[inaudible conversations] >> here's what's coming up:

>> the old world to them was the nw world, and i thought, that's it, "the greater journey." they know then that they are on a greater journey which will be their experience, their spiritual, mental, professional journey in the city of paris where they're trying to rise to the occasion, to excel in a particular field whether it was writing or music or painting or sculpture or medicine, because many of them in that day went to, as medical students because paris was the medical capital of

the world. so they're ambitious to excel, and they are going against the trend because to go off to europe then was not fashionable yet, and it wasn't part of one's broadening education yet. many of them had no money, many of them had no friends in europe, knew no one in paris and spoke not a word of the language. and yet they were brave enough to go, to embark on the greater journey. >> here's a great read to add to your summer reading list, c-span's latest book, "sundays at eight." >> i always knew that there was a risk in the bohemian lifestyle, and i decided to take it because whether it's an illusion or not, i don't think it is, it helped my

concentration, it stopped me being bored, stopped other people being boring to some extent. it would keep me awake, it would make me want the evening to go on longer, to prolong the conversation, to enhance the moment. if i was asked would i do it again, um, the answer is probably, yes. i'd have quit earlier, possibly, hoping to get away with the whole thing. easy for me to the say, of course. not very nice for my children to hear. it sounds irresponsible if i say, yeah, i'd do all that again to you. but the truth is it would be hypocritical to say, no, i'd never touch the stuff if i'd known, because i did know. everyone knows. >> soviet union and the soviet system in eastern europe contained the seeds of its own destruction. many of the problems that we saw at the end begin at the very beginning. i spoke already about the attempt to control all institutions and control all parts of the economy and political life and social life. one of the problems is that when you do that, when you try to

control everything, then you create opposition and potential dissidence everywhere. if you tell all artists they have to paint the same way and one artist says, no, i don't want to paint that way, i want to paint another way, you have just made him into a political dissident. >> if you want to subsidize housing in this country and we want to talk about it and the populace agrees that it's something we should subsidize, then put it on the balance sheet and make it clear and make it evident and make everybody aware of how much it's costing. but when you deliver it through these third party intervises, fannie may and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidy through a public company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves, that is not a very good way of subsidizing home ownership. >> christopher hitchens, anne applebaum and againsten more again soften are a few of the

stories in "sundays at eight," now available at your favorite bookseller. >> here are some of the highlights for this weekend: >> and let us know what you think about the programs you're

watching. call us at 202-626-3400 or e-mail us at comments@c-span.org.pan join the c-span conversation. like us onfo facebook, follow us on twitter. >> at a recent senate transportation hearing on thetr trucking industry and public safety, the outgoing administrator of the federal motor carrier safetyety administration stressed the need to limit the amount of time a truck driver can be on the road. safety experts and advocates also testified. senator richard blumenthal chairs the subcommittee on safety and security while senator roy blunt is ranking member. this is just underir two hours. >> good afternoon, everyone. i'm going to call the hearing tg order. and apologize, first of all, for a little bit late start. we just finished a vote, which i just did, and i'm sure that we'll be joined by others of our colleagues for this very important hearing.

today this subcommittee is focused on safety, particularly as it relates to trucks on our nation's roads and highways.this this issue ising something that -- this issue is something that i have cared about deeply throughout my career, and i appreciate senator blunt's commitment as well. i know he has been very, very focused on issues relating to safety. issues that divide us, but there is so much more that we have in common x be that's why we're having this hearing, that's why we're joined by witnesses who are really experts on this topic from across a wide spectrum. the administration, safety advocacy, law enforcement and the industry, the trucking industry and the men and women who drive trucks. i'm eager to hear their testimony and decide what we can do to reduce the fatalities and the injuries on our roads.

there have been a lot of headlines lately, and you've probably seen about tracy morgan who was seriously injured in a crash in early june involving a large truck which also injured very severely a connecticut resident. but this hearing today isn't about one person, whether tracy morgan or anyone else. it's about the 4,000 people who are killed each year in truck crashes and nearly 100,000 each year who are injured. and there are reasons to be concerned according to nhtsa. truck crash injuries increased by 40% from 2009 to 2012. and so the rules that have recently been implemented are front and center. i support these rules. i believe they're a step in the right direction, and i believe that we should keep them in place because as one 2005 study conducted by fisma, the fmcsa

demonstrated under the old rules, 65% of drivers reported feeling drowsy while driving and 48% admitted to falling asleep while driving at the same point during the can previous year. if we're going to make any changes, they ought to be with the proper facts and review of this committee. finish and i strongly caution against discarding years of careful analysis in addition while doing it on a strictly spending bill. the 2013 rules were designed to prevent truck drivers being forced to work too many hours, becoming exhausted and endangering themselves and other drivers on the road. and that has to be our continuing goal. i'm open to hearing the views of my colleagues as well as the experts before us, and i think

what we share here is a common commitment to safety, the best way of doing it is the path that we ought to choose. and for now i would say with the rules that we have before us which seem to be working, and we should allow to work before we consider changing or repealing them. with that, thank thank you so sr blunt for being here, the ranking member, be and i turn to him. >> well, thank you, chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. since i think the first hearing we had was on intermodal freight transportation. as you stepped up to become chairman of this subcommittee, and you and i both, i think, have a complete commitment to doing the best we can to be sure that our transportation system is the best one for safety on the highway, the best one to let our economy prosper, to let people have jobs and job

opportunity, to make all of that work in the best way. the things on trains, trucks, ports, all are important parts of what we're talking about here. we're glad to have the panel here. ms. farrell, thank you for your service. this may be the last time you appear in this particular job, but your commitment both in and now at the federal level have been significant, and thanks for the dedication you've brought to this job. certainly, as the chairman mentioned, the safety of truck traffic and all our traffic has gotten a lot of attention in recent days. senator collins, on the appropriations committee, did offer an amendment that was approved in a bipartisan vote that would suspend the restrictions on the ability of driverses to restart their weekly on-duty time under hours

of service rules. i think the best argument to be made there is it puts more people on the road during the daylight hours and maybe the second best argument to be made is i'm not sure that the proper research was ever done to think of the other implications of those new rules, but i'm sure we'll be talking about those rules today. the new restart provisions state that a restart period must include two back-to-back periods from 1-5 a.m. now, i'm not a 1-5 a.m. guy. my mom and dad were dairy farmers. i'm a 5 a.m. to whatever time it takes after that to get things done, but not everybody is best suited for every job, and that's maybe one of the things we need to consider just because i wouldn't be, want to be on the road from 1-5 a.m. it's not the busiest time on the road. and some people may choose to decide that that's the best time to do the work that they need to

do and that they want to do. the bipartisan amendment that was in the transportation, housing and urban development provision merely suspends the two restrictions on the restart time until fisma could adequately study the effects of what both of these restrictions are. certainly, we want to look at the testimony today, we want to listen to the testimony and ask the questions that we need to ask to be sure that our safety rules really do provide more safety, that they're reasonable, that families and individuals whose lives are lost, families whose lives are always impacted are getting the most protection that we can give with the safety rules that we have. clearly, you know, we're talking a lot right now as we finish up this particular week in the congress about transportation funding, how important it is

that we meet our obligationings. it's one of the -- obligations. it's one of the things from the very start the federal government was thought to be an important partner in. one of the things specifically mentioned in the constitution; road building, post offices and post roads, and we want to be sure we're doing that in one of the best ways we can. one of the best ways to do that is have hearings, ask questions and try to see legislation follows up on the information we achieve. again, chairman, you've been particularly vigorous in pursuing the potential for this subcommittee, and i'm glad to be working on it with you. and senator booker and others. >> thank you. thank you very much, senator blunt. i'm going to introduce the witnesses and then ask them to make their opening statements. we're very grateful to ann ferro for being here today, she's the administrator of the federal motor carrier safety administration, in fact, the

longest serving administrator in its history. she was appointed by president obama in 2009, and i join senator blunt in expressing my regret that this is probably your last appearance before this committee and wish you well in your future work. joan claybrook is a witness who really needs no introduction. she is co-chair of advocates for highway and auto safety and a frequent participant in our work and hearings. she is the former president of public citizen. prior to becoming president of public citizen in 1982, she was an administrator of the national highway traffic safety administration in the department of transportation. we're honored also to have david palmer, major david palmer of the texas department of public safety. major palmer is the former president and board member of the commercial vehicle safety alliance which is an

international organization that enforces commercial motor vehicle safety laws, and he's currently a major with the texas department of public safety where he oversees texas highway patrol division's highway safety operations center. mr. william jack dawson is a freight driver with ups. mr. dawson is a professional truck driver in dallas, texas, where he drives for ups. he's been a professional driver for 33 years, and he's currently a member of local 745. he trains new employees in areas of safety, precautions and driver improvement. dave is the senior vice president of public policy and regulatory affairs at the american trucking associate inc., and he's been in that position since january of 2010. he served as vice president for

safety, security and options at the hearn -- operations at the american trucking associations, and he was instrumental in working with the safety task force to develop an 18-point agenda to further improve safety on our nation's highways. we're honored and grateful that all of you are with us today, and we'll begin with ms. ferro, administrator ferro. >> thank you both for your kind recognition of my service and for the opportunity to be here today to talk about the progress that we have made in raising the bar for truck safety. the primary mission of fmcsa is to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. it's a mission stakeholders across the nation engage in and strive to achieve every single day. we know that one life lost is one too many, and the more than 4,000 people who die each year on our roads due to truck and

