[Senate Hearing 116-565]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 116-565

                    AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS: 
                  KEEPING PACE WITH A GROWING ECONOMY

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 13, 2019
                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation


                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                  

                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                               
                             __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
52-565 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023                   
                
                

       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota             MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, 
ROY BLUNT, Missouri                      Ranking
TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          GARY PETERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE LEE, Utah                       TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               JON TESTER, Montana
TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
RICK SCOTT, Florida                  JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
                       John Keast, Staff Director
                  Crystal Tully, Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                 Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
              Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                      Renae Black, Senior Counsel
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on February 13, 2019................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Statement of Senator Gardner.....................................    56
Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    58
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    60
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    61
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    64
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    66
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    68
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    69
Statement of Senator Duckworth...................................    71
    Link for Chicago Tribune article.............................    72
    Prepared statement from GPS Innovation Alliance (GPSIA) and 
      the CompTIA Space Enterprise Council.......................    73
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    74
Statement of Senator Udall.......................................    76
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    77
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    79

                               Witnesses

William Friedman, Chairman, American Association of Port 
  Authorities, President and Chief Executive Officer, Cleveland-
  Cuyahoga County Port Authority.................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer, American 
  Cable Association..............................................    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    17
Matthew M. Polka, President and Chief Executive Officer, American 
  Cable Associations.............................................    24
    Prepared statement...........................................    25
Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer, American 
  Trucking Associations..........................................    33
    Prepared statement...........................................    34
Larry I. Willis, President, Transportation Trades Department, 
  AFL-CIO........................................................    45
    Prepared statement...........................................    46

                                Appendix

Letter dated January 15, 2019 to Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Hon. Kevin 
  McCarthy, Hon. Mitch McConnell and Hon. Charles E. Schumer from 
  a coaltion of energy businesses, trade associations, 
  researchers, energy officials and advocacy organizations.......    83
Jason Hartke, President, The Alliance to Save Energy, prepared 
  statement......................................................    85
Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation, prepared statement...    85
Response to written questions submitted to William Friedman by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................    87
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    88
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    89
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    90
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................    91
Response to written questions submitted to Ian Jefferies by:
    John Thune...................................................    91
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    92
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................    95
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................    95
Response to written questions submitted to Matthew M. Polka by:
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    96
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    97
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................   100
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................   100
    Hon. Jon Tester..............................................   100
Response to written questions submitted to Chris Spear by:
    Hon. John Thune..............................................   101
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................   102
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................   103
    Hon. Tom Udall...............................................   105
.................................................................
.................................................................

 
  AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS: KEEPING PACE WITH A GROWING ECONOMY

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2019

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in 
room SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Roger Wicker, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Wicker [presiding], Thune, Cruz, Moran, 
Gardner, Blackburn, Lee, Scott, Cantwell, Klobuchar, 
Blumenthal, Markey, Udall, Peters, Baldwin, Duckworth, Tester, 
and Rosen.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    The Chairman. Good morning. We may break at any moment to 
conduct some business, but I want to welcome everyone here 
today on behalf of my colleague, Ranking Member Cantwell, to 
discuss a pressing issue facing our nation: the state of our 
country's infrastructure.
    As we all know, President Trump continues to call for 
infrastructure revitalization. Just last week, in his State of 
the Union Address, he called on Congress to work with the 
Administration to pass an infrastructure bill.
    Infrastructure impacts nearly every corner of our country 
and economy--the corn and soybeans grown in the Midwest that 
are shipped through the Port of Seattle, the $323 billion in 
goods shipped each year to and from Colorado primarily by 
truck, the manufactured products moving through the Port of 
Anchorage, the 150 million tons of freight traveling by rail 
through West Virginia each year, and the billions of dollars of 
machinery shipped to and from Mississippi each year.
    Unfortunately, what was once the envy of the world, our 
infrastructure system has fallen behind on what is required to 
maintain America's competitiveness in a global market.
    The American Society of Civil Engineers Report Card gives 
our infrastructure a grade of D+. Our ports are congested. 
Millions continue to be without access to high-speed internet. 
Americans spend eight billion hours stuck in traffic each year.
    As an example, Los Angeles drivers spend 102 hours a year 
in traffic during peak times while London drivers spend only 74 
hours per year.
    In Mississippi alone, there are thousands of structurally 
deficient bridges. These statistics mean fewer jobs, less time 
with family, lower economic growth or worse.
    Fortunately, improving our infrastructure is an area where 
bipartisan agreement and cooperation can be found. This 
committee already has built upon and will continue to build on 
this history of bipartisanship as it relates to transportation 
and infrastructure legislation.
    Just last week, we kicked off the 116th Congress with a 
hearing on 5G Technology and the societal benefits of 
maintaining American leadership in innovation.
    5G has the ability to usher in a new era of connectivity 
through facilitation of cutting-edge medical services or 
autonomous and connected transportation technologies that allow 
vehicles to talk to each other or to communicate with roads, 
bridges or traffic signals in order to reduce accidents and 
increase mobility.
    Last fall, the Committee led Congress in passage of the 
Federal Aviation Administration's Reauthorization Act, which 
authorized the Federal Aviation Transportation Programs for 5 
years, promoting airport infrastructure safety and American 
leadership in aviation.
    Additionally, led by our friends over at the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, where I serve with many members 
of this committee, the 115th Congress authorized our Water 
Resources Infrastructure Programs by passing the America's 
Water Infrastructure Act.
    While it is recent, the Committee played a prominent role 
in fixing America's surface transportation in 2015. The FAST 
Act, a 5-year bill to improve our Nation's infrastructure, 
provided long-term funding certainty for transportation 
infrastructure investment. It also improves surface 
transportation safety, enhanced economic growth, increased 
freight connectivity, and streamlined project delivery. This 
important legislation expires in 2020.
    Working with our colleagues on the other relevant 
committees, the Commerce Committee will continue to work on the 
future of our infrastructure system.
    Our committee has broad jurisdiction over issues affecting 
ports, rail, trucking, aviation, and telecommunications. More 
specifically with respect to transportation, the Commerce 
Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of 
Transportation's Office of The Secretary, which includes grant 
programs, like BUILD, which has never been authorized, and 
important programs under the BUILD America Bureau.
    Additionally, this committee oversees various Highway Trust 
Fund and General Fund programs under important modal 
administrations and independent agencies, including the FAA, 
the Federal Railroad Administration, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, Maritime Administration, Surface Transportation 
Board, and National Transportation Safety Board.
    On telecommunication issues, this committee oversees the 
FCC, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration of the 
Department of Commerce.
    Given its jurisdiction, this committee is in a unique 
position to examine how technology, including advances in 
automation, artificial intelligence, and connectivity, can 
revolutionize transportation and mobility for the 21st Century.
    During today's hearing, I look forward to hearing from our 
witnesses.
    Mr. William Friedman, Chairman of the American Association 
of Port Authorities and also the President and Chief Executive 
Officer of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority; Mr. 
Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer of the 
Association of American Railroads; Matthew Polka, President and 
Chief Executive Officer of the American Cable Association; Mr. 
Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer of the 
American Trucking Association; and Mr. Larry Willis, President 
of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
    Their testimony will address many of the critical issues 
that this committee will need to discuss.
    I look forward to a thoughtful discussion of these 
important topics so we can work to rebuild our Nation's 
infrastructure.
    I want to welcome all of our witnesses and recognize my 
friend, the Ranking Member, Senator Cantwell.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Wicker follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. Roger Wicker, U.S. Senator from Mississippi
    Good morning. I am here today with my colleague, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, to discuss a pressing issue facing our nation-the state of 
our country's infrastructure.
    As we all know, President Trump continues to call for 
infrastructure revitalization. Just last week in his State of the Union 
address he called on Congress to work with the Administration to pass 
an infrastructure bill.
    Infrastructure impacts nearly every corner of our country and 
economy--the corn and soybeans grown in the Midwest that are shipped 
through the Port of Seattle, the $323 billion in goods shipped each 
year to and from Colorado primarily by truck, the manufactured products 
moving through the port of Anchorage, the 150 million tons of freight 
traveling by rail through West Virginia each year, and the billions of 
dollars of machinery shipped to and from Mississippi each year.
    Unfortunately, what was once the envy of the world, our 
infrastructure system has fallen behind on what is required to maintain 
America's competitiveness in a global market.
    The American Society of Civil Engineers report card gives our 
infrastructure a grade of D+. Our ports are congested. Millions 
continue to be without access to high-speed internet. Americans spend 
eight billion hours stuck in traffic each year. As an example, Los 
Angeles drivers spend 102 hours a year in traffic during peak times, 
while London drivers spend only 74 hours a year. In Mississippi alone, 
there are thousands of structurally deficient bridges. These statistics 
mean fewer jobs, less time with family, lower economic growth, or 
worse.
    Fortunately, improving our infrastructure is an area where 
bipartisan agreement and cooperation can be found. This Committee 
already has built upon and will continue to build on this history of 
bipartisanship as it relates to transportation and infrastructure 
legislation.
    Just last week, we kicked off the 116th Congress with a hearing on 
5G technology and the societal benefits of maintaining American 
leadership in innovation. 5G has the ability to usher in a new era of 
connectivity through facilitation of cutting edge medical services or 
autonomous and connected transportation technologies--that allow 
vehicles to talk to each other or to communicate with roads, bridges, 
or traffic signals in order to reduce accidents and increase mobility.
    Last fall, the Committee led Congress in passage of the Federal 
Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act, which authorized the 
Federal aviation transportation programs for five years, promoting 
airport infrastructure, safety, and American leadership in aviation.
    Additionally, led by our friends over at the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works, where I serve with many members of this 
committee, the 115th Congress authorized our water resources 
infrastructure programs by passing the America's Water Infrastructure 
Act.
    While less recent, the Committee played a prominent role in the 
Fixing America's Surface Transportation in 2015. The FAST Act--a five-
year bill to improve our Nation's infrastructure--provided long-term 
funding certainty for transportation infrastructure investment. It also 
improved surface transportation safety, enhanced economic growth, 
increased freight connectivity, and streamlined project delivery. This 
important legislation expires in 2020.
    Working with our colleagues on the other relevant committees, the 
Commerce Committee will continue to work on the future of our 
infrastructure system. Our committee has broad jurisdiction over issues 
affecting ports, rail, trucking, aviation, and telecommunications.
    More specifically, with respect to transportation, the Commerce 
Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of Transportation's 
Office of the Secretary, which includes grant programs like BUILD, 
which has never been authorized, and important programs under the Build 
America Bureau.
    Additionally, this Committee oversees various Highway Trust Fund 
and General Fund programs under important modal administrations and 
independent agencies, including the FAA, the Federal Railroad 
Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Maritime Administration, Surface 
Transportation Board, and National Transportation Safety Board.
    On telecommunications issues, this Committee oversees the FCC, the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and National Telecommunications 
and Information Administration of the Department of Commerce.
    Given its jurisdiction, this committee is in a unique position to 
examine how technology, including advances in automation, artificial 
intelligence, and connectivity, can revolutionize transportation and 
mobility for the 21st Century.
    During today's hearing, I look forward to hearing from our 
witnesses:

   Mr. William Friedman, Chairman of the American Association 
        of Port Authorities, and also the President and Chief Executive 
        Officer of the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority;

   Mr. Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive Officer of 
        the Association of American Railroads;

   Matthew Polka, President and Chief Executive Officer of the 
        American Cable Association;

   Mr. Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer of 
        the American Trucking Association;

   Mr. Larry Willis, President of the Transportation Trades 
        Department, AFL-CIO

    Their testimony will address many of the critical issues that this 
committee will need to discuss.
    I look forward to a thoughtful discussion on these important topics 
so we can work to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure.

               STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and I, too, 
welcome all the witnesses here today.
    Sometimes a good message is worth repeating. So let me add 
my infrastructure investment rejoinder to your comments.
    We know the importance of infrastructure and we also know 
what happens when we don't invest. Just this week, the Seattle 
Times ran an article about how Seattle had the sixth worst 
congestion in our country and that drivers lost a whopping 138 
hours to traffic last year. That's almost 6 days. So that is 
about productivity and about cost.
    To add insult to injury, yesterday the 2019 top truck 
bottlenecks reports came out and found out Washington State has 
six of the top 100 bottlenecks in the country. So to my 
colleague's comments about ``how freight can't wait'' and how 
the competitiveness of moving our products is critical to not 
just my state's products but to our entire nation's, I thank 
him for mentioning those.
    In Washington State, we know we have to invest in 
infrastructure and we're not alone. Traffic isn't the only 
problem. We know that whether that is bad roads or packed buses 
or not implementing PTC that they can have tragic consequences.
    So what we need to do is move forward. The bottlenecks that 
were mentioned by my colleague on rail lines and our inability 
to move product can lessen our Nation's competitiveness if we 
don't get infrastructure right.
    It's not just that people or consumers lose their products, 
have to wait or that the cost is more. We lose our 
competitiveness to other nations who might be able to move 
those products faster.
    And my colleague also mentioned the underserved, rural and 
tribal communities that lack appropriate broadband access, 
which is critical to competing in the 21st Century global 
economy.
    So we all agree that we need a heavy investment in 
infrastructure. I know the President originally called for a $1 
trillion investment in infrastructure, but the plan that was 
put forth at $200 billion in Federal investment, relies heavily 
on public-private partnerships and more tolls. I think this has 
been received with a great deal of skepticism across the 
country.
    What I think we need to do, my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle put forth an infrastructure proposal and really tried 
to focus on the return on investment that we get from 
infrastructure investment, whether that is aviation, maritime, 
broadband, or things as basic as grid modernization, are about 
transforming our community and using the resources of our 
cherished infrastructure investment in the appropriate ways.
    I hope our Committee will take a look at that proposal.
    This past month, with the shutdown, I think we got a very 
clear look at what happens when transportation doesn't work. We 
know that transportation employees, like air traffic 
controllers and transportation security workers, met their 
challenges but faced many of them, and we don't want to see 
that happen again.
    The shutdown is a wake-up call for us that says that we 
have to invest in these critical aspects of infrastructure to 
move our economy forward.
    So I look forward to working with the Chairman and the 
members of this committee on our economic competitiveness as a 
nation. It requires real investment in infrastructure and I 
hope that we'll get a chance to talk about that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator from Washington
    Thank you Chairman Wicker, and I too welcome all the witnesses here 
today. Sometimes a good message is worth repeating, so let me add my 
infrastructure investment rejoinder to your comments.
    We know the importance of infrastructure and we also know what 
happens when we don't invest. Just this week The Seattle Times ran an 
article about how Seattle had the 6th worst congestion in our country 
and that drivers lost a whopping 138 hours to traffic last year. That's 
almost 6 days. So that is about productivity and about cost. To add 
insult to injury, yesterday 2019 Top Truck Bottlenecks reports came out 
and found that Washington state has six of the top 100 bottlenecks in 
the country. So to my colleagues comments about how freight can't wait, 
and how the competitiveness of moving our products is critical to not 
just my state's products, but to our entire nation's, I thank him for 
mentioning those.
    In Washington state we know we have to invest in infrastructure, 
and we're not alone. And traffic isn't the only problem. We know that 
whether that is bad roads or packed busses or not implementing PTC, 
that they can have tragic consequences. So what we need to do is move 
forward. The bottlenecks that were mentioned by my colleague, on our 
rail lines, and also our inability to move product, can lessen our 
Nation's competitiveness if we don't get infrastructure right. It's not 
that people who just are consumers lose their products or have to wait 
or that the cost is more--we lose our competitiveness to other nations 
who might be able to move those products faster.
    And my colleague also mentioned the underserved and rural 
communities and Tribal communities that lack appropriate broadband 
access, which is critical to competing in the 21st century global 
economy. So we all agree that we need a heavy investment in 
infrastructure. I know the president initially called for a one 
trillion dollar investment in infrastructure, but the plan that puts 
forth the 200 billion dollars of Federal investment relies heavily on a 
public-private partnership and more tolls. I think this has been 
received with a great deal of skepticism across the country.
    What I think we need to do--my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
put forth an infrastructure proposal and really try to focus on the ROI 
that we get from infrastructure investment. Whether that is aviation, 
maritime, broadband, or things as basic as grid modernization, are 
about transforming our community and using the resources of our 
cherished infrastructure investment in the appropriate ways. I hope our 
committee will take a look at that proposal.
    This past month with the shutdown, I think we got a very clear look 
at what happens when transportation doesn't work. We know that 
transportation employees, like air traffic controllers and 
transportation security workers, met their challenges but faced many of 
them. And we don't want to see that happen again. The shutdown is a 
wakeup call for us that says we have to invest in these critical 
aspects of infrastructure to move our economy forward. So I look 
forward to working with the Chairman and the members of this committee 
on our economic competiveness as a nation. It requires real investment 
in infrastructure, and I hope that we'll get a chance to talk about 
that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell, for an excellent 
opening statement.
    We'll begin now with the statements of our witnesses, 
limited to 5 minutes or less, and it may be that upon reaching 
a quorum, we'll take care of a few items of business.
    But, Mr. Friedman, we are delighted to have you here and 
you're welcome to proceed.

            STATEMENT OF WILLIAM FRIEDMAN, CHAIRMAN,

           AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES,

             PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

            CLEVEAND-CUYAHOGA COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY

    Mr. Friedman. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for holding this important 
hearing and for inviting me on behalf of the American 
Association of Port Authorities.
    Our nation is at a critical time for making needed Federal 
investments in our port-related infrastructure. Rising freight 
volumes on all three coasts and the Great Lakes means we must 
upgrade our water-side and land-side infrastructure to 
accommodate larger ships, more ships, and the accompanying 
rising freight volumes and passenger surges.
    It has been more than 60 years since President Eisenhower 
proposed and began building out the interstate highway system 
in 1956, but until the FAST Act, freight hadn't been fully 
considered or recognized as a national policy priority.
    During this time, there have been eight evolutions of the 
container ship evolving to ships today with capacities of 
18,000 20-foot equivalent units and beyond while our country 
has relied upon essentially the same connecting infrastructure 
to accommodate and facilitate this phenomenal growth in freight 
volumes.
    Overall maritime cargo volumes have also seen marked 
increases over the past six decades which continuously impacts 
our freight infrastructure. Total U.S. waterborne tonnage 
roughly doubled between 1956 and 2017. Since 2000, container 
volumes increased 71 percent, cruise passengers through our 
port terminals went up 98 percent, and total foreign trade in 
short tons rose by 37 percent.
    At my port, we went from zero container service in 2014 to 
an annual increase of 50 percent. Our cruise business has 
increased by 27 percent since 2017, and 13.5 million tons of 
cargo, foreign and domestic, moved through Cleveland Harbor 
last year.
    The FAST Act created two funding programs totaling 11 
billion in dedicated freight funding over 5 years. However, of 
that total, only 1.13 billion is multimodal-eligible, which is 
to say not limited to road or highway work. This is far below 
what's needed to build out a 21st Century multimodal freight 
network.
    Only 200 million of multimodal eligibility remain of the 
roughly two billion that remains in the INFRA Program.
    AAPA members, our ports, have identified more than 20 
billion in multimodal funding needs for public port authorities 
alone over the next decade. In my region of the country, a new 
lock for cargo ships on the Great Lakes authorized in the 2018 
WIA Bill is projected to cost $922 million.
    At my port in Cleveland, we have capital needs exceeding 60 
million, including a new main gate, a U.S. Customs facility to 
process cruise ship passengers, several wharf structure 
rehabilitations and capacity expansion at our bulk terminal.
    Clearly, multimodal project funding levels and project 
eligibility need to be improved. Therefore, AAPA recommends the 
following. All freight program funding should be 100 percent 
multimodal and the cap on INFRA grants and the Formula Program 
should be lifted.
    I want to thank Ranking Member Cantwell for your leadership 
on multimodal freight programs that we have in place today and 
we look forward to working with you to expand those programs in 
the near future.
    We also recommend including a maritime supply chain title 
in the next reauthorization bill that recognizes the evolving 
supply chain needs of the multimodal freight network.
    AAPA strongly supports Chairman Wicker's Port Act which 
improves MARAD's Port Infrastructure Development Program and 
would provide resources to port terminals and access projects.
    AAPA supports a gas tax increase, a VMT program, and has 
endorsed the concept of a one-percent freight weigh bill fee to 
support freight infrastructure improvements.
    AAPA strongly supports the current multimodal U.S. DOT 
grant program, such as BUILD, CRISI, and INFRA, and recommends 
that any new funding be multimodal eligible.
    The Rail Rehabilitation Innovation Financing Program has 
been in existence since 2002 but only last year did a port, the 
Port of Everett in Washington State, receive a RRIF loan. More 
ports could take advantage of the program if the financing fee 
were removed.
    We appreciate the Committee's emphasis on infrastructure 
security and you should know that our member ports recently 
identified about four billion in port security funding needs 
for U.S. port authorities alone over the next 10 years. We need 
to invest in port infrastructure and we need to secure it.
    Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of our 
Nation's ports. AAPA looks forward to working with you 
throughout the 116th Congress.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Friedman follows:]

Prepared Statement of William Friedman, Chairman, American Association 
 of Port Authorities; President and Chief Executive Officer,Cleveland-
                     Cuyahoga County Port Authority
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing.
    It is a critical time for making needed Federal investments in the 
Nation's port-related infrastructure. Rising freight volumes on all 
three coasts and the Great Lakes means we must upgrade our waterside 
and landside infrastructure to accommodate larger ships and the 
accompanying freight volume and passenger surges. Nowhere is there such 
a stark example of our country's infrastructure needs and the failure 
to keep pace with our growing economy than with freight-and port-
related infrastructure investments.
    To put our national state of freight into perspective, it's been 
more than 60 years since President Eisenhower proposed and began 
building out the Interstate Highway System in 1956. But until the FAST 
Act, freight had not been fully considered or realized as a national 
policy priority.
    However, during the same 60-year period, there have been eight 
evolutions of the containership, starting with vessel capacities of 500 
twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), evolving to ships with capacities 
of 18,000 TEUs and beyond, which are as high as a New York skyscraper 
and as wide as a 10-lane freeway. This means that that shipping 
industry has reinvested in their ships eight times while our country 
has relied upon essentially the same infrastructure to accommodate and 
facilitate an astronomical growth in freight volumes.
    Maritime cargo volumes have also seen marked increases over the 
past six decades and have continuously impacted our freight 
infrastructure. Total U.S. waterborne tonnage roughly doubled between 
1956 and 2017, but this is due almost entirely to U.S. foreign trade 
growth which has seen nearly a 500 percent increase during that time 
frame, based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data.
    In the last 17 years alone, container volumes have increased by 71 
percent, passengers through our cruise port terminals increased by 98 
percent, and total foreign trade in short tons increased by 37 percent.
    At my port, the Port of Cleveland, our sustained growth is a 
microcosm of our entire industry. We went from zero container service 
in 2014 to an annual increase of 50 percent. Our cruise business has 
increased by 27 percent since 2017 and 13.5 million tons of cargo moved 
through the Cleveland harbor last year.
    Ports are national resources and we must invest in them as a 
nation. Communities adjacent to ports and inland states rely on us for 
jobs and to connect them to the global economy, as well as to the 
occasional vacation aboard a cruise ship.
    The infrastructure investments we make at ports, be it highway 
connectors or rail access projects, directly impact our partners in the 
rail and trucking industry who are with us here today. Just as 
important, targeted investments at maritime facilities provided a level 
of certainty and efficiency to a growing and interconnected supply 
chain.
    Ports are the initiators and facilitators of the supply chain. Mega 
shipping alliances, operating mega-large vessels, have a cascading 
effect when their ships arrive at U.S. ports. This includes the need 
for larger cranes to load-and off-load containers, additional port-
related labor, more chasses on which to move the containers in, out and 
around the terminals, and adjusting truck gate times to address the 
changing work load.
    Another supply chain challenge is proper maintenance of Federal 
navigation channels. AAPA has a legislative proposal to make full use 
of Harbor Maintenance Tax revenues, based on a fair and equitable 
funding framework that was agreed to last year by the Nation's public 
ports.
    In 2015, America's seaports took a big step forward after passage 
of the FAST Act. With the creation of two funding programs; Projects of 
Highway and Freight Significance (discretionary) and National Highway 
Freight Program (formula), the FAST Act provided a total of $11 billion 
in dedicated freight funding over five years. However, of that total, 
only $1.13 billion is multimodal eligible, far below what is needed to 
build out a 21st century multimodal freight network. Only $200 million 
of multimodal eligibility remain for the INFRA program, for the roughly 
$2 billion dollars that remain in the INFRA program.
    Last year, in The State of Freight III report, AAPA members 
identified more than $20 billion in multimodal funding needs for public 
port authorities alone over the next decade. A top priority for the 
port industry continues to be multimodal funding.
    The immediate challenges confronting the freight programs are 
funding levels and project eligibility. The current freight programs 
are funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, which means that eligible 
projects are primarily highway focused. Highways are important to our 
freight network, but ports are multimodal facilitators, meaning trains, 
trucks, ships and barges all need access to them.
    To build off the work in the FAST Act, AAPA recommends that all 
freight program funding should be 100 percent multimodal. A first step 
in accomplishing this would be to lift the multimodal cap on the INFRA 
grants and the formula program.
    As Congress begins the process of reauthorizing the FAST Act, MARAD 
has several freight infrastructure programs that are important tools to 
be included and leveraged within the national freight portfolio. 
Specifically, the America's Marine Highway and the Port Infrastructure 
Development programs are currently authorized initiatives that will 
need to be revised, updated and refocused to meet the evolving supply 
chain needs of the multimodal freight network.
    AAPA strongly supports Chairman Wicker's PORT Act, which improves 
MARAD's Port Infrastructure Development program and would provide 
resources to ports for first-and lastmile multimodal projects that 
connect ports to the surface transportation network. We would also like 
to work with the committee in updating the America's Marine Highway so 
that it can meet the needs of ports and shippers and continue to be a 
viable supply chain tool. AAPA recommends that Congress include these 
programs as a maritime supply chain title in the next reauthorization 
bill.
    Having additional maritime freight supply chain resources and 
updating the existing authorizations will leverage existing resources 
and programs, providing a more comprehensive approach to building out a 
21st century freight network.
    An example of refreshing prior authorizations from the last 
reauthorization bill would be the inclusion and consolidation of 
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant programs into the CRISI 
program in the FAST Act. In this program, Multimodal and port rail 
access projects are eligible projects. In AAPA's The State of Freight 
III--Rail Access and Port Multimodal Funding Needs Report, a third of 
ports identified pressing rail project needs that will cost more than 
$50 million over the next decade. In fact, rail access is so important 
to the port and supply chain industry that within this same time frame, 
77 percent of ports said they are planning on-dock, near-dock or rail 
access projects.
    Additionally, AAPA strongly supports the multimodal USDOT grant 
programs such as BUILD, CRISI and INFRA programs. But the BUILD 
program, and its TIGER predecessor, has been more than just a 
discretionary program to the port industry. It was the first program 
that ports were eligible and is multimodal. It also brought ports into 
the surface transportation fold, which meant that whether ports 
received a TIGER/BUILD grant or not, they were encouraged to coordinate 
a project with their state and local MPO before submitting it. That 
meant ports were becoming part of the planning process and freight was 
beginning to get a seat at the table.
    Further, International trade through seaports accounts for over a 
quarter of the U.S. GDP. At the center of trade and transportation are 
America's seaports, which handle approximately $6 billion worth of 
import and export goods daily, generate over 23 million jobs, and 
provide more than $320 billion annually in federal, state and local tax 
revenues. Seaports also are projected to handle nearly 12 million 
cruise passengers from around the country and around the world. AAPA is 
concerned that port states are penalized by the 10 percent maximum per 
state called for in previous appropriation bills, as well as the set 
sides for metropolitan and rural areas. Because seaports have such a 
national and international reach, ports are national infrastructure 
resources that support metropolitan and rural supply chains and that 
any port project awarded should not count against a state, rural or 
metropolitan cap.
    Long-term, sustainable multimodal funding is critical, and we 
encourage you to start looking at solutions. AAPA has endorsed the 
concept of a 1 percent waybill fee as an equitable approach to provide 
immediate and long-term funding for multimodal freight infrastructure 
challenges. Additionally, AAPA supports a gas tax increase as well as a 
VMT program. With all increased funding, AAPA recommends that any new 
funding be multimodal-eligible.
    Also, the Build America Transportation Investment Center, or BATIC, 
which was codified in the FAST Act, can be a tool for ports to explore 
ways to access private capital in publicprivate partnership. The Rail 
Rehabilitation Innovation Financing (RRIF) program has been in 
existence since 2002 and only late last year did a port receive a RRIF 
loan. And as Ranking Member Cantwell knows, it was the Port of Everett. 
One recommendation to make RRIF more accessible to ports was to provide 
100 percent financing. AAPA members responded that there were 
potentially 75 BUILD/TIGER projects that would become RRIF-financed 
projects if the financing fee was removed.
    On the operational front, the Federal Government has a vital role 
to play with freight flow performance. For our ports to perform 
efficiently, CBP must be adequately funded and staffed. In 2015, the 
last time CBP was funded to hire additional staff only 20 of 2000 staff 
were assigned to seaports. As an industry, with growing volumes in 
freight and passengers, we would like to see, at a minimum, annual 
hiring of CBP staff to 500 annually, over and above attrition. This may 
sound like an appropriations or Homeland Security issue, but it is a 
supply chain problem.
    Finally, we appreciate the emphasis this committee has put on 
infrastructure security in this Congress. AAPA strongly supports the 
approach that, as a nation, we should protect the infrastructure and 
supply chain we are investing in. AAPA members recently identified 
upwards of $4 billion in port security funding needs for U.S. port 
authorities alone over the next 10 years, which comes to $400 million 
annually. Seaports are essential economic engines whose cargo 
activities support over 23 million American jobs and account for over a 
quarter of the U.S. economy.
    We need to invest in port infrastructure and we need to secure it.
    I look forward to answering any questions the committee members 
have and AAPA looks forward to working with you throughout the 116th 
Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
                 AAPA FAST Act Reauthorization Platform
    As Congress prepares to engage on reauthorization of the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the following platform of 
recommendations was developed by the American Association of Port 
Authorities (AAPA) as a blueprint for that legislation.
    U.S. seaports represent a vital economic engine of our national 
economy. In its 2014 report on the National Economic Impact of the U.S. 
Coastal Port System, Martin Associates of Lancaster, PA, cited 
America's seaports as influencing more than 23 million U.S. jobs and 
generating $321 billion in federal, state and local tax revenue. Cargo 
activities through these deepwater ports were also cited as being 
responsible for $4.6 trillion in total economic activity, representing 
a quarter of the Nation's economy. Martin Associates will unveil an 
updated U.S. coastal port system economic impacts report on March 20, 
2019, at the annual AAPA Spring Conference in Washington, DC.
    Nations around the world have recognized the need to make 
significant investments in their multimodal freight networks to 
accommodate increasing trade volumes, larger vessels and dynamic shifts 
in trade to be globally competitive. For example, Canada's national 
gateway initiative includes a strategy to serve America's heartland. It 
is imperative for the United States to develop and fund a strong 
national freight strategy to remain competitive in the global economy. 
To do this, the United States must make a sustained investment in its 
multimodal freight network.
    The following recommendations for the AAPA FAST Act Reauthorization 
Platform have been collected and presented by an AAPA FAST Act working 
group, the AAPA Freight Task Force and approved by AAPA's Legislative 
Policy Council (LPC). Many of these proposed recommendations are broad. 
AAPA looks forward to working with Congress and the Administration in 
providing port and supply chain expertise and guidance as these 
recommendations evolve to policy and legislative text.
Key Recommendations
   Create a freight trust fund with a sustainable funding 
        source that can address the growing demand for multimodal 
        projects. The next reauthorization bill must identify 
        sustainable multimodal funding that can directly fund the 
        freight programs created by the FAST Act. AAPA is supportive of 
        direct funding for freight through a waybill fee concept or 
        vehicle miles traveled (VMT) freight pilot program.

