounds GVW would reduce 
life-cycle pavement costs.
    Finally, the GVW provision in the SHIP IT Act does not increase the 
size of the trailer, it simply allows the trucks to be filled up more 
than what is currently available. The provision also explicitly 
excludes doubles and triples from this proposal. Simply, this is a 
carefully crafted, limited, state option weight pilot program; there is 
no size increase of any kind in it.
    We must not wait for another crisis to occur, but rather take 
active steps now to strengthen our supply chain, and the SHIP IT Act is 
the solution. The Shippers Coalition is supportive of this thoughtful 
legislation and believes it is the right next step forward to help 
ensure consumers can get goods at the lowest possible cost, with 
attention to safety and emissions reduction.

                                 
    Statement of James Lamb, Executive Director, Small Business in 
 Transportation Coalition, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves
    The Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC) is a 
501(c)(6) nonprofit trade organization representing small businesses 
motor carriers, independent truckers, small property (``freight'') 
brokers and other transportation professionals in the industry. The 
SBTC respectfully offers these comments to bring the perspective of 
small players to Congress' attention with respect to the supply chain's 
current challenges.
    Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, and distinguished member 
of the subcommittee, SBTC comes now, to report that the state of the 
motor carrier transportation industry in America is not good. As the 
Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) will tell you, C.H. 
Robinson has released to investors their dire and disappointing First 
Quarter 2023 financials as compared to the First Quarter of 2022:

          Total revenues decreased 32.3% to $4.6 billion, primarily 
        driven by lower pricing in our ocean and truckload services.
          Gross profits decreased 24.7% to $678.3 million. Adjusted 
        gross profits decreased 24.3% to $685.6 million, primarily 
        driven by lower adjusted gross profit per transaction in ocean 
        and truckload.
          Operating expenses decreased 6.4% to $524.6 million. 
        Personnel expenses decreased 7.3% to $383.1 million, primarily 
        due to cost optimization efforts, including reduced headcount, 
        and lower variable compensation. Selling, general and 
        administrative (``SG&A'') expenses of $141.5 million decreased 
        4.0%, primarily due to a decrease in credit losses.
          Income from operations totaled $161.0 million, down 53.4% due 
        to the decrease in adjusted gross profits, partially offset by 
        the decline in operating expenses. Adjusted operating margin of 
        23.5% declined 1,460 basis points.
          Interest and other income/expense, net totaled $28.3 million 
        of expense, consisting primarily of $23.5 million of interest 
        expense, which increased $9.0 million versus last year due 
        primarily to higher variable interest rates, and $9.6 million 
        of foreign currency revaluation and realized foreign currency 
        gains and losses, which increased $8.1 million versus last year 
        primarily due to foreign currency revaluation on intercompany 
        assets and liabilities.
          The effective tax rate in the quarter was 13.5% compared to 
        18.4% in the first quarter last year. The lower rate in the 
        first quarter of this year was driven by incremental tax 
        benefits of stock-based compensation deliveries and U.S. tax 
        credits and the impact of those benefits in proportion to lower 
        pre-tax income.
          Net income totaled $114.9 million, down 57.5% from a year 
        ago. Diluted EPS of $0.96 decreased 53.2%. Adjusted EPS of 
        $0.98 decreased 52.2%.

    Big freight brokers are therefore in sheer panic. As a result, we 
believe these 3PLs are under extreme pressure to squeeze every bit of 
profit they can out of small business motor carriers and independent 
truckers to mitigate their 2023 losses, satisfy investors, and save 
their own employees' jobs. We contend their efforts to do so are seen 
in the rates truckers have been offered by big brokers over the past 30 
days.
    In April, rates offered to truckers by brokers dropped under $1.00 
per mile. On some lanes, as low as 53 cents per mile.
    At the end of April, Freightwaves reported:

        ``America's $875 billion trucking industry is struggling . . . 
        The number of authorized interstate trucking fleets in the U.S. 
        declined by nearly 9,000 in the first quarter of 2023, 
        according to federal data analyzed by Motive, a fleet 
        management technology company. Several midsized fleets have 
        already shuttered this year, including Florida's Flagship 
        Transport and North Carolina's FreightWorks Transport. And 
        major freight brokerages have laid off 1,000 employees in 2023 
        alone . . . Per FreightWaves' Outbound Tender Rejection Index, 
        trucking fleets are rejecting about 2.8% of load requests. That 
        makes ``early 2023 the softest sustained truckload market since 
        the tender data history began in early 2018 . . .''