bus-related fatalities is unacceptably high. one of the most be important recent steps this agency has taken has been to implement a new -- [inaudible] for truck drivers. while most drivers and carriers put safety as their number one priority, the fact be remains that some are subject to exceptionally demanding work schedules, especially compared to working limits of the average american and compared to working limits in some other transportation safety sectors. for truck drivers, our rule took common sense and reasonable steps to put limits on the most extreme schedules. most important is that this rule is projected to save lives and prevent approximately 1400 crashes, over 500 injuries. and even if we use modest estimates of fatigue as a factor in crashes, this rule is expected to assist in saving over 400 lives per year. now, some have said that the rule is causing harm to trucking companies, and yet the truth is

we have not seen the documentation of that fact. in fact, truck tonnage is at an all-time high. since 2009 freight shipments in the for-hire industry have increased 30%, and trucking profitability is on par for record-setting profits this year. when i became administrator nearly five years ago, i set the foundation for a safe operating environment for trucking. starting with a performance-based enforcement platform that we call compliance, safety accountability or csa, moving to a ban on truck or bus drivers texting or talking on cell phones and measured the closed loopholes that allow unsafe drivers and companies to avoid being held accountable to importantsafety standards. all of this work was done in partnership with stakeholders at this very table and using the best available data. our work has been greatly enhanced by map 21 which added

clear requirements for improved hours through clocking devices and a strengthened rebel industry of certified medical examiners. while these steps are important to improving safety, we need to recognize that the economic pressures on trucking companies and drivers often reward the ones that push the limits. that's why we've been researching two closely-related issues; the impact of drive detention time and driver compensation on safety outcomes. many drivers, in fact, most drivers' compensation is tied to the number of miles they drive, and excessive waiting times associated with loading and unloading can negatively impact a driver's schedule, their earning potential and certainly interfere with a driver's ability to complete deliveries and complete that pay cycle. in short, it creates an economic incentive for drivers to drive beyond the legal limits, drive beyond their physical limits, and in some cases, drive tired when they are least safe.

for fmcsa, it comes back to safety. in fact, the dedicated, well-trained professionals or who are operating vehicles deserve to be fairly compensated for all the hours they are working. that's why the grow america act includes a proposal to insure that drivers are compensated for all op-duty time. on-duty time. mr. chairman, again, i want to thank you for the opportunity to join you today for this important subject. in our view, achieving safety every trip, every time takes all of us, and for that i am looking forward to answering any questions you might have today. thank you. >> thank you. ms. claybrook? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to be here with you and the subcommittee. i have my full statement which i would like to submit for the record along with some other documents. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. i'm representing advocates of highway and auto safety which is a coalition of insurance companies and consumer

organizations. i serve as the co-chair. be advocates has been involved in the issue of motor carrier safety for 25 years for good reason. truck crashes are a serious, deadly and costly program to families, our health care system and to our economy. government data illustrates the emotional and economic toll that large crashes take on the american public. they kill 3,921 and ininjured another 100,000 people in 2012 at a cost of more than $99 billion. and truck crash deaths and injuries are climbing. the the death toll caused by truck crashes is equivalent to a major airline crash every single week in this country, and we know that the congress would not put up with a major airline crash every single week in this country. so we think that they need, you need to take some steps to improve truck safety. the death toll caused by truck crashes and the transportation crisis that results should never

be tolerated by our elected leaders or by the department of transportation. and for the public it is a nightmare. in almost all truck/car crashes, it is the car occupants who are killed or severely injured 96% of the time. these victims reis side in every state across the country. i would like to take just a minute to introduce two parents and a young woman to this committee who are here to personally support improving truck safety, larry's teenage sonic was killed in 1997 on his way to sixing thats in new jersey. a tire trucker ran over his car when he was on the shoulder of the highway, and he is a board member of parents against tired truckers. swerved to avoid hitting a deer coming to a stop in the right lane, they were killed moments later by a tired trucker who ran over their car even though no one was in the left-hand lane.

and morgan lake is a truck survivor. last july she was hit from behind by a distracted driver. the impact plunged her car into the water. she freed herself and qualm to a bridge -- and swam to a bring pillar. my testimony this afternoon will focus on three campaigns that would jettison truck stay and undermine progress. they include the take on safety reforms incorporated by the obama administration in the 2011 hours of service rule. second, the ongoing problems with the credibility and reliability of the d.o.t. comprehensive truck size and weight study, and third, special legislation to preempt states and force them the allow longer combination trucks. another concern about truck safety provisions is in the administration's grow america act. they are explained in detail in

my written statement. first, fatigue. truck drives is one of the most -- truck driving is one of the most dangerous occupations in the united states. commercial drivers are exempt from maximum hours and overtime requirements of the fair labor standards act, amazingly, since 1937. the compensation for all other employees working more than 40 hours a week. in 2003 the federal motor carrier safety administration changed the hour of service rules, however, the rule dramatically increased working and driving hours. this was accomplished by allowing a so-called restart provision which permits drivers to restart their 60-70 hour driving limit at any point during the workweek by just taking 34 hours off duty. the trucking industry enthusiastically embraced this change because it increased the maximum workweek to an amazing 82 hours and reduced the off-duty rest time available to

one day and ten hours. the startling decline in driver sleep and increase in driver fatigue was documented in a 2006 survey of truck drivers. it showed that nearly two of thirds of the drivers surveyed, 65%, admitted to driving while tired, and nearly half, 48%, reported they actually fell asleep behind the wheel while driving in the previous year. however, the safety reforms finally adopted after nine years of consumer and safety litigation. in 2011 the hos rule was only implemented a year ago in 2013 had two positive changes that included a once-per-week limit on use of the 34-hour restart. you had to wait seven days. reducing the max hum workweek from 82 hours to 70 hours. seems reasonable. also the agency adopted a requirement for two overnight

off-duty periods between 1-5 a.m. to insure the rest will include two nighttime periods to permit a driver to achieve the most restorative type of sleep to meet the demands of the freight business while preparing for the rigors of driving these long hours. and this applies, i want to emphasize, only to those drivers who have maxed out on their 70 hours. it's just those drivers. unfortunately, even these minimal, common sense safety improvements are under attack, and as we've already heard, senator collins authored an amendment which would remove these rules by the appropriations bill. that is opposed by advocates, consumer health and safety groups, law enforcement, labor truck crash victims as well as several large trucking companies and d.o.t., instead we strongly support an amendment that strips the collins amendment from the rules changes in the bill that is sponsored by senator cory booker of new jersey. we thank you so much, senator,

for doing that, is and it is supported by a number of other senators including boxer, durbin, feinstein, gillibrand, markey, menendez and murphy, rock feller, schumer and more. second, to larger trucks. another issue that threatens the safety is the relentless and aggressive push by shipping interests to increase truck size and weights. and it is unending. they stand alone in their support for bigger, longer, heavier trucks because the american public certainly does not, and attached to my testimony is a public opinion poll series over the last 19 years that show consistent and strong opposition. in map 21 the congress required the secretary of transportation to conduct a comprehensive study of truck size and weight, issues including safety performance and infrastructure impact of trucks that would be bigger or heavier than the current size and weight configurations. this critical study will influence federal and state transportation policy for years to come. it will atext working -- affect

working conditions for truck drivers, law enforcement, national freight and intermodal investments, clean air, fuel economy and public health ask safety of our families. criticisms were recently validated by a 51-page report in march by the peer review committee of the academy of national sciences, and the summary is attached to hi testimony. -- my testimony. the study relies on selective, voluntarily-supply ared day from the trucking industry that has a clear economic interest in the outcome but ignores significant earlier d.o.t. studies that show increased crash risks associated with these trucks. the study plans to extrapolate the operation and performance of big rigs in sparsely-populated rural states to evaluate trucks in congested urban areas as well. furthermore, d.o. to t. is basing the entire analysis on

unpublished study by the district government here in washington on truck size ask weight. not peer-reviewed and hardly representative of bridges throughout america. because of these and many other flaws are so significant and the study lacks adequate transparency, at this time we recommend that the study be stopped until congress and the be public are assured that corrections are made, the findings are unbiased, unimpeachable and unchallengeable, and we appreciate the assistance of you, mr. chairman, and other senators, including senator booker, on this effort. finally, longer truck trailers, i would like to state absolute opposition to any proposals that would dramatically overturn and alter existing national freight policy by forcing states to allow 34 -- 33-foot trailers which the trucking industry is pushing. it will result in dangerous double tandem rigs exceeding 85 feet in length or with three, 115 feet in length. these are trains on our