   Include a Maritime Freight Supply Chain title in the 
        reauthorization of the FAST Act.

   Remove multimodal caps from the Infrastructure for 
        Rebuilding America (INFRA) grants and FAST Act formula program 
        within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).

   Continue to fund USDOT's Better Utilizing Investments to 
        Leverage Development (BUILD) or a similar discretionary 
        transportation infrastructure grants program at $1.5 billion 
        annually, with a minimum of 25 percent dedicated to port-
        related infrastructure, and exempt port projects from the state 
        cap maximum.

   Establish a high-level multimodal freight office within 
        USDOT that coordinates policy, the national and the state 
        freight plans, multiagency freight grant programs and 
        complements the Build America Bureau within USDOT.

   Provide a sustainable and dedicated funding source for the 
        freight network programs. AAPA endorses the concept of a 
        waybill fee (based on the domestic transportation cost of 
        goods) as an equitable approach to provide long-term multimodal 
        funding for freight.

   Provide robust authorization levels for the Maritime 
        Administration's (MARAD) America's Marine Highway Program and 
        the proposed Protecting Orderly and Responsible Transit of 
        Shipments (PORTS) Act for first-and last-mile capacity 
        enhancements.

   Encourage truck parking and staging plans be included in 
        every state freight plan.

   Require each state to include supply chain cargo flows by 
        all modes of transportation and benefits within each state 
        freight plan and include the impacts of e-commerce on freight 
        infrastructure.

   Require states to include their state freight plans as a 
        component of the state transportation plan.

   Continue to fully fund the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure 
        and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program, with an emphasis on 
        port rail access projects.

   Ensure that all commercial ports be included in the national 
        multimodal freight map/network.

   Integrate greater port eligibility and freight network 
        program integration with the Intelligent Transportation Systems 
        (ITS) programs.

   Strongly encourage maritime and supply chain expertise in 
        each state DOT.

   Continue to advocate for a national multimodal freight 
        strategic plan that would be administered out of a high-level 
        multimodal freight office within the USDOT
                      I. Building Off the FAST Act
    Freight, with an emphasis on goods that move through America's 
seaports, took a big step forward after passage of the FAST Act. With 
the creation of two funding programs; Projects of Highway and Freight 
Significance (discretionary) and National Highway Freight Program 
(formula), the FAST Act provided a total of $11 billion in dedicated 
freight funding over five years. However, of that total, only $1.13 
billion is multimodal eligible, far below what is needed to build out a 
21st century multimodal freight network.
    The immediate challenges confronting the freight programs are 
funding levels and project eligibility. The current freight programs 
are funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, which means that eligible 
projects are primarily highway focused. Highways are important to our 
freight network, but ports are multimodal facilitators, meaning trains, 
trucks and ships all need access to them. One could argue that as our 
supply chain becomes more sophisticated and there are more inland 
distribution centers with the advent of e-commerce, demand for 
multimodal funding will increase. In 2018, AAPA identified more than 
$20 billion in multimodal funding needs for public port authorities 
alone over the next decade. A top priority for the port industry 
continues to be multimodal funding.
    To build off the work in the FAST Act, AAPA believes that all 
freight program funding should be 100 percent multimodal. A first step 
in accomplishing this would be to lift the multimodal cap on the INFRA 
grants and the formula program.
    Equally important from a supply chain perspective, the FAST Act 
requires that states complete state freight plans to continue receiving 
their freight formula funding. The results have been telling. By the 
end of 2018, 95 percent of the states had submitted multimodal state 
freight plans to USDOT. This is important because it signals that 
states recognize the value and have the demand for multimodal projects. 
States and ports will need a multimodal funding source, or an 
eligibility fix, to build out their state freight plans. State freight 
plans are the blueprint for multimodal state and Federal investments. 
These plans are set to be revised every five years, which put them 
roughly on the same track as the FAST Act. Ports and their stakeholders 
must continue to engage with their Freight Advisory Committees and with 
their state DOTs. Additionally, the requirements of the state freight 
plans should be revisited to reflect the changing demands of the supply 
chain.
    The FAST Act has provided the programmatic framework for a 21st 
century multimodal freight network. However, to fully leverage the 
success of the legislation's freight provisions, the next 
reauthorization bill will need to address increasing funding levels 
while identifying a multimodal funding source.
Include a Maritime Freight Supply Chain Title in the Reauthorization of 
        the FAST Act
    Ports are access points. Road and rail first-and last-mile projects 
within the supply chain efficiently connect ports to the surface 
transportation network. Ports need to be further integrated with the 
surface transportation network and maritime policy needs to be 
integrated within USDOT by including a maritime freight supply chain 
title in the FAST Act reauthorization bill.
    MARAD has several freight infrastructure programs that are 
important tools to be included and leveraged within the national 
freight portfolio. Specifically, the America's Marine Highway and the 
Port Infrastructure Investment Programs are currently authorized 
initiatives that will need to be revised, updated and refocused to meet 
the evolving supply chain needs of the freight network.
    An example of refreshing old authorizations from the last 
reauthorization bill would be the inclusion of Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) grant programs in the FAST Act. The FAST Act 
folded FRA rail programs into the CRISI Program. Multimodal and port 
rail access projects are eligible projects. In AAPA's State of Freight 
III--Rail Access and Port Multimodal Funding Needs Report, a third of 
ports identified pressing rail project needs that will cost more than 
$50 million over the next decade. In fact, rail access is so important 
to the port industry and supply chain that within this same time frame, 
77 percent of ports are planning on-dock, near-dock or rail access 
projects.
    AAPA believes having additional maritime freight supply chain 
resources and updating the existing authorizations will leverage 
existing resources and programs, providing a more comprehensive 
approach to building out a 21st century freight network.
Recommendations
   Include a Maritime Freight Supply Chain title in the 
        reauthorization of the FAST Act.

   Include the proposed PORTS Act, a multimodal first-and last-
        mile connection program administered by MARAD that updates the 
        Port Infrastructure Development Program, (46USC 50302), and 
        include authorized funding levels and identify a multimodal 
        funding source or general funds.

   Update the America's Marine Highway Program authorization 
        and include it in the Maritime Freight Supply Chain title.
Multimodal Freight Office Within USDOT
    In building off the FAST Act, establishing a multimodal freight 
office within the DOT would best leverage across all modes planning 
tools and resources made available in the FAST Act and the proposed 
maritime freight supply chain title.
    A multimodal freight office is an ideal spot to administer the 
soon-to-be-released multimodal freight network and the multimodal 
freight plan. Both these documents are templates to work from and would 
be best implemented in a mode-neutral office. Additionally, the 
multimodal freight office would have oversight over the FAST Act 
compliant state freight plans, which are all multimodal.
    Furthermore, with multimodal funding programs in USDOT's Federal 
Highway Administration, MARAD and FRA, a multimodal freight office will 
coordinate and direct investment and policy.
    Finally, AAPA believes that a multimodal freight office would 
complement the Build America Bureau within USDOT. In the original FAST 
Act, consolidating the Build America Bureau's lending and financing 
programs into one allowed for better leveraging of those programs to 
meet the Administration's goals. A freight office would be better 
positioned to work with these new, multimodal focused programs, and to 
lead the development of a multimodal network necessary to meet 21st 
century supply chain and transportation needs.
Recommendation
   Authorize, fund and staff a high-level multimodal freight 
        office within USDOT. The office will oversee the multimodal 
        freight network plan, as well as the multimodal FAST Act 
        compliant state freight plans. Multimodal discretionary grant 
        programs should also be coordinated out of that office.

   Continue to advocate for a national multimodal freight 
        strategic plan that would be administered out of a high-level 
        multimodal freight office.
Coordinate Maritime Infrastructure Needs with Private Sector Investment 
        and Other Federal Resources
    For the first time, the 2015 FAST Act brought ports into the 
surface transportation network. Ports are now in the planning process 
and ports are eligible for the formula and discretionary funding 
programs, but port-related infrastructure has some catching up to do.
    To put our national state of freight into perspective, it's been 
more than 60 years since President Eisenhower proposed and began 
building out the Interstate Highway System in 1956. Meanwhile, freight 
has always been a significant component of our national infrastructure 
needs. But until the FAST Act, freight had not been fully considered or 
realized as a national policy priority.
    However, during the same 60-year period, starting in 1956, there 
have been eight evolutions of the containership, starting with vessel 
capacities of 500 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), and evolving to 
ships with capacities of 18,000 TEUs and beyond, which are as high as a 
skyscraper and as wide as a 10-lane freeway.
    Ports are facilitators of the supply chain. Mega shipping 
alliances, operating mega-large vessels, have a cascading effect when 
their ships arrive at U.S. ports. This includes the need for larger 
cranes to load and off-load containers, additional labor, more chassis 
to move the containers in, out and around the terminals, and adjusting 
gate times to address the changing work load.
    Volumes of other cargoes, such as automobiles, have also seen 
marked increases over the past six decades and have continuously 
impacted our freight infrastructure. For example, total U.S. waterborne 
tonnage roughly doubled between 1956 and 2017, but this is due almost 
entirely to U.S. foreign trade growth which has seen nearly a 500 
percent increase during that time frame, based on U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers data.
    Today, our multimodal freight system and national supply chain are 
in a constant state of flux, constantly reacting to the changes of a 
global marketplace. If we are going to have a sustained, coordinated 
and planned freight network, the shipping industry will need to be a 
part of the process and the solution.
    Now that freight transportation is recognized as a national 
priority, the Federal Government can play a greater role investing and 
coordinating the freight network to efficiently and safely handle 
surging freight volumes by coordinating with states on their state 
freight plans and with freight advisory committees.
    The USDOT should utilize the Commerce Department and other Federal 
resources for anticipating trade that feeds our supply chain to assist 
in ``rightsizing'' Federal infrastructure investments in line with 
pending trade agreements and trade projections.
    Additionally, for U.S. ports to operate efficiently, U.S. Customs 
and Border Protection (CBP) must be adequately funded and staffed. In 
2015, the last time CBP was funded to hire additional staff, only 20 
out of 2,000 staff were assigned to seaports. In recent testimony, CBP 
stated that it needs 500 more offices in the seaport environment. This 
number may even be higher, as CBP relies heavily on existing staff 
working overtime. This may seem like an appropriations or homeland 
security issue, but it is a supply chain problem.
Recommendations
   Align Federal transportation and trade policy to properly 
        plan for increase cargo flows that result from U.S. trade 
        agreements and trade policy.

   Ensure that CBP coordinates with USDOT and ports on staffing 
        models and needs so that freight flows and maritime business 
        development opportunities are not disrupted.
Taxes and Public/Private Partnerships
    In many ways the modern port authority is the embodiment of a 
public/private partnership. Ports and their stakeholders are often in a 
unique position to leverage private sector resources to build needed 
infrastructure projects.
    Using the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) 
Program as an example, in AAPA's State of Freight III--Rail Access and 
Port Multimodal Funding Needs Report, U.S. ports identified 75 
potential BUILD projects that could be financed by RRIF if access to 
the program and 100 percent financing were available.
    Broadly, AAPA continues to be supportive of the FAST Act-mandated 
Build America Transportation Investment Center (BATIC) in the USDOT. 
U.S. ports have seen some increased success with the Transportation 
Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) and RRIF programs but 
believe these programs can provide greater resources to port 
infrastructure investments.
Recommendations
   Provide 100 percent financing RRIF loans.

   Increase consideration of port projects within the TIFIA 
        program.

   Make the Short Line Tax Credit (45G) permanent.

   Continue the tax exemption for private activity bonds.

   Increase the gas tax and index it to meet the infrastructure 
        funding level needs of the United States and dedicate any 
        increase in the diesel tax to freight programs.

   Conduct an audit to ensure all maritime and freight fees/
        taxes are being collected and fully utilized for their intended 
        purposes. This includes CBP fees for freight supported services 
        and facilities.
Technology and Workforce Development
    Placeholder for Professional Development Board recommendations that 
related to the FAST Act.
             II. Broader Maritime Infrastructure Investment
Energy and Air Quality
    At the end of 2015, Congress lifted the Nation's 40-year-old ban on 
petroleum exports. The action has prompted a surge in natural gas and 
crude oil export shipments, which will help the United States achieve 
the status of ``net energy exporter'' for the first time since 1953, 
according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
    While the increase in energy cargoes moving through our Nation's 
ports is notable, it is only half the energy story confronting ports.
    Energy continues to be a key port operational issue. Increasingly, 
U.S. ports are moving toward the electrification of their terminal 
equipment, harbor vessel and truck fleets, and staging stations 
transitioning from a petroleum-based network to electric-based. Better 
coordination with DOE on infrastructure would be an asset for ports, 
their communities and the Nation. In many ways, ports have the capacity 
to be incubators for energy policy.
    In addition, smarter, more efficient energy policies and resources 
can have a positive impact on regional air quality by reducing 
emissions. From a USDOT jurisdiction standpoint, the Congestion 
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program has been a useful 
tool for port and regional air quality management.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Diesel Emissions 
Reduction Act (DERA) grants have been a tool for ports to address air 
quality and emissions issues, in many cases in cooperation with their 
communities.
Recommendations
   Direct and codify more CMAQ funding toward port rail and 
        other port projects.

   Encourage Federal programs to allow grants to be used for 
        energy sustainability at ports.

   Increase annual DERA funding.

   Increase DOE funding for port-related projects. Encourage 
        greater Federal focus on the ability of ports to play a role in 
        the Nation's energy efficiency program.

   Begin preparations for integrating freight transportation 
        into an intelligent transportation network, powered by 
        electricity through two studies:

     Preparing to power electrical freight infrastructure

     Safely integrating freight into a smart vehicle world
Resiliency
    Resiliency is a key objective of the National Multimodal Freight 
Policy (49 USC 70101) and the draft National Freight Strategic Plan. In 
addition to adequate funding for a modern, wellmaintained 21st century 
freight infrastructure system, it is in the Federal interest to ensure 
this system can continue to function to the benefit of our national and 
regional economies in the face of extreme weather events, earthquakes, 
major accidents, and equipment or infrastructure failures.
    Resiliency issues are impacting all regions of our Nation and all 
transportation sectors. Ports are typically at the forefront of extreme 
weather. Some regions, such as the Gulf Coast, anticipate extreme 
weather events and coordinate resiliency plans prior to the hurricane 
season. However, the more unpredictable the weather, the more difficult 
it is to plan effectively. It is becoming increasingly important to 
build infrastructure to withstand extreme weather events. Considering 
the number of recent recovery packages that Congress has had to pass in 
response to natural disasters, it is fast becoming a Federal 
imperative. Given the traditional local, state and Federal 
transportation partnerships, resiliency needs to become a key part of 
the planning and building lexicon.
    Examples of natural and man-made disruptions impacting the supply 
chain are numerous:

   Hurricanes Michael, Florence, Maria, Irma, Harvey, and Sandy 
        highlight the increasing force, frequency and unpredictability 
        with which severe weather can impact whole regions and the 
        functioning of the national maritime system. In addition, other 
        challenges such as sea-level rise can threaten maritime 
        infrastructure.

   A Cascadia Rising scenario in the Pacific Northwest would be 
        the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States. 
        Cascadia Rising is the region's largest disasterscenario 
        exercise testing how local, state and Federal agencies would 
        respond if a 9.0 magnitude earthquake hit along the Washington 
        and Oregon coast. The Puget Sound area, and other West Coast 
        gateways, must ensure resiliency that will enable them to 
        operate as they would serve as the lifelines for the region, as 
        well as strategic capability of the military.

   Critical infrastructure failures, such as a failure of the 
        electrical grid or compromised information technology systems 
        (such as recent cyber-attacks on major shipping lines), or a 
        terrorist attack involving a dirty bomb can shut down an entire 
        port complex and disrupt the flow of cargo to the entire 
        nation.

    AAPA sees value in the establishment of a Federal critical 
transportation infrastructure resiliency program. Such a program should 
take an all-hazards approach, so that it can apply to both manmade 
events, such as criminal or terrorist events, or an economic crisis, as 
well as natural events such as severe weather, fires, earthquakes, 
tsunamis, pandemics, etc. The resiliency program would complement, not 
replace, the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) and would be funded and 
administered separately from the PSGP.
    The nation should build on existing resiliency policy and planning 
efforts. Resiliency is both prevention and recovery. This means 
modernizing our aging infrastructure and designing the system to 
withstand and endure disruptions. It also means ensuring affected 
system components are prepared to respond and rapidly restore 
operations and access following an event. Freight resiliency needs to 
become part of the policy and planning discussion between the private 
and public sectors (including federal, state, local governments).
Recommendations
   Call for and create a national freight resilience strategy.

   Establish a dedicated program, with funding, for freight 
        system resiliency. The program should take an all-hazards 
        approach so that it can apply to both man-made and natural 
        events.

   Ensure the national freight planning effort, including state 
        freight plans, reflects a national freight resilience strategy.

   Prioritize and encourage projects that support the national 
        freight resilience strategy, including projects that enhance 
        reliability, redundancy and incorporate the ability to rapidly 
        restore access and reliability.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and thank you for 
finishing precisely within 5 minutes.
    If members of the Committee could only do that during our 
questioning that would be great.
    Mr. Jefferies, glad to have you with us.

                  STATEMENT OF IAN JEFFERIES,

             PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

               ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

    Mr. Jefferies. Thank you. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, and members of this Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to discuss infrastructure policy and investment 
with you today.
    As a former staffer on this committee, I truly appreciate 
your focus on the systems that are the backbone of this 
Nation's economy.
    The rail industry is ready to work with you and the rest of 
Congress to help ensure that our Nation has the freight 
capabilities to meet not only today's needs but tomorrow's.
    For privately owned freight railroads, which have spent $25 
billion in private capital in recent years, our path is 
relatively straightforward. Continue to invest the substantial 
private capital to maintain and upgrade our 140,000-mile 
network.
    Our industry firmly believes that the best way to equitably 
and sustainably tackle infrastructure challenges of today and 
tomorrow is to embrace the user-pay principle. Consider that 
Class 1 railroads spent approximately $480 million per week on 
their network over the last 3 years. Indeed, every week is 
infrastructure week in the rail industry.
    Robust investment is made possible by a balanced economic 
regulatory system that relies on market-based competition while 
providing a backstop for rail customers. The positive impact of 
our investment is demonstrated in a number of ways.
    First, railroads operate safely. While the industry 
continues its dogged pursuit of zero incidents and zero 
injuries, the train accident rate in 2017 was 40 percent lower 
than from the year 2000 while the railroad employee injury rate 
was down 43 percent.
    Railroads today have lower employee injury rates than 
industries such as construction, agriculture, and even grocery 
stores. Railroads also alleviate highway congestion and 
deterioration. Because a single train can carry the freight of 
several hundred trucks, railroads cut gridlock and lower the 
cost of road construction and upkeep, and we operate 
efficiently.
    On average, railroads move a ton of freight 479 miles per 
gallon. That's equal to moving a ton of freight from Jackson, 
Mississippi, to Springfield, Missouri, on one gallon of fuel or 
Seattle, Washington, to Helena, Montana, on one gallon of fuel. 
It's truly a fact we're proud of.
    As evidenced by today's hearing, policymakers are wisely 
focused on maintaining and enacting policies that drive funding 
and investment across transportation modes.
    For freight railroads, this again is rather simple. 
Lawmakers and regulators should maintain a balanced structure 
of economic regulation. After all, since established in the 
1980s, this regulatory structure has allowed nearly $700 
billion in private investment back into our networks with rail 
customer rates 46 percent lower on average than they were in 
the 1980s.
    Congress can do its part to streamline the permitting 
process, as well, to put dollars to work more quickly, not just 
for rail projects but port projects and projects across all 
modes.
    More broadly, policymakers can support public-private 
partnerships, such as Chicago's CREATE Program, which is truly 
a joint project between the railroads, state, local 
authorities, and commuter railroads and Amtrak, as well, known 
as the CREATE Program.
    Lawmakers can support the Section 130 Grade Crossing 
Program which provides Federal funds to improve and even 
separate highway grade crossings.
    We recognize that the future of the Highway Trust Fund is 
front of mind to lawmakers today. However, consider the 
hundreds of billions in general funds required to keep the 
Trust Fund solvent in recent years and it's not hard to see 
that our highway funding system is broken.
    Congress can take three steps to reinstill the user-pay 
funding paradigm and ensure the viability of the Highway Trust 
Fund.
    First, Congress must reject overtures by select shippers to 
allow for longer and heavier trucks. Allowing such measures 
would only exacerbate any funding shortfalls and the wear and 
tear on our Nation's infrastructure.
    Second, lawmakers can implement a Federal gas tax increase 
that covers the funding shortfall and, to their credit, our 
colleagues in the truck industry support such an increase.
    For a long-term solution, we join a growing chorus and urge 
Congress to devise and implement a user-based system that fully 
accounts for all highway users' impact on infrastructure. This 
could be achieved through a vehicle miles traveled fee or a 
weight distance fee.
    Such bold action would go a long way in meeting the needs 
of tomorrow and ensuring equality between freight 
transportation modes.
    In closing, privately owned railroads will continue to 
invest the substantial resources necessary to meet market 
demand and maintain our core role in the Nation's integrated 
transportation network.
    We look forward to working with members of this committee 
and others in Congress to enact policies that promote 
infrastructure investment.
    Thank you for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Jefferies follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Ian Jefferies, President and Chief Executive 
               Officer, Association of American Railroads
Introduction
    On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads 
(AAR), thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. AAR members 
account for the vast majority of U.S. freight rail volume, employment, 
mileage, and revenue. I'd like to extend a special greeting to the new 
members of this committee, and offer my congratulations to Chairman 
Wicker and Ranking Member Cantwell. Please know that the rail industry 
stands ready to work cooperatively with you, other members of this 
committee, and other policymakers to help ensure our Nation has the 
freight transportation capability it needs to prosper in the future. On 
a personal level, most of you probably know that not too many years ago 
I was on the Commerce Committee staff. I have fond memories of that 
time and I look forward to continuing to work with you to enhance the 
safety, productivity, and cost-effectiveness of our Nation's railroads 
in my new role as President of the AAR.
    As all of you know, when it comes to transportation, we're all in 
this together. It's true that the various modes of transportation 
compete fiercely against each other in virtually every market they 
serve. This competition is healthy and appropriate. At the same time, 
though, railroads, trucks, and barges also cooperate extensively in 
countless markets. Moreover, all of us involved in freight 
transportation know that no country can be a first-rate economic power 
without having firstrate logistics and transportation capabilities 
across modes.
    Today, there is a tremendous amount of strength and flexibility in 
America's freight transportation systems. It's also clear, however, 
that our Nation faces significant challenges in maintaining our 
existing freight-moving capability and in improving it to meet the 
needs of tomorrow. One of the key challenges is financial. I'm proud to 
represent an industry that is overwhelmingly privately funded. That 
said, railroads agree--indeed, they have a strong vested interest--that 
adequate investments should be made in public infrastructure like ports 
and highways, which combine with rail to make up the Nation's 
integrated freight supply chain. As explained below, railroads believe 
that for reasons of economic efficiency and modal equity, public 
infrastructure funding should adhere as closely as possible to the 
principle of ``user pays.''
A Transportation Backbone
    The more than 600 freight railroads that operate in the United 
States together form the best freight rail network in the world. Their 
global superiority is a direct result of a balanced regulatory system 
that relies on market-based competition to establish rate and service 
standards, with a regulatory safety net available to rail customers 
when there is an absence of effective railroad competition.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Railroads move vast amounts of just about everything, connecting 
businesses with each other across the continent and with markets 
overseas over a rail network spanning nearly 140,000 miles. Railroads 
carry enormous amounts of corn, wheat, soybeans, and other farm 
products; fertilizers, plastic resins, and a vast array of other 
chemicals; coal to generate electricity; cement, sand, and crushed 
stone to build our highways; lumber and drywall to build our homes; 
animal feed, canned goods, corn syrup, frozen chickens, beer, and 
countless other food products; steel and other metal products; 
newsprint, recycled paper and other paper products; autos and auto 
parts; iron ore for steelmaking; wind turbines, airplane fuselages, 
machinery and other industrial equipment; and much more.
    Rail intermodal--the transport of shipping containers and truck 
trailers on railroad flatcars--has grown tremendously over the past 25 
years, setting a record in 2018. Today, just about everything you find 
on a retailer's shelves may have traveled on an intermodal train. 
Increasing amounts of industrial goods are transported by intermodal 
trains as well.
    Given the volume of rail freight (close to two billion tons and 30 
million carloads and intermodal units in a typical year) and the long 
distances that freight moves by rail (nearly 1,000 miles, on average), 
freight railroads' direct role in our economy is immense, but freight 
railroads contribute to our Nation in many other ways too:

   America's freight railroads are overwhelmingly privately 
        owned and operate almost exclusively on infrastructure that 
        they own, build, maintain, and pay for themselves. Since 1980, 
        freight railroads have plowed more than $685 billion--of their 
        own funds, not taxpayer funds--on capital expenditures and 
        maintenance expenses related to locomotives, freight cars, 
        tracks, bridges, tunnels and other infrastructure and 
        equipment. That's more than 40 cents out of every revenue 
        dollar, invested back into a rail network that keeps our 
        economy moving.

   An October 2018 study from Towson University's Regional 
        Economic Studies Institute found that, in 2017 alone, the 
        operations and capital investment of America's major freight 
        railroads supported approximately 1.1 million jobs (nearly 
        eight jobs for every railroad job), $219 billion in economic 
        output, and $71 billion in wages. Railroads also generated 
        nearly $26 billion in tax revenues.

   Thanks to competitive rail rates--46 percent lower, on 
        average, in 2017 than in 1981 adjusted for inflation--freight 
        railroads save consumers billions of dollars every year. 
        Millions of Americans work in industries that are more 
        competitive in the tough global economy thanks to the 
        affordability and productivity of America's freight railroads.

   In 2017, railroads moved a ton of freight an average of 479 
        miles per gallon of diesel fuel. That's roughly equivalent to 
        moving a ton from Jackson, MS to Springfield, MO, or Tacoma, WA 
        to Helena, MT, on a single gallon. On average, railroads are 
        four times more fuel efficient than trucks. That means moving 
        freight by rail helps our environment by reducing energy 
        consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gases.

   Because a single train can carry the freight of several 
        hundred trucks, railroads cut highway gridlock and reduce the 
        high costs of highway construction and maintenance.