    As the truckers who protested on May 1, 2023 outside USDOT HQ told 
the FMCSA Administrator--reminiscent of the May 1, 2020 protest outside 
the White House exactly three years ago--you simply cannot run a truck 
and earn a profit under $2.00 per mile, especially in these days 
plagued by inflation and high fuel prices. Drivers accepting these 
loads are slowly drowning, mitigating deadhead miles trying to stay 
afloat and just get home. More and more trucks are likely to remain 
parked and eventually sold when owner-operators can't meet their 
monthly payments. They are being ruthlessly punished by big brokers who 
are trying to save themselves and keep up their outrageous, secret 
``profit margins.''
    Three years ago, Robert Voltmann, then-CEO at TIA, wanted the 
industry and public to believe that those margins averaged 16% among 
his big broker members. But documents released on social media at the 
time showed that big brokers in the midst of that last COVID-induced 
economic crisis were still trying to score up to a 57% take on loads as 
truckers heroically risked their own safety, suffered through COVID on 
the road way from their families, and kept America stocked . . . all 
while most Americans were hunkering down at home.
    But big brokers should not be making ``margins.'' They should be 
earning set commissions like brokers in every other industry, and those 
commissions should be disclosed to their shipper clients upfront and be 
made available to truckers upon request as is the current 49 CFR 371.3 
rule.
    None of us would allow a realtor to sell our homes without a 
contract that states they will charge us say a 4% commission. None of 
us, would allow a stock broker to execute a trade on our behalf without 
us knowing upfront, they will take 1-2%. Yet that is how the 3PL 
industry operates in America circa 2023. Under a cloak of secrecy 
thumbing their nose at the very notion of rate transparency that is 
already a Federal rule under 49 CFR 371.3 and has been the regulatory 
wisdom for 70 years dating back to the ICC.
    This may come as a shock, but the SBTC has recently suggested that 
third party transportation intermediaries in America are not actually 
brokers at all. They are investors following a service arbitrage-style 
strategy of simultaneously buying and selling truck transportation to 
score a profit. When times get tough for everyone, they get especially 
ruthless and it is unclear if their activities constitute price-
gouging, profiteering, and/or price-fixing in violation of antitrust 
law and restraint of trade. It is also unclear what ever happened to 
the Department of Justice investigation that former President Trump 
directed after President Biden was sworn in.
    We know the large freight broker lobby has a PAC and that they 
donate to many members of Congress in the hopes of influencing public 
policy. Forty-seven members of Congress in the last cycle received such 
money. Dating back to 2000, over $900,000 has been spent to influence 
their desire to raise the bar of entry, not to protect truckers from 
broker fraud, as they have purported to Congress, the industry, and 
public, but to protect these big brokers from competition, defeat 
attempts to enforce rate transparency, and sell more of their bonds.
    Truckers cannot offer as much money as a trade group funded by its 
multi-billion third party logistics members, but their power is in 
their numbers . . . and ultimately in their votes. They are 
understanding more and more what is happening in Washington, are 
acquiring more insight and are becoming more politically sophisticated 
and astute. There are about 3.9 million truck drivers in America. Those 
of them that operate as independent owner-operators and drivers for 
small and midsized fleets need your help. Their livelihood is on the 
line. The time is now to help America's blue collar working class.
    TIA hypocritically argues they are brokers when it comes to 
controlling entrance to the freight broker industry to keep competition 
for their big broker members low and outlawing ``dispatchers'' as 
unlicensed brokers, yet then suggests they shippers when they try to 
evade regulation. The FMCSA denied that argument on March 17, 2023 when 
they said they would not be opening up rulemaking at TIA's August 2020 
request. TIA is now likely to appeal to you because they think they 
have bought and paid for friends who will just throw 70 years of 
conventional wisdom aimed at ensuring a level playing field and 
avoiding anticompetitive policies. We ask you tell them you appreciate 
their support but they are misguided if they think you can be bought 
and are for sale to the highest lobbyist.
    FMCSA has also defended transparency as of March 1, 2020 when they 
wrote us advising brokers must abide by the 49 CFR Part 371 regulations 
as FMCSA considered requests from SBTC and OOIDA to open rulemaking to 
strengthen rulemaking to prohibit the coercing of truckers to waive 
their rights to transparency as a condition for doing business. And 
they approved both SBTC and OOIDA's requests to commence such 
rulemaking on March 16, 2023, the day before the dismissed TIA's 
request to repeal the rate transparency rule.
    There is therefore a consensus that rate transparency should not 
only endure but be enhanced. The challenges to the supply chain are 
clear. The root causes of drivers' challenges couldn't be more obvious. 
Sadly, America is not on actually track to ``Freight Forward.'' We are 
inside the DeLorean travelling backwards in time back to 2009. Indeed, 
all signs point to a new GREAT RECESSION as indicators always pop up in 
trucking before the economists make their formal declarations. But you 
can put the supply chain on the right track. We have written the 
playbook and we just need members of Congress to pick up the ball, run 
with it, and score touchdowns for small business and the American 
consumer.
    The SBTC has written and proposed the Transportation Intermediaries 
Accountability Act of 2023 as a common-sense solution to the tackle and 
address head on the problem of big brokers circumventing and evading 
transparency. Despite 49 CFR 371.3, multiple big brokers have used the 
almost-identical--and we contend illegal and anticompetitive--language 
in their contracts that induce truckers who need loads to waive their 
rights to transparency:

        ``BROKER and CARRIER shall use commercially reasonable efforts 
        to verify the accuracy of all freight charge billings invoiced 
        by BROKER to CUSTOMERS for the Services performed by CARRIER. 
        BROKER shall have the right to audit, from time to time, 
        CARRIER's freight charges, and CARRIER shall fully cooperate 
        with any audit. BROKER is not required to disclose its charges 
        to CUSTOMERS, commissions, or brokerage revenue, and CARRIER 
        waives its right to receive, audit, and/or review information 
        and documents to be kept as provided in 49 C.F.R. Sec.  
        371.3.''