highways. currently, 39 states do not allow these longer trailers, and they should not be force today pay for upgrades to accommodate them. so, mr. chairman, we deeply appreciate your having this hearing, truck deaths and injuries are climbing, and we need action. thank you very much. >> thank you. major palmer. >> mr. chairman, ranking member blunt, members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing and for inviting the commercial vehicle safety alliance to testify. my name is david palmer, and i'm a major and a commissioned law enforcement officer with the texas department of public safety and a past president of cvsa. the alliance represents state, local -- state, provincial and federal commercial safety officials responsible for the enforcement of commercial motor carrier safety laws in the united states, canada and mexico. cvsa has a number of recommendations for improving truck and bus safety. uniformity and consistency in enforcement are essential cornerstones of an effective

program. it is imperative that the enforcement community be provided clear and enforceable regulations, and exemptions must be minimized. changes to regulations when necessary need to be science-based and data-driven. further, much can be done to streamline the current grant process. eliminating redundancies in administrative process, allowing state personnel to focus our resources on program delivery rather than administration. in addition, we must be given the tools to effectively enforce those regulations and need funding that is commensurate with their responsibilities. as inspectors and law enforcement officers, it is critical that we have clear enforce bl regulations in order to have uniform effective enforcement. the recent effort to suspend enforcement of a portion of hours of regulations while a study is conducted is an example of rackses that needlessly complicate the regulations and enforce. as a law enforcement officer, if

i do not understand the rules, i cannot enforce them properly. the hours of service regulations are complicated enough to enforce as is, and the nearly constant change and uncertainty in the rules undermines enforcement. further, every time the regulations change we have to spend time and resources retraining our officers and inspectors, taking them out of the field and diverting scarce resources from other tasks. with approximately 13,000 cvsa-certified inspectors in the field, organizing and delivering training in all 50 states is a significant task. this is particularly wasteful considering after the study the provisions may be upheld, resulting in a new round of training and even more confusion for both industry and enforcement. cvsa does not oppose conducting a study. regulations should be written to maximize safety while not overburdening enforcement or our nation's critical commercial vehicle industry. but the appropriate time to make

any changes is after sound research has demonstrated a need and not before. while we recognize that the hours of service regulations must be written in a manner that meets the needs, the nation's safety these and is respectful of needs of the trucking industry, meeting these needs by shifting the burden to the enforcement community is not a responsible solution. another example of a policy that has resulted in additional burden on the enforcement community is the covered farm vehicle exemption included in map 21. exemptions often compromise safety and always complicate enforcement and should, therefore, only be granted in extreme cases. the covered farm vehicle exemption was intended to exempt a large portion of agricultural vehicles from federal safety regulations. however, the exemption language left a lot open to interpretation. the end result is an exemption intended to provide relief to

the agricultural committee which has created confusion, inconsistency and frustration both for industry and enforcement. most importantly, we don't know its impacts on safety. much can be done to improve safety. the regulations must be clear and enforceable. the states must be given funding commensurate with their responsibilities. new and expanded responsibilities mean improvements in safety, but only if we are able to effectively implement those policies. grant programs must provide states with flexibility, allowing us to meet our responsibilities through creative, state-specific solutions. the administrative burden associated with grant applications and reports should be-in poised -- minimized, allowing the states to focus on our mission. we believe there are a number of opportunities to streamline the grants providing relief to the states. we must have accurate data on which to build our programs and

to access safety technologies and systems that help us meet our goal of saving lives, preventing crashes and taking the unsafe carriers off the road. simply put, we must insure that the state enforcement agencies are given the tools we need to succeed. we look forward to working with this committee, fmcsa and the carrier industry to insure our goal of reducing deaths and injuries on the road. i look forward to answering your questions, and i want to just say thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. dawson. >> chairman blumenthal, ranking member blunt and members of the subcommittee, my name is jack dawson, i've been a professional truck driver for 32 years. for the last 515 years, i've been -- 15 years, i've been working for ups in dallas, texas. i'm also chief shopster for teamster 745.

i'm representing the 1.4 million members of the international brotherhood of teamsters, especially the 600,000 members who work on america's highways. today i will concentrate my testimony on hours of service, truck size, weight and driver training. media attention on driver fatigue and hours of service regulations has been extensive since the tracy morgan accident. here in the senate there's been an attempt to suspend two key components of the regulations. let me say as a driver, those two provisions, requiring two consecutive 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. rest periods, go a long way. actually, the teamsters' union went to court over driving time and the 34-hour restart provision. in fact, they felt so strongly a ma outer of our members covered through an mou with our employers are not subject to the 4-hour restart -- 34-hour restart provision. it's used once a week, every 168

hours goes a long way in combating driver fatigue. without this limitation, a driver's hours can be increased from the current 70 to 80 hours per week, twice the normal 40-hour workweek, and the 34-hour restart is 14 hours short of the normal weekend. suspending the consecutive rest periods of 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. is an egg callly dangerous -- equally dangerous step. studies have shown it's more tiring and lead to cumulative fatigue. the consecutive rest periods are designed to give drivers during the regular sir decade yum rhythm. the teamsters' union supports the safe highway and infrastructure preservation act. this legislation essentially takes a snap shot of what states currently permit. we believe this action will improve safety and protect our

infrastructure investment. the total stopping distance for an 80,000-pound truck is 525 feet. imagine judging those distance in congested traffic. bigger, heavier trucks cause greater wear on highways, likewise, exit and entrance ramps may cause issues for drivers attempting to get up to speed in order to merge. twin 33-foot trailers will only add to safety concerns. side wipe swipe -- sideswipes are the second most common accident at ups. the claim that increasing truck weights will result in fewer trucks on the road is unfounded. each time there's been an increase in truck weight, truck rah traffic has grown as shippers divert freight from rail to trucks. safety standards and training have been on the decline. i see many companies are just trying to put a body in the seat.

they want the cdl-certified driver but without the proper training. companies are buying vehicles and telling new drivers they can operate these rigs like cars, but these aren't cars. they're vehicles with distinct maneuvering characteristics. we have a discretion on how long that training period length should be. my job now is to train new hires. all of these guys have previous driving experience, but some find the safety training too difficult and drop out. the classroom training is 20 hours and up to a week on the road with trainer teaching defensive driving techniques to keep them out of accidents. not all companies have this type of dedication, but it should be mandatory. the driver shortage is definitely affecting the quality of applicants. in conclusion, the ibt is committed to keeping our drivers and all others with whom they share the road safe. this committee can help and lead the way as you develop

transportation policy that recognizes and addresses the challenges ahead. the team stares union looks forward to working with you to help grow a transportation network that meets the future needs of this country and improves the safety of our nation's highways. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to, and i'll be happy to answer any questions from you or the members of the subcommittee. >> thank you, sir. mr. osiecki. >> chairman blumenthal, ranking member blunt, subcommittee members, i'm dave osiecki, chief of advocacy for the american trucking associations, the largest trade association for the trucking industry. we represent more than 30,000 carrier members. thanks for this opportunity, and i'd ask that my full statement be made part of the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. the trucking industry places safety at the top of its priority list. our industry actually spends more than $7.5 billion annually on safety, and that investment is making a difference. over the past decade, the number

of large trucks involved in fatal crashes has dropped by 17% even with the industry operating an additional 2.7 million truck, operating an additional 54 billion miles. more trucks, billions more miles, fewer crashes. as mentioned at the outset, however, over the last three years we've seen anen crease in -- an increase in crashes over the historic lows in 2009 during the recession. we must refocus our effort toss maintain the longer term positive safety trend. refocusing our collective efforts, industry, federal and state efforts require a better lens through which to view safety. that lens must better focus on the primary causes of truck-involved crashes, and our collective investment must center on countermeasures aimed at those causes. inprofessional drivers and

passenger vehicle drivers. in fact, car drivers contribute significantly to truck crashes. if the regulatory enforcement and safety program is focused on the >> behaviors, big safety gains are achievable. the leading factor in crashes, that is, the most common misbehavior causing both car and truck crashes, is vehicle speed. yet our enforcement apparatus largely turns a blamed eye. in 2006, about -- blind eye. about eight years ago, issued a rule electronically limiting the top speed of large trucks. neithers have issued a proposed rule requiring speed limiters, and in 2010 ata lobbied fmcsa

and d.o.t. to first focus on implementing electronic logging devices industry wide. they chose not to. while the rulemaking process is now underway on elds, it will be several years until full implementation. we'd like an electronic logging device rule yesterday. nhtsa's upcoming vehicle base for large trucks is another rule that will save lives because it will mitigate driver mistakes. we hope that that rule is forth coming sooner that'ser than later. -- sooner rather than later. on-road traffic enforcement activity, that which focuses on truck driver misbehaviors, is at least four times more effective at preventing crashes than roadside vehicle inspections. those focus mainly on vehicle can components and defects. vehicle defects cause less than 10% of crashes, yet almost 90%

of the federal, state on-road enforcement activity under the program is directed to vehicle inspections. more effective traffic enforcement activity, that activity directed towards unsafe driving behavior by commercial drivers, represents only 10% of the on-road traffic enforcement activity. this type of enforcement has declined dramatically over the last four years. again, the lens needs a better focus, in our view. now quickly turning to technology, it's clearly a big part of the safety solution, in our view. properly focused rules and enforcement can achieve only so much. accelerated adoption of act it safety -- active safety technology in both trucks and cars can lead to larger highway safety improvements. active braking systems, exception-based video camera technologies and others hold great promise. trucking fleets are adopting many of these, and adoption can be accelerating with meaningful incentives. this is an idea on which nta and