   The approximately 167,000 freight railroad professionals are 
        among America's most highly compensated workers. In 2017, the 
        average U.S. Class I freight railroad employee earned total 
        compensation of $125,400. By contrast, the average wage per 
        full-time equivalent U.S. employee in domestic industries was 
        $76,500, just 61 percent of the rail figure. Around 80 percent 
        of the U.S. freight rail workforce is unionized, compared with 
        only around 6 percent of all private sector workers.

   Railroads are safe and constantly working to get even safer. 
        The train accident rate in 2017 was down 40 percent from 2000; 
        the employee injury rate in 2017 was down 43 percent from 2000; 
        and the grade crossing collision rate in 2017 was down 38 
        percent from 2000. By all these measures, recent years have 
        been the safest in history. Railroads today have lower employee 
        injury rates than most other major industries, including 
        trucking, airlines, agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and 
        construction--even lower than food stores.

   Freight railroads are committed to safely implementing 
        positive train control (PTC) as quickly as feasible so that 
        further safety gains can be achieved. The seven Class I freight 
        railroads all met statutory requirements by having 100 percent 
        of their required PTC-related hardware installed, 100 percent 
        of their PTC-related spectrum in place, and 100 percent of 
        their required employee training completed by the end of 2018. 
        In aggregate, Class I railroads had 83 percent of required PTC 
        route-miles in operation at the end of 2018, well above the 50 
        percent required by statute. Each Class I railroad expects to 
        be operating trains in PTC mode on all their PTC routes no 
        later than 2020, as required by statute. In the meantime, 
        railroads are continuing to test and validate their PTC systems 
        thoroughly to ensure they work as they should.
Transportation Capacity is Key
    The long-term demand for freight transportation in this country 
will grow. The Federal Highway Administration forecasts that U.S. 
freight tonnage will rise 37 percent by 2040. For railroads, meeting 
this demand is all about having adequate capacity and using it well, 
and that is what they focus on.
    The capital intensity of freight railroading is at or near the top 
among all U.S. industries. In recent years, the average U.S. 
manufacturer spent approximately three percent of revenue on capital 
expenditures. The comparable figure for freight railroads is nearly 19 
percent, or more than six times higher.
    Thanks to their massive investments, freight railroad 
infrastructure today is in its best overall condition ever. The 
challenge for railroads, and for policymakers, is to ensure that the 
current high quality of rail infrastructure is maintained, and that 
adequate freight rail capacity exists to meet our Nation's current and 
future freight transportation needs. Policymakers can help by enacting 
policies that promote safety and efficiency and by avoiding policies 
that discourage private rail investment.
Keep Railroad Rate and Service Regulation Balanced
    The current structure of rail regulation relies on competition and 
market forces to determine rail rates and service standards in most 
cases, with maximum rate and other protections available to rail 
customers when there is an absence of effective competition. This 
deregulatory structure has benefited railroads and their customers.
    However, despite the severe harm caused by excessive railroad 
regulation in years past and the substantial public benefits that have 
accrued since the current less regulatory regime was put in place, some 
want to again give government regulators control over crucial areas of 
rail operations. That would be a profound mistake. It would prevent 
America's railroads from making the massive investments a best-in-the-
world freight rail system requires. Policymakers should be taking 
actions that enhance, rather than impair, railroads' ability and 
willingness to make those investments.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Engage in Public-Private Partnerships Through Projects and Programs
    Public-private partnerships--arrangements under which private 
freight railroads and government entities both contribute resources to 
a project--offer a mutually beneficial way to solve critical 
transportation problems.
    Without a partnership, many projects that promise substantial 
public benefits (such as reduced highway congestion by taking trucks 
off highways, or increased rail capacity for use by passenger trains) 
in addition to private benefits (such as enabling more efficient 
freight train operations) are likely to be delayed or never started at 
all because neither side can justify the full investment needed to 
complete them. Cooperation makes these projects feasible.
    With public-private partnerships, the public entity devotes public 
dollars to a project equivalent to the public benefits that will 
accrue. Private railroads contribute resources commensurate with the 
private gains expected to accrue. Thus, the universe of projects that 
can be undertaken to the benefit of all parties is significantly 
expanded.
    The most well-known public-private partnership involving railroads 
is the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency 
Program (CREATE), which has been underway for a number of years. CREATE 
is a multi-billion-dollar program of capital improvements aimed at 
increasing the efficiency of the region's rail and roadway 
infrastructure. A partnership among various railroads, the City of 
Chicago, the state of Illinois, the Federal Government, and Cook 
County, CREATE comprises 70 projects, including 25 new roadway 
overpasses or underpasses; six new rail overpasses or underpasses to 
separate passenger and freight train tracks; 35 freight rail projects 
including extensive upgrades of tracks, switches and signal systems; 
viaduct improvement projects; grade crossing safety enhancements; and 
the integration of information from the dispatch systems of all major 
railroads in the region into a single display. To date, 29 projects 
have been completed, six are under construction, and 16 are in various 
stages of design.
    The intersection of rail tracks and roadways is an important 
element of rail infrastructure that often involves a public-private 
cooperative approach. Under the Federal ``Section 130'' program, 
approximately $230 million in Federal funds are allocated each year to 
states for installing new active warning devices, upgrading existing 
devices, and improving grade crossing surfaces. The program also allows 
for funding to go towards highway-rail grade separation projects. 
Without a budgetary set-aside like the Section 130 program, grade 
crossing needs would fare poorly in competition with more traditional 
highway needs such as highway construction and maintenance. The 2015 
FAST Act included continued dedicated funding for this important 
program for five more years. Railroads urge Congress to continue to 
support the Section 130 program. It is another example of cooperation 
between private railroads and public entities to help ensure that rail 
infrastructure benefits the general public.
    Railroads also urge Congress to support a permanent extension of 
the ``Section 45G'' short line tax credit program. Section 45G creates 
a strong incentive for short line railroads to invest private sector 
dollars on freight railroad track rehabilitation. Short line freight 
rail connections are critical to preserving the first and last mile of 
connectivity to factories, grain elevators, power plants, refineries, 
and mines in rural America and elsewhere.
Address Modal Inequities
    As mentioned earlier, America's freight railroads operate 
overwhelmingly on infrastructure that they own, build, maintain, and 
pay for themselves. By contrast, trucks, airlines, and barges operate 
on highways, airways, and waterways that are largely taxpayer funded.
    No one, and certainly not railroads, disputes that other 
transportation modes are crucial to our nation, and the infrastructure 
they use should be world-class--just like U.S. freight railroad 
infrastructure is world class. That said, public policies relating to 
the funding of other modes have become misaligned.
    With respect to federally funded capacity investments in public 
road and bridge infrastructure, the United States has historically 
relied upon a ``user pays'' system. Until relatively recently, that 
system worked well. Unfortunately, the user-pays model has been eroded 
as Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues have not kept up with HTF 
investment needs and so have had to be supplemented with general 
taxpayer dollars. Including general fund transfers scheduled to be made 
in the next few years through provisions of the FAST Act, general fund 
transfers to the HTF since 2008 have totaled almost $144 billion, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO recently 
estimated that between 2020 and 2029, the HTF will require $191 billion 
in additional payments to keep the fund solvent.
    Moving away from a user-pays system distorts the competitive 
environment by making it appear that trucks are less expensive than 
they really are and puts other modes, especially rail, at a 
disadvantage. This is especially problematic for railroads precisely 
because they own, build, maintain, and pay for their infrastructure 
themselves (including paying well over a billion dollars in property 
taxes each year on that infrastructure).
    Congress could help ameliorate this modal inequity by reaffirming 
the ``user pays'' requirement. Through application of current 
technology, the current fundamental imbalance could be rectified by 
ensuring that commercial users of taxpayer-financed infrastructure pay 
for their use.
    This could be done through several different mechanisms. To its 
credit, the American Trucking Associations (ATA), through its Build 
America Fund proposal, is calling for a 20 cent per-gallon increase in 
the fuel tax phased in over four years, a recognition by the ATA that 
the current situation regarding the HTF is not tenable. Railroads 
believe that an increase in the fuel tax could be helpful as a short-
term bridge to a longer-term future that, we think, should include a 
vehicle miles traveled fee or a weight-distance fee.
    A handful of states already impose weight-distance taxes on heavier 
trucks, and others are engaged in pilot programs to assess the 
feasibility of transitioning their state highway taxes from a per 
gallon-based system to a mileage-based fee. In Oregon, for example, 
heavy trucks are charged a weight-mile tax that is intended to capture 
the full costs incurred by trucks relating to the state highway system.
First-Mile and Last-Mile Connections
    One of the main reasons why the United States has the world's most 
efficient total freight transportation system is the willingness and 
ability of firms associated with various modes to work together in ways 
that benefit their customers and the economy. Policymakers can help 
this process by implementing programs that improve ``first mile'' and 
``last mile'' connections where freight is handed off from one mode to 
another--for example, at ports from ships to railroads or from ships to 
trucks, or from railroads to trucks at intermodal terminals. These 
connections are highly vulnerable to disruptions, and improving them 
would lead to especially large increases in efficiency and fluidity and 
forge a stronger, more effective total transportation package.
    Some multimodal connection infrastructure projects that are of 
national and regional significance in terms of freight movement could 
be too costly for a local government or state to fund. Consequently, 
Federal funding awarded through a competitive discretionary grant 
process is an appropriate approach for these needs.
    The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) 
Federal grant program; its replacement, the Better Utilizing 
Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Transportation grant 
program; and the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant 
program are examples of approaches to help fund crucial multimodal 
projects of national and regional significance.
    Together, these programs have directed billions of dollars to 
critical infrastructure projects all over the country. Examples include 
a 2016 TIGER award to help modernize the Port of Everett (Washington) 
South Terminal. The project includes strengthening more than 500 feet 
of dock, creating a modern berth capable of handling roll-on/roll-off 
and intermodal cargo, and upgrading high voltage power systems. The 
project will also construct rail sidings to increase on-site rail car 
storage. Back in 2013, TIGER funds were also directed to improve multi-
modal connections at Mississippi's Port of Pascagoula Bayou Harbor, run 
by the Jackson County Port Authority. The funding was aimed at making 
the transportation of goods in and out of the Port more efficient and 
to develop a modern facility for receipt, storage, and export of 
renewable energy resources.
    Attention to first-and last-mile connections is a critical element 
of both local and state freight planning and policy as well. At the 
local level, land use planning has been largely inadequate in 
accommodating the needs of freight. Freight movement--whether in rail 
yards, intermodal facilities, ports, or regional distribution--must be 
sufficiently considered when planning land uses such as residential 
developments, schools, and recreational areas.
Flexibility Through Regulatory and Permitting Reform
    There is bipartisan agreement that America's regulatory processes 
require reform and could more accurately reflect rapid technological 
advancements. Improved regulations and regulatory processes can also 
help improve U.S. infrastructure.
    Federal regulations provide a critical safety net to the American 
public, but rules borne from faulty processes only deter economic 
growth without any corresponding public benefits. Dictating the means 
to an end via overly prescriptive policy increases compliance costs, 
can chill innovation and investment in new technologies. and can slow, 
or defeat entirely, an outcome both industry and government would view 
as a success.
    There is currently a unique opportunity to not only address 
specific, harmful policies, but also to improve the system that creates 
rules by incorporating common sense principles. Regulations should be 
based on a demonstrated need, as reflected in current and complete data 
and sound science. Regulations should provide benefits outweighing 
their costs and should take into consideration the big picture view for 
industries and sectors--including market forces, future offerings, and 
current regulations in place.
    The freight rail industry believes policymakers should embrace 
performance-based regulations, where appropriate, to foster and 
facilitate technological advancement and achieve welldefined policy 
goals. Defining the end goal, rather than narrow steps, will boost 
citizen confidence in government, motivate U.S. industry to research 
and innovate, and create new solutions. Outcome-based measures can 
better avoid ``locking in'' existing technologies and processes so that 
new innovations, including new technologies, that could improve safety 
and improve efficiency, can flourish.
    That's also why railroads respectfully urge policymakers to avoid 
one-size-fits-all policies that hinder modernization of safety 
practices and improvements to efficiency, such as policies that mandate 
a specific crew size for rail operations. We all want railroad safety 
and efficiency to continue to improve. Technological solutions are key 
to making this happen, but that requires regulatory oversight not 
prescriptive mandates.
    As mentioned earlier, railroads are safe and getting safer, but 
more can be done by railroads, their employees, the FRA, and others 
working together to achieve the long-term goal of zero accidents. 
Regulatory reform can be a key part of that effort. Railroads 
respectfully urge this committee and others in Congress to encourage 
the FRA to become more forward-looking in how it proposes and 
promulgates new rules.
    We also urge policymakers to streamline the permitting process to 
spur infrastructure investment. Railroads have faced significant 
permitting delays from Federal agencies, which means that the amount of 
time and energy it takes to get many rail infrastructure projects from 
the drawing board to construction and completion has been growing 
longer every day.
    In the face of local opposition, railroads try to work with the 
local community to find a mutually satisfactory arrangement, and these 
efforts are usually successful. When agreement is not reached, however, 
projects can face lawsuits, seemingly interminable delays, and sharply 
higher costs. Rail capacity, and railroads' ability to provide the 
transportation service upon which our Nation depends, suffer 
accordingly. Recent efforts by Congress and the Administration are 
noteworthy and appreciated, but more must be done.
Support Commuter and Passenger Rail
    Freight railroads agree that passenger railroads play a key role in 
alleviating highway and airport congestion; decreasing dependence on 
foreign oil; reducing pollution; and enhancing mobility, safety, and 
economic development opportunities. In the United States, freight 
railroads provide a crucial foundation for passenger rail: more than 70 
percent of the miles traveled by Amtrak trains are on tracks owned by 
other railroads--mainly freight railroads--and many commuter railroads 
operate at least partially on freight-owned corridors.
    Policymakers can help here too by recognizing that Amtrak should be 
adequately funded so that its infrastructure can be improved to a state 
of good repair. Commuter railroads too deserve this Committee's 
support.
Conclusion
    Of the many different factors that affect how well a rail network 
functions, the basic amount and quality of infrastructure is among the 
most significant. That's why U.S. freight railroads have been 
expending, and will continue to expend, enormous resources to 
continuously improve safety and improve their asset base. Policymakers 
too have a key role to play. Freight railroads look forward to working 
with this Committee, others in Congress, and other appropriate parties 
to develop and implement policies that best meet this country's 
transportation needs.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Jefferies.
    And before recognizing the other three witnesses, we now 
have a quorum and without further delay, I will call the 
Executive Session into order.
    [Recess to proceed to Executive Session.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Polka, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes. Thank you.

 STATEMENT OF MATTHEW M. POLKA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
              OFFICER, AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Polka. Thank you. Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the more than 750 
members of the ACA who typically serve just 1,000 customers in 
small and rural communities.
    I am very proud of the work that our members do to serve 
their communities with essential broadband video and voice 
service. The fact that they succeed as small entities that 
compete in an industry of corporate giants is remarkable.
    Today, I highlight for you what our members tell me are 
their challenges and priorities in deploying broadband and, as 
a result, what you may consider in helping to solve these 
challenges.
    Our members see themselves as part of the solution working 
with you step by step. In short, what dominates the thinking of 
ACA members is overcoming the daily challenge of finding the 
capital to invest in resources to operate and upgrade services 
in high-cost areas, and to do so with no benefit of scale in 
any negotiation for content or technology, all while serving 
cost-sensitive consumers.
    Despite this daily reality for them, they want you to know 
of their commitment in the private sector to continue to make 
enormous investments to provide broadband and video services on 
their own.
    Now let me turn to the four areas of insight that they want 
me to share with you and as I do so, I'm aware that some of 
these points may seem mundane, but I can assure you on their 
behalf that these points are critical.
    First, ACA members have told us about the challenges they 
face in both obtaining and maintaining access to rights-of-way 
owned by local governments. Some local government entities 
charge or are seeking to charge cable operators for using the 
public rights-of-way to provide broadband service, even though 
these operators already pay a fee for video access.
    Second, ACA members tell us that private entities limit and 
even prohibit access to rights-of-way. For instance, railroads 
often charge unreasonably-high fees to install fiber over or 
under their rights-of-way, or are slow to grant rights, and I'm 
very pleased to be here today with Mr. Jefferies and I look 
forward to working with him and talking with him about those 
issues.
    Third, ACA members also tell us we are missing too many 
opportunities where their broadband distribution facilities 
could be added to existing conduits and where they could share 
in the cost and installation of such new facilities.
    For similar facilities installed by private entities, our 
members think the Government should require a sharing process 
similar to Dig Once.
    Finally, the Government should support private investment 
where possible, and be more selective when it decides to 
provide money to any entity to build new telecommunications 
infrastructure.
    I would urge you to make sure that any new source of funds, 
whether they are USF, RUS, or some other program, are used only 
to deploy in unserved areas and that the Federal Government 
does not subsidize overbuilding.
    For example, where you make new investments, which will be 
necessary in some remote areas, we would encourage you to 
replicate the FCC's Connect America Program's features that 
target unserved markets and award funds via reverse auctions.
    In the meantime, ACA members will continue to invest and 
improve our networks and ensure that our communities are 
competitive and connected, and as this committee acts to 
address our Nation's critical broadband infrastructure needs, 
you can count on the commitment of the innovative and 
independent members of the American Cable Association.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Polka follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Matthew M. Polka, President and CEO, 
                       American Cable Association
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and Members of the 
Committee, I am Matthew Polka, President and CEO of the American Cable 
Association (ACA), and I want to thank you for inviting me to testify 
today on America's Infrastructure Needs and more specifically our 
broadband infrastructure needs.
    I can break down ACA's overall assessment of broadband 
infrastructure in the United States and our needs into three parts. 
First, overall the news is good. Fixed and mobile broadband providers, 
including ACA members, are investing about $75 billion annually, and 
they should continue investing at approximately this same level for 
years to come. As a result, the performance and reach of their 
broadband networks have been greatly enhanced. Here, our top priority 
should be to do everything we can to ensure providers are not 
discouraged from continuing to make these investments. Second, even 
though the news is good, public and private sector barriers exist that 
hinder deployments. This unnecessary friction increases the costs and 
slows the speed of broadband deployments. Congress and the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) have already taken steps to address 
these problems, but more can and should be done. Third, we need to 
effectively and efficiently close the digital divide so that all 
Americans have similar opportunities to access our broadband 
information highways and fully participate in our 21st Century economy 
and educational, social, and political activities. Here too, Congress, 
the FCC, the Rural Utilities Service, and many States have acted, and 
we have made real headway, but again, more can and should be done. Let 
me first review further where our broadband infrastructure stands today 
and then elaborate on each of the three points I just raised.
ACA's Assessment of the State of Broadband Infrastructure in the United 
        States
    ACA's more than 750 broadband and video service provider members, 
who pass more than 18 million homes in all areas of the country and 
provide service to approximately 7 million broadband subscribers, have 
great experience in deploying broadband networks. During the past six 
years, ACA members have invested more than $12 billion to upgrade and 
expand their networks, in both rural areas and as overbuilders bringing 
competition in urban areas,\1\ and they plan to continue to spend 
billions each year to meet the ever growing demands of their 
subscribers for real-time, highspeed access to the Internet and other 
IP services. Many ACA members have deployed Gigabit broadband service, 
and many more intend to do so this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ This investment would be greater if not for regulatory 
barriers, including those discussed herein and in ACA's 2015 study on 
how rapidly rising video programming fees act as a drag on investment. 
See ACA, ``High and Increasing Video Programming Fees Threatens 
Broadband Deployment'' (2015), https://drive.google.com/file/d/
0BxUDdYFi5gnEa2xJdnhwSThWUUE/view?usp=sharing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ACA members are not alone in making such substantial investments. 
As I just discussed, fixed and mobile broadband providers are investing 
enormous sums annually in their networks and related businesses, with 
cable operators alone investing approximately $20 billion each year. 
These investments feed the two critical technologies for our broadband 
future--wireless 5G and wireline 10G. These technologies will work in 
tandem, with 10G not only connecting residents, business, and 
institutions directly but enabling 5G connectivity as well. That said, 
it is important to understand that while 5G wireless networks are 
critical to our Nation's future, advanced wireline networks will 
outperform wireless networks and provide the connectivity consumers and 
businesses will need as more bandwidth intensive applications and 
content flow over broadband pipes. That is why any broadband 
infrastructure legislation needs to address both our 5G and 10G future.
    The Committee also should understand that ACA members and other 
broadband providers are not just upgrading and expanding their networks 
in ``served'' areas, but they are using their capital to bring service 
to unserved areas. To date, ACA members alone have invested private 
funds to build out to more than 840,000 homes that the FCC would 
otherwise consider high-cost areas eligible for Federal universal 
service support.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    These investments not only reduced the areas where Federal 
universal support is needed, but they ``freed-up'' Federal support 
going into these areas, which could be used to bring broadband to 
unserved areas that were not receiving any support.
    The FCC too has taken significant steps by reforming its universal 
service programs to close the digital divide. As I will detail later in 
my testimony, the FCC's high-cost programs alone, which award more than 
$4 billion annually, have already brought broadband service to many 
millions of homes in unserved areas, and they are certain to close the 
gap even further in the near future.
    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) also is providing through its 
ongoing programs substantial support to build broadband networks in 
high-cost areas. Appropriations for FY2019 will enable almost $30 
million in broadband loans and provide for $30 million for Community 
Connect grants. These amounts are in addition to appropriations for the 
Telecommunications Infrastructure program, which will enable almost 
$700 million in loans. Moreover, in the 2018 appropriations, Congress 
provided an additional $600 million to RUS for broadband buildout in 
unserved areas over the next two years.
    So, in brief, because of the enormous amount of capital investment 
by providers, the FCC's reforms to its universal service programs, and 
the many RUS programs, over the past decade we have made tremendous 
progress in bringing fixed broadband service to all Americans. 
Notwithstanding the size and rural footprint of the country, more than 
97 percent of American households, including about 90 percent of rural 
households, have access to fixed broadband service with speeds of 10 
Mbps or greater. That is a 40 percent reduction in unserved households 
in just the past four years, leaving fewer than five million homes 
without access to broadband service at speeds less than 10 Mbps.\2\ 
Further, more than 100 million homes have access to broadband speeds 
greater than 100 Mbps, and that number is growing significantly each 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Between 2013 and 2017, the percentage of Americans with access 
to speeds greater than 25 Mbps increased from approximately 84 percent 
to 94 percent and in rural areas from 48 percent to 76 percent overall. 
See Federal Communications Commission, 2018 Communications Marketplace 
Report at 136, Fig. G-4 (Dec. 26, 2018), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-18181A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By 2020, the FCC's current Connect America programs should reduce 
these five million unserved households even further, such that only 
about three million homes will be without fixed broadband service. And, 
when the FCC launches the Remote Areas Fund and the new RUS program 
gets underway, we should get much closer to bringing broadband to 
everyone.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Our current broadband ``success'' should be heralded, but more can, 
and should, be done. We should now move forward based on all that we 
have learned. We should acknowledge that in all areas, both served and 
unserved, providers continue to face barriers imposed by both the 
government and private entities that add cost to broadband builds, 
thereby reducing their reach and capabilities. Moreover, we need to do 
more to efficiently and effectively bring broadband to all Americans. 
Congress should address these issues in any broadband infrastructure 
legislation.
    To that end, let me share with the Committee ACA's four principles 
for our broadband future: (1) respect private investment; (2) remove 
barriers to deployment; (3) before adopting additional programs to 
close the digital divide, account for additional deployments in 
unserved areas resulting from the removal of barriers, the recently 
enacted tax law, and existing Federal and state support programs; and 
(4) provide broadband subsidies efficiently.
    Principle #1: Respect private investment. As I noted at the outset, 
overall broadband providers, both fixed and mobile, are spending some 
$75 billion annually on infrastructure, and there is every indication 
this level of spending will continue absent actions by the government 
that would discourage it. We, therefore, urge you and the Federal 
agencies to refrain from imposing harmful new regulations on broadband 
providers where investment and deployment could be curtailed because 
the regulatory costs exceed their benefits. This is most important for 
smaller providers, who have far fewer resources to deal with government 
rules and regulations. In addition, the government should award any new 
government support only in areas where existing providers have not 
deployed infrastructure or where such deployments are unlikely in the 
near future.\3\ Nothing will undermine our broadband future more than 
signaling to private investors that their returns on investment are 
uncertain, or, even worse, in jeopardy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ACA notes that smaller local telephone companies have 
demonstrated, for the most part, competence in providing 
telecommunications service in high-cost, rural areas. They operate in 
fewer and much smaller service territories and also tend to be less 
diversified than the major telephone providers. Any action by Congress 
or the FCC to implement these principles should continue to account for 
the value these companies deliver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Principle #2: Remove barriers to deployment. Building high-
performance broadband networks is costly, and ACA members tell us that 
there are a series of problems they face and actions that you can take, 
without spending a penny, that will ``move the deployment needle.'' The 
chart on page 13 below, which breaks down the total cost of deploying 
and operating fiber-to-the-home networks, indicates the greatest 
deployment costs and should help you target your solutions. For 
instance, network costs related to pole attachments account for 
approximately 13 percent of total cost of ownership. That is a big 
number. Fortunately, last summer, the FCC adopted an order that reduced 
many barriers ACA members face in seeking to attach to poles owned by 
investor owned utilities and incumbent telecommunications carriers. 
That said, virtually every week we hear from members about problems 
with pole attachments, so Congress and the FCC should be vigilant and 
conduct regular oversight and then address attachment concerns that 
pose real threats to deployments.
    Installing conduits and ducts is another significant cost of owning 
a wireline network. Congress helped address this matter with the 
Broadband Infrastructure Deployment provision contained in the MOBILE 
NOW Act passed last year.\4\ This provision will help lower the cost of 
ownership by facilitating the installation of conduits and ducts by 
states in highway rights-of-way when new construction and major 
upgrades are underway, rather than having to spend large sums afterward 
to tear up roadways. That said, we urge Congress to further build upon 
last year's legislation to ensure that such cost saving practices are 
actually implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141, 
132 Stat. 348, Division P, Title VI (MOBILE NOW Act), Sec. 607 
(codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 1504).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, Congress has recognized that broadband providers, 
particularly in rural areas, require access to Federal lands on 
reasonable terms to deploy their facilities. Specifically, it 
understood that often Federal agencies take too long to approve access 
applications, which forestalls, and drives up the cost of, deployments. 
The MOBILE NOW Act addressed this problem by requiring Federal 
executive agencies to be more responsive to requests from 
communications providers for access to easements, rights-of-way, and 
leases, and in other ways.\5\ Federal agencies are now implementing 
those Congressional directives, and we urge Congress to ensure they act 
consistent with the need to expedite access to Federal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ See MOBILE NOW Act, Sec. 606.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ACA members also continue to encounter other barriers to their 
broadband deployments, including:

   ACA members have told us about challenges they face in both 
        obtaining and maintaining access to rights-of-way owned by 
        local governments. For instance, some local government entities 
        charge or are seeking to charge cable operators for using the 
        public rights-of-way to provide broadband service even though 
        these operators already pay a fee for video access, and their 
        networks impose no additional burden on the rights-of-way. As 
        you well know, when you tax something, you only get less of 
        it--and no one wants less broadband.

   ACA members also tells us that private entities limit and 
        even prohibit access to rights-of-way. For instance, railroads 
        often charge unreasonably high fees to install fiber over or 
        under their rights-of-way. In fact, sometimes these fees are so 
        unfair that they block deployments entirely.\6\ Other times, 
        railroads are very slow to grant rights.\7\ To date, only a few 
        states have stepped in to regulate these fees or establish 
        timelines for obtaining rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ See Letter From Thomas Cohen, Counsel to ACA, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Apr. 23, 2017), https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/
file/104030805116267/ACA_Summit_Infrastruc
ture_Ex_Parte_04032017.pdf.
    \7\ See ACA, Comments in FCC Proceeding on Accelerating 
Infrastructure Deployment, WC Docket No. 11-59 (Sept. 30, 2011), 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7021712335.pdf. 

   ACA members also tell us that we are missing too many 
        opportunities to permit them to access existing conduit and 
        ducts and to share in the cost of and access to new conduit and 
        ducts or new opportunities to install them. For existing 
        conduits and ducts, our providers find that there is a lack of 
        information about their location and availability, and even 
        once they have such information, they find that installation 
        fees and construction costs are frequently unreasonable. For 
        new conduits and ducts installed by private entities, they 
        recommend the government require a sharing process similar to 
        ``Dig Once.'' That is, any provider opening a new trench to 
        install conduit and ducts should be required to notify other 
        providers of the opportunity to install their own facilities 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        and share in the cost.