    We all have to wonder how this language wound up in all of these 
different contracts issued by all these different companies. The odds 
of there not having been coordination are very slim. TIA has in the 
past even publicly encouraged ``collaboration in pricing'' among their 
members. That language scares us because it awfully close to price-
fixing. Congress needs to investigate whether meetings have been held 
by 3PLs and/or their trade group that involve setting prices under 
$1.00 a mile through the use of online rate making tools offered by 
``load boards'' and through other means and encouraging brokers to use 
language to illegally manipulate the market to defeat transparency 
regulations, evade regulation, and circumvent America's antitrust laws.
    We found one article that pointed out then FMCSA Administrator Jim 
Mullen was using the almost identical talking points as Voltmann was in 
2020 about Pepsi not wanting Coca-Cola to know what their shipping 
costs were to be very alarming. Shortly thereafter Mullen moved on to 
the private sector and Voltmann ``retired.''
    This all reeks of at best an appearance of impropriety in the form 
of conspiracy, corruption, and/or collusion worth of Congressional 
hearings.
    We believe the business practices of these big brokers also clearly 
entail evasion of regulation in violation of 49 USC 14906, which 
states:

        ``A person, or an officer, employee, or agent of that person, 
        that by any means tries to evade regulation provided under this 
        part for carriers or brokers is liable to the United States for 
        a civil penalty of at least $2,000 for the first violation and 
        at least $5,000 for a subsequent violation, and may be subject 
        to criminal penalties.''

    Yet that law is not enforced by any USDOT agency, including OIG, 
and evasion of broker transparency happens daily.
    You should ask the Secretary why.
    Congress also knows that 15 USC Sec. 1 states:

        ``Every contract, combination in the form of trust or 
        otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce 
        among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared 
        to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or 
        engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be 
        illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction 
        thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 
        if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by 
        imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said 
        punishments, in the discretion of the court.''

    It is time for Congress to conduct evasion of regulation hearings 
and deem it in the national interest for big brokers to actually be--
and act like brokers--rather than mere investors. We are looking for 
our champions on both sides of the aisle who will co-sponsor this 
legislation which would include a private right of action for broker 
transparency violations above and beyond the restraint of trade private 
cause of action so carriers and truckers can seek relief in court if 
regulatory and law enforcement won't enforce the law. It is indeed high 
time for Congress to keep and fulfill its promises to America already 
codified in the Nation Transportation Policy.
    Thank you for listening to the perspective of the little guys and 
gals. The SBTC and its members would be happy to appear before you and/
or Senate Commerce to testify in Evasion of Regulation and Restraint of 
Trade hearings.

                                 
   Letter of May 8, 2023, to Hon. Sam Graves, Chairman, Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, from Jim Ward, President, Truckload 
   Carriers Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves
                                                       May 8, 2023.
The Honorable Sam Graves,
Chairman,
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of 
        Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House Office Building, 
        Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Chairman Graves:
    The Truckload Carriers Association, with offices at 555 East 
Braddock Road, Alexandria, VA, 22314, is the national trade association 
of the truckload segment of the trucking industry. As a major part of 
an industry that has over 524,000 companies within the United States 
operating millions of power units, TCA and its trucking company members 
regularly comment on matters affecting the national trucking industry's 
common interests and the potential impact these matters could 
eventually have on our operations. With that in mind, TCA and its 
members are vitally interested in the hearing scheduled for Wednesday, 
May 10, Overcoming Supply Chain Challenges to Deliver for America and 
respectfully submit our position on the following issues.
    1.  Truck Parking--TCA estimates that insufficient truck parking is 
costing our drivers approximately $5,500 per tractor per year in lost 
wages due to time spent searching for adequate locations to park their 
truck. We believe that dedicated funding to improve the availability of 
safe and secure truck parking will provide relief to nation's 
professional truck drivers and increase the productivity of the 
industry.
    2.  Independent Contractor Misclassification--TCA continues to 
voice strong opposition to AB5-type legislation that has become a 
threat to the highly successful business model that the truckload 
industry was built upon. Creating impediments to this business model 
will only create more hurdles to the successful delivery of freight 
across the country.
    3.  Environmental Regulations--TCA believes that these regulations, 
if enacted would jeopardize the freight delivery model as we know it 
and should be implemented in a more strategic nature so that the 
trucking industry can ensure its rollout and corresponding timelines 
will be affordable, reliable, and achievable.
    4.  Hair Testing for Drugs--TCA strongly believes that in order to 
improve safety, we need to ensure a drug-free workplace and hair 
testing, as an alternative measure, has proven itself to be an 
effective tool in moving our industry towards that goal. Requiring 
FMCSA and HHS to implement these protocols to an industry that needs 
them is necessary to recruit and retain drivers that can successfully 
deliver freight in a drug-free environment.
    5.  Size and Weight--TCA continues to advocate against size and 
weight changes that would disproportionately shift the cost burden of 
these changes to our membership. Any change would come in the form of 
increased capital costs to upgrade tractors and trailers, higher 
operational costs due to increased equipment and wear and tear, a 
reduced return on invested capital and a likely increase in safety 
costs.
    6.  Elimination of the Federal Excise Tax (FET)--While this 12% tax 
began in 1917 to help fund World Ward I, it has become a hindrance to 
the deployment of safety technologies and lower emission vehicles. The 
impact of this tax is even more amplified when calculated on emerging 
Zero-Emission vehicles, where it pushes the cost out of reach for many 
of our members. Removal of this tax would provide substantial relief, 
equating to millions of dollars that could be invested in safer, 
cleaner equipment.

    We understand the challenges that your committee faces to 
streamline the freight delivery model in this country and appreciate 
your willingness to convene a hearing in an effort to provide solutions 
to an industry that delivers on a daily basis. Thank you for the 
opportunity to express our positions on some of these issues and we 
look forward to working with you and your staff on these important 
matters.
        Sincerely,
                                                  Jim Ward,
                                                     TCA President.