cvsa are fully aligned. mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer our views on how the safety lens should be better focused to improve truck safety. we can do more, we know that, but it needs to be the right more. better targeted rules, even more effective deployment. that will result in meaningful safety gains. thanks, and i look forward to your question. >> thank you very much, mr. work siecki. i want to say that we put your full statement in the record, and it contains a great deal of very important and useful information, and i thank you for it, and i'm going to recommend to my colleagues that they read the full statement because there is a lot of very significant data. and i join you in the hope that there will be, in fact, better rules concerning speed and electronic logging devices, and

i think we can agree that whatever the cause or however many crashes and fatalities and injuries are caused by driver fatigue whether it's 10% or 90, every one of those crashes, every one of those deaths and injuries is too many. >> absolutely. >> and in that spirit, i hope that you will agree that these hours of service regulation that were adopted in 2013 or became effective on that date will continue to be in effect even as we gather data on how effective they have been. >> i'd be happy to respond to that if you'd like for me to respond. >> please. >> i think it's important to point out at the outset that we support five of the six components. in fact, we actually sport a third of the sixth -- support a third of sixth component, and that's the restart. but in terms of the legitimate

goal of the government to try to reduce fatigue-related crashes at night during these 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. hours that we're talking about versus the offsetting potential crashes during the daylight hours because truck traffic is being pushed -- not being forced, but the result of these rules is pushing truck traffic into the daytime hours -- are there actually more crashes during the day than the fatigue crashes or that are potentially being prevented? that's our concern. >> and we've heard just now testimony from a number of other of our experts here as to the importance of that component of the hours of service rule in preventing crashes, testimony from mr. dawson about their need and effectiveness and from ms. ferro. in issuing these rules, my understanding from your testimony is there was a great deal of fact gathering,

scientific analysis and other research and data-driven consideration that, in fact, led the courts to uphold these rules as being rational and factual based. is that correct? >> mr. chairman, that's correct. it was a very robust rulemaking regard to over 80 scientifics that we reviewed, at least 50 that we cited in our regulatory evaluation, labs specific to the 1-5 a.m. and the benefits of two nights' rest over one and extendsive public listening sessions as well as analysis of over 20,000 comments. it was an extremely robust process, and as you say, research-based scientifically approached. >> and you've heard major palmer emphasize the importance of consistency -- >> yes, sir. >> -- and enforceability of regulations. is there a public interest in continuing these regulations even as more data and experience

is gathered? >> there is very much, it very much is in the public interest for the reasons major palmer identifies in terms of uniformity, consistency of enforcement. from the perspective of insuring that the focus on minimizing the risk of fatigue-related crashes is upheld while additional analysis is completed. >> where i've said that the purpose of these regulations is to take tired truckers off the road, not take trucks off the road, and to protect truckers as well as the public in general. mr. dawson, let me ask you what these regulations mean to you and your fellow drivers who really are on the front lines so to speak in preventing accidents, crashes that are, indeed, avoidable. >> mr. chairman, i would say in my experience that anytime you have more rest or more opportunity to be at home and get your rest especially in those critical 1-5 a.m. periods

is essential to getting your proper rest and not being fatigued when you're on duty trying to do your job. >> and without these rules, is there pressure on truckers there, perhaps -- from, perhaps, their employers? >> absolutely, mr. chairman. >> and how does that pressure get expressed? >> it would, it would get expressed in your dispatches where when your 34 hours is up, they could just run you right back out on the road on another run, put you back on duty. you wouldn't have the hours of service to protect you. they could discharge you in some instances at some jobs if you didn't follow through with those. so i think the protection that the hours of service offers a driver against those things is very important. >> ms. claybrook, is that consistent with your experience? >> yes, it is, mr. chairman, and i would like to correct something that was said be by

the american trucking association. the purpose be of this rule is not to reduce nighttime crashes. the purpose of this rule is for drivers -- and it's not all drivers, but it's the drivers who reach the maximum of 70 hours of driving that when they take their 34-hour restart, that they have two nights where they can get restorative sleep; that is, so that they can get the kind of sleep that you get which is better than when you sleep in the daytime. first, it affects a modest number of drivers. second of all, the purpose is so that you get sleep at night. not to prevent crashes at night. and another issue that's been raised by the trucking association is that trucks will come -- all these trucks will come back on the road at 5 and 6 a.m. in the morning when kids are going to school, and yet this is the first time i've ever heard the trucking association ever be concerned about children being killed in truck crashes. there are over 200 children

killed every year in truck crashes and 7,000 some children injured. so, first of all, i think it's a false assumption or assertion, and second of all, i'd love to work with the trucking industry on reducing truck crashes and particularly childrenning with harmed. but this is not -- children being harmed but this is not an example of where children are likely to be harmed. >> i'm going to make sure that you have an opportunity to to respond. my time has exired, and i want to be sensitive to the the time of my colleagues, and i am grateful to all of my colleagues. i'm a co-sponsor with senator beaker, by the way -- >> yes, and thank you so much. i should have said that. >> and grateful to senator nelson and senator fischer, senator ayotte and senator blunt for being here today, and i'm going to turn to senator blunt, and if he is still here, then go to senator nelson. >> thank you, chairman. ms. claybrook, i heard you say you'd like to work with the trucking association for safety

for children. i think i heard you say that two sentences after you said something like this is the first time i've ever heard the trucking association care about, say they cared about whether children were hurt by trucks or not to. i would think those two things probably don't work out very well together. and i'm sure nobody here wants children to be hurt by trucks. i'm also sure that if you put more people on the road at five in the morning, more people are going to be on the road when kids go to school. i just don't think there's any way you can argue against that. and i'm sensitive to mr. dawson's point that people who are working different shifts all the time get into a rest pattern that's senate. you know, a -- significant. a lot of people work the night shift all the time so somehow they've figured out how to sleep during the day and have done that for a long time.

mr. osiecki, do you want to -- your safety efforts, what are the best safety things that you think could be done that aren't being done now or need more focus? >> well, thank you, ranking member blunt. and i echo -- there's not a person in this room, in the trucking industry that wants to harm somebody when they operate. drivers are professionals. they attempt to do their jobs moving america's freight as safely and efficiently as possible. and the folks who we represent, i know that. now, in terms of responding to your question, as i indicated in my oral remarks, we really need, we need to not minimize the smaller types of problems in our industry, but we have to maximize our resources and our efforts. and maximizing our resourceses and our efforts really leads us to the technology solutions that i mentioned earlier, safety technologies that address unintentional mistakes. sometimes unintentional misbehaviors, and sometimes they're misbehaviors that truck

drivers and car drivers undertake willfully. the ability to have enforcement focus on those behaviors and to the extent they can the mistakes, but that's tougher, and rules that really will make a difference. the electron aric stability -- electronic stability control making will save at least three times as many lives as the hours of it service rules. that rule should have come first. that rule should be out there. and there are a host of other examples i can discuss, but i'll leave it at that for the time being. be. >> and, major palmer, in your opinion what's the most effective tool of law enforcement for preventing truck-related crashes? i'm going to let you answer that, but, i mean, it could be stopping trucks on the road, it could be safety inspections. i'm just wondering what you think the most effective tool is to, on this topic.

>> well, yes, sir. that's an excellent question. and what it is, it's difficult to identify from an enforcement perspective one thing that is the solution to the big problem. it's really, it's a come prehence i program, is what it takes. so, for example, each state -- including texas, obviously, where i'm from, we have a comprehensive enforcement program to try to address commercial vehicle safety issues and highway safety issues as a whole which includes all vehicles on the highway. so it really is the component. it's partly roadside inspections of commercial vehicles, it's inspections at fixed facilities which sometimes are a different environment than at roadside. it also is a comprehensive program such as our compliance

review program to be able to look at motor carriers that have a propensity to have safety issues, and it's also an aggressive traffic enforcement program that doesn't necessarily just focus on commercial vehicles. because it is, you know, statistically speaking, you know, 70% of the commercial vehicle-related crashes the primary contributing factor tends to go back to the noncommercial vehicle. so, for example, in texas alone -- i can't speak off the cuff on most states -- but in texas alone in 2013 although these citations and warnings weren't uploaded to finishing mcsa because they weren't done on an inspection report, we did in addition to all of our activities that we did as part of our commercial vehicle enforcement program, we also

issues a little over, in 2013 a little over 900,000 traffic enforcement citations and another two, a little over two million warnings. and those are the ones that did not get uploaded to fmcsa as part of inspections. so so to answer your question, sir, it really is a comprehensive program of a lot of different areas that we try to look at. because one area alone isn't going to get us where we need to be, and one of our primary focuses in texas and along with all the other states is to ultimately reduce these fatalities and these serious injury crashes because it doesn't matter whether it's one life or a hundred, we don't want the lose one. so every life that we can save pect victory from our .. a national number or a texas

number? >> we've looked at it from a texas perspective s and it works for texas, but i've also, i've also seen some things that it's been used on a broader perspective as well. >> and one last question, ms. ferro. i think i've got in my notes somewhere i noticed, i don't want see it in front of me right now, but there's no differentiation in the statistics of truck-related accidents whether the trucker was at fault or the -- that's not broken. when you use that big er, that's >> that's correct. it is an aggregate crash number. >> and you have anything to verify this is more than the 70% number? >> we have the clearance stuff, data set was done through the large crash causation analysis it to ten years ago. it is not as current as we would like to be. and i believe a follow-up for the record, 35 percent attributable to the professional