    Principle #3: Before determining unserved areas where new support 
programs should be provided, account for the additional deployments in 
unserved areas that will result from the removal of barriers, the 
recent tax law, and existing Federal and state support programs. By 
adopting this approach, we will ensure that we maximize use of limited 
Federal funds. To that end, ACA has calculated that actions taken so 
far by the FCC to remove barriers to deployment and potential 
additional actions will lower the cost of network deployment 
sufficiently such that 1.2 million unserved homes will become suitable 
for broadband providers to spend private money to deploy hybrid fiber/
coax or fiber-to-the-home broadband services \8\--all without spending 
additional government funds. Removal of these barriers also will 
encourage providers using other technologies, including fixed wireless 
and DSL, to upgrade their networks and expand them into additional 
unserved areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ ACA estimates that such deployments will create almost 20,000 
new jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, further network investment is being propelled by the 
recent tax statute. The law permits broadband providers to ``expense'' 
their network investments immediately and cuts the corporate tax rate 
to 21 percent, which already has resulted in providers increasing their 
capital spending. We expect this increased spending to continue. We 
estimate that the new tax law will turn more than 400,000 homes in 
unserved areas into economically viable areas ripe for private 
investors to build high-speed broadband or fiber-to-the-home services.
    We also should recognize that the FCC is providing more than $4 
billion annually to bring broadband to unserved and high-cost areas. 
Additionally, the broadband programs of the RUS provide tens of 
millions of loans annually for rural builds, and the Re-Connect 
broadband program launched by Congress last year has $600 million in 
funding for loans and grants over the next two years. States also are 
implementing their own support programs. By our calculations, the 
current Federal Connect America programs alone, by 2020, should reduce 
the number of ``unserved'' homes by 2 million, and even more by later 
in the next decade, and RUS and state efforts will reduce them even 
further. In fact, it would be valuable for an agency like the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration to report to Congress 
each year on the effect all Federal and state programs have on reducing 
the number of unserved locations. In sum, the government is already 
well on its way to closing the digital divide, and it should take 
account of the gains that are being achieved by removing barriers to 
deployment, the recent tax cut, and existing support programs before 
determining how much and where to spend additional funds to bridge the 
digital divide.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Principle #4: After removing barriers to deployment, accounting for 
the tax cut and current Federal and state support programs, where 
unserved locations remain, the government should provide subsidies to 
bring broadband to these unserved locations and do so efficiently. The 
FCC has essentially provided the roadmap for awarding support 
efficiently with the Connect America programs it initiated in its major 
reform in 2011. The FCC has reshaped and continues to refine these 
programs so that its limited support is awarded much more efficiently. 
It has sought to target support in price cap carrier territories only 
to unserved areas, and last year, it awarded for the first time fixed 
broadband support using a reverse auction. ACA believes you should 
adhere to the following guidelines in distributing any new money to 
close the remaining digital divide.

   Provide subsidies for broadband only in unserved, high cost 
        areas. ACA supports the FCC's current definition providing that 
        an area is unserved if no provider offers 10/1 Mbps broadband 
        service. While ACA understands the urge to ``bid-up'' these 
        speeds, ACA cautions that we should not divert our attention 
        from bringing service to those areas currently deemed unserved. 
        In addition, any change in the definition of unserved must not 
        result in any overbuilding of providers that are investing 
        private capital. That would be especially counterproductive. 
        Finally, you should keep in mind that as you increase the speed 
        threshold for determining whether an area is unserved, because 
        higher speed services costs more to deploy, you lower the 
        number of locations that will receive service.

   Limit the amount of Federal support for broadband buildout 
        in an area to account for subsidies provided by states, unless 
        any additional broadband performance is required. It would be 
        inefficient and a waste of scarce Federal support to enable 
        recipients of such support to also receive state funding if 
        they are only required to meet the Federal broadband public 
        interest requirements. This is because the Federal program 
        already contemplates these requirements would be met. In the 
        future, any Federal program that provides support for unserved 
        locations should account for any funding from a state program 
        that provides support to achieve the same result. This might be 
        done by requiring the recipient of funding from both programs 
        to provide higher speed service or meet faster deployment 
        deadlines. For instance, the FCC and New York State developed 
        (and ACA supported) an approach where providers in that state 
        could receive support from both the FCC's Connect America 
        program and New York State's Empire State Development program 
        to deploy broadband networks that are faster than those 
        available under the FCC's Connect America program alone.\9\ 
        Such an approach is a potentially valuable model for propelling 
        higher performance networks sooner in unserved areas. But, 
        absent such enhanced obligations, a recipient of Federal 
        support should not receive state support to provide the same 
        service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Letter From Ross Lieberman, Senior Vice President of Government 
Affairs, ACA to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary FCC (dated Jan. 12, 2017), 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1011376742036/
ACA_Ex_Parte_Letter_re_State_Initiatives_and_NY_State_Proposal_01132017.
pdf.

   Use reverse auctions to distribute support for network 
        deployments to maximize cost-efficiency. Prior to 2011, the FCC 
        awarded high-cost universal support only to incumbent telephone 
        companies through a complex array of factors that were out of 
        sync with how modern broadband networks are built and operated. 
        The FCC also understood that bringing broadband to unserved 
        areas would be very expensive and, to maximize use of its 
        limited funding, it needed to award support much more 
        efficiently. Last year's reverse auctions demonstrated that 
        they award support much more efficiently than using cost 
        models--lowering the cost of providing support to serve an area 
        by approximately 70 percent.\10\ ACA thus urges that any new 
        funding be given out using a reverse auction approach (as 
        adjusted for the removal of barriers to deployment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See Connect America Fund Phase II Auction Results, Rural 
Broadband Auctions Task Force, Federal Communications Commission, Open 
Meeting, September 26, 2018, https://youtu.be/aHMVuMWtrG4 (presentation 
begins at 27:45). The reserve price for the auction as established by 
the cost model was $5 billion. The final awards totaled $1.49 billion. 
In addition, more than 50 percent of the locations were to receive 
service at speeds of at least 100/20 Mbps, which is far in excess of 
the speeds required for price cap carriers electing to receive support 
pursuant to the cost model.

    ACA has established its principles by learning from the experiences 
and expertise of its members and by seeing over the past decades 
policies that have--and have not--worked. From our conversations with 
Members of the Committee, you too understand what it takes to bring 
broadband to all Americans. At the end of the day, ACA's principles 
will maximize consumer welfare, increase economic growth, and make 
communities throughout the country thrive. As for additional 
legislation, we urge the Committee to examine the approach we have just 
set forth. We believe it will enable you to drive broadband deployments 
in all areas of the country.
    In closing, I want to commend the Chairman, Ranking Members, and 
other Members of the Committee for their intense and well-considered 
focus on accelerating high-performance broadband deployment to all 
Americans. ACA and its members stand ready to assist you in this 
endeavor.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The Chairman. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Polka.
    Mr. Chris Spear of the American Trucking Association.

    STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
            OFFICER, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS

    Mr. Spear. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cantwell, and 
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify this morning on behalf of the American Trucking 
Association.
    The ATA's an 86-year-old federation representing 50 state 
trucking associations. Our industry supports more than 7.7 
million employees or one in 18 jobs in the United States where 
a truck driver is the top job in 29 states.
    In Mississippi, trucks haul 90 percent of the freight and 
70 percent of the freight delivered from Washington State. 
Nationally, trucking moves 71 percent of the domestic freight 
tonnage. That's more $10 trillion worth of goods streamed 
across a national network of roads and bridges that define 
interstate commerce.
    Without trucks, our cities, towns, and communities would 
lack the key necessities, including food and drinking water. 
There'd be no clothes to purchase and no parts to build 
automobiles or fuel to power them.
    The rail, air, and water intermodal sectors would not exist 
in their current form without the trucking industry to support 
them, and every time the Government makes a decision that 
affects the trucking industry, those impacts are felt by 
individuals and the millions of businesses that could not exist 
without trucks.
    Our roads and bridges are literally crumbling. Last week, 
chunks of falling concrete struck cars traveling under bridges 
in California and Massachusetts. We are no longer facing a 
future highway maintenance crisis. We're living it. And every 
day we fail to invest, we're putting more lives at risk and 
truck drivers are on the front lines.
    Each day they see potholes getting deeper, bridges getting 
weaker, and as a result, the safety of the motoring public 
increasingly compromised. In nearly 53 percent of the highway 
fatalities, the condition of the roadway contributed.
    Time wasted sitting in bottleneck traffic rather than at 
work or with our families has skyrocketed. Motorists now pay an 
average of $1,600 due to repairs and congestion each year. 
Trucking now loses $74.5 billion sitting in gridlock. That 
equates to 1.2 billion lost hours or 425,000 truck drivers 
sitting idle for an entire year.
    These are the regressive costs of doing nothing and they're 
reflected in the prices we all pay. These costs to consumers 
and the economy are measurable and they can and should serve as 
offsets for new spending on our Nation's infrastructure.
    ATA believes our Nation's roads and bridges should be paid 
for by users. While trucks make up just 4 percent of the 
vehicles on our Nation's highways, trucking pays for nearly 
half of the Highway Trust Fund and we're willing to pay more.
    ATA advocates the passage of a BUILD America Fund 
consisting of a modest increase in the price of fuel. The BUILD 
America Fund would increase the price of fuel 20 cents per 
gallon at the fuel rack, just a nickel a year over 4 years, 
generating $340 billion over 10 years.
    This new revenue is real, not fake funding, like P3s or 
asset recycling. The BUILD America Fund is the most 
conservative proposal, costing less than one cent on the dollar 
to administer versus up to 35 cents a dollar for tolling 
schemes.
    Last, our proposal is sustainable. It shores up the Highway 
Trust Fund which will go broke in just a couple of years 
without action, and it doesn't add one dime to our Nation's 
debt.
    In summary, our Nation's growing economy is placing 
significant demands on all transportation modes. Federal 
inaction has prompted cash-strapped states to adopt regressive 
revenue schemes that hurt commuters, communities, and divert 
funds to non-infrastructure priorities.
    Look no further than the 10-mile stretch of I-66 just 
minutes away from this hearing room. A year ago, this short 
patch of Virginia interstate went to congestion pricing. As a 
result, I-66 commuters now pay peak toll of $47.50 one way 1 
day one road.
    For many who can't afford peak prices, they are either 
forced to drive through residential areas and school zones or 
navigate a costly maze of public transportation connections 
which are often delayed or down due to under-investment.
    Under the BUILD America Fund, that same driver paying 
$47.50 for a 10-mile stretch of I-66 would pay just $2 a week 
for all roads and bridges in the United States.
    President Reagan understood why our approach makes the most 
sense, which is why he signed a user fee increase into law 
twice during his Administration. Now is the time for the 
Senate, House, and this President to come together and do 
what's right for America.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive 
                Officer, American Trucking Associations
    Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Cantwell, and members of the 
committee, thank you for providing the American Trucking Associations 
(ATA) \1\ with the opportunity to testify on our Nation's 
infrastructure needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade 
association for the trucking industry. Through a federation of 50 
affiliated state trucking associations and industry-related conferences 
and councils, ATA is the voice of the industry America depends on most 
to move our Nation's freight. Follow ATA on Twitter or on Facebook. 
Trucking Moves America Forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Trucking is the fulcrum point in the United States' supply chain. 
This year, our industry will move 70 percent of the Nation's freight 
tonnage, and over the next decade will be tasked with moving nearly 
three billion more tons of freight than it does today while continuing 
to deliver the vast majority of goods.\2\ Trucks haul 90 percent of the 
freight originating in Mississippi and 70 percent of the freight 
delivered from Washington State. In 2017, the goods moved by trucks 
were worth more than $10 trillion.\3\ The trucking industry is also a 
significant source of employment, with 7.7 million people working in 
various occupations, accounting for every 1 in 18 jobs in the U.S.\4\ 
Furthermore, ``truck driver'' is the top job in 29 states.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2018 to 2029. American Trucking 
Associations, 2018.
    \3\ 2017 Commodity Flow Survey Preliminary Report. U.S. Census 
Bureau, Dec. 7, 2018.
    \4\ American Trucking Trends 2018, American Trucking Associations.
    \5\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/keep-on-truckin-in-a-
majority-of-states-its-the-most-popular-job-2015-02-09

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Without trucks, our cities, towns and communities would lack key 
necessities including food and drinking water; there would be no 
clothes to purchase, and no parts to build automobiles or fuel to power 
them. The rail, air and water intermodal sectors would not exist in 
their current form without the trucking industry to support them. 
Trucks are central to our Nation's economy and our way of life, and 
every time the government makes a decision that affects the trucking 
industry, those impacts are also felt by individuals and by the 
millions of businesses that could not exist without trucks.
    Mr. Chairman, we are on the cusp of a transformation in the 
movement of freight, one that you and your colleagues will greatly 
influence. Radical technological change will, in the near future, allow 
trucks to move more safely and efficiently, and with less impact on the 
environment than we ever dared to imagine. Yet we are facing headwinds, 
due almost entirely to government action or, in some cases inaction 
that will slow or cancel out entirely the benefits of innovation. 
Failure to maintain and improve the highway system that your 
predecessors helped to create will destroy the efficiencies that have 
enabled U.S. manufacturers and farmers to continue to compete with 
countries that enjoy far lower labor and regulatory costs.
    Mr. Chairman, we are at a critical point in our country's history, 
and the decisions made by this committee over the next few months will 
impact the safety and efficiency of freight transportation for 
generations. ATA looks forward to working with you to develop and 
implement sound policy that benefits the millions of Americans and U.S. 
businesses that rely on a safe and efficient supply chain.
The Cost of Inaction
    A well-maintained, reliable and efficient network of highways is 
crucial to the delivery of the Nation's freight, and vital to our 
country's economic and social well-being. However, the road system is 
rapidly deteriorating, and costs the average motorist nearly $1,600 a 
year in higher maintenance and congestion expenses.\6\ Highway 
congestion also adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight 
transportation each year.\7\ In 2016, truck drivers sat in traffic for 
nearly 1.2 billion hours, equivalent to more than 425,000 drivers 
sitting idle for a year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Bumpy Road Ahead: America's Roughest Rides and Strategies to 
make our Roads Smoother, The Road Information Program, Oct. 2018; 2015 
Urban Mobility Scorecard. Texas Transportation Institute, Aug. 2015.
    \7\ Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2018 Update. 
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018.
    \8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the cost and scale of addressing highway improvement needs is 
daunting, it is important to note that much of the congestion is 
focused at a relatively small number of locations. Just 17 percent of 
National Highway System (NHS) miles represents 87 percent of total 
truck congestion costs nationwide.\9\ Many of these locations are at 
highway bottlenecks that are identified annually by the American 
Transportation Research Institute. ATRI just released its latest 
freight bottlenecks report, which identifies the top 100 truck 
bottlenecks around the country.\10\ The worst bottleneck was Interstate 
95 at State Route 4 in Fort Lee, NJ. More than half of the bottlenecks 
are in states represented by Members of this committee, including 
thirteen in Texas, six in Connecticut, and five in Washington State. 
While most of the bottlenecks were in large metropolitan areas, the 
report found trouble spots even in smaller cities like Baton Rouge, LA, 
San Bernardino, CA, Birmingham, AL, Chattanooga, TN, and Greenville, 
SC. ATA's highway funding proposal, described below, would adopt a 
strategy for funding improvements at these costly choke points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Ibid.
    \10\ https://truckingresearch.org/2019/02/06/atri-2019-truck-
bottlenecks/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most troubling is the impact of underinvestment on highway safety. 
In nearly 53 percent of highway fatalities, the condition of the 
roadway is a contributing factor.\11\ In 2011, nearly 17,000 people 
died in roadway departure crashes, over 50 percent of the total.\12\ 
Many of these fatalities result from collisions with roadside objects, 
such as trees or poles located close to the roadway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Roadway Safety Guide. Roadway Safety Foundation, 2014.
    \12\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Highway Trust Fund (HTF), the primary source of Federal revenue 
for highway projects, safety programs and transit investments, is 
projected to run short of the funds necessary to maintain current 
spending levels by FY 2021.\13\ While an average of approximately $42 
billion per year is expected to be collected from highway users over 
the next decade, nearly $60 billion will be required annually to 
prevent significant reductions in Federal aid for critical projects and 
programs.\14\ It should be noted that a $60 billion annual average 
Federal investment still falls well short of the resources necessary to 
provide the Federal share of the expenditure needed to address the 
Nation's surface transportation safety, maintenance and capacity 
needs.\15\ According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the 
U.S. spends less than half of what is necessary to address these needs. 
As the investment gap continues to grow, so too will the number of 
deficient bridges, miles of roads in poor condition, number of highway 
bottlenecks and, most critically, the number of crashes and fatalities 
attributable to inadequate roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Projections of Highway Trust Fund Accounts--CBO's January 2018 
Baseline, Congressional Budget Office.
    \14\ Ibid.
    \15\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 
Conditions & Performance. USDOT, Dec. 2016; see also 2017 
Infrastructure Report Card. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A recently released report \16\ by the Transportation Research 
Board (TRB) requested by Congress focused specifically on the current 
state and future needs of the Interstate Highway System. This critical 
network binds our Nation together and reaps immeasurable economic and 
national security benefits for the United States. Most importantly, 
because interstates are far safer than surface roads, since 1967 it has 
prevented nearly a quarter million people from losing their lives in 
vehicular crashes.\17\ The Interstate Highway System accounts for about 
one-quarter of all miles traveled by light-duty vehicles and 40 percent 
of miles traveled by trucks.\18\ The TRB report estimates that 
conservatively, the state and Federal investment necessary to address 
the Interstate system's maintenance and capacity needs will need to 
double or triple over today's expenditures in the next 20 years.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway 
System: A Foundation for the Future (2018). Transportation Research 
Board, National Academy of Sciences.
    \17\ Ibid, p. 2-18
    \18\ Ibid, p. 2-10.
    \19\ Ibid, p. S-5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Build America Fund
    ATA's proposed solution to the highway funding crisis is the Build 
America Fund. The BAF would be supported with a new 20 cent per gallon 
fee built into the price of transportation fuels collected at the 
terminal rack, to be phased in over four years. The fee will be indexed 
to both inflation and improvements in fuel efficiency, with a five 
percent annual cap. We estimate that the fee will generate nearly $340 
billion over the first 10 years. It will cost the average passenger 
vehicle driver just over $100 per year once fully phased in.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016, Table 
VM-1. Average light-duty vehicle consumed 522 gallons of fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We also support a new fee on hybrid and electric vehicles, which 
underpay for their use of the highway system or do not contribute at 
all. We look forward to working with Congress to identify the best 
approach to achieve that goal. In addition, ATA supports repeal of the 
Federal excise tax on trucking equipment, provided the revenue it 
generates for the HTF is replaced. This antiquated 12 percent sales 
tax, which was adopted during World War I, is a barrier to investment 
in the cleanest, safest trucks available on the market.
    Under the BAF proposal, the first tranche of revenue generated by 
the new fee would be transferred to the HTF. Using a FY 2020 baseline, 
existing HTF programs would be funded at authorized levels sufficient 
to prevent a reduction in distributed funds, plus an annual increase to 
account for inflation.
    Second, a new National Priorities Program (NPP) would be funded 
with an annual allocation of $5 billion, plus an annual increase 
equivalent to the percentage increase in BAF revenue. Each year, the 
U.S. Department of Transportation would determine the location of the 
costliest highway bottlenecks in the Nation and publish the list. 
Criteria could include the number of vehicles; amount of freight; 
congestion levels; reliability; safety; or, air quality impacts. States 
with identified bottlenecks could apply to USDOT for project funding 
grants on a competitive basis. Locations could appear on the list over 
multiple years until they are addressed.
    The funds remaining following the transfer to the HTF and the NPP 
would be placed into the Local Priorities Program (LPP). Funds would be 
apportioned to the states according to the same formula established by 
the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, including suballocation 
to local agencies. Project eligibility would be the same as the 
eligibility for the National Highway Freight Program or National 
Highway Performance Program, for highway projects only.
    This approach would give state and local transportation agencies 
the long-term certainty and revenue stability they need to not only 
maintain, but also begin to improve their surface transportation 
systems. They should not be forced to resort to costly, inefficient 
practices--such as deferred maintenance--necessitated by the 
unpredictable Federal revenue streams that have become all too common 
since 2008. Furthermore, while transportation investment has long-term 
benefits that extend beyond the initial construction phase, it is 
estimated that our proposal would add nearly half a million annual jobs 
related to construction nationwide, including nearly 6,000 jobs in 
Mississippi and more than 8,000 jobs in Washington State (see Appendix 
A for a full list of state-specific employment figures).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ A Framework for Infrastructure Funding. American 
Transportation Research Institute, Nov. 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The fuel tax is the most immediate, cost-efficient and conservative 
mechanism currently available for funding surface transportation 
projects and programs. Collection costs are less than one percent of 
revenue.\22\ Our proposal will not add to the Federal debt or force 
states to resort to detrimental financing options that could jeopardize 
their bond ratings. Unlike other approaches that simply pass the buck 
to state and local governments by giving them additional ``tools'' to 
debt-finance their infrastructure funding shortfalls for the few 
projects that qualify, the BAF will generate real money that can be 
utilized for any federal-aid project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Chairman, while some have suggested that a fuel tax is 
regressive, the economic harm of failing to enact our proposal will be 
far more damaging to motorists. The $100 per year paid by the average 
car driver under this proposal pales in comparison with the $1,600 they 
are now forced to pay annually due to additional vehicle maintenance, 
lost time, and wasted fuel that has resulted from underinvestment in 
our infrastructure. Borrowing billions of dollars each year from China 
to debt finance the HTF funding gap--a cost imposed on current and 
future generations of Americans who will be forced to pay the 
interest--is far more regressive than the modest fee needed to avoid 
further blowing up our already massive national debt. Forcing states to 
resort to tolls by starving them of Federal funds is far more 
regressive than the $2.00 a week motorists would pay under our 
proposal. One needs only look to I-66 in Northern Virginia, where tolls 
average more than $12.00 per roundtrip and can sometimes exceed $46.00, 
to understand the potential impacts on lower-or middle-income 
Americans.\23\ To put this into perspective, even if motorists only 
paid the average toll, the cost of a 10-mile trip over an eight day 
period on I-66 would be equivalent to their cost for an entire year 
under ATA's BAF proposal for all roads and bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ http://www.66expresslanes.org/documents/
66_express_lanes_january_2018_performance_ereport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative Revenue Sources
    The fuel tax is the most fair and efficient method for funding 
highways. Just 0.2 percent of fuel tax revenue goes to collection 
costs.\24\ However, we are willing to consider other funding options, 
provided they meet the following criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Ibid.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Be easy and inexpensive to pay and collect;

   Have a low evasion rate;

   Be tied to highway use; and

   Avoid creating impediments to interstate commerce.

    While ATA is open to supporting a wide range of funding and 
financing options, we will oppose expansion of Interstate highway 
tolling authority and highway ``asset recycling.'' Interstate tolls are 
a highly inefficient method of funding highways. Tolling also forces 
traffic onto secondary roads, which are weaker and less safe. Asset 
recycling involves selling or leasing public assets to the private 
sector. Where asset recycling has been utilized on toll roads in the 
U.S., toll payers have seen their rates increased, only to subsidize 
projects with little or no benefit to them. One need only consider the 
recent 35 percent increase in truck toll rates on the Indiana Toll Road 
for an example of these abusive practices. The state gets a single 
tranche of money for road, broadband, airport and other projects that 
have no direct benefit for toll road users, while the private operator 
of the highway reaps the profits for the next six decades. Please note 
that our position on asset recycling pertains only to the highway 
sector.
    ATA is aware of proposals to create a new fee that taxes the cost 
of freight transportation services. While such a proposal is attractive 
in concept, we have identified several issues that have yet to be 
resolved to our satisfaction, and therefore we cannot support it at 
this time. Our primary (though by no means only) concerns are: high 
administrative costs; significant potential for evasion; and difficulty 
imposing the fee on private carriers.
Future Revenue Sources
    While ATA considers an increase in the fuel tax to be the best and 
most immediate means for improving our Nation's roads and bridges, we 
also recognize that due to improvements in fuel efficiency and the 
development of new technologies that avoid the need to purchase fossil 
fuel altogether, the fuel tax is likely to be a diminishing source of 
revenue for surface transportation improvements. We, therefore, 
encourage Congress, in consultation with the Executive Branch, state 
and local partners and the private sector, to continue to work toward 
identifying future revenue sources.
    The FAST Act created a new grant program designed to accomplish 
this objective, and we hope that this research will continue. While 
much work has already been accomplished in this regard, there is much 
still to be done before these new revenue mechanisms are ready for 
mainstream implementation. ATA encourages Congress to include in a 
future infrastructure package or surface transportation reauthorization 
bill a plan to bolster and, if necessary, ultimately replace current 
highway funding mechanisms with new, more sustainable revenue sources. 
We recommend a ten-year strategy that could include creation of a blue-
ribbon commission to explore the results of pilot programs already 
completed or underway, with recommendations for either further research 
or a proposal for Congress to adopt a new funding approach.
Freight Transportation Improvement
    While trucks move the vast majority of freight, it is important to 
recognize the critical nature of the multimodal supply chain. The 
seamless interchange of freight between trucks, trains, aircraft, ships 
and waterways operators allows shippers to minimize costs and maximize 
efficiencies. While carriers do what they can to make this process as 
smooth as possible, some things are largely out of their hands and 
require government action.
Importance of the Federal Role
    The Federal Government has a critical role to play in the supply 
chain. Freight knows no borders, and the constraints of trying to 
improve the movement of freight without Federal funding and 
coordination will create a drag on all freight providers' ability to 
serve national and international needs. As the maps in Appendix B show, 
trucks move products to and from all corners of the country, and serve 
international markets as well.
    These maps demonstrate that parochial debates over how much funding 
each state receives is ultimately destructive to shippers no matter 
where they are located. The cost of congestion for a truck that moves 
freight from Kansas City to Chicago is no different whether that 
congestion occurs in Kansas City or in Chicago. There is little 
advantage to a truck moving a load of cars from the Port of Baltimore 
to a dealership in Washington, D.C. if roadway improvements are made 
around the port, only to experience severe congestion in Washington. 
The critical role that only the Federal Government can play is to look 
at investment decisions in the context of national impacts and 
determine which investments can produce the greatest economic benefits 
regardless of jurisdictional considerations. Only the Federal 
Government can break down the artificial constraints of geographic 
boundaries that hamper sound investment in our Nation's freight 
networks. Only the Federal Government can provide the resources 
necessary to fund projects whose benefits extend beyond state lines, 
but are too expensive for state or local governments to justify 
investments at the expense of local priorities.
Freight Intermodal Connectors
    Freight intermodal connectors--those roads that connect ports, rail 
yards, airports and other intermodal facilities to the National Highway 
System--are publicly owned. And while they are an essential part of the 
freight distribution system, many are neglected and are not given the 
attention they deserve given their importance to the Nation's economy. 
Just nine percent of connectors are in good or very good condition, 19 
percent are in mediocre condition, and 37 percent are in poor 
condition.\25\ Not only do poor roads damage both vehicles and the 
freight they carry, but the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) found 
a correlation between poor roads and vehicle speed. Average speed on a 
connector in poor condition was 22 percent lower than on connectors in 
fair or better condition.\26\ FHWA further found that congestion on 
freight intermodal connectors causes 1,059,238 hours of truck delay 
annually and 12,181,234 hours of automobile delay.\27\ Congestion on 
freight intermodal connectors adds nearly $71 million to freight 
transportation costs each year.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Freight Intermodal Connectors Study. Federal Highway 
Administration, April 2017.
    \26\ Ibid.
    \27\ Ibid.
    \28\ An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2018 Update. 
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018. Estimates 
average truck operational cost of $66.65 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One possible reason connectors are neglected is that the vast 
majority of these roads--70 percent--are under the jurisdiction of a 
local or county government.\29\ Yet, these roads are serving critical 
regional or national needs well beyond the geographic boundaries of the 
jurisdictions that have responsibility for them, and these broader 
benefits may not be factored into the local jurisdictions' spending 
decisions. While connectors are eligible for Federal funding, it is 
clear that this is simply not good enough. We urge Congress to set 
aside adequate funding for freight intermodal connectors to ensure that 
these critical arteries are given the attention and resources they 
deserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truck Driver Parking Shortage
    Research and feedback from carriers and drivers suggest there is a 
significant shortage of available parking for truck drivers in certain 
parts of the country. Given the projected growth in demand for trucking 
services, this problem will likely worsen. There are significant safety 
benefits from investing in truck parking to ensure that trucks are not 
parking in unsafe areas due to lack of space.
    Funding for truck parking is available to states under the current 
federal-aid highway program, but truck parking has not been a priority 
given a shortage of funds for essential highway projects. Therefore, we 
support the creation of a new discretionary grant program with 
dedicated funding from the federal-aid highway program for truck 
parking capital projects.
Additional Productivity Impediments
    It is helpful to understand the full range of productivity 
constraints we are facing in the context of addressing infrastructure-
related impediments. There are a host of actions that Congress can take 
to improve freight mobility without compromising important societal 
goals such as safety and air quality.
    While ATA supports state flexibility on certain matters, it should 
be recognized that Congress has a Constitutionally-mandated 
responsibility to ensure the flow of interstate commerce. Where 
appropriate, Federal preemption may be necessary. Unfortunately, 
Federal avoidance of preemption in the name of states' rights or to 
avoid controversy sometimes leads to a patchwork of state regulations 
that creates significant inefficiencies. Where appropriate, the Federal 
Government must act to protect the public interest from the parochial 
demands of narrow constituencies.
Workforce Development
    The trucking industry is facing a severe labor shortage that 
threatens to increase the cost of moving freight and reduce supply 
chain efficiencies. In 2017, for example, the industry was short 50,000 
drivers, the highest level on record. If current trends hold, the 
shortage could grow to more than 174,000 by 2026. Over the next decade, 
the trucking industry will need to hire roughly 898,000 new drivers, or 
an average of nearly 90,000 per year.
    In recognition of challenges like these, at last March's 
infrastructure hearing before this Committee, Labor Secretary Alex 
Acosta specifically advocated for workforce development reforms to be 
included in an infrastructure package. In particular, Secretary Acosta 
testified in support of occupational licensing reform. As you may be 
aware, reforming outdated occupational licensing requirements has been 
a bipartisan priority of the past three administrations, and there is 
broad bipartisan support for rolling back these unnecessary barriers 
that hold back so many Americans, and which disproportionately affect 
African-Americans, Hispanics, military spouses and veterans, returning 
citizens, and the poor.
    To help alleviate this problem in the trucking industry, ATA 
supports a number of occupational licensing reforms. First, ATA 
supports lowering the minimum age requirement for interstate truck 
driving from 21 to 18, but only for qualified CDL-holding apprentices 
that satisfy the safety, training, and technology requirements spelled 
out in the DRIVE Safe Act (S. 3352 in the 115th Congress). Modern-day 
vehicle safety technologies have advanced by several orders of 
magnitude since the current minimum age requirement was promulgated 
decades ago. Research shows that the technologies required by the DRIVE 
Safe Act and endorsed by the NTSB--such as active braking, collision 
avoidance, and event recorders--significantly improve safety 
performance. Meanwhile, 6.4 million Opportunity Youth in this country 
are neither employed, nor in school, even as the Nation is short 50,000 
truck drivers. An update to the minimum age requirement is long over-
due.
    Second, to better connect job-seekers to trucking careers that 
offer a median salary of $54,585, health and retirement benefits, and 
potentially thousands of dollars in signing bonuses, ATA supports 
efforts to require states to better serve the growing number of truck 
driver candidates who receive driver training outside their state of 
domicile. Currently, out-of-state trainees have to travel back and 
forth to their home state, every time they pass either the CDL 
knowledge test or skills test, just to obtain the basic occupational 
licenses necessary to launch their trucking career. This arrangement 
imposes unnecessary financial burdens on those who can least afford it 
and exposes them to skills degradation. This problem could be addressed 
by requiring states receiving Federal funds for infrastructure projects 
to allow such out-of-state trainees to (1) complete all training; (2) 
take all necessary tests; and (3) obtain all necessary credentials in 
the state in which they are receiving training- without having to 
travel back to their home state.
    As the Council of Economic Advisers has noted:

