Truckers tell Congress, DOT what’s needed in next highway bill

While testifying in front of Congress earlier this year, OOIDA Executive Vice President Lewie Pugh told lawmakers that the highway bill is like the Super Bowl for the trucking industry.

The comparison wasn’t hyperbole. Honestly, he may have been underselling it. A more accurate analogy would be if the NFL held the Super Bowl only once every five years.

Surface transportation authorization bills, commonly referred to as the highway bill, are typically authorized for five-year periods. That means all of the provisions included will not only have an immediate impact on truckers, but they will set the tone for years to come.

In addition, the potential provisions are wide-ranging. Of course, the bill will play a role in determining how money is generated to fund the nation’s roads and bridges, but it also sets the future agenda for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and other relevant agencies.

Will the federal government finally pony up real dollars to address the truck parking crisis? Will the threat of a future speed limiter mandate finally go away for good? Can truckers be assured that they will be able to use the restroom at a shipper or receiver facility? Will large carriers get their way and be able to make trucks bigger and heavier? Will trial lawyers dance with glee because motor carriers’ minimum liability insurance requirement received a drastic increase?

The next highway bill could answer all of these questions.

Laying the groundwork

The current highway bill expires on Sept. 30, 2026. Although that is still nearly a year away, the work has already started. Just like your favorite NFL team spends months preparing for every new season, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association has been laying the groundwork for months – and often for years – to help build a highway bill with truckers’ priorities in mind.

In fact, OOIDA already played a huge role in shaping the nine “Pro-Trucker” initiatives announced by the U.S. Department of Transportation earlier this year. Now, OOIDA is urging Congress to follow the administration’s lead by creating a highway bill that prioritizes the men and women who keep the nation’s supply chain moving every day.

“Truckers now need lawmakers to embrace the new approach taken by the White House with as much energy and resolve,” Pugh told the Senate Surface Transportation Committee on July 22. “I assure you this can be done in a bipartisan manner that promotes highway safety, improves driver recruitment and retention and increases supply chain efficiency.”

Pugh added, “If you’re not yet ready to embrace the new trend of prioritizing the needs of truckers, let me remind you that the old approach simply doesn’t work. Policies that large carriers swore would improve safety, like the electronic logging device mandate, have proven ineffective. As predicted, pilot programs for teenage drivers have been colossal failures, leading their proponents to blame inward-facing camera requirements rather than admit their own policies have made trucking unappealing to younger Americans.”

The Senate hearing gave OOIDA an opportunity to relay truckers’ needs, but it also provided a platform for organizations that often are working in opposition.

Pugh was one of four witnesses at the Senate hearing focused on issues in the trucking and commercial bus industries. The other witnesses were ATA President Chris Spear, Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien and American Bus Association President Fred Ferguson.

OOIDA represents small-business truck drivers, while the American Trucking Associations represents large motor carriers. Although the two organizations are aligned on the need for more truck parking and restroom access, the hearing highlighted their disconnect on numerous topics, such as truck size and weight, mandatory hair testing and the interstate driving age.

The latter topic created some spirited verbal sparring between Spear and Pugh. ATA has long pushed for lowering the interstate driving age from 21 to 18. Currently, 18-year-olds can operate in a single state but are not allowed to cross state lines. Those who support lowering the interstate driving age point out that the status quo allows 18-year-olds to drive all over Texas but doesn’t allow them to haul a load from Kansas City, Mo., to Kansas City, Kan.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 included the establishment of a pilot program for under-21 drivers.

Spear blamed the lack of participation on such requirements as driver-facing cameras.

OOIDA, which promotes increasing entry-level driver training standards, is against allowing 18-year-olds straight out of high school to start operating as long-haul truck drivers. Instead, OOIDA believes lawmakers should consider establishing a 150-mile radius for younger drivers that would allow them to cross state lines.

“The solution to this problem is not suddenly permitting that inexperienced driver to cross the country without limitations, entering terrain and experiencing elements they find unfamiliar and have not been trained to handle safely,” Pugh wrote.

Additionally, he noted that truck drivers of all ages oppose inward-facing cameras. Many large carriers have attempted to require the technology.

“It’s funny that we don’t want inward-facing cameras for young kids, but we want to have them in this new independent contractor law for owner-operators who probably have 20 or 30 years of experience,” Pugh said.

In Pugh’s submitted testimony, OOIDA provided lawmakers input on nearly every relevant trucking topic that could sneak into the next highway bill.

DOT comments

Congress will determine the contents of the next highway bill. However, the U.S. Department of Transportation also asked the public to provide input.

“The Request for Information is intended to gather feedback, ideas and recommendations to help inform legislative priorities and ensure future infrastructure programs focus on delivering safe and efficient surface transportation, without attaching unnecessary requirements,” the DOT wrote in the July 21 notice. “The reauthorization effort will focus on modernizing America’s infrastructure by improving safety, streamlining federal processes, promoting economic growth and strengthening partnerships.”

The DOT accepted comments through Sept. 8. As of press time, thousands of comments had been submitted.

Many of the comments came from truck drivers who were asking for better roads, more truck parking, hours-of-service flexibility and restroom access.

Jeremy Overfield said that truck drivers contribute too much to the Highway Trust Fund for the highways and bridges to be in such poor condition.

“As one of the millions of truck drivers out here, I depend on my health and the longevity of my equipment to keep goods moving and to support my family,” he wrote. “… As much tax money that we shell out, there’s absolutely no reason for our infrastructure to be in the shape (it is) in.”

Overfield also said that the lack of truck parking has become “a huge issue and seriously needs to be addressed.”

Alan Obando wrote in opposition to the current electronic logging device mandate and told the DOT that inflexible hours-of-service regulations lead to poor safety results. Truck drivers are typically paid by the mile.

“Since the clock is always ticking down, instead of having flexibility, drivers are more focused on maximizing their mileage covered for the day, not the safety and comfort of the motoring public,” Obando wrote.

OOIDA also submitted comments to the Department of Transportation to again ask for a highway bill that takes into account the needs of America’s truck drivers.

“Congress has the ability to make the next highway bill the most pro-trucker in history, but only if lawmakers commit to prioritizing their needs,” OOIDA wrote. LL