driver and fatalities closer to 45-50% in all crashes. 30000-40 of fatalities and a higher attributable in injury and total crashes. >> quite a bit of difference. >> can i comment on that? >> i am out of time. >> we will come back to you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> i wanted thank the chairman and ranking member commented on in that half pragmatic constructive and courteous thought about this issue. keeping our highways safe. if i can quickly turn again to hours of service. first of all, i appreciate your testimony because you had a lot of very constructive database ideas about how to keep our highways safe. when i was mayor i used at the

st. that in god we trust. i am a man of faith, but if anybody else bring the data. i don't want to fall into the trap of allowing when it comes to safety initiatives having that tyranny of your. i would rather have the liberation of the and the reason that is why i want to get back to hours of service because i think it is a sensitive question nine of these were brought about through a tremendous. i led zero of the data and the studies. there is so much sound evidence that you all went through. the 20,000 comments that -- all of that, but they're is a pointed assertion is a book on the table that we persist with rules and it will force people into the daytime traffic, thus making it more congested and creating more crashes. all i am asking is objectively, is there any data yet to make that statement or that assertion or that possibility true?

of love to get quick answers because i want to move on to the next issue. >> there has been no data presented to us that demonstrates that fact, nor does anything in the rule limits the ability of the industry to set its schedules as it deems necessary to satisfy the free demands of its customers. >> the columns amendment does have a study included, but it also eliminated these provisions. so it was sort of a contradiction. you can do a study if you don't have the provisions in effect. our position supports what you would do, leave the positions in effect but conduct a study. i think that's fine. >> so what are you actually studying? is there any substance in fact? >> and the other thing to point out in addition to their not being a requirement, where they have to come back on the highway. it only affects maybe 15 percent of the truck drivers. those who have maxed out hours. so that is the other.

>> that is where i want to jump in. there's a small portion. there has been a tremendous decline. in income for drivers. a few decades ago unionized truck drivers made about $44.83 per hour. this is a solid, middle-class jobs, well compensated drivers. and i know from truckdrivers in the port area, grueling hours that they are putting in. seventy, 80 plus hours with a little bit of, as you said, a truncated weekend. today truck drivers are lucky to make half of that. one study by rutgers found independent contractors from jersey reported earning less than $10 an hour. so accidents or on the rise well rages on the decline. and we are paying now the folks responsible for moving our goods and services. very low salaries. it are on the rise while wages are on the decline. and we're paying now the folks

responsible for moving our goods and services very low salaries. and these men and women now push themselves in order to make enough money to provide for their families -- this is testimony i used to hear from truckers -- they push themselves in order the try to make ends meet. under conditions like these, it's no wonder than a recent fmcsa study found an astounding number of 65% of truck drivers reported they sometimes feel drowsy. if we want our roads to be safer, i believe we need to start compensating these folks in a way that they can make ends meet without pushing themselves to the limits of human exhaustion just so that they can meet the minimum basic needs to keep their families above the poverty line. mr. dawson, do you agree with my assessment given your years of experience as a driver, and can you provide me any insight about the issue of drivers' wages in this context of safety in and if so, in your opinion, what steps

can congress and key stake stakeholders in the trucking industry do to address this compensation issue? >> i think one of the key components in the income as far as the detention time, i can tell you when i was working for a private carrier, we had a program where you picked up your freight, and you picked it up for a dollar a thousand, so if you picked up 46,000 pounds, that's what you made if it was one hour or 15 hours picking it up. and i can also add to that, senator, when i went to work from a private carrier to a unionized carrier, i got a $26,000 raise that day. there's quite a difference between the union and nonunion sector, and i think the detention time and the wages are a key component in getting qualified candidates and good, experienced drivers that are going to stick with it and not drift this and out of the industry -- in and out of the industry. ..

>> the district. >> that i am going to yield to a senator fisher. [laughter] >> i give you the chair person ship as well of the committee and tell -- senator blumenthal is back. [laughter] >> i have completed -- i have ceded my allotted times. if you would like to reprimand me, you may. i know senator fisher is eager to go. >> i appreciate your graciousness and yielding just as i was coming in. i appreciate your patience with a quick visit i had to make with someone who came. >> mr. chairman, i hope you also heard that i declined the

chairmanship. [laughter] >> i noted. >> i wanted you to take note of that. >> i noted the emerging anarchy. [laughter] >> as a member of the nebraska legislature i served as the chair of that the communications committee. every year we would have hearings on safety issues. those were always very emotional hearings. we would have these families of accident victims there. and so i would just like to recognize those families and express my condolences to you. i also want to thank our drivers and the truckers, everyone here is looking for ways that we can make your roads safer. that is the purpose here, and i think we are all united in that purpose as we do move forward and looking to make our highways safer.

administrator anne ferro, after a recent hearing at which secretary fox testified i submitted a question for the record of the impacts of the hours of service will. unfortunately the answer i received was less responsive than i was hoping for. so i'm going to try again and see how you do. maybe you can clear some things out. what specific plans does your agency have to measure and confirm it -- confirm the speculative health benefits proposed as part of the hours of service cost-benefit analysis and also what do you have to study and evaluate the safety impacts of that additional daytime driving that many of us believe is a result of those restart rules? >> senator, thank you for giving us another chance to answer the question for you.

i appreciate the opportunity. with regard to health benefits in minimizing the health impact of the rules that we put in place that have impact on drivers and their ability to operate safely, we incorporated and analyzed and assessed an extensive body of data as well as a more recent survey and set of surveys conducted by the national institute of occupational safety and health. in our body of research on which we base the heart of this rule which is a restart provision is this whole concept of the extensive, excessively long work hours and their impact on our drivers chronic health conditions and thus the ability to operate safely. so there is a full set of research i will be happy to provide with regard to that specific rule. going forward, we have several efforts underway. the first is a very specific contract with the national

academies of science to examine the broad spectrum of fatigue and health impacts of the conditions of operating heavy-duty vehicles. and identifying the best data sources, new data sources, new mechanism for data collection as well as existing resources we might not have known to tap into, there is a third component -- and apologize for taking so long. we have reached out to all the stakeholders to say, we all have core questions we want to know about this rule. they're is a robust study proposed in senator collins and in an that is best ex -- exercise with the current rule in place an order to capture the data. but we also see that there are many sources of data that industry has and that we are encouraged industry may be interested in sharing, which is really aggregated on board a

fleet management data that gives us a better sense of what our of driving an incident might occur and compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. >> which i believe mr. david osiecki is recommending as well. have some of that electronic data it to be provided. you had mentioned earlier, sir, and number of programs that you are implementing and trying to improve safety, which as i said we are all trying to do here. if you could elaborate on those and also he looked like he wanted to respond to the center when he was asking a question of some other witnesses with regard to the daytime hours. or give you an opportunity to respond to that as well. >> thank you, senator. i will answer the second first and then get to the first one. in terms of the center brokers question about daytime truck driving being shifted. fmc as a steady, the restart

study issues in january of this year, i would point the committee to figures five and six. figures five and 65 and it is difficult to see -- but they demonstrate that the two or more nights sleeper's under the new restart compared to the 19 sleepers demonstrates, those two charts, the truck traffic is more distributed through the daytime hours between 8:00 a.m. and approximately 8:00 p.m. at night. so we have also provided some data, some information to the administration taking a look at that. with respect to your first question, and there are a lot of ways to answer that because there are a lot of things gone on in the industry. i will address it from a technology standpoint. lane departure warning systems, forward collision mitigation systems, active breaking systems , and more recently and very recently these onboard camera systems that are not designed to view the truck

driver and a negative way. it is designed to capture the environment of what is going on in your crashes and crash events to determine what happened, whether it was the coach, the driver, or a lot of cases, to get the driver off of what has happened. those are improving safety. there is demonstrated evidence that the systems work in addition to these vehicles-based technologies that a look the driver and so forth. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator fisher. >> i wanted thank the chairman. i wanted to ask you, mr. david osiecki, in terms of -- i really appreciate the hard work that truck drivers do. i think it is important to point out that -- i met a lot of them in my state. all lot of them are small businesses and independent operators as well that are working pretty hard. and they are competing against rail and other things.

so i think it is an important job and it is highly competitive and, frankly, one of the concerns they have raised with me is it is becoming more and more costly to own your own business and to be a smaller operator in this context with not only some of the things that are being issued there we are talking about today but also some of the new technology that is being required. would you agree it is harder for the smaller operator in this context? >> i think it is when there are mandated technologies. much of what i was speaking about was voluntary adopted technologies and incentives. folks who have worked around the fmcsa for years now that it takes many, many years, in fact decades. when you implement new mandated technology and equipment it takes two to three, sometimes for decades for the entire fleet to turnover. sell incentives to drive, voluntary adoption is one way to

do that. i will put an *, we support the mandated electronic locking devices. and maybe some difference in the industry on that point. the cost is coming down. >> i wanted to ask, administrator anne ferro, now your leaving soon. thank you for all of your work at the agency. when he last appeared before this committee on the hours of service role you have testified that placed upon the fmcsa study that is essentially there was evidence that more trucks, larger trucks would be on the road during daytime hours. because of the new hours of service world. do you dispute that? >> i spoke to the logic that we use to analyze what that might be looking at the 15% impact and identifying that by virtue of logical analysis about 250,000.

