[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.