        Because [occupational] licenses are largely granted by states 
        (rather than being nationally recognized), licensing inhibits 
        the free flow of licensed workers across state boundaries to 
        better match labor supply to labor demand. Unless the 
        geographic footprint and skill needs of expanded infrastructure 
        investments match the geographic distribution of currently 
        unemployed infrastructure workers, some reshuffling of workers 
        across state lines may be needed.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ The Council of Economic Advisers, ``The Economic Benefits and 
Impacts of Expanded Infrastructure Investment,'' March 2018

    In the trucking industry, the geographic distribution of currently 
unemployed truck driver candidates does not match the geographic 
footprint of Federal workforce development investments. Accordingly, 
individuals aspiring to become truck drivers are crossing state lines 
to obtain state-of-the-art training from motor carriers that have the 
support of Federal workforce dollars and have been hiring minorities, 
veterans, apprentices, and other underrepresented populations at 
industry-leading rates.
    To better facilitate and scale this innovative model of workforce 
development, ATA supports efforts to require states of domicile to (1) 
accept the results of an applicant's CDL knowledge test administered in 
another state, and to (2) electronically transmit or deliver by mail 
the relevant credential--be it a CLP or a CDL--to the applicant without 
requiring him or her to physically come back to the state of domicile.
Infrastructure and Trucking Technology
    ATA supports the development and deployment of automated vehicle 
technology and connectivity for all vehicle types. The transportation 
industry is in an era of technological evolution that can deliver 
increased safety and efficiency for highway vehicles and vulnerable 
road users. Automated driving systems and vehicle safety communications 
are peaking in research and development, and are on the brink of market 
utilization. We encourage Congress to adopt legislation that 
facilitates the adoption of technology that improves safety, the 
environment, traffic congestion, and energy efficiency. It is important 
to ensure that all vehicles that share the road together, including 
commercial vehicles, are included in legislation that governs and 
facilitates these improvements. Furthermore, as you consider funding 
for infrastructure investment generally, keep in mind that these 
improvements are vital to the successful adoption of intelligent 
transportation systems.
Conclusion
    Mr. Chairman, over the next decade, freight tonnage is projected to 
grow by 30 percent.\31\ The trucking industry is expected to carry two-
thirds of the Nation's freight in 2029 and it will be tasked with 
hauling 2.6 billion more tons of freight than it moved this year.\32\ 
Without Federal support and cooperation, the industry will find it 
extremely difficult to meet these demands at the price and service 
levels that its customers--American businesses--need to compete 
globally. It is imperative to our Nation's economy and security that 
Congress, working in concert with the Administration, invest in 
critical highway freight infrastructure, and make the reforms necessary 
to create an improved regulatory environment that fosters greater 
safety and efficiency in our supply chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2018-2029. IHS Global Insight, 
2018.
    \32\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The trucking industry, and especially truck drivers, understands 
the importance of safe and efficient highways like nobody else. Roads 
and bridges are our workplace, and we cannot properly serve the needs 
of the Nation if elected officials continue to allow highways to fall 
into greater neglect. The trucking industry already pays nearly half 
the user fees into the HTF and we are willing to invest more. To us, 
and most Americans, this is not an ideological debate. It is simply a 
decision about whether we make the investments necessary to remain 
competitive and prevent needless injuries and deaths, or continue on 
the current path.
    Mr. Chairman, on January 6, 1983, President Ronald Reagan, in 
signing into law legislation that increased the Federal fuel tax, said:

        Today . . . America ends a period of decline in her vast and 
        world-famous transportation system. . . . [We] can now ensure 
        for our children a special part of their heritage--a network of 
        highways and mass transit that has enabled our commerce to 
        thrive, our country to grow, and our people to roam freely and 
        easily to every corner of our land.

    That bill was supported by 261 Members of the House, including a 
majority of both Republicans and Democrats. Roads and bridges know no 
political party; we all benefit from them. It is time for elected 
officials to put aside partisan politics and regional differences and 
fulfill the promise to the American people expressed so eloquently by 
President Reagan.
    Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your support and the support that 
Senate Leaders--Republican and Democrat--have given to passage of an 
infrastructure bill this Congress. In his State of the Union speech 
last week, President Trump called on Congress to work with him to pass 
an infrastructure bill, and correctly stated that this is not an 
option, it is a necessity. You have a willing partner in the White 
House, and also in the House of Representatives where Speaker Pelosi 
and T&I Chairman DeFazio have made similar commitments to pursuing a 
robust, bipartisan infrastructure package. Congress has a unique 
opportunity this year to show the American people that Congress is, 
once more, able to work together, in partnership with the President, to 
pass bipartisan legislation that will improve their daily lives, create 
good jobs and grow the economy.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify on this 
important subject. We look forward to working with the committee to 
advance legislation that enables the trucking industry to continue to 
provide safe and efficient freight transportation services to the 
American people.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Spear.
    Mr. Willis, welcome.

STATEMENT OF LARRY I. WILLIS, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION TRADES 
                      DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO

    Mr. Willis. Thank you. On behalf of the Transportation 
Trades Department, our 32 affiliated unions, and the millions 
of front-line transportation workers that I am proud to help 
represent, I want to thank Chairman Wicker, Senator Cantwell, 
for inviting me to testify this morning.
    You know, in America today, it's easy to focus on what 
divides us, right. Polarizing rhetoric, political labels, and 
differing ideas can make us forget that at the end of the day, 
we all want the same thing, a good job and peace of mind for 
ourselves and for our family, and transportation and 
infrastructure should be an issue that unites us.
    As Chairman Wicker already noted, you've proven that it can 
be with the recent passage of FAA Reauthorization, Amtrak 
Reauthorization before that, and, of course, the FAST Act.
    These were all good pieces of legislation that the labor 
movement was proud to support, but when it comes to funding 
levels, they were simply not enough. They're not enough to meet 
the demands that we place on our system today. They are not 
enough to meet the demands that we're going to place on our 
system over the next 10 years, and they are nowhere near enough 
for what we need to leave a legacy of economic stability and 
world-class infrastructure for our children the way that our 
parents and grandparents did for us.
    Past generations, they did more than just build the 
interstate highway system, rail lines that connected New York 
to California and every state in between, and an aviation 
system that set the global standard by ensuring that those who 
built this country and contributed to its economy enjoyed the 
benefits of a strong union contract. They also helped create 
the middle class.
    Sadly, today, we run the risk of letting these great 
legacies crumble away. We know failure by the Federal 
Government to invest in infrastructure hurts working families. 
It hurts our economy and that's why today I want to take you 
past GDP indicators, past the report card scores and past the 
dizzying array of numbers and figures that we can all point to 
and focus on ways that failing to invest in infrastructure 
takes a toll on individuals.
    I'm talking about the office worker who misses out on time 
with their family because of soul-crushing commutes, truck 
drivers right here in the Port of Virginia who regularly lose 
out on pay because they are stuck sometimes for hours on end on 
traffic jams caused by outdated infrastructure, families in 
West Virginia who face uncertainty because funding for their 
commuter train, their lifeline to a good job, is now being 
jeopardized.
    You know, we used to pride ourselves on being a nation that 
dug deeper, built higher, and went faster, but now we are 
holding our economy and working families hostage by failing to 
invest in projects like Gateway in the Northeast and expanding 
the Soo Locks in the Midwest.
    Let me be clear. Our members, they stand ready, willing and 
able to drive the buses, build the roads, move the freight, fly 
the airplanes, and dare to dream on major projects that are 
only possible with support and leadership from the Federal 
Government. The policy solutions here are no great mystery. 
We've already talked about them.
    We need to stabilize the Highway Trust Fund through a gas 
tax increase, mileage-based user fee, or some other user fee-
based approach. We must return the Harbor Maintenance Tax Fund 
to its intended purpose of funding our Nation's seaports. We 
must make permanent the tax credit for short-line railroads and 
fund grade crossing improvements, and Federal infrastructure 
investments must be paired with strong labor policies and ``Buy 
America'' rules so that American tax dollars will be used to 
create good middle-class jobs that we can all be proud of.
    Finally, if we want to improve our transportation system, 
we have got to stop shutting down the Federal Government. We 
hopefully just avoided another crisis, if press reports are to 
be believed, but we cannot ignore the harm caused by shutting 
our government for 35 days, the longest in history.
    I'm talking about Federal employees who use their 
government job to lift themselves out of poverty only to find 
that they couldn't pay for gas or rent or groceries, the safety 
issues posed and perishable evidence lost because NTSB accident 
investigators were told to stay home, the damage done to our 
aviation industry by forcing TSA officers, air traffic 
controllers, FAA inspectors and technicians to work without pay 
for over a month, closing air traffic control training 
facilities and failing to maintain the equipment needed to 
operate a world-class aviation system.
    We have to stop punishing Federal employees and hindering 
the public service they provide over policy debates that, quite 
frankly, have nothing to do with them.
    Let me close with this message. By showing the courage that 
this crisis, our infrastructure crisis deserves, we can leave 
behind a legacy better than crumbling roads, bridges, and 
struggling train systems, better than congested ports and 
airports. Working families are ready. It is now your turn to 
show America that you are ready to meet these challenges head 
on.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Willis follows:]

           Prepared Statement of Larry I. Willis, President, 
               Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
    On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), 
and our 32 affiliated unions, I want to first thank Chairman Wicker and 
Ranking Member Cantwell for inviting me to testify before you today.
    These are difficult political times in America.
    Every day, we hear more and more divisive rhetoric and unwavering 
points of view here in Washington, D.C., on the news, over social 
media, and in our communities. The effects of digging our heels in hurt 
every single American. It drives a wedge between friends and family 
members. It drives a wedge between neighbors. And it makes us forget 
that the people ten states or even just one county over have the same 
desire we do for a good job and peace of mind for our families.
    While America is both large in size and diverse in our ideas and 
ways of life, I think that last point is something that really unites 
us. This country works harder than any other nation on earth. We see 
ourselves in our work. We take pride in it and we want to contribute. 
In many ways, our shared interest in simply pitching in is our common 
national identity.
    And working people expect the same of Congress.
    In fact, transportation investment can and should be a great 
vehicle for showing folks back home that this body can still come 
together and get the job done. That we can see party lines not as lines 
in the sand but as a wealth of great ideas.
    This committee, in particular, knows that we do not just build 
ports, fly planes, or build rail and transit systems for the sake of 
spending money. If we want to have a 21st century economy--if we want 
to be the leaders of a global economy--we simply cannot risk falling 
behind.
    Your willingness to put party lines aside and get to work was 
evident last year when you passed a long-term FAA reauthorization bill 
that secured the broad support of transportation unions and included a 
number measures to improve the safety and efficiency of this sector. It 
was also evident three years ago when you passed a five-year Amtrak 
bill and reauthorized our transit, highway, and hazardous materials 
programs in the FAST Act.
    These were not easy jobs. Nonetheless, many of you here today 
worked together to get them done.
    But let me be clear: while these were all good pieces of 
legislation that included hard-fought provisions for America's working 
families, I am sad to say, they simply are not anywhere near enough.
    They are not enough to meet the demands that we place on our 
transportation system today. They are certainly not enough to meet the 
demands that are going to be placed on it in ten years. And they are 
nowhere near what we need to leave a legacy for our children, the way 
our parents and grandparents did when they had the courage to build 
something as impossible-seeming as the interstate highway system and 
world-class urban and rural transit systems in every part of our 
country. Rail lines that connected New York to California and nearly 
every state in between. A network of more than 900 ports through which 
99 percent of overseas trade passes. And an aviation system that set 
the global standard for moving people and goods safely and efficiently 
across our skies.
    Past generations did more than just build a system of 
transportation infrastructure that inspired a nation. By demanding that 
working people have a voice on the job and earn living wages, our 
parents and grandparents helped define the American Dream. Through 
strong union contracts, they helped create an economic system that 
allowed a middle class to grow, and ensured those who built this 
country and contributed to its economy could support their families.
    Sadly, today we are well past the point where we run the risk of 
letting those legacies quite literally crumble away.
    We know that it hurts working families when the Federal Government 
fails to invest in infrastructure. We know it hurts our economy. We 
know that when the Federal Government fails to invest in infrastructure 
it leaves good union jobs on the table and delays the ability of goods 
and services to get to American manufacturers, business owners, and 
household consumers.
    Voters back home--hard working men and women--sent you here to get 
this right.
    That is why, today, I want to take you past GDP indicators, past 
the report card scores, past the dizzying array of numbers any of us 
can point to, and instead, focus on the ways failing to invest in 
infrastructure takes a toll on working families. I am talking about the 
young adult who is ready and willing to work, but does not have access 
to reliable transportation to get to where jobs are located. The single 
parent who burns the candle at both ends and is still barely able to 
scrape by. The dedicated Amtrak employee who has devoted her life to 
providing quality customer service to regulars and new riders alike, 
who worries about her family should her job be contracted out to save a 
few bucks.
    The people I am describing are real people. They are the frontline 
transportation workers who want to operate and build a world-class 
system. They are the nurses, teachers, veterans, government employees, 
and business professionals who depend on a safe, efficient 
transportation network. They are your constituents back home. And the 
impacts they feel today are only going to get worse if we decide that 
current Federal measures are simply good enough.
Everyday Impacts on the American People
    Take, for example, port truck drivers in Virginia, who come face to 
face with America's lack of infrastructure investment on a regular 
basis. Surges in containers from increasingly large ships regularly put 
the port over capacity, creating traffic jams that can be 13-lanes 
wide, 10-trucks deep, and take eight hours to clear. Port congestion 
not only means truck drivers lose out on pay, lessening their 
purchasing power and placing a strain on their communities, but it 
means the shipment of goods and raw materials to retailers, small 
businesses, and farmers is severely delayed.
    For rural communities, Federal investment in transportation 
infrastructure can mean the difference between isolation and having a 
lifeline to nearby towns and cities, between economic decay and 
economic vibrancy. Just look at what is happening in Hattiesburg, 
Mississippi. By taking their neglected train depot and making it the 
focus of a downtown revitalization effort, the people of Hattiesburg 
have breathed new life into their once-declining community, expanded 
transportation options for residents and visitors, and put the town on 
stable financial footing.
    By contrast, when MARC funding in West Virginia was jeopardized 
last year, hundreds of Martinsburg residents, who rely on train travel 
to get to their jobs here in Washington, were forced to consider 
relocating. Many said they moved to the community because of the train 
and the valuable service it offers. Without it, they--and their tax 
dollars, civic contributions, and entrepreneurship--have no reason to 
stay.
    Consider also small towns like Canadian, Texas; Scottsbluff, 
Nebraska; or Lima, Ohio, which have already suffered from the decline 
in rural aviation and bus services that began in the 1970s. Every day 
they see freight trains pass through their communities, but no 
passenger trains. Think of the opportunity that passenger rail service 
could provide to these otherwise isolated communities. Think of the 
stability and growth passenger rail could bring to Rockwood, 
Pennsylvania, which lies along the Capitol Limited line between Chicago 
and Washington D.C. The community of Rockwood has been fighting for a 
stop for 23 years. For far less than we handed away in the 2018 tax 
bill, we could have instead extended a hand to American towns all 
across the country.
Shutdowns Only Intensify the Problem
    If we are serious about funding and supporting our Nation's 
transportation system, we have to stop shutting down the Federal 
Government. It is embarrassing, it is counterproductive and it is a 
selfinflicted wound that workers and our economy simply cannot 
tolerate.
    When a transit agency in South Carolina, which is still recovering 
from the effects of Hurricane Florence, is forced to consider 
suspending service for an entire month because the Federal grants it 
relies on are not coming through, local economies suffer. When the 
Maritime Security Program faces uncertainty and vessel operators wonder 
if it will remain economically feasible to participate, civilian 
mariners, their families, and our national security are placed in 
jeopardy. When critical, perishable evidence from fatal transportation 
accidents is lost because NTSB investigators are forced to sit at home, 
we are all less safe. And when over one million working people, 
including Federal employees and government contractors, are forced to 
go without pay for more than a month, the economic desperation they 
feel ripples through communities.
    Just look at the Federal worker in Florida who, in a frantic 
attempt to not spend any more than was absolutely necessary, refused to 
turn on the heat in her home, stopped driving except to go to and from 
work, and spent her free time scouring her home for things she could 
sell, including clothes and the camper van she had just paid off. Or 
the TSA worker in Oregon whose government job allowed him to claw out 
of poverty, only to find himself unable to make rent, pay bills, or buy 
presents for his son's birthday. Or, the air traffic controller and 
single dad who reported for duty knowing he was going to have to make a 
decision between buying groceries and paying the electric bill.
    Perhaps nowhere was the chaos and devastation of failing to fund 
the government for 35 days more visible than in our Nation's aviation 
industry. This is a sector of our transportation system that has become 
a cornerstone of this county's economy--it supports nearly 12 million 
jobs, more than $1.5 trillion in total economic activity, and accounts 
for 5.4 percent of our GDP. And yet, we subjected critical Federal 
employees, without whom this industry cannot function, including 
transportation security officers, air traffic controllers, and FAA 
inspectors and technicians, to the stressors and insecurities of 
working without pay for more than a month. It is not a coincidence that 
relatively modest delays in air traffic control are what brought the 
shutdown to an end.
    It is also important to note, that closing large portions of the 
FAA and DOT are further delaying the implementation of important safety 
rules mandated by the FAA Reauthorization Act passed last year. Minimum 
rest requirements for flight attendants, mandates to install secondary 
barriers in commercial passenger aircraft, requirements for airlines to 
adopt assault mitigation plans to better protect customer service 
agents--to name a few--have yet to be implemented. Shutting down the 
government needlessly takes these tasks off course and further 
frustrates clear directives from this Committee.
    We cannot repeat this mistake. Our aviation industry, portions of 
our broader transportation system, and too many Federal workers are 
still recovering from the damaging effects of the last shutdown. 
Lawmakers, including those of you here today, must be focused not only 
on preventing another shutdown, but ensuring government workers and 
Federal contractors are made whole. It is imperative we understand the 
important work these civil servants do is vital to our country and our 
economy. Too often, we demonize, laugh at, or scapegoat government 
workers. That must end today. The men and women who perform safety 
sensitive transportation work, keep government offices clean and 
secure, perform inspections, and a myriad of other duties that keep 
this country functioning are real people with families to feed, and, 
like any working person, they deserve our respect.
A Nation that Used to Dream Big
    We used to be a country that prided itself on digging deeper, 
building higher, and going faster. But today, we have turned a blind 
eye to projects that will make us better. By failing to tackle some of 
our Nation's largest and most pressing needs, we are putting our 
country's entire economy on the line.
    Consider the Gateway Tunnel on the Northeast Corridor. The 
Northeast accounts for 30 percent of all jobs in the U.S. and 
contributes $3 trillion annually to the U.S. economy. It is home to 51 
million people--one in seven Americans--a figure expected to hit 58 
million by 2040. Yet, in the busiest rail corridor in the country, we 
continue to move people and goods at maximum capacity through a hundred 
year old tunnel that has been in dire need of expansion and 
modernization for the past 25 years. Frontline rail workers--including 
electricians, track employees and signalmen are responsible for keeping 
this system running safely and efficiently under almost impossible 
conditions. Our members also have to operate and dispatch trains every 
day through this labyrinth of outdated infrastructure. We know it is 
past time for this Administration to stop playing political chicken 
with Gateway and release grant money to allow this project to move 
forward.
    At the Soo Locks in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, only one lock--the 
Poe Lock, built in 1896--is capable of handling the large lake 
freighters used on the upper Great Lakes. One hundred percent of the 
iron ore mined in the United States comes through this one lock. If it 
were to fail for six months or longer, the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security estimates that it would have a $1.1 trillion dollar economic 
impact on our country and cause 1 1 million jobs to be lost. Yet this 
project is still waiting on crucial Federal funding for the 
construction of a second lock.
    Meanwhile, America's first truly high-speed rail project, which 
will lead to an estimated $7.6 billion in new business sales and $3 
billion in new wages, faces continuous threats by some in Congress. By 
repeatedly seeking to bring this transformative project to a grinding 
halt, opponents of the project do little more than signal to China, 
Europe, Japan, Russia and other parts of the world that we do not want 
to be leaders--that we don't even want to be followers--in innovating 
our transportation network.
    That is what good enough looks like.
We Stand Ready to Help Congress Get This Right
    Our members stand ready, willing, and able to operate those trains 
that connect communities all across our country. To modernize and move 
freight in and out of our ports. To make the most advanced aviation 
system in the world even more efficient. To build the infrastructure we 
need today for the electric vehicles that are coming tomorrow. And to 
dare to dream big with you on projects like the Gateway Tunnel and 
California High Speed Rail.
    And yet we sit here today, still trying to pay for a 21st Century 
transportation network on a 1993 budget. Still seemingly unwilling to 
make the difficult political choices that, frankly, we do not think are 
all that difficult.
    The policy solutions are no great mystery.
Highways and Transit
    We know that a user-fee supported system works when it generates 
enough revenue to meet our needs. But that is simply no longer 
happening with the Highway Trust Fund. Since 2008, Congress has 
transferred $ 140 billion into the Highway Trust Fund from the general 
treasury, and even then, it is just barely enough money to keep pace 
with current spending levels. Spending levels that do not even begin to 
address the larger investment gaps I have discussed today. Spending 
levels that we know must be dramatically increased if we are to compete 
in the world economy and provide mobility options that working families 
are calling for.
    We have long supported efforts for a modest increase in the Federal 
gas tax, which remains the most efficient and reliable means to raise 
revenue for our surface transportation network. Yes, an extra twenty-
five cents per gallon at the pump will increase costs for some 
consumers by roughly $ 100 per year. But this calculation overlooks the 
fact that investing in American infrastructure will raise household 
income, by a recent estimate, to the tune of $ 1,400 per year.
    We would also support any serious effort in this Congress to lay 
the groundwork for a transition to a mileage based user fee. As 
gasoline powered vehicles become more efficient and electric vehicles 
become more prevalent, contributions to the Highway Trust Fund will 
continue to dry up, leaving us back in the same position we are today. 
At a minimum, Congress should spearhead an immediate effort to 
dramatically expand the testing of a mileage-based fee.
Moving Goods by Land and Sea
    We should take the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund off budget and 
stop raiding it to pay for other priorities. America--not one of our 
competitors--should be home to the best ports the world has ever known. 
What's more, when Congress cannot show responsibility with the money 
they collect for our trust funds, it harms the public's faith in your 
work. In a very real way, this is about the health of our democracy.
    In addition to funding our port infrastructure adequately, Congress 
must also do so responsibly. Last year, this Committee proposed 
modifying and increasing a port grant program to improve intermodal 
access, including investing in rail and highway connections. While we 
support these type of investments, we are concerned that money could be 
diverted to port automation projects. To date, all but one port in this 
country have chosen not to automate, due largely to the fact that 
automation projects are expensive and are likely not cost effective. 
Ports are free, of course, to pursue automation if they so choose. But 
the Federal Government should not subsidize private business decisions 
that would not be appealing otherwise, particularly when those 
decisions are made in an effort to cut labor costs.
    Congress must also prioritize smart investments in our freight rail 
sector.
    The Senate should pass the Building Rail Access for Customers and 
the Economy Act of 2019, or BRACE Act, to permanently extend the 45G 
Short Line Tax Credit once and for all. Privately owned short line 
freight railroads play a significant role in moving goods, connecting 
the entire freight rail network, and alleviating the deterioration of 
public roads and bridges within our transportation network. Yet, year 
after year, Congress has failed to make permanent the Short Line Tax 
Credit. Since it was first put to use in 2005, the tax credit has 
spurred $4 billion in private infrastructure investment among short 
line railroads. It ensures the short line industry's continued private 
investment for the future and saves taxpayers from shouldering hefty 
annual bills for the wear and tear on the roadways.
    Additionally, we support increasing the funding dedicated to the 
Section 130 railway-highway grade crossings program via the FAST Act. 
Annually, Section 130 funds are allotted to states for the installation 
of new grade crossing warning devices, the upgrade of existing devices 
and surfaces, and the separation and closure of grade crossings. This 
program has helped dramatically reduce grade crossing collisions over 
the past few decades, but with more than 125,000 public grade crossings 
in the United States and growing freight and passenger rail traffic 
alongside growing truck and automobile traffic, there is much more to 
be done.
Aviation
    As we saw during the recent shutdown, the Federal Government and 
the American people expect air travel to continue without a hitch, 
regardless of the toll it takes on FAA and airline employees. However, 
requiring air traffic controllers, safety inspectors and other FAA 
employees to work for over a month without pay puts incredible stress 
on the system--stress that seriously risks the safety and security of 
our skies. These risks are unacceptable to FAA employees, airline 
employees and the flying public, and they should be unacceptable to 
Congress.
    H.R 1108, the Aviation Funding Stability Act, which was introduced 
in the House by Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman 
Peter DeFazio and Aviation Subcommittee Chair Rick Larsen last week is 
unfortunately necessary in the current political climate. The bill 
would allow the FAA to use uncommitted Airport and Airway Trust Fund 
money to continue to operate fully in the event of a government 
shutdown. H.R. 1108 would allow the FAA to continue to ensure safe air 
operations and prevent it from being held hostage by political 
squabbles. Importantly, this bill would only be in effect during a 
government shutdown and would not otherwise remove the FAA from 
Congress's oversight and appropriations authority. To transportation 
labor, this is a no-brainer.
    Unfortunately, because the funding would come through the Airport 
and Airways Trust Fund, this bill does not cover TSA and the dedicated 
Transportation Security Officers that were also required to work 
without pay. We are working with legislators to pass similar 
legislation to ensure that TSOs receive pay in the event of a shutdown. 
This is simple. Air travel is going to continue. And funding the FAA 
and TSA during a shutdown will ensure that air travel continues safely.
    Finally, we know that jobs created by smart investments in 
transportation and infrastructure are good jobs that people can raise 
families on. In part, this is because of high union density in some of 
these sectors and in part because of the Federal policies that have 
been associated with these investments. In particular, labor standards 
specific to construction and transportation have been included in past 
infrastructure investment statutes and together have resulted in a 
high-road labor model and ensured a skilled workforce is utilized. 
These standards and other employee protections should be expanded and 
applied to future investments considered by the Committee. In addition, 
Buy America rules should be aggressively applied to Federal 
infrastructure programs so that we can grow our manufacturing base as 
we seek to reverse decades of under-investment. It would be a grave 
mistake for the health of our Nation to use an infrastructure bill to 
attack these important laws or to undercut collective bargaining rights 
that are essential to the good jobs that can and should be created in 
this space.
Leaving Behind a Legacy for our Nation
    By taking these steps today, we can leave behind a legacy better 
than crumbling roads and insufficient transit. Better than seaports 
that no longer compete with our neighbors to the north and to the 
south. Better than airports where we ask our workforce to do more with 
less every single day. Better than an economy where the ultra-wealthy 
only get richer at the expense of everyone else.
    It is your turn in Congress, now, to show America's working 
families that you are ready to meet this challenge. To show our 
children the kind of courage and leadership that our parents dared to 
show us. The kind of leadership that inspired a nation to invest in the 
economic wellbeing of its people by building the Hoover Dam, the Panama 
Canal, the Interstate Highway System, and countless other projects 
named after great Americans who dared to dream bigger than we seem 
capable of today.
    We must not find ourselves back at this table in ten or 30 years 
asking what went wrong. Why nobody rose to meet the challenge. And so I 
challenge each of you and all of us to seize the opportunity before us.
    With that, I am happy to answer any questions.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Willis, and thank 
you to all of our witnesses for very thought-provoking and 
substantive suggestions.
    Mr. Spear, is all P3 funding fake funding or can you 
differentiate between workable 3Ps and fake P3s?
    Mr. Spear. I would argue that from the context of roads and 
bridges and from a trucking perspective, P3s are code for 
tolling.
    Tolling is only profitable when you have a high throughput 
and to have the level of throughput that would make it 
profitable on a road or bridge, it's only applicable to less 
than 1 percent of the roads and bridges in the United States, 
so which is why it's really difficult to attract private 
investment on tolling schemes and make them profitable.
    P3s, however, could be profitable in other venues, other, 
you know, modes of transportation, airports, seaports perhaps, 
you know, could be beneficial. That's been proven in other 
countries. But as we see it from roads and bridges, a P3 is a 
tolling scheme that time and time again has proven to be very 
regressive, high administrative costs, up to 35 percent to 
administer a toll on the dollar versus less than one penny on 
the dollar for the user fee. So we look at the user fee as a 
much more viable solution, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Willis, do you agree that P3 is fake 
funding?
    Mr. Willis. Excuse me. We agree that direct funding through 
user fee or, you know, some other mechanism is the right 
approach.
    P3s do have a role. Mr. Jefferies mentioned them in the 
context of the CREATE Project. I think that's something that we 
have traditionally supported there, but I think it has to be 
part of a--it's going to always be a minority of our 
infrastructure needs and when you do deploy them, you have to 
make sure that the public is protected.
    You have to make sure that ``Buy America'' rules, labor 
policies apply, just like they would in other projects, and 
recognizing that most projects aren't a for-profit model. So 
really you aren't going to work in the P3 component. So part of 
the solution but a small part.
    The Chairman. You want to weigh in, Mr. Willis, on the 
congestion pricing that Mr. Spear mentioned and particularly 
the I-66 example that he used?
    Mr. Willis. Yes. We have not gotten involved in those type 
of issues, but again I think when you look at that type of a P3 
model, making sure that you have the public interest protected 
and at the table, I think is important, not just on highways 
but in other deployments of P3s.
    The Chairman. And, Mr. Polka, you are concerned that we not 
use scarce funds to build over where we already have coverage.
    We've had concerns on both sides of the aisle up and down 
this dais about the map that the FCC has. Are you satisfied 
that we know enough about where the coverage deficits are?
    Mr. Polka. It's better, but we need to do more. The fact 
that we have started to look on a more granular basis at what 
homes are served is good. Certainly as we have in our mapping 
processes looked down to the census track level, we have 
incorporated things, such as what the FCC has done to institute 
a challenge process in its Connect America Fund, programs which 
help to more singularly focus where homes are, where they're 
not.
    The Chairman. Do you think----
    Mr. Polka. But the truth is we don't know what homes are 
served and what homes aren't served. So if there's a need from 
a mapping perspective, I think ultimately we need a map that 
would be part of an infrastructure program to help us determine 
what homes are served and what homes aren't and then we'll know 
where the funds need to go.
    The Chairman. OK. So you might want to get back to us then 
on some specific legislation to make sure we get it right where 
the coverage is and where it is now currently?
    Mr. Polka. Yes, this is something where a map of this 
nature would need to focus really in on the specifics of where 
homes are located, to geo-code specific homes where we can then 
overlay whether or not there is service and that whether those 
homes are served or not, and we'll be glad to do that with you.
    The Chairman. OK. Well, we're getting ready to spend a ton 
of money on these reverse auctions and it just seems to me that 
we don't quite have the correct information.
    Thank you very, very much.
    Senator Cantwell.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I mentioned in my opening statement this article that 
Seattle Times reporter Mike Lindblom reported on but what 
triggered his analysis of traffic challenges and investment was 
an INRIX report, which is a worldwide data and traffic 
analysis. The American Transportation Research Group in their 
Annual Congestion Report said that truck delays cost over $66 
billion.
    So many of you mentioned the economic impact of congestion 
on to the economy and to consumers. So if we know we're losing 
$66 billion then at least these levels of investment should be 
considered.
    In your statement--I'm sorry. In, Mr. Friedman, your 
statement, you were commenting about various ways in which 
freight--thank you for mentioning The Freight Act and the 
passage of that. That truly was about us losing our competitive 
advantage.
    One of the largest grain elevators in the entire world is 
in Vancouver, Washington. I said why do we have the largest 
grain elevator in Vancouver, Washington, and they said, well, 
if the Asians want to eat beef, we have to have grain and if we 
have grain, we're going to ship it through this port and that's 
where you're going to have the largest grain terminal.
    So the world is changing. It's growing and that's good news 
because Americans know how to grow things and we know how to 
build things and the question then becomes how do we get them 
to the market?
    So how do you think we should look at this as it relates to 
particularly the freight proposal, the freight way fee? How do 
we contrast the costs we know we're losing with the economic 
competitiveness of moving forward on more investment at our 
ports?
    Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Ranking Member Cantwell, for that 
question.
    Yes, as I highlighted in my prepared statement, our ports 
are struggling with the so-called last and first mile 
connectedness and with those freight bottlenecks and so AAPA 
would support increasing the fuel tax, gas tax, looking at a 
VMT program, and looking at a freight waybill program in 
concept in order to fund more programs, more funding, and 
greater eligibility for our ports through multimodal programs, 
like INFRA, so that we could work in partnership with the 
Federal Government, with local and state government, and with 
our private sector partners to really aggressively attack those 
bottlenecks so we can move grain through our system to export 
ports, like the Port of Vancouver, and, as you pointed out in 
your opening remarks, make us more competitive.
    So, you know, we look forward to seeing those sorts of 
proposals emerge in the next reauthorization of the FAST Act or 
whatever the surface transportation bill will be called.
    Senator Cantwell. But this INRIX report on movement and 
freight and congestion, these are--now we can analyze by data, 
what we're losing in competitiveness or in delays and so this 
modernization of our ports, we should be able to come to terms 
with how we save investment as opposed to lose it, right?
    So somebody's ignoring the problem is costing us and do you 
think the freight waybill issue is the right way to go? Is 
that----
    Mr. Friedman. Yes. Our port association does support 
exploring that concept, probably not in and of itself going to 
solve our funding gap, but we do think it is worth exploring, 
and I think, you know, we would agree that we can zero in in 
terms of sort of cost-benefit the cost to our Nation versus the 
cost of fixing these problems and, yes, we are in favor of 
looking at that concept.
    Senator Cantwell. Mr. Spear, do you have a comment about 
that since a lot of the bottlenecks for your associations do 
happen at that last mile?
    Mr. Spear. Yes. We share that concern and recognize that 
the problem--we do take a different approach and we oppose 
lifting the current 10-percent cap on revenue use for non-
highway projects in the two freight programs. One's a formula, 
one's a grant program.
    As I read AAPA's testimony, if I read it correctly, lifting 
that to a hundred percent, trucks and what we fund into the 
freight programs would then be used to pay for more efficient 
ports, and I think the argument is clear that more efficient 
ports benefit trucking. That is true.
    But you could also argue that more efficient highways, 
roads, and bridges benefit the ports. The difference is we're 
paying half the tab into the Trust Fund. We're willing to pay 
more.
    Mr. Jefferies testified they're paying for rail. We think, 
you know, everybody should be contributing to their own 
bottleneck areas. So I think if everybody's contributing to the 
cause and funding a robust infrastructure bill, you'll see 
efficiencies across the board, but I think changing the 
formulas and taking money from one program to pay for another, 
I would caution against that.
    Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Blackburn. Mr. Gardner.