>> so by logic because biologic we're going to have more large trucks on the road during the daytime. >> well, in fact the follow point on that is about 250,000, that is barely a drop in the bucket when you look at the 10 million -- >> have we fully -- as i understand it we have not fully analyzed. that is one of the purposes of the current study, to have a full analysis of what will be the impact during daytime hours in terms of truck traffic. as you and i have talked about in the past, we already have evidence that more accidents occur during the daytime hours because of the congestion that is natural during the daytime hours in and of itself. so i think one of the things one of the chairman and others have said that the study of this has been robust -- robust, scientific, but it strikes me that we have not answered a fundamental question that is important in terms of safety

which is, if we change the restart rules and the way that they have been proposed how many more trucks will be on the road during those daytime hours? what will be the safety impact of having those trucks on the road during the daytime hours. it to delay the rule while we understand that question demean seems logical because if we know that there is more congestion during the daytime the more likely evidence there are more accidents during that time, would we want to know before we go forward with this is exactly what the public safety impact is about the added truck traffic during that time? it seems to me we have all been talking about science and data, but it is important for us to have that before we implement a very significant role that could, in fact -- we don't know, unintended consequences of actually creating more public

safety issues. i think that is really where the collins amendment is coming from i fully support it. a think it makes logical sense. the feedback that i have heard, as we have talked about before, now that the collins amendment also will analyze the economic impact of this rule. we have heard a lot of discussion today. why don't we just go forward? well, this is a fundamental question we should have answered for the american people before we go forward with a pretty significant role change. >> if i might, the final rule was issued in december of 2011 and went into effect a year ago. the full greuel is under way. >> i want to correct. i don't know why we went forward with that rule without having those questions answered. and it seems to me that the collins amendment from having received feedback of the

concerns that people have that are legitimate concerns strikes the right balance because until we know the answer to that very important question of how much more daytime traffic, what will be the impact in terms of potential accidents during the daytime. in now, to me the fact of we issued this role before we actually had the clear answers to those important questions this something that should not have happened. so i think what the collins amendment does is restart where we should be until we have those answers. if the answers are that there is not a public safety impact then you certainly are in a position where the rule can be reissued. >> thank you for clarifying. they're is a public safety impact. of the rule today that is in place today based on the scientific evidence, analysis, enormous amounts of public input

is projected, is currently expected to be saving lives, reducing crashes, and that is based on the health and a fifth, analysis and the field study that david osiecki mentioned actually was referencing traffic patterns prior to 2013. >> i know my time is up, but when you were last before this committee and i asked you about the field study in particular and a number of drivers that were analyzed, as i understand it, our recollection is it was 21 or so. >> you can tell me a hundred and six drivers have reversed. so that is -- think about the number of drivers on the road across this country. over 21 days. >> correct. >> and so are doing this from the top of my head.

that's not that many when you think about how many drivers are on the road. most importantly, when you were last before this hearing you had agreed and said to me when we have this discussion about the study the your agency was constrained from doing the kind of broader naturalistic analysis that there were going to be doing going forward. so if you were constrained in doing that kind of analysis one thing we are in agreement around this room mess the collins study has proposed is quite comprehensive. this would allow us to have this information to understand the full impact of particularly the daytime traffic as a result of this rule and to relieve suspend what i think is a dramatic -- i know from my constituents. i have said before not only have i heard but -- heard from truck drivers but wholesalers that this will cost them millions and

millions of dollars. of their concern that it will actually add to the impact of potential safety concerns during the day. many to understand these answers. i want to just express the appreciate senator collins. the amendment makes sense. it is unfortunate that we did not have this information before the rule was actually issued and implemented. >> thank you, senator. to clarify before i call on senator scott, the rule we are discussing here has been in effect for one year purchase correct. >> and there are studies under way about its effectiveness. >> that's correct. >> and the collins amendment insofar as it requires additional study would produce, perhaps, additional data. but it goes beyond the study to actually roll back the role. >> let me clarify. there are efforts underway

including meetings with stakeholders to identify the data sources to answer the questions, many of which were very clearly outlined. we have a fatigue research and analysis body of work being done through the national academies of science. our full intent is to be able to take advantage of aggregated data from on board fleet management devices with the help of industry and other sources to manage. >> and mike understanding is you will be receiving data from the state as well that can be used in this? >> we routinely through our motor carrier management -- our motor carrier assistance system and crash reporting, violation reporting car roadside inspection work collect data and use that to analyze the effects of our work. that's correct. >> this sounds like their is a very robust, intensive, active, energetic effort underway to assess the effectiveness of the rules while there in effect now.

>> that is absolutely correct. >> mr. scott -- said to scott, i'm sorry. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being a part of such an important meeting as we discuss safety and the trucking industry.d the trucking industr. frankly, i would say that over time as i watch you all on tv, this was a long robust conversation on a number of topics. over the last couple years i've had the opportunity to meet with the -- talk to them about the safety issues and the progress being made it a delete with fiber find as those in a position where we've seen significant progress made over the last several years, and certainly look forward to seeing more progress made as we know that it's important, talking about saving lives and that really is job number one. i do have a couple of questions, administrator ferro, for you.

i spent too much time in the insurance industry, to tell you the truth. nearly 25 years, i'm only 30, so that was i've years old. anyways, the last couple of decades i spent my professional life on an insurance agency and was interested in the correlation perhaps between higher limits and fewer accidents and if, in fact, the rulemaking that we see coming forward speaks to any real evidence of that fact. i'll read the question to and we will start the conversation between the two of us. i understand that currently more than 99% of commercial vehicle accidents are easily covered under the current insurance requirements. yet you have initiated a new rulemaking to raise these requirements, these limits. while you're rulemaking includes -- will you're rulemaking include any kind of assessment of the financial impact increase requirements would have on small businesses, first question.

how do you feel racing truck insurance limits would help fulfill the mission of the agency which, of course, is to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities involve a larger trucks and buses? my question really comes from having limited exposure, albeit most was on the private sector side, on the everyday family cars and on about 10 or 12% of my time is spent on commercial insurance, commercial vehicles. so not a lot of exposure. but i was unaware of any specific study that created a correlation from increasing the limits of liability and reducing the fatalities of crashes or the incidents, frankly. and i know that as a small business owner who had employees, when the rulemaking and four legislative regulatory environment increases the thresholds of my coverage, it takes more money out of my pocket to do more things for safety and for employees

retention. so my question is, was that any analysis on the impact that the rulemaking would have on small businesses and/or on business overall? >> senator scott, the first step in the rulemaking process actually will be just what you're describing, the analysis component. with regard to financial responsibility limits, or i should say minimum for the commercial vehicle industry, truck and bus, those limits were set by congress 30 years ago, and prevail today. the minimum is still $750,000 for a trucking company. it goes up depending on if you're caring passengers. passenger chairs are carrying hazardous materials but again the minimum is 750,000 for your basic trunking provider. when congress introduced those minimums it was a done in the context of the regulations and with an expressed appreciation for the impact that risk-based ensuring might have on safety

behaviors from their customers. in other words, if you minimize risk you're likely to be a good cover and let more reasonable rates. i think it's by the same on the private sector in 30 years there's been no change in minimal levels but at the same time the premiums, rates, have not changed either the they have softened a bit. and consumer price index, medical price index, all of those components have gone up significantly. sellthrough map-21 congress directed the agency to analyze them to look at and report back to congress all those minimum level of ventures is there adequate and provide recommendations and look every four years at those minimums starting with the report you just referenced. in our analysis we recognize for all the factors i just identified, it is appropriate for the agency at this time to press forward and anticipated or, it's something proposed

rulemaking and unforgiving the term, sorry, advance notice of proposed rulemaking, so that we can ask the audience of insurance providers, of litigation world, medical, stakeholders from industry and the victim's side all the way and on and providers data and information to determine what the next step should be before moving on. so the first step will be within the next 30-60 days. >> thank you. mr. osiecki, let me turn to you to basically the same question, different stream of consciousness as we think through, as we analyze the information on risk versus reward. so we are talking about carrier mistakes. the the raise thresholds, then the companies become more prudent and more responsible. my assumption is that's already happening, but i would love to your your perspective on the impact of higher limits on the

basis system itself, and whether or not that would be an impediment to more incidents? >> thank you, senator. i guess i'd like to start off by reiterating the study, the study fmcsa sponsored and recently put out the indeed highlight that 99.9% of the crashes and the costs of those crashes for which trucks were responsible for, the 30% that the major highlighted earlier, are covered under the existing lives. so 99.9% and socially one-tenth of 1% that are not covered. so the question really becomes what's our mission in raising the limits? and is there a link to safety? i will tell you there's almost a dearth or a void of research that links insurance limits, minimum insurance limits to safety outcomes. getting to the part of your

