HR-3013-118
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 712.
Sponsored by Darin LaHood (R-IL)
What it does
This bill would permanently write into law certain flexibilities for commercial driver's license (CDL) testing that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) originally created as temporary waivers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, it would allow CDL skills test examiners who hold a valid certification and have completed a short additional training unit to also administer CDL knowledge (written) tests. It would also allow any state to conduct a CDL driving skills test for an applicant regardless of which state the applicant lives in or where they received their driver training.
Who benefits
CDL applicants who would gain more testing options, including the ability to take their skills test in a state other than where they live or trained — reducing scheduling delays. Trucking and commercial transportation companies that would benefit from a faster pipeline of newly licensed drivers. States and third-party testing examiners who would gain expanded authority to administer both knowledge and skills tests. Rural applicants or those in states with limited testing capacity who would have access to out-of-state testing sites.
Who is hurt
Applicants who rely on strict testing standards as a signal of driver quality may face uncertainty if expanded examiner roles reduce consistency. States that currently benefit from applicants being required to test in-state could see reduced testing revenue and administrative activity. Existing CDL holders and professional drivers who completed more rigorous testing pathways may argue the changes lower the bar for new entrants. Road safety advocates concerned that combining knowledge and skills testing roles in one examiner could reduce the independence and rigor of the evaluation process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the trucking industry faces a well-documented driver shortage, and unnecessary bureaucratic barriers to CDL testing make that shortage worse. The pandemic demonstrated that these testing flexibilities could be implemented without sacrificing safety — states and third-party examiners successfully used these waivers for years with no documented increase in accidents attributable to the changes. Making the flexibilities permanent simply codifies what already works. Allowing cross-state testing removes an arbitrary geographic restriction that has no bearing on whether a driver is qualified, and expanding the pool of examiners authorized to give knowledge tests reduces backlogs that delay qualified applicants from entering the workforce. The bill does not lower the substantive standards for obtaining a CDL; it only streamlines who can administer the tests and where they can be taken.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that pandemic-era waivers were emergency measures adopted under crisis conditions, not a deliberate policy choice, and that their temporary nature was intentional. Permanently embedding them into statute without a thorough safety review sets a troubling precedent of locking in shortcuts. Allowing a single examiner to administer both the knowledge and skills tests removes an important layer of independent oversight — the separation of those roles exists to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure objectivity. Cross-state testing may complicate enforcement and accountability when a driver licensed in one state causes an incident but was tested in another. Critics also note that the bill delegates significant operational discretion to states and third-party examiners without robust federal oversight mechanisms, raising questions about consistency and minimum standards across jurisdictions in a post-Loper Bright environment where agency interpretive authority is more limited.
Constitutional context
The federal government's authority to regulate CDL standards rests primarily on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8), as commercial trucking is quintessentially interstate commerce — affirmed broadly in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and refined in United States v. Lopez (1995), which requires a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Necessary and Proper Clause supports Congress's authority to set licensing standards for interstate carriers. The bill also touches on the Tenth Amendment: CDL testing has historically been administered by states, and the bill expands state discretion rather than commandeering state resources, which aligns with anti-commandeering principles. Post-Loper Bright (2024), the statutory clarity this bill provides is constitutionally significant — by codifying the waivers directly in statute, Congress removes reliance on FMCSA's own interpretive authority, which courts would no longer automatically defer to.
Checks and balances
This bill shifts authority modestly from the executive branch (FMCSA/Department of Transportation) to Congress by converting agency-issued emergency waivers into permanent statutory law. Congress would be setting the policy directly rather than delegating it to the agency. States and third-party examiners gain expanded operational authority. FMCSA retains its general oversight and enforcement role but loses the discretion to rescind or modify these specific flexibilities without new legislation.
Historical precedent
The FMCSA issued CDL testing waivers during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) under existing emergency authority. Congress has previously codified agency emergency actions into permanent law in transportation and safety contexts, though this specific type of CDL testing flexibility codification has no direct prior statutory parallel.