                                 
Letter of May 9, 2023, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and 
 Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways 
   and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, from 
  Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 
         Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
                                                       May 9, 2023.
The Honorable Rick Crawford, Chair,
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, United States House of 
        Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Holmes Norton:
    As you prepare for tomorrow's hearing, ``Freight Forward: 
Overcoming Supply Chain Challenges to Deliver for America,'' Advocates 
for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) urges you to prioritize safety 
in policies and legislation involving our Nation's commercial motor 
vehicles (CMVs) and the supply chain. We respectfully request this 
letter be included in the hearing record.
 Fatal Truck Crashes Continue to Kill and Injure Thousands Each Year, 
       Slow Delivery Times and Result in a Major Cost to Society
    In 2021, 5,788 people were killed in crashes involving large 
trucks. Nearly 155,000 people were injured in crashes involving large 
trucks, over 2,800 of whom were non-occupants.\1\ Since 2009, the 
number of fatalities in large truck crashes has increased by 71 
percent.\2\ Additionally, nearly 155,000 people were injured in crashes 
involving a large truck in 2021.\3\ In the first six months of 2022, 
traffic fatalities in crashes involving at least one large truck are up 
10 percent; 2,811 people were killed.\4\ These numbers are more than 
just statistics. Motorists' lives are at risk every time they get 
behind the wheel, walk, bike or roll. A recent crash in Illinois 
highlights the real and continuing danger on America's roads as summer 
travel season is set to begin. Last week along Interstate 55, a crash 
caused by a dust storm involved 72 vehicles resulted in seven 
fatalities and over 30 injuries.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes in 2021, NHTSA, Apr. 
2023, DOT HS 813 435.
    \2\ Id. and Traffic Safety Facts 2020: A Compilations of Motor 
Vehicle Crash Data, NHTSA, Oct. 2022, DOT HS 813 375. Note, the 71 
percent figure represents the overall change in the number of 
fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to 2021. However, 
between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data collection at U.S. DOT 
that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to 2015 the number of 
fatalities in truck-involved crashes increased by 21 percent, and 
between 2016 to 2021, it increased by 24 percent.
    \3\ Overview of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes in 2021, NHTSA, Apr. 
2023, DOT HS 813 435.
    \4\ Traffic Safety Facts: Crash Stats; Early Estimates of Motor 
Vehicle Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate by Sub-Categories Through 
June 2022, NHTSA, Dec. 2022, DOT HS 813 405.
    \5\ Jessica D'Onofrio and Eric Horng, Illinois dust storm pile-up 
crash on I-55 involving 72 vehicles leaves 7 dead, over 30 hurt, ABC 7 
News (May 2, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the death and injury toll caused by truck crashes, 
there are significant impacts to roadways. Crashes result in lane or 
highway closures, increased traffic backups, slowdowns of deliveries, 
wasted fuel consumption, and costly damage to the infrastructure.
    Moreover, the cost to society from crashes involving large trucks 
and buses was estimated to be $143 billion in 2020, the latest year for 
which data is available.\6\ When adjusted solely for inflation, this 
figure amounts to over $166 billion.\7\ In fatal two-vehicle crashes 
between a large truck and a passenger motor vehicle, 97 percent of the 
fatalities were occupants of the passenger vehicle.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 2022 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics, FMCSA, 
Dec. 2022, RRA-22-007.
    \7\ CPI Inflation Calculator, BLS, Jan. 2020 to Jan. 2023, 
available at https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
    \8\ IIHS, Large Trucks, See: https://www.iihs.org/topics/large-
trucks#::text=In%20fatal
%20two%2Dvehicle%20crashes,deaths%20in%20multiple%2Dvehicle%20crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Governing the Speed of CMVs Improves Public Safety
    As detailed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA), the safety benefits of controlling the speed of a CMV are 
incontrovertible. The agency noted, ``crashes involving heavy vehicles 
traveling faster are more deadly than crashes involving heavy vehicles 
traveling at lower speeds.'' \9\ Further, a 2012 study commissioned by 
FMCSA ``showed strong positive benefits for speed-limited trucks.'' 
\10\ In addition, speed governing technology is used throughout the 
industry and is supported by drivers.\11\ Lastly, speed limiting 
systems are required throughout world including in Canada, the United 
Kingdom and Australia.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 81 FR 61944 (Sep. 9, 2016).
    \10\ Id. at 61950.
    \11\ Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) and Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, FMVSS No. 140, Speed Limiting Devices, 
p. 28 (NHTSA, Aug. 2016); Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 
(IIHS), Speed limiters in trucks would serve 2 purposes, Status Report, 
Vol. 45, No. 8 (Aug. 21, 2010).
    \12\ PRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Data provided by FMCSA also demonstrates safety benefits of setting 
the speed at 60 miles-per-hour (MPH). The agency estimates that setting 
the device at 60 MPH has the potential to save almost 500 lives and 
prevent nearly 11,000 injuries annually. By comparison setting the 
speed at 65 or 68 MPH will result in far less lives saved and injuries 
prevented. In fact, setting the speed at 60 MPH will result in over 
five times the number of lives saved and injuries prevented each year 
compared to 68 MPH.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ See: 81 FR 61942 (Sep. 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For FMCSA to fulfill its mission to reduce crashes, injuries, and 
fatalities involving large trucks and buses, the agency must not be 
prevented from promptly completing a rulemaking to require the use of 
speed limiting technology on CMVs. As such, we urge this Committee to 
reject the Deregulating Restrictions on Interstate Vehicles and 
Eighteen-Wheelers (DRIVE) Act (H.R. 3039).
  Weakening Sensible Safeguards Endangers Truck Drivers and the Public
    Issues involving the Nation's supply chain have highlighted 
problems that the trucking industry has not effectively addressed for 
decades including high turnover rates for drivers and poor working 
conditions. We urge the Committee to reject the following proposals 
that fail to address the root of these issues and will jeopardize all 
road users.
    ``Teen Truckers'' are a substantial threat to public safety. Some 
segments of the trucking industry have been pushing to allow teenagers 
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for at least 20 years, often 
relying on their own forecasts for the number of drivers needed as a 
rationale. These projections have consistently failed to 
materialize.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ FMCSA Document ID: 2000-84100-0782. American Trucking 
Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2015 (Oct. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The trucking industry continues to face a driver retention crisis, 