question about business impacts and the market, the market will clearly be impacted dramatical dramatically. if the limits are up dramatically. if it goes from 752 million maybe not so much but some are talking of seven and 50,000 minimum to perhaps 4 million or even higher. that will dramatically change the cost of insurance. it will dramatically change the number of players in the truck insurance market place which there are only a handful to begin with. so it really becomes a very difficult question for the industry to do with it, particularly if there's no link to improve safety outcomes. there's more to be said on that bike is we are heartened by the fact the first it will be an advanced notice of proposed rule making as opposed to the proposed rule. >> final question, mr. osiecki, on the issue of traffic enforcement activities versus roadside inspections. and what will move us in the right direction. would love your comments on what is the type of programs perhaps

or initiatives the view would be most effective at saving lives on our nation's highways? at the end of the day as i said the lifeblood of our economy really are in those vehicles, and so as they see the lifeblood of her current moving in those vehicles and at same time looking for ways to reduce casualties and catastrophic occurrences in an attempt to save more lives, help me see a path forward and if you're one where any programs or initiatives that might be helpful. >> is really advocating the biggest bang for your safety but. the safety buckets federal and state dollars, and it is a dollars. in terms of traffic enforcement, the program, ncsa program is about a $209 per year federal state grant program, and the vast major of that money goes towards roadside vehicle inspections, defects and components as i mentioned earlier. there is a driver component. the driver devoted, paperwork,

license and so forth. so there is a driver peace so let me be clear. but in terms of the actual benefit, traffic enforcement according to fmcsa's own analysis is a least four times more effective. stopping a commercial driver for speeding, unsafe lane change, those types of unsafe behavior to if that's one half times more effective than roadside vehicle inspections, why are we spending 90% of our ncsa dollars on roadside inspections? it should be a different post it on here today with about should be but we do feel strongly the balance should be more effective toward, more balance towards a more effective counter enforcement, and that is traffic enforcement. >> thank you. >> thanks, senator scott. i have a few follow-up questions. first of all, i was surprised to see in your testimony,

ms. ferro, that there is no test now for sleep apnea, is that correct? >> yes, sir. there's no requirement that a driver be tested for sleep apnea to hold a cdl, that's correct. >> shouldn't there be one? >> the process of assessing a driver's qualifications, medical qualifications for holding a cdl is something that we call of duty physical. that haven't a minimum of every two years, sometimes more frequently depend on the driver's health condition. over the years the agency working with our medical review board and expert panel, medical panel that they appointed or i should say asked for feedback from, we've consistently identified key elements within the guidance to be looking at when they are carrying out a medical examiner is to have a duty physical. that includes respiratory conditions, and that brings me

back to obstructive sleep apnea which is considered among the respiratory condition that a medical drama is expected to assess. if in that medical examiners line of practice their protocols help them identify that the driver warrants further screen, then those medical examiners, that individual will likely refer that driver for further screen. it is not a requirement today. it is a requirement a medical examiner ensure that driver meets the qualifications to be safe and alert behind the wheel speed you've given me a very full answer but i'm asking you for you whether it should be required. frankly, i would think it's kind of basic. i'm saying it as a layman, not as an expert, and i would be interested in other expert reviews. but given the history of some crashes, and those include railroad crashes, i would think that should be part of whatever medical certificate is required

spirit and our medical review board and safety advisory committee would recommend the same. consequently, we will be as, adhering to congressional mandate, we will be taking the next steps to develop a rule making on obstructive sleep apnea starting with a notice that asked a series of questions to gather additional data and assets whether a rulemaking is the right next that but we can all be done through rulemaking. >> to any other witnesses disagree with the proposition that sleep apnea ought to be tested if for some it is permitted to drive commercially? the record will show that there is no objection or no disagreement. let me ask you, because i think you've made some very good points, mr. osiecki, about speed limits and electronic locking devices. we don't have a rpntat

>> we don't have a representative from the national highway traffic association here your organization has petitioned for rulemaking in that area. has there been a response. again, i would agree with you that there ought to be. >> yes, mr. chairman. in 2010 we get a response to our petition. there were two of us in 2006. they said that there would go forward with rulemaking originally anticipated to occur in 2012. unfortunately it has not yet been proposed. to be fair, it is our understanding that it is being worked on in conjunction with fmcsa, i believe. perhaps the minister could comment. it is moving. in our view it is moving at a snail's pace. speed is the biggest factor, causation or contributing factor to crashes. if we want to make a difference -- it's kind of like the old general who said what you rob

banks? that's where the money is. you go to were the big numbers are. >> i appreciate your point. i might add that one of my grievances about federal agency and federal rulemaking is that it has been too lacking, link the in time. and that pertains to a variety of federal agencies. i appreciate you raising that point. and i might ask you also since we're on the subject of rulemaking, perhaps you can tell us more about electronic locking devices. >> certainly. the electronic devices, as it sounds, a technology that allows truck drivers to electronically capture their hours of service. they're accurate for driving time limits. there is still a driver input or manual input for when they're working but not driving.

overall they are effective for what they do. initially they were costly, the 1000-$1,500 range. they're coming down in price. as i testified, we prefer to see a final regulation yesterday and with an implementation date. it will take some time. it will still be of least three to four years. we would like to see incentives to drive the voluntary adoption because that will slow down the closer we get because of the changing performance specifications. >> and that is a method of making sure the rules, whenever they are, are enforced effectively and consistently. >> yes, sir. >> let me ask you, major palmer, i think you have spoken well to this point, but i want to make sure i understand it. you made the point about variation in roles and consistency and reliability in

rulemaking being important to enforcement. as a law enforcer myself before i came here that point hit home to me. so it seems to me that point would argue strongly in favor of not rolling back or retracting rules already in effect while their effectiveness is under study in case they might have to be reimposed again. but leaving them in effect so that they can continue to be enforced so that folks on the highways can continue to rely on them even as their effectiveness is studied. and my interpreting correctly your feet? >> yes, sir. mr. chair. that is what we want. what we would prefer is to not to have to deal with retraining and readjusting for something that could be temporary. it is not our position to get

involved in the choice of what the royal lives. it has in no, it's our job to enforce what is in place. all we're asking from an enforcement perspective is to maintain the rule that has been in effect for a year until the studies are completed and in that way whenever changes will be made can be made it one time. >> thank you. that concludes my questions. >> thank you, chairman. on the other side of that, of course if we find out one year from now it puts a lot more people on the highway at a time when it is already clogged, that is another year of that. we will see how this all works out. clearly this has to be dealt with by the house and senate. mr. david osiecki, my understanding is a normal car or

truck with a single system -- i was talking to an insurance person about this the other day. you can connect that sync system to their monitoring system for the people they have been short, and based on your driving behavior they will give you a better rate. i am assuming if a sync system from a normal car, someone at a distant location can tell if i am starting or stopping too fast , if i'm driving too fast. that same information, kind of information is available if you have the electronic organ system? >> it is, senator. many fleets have that today. the safety manager, safety director sitting at their computer at their desk get real-time alerts with heartbreaking events, perhaps steering out of context defense, those types of things. taken directly intervene with the driver through a

message or if not intervene with a message to stop, entered been with a message to pull over and contact us. that is there in the benefit from these vehicle base technologies and is being used in the industry and fairly widely. i would like to see it more widely used. >> that was my other question. you mentioned cost. this is the independent owner, operator out there in his own truck looking for work, that has always been there concern, that they could not quite afford to compete at that level of equipment. i assume it has gotten quite a bit less expensive? >> it is kind of like the self on scenario where the cost goes down. the real cost is the monthly charge. that scenario is played out in tracking as well. technology device costs have come down. the cost is over the air. and those are still real. >> real costs that an operator will explain some of their reluctance. under a safe driver. look at my record.

why should i have to have a log in system. but the high end of the view that you are, that there is way to monitor this liability, something that nobody should just want to run to and embrace. you want to do everything you cannot have that. this -- the 2003 highway fatalities involving trucks decreased. >> through 2009. 2005 was the lowest year on record, and it has crept up since that time. >> they have caught up could do you have a reason for that? why that would be the case that they decrease for six or seven years and then creep back up? >> we attribute part of it to the intensifying traffic on our roadways. and let me preface that by saying that is part and parcel why we are working today to get better data

that incorporates sleep management device data with crash data in the incident did it so that we can better understand why crashes are happening and the net effect of the range of measures that have been taken. at the end of the day economic growth and the intensity of pressure on the industry to deliver and the growing traffic volumes we feel have contributed to his increasing crash rates. >> so has traffic volume become a factor in trying to figure out your regulations for drivers, delivery and other things? one of the big concerns here . >> how the vehicles are being operated in the traffic is at the source of our concern. have the driver is behaving, how the company is managing the equipment and the driver and the other demand and supply chain putting pressure on the driver. a real compounding factor in driver pressure and driver

stress his attention time. we talked about this a little bit with regard to compensation. at the end of the day the time that a driver is sitting is unpaid time, and it is putting pressure on the driver to complete the delivery of that load. and until we can address this attention time issue, if it is on paid by the shipping industry and employers that it is free and they don't care to tighten it up. so the impacts of that also absolutely as our economy grows those kinds of things to impact a driver's ability to be safe because they're pressing legal and fiscal limits to get that love completed, to get on to their next destination. >> to you have a sense of life what the 2013 numbers are going to look like? >> in terms of? >> fidelity. >> in terms of fatality? we are watching them closely

it -- >> well, you would have those numbers. you are now going back and try to analyze them? >> we are trying to get to the point where it is a robust data set. traditionally the data, the crash state, both fatal injury and crash data we gather reported through the state's stakes 20 to 24 months before we are satisfied that we have 100 percent of the crash data. i have been fairly criticized by my staff in the past by getting out of the box to orally on some of the data because it does change overtime. we are watching and looking at the first six months between july and december of last year. and we're watching closely as to when we will be close to 100 percent of the crash data from the states which we expect will be at least another six months for that particular time. i will be pleased to report back. i apologize, of the year.