                STATEMENT OF HON. CORY GARDNER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO

    Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, and 
thank you to the witnesses for your time and testimony today.
    I will agree on the incredibly urgent need to fix, repair, 
and grow our Nation's infrastructure. In my home state of 
Colorado, we have some of the fastest-growing cities in the 
country, fastest-growing counties in the country. According to 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in terms of metropolitan job 
growth, Colorado Springs was the fourth fastest for most jobs 
created in the Nation last year. Ft. Collins, Colorado, was the 
ninth highest metro area in terms of job creation. The 
population in Colorado over the last decade has grown between 
2010 and 2018 nearly 14 percent.
    At the same time we've seen this population growth, that 
we've seen these cities explode, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers has talked about the fact that Colorado 
infrastructure is costing drivers an estimated $580 each 
annually. Furthermore, the American Society of Civil Engineers 
estimates that of Colorado's more than 88,000 miles of public 
roads, approximately 21 percent are in poor condition, and 
nearly everywhere I travel along Colorado's Front Range, I hear 
from people about fixing the traffic, fixing the roads, fixing 
the potholes.
    I'm reminded regularly that there are no Democrat or 
Republican potholes, they're potholes, and according to this 
report that came out, the Trip Report, in June 2018 by the 
National Transportation Research Organization, the 
transportation infrastructure in Colorado is costing, just 
Colorado alone, $7.1 billion a year. That's what the cost of 
our aging infrastructure has meant to--an inadequate 
infrastructure has meant.
    The report estimates that the average driver in Denver sits 
through an average of 52 hours worth of delays per year as a 
result of congestion. That's an entire work week that is lost 
in a car. That's an entire vacation with the family that is 
lost. That's a soccer game that's lost. That's a lacrosse game 
that's lost in Colorado. More importantly, that's a Broncos 
game that is lost in Colorado.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Gardner. It's past time for us to come together and 
address our infrastructure needs.
    We've had several communities in Colorado who've done an 
incredible job putting up their dollars, putting up their own 
local funding to match dollars for Federal projects, including 
for projects in North and South I-25 where we've seen such 
incredible growth.
    Communities along our Front Range Corridor continue to grow 
and thrive. Those numbers prove it. But we get off of I-25 and 
we have problems, too, because in the rural areas of Western 
Colorado and Eastern Colorado, the Eastern Plains, the Western 
Slope, we see rural areas that are being left behind because 
what works in Denver or Boulder may not work in Durango or 
Lyman, and so how do we make sure that we have the flexibility 
to determine what fits best in those communities?
    And so I think this body, as we have this split bi-camera 
opportunity to come up with an infrastructure bill, I hope that 
we can work together to consider what measures will work to 
adequately fund transportation, to adequately fund our traffic 
problem, to make solutions go further, but we also have to look 
at permitting issues and regulatory reforms, how we compare 
those with a funding mechanism or funding legislation, 
considering the impact of regulations on infrastructure and our 
economy.
    I talked to county commissioners in Colorado who turned 
down Federal dollars because they can do a road, the same 
section of road for magnitudes less than the Federal Government 
would require you to fix the same portion of road. So why is it 
that the same portion of road costs three times more money for 
the Federal Government to do it than it does for the county 
commissioners to do it?
    So I look forward to working with members on both sides of 
the aisle to address this problem, to get through the red tape, 
to have the regulatory reforms that we need.
    All of you brought up great points in your opening. Mr. 
Polka, I'm reminded about the Eagle Net fiasco in Colorado 
which a $100 million, over a $100 million of taxpayer money 
went to a state to duplicate existing facilities and broadband 
Internet infrastructure investments. A $100 million without the 
oversight, that's money that was just gone, bankrupt, and 
unfortunately didn't have the oversight that you rightfully say 
we need.
    Mr. Spear, Mr. Jefferies, curious about other solutions for 
transportation funding and, Mr. Friedman, Mr. Willis, thank you 
for being here today.
    So I guess a final question is this. Beyond a gas tax, if I 
could just quickly go through each one of you, what other 
sources of revenue should we look at beyond a gas tax for 
highway funding? Maybe perhaps not everybody's involved in this 
but whoever wants to take a crack at it.
    Mr. Willis. Well, I'll briefly start. I think we're going 
to give similar answers.
    I do think looking at a VMT, as some members have, is the 
right sort of next step. You know, the gas tax is great because 
that's in place today. We know how it works. It can immediately 
raise revenues.
    As we move to more fuel-efficient vehicles and that hasn't 
kept up in any event with what our needs are, looking at 
something else over the long term is the right approach, and I 
think a VMT can do that.
    Senator Gardner. Thanks. I'm over time already, so very 
quickly.
    Mr. Spear. I would just say I think, as I testified in my 
opening, that, you know, user fee is the most immediately 
conservative way to shore up the Trust Fund and provide 
immediate funding for roads and bridges.
    Privacy aside, on VMT, you'd have to register 270 million 
vehicles. That is a tremendous undertaking. The administrative 
apparatus to do that is going to----
    Senator Gardner. You could probably do that while every 
building in America gets remodeled and rebuilt.
    Mr. Spear. True. It's going to be very costly and, you 
know, I think, you know, the privacy aside, the administrative 
costs associated with that, but it's not a proposal that's 
ready for prime time. If you ask anybody in Oregon that's doing 
the major pilot on VMT, they would tell you it's about eight to 
10 years out.
    However, we would argue that technology could provide a lot 
of solutions in the future for revenue streams beyond the user 
fee. We need to be having that discussion now. That should be 
part of this bill. Build it into a blue ribbon commission, have 
something reported out to this committee that you can use and 
shape over the next 10 years, so when we get to that juncture, 
you've got something to turn to that's viable long term, 
perhaps technology-driven.
    Senator Gardner. I'm out of time. So hopefully the three of 
us can get together and finish the answer.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
    Ms. Baldwin, five minutes.

               STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    President Trump came to Kenosha, Wisconsin, in April 2017 
to announce an Executive Order on Buy American, Hire American. 
The Order required a report to recommend ways to improve ``Buy 
American'' laws and to provide guidance to agency heads to 
ensure that they maximize their use of American-made materials 
under current law.
    The report was due in November 2017. No one has seen it yet 
and no guidance has been issued as the Executive Order stated.
    President Trump recently issued a second Executive Order on 
buying American in Infrastructure. The second Order directs 
agency heads to encourage the use of American-made materials 
and report back to the President if they believe that their 
infrastructure programs would support a requirement to buy 
American.
    Simply put, the President has not delivered on his ``Buy 
America'' promises.
    I've introduced legislation, the Made in America Act, to 
require all Federal infrastructure programs to use American-
made construction materials subject to the same waivers that 
exist in current law.
    Mr. Willis, how do you think that the President could 
engage with Congress to actually strengthen Buy America 
requirements for Federal infrastructure projects?
    Mr. Willis. Well, Senator, thank you for that question, and 
thank you for your leadership on this issue.
    You mentioned the first Executive Order on Buy America that 
this administration put out in 2017. We said good things about 
that because we were hopeful that that would lead to a real 
robust framework in Buy America and obviously this 
administration and particularly this President has talked a lot 
about that.
    You know, the second Executive Order that was put out a 
couple of days ago, we think could have gone significantly, you 
know, further. You know, encouraging compliance, encouraging 
the application of Buy America is a little weak from our 
perspective, and we would have liked to have seen a little bit 
more of a direct framework for how Federal agencies can do a 
better job both on the enforcement and cutting down on the 
number of waivers that might exist.
    As far as what the Administration can do with Congress, 
obviously if you consider an infrastructure bill, I think 
extending and raising up the percentage of Buy America 
requirements in existing programs is important and making sure 
that you extend it whether to new grant programs or those that 
are financed through sort of different ways.
    So there's a lot to do here. Again, we appreciate, you 
know, the President's support for Buy America. We just have to 
make sure that the rhetoric sort of catches up with the deeds.
    Senator Baldwin. How would the Buy America requirements in 
the Made in America Act help in this situation?
    Mr. Willis. Well, as you noted, you know, I'll just speak 
from a transportation perspective, the statutes in 
transportation are good. There are sort of different levels and 
I think one of the goals to harmonize them is a good one, but 
we need to harmonize them in the right way, which is up, and 
there are also places where we know we are spending Federal 
dollars outside of transportation where Buy America should be 
applied.
    We know that, you know, when you do Buy America right, 
you're not only sort of buying good infrastructure but you're 
stabilizing a manufacturing base that is so critical to this 
country.
    So if you're going to spend the dollars, you should do it 
in a way that maximizes job creation, extending Buy America 
more broadly as your legislation does is definitely the right 
approach.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
    Mr. Polka, I want to follow up on the back and forth that 
you already engaged in about the accuracy of the data and maps.
    You were talking about pinpointing homes. There have been a 
number of suggestions about trying to either crowd source the 
data or use, let's say, the U.S. Postal Service as the delivery 
trucks and vehicles travel throughout the country to supplement 
the data.
    Do you think those are helpful ideas to get an accurate 
picture that would help prioritize the funding?
    Mr. Polka. I think we have to use whatever means are 
possible because it is a hard project and a hard task to solve 
if we want to identify all homes in America and determine 
whether or not they're receiving broadband or not.
    This could be a critical portion of any infrastructure bill 
that this committee would consider going forward because I 
think it would take a significant amount of money to 
accomplish, but also your idea about using other sources in the 
meantime to try to get better data before we get to that 
ultimate solution of a project, using those other sources, 
whether through the Postal Service or otherwise, I don't see 
why we're not.
    Senator Baldwin. And I would note that modern farm 
equipment often requires a good broadband signal in the field 
as well as, you know, beyond the home.
    One other thing we can follow up for the record because I 
see I've run out of time, but your comments about the 
relationship to the railroads or municipalities in terms of 
fees charged. Certainly I hear other sides of that argument and 
I just wonder if you could provide examples to the Committee 
that would guide us in looking at the situation more clearly.
    Mr. Polka. We would be happy to, yes.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
    Let me just start by saying that I think transportation 
infrastructure investment has always been an area for 
bipartisan cooperation. I think it was evidenced by the passage 
of the FAST Act, which enjoyed wide popularity in Congress and 
among states and ensured, I think, both rural and urban 
participation in Federal surface transportation programs, which 
is always important.
    States are partners in all this, and rural states, like 
mine in South Dakota, rely on Federal investment infrastructure 
to keep roads, bridges, and railways well maintained so that 
the freight can continue to flow, critical to our economy.
    Mr. Spear, your testimony highlighted that 40 percent of 
truck miles traveled are on the interstate highway system. The 
same data indicates that more than 25 percent of truck miles 
traveled are on rural non-interstate roads, which communities 
depend on to transport their goods to the marketplace.
    So could you maybe speak to the importance of the rural 
road network to your industry and outline where you see 
opportunities to strengthen Federal investment in rural 
infrastructure?
    Mr. Spear. Absolutely, Senator. I think rural development 
is essential for connectivity, interstate commerce. A lot of 
the roads that connect states, like South Dakota, are 
interstates but U.S. highways and county and local roads and a 
lot of that is moving agricultural products, livestock, wheat, 
corn.
    This is very essential. It generally goes to rail, rail 
goes to ports. So the connectivity is extraordinarily 
important, not to be dismissive of rural state development, and 
there is a shared relationship between Federal funding and 
states that have low populace, inability, low tax base to fund 
major construction projects, and that connectivity is 
absolutely essential.
    So we strongly believe in a strong Federal role in 
continuing that program that benefits rural states. I think 
that's essential devolution. Handing states, particularly rural 
states, like South Dakota, the keys to raise the revenue, it's 
simply not possible when they don't have the revenue stream to 
do it, and they don't have the administrative capacity to 
oversee it.
    The partnership has to exist between rural and Federal 
Government to make interstate commerce possible and all the 
modes represented at this table successful in serving the 
American economy.
    Senator Thune. Great. I want to switch gears for just a 
minute but reliable access directed you to, Mr. Polka, to high-
speed Internet in rural areas provides new opportunities and 
efficiencies in a variety of sectors, including health care, 
education, and agriculture.
    Federal broadband programs, whether that be the FCC's High-
Cost Program or the Rural Utility Service at USDA, play an 
essential role in stimulating rural broadband infrastructure 
deployment.
    In order to close that digital divide, it's important that 
these programs complement each other, not conflict with ongoing 
efforts.
    So if infrastructure legislation were to be passed with 
additional funding for rural broadband, how much more important 
will coordination be to prevent overbuilding?
    Mr. Polka. Well, Senator, first, let me say how privileged 
I am to be here at this table with my colleagues, just that 
broadband is here in the room, because broadband is essential 
to everything that we do today. We cannot survive without 
robust broadband throughout America to every home and in each 
one of these industries, as well, which rely on it.
    To your point about how we can ensure that homes are served 
without misappropriating Federal funds, I think we have to 
first look back at the successes that have already been 
achieved through various programs at the FCC, at the RUS, here 
in Congress, even in the most recent bill that Congress passed 
where funds were directed to unserved areas primarily that 
didn't have a 10:1 ratio of service.
    That was important because Congress said let's focus funds 
where they're needed most and I think that's a good template to 
do going forward.
    We can also look at other programs that have been 
successfully implemented at the FCC and even at the RUS, as 
well, where there has been more disclosure, more information, 
and even introducing a challenge process, so when applications 
are made for funding, the providers that are actually out there 
in the field can say, well, that place is unserved but that 
place is served and maybe shouldn't receive more funds.
    So it all comes down to oversight and accountability, but 
building on the successes that I think have already been 
achieved.
    Senator Thune. Good. I just think it's important from the 
resource allocation standpoint here that we get the dollars on 
the targets and those are underserved areas that don't have--
have not had access to some of the build-out that's occurred in 
other areas and that's going to take a level of coordination.
    So my time has expired. Senator Tester is up next, and I 
have a question I'll submit for the record having to do with 
rail, but thank you all for being here.
    Senator Tester.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Thune, and I want to 
thank everybody who's testified today, appreciate your 
testimony.
    I want to start with you, Mr. Jefferies. You talked about 
the amount of money that the rails are pumping into 
infrastructure every week.
    Has your industry projected what kind of investment needs 
to be made over the next 10 years?
    Mr. Jefferies. Thank you, Senator Tester. Great question. 
Certainly robust investments are going to continue to be made. 
We've talked historically about upwards of $700 billion since 
the mid eighties.
    When we look outwards toward 2040, freight movements and 
freight needs are only going to continue to increase 
dramatically. I can tell you that railroads have a demonstrated 
track record of sustained investment and so we have plans to 
continue that level and we will make the long-term investments 
needed overall.
    Senator Tester. Are there particular programs as we look at 
an infrastructure bill that are particular and necessary for 
the rails from a dollar investment?
    Mr. Jefferies. So you certainly heard us, you know, the 
pride we have in our private investment, but we also see----
    Senator Tester. And I appreciate that, too,----
    Mr. Jefferies. Thank you.
    Senator Tester.--by the way.
    Mr. Jefferies. The transportation network's an integrated 
network. So it needs to work across the board and programs, 
like the INFRA Grant Program that this committee did work on 
last Congress, are critically important, especially to those 
first-mile/last-mile connectors, be it at ports or other 
intermodal facilities. So across the board that's one that 
comes to mind, absolutely.
    Senator Tester. OK. Let's jump over to Mr. Spear with the 
Trucking Association.
    Has the Trucking Association talked about what kind of 
investments are needed in roads and bridges in this country 
over the next 10 years?
    Mr. Spear. Yes. We do. We looked at American Society of 
Civil Engineers, which estimates the U.S. spends less than half 
of what is necessary to address those needs.
    The Transportation Research Board, its most recent report 
estimated conservatively that state and Federal investment 
necessary to address the interstate system's maintenance and 
capacity needs will need to double or triple.
    Senator Tester. What kind of dollars are we talking about?
    Mr. Spear. Oh, goodness. That would probably be upwards of 
120-150 billion a year.
    Senator Tester. Over the next 10?
    Mr. Spear. It's $60 billion currently.
    Senator Tester. OK. All right. What about the build-out for 
cable, Mr. Polka? What kind of dollars are we talking about 
there? Let's just for a minute, we can dream that we're talking 
5G. What kind of dollars are we talking about, you know, for 
all of that, 5G and cable?
    Mr. Polka. Well, 5G and fiber are the two most important--
--
    Senator Tester. Right.
    Mr. Polka.--broadband technologies that we need to 
implement today and they complement each other.
    The amount of money is vast. I don't have a number that I 
can put on it for you right now to say from our membership's 
perspective, but I know that our members have been investing 
roughly $10 billion through the course of their deployment in 
smaller markets and rural areas.
    Senator Tester. $10 billion per year?
    Mr. Polka. Yes.
    Senator Tester. OK.
    Mr. Polka. Yes.
    Senator Tester. And how much of that has been Federal or 
state dollars?
    Mr. Polka. I don't know specifically the breakdown of that, 
sir, and I'd be happy to get back to you on that.
    Senator Tester. OK. All right. I want to talk about a 
different kind of infrastructure.
    By the way, those numbers are pretty important, I think, if 
we're going to move forward in these particular areas and ports 
need to be thrown in there, too, and I apologize because 
Montana doesn't have any seaports with climate change that's 
coming, I'm sure.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Tester. But the truth is, is that in order to 
really sit down and do a good honest evaluation of where we 
need to be from a dollar standpoint, those figures are going to 
be really critically important.
    Let's talk about a different kind of infrastructure. Let's 
talk about work force, and I want to talk about trucking for a 
second. In a few years, everybody says in 20 years, we're going 
to have self-driving trucks and all that. I look forward to 
seeing that, but I don't believe it.
    So the question is, is what are the workforce needs in the 
trucking industry right now, and what are we doing about it?
    Mr. Spear. Well, I appreciate that question, Senator, 
especially coming from you with a CDL holder. So I know you 
understand this issue firsthand.
    Our industry has to hire a million people over the next 10 
years just to meet current economic demand. Right now, we're 
short 50,000 drivers. That's a number that will double in the 
next 5 years if we don't take action.
    ATA is very focused on this issue for the long-term growth 
of the industry and we believe that there are several ways to 
address it, urban hiring being one of them, certainly 
minorities, women.
    We need to go about attracting talent into the industry 
differently. Hiring veterans or ex-service members from the 
military that have that skill set is another avenue. Certainly 
dealing with our aging work force, we average about 50 years 
old for our driver force, health problems, wellness programs, 
keeping them in the trucks longer, as long as they want to 
drive, and then 18- to 21-year-olds.
    A lot of people don't realize that 48 states allow an 18- 
to 21-year-old to drive a Class 8. They just can't cross state 
lines. That works pretty great in Montana, maybe not so much in 
Rhode Island. If we can send 18- to 21-year-olds off to protect 
our freedom and fight our wars, I'm pretty certain we can train 
them to cross state lines.
    Senator Tester. Yes. And look, I think Senator Young and 
myself have a bill that, with proper training, allows exactly 
that.
    Mr. Spear. We thank you for that.
    Senator Tester. Yes. And my time's up, but I would ask the 
same question of the rails.
    What's the manpower needs that are going for you? You don't 
have to answer now because I'm out of time, but if you could 
get back to me on that, and for the cable industry to actually 
lay the cable or the fiber, I should say, what's the workforce 
there, and what should we be doing, and if you have any 
recommendations on what we should be doing to make sure you 
have the workforce that you need because we can pump all the 
money in but if we don't have the work force, we're not going 
to get things done.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Blackburn. Well, it looks like I can yield myself 
five minutes and ask my questions.
    Mr. Polka, I want to start with you and I appreciate that 
you mentioned the Dig One----
    Mr. Polka. Yes.
    Senator Blackburn.--provisions that we have passed out of 
the House and the good work that we did there and also that you 
mentioned keeping the focus on unserved areas----
    Mr. Polka. Yes.
    Senator Blackburn.--as we look at grants and as we look at 
loans and the build-out that is there and Ray Bombs' Act, which 
I shepherded through the House and am grateful that this 
committee and the Senate pushed it forward to finish the FCC 
Reauthorization that had not been done since 1990 and Mr. Thune 
had his MOBILE NOW Bill; we put that in there, which will help 
facilitate 5G and that expansion.
    So we're a year in on Ray Bombs and we're looking at the 
RUS grants that are there, the FCC money that has been placed 
for rural health. If you will talk for just a second about what 
the obstacles are for our small and mid-size cable providers 
that are seeking to serve their footprint because as we push 
this money forward, we want to make certain that we are using 
it well and that we're getting the result which is closing the 
digital divide.
    Mr. Polka. I couldn't agree with you more. Our members are 
committed in small communities and rural areas to delivering 
broadband. We consider ourselves broadband forward.
    I've been in the industry for a long time and I still sort 
of call myself a cable guy, but let me be honest, we're 
broadband guys. We're broadband everything in all that we do, 
and serving our homes with high-speed broadband across the 
country is our commitment.
    Now to your specific question, there are barriers. When we 
look at things that I mentioned in my opening statement, 
whether it's the processes that we have to work through with 
investor-owned utilities for the right to attach to poles, the 
process, the cost, the implementation through an application 
process which sometimes creates time toward deployment and adds 
more time to the clock so we don't get broadband out there, but 
we are focused on working with you as well as with other 
agencies, such as the FCC, which has helped to streamline that 
process, to eliminate those barriers and to build on other 
successes that we've already achieved here in Congress and in 
the other agencies.
    Senator Blackburn. What about siting?
    Mr. Spear. Siting, you mean for mapping and----
    Senator Blackburn. For the towers, yes, and then I will 
come to that, but talk to me a little bit about siting for the 
towers, especially as we look at how that applies to the new 
towers for wireless and fixed wireless, the 5G components that 
are coming online.
    Mr. Polka. Our members are primarily wireline broadband 
providers, but I can say that we recognize how important 5G is 
to our country and the need to facilitate the deployment of 5G 
and to ensure that we have sites that are available to help 
implement it as well as to complement what happens with 5G 
networks with fiber, because every 5G network is going to have 
a fiber component where----
    Senator Blackburn. Especially the fixed wireless.
    Mr. Polka. Exactly.
    Senator Blackburn. Let me move on for just a moment. 
Several of you have mentioned the VMT and, of course, we all 
know that you have to find a way to fund our transportation 
system.
    I think as we look at the possibility of a VMT, we realize 
something's got to be done. Cars are more fuel efficient, 
electric cars are coming, and going back to when I was in the 
State Senate in Tennessee, we were beginning to look at this. I 
know there were some in the trucking industry and different 
things that are not in favor of that.
    But I want to just, Mr. Friedman, start with you, go down 
the line, Mr. Polka, we'll skip you, and as we talk about 
funding and looking at a VMT, the one thing you think is 
important that we consider because we have to find a fairness 
component as we fund this infrastructure. So you're on and 
right down the line.
    Mr. Friedman. OK. Thank you for that question, Senator.
    I'm certainly no expert in that topic specifically. As I 
mentioned in my testimony, AAPA, the U.S. ports support looking 
broadly at both fuel tax increase and VMT. We understand there 
will be some hurdles----
    Senator Blackburn. Well, then let's move on to Mr. 
Jefferies.
    Mr. Jefferies. We support an immediate gas tax increase and 
long term, a transition to a VMT or similar program that fully 
accounts for all users' infrastructure use that could also 
include a weight component, as well.
    Senator Blackburn. Mr. Spear.
    Mr. Spear. Yes, thank you, Senator. We, too, support an 
immediate increase in the user fee at the rack to help 
administer robust immediate funding for infrastructure.
    We would be very open to having a dialogue over the next 10 
years during this bill in place to have a technology solution 
put in place that's a viable revenue source that captures 
alternative fuel vehicles, both trucks and cars. That's coming. 
Technology is going to pose new solutions that are viable. They 
may not be ready right now but in 10-15 years, they could be. 
We will be at the table having that dialogue. We're very open 
to that discussion.
    Senator Blackburn. Mr. Willis.
    Mr. Willis. Well, I would only add I think your point on 
fairness is key and making sure that again we're doing this 
increase in revenues for, you know, infrastructure investment.
    So, you know, making sure that we do it in a way that 
actually increases the deposits going in and just isn't 
transferring from a gas tax to a VMT I think is critical.
    Senator Blackburn. My time has expired. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Jefferies and Mr. Spear, would you index that increased 
gas tax?
    Mr. Spear. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Jefferies. I think that makes sense as you transition 
into a mileage-based system.
    The Chairman. Had we done that in years past, we'd be in 
better shape.
    Mr. Spear. We wouldn?t be having this discussion right now 
if it had been done in 1993.
    The Chairman. Senator Rosen is next.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Cantwell, and all the witnesses for being here today.
    You know, as my home state of Nevada continues to grow, our 
infrastructure needs to grow with it. Along with Idaho, 
Nevada's one of the two fastest-growing states in the Nation 
and today, our population is above three million, but we 
actually have nearly 50 million tourists a year.
    So our relatively recent growth puts us in a different 
category versus some of the infrastructure that needs to be 
repaired or updated, we need new growth, like I-11. Finally a 
freeway that would connect Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Reno, and 
there hasn't been enough conversation about how we balance new 
growth in some of the Western states versus repair and 
maintenance.
    And so in the House, I was part of the Problem Solvers 
Caucus Infrastructure Task Force. We talked about this 
blueprint to produce potential solutions for our Nation's 
infrastructure problems and/or challenges, I'll say that.
    So what I want to task you with is thinking about what we 
haven't traditionally thought about in infrastructure. We have 
our electric grid. We have cybersecurity. You talk about smart 
trucks, driverless trucks. I'm sure railroad, all these things. 
We're going to have smart highways, transportation.
    So as we improve the workforce, as you change your work 
model, what stakeholders do you need to have us engage with, 
bring to the table, and possibly fund so that we can grow not 
just your industry but your workforce into these 21st Century--
deal with these 21st Century issues? Anyone can take that.
    Mr. Jefferies. I'm certainly happy to start and take a 
stab.
    You're absolutely right that the rail industry is one in 
transformation. Certainly we like to say we're not your 
grandfather's railroad anymore. We're deploying new types of 
sensors and detectors throughout our system, deploying drones 
to help with inspections, developing various capabilities that 
not only enhance capacity but also improve safety, and with 
that comes changing work roles and changing responsibilities. 
So we are looking to partner not only with our 13 unions we 
work with but also with universities, with other outlets to 
identify those skills early and make it clear to potential 
candidates that the rail sector is an opportunity for 
innovation and technology for those interested, and we 
certainly would be happy to come in and talk with you and your 
staff more about that.
    Senator Rosen. Well, I think it would behoove us to be 
partnering in all these industries with cyber technology and 
the added value that it creates for data analytics and our ways 
to do things better, smarter, and smoother, but that the 
challenges or obstacles, privacy issues, and all those things 
that it also creates for our cities, our end users, and all of 
us.
    Anyone else want to talk about the challenges at the table 
here that we need to bring for another hearing?
    Mr. Polka. Yes, Senator. I would say it is so important in 
your state and in every state just to build networks.
    We talk of these other industries that are networks in and 
of themselves, but when we think of broadband today and how 
that improves communities, the lives of individuals, helps to 
connect rural areas, which many exist in your state, to the 
world,----
    Senator Rosen. Right.
    Mr. Polka.--and in building those networks, but then 
protecting them.
    I think you mentioned in terms of cybersecurity, 
resiliency, these are very, very important issues that I know 
our members are very concerned about because we want to make 
sure we get the broadband connectivity out there, which is 
essential to life today, but we also want to make sure that we 
protect it and that's where our commitment lies regarding 
building those networks.
    Mr. Spear. Senator, I would not be dismissive of the 
military. I think a lot of technologies that are developed by 
DARPA and other branches of the military, they're tested and 
tried, they're later commercialized, and there's a lot of 
technology that flows into the commercial sector that we adopt 
as an industry. Other modes adopt and utilize and leverage.
    So as we look to that, I think that's another stakeholder 
that we need to bring into the fold and understand what they're 
doing, what are the emerging technologies that we're going to 
see 10-15-20 years from now that have already begun in the 
military testing field.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you.
    Mr. Willis. Yes. I would add that, you know, as we talk 
about technology and sort of the changing nature of work in a 
lot of these areas of transportation, I mean, we're obviously 
watching that very carefully and, you know, as we have said 
before, I think thinking about the right labor policies and how 
you, you know, deal with automation issues, how you deal with 
technology in these sectors of transportation, making sure that 
you have a trained workforce that is able to transition into 
whatever's coming and to make sure that you have, again, labor 
policies in place that can bridge that, sort of recognizing 
that, you know, the impact of technology can be pretty 
significant here for our members.
    So it's definitely something that we're watching. We want 
to make sure we get the policies right on the front end.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I would just hope that in our 
connectivity, we would realize that each industry shouldn't 
stay siloed, that sharing of information and data can make each 
avenue stronger.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
    Senator Blumenthal.