not a driver shortage. In fact, a March 2019 U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (BLS) analysis found that ``the labor market for truck 
drivers works about as well as the labor markets for other blue-collar 
occupations'' and ``a deeper look [at the truck industry labor market] 
does not find evidence of a secular shortage.'' \15\ Rather, industry 
data shows driver turnover at some carriers is near 90 percent.\16\ As 
U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Secretary Pete Buttigieg 
noted, such a high rate of turnover is indicative that there are some 
real issues with the quality of the job of driving a truck.\17\ In 
addition, states issue more than 450,000 new commercial driver licenses 
(CDLs) each year demonstrating that there are candidates to fill 
vacancies.\18\ Instead of proposing initiatives that will degrade 
public safety, the industry should be focused on addressing the 
retention issues through improved, safe working conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers broken? (Mar. 2019).
    \16\ American Trucking Associations, Fourth Quarter Truck Driver 
Turnover Rate Shows Muddled Picture (Mar. 12, 2021).
    \17\ See: https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/transportation-
secretary-buttigieg-on-supply-chain-issues-worker-shortage-125851717987 
(Nov. 10, 2021).
    \18\ Greg Rosalsky, Is There Really A Truck Driver Shortage?, 
National Public Radio (May 25, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Younger drivers are demonstrated to be less safe. The Insurance 
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), citing numerous studies, has 
stated that ``age is a strong risk factor for truck crash 
involvement.'' \19\ In fact, age is the most important factor in the 
high rate of involvement of younger CMV drivers in fatal crashes. The 
general pattern of over-involvement in fatal crashes for younger CMV 
drivers dominates all other factors. Studies of young CMV drivers show 
that as the age of the driver decreases, large truck fatal crash 
involvement rates increase.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Comments to the 
docket, FMCSA-2000-8410-0515; citing Christie, R. and Fabre, J. 1999. 
Potential for fast-tracking heavy vehicle drivers. Melbourne, 
Australia: National Road Transport Commission; Blower, D. 1996. The 
accident experience of younger truck drivers. Ann Arbor, MI: University 
of Michigan Transportation Research Institute; Frith, W.J. 1994. A 
case-control study of heavy vehicle drivers' working time and safety. 
Proceedings of the 17th Australian Road Research Board Conference, 17-
30. Queensland, Australia: Australian Road Research Board; Stein, H.S. 
and Jones, I.S. (1988).
    \20\ Campbell, K. L., Fatal Accident Involvement Rates By Driver 
Age For Large Trucks, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 287-295 
(1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CMV drivers under the age of 19 are four times more likely to be 
involved in fatal crashes, as compared to CMV drivers who are 21 years 
of age and older, and CMV drivers ages 19-20 are six times more likely 
to be involved in fatal crashes (compared to CMV drivers 21 years and 
older).\21\ This plain-truth reality is not surprising. Generally, 
younger drivers are more likely to be involved in fatal crashes because 
they lack driving experience and skills and tend to take greater risks. 
Development of the brain region vital to decision making and complex 
tasks, specifically the pre-frontal cortex, may not be fully reached 
until one's mid-20s.\22\ While proponents of younger truck drivers have 
justified this misguided policy proposal by citing state laws that 
allow them to operate intrastate, expanding the operations of these 
dangerous drivers extends existing safety problems while introducing 
additional safety considerations such as unfamiliar terrain and weather 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Campbell, K. L., Fatal Accident Involvement Rates By Driver 
Age For Large Trucks, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 287-295 
(1991).
    \22\ Arian, M, et al., Maturation of the adolescent brain, 
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment (Apr. 3, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Diverse stakeholders including safety groups, law enforcement, 
public health and consumer organizations, truck drivers, labor unions, 
some trucking companies, and truck crash victims and survivors have 
repeatedly opposed efforts to lower the age to operate CMVs in 
interstate commerce. Additionally, the public has rejected lowering the 
minimum age for interstate truck and bus drivers with 62 percent of 
respondents in opposition, according to a 2020 public opinion poll 
conducted by Engine's Caravan Survey.\23\ Furthermore, in 2001, a 
petition was filed with FMCSA to lower the age at which a person could 
obtain a CDL to operate in interstate commerce from 21 to 18 as part of 
a pilot program. The FMCSA declined to lower the minimum age for an 
unrestricted CDL because the agency could not conclude that the safety 
performance of younger drivers was on par with, or even close to, that 
of older CMV drivers. In comments to the docket for the petition, the 
public strongly rejected the idea with 96 percent of individuals who 
responded opposing the proposal along with 88 percent of the truck 
drivers and 86 percent of the motor carriers.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Engine's Caravan Survey Public Opinion Poll (2020).
    \24\ Young Commercial Driver Pilot Training Program, Notice of 
denial of petition to initiate a pilot program, 68 FR 34467, 34469 
(June 9, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) enacted in 
November 2021 included a provision requiring the establishment of pilot 
program to permit teen truckers to operate in interstate commerce.\25\ 
This imprudent initiative could have a drastic impact on public health, 
even more so if not executed with needed safeguards. This program is 
basically a ``science experiment'' with all road users serving 
unknowingly as ``test subjects.'' If accepted research protocols are 
not followed by FMCSA, it could result in preventable deaths and 
injuries and will also jeopardize the legitimacy of the outcomes of the 
program. Lastly, the agency's recommendations and conclusions in the 
required report to Congress must be supported by sufficient evidence 
and data collected during the program. We urge this Committee to 
execute effective oversight of this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Pub. L. 117-58, Sec.  23022 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Allowing teenagers to drive trucks in interstate commerce will 
worsen and expand the major problems with truck driver working 
conditions from inside state lines to the entire nation. Improving 
working conditions to ensure experienced drivers are safer, rather than 
tapping into an unsafe pool of teenage drivers to fill the void, will 
ideally lead to healthier and more fulfilled drivers who stay in their 
jobs as well as attract new applicants. Further attempts to pull 
teenagers from high school hallways onto high-speed highways, such as 
the Ceasing Age-Based (CAB) Trucking Restrictions Act (H.R. 267) as 
well as attempts to weaken licensing standards such as Licensing 
Individual Commercial Exam-takers Now Safely and Efficiently (LICENSE) 
Act (H.R. 3013) should be rejected by Congress.
    Driver fatigue is a well-known and documented dangerous issue that 
plagues the trucking industry. The National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) has repeatedly cited fatigue as a major contributor to truck 
crashes.\26\ Currently, truck drivers are permitted to drive up to 11 