i know the agency will be committed to be reporting back as we continue to monitor that. >> easy for you to say. [laughter] >> bittersweet, i might add. >> i'm sure that right. one last line of questions. every transportation company has to do dragon out of testing. >> yes. >> that is pretty broadly based. 50 percent within the course of the year, 50 percent of their drivers have to be tested. >> that's correct. the need to be tested for drugs and then alcohol randomized. >> randomized. and then if they have results that are positive there is some point where that number goes down to 25%, less than 1% in the course -- over two years, believe it is. >> i think you're speaking to the authority of the agency. if the overall rate of

positive testing is significantly below that threshold you identified, a random population side can be reduced. and so after two years of service we are identifying that it is lower. it has continued to come down or state level. i would want to say it is a level 1% threshold for the -- threshold for testing positive. the agency is assessing all the different components of what it would mean if we lowered the random population from 50 to 25%. those are factors under review today. it would be premature for me to comment beyond that. the fact that the discussion is under way. >> mr. david osiecki, anything you want to say about that? >> center, the trucking industry has tried really hard to get its card testing positive rate below that 1%. we tried all different types of things to move into various types of testing. that was the first year our industry dropped below that

magic threshold in 2011. 2012, we don't yet know the deputy administrator just indicated it may be below that threshold. that brings the question, if all of the other modes, ffa, febrile railroads, federal transit, if they have already reduced their industries random population from 5225, why wouldn't the trucking industry be in that same category, particularly since this was set up as an incentive based program many years ago? we essentially met the incentive, as i understand it and are not being rewarded. >> in the initial incentive package keep below 1% for 2 years you have to do fewer samples, but you still have to report. >> that's correct. >> right. >> is seems to me. if you can't go back and if you change the incentive after you go through the process then you can't expect the process to be quite as cooperative the

second time. we are evaluating whether the new incentives should be or evaluating what the facts are that the second year produces would be something i would be very interested in. and i will let you respond now or for the record on that, either one. >> thank you. i will respond for the record, but i do want to reinforce, we are looking at all of those questions today as indicated, we have not released the final number. please note that this is a very serious topic, and we are taking all factors into consideration. we will follow up more quickly -- clearly on the record. >> well, it should be. you're going to set an incentive for the industry the incentive that you are trying to achieve, you can then go back later and say, well, okay. the incentive and requirement, but we don't think that is the right

reward. they're still going to have to report. the question is how many people. they have to check. if it goes back up by a cement works the other way. thank you. >> thank you for those excellent questions. i want to thank the panel. before we close there are couple issues i was going to ask ms. joan claybrook whether you have any kind of closing comments on some of the issues just raised. >> well thank you very much, mr. chairman. i would like to mention that there was no study that supported the old restart provision. so now there is concern that there are no studies that have evaluated the change that center collins is trying to remove. in fact, she wants to study it, but if you remove those provisions that will not be able to be studied. it is hard to evaluate what kind of change is going to

occur if you don't have the changes in place to study. so that is the reason that we support your co-sponsor ship of the broker amendment which says leslie did in place. it has been in for a year and complicated to change it this time. the industry is already started to employment. let's study it now even further. we have scientific data very clearly. and a lot of study has been down on the hours of service, nighttime shift, daytime shift, and the importance of getting nighttime sleep. there is no question about that as far as i know paris hilton's studies are robust and substantial. and so in our view in this safety advocates you the real issue is that research should be eliminated. we think the whole restart concept of allowing people to restart their our's was only part of the weekend off after driving 70 hours a

week. much too little. further, i would say that the real problem here -- and it goes to the senator's concern about the page that the drivers are getting. they are not paid overtime. they work 11 hours a day. they do not get paid overtime. they have incentives for drivers to go as fast as they can because they do get paid for their miles because they are paid on the basis of the number of miles the travel. so the whole system is kerflooey, if i can say it that's why. it has the incentive to drive faster and does not protect the drivers. in addition, the whole issue that ms. anne ferro raised, having to sit and wait for your freight to be loaded and unloaded, which is not paid time. sometimes required to wait

three hours. eleven hours of driving in three hours of waiting in ten hours of sleep, and then they start that process over again. at the 70 hours a week of work and get only 34 hours off. that is inhumane in our view and that is why this low pay is taking in manager of drivers. i would like to comment briefly on the issue of 70 percent of the traffic, the truck crashes are caused by the car drivers. the fact is that 96 percent of the time the car drivers are dead. deadman don't talk. when the police come to investigate the crash naturally the truck driver is going to say, well, it was not my fault and they want to retain their jobs. we understand. the people who were involved on the other side are not there to comment or explain. the police to not have the time to do a full-fledged investigation. they're moving traffic. sometimes backed up for hours as a result.

and so the studies that have been done on this, i think, have been inadequate commendable. >> minimal, yes. >> so i think that is not a number that should be used. i would like to say, i agree with the ata about having more technology and vehicles that does not in any way undermine the need to correct the hours of service rules. there are two different issues, both really important. we completely support technology improvement, but they are costly for the smaller, independent truckers. and they don't like him, and they oppose them. the final thing i would like to comment on if you don't mind one more minute is the insurance. the insurance numbers, 750,000 is totally inadequate for a major crash. insurance is designed to protect the people who are harmed, not designed

necessarily to assure that there will be more safety. there are other things that can be done to do that. but insurance should be at least brought up to inflation numbers which would bring it up to several million at least. one of the problems is that a lot of truck companies to have more insurance, which is great, but smaller companies don't. if you happened to be hit by a small truck company you're going to never get the kind of compensation you deserve. and with mexican trucks coming into play the only have to meet the minimum rules which is 750,000, and you will never be able to get more than that if they're is a major truck crash caused by a mexican truck. i think the rules need to be changed and the minimum insurance level should be substantially increased to several million, $45 million. .. four, $5 million. >> thank you. we will allow the record remain open. i know some of our witnesses they want to respond to points that have been made by other

members of the panel. and we're going to keep the record open for a week? i'm sorry, two weeks. two weeks. the judiciary committee is a week but i guess lawyers can talk to her or write quicker, or maybe they don't have as much to say. but that's not true, definitely. so thank you very, very much. this has been an excellent panel. i want to thank my colleagues, particularly senator blunt, for the really excellent participation, their differing points of view on this panel, and among us as colleagues. but i think what we have in common is the goal of increasing safety on our roads, and we have explored some areas where i think we have very definitely common ground and where the federal government can play a more constructive role. again, thank you so much and i look forward to working with every one of our members of the

panel and exploring and advancing these areas. thank you. the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> it used to be the government would say if you publish this story about national security, somebody will get killed. that's not good enough for me. i want to hear who. i want to hear the specifics. obviously i don't mean tell me how they're going to get killed. i mean tommy wait you mean. i really want to know you mean a case officer in tehran and tell me how. the second thing is i always demand their request to hold something back comes from the highest, very highest of government. if a press person asked for it, i would even take a call. it's got to come from somebody in the white house. it's got to come from the head of the cia and headed the nsa. it can't come for the press

person. usually when you say that, by the way, half of all requests go away because they are not quite willing to ratcheted up that high. i always insist they ratcheted up that high. very, very specific proof. and i would say still, most of the time we go with the story. but are there stories we have held over the years, stories that met that standard? gas. >> a portion for tonight's relationship with the press and the government. see that darty many p.m. eastern on our companion network, sees the end. -- c-span.

>> now, more from the series of author interviews vinik at

c-span's latest books, sundays at 8:00. this is a conversation with historian and author, david mccullough from our "q&a" problem. this is just under two hours. c-span: david mccullough, were did you get the title for your new book, "the greater journey"? >> guest: it happened on november 15th at the matter-of-fact. i somehow know exactly when i suddenly thought that is the title, "the greater journey," because i was trying to think what is this book about? it is about a journey, but a different kind of journey for a mission for an adventurer in odyssey. i kept working with these words. a word journey kept coming back. and then i was thinking about the voyage of these americans who ventured off to france at a

time when they were all only able to go across the north atlantic by failing at shea. and it was rough, but it was anything bad traveling on a cruise liner. what a journey that was. and then we got to go a half a day went by land, paris, which is a two day trip by a huge, cumbersome stagecoach affair. and they would stop halfway and they would see for the first time a european masterpiece and the masterpiece was the berlin cathedral. many of them wrote at length and very much at heart about the impact of this one building, this one experience. d