hours per day for a total of 77 hours per week. These grueling hours 
can lead to cumulative fatigue and devastating safety consequences. 
Self-reports of fatigue, which almost always underestimate the problem, 
find that fatigue in truck operations is a significant issue. In a 2006 
driver survey prepared for FMCSA, ``65 percent [of drivers] reported 
that they often or sometimes felt drowsy while driving'' and almost 
half (47.6 percent) of drivers said they had fallen asleep while 
driving in the previous year.\27\ Expanding the hours truck drivers can 
drive in an attempt to move more goods puts truck drivers, their loads 
and everyone on the roads with them at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ NTSB, Highway, Multivehicle Work Zone Crash on Interstate 95 
Cranbury, New Jersey June 7, 2014, Accident Report NTSB/HAR-15/02 (Aug. 
11, 2015).
    \27\ 75 FR 82170 (Dec. 29, 2010), citing Dinges, D.F. & Maislin, 
G., ``Truck Driver Fatigue Management Survey,'' May 2006. FMCSA-2004-
19608-3968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One of the most effective tools to help prevent driver fatigue is 
the use of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) to record drivers' hours 
of service (HOS). Paper logs are frequently referred to as ``comic 
books'' throughout the industry because of the ease in falsifying 
actual driving and work time. The FMCSA estimated that requiring ELDs 
will save 26 lives, prevent over 500 injuries and avoid over 1,800 
crashes annually.\28\ The U.S. DOT also estimated the annualized net 
benefits of adopting ELDs to be over $1 billion.\29\ Congress, 
recognizing the benefits of ELDs, mandated their use as part of the 
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act.\30\ In 
2015, the FMCSA delivered on this Congressional directive and issued a 
rule requiring the use of ELDs which went into effect in December 
2017.\31\ FMCSA reports that since the implementation of the ELD rule, 
the percentage of driver inspections with an HOS violation has 
decreased significantly.\32\ Despite this compelling evidence, broad 
support and an established final rule, some continue to object to the 
use of this technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ 80 FR 78292 (Dec. 16, 2015).
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Pub. L. 112-141 (2012).
    \31\ 80 FR 78292 (Dec. 16, 2015).
    \32\ FMCSA, Electronic Logging Devices: Improving Safety Through 
Technology, See: https://eld.fmcsa.dot.gov/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is important to note that the ELD rule did not change the 
underlying HOS rules. Yet, a barrage of legislative and regulatory 
proposals continues to target these regulations. For instance, truck 
drivers hauling livestock or insects are currently exempted from having 
to use ELDs. In addition, the IIJA expands the HOS exemption already 
provided to these carriers to include one covering a 150 air-mile 
radius from the final destination (the prior exemption was for a 150 
air-mile radius from the source).\33\ Allowing certain haulers to skirt 
the ELD rules jeopardizes the safety of the animals in transport, truck 
drivers and all who travel on the roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ H.R. 3684, 117th Congress 1st Sess., (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, in 2016, the FMCSA published an Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting information regarding the 
potential benefits of regulatory action to address the safety risks 
posed by CMV drivers who are afflicted with obstructive sleep apnea 
(OSA).\34\ Compelling and consistent research has revealed that drivers 
afflicted with OSA that is not properly treated are more prone to 
fatigue and have a higher crash rate than the general driver 
population. In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
considers OSA to be a disqualifying condition unless properly 
treated.\35\ Yet, in August of 2017 the FMCSA withdrew the OSA 
rulemaking without providing any credible analysis or reasoning for 
such an ill-advised course of action.\36\ We urge the Committee to 
address this critical safety issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ 81 FR 12642 (Mar. 10, 2016).
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ 82 FR 37038 (Aug. 8, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March 2020, FMCSA issued an Emergency Declaration exempting 
drivers from critical safety regulations including those governing 
hours of service for those operators providing direct assistance for 
relief efforts related to the COVID-19 pandemic.\37\ The declaration 
expired in October 2022. Advocates has called for the agency to be 
transparent about the use of this exemption by making any related data 
available to the public.\38\ To date, the agency has not responded or 
posted any data on its website. Release of this information will 
contribute significantly to the public's understanding of the impact to 
roadway safety resulting from the exemptions to the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulations granted by the Emergency Declaration, as 
well as the frequency of use of the exemptions by the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\ FMCSA, Extension and Amendment of Emergency Declaration 2020-
002 (Aug. 31, 2021).
    \38\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Statement on Extension 
of Emergency Declaration and Exemptions from Certain Truck Safety 
Regulations (Sep. 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Overweight trucks disproportionately damage America's crumbling 
infrastructure and threaten public safety. While certain special 
interests are advocating to suspend federal limits on the weight and 
size of CMVs in response to purported supply chain issues, these laws 
are essential to protecting truck drivers, the traveling public, and 
our nation's roads and bridges.
    According to the 2021 Infrastructure Report Card from the American 
Society of Civil Engineers, America's roads receive a grade of ``D'' 
and our bridges were given a ``C.'' \39\ Nearly 40 percent of our 
615,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory are 50 years or older, 
and one out of 11 is structurally deficient.\40\ The U.S. DOT 
Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study found that introducing double 
33-foot trailer trucks, known as ``Double 33s,'' would be projected to 
result in 2,478 bridges requiring strengthening or replacement at an 
estimated one-time cost of $1.1 billion.\41\ This figure does not even 
account for the additional, subsequent maintenance costs which will 
result from longer, heavier trucks. In fact, increasing the weight of a 
heavy truck by only 10 percent increases bridge damage by 33 
percent.\42\ The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that 
the investment backlog for bridges, to address all cost-beneficial 
bridge needs, is $123.1 billion.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges, American Society of 
Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Roads, ASCE.
    \40\ 2021 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges (ASCE).
    \41\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study: Bridge 
Structure Comparative Analysis Technical Report, FHWA, June 2015.
    \42\ Effect of Truck Weight on Bridge network Costs, NCHRP Report 
495, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2003.
    \43\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 
Conditions and Performance, Chapter 7, p. 7-34, FHWA, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Raising truck weight or size limits could result in an increased 
prevalence and severity of crashes. Longer trucks come with operational 
difficulties such as requiring more time to pass, having larger blind 
zones, crossing into adjacent lanes, swinging into opposing lanes on 
curves and turns, and taking a longer distance to adequately brake. In 
fact, double trailer trucks have an 11 percent higher fatal crash rate 
than single trailer trucks.\44\ Overweight trucks also pose serious 
safety risk. Brake violations are a major reason for out-of-service 
violations.\45\ According to a North Carolina study by IIHS, trucks 
with out-of-service violations are 362 percent more likely to be 
involved in a crash.\46\ This is also troubling considering that 
tractor-trailers moving at 60 miles per hour are required to stop in 
310 feet--the length of a football field--once the brakes are 
applied.\47\ Actual stopping distances are often much longer due to 
driver response time before braking and the common problem that truck 
brakes are often not in adequate working condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\ An Analysis of Truck Size and Weight: Phase I--Safety, 
Multimodal Transportation & Infrastructure Consortium, November 2013; 
Memorandum from J. Matthews, Rahall Appalachian Transportation 
Institute, Sep. 29, 2014.
    \45\ Roadside Inspections, Vehicle Violations: All Trucks Roadside 
Inspections, Vehicle Violations (2019--Calendar), FMCSA.
    \46\ Teoh E, Carter D, Smith S and McCartt A, Crash risk factors 
for interstate large trucks in North Carolina, Journal of Safety 
Research (2017).
    \47\ Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 Part 571 Section 
121: Standard No. 121 Air brake systems (FMVSS 121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is overwhelming opposition to any increases to truck size and 
weight limits. The public, local government officials, safety, consumer 
and public health groups, law enforcement, first responders, truck 
drivers and labor representatives, families of truck crash victims and 
survivors, and even Congress on a bipartisan level have all rejected 
attempts to increase truck size and weight. Also, the technical reports 
released in June 2015 from the U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and 
Weight Study concluded there is a ``profound'' lack of data from which 
to quantify the safety impact of larger or heavier trucks and 
consequently recommended that no changes in the relevant truck size and 
weight laws and regulations be considered until data limitations are 
overcome.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal 
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The IIJA invested billions of dollars to improve and elevate the 
safety of our Nation's roads and bridges. Any increase to federal truck 
size and weight limits will undermine this objective, worsen safety 
problems, and divert rail traffic from privately owned freight 
railroads onto our already overburdened public highways. Despite claims 
to the contrary, bigger trucks will not result in fewer trucks. 
Following every past increase to federal truck size and weight limits, 
the number of trucks on our roads has gone up. Since 1982, when 
Congress last increased the gross vehicle weight limit, truck 
registrations have more than doubled.\49\ The U.S. DOT study also 
addressed this meritless assertion and found that any potential mileage 
efficiencies from the use of heavier trucks would be offset in just one 
year.\50\ We urge this Committee to oppose any increases to federal 
truck size and weight limits, including mandating double 33-foot 
trailers, pilot programs and state or industry specific exemptions. 
This includes the Safer Highways and Increased Performance for 
Interstate Trucking (SHIP IT) Act (H.R. 471) which has numerous 
reckless provisions, among them, the establishment of a pilot program 
for overweight trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\ 2017 Annual Report.
    \50\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal 
Highway Administration (June 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Autonomous driving technology is far from ready to be deployed 
safely on our Nation's roads and therefore is not a viable option to 
address the U.S.'s supply chain issues. The advent of autonomous 
driving technology must not be used as a pretext to eviscerate 
essential safety regulations administered by the FMCSA, and 
particularly in the absence of new standards to ensure the technology 
performs safely and as needed. The public safety protections provided 
by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) become no less 
important or applicable simply because a CMV has been equipped with an 
autonomous driving system (ADS). In fact, additional substantial public 
safety concerns are presented by autonomous commercial motor vehicles 
(ACMVs).
    Autonomous technology is still in its relative infancy as evidenced 
by fatal and serious crashes involving passenger motor vehicles 
equipped with automated driving systems of varying levels.\51\ If those 
incidents had involved ACMVs, the results could have been even more 
catastrophic, and the death and injury toll could have been much worse. 
Some of the most pressing safety shortcomings associated with 
autonomous vehicle (AV) technology, which include the ADS properly 
detecting and reacting to all other road users, driver engagement and 
cybersecurity, are exponentially amplified by the greater mass and 
force of an ACMV. As such, it is imperative that ACMVs be subject to 
comprehensive regulations, including having a licensed driver behind 
the wheel for the foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ NHTSA, Standing General Order 2021-01 (Aug. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Advocates and numerous stakeholders developed the ``AV Tenets,'' 
policy positions which should be a foundational part of any AV 
legislation.\52\ The AV Tenets have four main, commonsense categories 
including: 1) prioritizing safety of all road users; 2) guaranteeing 
accessibility and equity; 3) preserving consumer and worker rights; 
and, 4) ensuring local control and sustainable transportation. While 
the AV Tenets were developed for application to vehicles under 10,000 
pounds, many of the principles also could apply to larger commercial 
vehicles. At a minimum, ACMVs must meet safety standards for the ADS 
and related systems, including for cybersecurity, and operations must 
be subject to adequate oversight as a starting point for their 
potential deployment. In February 2022, Advocates commissioned a public 
opinion poll that found that 85 percent of respondents were concerned 
with sharing the road with driverless trucks.\53\ Moreover, 60 percent 
of respondents indicated that their concerns would be addressed if the 
vehicles were required to meet minimum government standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ See: https://saferoads.org/autonomous-vehicle-tenets/
    \53\ Engine's Caravan Survey, Public Concern About Driverless Cars 
and Trucks (Feb. 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Lastly, we commend Congress for the safety advances included in the 
bipartisan IIJA and have been urging the U.S. DOT to implement the 
directives with urgency to address the motor vehicle crash fatality and 
injury toll. Every week of the year, about 826 people are killed on our 
roads, and 48,000 more are injured. The time to act is now.
    Thank you for your consideration of these issues. We look forward 
to working with you to improve safety on our Nation's roadways.
        Sincerely,
                                           Catherine Chase,
                  President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.

cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit



                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


  Question to William ``Lewie'' Pugh, Executive Vice President, Owner-
 Operator Independent Drivers Association, from Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy'' 
                                 Garcia

    Question 1. One of the things that concerns me is the claim by some 
that bigger trucks would help solve any supply chain or perceived 
driver shortage. It is my understanding that you have some information 
on this. Can you share with the committee any data on support you have 
for this claim?
    Answer. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's 
(USDOT) 2015 Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, the 
crash involvement rate for the six-axle alternative truck 
configurations in Idaho, Michigan, and Washington state were 
consistently higher than the rate for the five-axle control truck. For 
Washington state, the crash rate for six-axle trucks was 47% higher 
than the control truck, while Idaho's crash involvement was 99% higher 
and Michigan's was 400%. The study concluded that a 91,000 lb., six-
axle configuration would negatively affect more than 4,800 bridges, 
costing $1.1 billion.
    A 2013 study found that double-trailer trucks have an 11 percent 
higher fatal crash rate than single-trailer trucks. The higher crash 
rates are consistent with DOT findings in the 2016 study that longer 
double-trailer trucks would take 22 feet longer to stop than current 
twin-trailer trucks on the road today, and heavier and longer trucks 
had higher out-of-service rates than 80,000-pound trucks.
    Additionally, DOT found that increasing truck weight by only ten 
percent over the current 80,000-pound limit would increase bridge 
damage by 33%. Heavier and longer trucks would almost certainly mean 
more trucks on the road as freight is diverted onto our roads from 
other modes of shipping, creating billions of dollars in new repair and 
maintenance costs.
    From an economic perspective, allowing for increased truck weights 
benefits only a handful of large or specialized motor carriers, while 
putting the rest of the industry, especially small businesses, at a 
disadvantage. Proponents of weight increases portray these new limits 
as completely optional and maintain that carriers won't have to haul at 
these weights if they don't want to do so. But inevitably these weights 
become the new standard as businesses and shippers seek out carriers 
that offer the increased capacity.
    Small trucking businesses would be pressured to increase their 
hauling capacity just to stay competitive. A conservative cost estimate 
for a small carrier is $10,500 per truck to upgrade an axle 
configuration to haul at 91,000 pounds. Unlike specialized or large 
carriers, who either possess the necessary equipment or could 
transition their fleets over time while maintaining business, smaller 
trucking companies and owner-operators would be forced to immediately 
modify their equipment at great cost just to remain viable. 
Unfortunately, previous weight and length configuration increases have 
demonstrated bigger trucks don't lead to higher paychecks for 
professional drivers.
    Finally, and most importantly, increases to truck weight limits 
should not be pursued to address any alleged ``driver shortage.'' 
Contrary to what is repeated by large carriers, there is no shortage of 
drivers or CDL-holders. The notion of a driver shortage is not 
supported by facts, data, or reputable research. Instead, there is a 
shortage of decent pay and satisfactory working conditions for drivers 
that generates exceedingly high levels of turnover within the industry 
and ultimately forces many truckers away.