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We're here to discuss the importance of investments in our 
Nation's infrastructure generally, but I'm very interested in 
railroads and, Mr. Jefferies, you just mentioned technology.
    Last week, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, 
released its most wanted list. I know you're probably familiar 
with it. There are a number of recommendations that are 
critical to the future of our railroads. Would you agree?
    Mr. Jefferies. Absolutely.
    Senator Blumenthal. And one of them is positive train 
control. The deadline has been extended a number of times. 
Would you agree that the final deadline must be met?
    Mr. Jefferies. I would agree that all Class 1 railroads 
will be fully installed and implemented, the plan is, by 2020.
    Senator Blumenthal. Would there be any reason or excuse to 
fail to meet that deadline?
    Mr. Jefferies. I can tell you right now there are no plans 
in place to extend beyond that. As of the end of December 2018, 
all equipment was installed, all employees were trained, all 
Spectrum was acquired, and 83 percent of route miles required 
were PTC operational.
    Senator Blumenthal. And that's important to safety, isn't 
it?
    Mr. Jefferies. Absolutely.
    Senator Blumenthal. What other recommendations of the NTSB 
would you say are priority recommendations?
    Mr. Jefferies. You know, I think the NTSB in its 
recommendations takes a very holistic approach across the 
transportation network and we should take all of them to heart.
    Specifically on the rail front, transporting hazmat as 
safely as possible is absolutely a key priority and addressing 
such issues as sleep apnea are also things that are on our 
members' radars, as well.
    Senator Blumenthal. Sleep apnea, as a matter of fact, has 
been a cause of at least one fatal accident.
    I want to shift to ports. Connecticut is one of just 12 
states with three or more deepwater ports. Over 11.4 million 
tons of freight go through Connecticut's ports every year. Each 
of Connecticut's ports handles tens of millions of dollars in 
trade and over 90 percent of shipping entering Long Island 
Sound uses a Connecticut port as opposed to a New York port.
    But these Connecticut ports have not grown as much as their 
potential would allow, meaning that a lot of freight remains on 
our roads or goes elsewhere. I think that's unfortunate because 
anyone who's driven I-95 knows that congestion needs to be 
addressed and ports offer a means to do it.
    Let me ask, Mr. Friedman. How can Congress help improve the 
opportunities for states that rely on these small ports?
    Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Senator, and that's a question 
that's actually near and dear to me being from the Port of 
Cleveland and a relatively smaller, more of a niche port, more 
similar to your ports in Connecticut. So I'm keenly interested 
in just that topic and certainly would encourage Congress to 
look at greater use of our waterways and some of our ports that 
are less utilized and I would agree completely that it's an 
opportunity to relieve congestion and improve safety on other 
modes of transportation, as well.
    So, you know, how would we do that? I would love to follow 
up with you and your staff on ideas we have. I think there are 
certain policy impediments today that should be considered as 
we look at fully utilizing our water infrastructure.
    Senator Blumenthal. Would dredging be one of the----
    Mr. Friedman. Dredging is certainly one and, as you know, 
we----
    Senator Blumenthal. What else would you suggest?
    Mr. Friedman. I think we need to look at fees that are 
imposed on the water side and water transportation that aren't 
necessarily imposed on other modes of transportation. I think 
we need to look at ease of use on the maritime side. I think we 
need to look at, you know, are we adequately funding 
infrastructure at these smaller ports, these emerging ports, so 
that they can compete effectively. Those would be some of my 
suggestions.
    Senator Blumenthal. And what kinds of infrastructure at the 
ports would you suggest ought to be expanded?
    Mr. Friedman. Well, I think again, as I mentioned earlier, 
it's these first and last mile land-side connections which 
often can become impediments. You've mentioned dredging already 
on the water side. It's not only dredging but it's other types 
of public works that these harbors rely on, jetties and 
breakwaters, etcetera, which are funded, of course, through the 
Army Corps of Engineers. Those are some of the things that we 
need to address. Real connections in particular into these 
ports, so that they can access the rail networks and can 
compete in that manner.
    Senator Blumenthal. I appreciate your answers and like 
Cleveland, New London, Bridgeport, New Haven are ports that are 
underutilized and we need to make use of them much more 
expansively not only for the sake of interstate commerce, but 
also our environment. So I appreciate your responses.
    Mr. Friedman. Thank you.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Lee.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Utah's seaports are also vastly underutilized and I'm 
trying to change that.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Lee. As we talk about our infrastructure, there are 
a lot of people who point out that our gasoline tax hasn't been 
enough and that we've run a shortfall. There are a lot of 
people who are responding to that concern by suggesting that we 
raise the gas tax by 20 cents, perhaps 25 cents per gallon, and 
there are a lot of people who are very enthusiastic about that 
and I understand their enthusiasm, and yet I also think it's 
important that we take into account what impact this will have 
on many Americans, particularly poor and middle-class Americans 
who are less able than others to go out and buy new technology, 
new cars that are more fuel efficient, or perhaps hybrid or 
electric vehicles.
    It may well also have a bigger impact on rural Americans 
than Americans living in or closer to big cities. Rural 
Americans very often tend to have to travel farther as they go 
about their day-to-day business and this might have an impact 
on them.
    In any event, those who are not wealthy in this country are 
perhaps hit hardest by such a tax increase because unlike 
Federal income tax, for example, which is progressive, which is 
not only based on a percentage of income but is also a 
graduated progressive tax system, the gas tax is not 
progressive and it's not fixed as a percentage of your income.
    Many people describe it as regressive but, regardless of 
whether you describe it that way or not, it does have an impact 
that is felt more by poor and middle-class Americans.
    So let's start with you, Mr. Willis. Don't you think we 
ought to be concerned about this, that we ought to be concerned 
about how this might affect poor and middle-class Americans, 
and do you think I'm fair to raise that concern, that it might 
hurt them more?
    Mr. Willis. Well, as an organization that does represent 
front-line workers, we are obviously sympathetic to that 
position and, you know, it would have--you're right. Some have 
described the tax as regressive. I'm not sure I would in this 
case.
    I would say a couple of things. One is that, you know, a 
modest increase in the gas tax, you know, for example, I think 
there has been a study, 25 cents, would cost an average family 
maybe a $100 a year, maybe more. That's not insignificant, but 
you balance that out with the improvements that you could see 
in roads and transit systems, you have less wear and tear on 
your vehicle. People are getting to work faster, more 
efficiently, and, you know, the nice thing about this user fee 
is that we know what it goes for and, you know, people get a 
return on that investment.
    So we've heard those concerns, we're sympathetic to it, but 
I think on balance, it is something we think is good for 
working families and it's why we've endorsed it for decades.
    Senator Lee. I understand your desire to use the word 
``modest'' there, but to be clear, we're talking about, what, 
18 and a half cents per gallon that is collected currently. So 
this would amount to a more than doubling of that and again 
because it's not a fixed percentage of income for a poor 
family, that's going to be a much bigger cost than it is for a 
wealthy family. For a family that lives in a rural area, it's 
going to be a lot bigger hit than the one that you described.
    Mr. Spear, the gas tax debate is certainly an important one 
to have. I think we have to keep in mind that when it was 
created back in the 1950s, it was created for the purpose of 
establishing an interstate highway system. There was no 
effective way to do that with each state operating in isolation 
and the benefits to the country as a whole and to interstate 
commerce as a whole made a difference. So we put in place the 
Federal gasoline tax.
    As I understand it, you can now maintain the entire Federal 
interstate highway system for somewhere between four and five 
cents per gallon.
    What has changed that has been so significant is that we're 
now using that Trust Fund with those revenues to pay for a lot 
of other projects that are not part of the interstate highway 
system; things like surface streets that start and end in one 
state and even bike paths and trails, which, while laudable 
objectives and while public goods, worthy of government 
attention, are not necessarily inexorably linked with the 
Federal Government.
    So in light of those considerations, as long as we're 
talking about a gasoline tax increase, shouldn't we also look 
at the expenditure side from the Federal Government's 
perspective?
    Mr. Spear. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more with you, 
diversion of funding from the Highway Trust Fund is a problem. 
We need to shore it up and the best way to do it is make 
certain that the monies coming into it are dedicated to 
highways and bridges and that the repairs be made but also for 
new construction to alleviate congestion.
    Going back to your earlier comment about regressive, I 
think you've got to look through a different lens when you're 
looking at 20-cent-per-gallon increase. That would raise $340 
billion in new revenue for all roads and bridges.
    The average motorist, those folks that you're talking 
about, spends $1,600 a year on repairs to the vehicles and 
sitting in traffic. There's a report that came out yesterday 
that was just previously cited and D.C. ranked Number 2 in the 
country, a 155 hours spent a year sitting in traffic. That's an 
entire month, an entire month sitting in traffic.
    Now if you're low-income, now that's regressive. I mean, 
that's a whole month. Think of the productivity losses to the 
economy just sitting in traffic. So I think a 20-cent increase, 
$100 a year for all roads and bridges will lower, dramatically 
lower that $1,600 that motorists are paying on average for 
traffic and repairs. There's your offset in spades.
    Senator Lee. I see my time has expired. I would add here 
only that no one here is in favor of people sitting in roads. 
What I'm saying is we ought to look for ways that don't involve 
raising taxes on poor families.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
    Senator Duckworth is next.

              STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for convening today's hearing. I'd like to thank our witnesses 
for your participation.
    Mr. Jefferies, I'd like to talk about PTC. You know, 
America's rail operators started this journey more than 10 
years ago with the enactment of the Rail Safety Improvement Act 
and even though it's taken much longer than what any one of us 
would have liked, we see the light at the end of the tunnel and 
when it comes to fully implementing PTC and according to the 
FRA, it appears that all of the Class 1 railroads have finished 
or are very nearly finished with their PTC systems.
    But I want to sort of get a little deeper into this issue 
and really talk about one component that is still a challenge 
to both freight and passenger operators, especially in high-
density areas, like the Northeastern part of Illinois, like 
Chicago land area, and that's specifically interoperability.
    Can you update us on the Class 1's efforts to ensure 
individual PTC systems are able to communicate effectively, 
especially in dynamic areas, like the Chicago land area? Do you 
expect this challenge to be successfully added prior to the 
December 2020 deadline?
    Mr. Jefferies. Thank you, Senator. That's a great question 
and you hit the issue spot on. You're right, railroads have 
been working a long time to get PTC into place and at the end 
of 2018 had all equipment installed, all Spectrum in place, all 
employees trained, 83 percent of the route miles operational.
    The last major challenge is getting the various company's 
systems to work together and talk together seamlessly. As you 
know, one railroad is often on another railroad's tracks and in 
urban corridors perhaps talking to another railroad's back 
office system. So making sure those different tenets of PTC 
operate in a seamless manner between the railroads is 
absolutely critical.
    Chicago, no better case than that, where you have nearly 
every Class 1 railroad; Amtrak, Metra, all working together, 
all communicating, and that issue is an area we prioritized and 
really that's a key focus over the next upwards of 2 years. We 
have established a specific PTC Working Group out of Chicago 
that is meeting on a regular basis. We have a plan in place and 
we are working through that process to ensure that 
interoperability is achieved by the deadline. So absolutely 
that's something we're prioritizing.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Thank you.
    Mr. Spear, I want to follow up on your conversation you 
just had with my colleague, Senator Lee. As a member of both 
the Commerce Committee and the EPW, I'm interested in your 
perspective regarding the impacts of our Nation's 
infrastructure on the trucking industry.
    For instance, while there are no Illinois bridges in danger 
of imminent collapse, my state ranked fifth in the Nation for 
the number of structurally deficient bridges in 2017 with an 
astounding 2,303 bridges falling into this category.
    Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune reported that an Annual 
Report on Traffic Congestion found that Chicago now ranks third 
worst in the Nation for congestion, which translates into my 
constituents losing an average of 138 hours each year sitting 
in traffic.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include this 
Tribune article into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    [The Chicago Tribune article follows:]

    The article can be found at: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/
breaking/ct-biz-traffic-chicago-20190211-story.html

    Senator Duckworth. You've already talked about the loss of 
productivity from hours spent sitting in traffic. I would like 
to hear your view on what the long-term costs would be of 
Congress failing to act. What harm will result if we fail to 
invest now in better roads, more efficient rail, and safer 
bridges?
    Mr. Spear. Yes, I appreciate the question. You know, 68 
percent of the freight moved in Illinois is moved by truck. You 
actually have four of the top 100 bottlenecks in the United 
States, all in Chicago, not something we're proud of. We 
obviously have to find remedies for this and the costs go up 
exponentially.
    The American Transportation Research Institute report just 
last year had trucks losing $64 billion a year sitting in 
traffic. That's 360 million drivers--excuse me--363,000 
drivers, truck drivers sitting idle for an entire year.
    The recent report that just came out has it at $74.5 
billion lost by our industry sitting in traffic, 425,000 
drivers sitting idle. So you can see just in 1 year time, the 
exponential impact that this is having just on the commercial 
sector. We're only 4 percent of the vehicles on the roads, so 
that is a huge number.
    If you roll in passenger vehicles just in your state alone, 
that is a very, very measurable number that's very impactful on 
the economy.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, as the co-chair of the bipartisan GPS Caucus, 
I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record 
testimony for today's hearing from the GPSIA and the Comp-TIA 
Space Enterprise Council.
    The Chairman. Without objection.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    [The information referred to follows:]

           Prepared Statement of the GPS Innovation Alliance 
                  and CompTIA Space Enterprise Council
    The GPS Innovation Alliance (GPSIA) and the CompTIA Space 
Enterprise Council jointly submit this statement in support of the 
Committee's examination of our Nation's infrastructure.
    America has a history of creating infrastructure milestones that 
have led to significant prosperity and national advantages. During the 
1950s and 1960s, our Nation was transformed by explosive growth in its 
public infrastructure ecosystem. That ecosystem allowed America to 
prosper by bridging communities and creating regional pockets of 
innovation. Coupled with the Space Race with the Soviet Union, the 20th 
century infrastructure ecosystem helped make America a technological 
superpower.
    Now we have the opportunity to create a 21st century national 
infrastructure that will benefit all Americans. In almost every aspect 
of our infrastructure ecosystem, the Global Positioning System (GPS), a 
constellation of satellites located 12,500 miles above the earth, has 
played an integral role. The three capabilities derived from the 
constellation are Positioning, Navigation, and Timing. All three play 
key roles in the infrastructure ecosystem. According to the Department 
of Transportation, Positioning is the ability to accurately and 
precisely determine one's location and orientation two-dimensionally 
(or three-dimensionally when required), Navigation is the ability to 
determine current and desired position (relative or absolute) and apply 
corrections to course, orientation, and speed to attain a desired 
position anywhere around the world, from sub-surface to surface and 
from surface to space. Timing is the ability to acquire and maintain 
accurate and precise time from a standard (Coordinated Universal Time, 
or UTC), anywhere in the world and within user-defined timeliness 
parameters. Similarly, communication satellites provide voice, video, 
and data supporting aviation, defense, banking, and agriculture.
    A 21st century infrastructure ecosystem includes transportation 
(roads, bridges, ports, and airports), water (public utilities) and 
energy (electric grid) that is layered by cross-cutting smart 
technology and enabled by ubiquitous broadband connectivity and 
sensors. Our infrastructure is urban, suburban, and rural, impacting 
every single American.
    As we invest in our infrastructure, we must take into account 
emerging technologies for both the physical infrastructure (new durable 
materials) and the digital tier that makes the physical infrastructure 
smart. These technologies range from commercial earthmoving and grading 
equipment that use GPS to digital 3D models that can help streamline 
the construction process. When we utilize commercially-proven and 
competitively acquired technologies, we can improve efficiency, 
productivity and reduce delays associated with the engineering, 
construction and operation of infrastructure projects. All of this 
translates into substantial savings, both in terms of new and existing 
spending.
    Whether in the air or on the ground, it is imperative that we 
invest the resources needed to build a 21st century infrastructure. The 
status quo of aging bridges and not yet universal broadband 
connectivity is simply unacceptable. We must aim for American 
exceptionalism. Our GPS constellation will play a leading role in that 
exceptionalism. GPSIA and the CompTIA Space Enterprise Council 
appreciate the opportunity to share this perspective with the Committee 
and stand ready to work with you on efforts to advance our Nation's 
infrastructure while promoting, protecting, and enhancing GPS and other 
communication satellites.

    Senator Duckworth. Mr. Jefferies, could you very briefly 
just touch on the CREATE Project and as Congress begins 
developing the next reauthorization bill, could you describe 
how dramatically increasing Federal investments in freight 
projects, like the CREATE Program, would benefit our Nation's 
economy and improve supply chain efficiency?
    The Chairman. Briefly.
    Mr. Jefferies. Sure. Very quickly, the CREATE Program, in 
our minds, is a model public/private partnership because you 
have the state, the city, the county, Amtrak, Metra, and the 
freight railroads, all invested into a series of 70 projects.
    We're thrilled that one of our biggest projects, the 75th 
Street Corridor, received a $130 million Federal grant last 
year to partner with nearly $380 million in private investment 
and other public investments, and so you see the impact that 
these programs can have and it's certainly something that 
should be prioritized moving into reauthorization.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator 
Duckworth.
    Senator Cruz.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to all the 
witnesses. Thank you for your testimony.
    Mr. Friedman, we're witnessing right now an energy 
renaissance in the United States and I'm proud to say my home 
state of Texas is leading the way. The shale revolution has led 
not only to increased production of oil and natural gas, but 
also to record levels of crude oil, refined products, natural 
gas liquids, and other petroleum product exports from the 
United States.
    Some reports indicate that these exports are expected to 
double from a $141 billion to $330 billion in the next 6 years. 
What this translates to is incredible economic growth and high-
paying jobs throughout Texas and across the country.
    Last year, the Department of Energy announced that the 
Houston-Galveston Port District, which includes the Port of 
Houston as well as several other ports along the Texas Gulf 
Coast, from Galveston to Corpus Christi, began exporting more 
crude oil than it imported for the first time on record.
    In fact, right now, 70 percent of the crude oil exported 
from the United States is coming from Texas ports. Another way 
of saying this is three out of every four barrels of oil being 
exported move through Texas Gulf Coast ports.
    We see a similar story with LNG, liquid natural gas, as 
more LNG export facilities are built at ports all along the 
Texas coast, from Port Arthur to Brownsville. All together, 
these ports in Texas are the driving engine to our state and 
national economy.
    And my question to you, Mr. Friedman, is, as this record-
breaking growth continues and as traffic increases at our ports 
and on our waterways and as ships get bigger, what can we do to 
ensure that our ports and waterways in Texas and across the 
country keep up with this economic growth?
    Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Senator Cruz, for that question.
    Yes, you're describing something that is critically 
important as the country moves toward a net exporter of 
petroleum products and other energy products, and I would 
answer it in much the same fashion as I've, you know, answered 
the general questions posed earlier.
    You know, we need to work together in a partnership with 
you, with the Federal Government, to make sure we can solve 
those first and last mile problems at our ports. We need to 
make sure that our ports have eligibility under the law to 
apply for the competitive grants as they're reauthorized.
    We're going to work effectively with our rail and with our 
trucking partners and with others in the supply chain to make 
sure we're zeroing in on the right projects so we can move 
those projects efficiently through the system.
    We have shale gas coming out of my state in Ohio that's 
going to want to move down to your state and we want to make 
sure that that can occur. So again, we would emphasize 
increased funding and we would emphasize eligibility, 
multimodal eligibility being broadened so that we can make 
those investments and be able to move exports.
    We tend to focus sometimes on the inbound movements of 
containers but there are a lot of products that move through my 
port and the ports in your state of Texas that are not in a 
container and they need to get to those ports so they can be 
exported.
    Senator Cruz. And in your judgment, what are some of the 
regulatory impediments at the Army Corps or other Federal 
agencies that can delay the completion of a channel improvement 
project or even delay a project from beginning?
    Mr. Friedman. Well, looking at the Army Corps and deepening 
projects and maintenance projects, they're too slow. I mean, I 
think you've certainly talked to your port directors in your 
state and I think what you'll hear universally is that we need 
to somehow cause the Army Corps to move faster on these 
projects.
    I know there has been in some legislation recently, there 
have been some provisions which are aimed at just that. So I 
would encourage you to continue to look at mandating that the 
Army Corps move through their process faster.
    As you know, their process can take in some cases decades 
to get a deepening project completed and as a nation, we just 
don't have time to wait for those exceedingly long processes.
    I think looking for ways that local sponsors can work more 
efficiently upfront with the Army Corps, in some cases maybe 
even fund planning work so that we can then move toward 
construction faster. We'd be looking for more flexibility on 
that end, as well.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
    We now have Senator Udall.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Wicker, and appreciate 
the witnesses being here today.
    Mr. Jefferies and Mr. Spear, New Mexico's border region, 
including the Santa Teresa port of entry, is a bright spot in 
New Mexico's economy. The economic development in this area is 
due mostly to trade from Mexico and a 2010 expansion of the 
port of entry.
    Now Customs and Border Patrol seek funding to increase 
capacity for inspectors and for infrastructure because of the 
increased traffic.
    Additionally, railroads say increased Customs and Border 
Patrol resources would help with faster and more thorough 
inspections of goods crossing the border.
    In your opinion, should Congress include ports of entry in 
any upcoming infrastructure legislation? Would increased 
funding for Customs and infrastructure in areas, such as the 
Santa Teresa facility, facilitate economic development while 
providing greater security for the border and for the country?
    Mr. Jefferies. Thank you, Senator Udall. Cross-border 
traffic is immensely important to the rail industry. We've 
learned through analysis that 42 percent of our revenues and 37 
percent of traffic is due to cross-border movement, supporting 
50,000 rail jobs specifically. That's not only north and south 
but also in and out of our ports, as well. But our largest 
cross-border movement is grain exports to Mexico.
    So free flow and efficient flow of goods across borders, 
Mexico included, is critical to the success not only of the 
economy but the rail industry and anything that can be done to 
make that flow more efficient, to keep goods moving back and 
forth I think is a good idea worth considering.
    Senator Udall. And including it in an infrastructure-type 
package for improvement?
    Mr. Jefferies. I think that absolutely merits 
consideration.
    Senator Udall. Mr. Spear, do you have any thoughts on that?
    Mr. Spear. I would wholly agree with Mr. Jefferies on that 
point.
    From a trucking perspective, we move 76 percent of the 
NAFTA surface freight. Eighty-two percent of the border 
crossings with Mexico are moved by truck and I've been down to 
the border. Laredo's a good example. I know it's not in your 
home state, but 14,000 trucks a day, it is unbelievable, and 
the amount of emphasis that you can put on funding 
infrastructure, CBP, FMCSA with safety, U.S. AG with 
agricultural concerns that they have to inspect for, good trade 
policy, good tax policies. It's a culmination of a lot of 
things that makes the efficiency work.
    I think an infrastructure bill certainly could look at that 
and be part of that equation. We would strongly favor that, 
Senator.
    Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Willis, are you familiar with the Amtrak proposal to 
turn around trains in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Dodge City, 
Kansas, and bus passengers across Kansas, Colorado, and into 
New Mexico?
    One reason that Amtrak gives for this dramatic shift in 
routes is safety. Do you believe that it would actually be 
safer for trains to stop in these cities, customers to be 
offloaded on to buses, and then driven over high mountain 
passes, especially in the winter?
    Mr. Willis. Well, I would defer to Amtrak on that specific 
route. What we have been seeing with Amtrak with the Southwest 
Chief and some of the other long-distance routes is a little 
bit of walking away from them on their commitment to a national 
railroad and national service.
    We think Amtrak is an important component of our multimodal 
transportation system, but for that to be a part of that, they 
have to be a national system. They have to provide the long-
distance routes. They may not always be profitable but they 
provide a public service and they provide transportation 
options in places, like in your state, where there may not be 
enough.
    So we want to make sure that Amtrak, you know, continues to 
be in the business of providing those type of routes and we've 
been, you know, pretty vocal about it with Amtrak, both 
publicly and privately.
    Senator Udall. Great. Well, thank you for that, and I think 
it's really clear if you look at the routes and look at where 
they're talking about offloading and doing buses, that there's 
a very serious safety issue there. So I'm urging Amtrak to take 
a look at that.
    I know the Chairman has an Amtrak issue with the Gulf Coast 
from Katrina. I think there are a lot of Amtrak issues where we 
need to really make some investments.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall.
    Senator Markey.

               STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Thank 
you all for being here.
    Climate change is a real threat to our planet, to our own 
country. Senator Schumer wrote an op-ed in December saying that 
any infrastructure bill has to have a climate change component 
to it; that we're realistic in terms of how we're going to deal 
with this issue, especially since in 2018, we lost $300 billion 
in the United States to the flooding and to the fires in 
California. $300 billion over 10 years, that's $3 trillion 
that?s lost, and we know it's climate-related.
    So as we look at this legislation that's moving forward, as 
we talk about infrastructure, the question's really going to 
be, you know, how can we use this as an opportunity to invest 
in new technologies, new infrastructure that helps to curb 
greenhouse gas emissions where applicable.
    So in the transportation sector, Mr. Spear, would you 
support a program to invest in electrification of the trucking 
fleets throughout this country?
    Mr. Spear. I think its market forces are already at play on 
that. Whether they need included in the bill or not is open for 
debate. I think it is a technology that is emerging. It is 
certainly viable. I think it's only relevant currently, or at 
least for the near future, for certain segments of the trucking 
industry, those that are regional, where the equipment returns 
to the terminal every night, where there's infrastructure to 
recharge it. If you're going long haul, you're going to need 
the infrastructure across the country to charge that. It's not 
as efficient or useful.
    So certain segments, yes, I think it could be very viable. 
Other alternative fuels, like compressed natural gas and 
hydrogen, certainly viable. Those are being looked at in terms 
of hybrid technology as well as full alternative fuel powered 
equipment, so certainly in the future.
    Senator Markey. Great. Mr. Friedman, do you think it should 
be the policy of the United States as we're looking at an 
infrastructure bill to help curb greenhouse gas emissions 
wherever possible, that we're putting in place policies that 
could accomplish that goal?
    Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Senator. Well, I'm here 
representing AAPA, which doesn't have a position yet 
specifically on that question, but I can say that AAPA is 
focused on the resiliency component of climate change and the 
challenges that will be posed by climate change.
    We're particularly concerned with rising sea levels and 
more extreme weather events. So we are working as an industry 
to try to get ahead of that future.
    I would say on the whole, if you look at what our ports do 
individually, they're very, very focused on decarbonization. 
They're very focused on keeping up with the changes that the 
market is going to bring to us in terms of our alternative 
fuels, and I would say, again without having a policy in place 
yet, that generally, yes, our industry very much agrees with 
the Federal Government leading the way on that issue.
    Senator Markey. OK. Great. Thank you. Very much appreciate 
it.
    On September 13, 2018, last year, the gas distribution 
system in Lawrence, Andover, and North Andover, Massachusetts, 
experienced a pressure surge and the resulting fires and 
explosions killed a young man, damaged hundreds of buildings, 
and left thousands of homes and businesses without gas service 
for months. We're still working to dig out in Massachusetts and 
recover from this disaster and have a long way to go.
    At the Commerce Committee hearing, which we had up in 
Lawrence, thanks to the Majority on the Committee allowed us to 
have a hearing up there, we discussed some of the failings of 
the pipeline safety regulations, failings that we must address 
during the next PHMSA reauthorization by tuning into the 
lessons of the Merrimack Valley.
    Mr. Willis, do you agree that regulations that require 
stronger safety standards and the use of installation of modern 
technology can promote pipeline integrity and protect both 
workers and American communities and create jobs in this 
country?
    Mr. Willis. Senator, there's no question that we need to do 
more on pipeline safety. We have specific unions that can come 
in and talk to you in more detail about, you know, those 
workers who handle that type of work, but I think your efforts 
in relation to what happened in your state, and obviously we've 
seen it elsewhere, are excellent.
    We do agree that we need to improve safety there, improve 
monitoring and use technology in the right way. So we're 
looking forward to working with you on that for sure.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. I think that should be a way in 
which we view infrastructure, too, because those pipes were 
right around the house that my father grew up in, born in 1911, 
in Lawrence. So there's a real opportunity here for 
infrastructure upgrades that make the whole system a lot safer 
while we're creating jobs for the country.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Markey.
    Senator Klobuchar.

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's 
good to be here.
    We had a Rules Committee meeting, that's why I was a little 
tardy.
    I want to start with you, Mr. Spear. In your testimony, you 
talked about the fact that the U.S. spends less than half of 
what's necessary to address the Nation's surface transportation 
policy. We saw this loud and clear with the I-35W Bridge in 
Minnesota which, as you know, tragically crashed into the 
river, killing 13 people and injuring many more.
    Could you explain why this is so important to upgrade our 
existing transportation infrastructure? Often you can't have a 
glamorous ribbon-cutting when you're just upgrading and that's 
one of the problems. Mr. Spear.
    Mr. Spear. We would certainly celebrate with an upgrade. I 
think 67,000 bridges in the United States are deemed deficient, 
certainly a safety hazard, this one included. So it's tragic 
when this happens and I think we're only going to see more of 
it if we do not take immediate steps to pass a robust 
infrastructure bill that focuses on repairing our ailing roads 
and bridges, and, you know, I think congestion is also playing 
a part of that.
    Minnesota has five of the top 100 bottlenecks in the United 
States. The amount of time we sit in traffic, including in 
Minnesota, is very measurable and so, you know, the impact that 
the growth, the surge in the economy, we have to meet that 
demand. All of our modes work together to ensure that we're 
meeting economic growth, but our infrastructure is lagging and 
it has to be done and done right, not just for the economy, but 
for safety. It's imperative.
    Fifty-three percent of the fatalities the roadway 
contributed to the fatalities on the highway. This is a 
national tragedy.
    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Mr. Polka, love your name. 
We're a big polka state. It's very festive.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Klobuchar. Dig Once, I know you recognized it in 
your opening statement, and this was a provision. We got a 
provision in the MOBILE Now Act, which was signed into law last 
Congress.
    How do Dig Once's policies help to improve broadband access 
specifically in rural areas?
    Mr. Polka. First off, I think Dig Once is vitally 
important. It's a great idea. When you think of Federal highway 
projects and long-haul fiber that can be installed as those 
highways are built, I think they're a great idea and we look 
forward to working with you and the committee on furthering, 
you know, that concept.
    In smaller markets, rural areas, it's a little bit of a 
different challenge. We're not necessarily using highways but 
streets and roads, sometimes maybe not necessarily paved, and 
we're not necessarily working with Federal projects.
    So there where you have situations, such as utilities or 
others that may be installing such facilities, we need to have 
a similar concept, I think, and as the Committee thinks about 
infrastructure legislation, this may be something to consider 
where we think of something that could be more of a sharing 
process, where when a utility might be opening up a conduit, 
there's notification and coordination, so that fiber can be 
also installed.
    So it's a little bit of a different issue, but I think the 
concept of Dig Once could be used ultimately in rural areas, as 
well.
    Senator Klobuchar. And then Senator Capito and I have a 
bill about measuring the economic impact of broadband. I think 
it will be helpful. We got stalled out in the House, is that 
right--there you go--last time, and we couldn't get it done at 
the end of the year but I think we have a good opportunity, but 
the reason I think it's so important is just to get that data 
because we can get to connecting all our households but it's 
just been--we need the will, and could you talk about the 
importance of getting the economic data?
    Mr. Polka. We have members today that are building 
broadband into communities that haven't had it yet and in those 
local situations, we're discussing how we can actually measure 
that economic impact.
    We don't have the answer yet but I know the answer's going 
to be a good one, once you can show a community that didn't 
have broadband before that has it tomorrow and what difference 
it makes in the lives of every citizen.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK. One last question, then I'll put 
some more on the record.
    Mr. Jefferies, Port of Duluth supports industries from 
agriculture to manufacturing. It's the largest and busiest port 
on the Great Lakes, 900 vessels, an average of 35 million short 
tons of cargo per year. We, with the help of a TIGER Grant and 
other things, have been able to enhance that port, new 
intermodal terminal open for Canadian National Railway and 
Duluth Cargo Connect.
    As you see this port traffic increase, as we see the future 
of some of our economic growth, getting goods to market and 
exporting, what kind of investments are needed to support the 
flow of these intermodal cargo shipments?
    Mr. Jefferies. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. That's a 
great question.
    For railroad's part, we are investing $25 billion a year 
back into our network. So once it hits the railroad, we have 
the capacity to move the product. On the intermodal connector, 
first-mile/last-mile port infrastructure, we think there's an 
absolute need for robust Federal role, be it through a public/
private partnership or direct funding to the port to ensure 
that again once we get to that first-mile/last-mile, we often 
run into congestion. So let's smooth that out and really 
provide a streamlined process because it is an integrative 
network.
    Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much. Thank 
you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, and thank you 
to all of our witnesses.
    It is clear that we have been treated to a great amount of 
brainpower today and also thought put into this. So we do 
appreciate it.
    There being no further questions, the Chair will announce 
that the hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During 
this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions for the 
record. Upon receipt, our witnesses are requested to submit 
their written answers to the Committee as soon as possible but 
by no later than Wednesday, February 27, 2019, by close of 
business.
    So thank you again, and this hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                                                   January 15, 2019

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker,
U.S. House of Representatives.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
Republican Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,
Democratic Leader,
U.S. Senate.

Re: Benefits of Embedding Energy Efficiency in Infrastructure 
            Investments

Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader McConnell, Senator Schumer, and Leader 
            McCarthy:

    We the undersigned, on behalf of a coalition of energy businesses, 
trade associations, researchers, energy officials, and advocacy 
organizations, respectfully urge you to ensure that any infrastructure 
proposals considered by the 116th Congress include energy efficiency 
provisions that will maximize the investments made by taxpayers, reduce 
long-term operations and maintenance costs, and improve overall U.S. 
energy productivity.
    Energy efficiency is our Nation's most abundant energy resource. 
Without the gains in energy efficiency made since 1973, the U.S. 
economy would today require at least 70 percent more energy than we 
currently consume. Between then and today, U.S. gross domestic product 
has tripled while energy consumption has only risen by about 30 
percent. Improving energy efficiency is one of the most effective 
policy strategies for addressing the threat of climate change--both in 
terms of reducing emissions and enhancing the resilience of buildings, 
the industrial sector, transportation, and energy systems--while also 
representing an extraordinary bipartisan opportunity to boost economic 
growth, add to the 2.25 million jobs in the energy efficiency sector, 
and improve U.S. energy security and global competitiveness. These 
benefits would align with many of your stated goals for an 
infrastructure package in the 116th Congress.
    The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's aged and 
increasingly failing infrastructure a grade of D+ in its most recent 
Infrastructure Report Card and identified a funding shortfall of more 
than $1.4 trillion by 2025. Energy efficiency would improve the 
costeffectiveness and sustainability of any investments in 
infrastructure, including critical improvements across the entire 
buildings sector, water and wastewater treatment facilities and 
distribution systems, the power grid, and our increasingly-connected 
transportation systems. We therefore encourage you to incorporate 
energy efficiency in any infrastructure proposals from the start. 
Otherwise, Congress runs the risk of locking in decades of high costs 
and unnecessary energy waste for the duration of the physical 
infrastructure our economy needs to remain prosperous in the 21st 
Century.
    In order to make the best, most-efficient use of taxpayer 
investments in infrastructure, we ask that you first consider these 
tenets:

   Promote adoption of updated building energy codes, high-
        performance buildings, and high-efficiency equipment. Buildings 
        account for roughly 40 percent of U.S. primary energy use and 
        76 percent of the electricity we use, and recent climate 
        assessments and reports consistently point to reducing building 
        energy consumption as a top solution to reduce greenhouse gas 
        emissions. As we invest in building and rebuilding the very 
        places where people and commerce meet, we should ensure these 
        structures meet the highest standards for efficiency. The 
        latest model building energy codes deliver 30 percent more 
        efficiency than codes of just a decade ago, which will result 
        in more than $5 billion in annual savings for U.S. homes and 
        businesses from, for example, improved thermal envelopes and 
        high-efficiency heating and cooling equipment and lighting 
        fixtures. Just as important, the experiences of states and 
        communities demonstrate that more efficient buildings are key 
        to enhancing energy system resilience in the face of extreme 
        weather events. Congress should ensure that any infrastructure 
        proposals encourage states and local governments to adopt and 
        enforce updated building energy codes and promote energy 
        efficiency retrofits of existing buildings that will deliver 
        long-term savings to homeowners, renters, and commercial 
        building owners and tenants and improve the health and 
        resilience of communities. Energy efficiency delivers savings 
        to all households and consumers, including those with limited 
        incomes, and would ensure that the benefits of an 
        infrastructure package will help the Nation as a whole.

   Expand opportunities for public-private partnerships to 
        finance projects. The burden of paying for infrastructure does 
        not need to fall solely upon the shoulders of taxpayers through 
        direct appropriations. The Federal Government should show 
        leadership by addressing critical buildings and energy 
        infrastructure upgrades through public-private partnerships 
        that leverage private funds to implement resilience-enhancing 
        energy-and water-conservation measures. To address the backlog 
        of $165 billion in deferred maintenance projects in Federal 
        facilities, any infrastructure package should encourage 
        performance contracting and other financing mechanisms at all 
        levels of government to install high-efficiency equipment and 
        systems in individual buildings and across campuses with little 
        to zero upfront cost to taxpayers and tremendous resilience 
        benefits for mission-critical public facilities.

   Apply life-cycle cost-effectiveness analysis to all 
        appropriate projects. To deliver the best long-term return-on-
        investment to taxpayers, Congress should avoid short-sighted 
        decisions based on incremental first-costs and instead take 
        into account costs and benefits over the expected lifetime of 
        physical infrastructure. This focus on lower up-front costs 
        rather than lower operations and maintenance costs tends to 
        encourage an under-investment in energy-and water-saving 
        technologies that then saddle unsuspecting homeowners, 
        consumers, and businesses with an unpredictable burden of 
        higher utility bills. A missed opportunity now means future 
        generations of taxpayers will be paying for our mistake for 
        decades to come.

    We are prepared to work with you and your colleagues to provide 
more assistance as requested to identify specific programs, activities, 
and projects that may warrant specific attention as Congress turns its 
focus to infrastructure. And we pledge to assist your staff by 
identifying existing and developing new energy efficiency proposals 
that would maximize taxpayer investment in infrastructure that delivers 
benefits today, lowers costs over time, and provides our children and 
grandchildren with a more sustainable future.
    Thank you for your consideration.
            Sincerely,

Advanced Energy Economy              National Association for State
Alliance for Industrial Efficiency    Community Services Programs
Alliance to Save Energy              National Association of Energy
American Council for an Energy-       Service Companies
 Efficient Economy                   National Association of State
American Institute of Architects      Energy Officials
ASHRAE                               National Electrical Manufacturers
Business Council for Sustainable      Association
 Energy                              Natural Resources Defense Council
Chelan County Public Utility         New Dominion Group, LLC
 District                            North American Insulation
Copper Development Association,       Manufacturers Association
 Inc.                                Polyisocyanurate Insulation
Covestro                              Manufacturers Association
E4TheFuture                          Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning
Environmental and Energy Study        Contractors National Association
 Institute                           Signify (formerly Philips Lighting)
Federal Performance Contracting      The Stella Group, Ltd.
 Coalition                           U.S. Green Building Council
Hannon Armstrong                     Vermont Energy Investment
Heat is Power Association             Corporation
Home Performance Coalition
Ingersoll Rand
Knauf Insulation
 


Cc: Members, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and 
Commerce
Members, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure
Members, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means
Members, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Members, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Members, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance
                                 ______
                                 
    Prepared Statement of Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation
    When GPS signals are not available because of natural, accidental 
or malicious interference, every mode of transportation slows down, 
carries less capacity, and becomes more expensive and dangerous. First 
responder communications and coordination systems are degraded. If the 
disruption lasts long enough, networks of all kinds begin to fail.
    For this reason, officials at the Department of Homeland Security 
have called our Nation's overreliance on GPS ``a single point of 
failure for critical infrastructure.'' This sentiment and concern has 
been echoed by a wide range of engineers and technologists including 
the National SpaceBased Positioning, Navigation and Timing Advisory 
Board, and the ``father of GPS,'' Dr. Bradford Parkinson.
    The lack of a difficult to disrupt, terrestrial backup system for 
GPS is a significant gap in our Nation's infrastructure. It must be 
filled to protect and enable current applications and allow development 
of future transportation and IT systems.
    Validating this shortfall, the National Institutes of Standards and 
Technology has twice warned that our Nation's wireless precise timing 
architecture (almost entirely based on GPS signals) is insufficient to 
support development of the Internet of things (IOT). As another 
example, further development of safe automated vehicles and intelligent 
transportation systems of all kinds will be unwise without difficult-
to-disrupt, wide area location and timing signals to pair with the much 
weaker signals from space (see our comment to the Department of 
Transportation here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-
2018-0149-0022).
    Congress began to address this shortfall by passing the National 
Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018 which became law in 
December. This act requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
establish a terrestrial timing system as a backup for GPS by the end of 
2020. Also, that this timing system be expandable to provide a backup 
for GPS navigation. Separate legislation last year provided $15M for a 
technology demonstration of GPS backup technology.
    These initial steps are important but will not by themselves make 
our Nation safer. Sufficient funds must be made available to establish 
the timing system, and the administration must be held accountable for 
progress on all fronts.
    The last two administrations promised to establish backup systems 
for GPS, but never followedthrough. And we have seen little action from 
the current administration. For example, funds for the GPS backup 
technology demonstration Congress mandated have been available for 
almost a year. Yet we have seen no public evidence that the project has 
even begun. This, despite Congress' mandate the demonstration be 
complete by June 2019.
    Our nation's infrastructure is much more than just roads and 
waterworks. Our dependence upon wireless precise time and navigation 
continues to increase. We must focus on ensuring America has the 
positioning, navigation, and timing infrastructure it needs to be 
secure today, and to prosper in the future.
    We urge you to:

   Support funding for the timing system mandated by the 
        National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018,

   Encourage the Department of Transportation to actively 
        pursue its role as the Federal lead for civil positioning, 
        navigation, and timing issues,

   Hold the administration accountable for complying with 
        Congressional direction and intent, and

   Identify a terrestrial, difficult-to-disrupt, terrestrial 
        navigation and timing system as an essential part of our 
        Nation's infrastructure.

            Respectfully submitted,
                                            Dana A. Goward,
                                                         President,
                            Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation.
                                 ______
                                 
            Prepared Statement of Jason Hartke, President, 
                      The Alliance to Save Energy
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit a written statement 
regarding the Committee's hearing titled, ``America's Infrastructure 
Needs: Keeping Pace with a Growing Economy.''
    We look forward to working with you in the 116th Congress to 
develop bipartisan policies for rebuilding American infrastructure, and 
we submit this statement to highlight the role that energy efficiency 
can play in sharply reducing both the costs and carbon footprint of 
infrastructure projects.
    Infrastructure, of course, is more than roads and bridges. It's the 
foundation that determines where and how we fuel our vehicles, deliver 
electricity and natural gas, and treat and distribute water. It's our 
airports, seaports, transit hubs and other critical public buildings. 
These facilities have an enormous impact on U.S. energy consumption, 
and a nationwide infrastructure initiative presents an opportunity to 
``get it right'' and save consumers and taxpayers decades of wasted 
energy costs.
    Transportation is now the greatest source of greenhouse gas 
emissions in the United States and the second highest expense for 
households. Exciting breakthroughs in electrified transit, efficient 
alternative fuel vehicles, ridesharing, and other tools have the 
potential to enhance travel experiences while reducing energy waste, 
congestion and emissions.
    Similar energy-saving opportunities exist across other 
infrastructure sectors. Water treatment and distribution facilities, 
for example, are typically the largest energy users in their local 
communities, often accounting for a third or more of a municipality's 
total energy consumption. Cutting their energy use by a modest 10 
percent could save $400 million a year, according to the EPA. And, 
there are enormous opportunities for savings in modernizing public 
buildings. The Federal Government alone spends $6 billion annually on 
energy for its buildings.
    We must avoid the temptation to look only at short-term costs and 
build a truly modern infrastructure network that locks in savings over 
decades and lays the foundation for a more competitive and productive 
economy. In some cases, infrastructure projects can pay for themselves 
through public-private partnerships and innovative financing around 
energy savings investments. Incorporating energy efficiency can also 
provide a host of additional benefits, such as reducing harmful 
emissions and improving power grid reliability and resilience--all 
while creating good-paying jobs.
    Already, energy efficiency supports more than 2.2 million U.S. 
jobs, with an employment growth rate double the national average. Seven 
in 10 of energy efficiency jobs are in construction and manufacturing.
    We encourage you to incorporate energy efficiency in any 
infrastructure proposals from the start to make the best, most-
efficient use of taxpayer investments. The Alliance to Save Energy's 
infrastructure priorities include:

   Laying the foundation for an efficient transportation 
        sector. The transportation sector is undergoing rapid 
        transformation due to innovation in new technologies, business 
        models and connectivity. These new tools could enable a more 
        efficient, effective, clean, and affordable transportation 
        system, but their success depends heavily on effective 
        infrastructure development. For example, for emerging 
        alternative vehicle markets, especially electric vehicles, 
        hydrogen fuel cell and renewable natural gas vehicles, the lack 
        of such infrastructure presents a market barrier to deployment 
        for highly-efficient vehicles that have great potential to 
        reduce energy waste and climate emissions in light-, medium-and 
        heavyduty sectors. Stronger transit systems have an outsized 
        positive impact on the lives of lowincome, elderly, and 
        disabled communities, which rely on these services for 
        mobility. Smarter traffic systems and system optimization at 
        ports and distribution centers can enhance the longevity of 
        infrastructure by controlling traffic congestion and optimizing 
        the vehicles used, reducing maintenance costs while enhancing 
        safety. And autonomous vehicles and ridesharing could change 
        the shape of urban mobility. Congress should pursue 
        opportunities to support these emerging trends to ensure that 
        the infrastructure built today will be ready for tomorrow's 
        needs.

   Promoting adoption of updated building energy codes, high-
        performance buildings, and high-efficiency equipment. Buildings 
        account for roughly 40 percent of U.S. primary energy use and 
        76 percent of the electricity we use, and recent climate 
        assessments and reports consistently point to reducing building 
        energy consumption as a top solution to reduce greenhouse gas 
        emissions. As we invest in building and rebuilding the very 
        places where people and commerce meet, we should ensure these 
        structures meet the highest standards for efficiency. The 
        latest model building energy codes deliver 30 percent more 
        efficiency than codes of just a decade ago, which will result 
        in more than $5 billion in annual savings for U.S. homes and 
        businesses from, for example, improved thermal envelopes and 
        high-efficiency heating and cooling equipment and lighting 
        fixtures. Just as important, the experiences of states and 
        communities demonstrate that more efficient buildings are key 
        to enhancing energy system resilience in the face of extreme 
        weather events. Congress should ensure that any infrastructure 
        proposals encourage states and local governments to adopt and 
        enforce updated building energy codes and promote energy 
        efficiency retrofits of existing buildings that will deliver 
        long-term savings to homeowners, renters, and commercial 
        building owners and tenants and improve the health and 
        resilience of communities. Energy efficiency delivers savings 
        to all households and consumers, including those with limited 
        incomes, and would ensure that the benefits of an 
        infrastructure package will help the Nation as a whole.

   Expanding opportunities for public-private partnerships to 
        finance projects. The burden of paying for infrastructure does 
        not need to fall solely upon the shoulders of taxpayers through 
        direct appropriations. The Federal Government should show 
        leadership by addressing critical buildings and energy 
        infrastructure upgrades through public-private partnerships 
        that leverage private funds to implement resilience-enhancing 
        energy-and water-conservation measures. To address the backlog 
        of $165 billion in deferred maintenance projects in Federal 
        facilities, any infrastructure package should encourage 
        performance contracting and other financing mechanisms at all 
        levels of government to install high-efficiency equipment and 
        systems in individual buildings and across campuses with little 
        to zero upfront cost to taxpayers and tremendous resilience 
        benefits for missioncritical public facilities.

   Applying life-cycle cost-effectiveness analysis to all 
        appropriate projects. To deliver the best long-term return-on-
        investment to taxpayers, Congress should avoid short-sighted 
        decisions based on incremental first-costs and instead take 
        into account costs and benefits over the expected lifetime of 
        physical infrastructure. This focus on lower up-front costs 
        rather than lower operations and maintenance costs tends to 
        encourage an under-investment in energy-and water-saving 
        technologies that then saddle unsuspecting homeowners, 
        consumers, and businesses with an unpredictable burden of 
        higher utility bills. A missed opportunity now means future 
        generations of taxpayers will be paying for our mistake for 
        decades to come.

    We are eager to work with you and your colleagues to identify 
specific programs, activities, and projects that can help achieve our 
mutual goals and build a smarter, less expensive and more sustainable 
infrastructure system. Please also find attached a letter from the 
Alliance and 30 other companies and organizations urging Congress to 
embed energy efficiency into infrastructure legislation.
About the Alliance to Save Energy
    Founded in 1977, the Alliance to Save Energy is a nonprofit, 
bipartisan alliance of business, government, environmental and consumer 
leaders working to expand the economy while using less energy. Our 
mission is to promote energy productivity worldwide--including through 
energy efficiency--to achieve a stronger economy, a cleaner environment 
and greater energy security, affordability and reliability.
            Sincerely,
                                              Jason Hartke,
                                                         President,
                                           The Alliance to Save Energy.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                            William Friedman
    Question. Mr. Friedman, as you know, in addition to establishing a 
National Multimodal Freight Policy, the FAST Act created the Build 
America Bureau to strengthen coordination between modes on multimodal 
infrastructure planning and investment in the United States. While 
there certainly are no seaports in South Dakota, they play a critical 
role in connecting my home state to markets around the world. Do you 
believe the Build America Bureau has improved project delivery for port 
infrastructure improvements, and do you see opportunities for 
improvements to multimodal planning and investment?
    Answer. Senator Thune. Thank you for this question. The short 
answer is I believe the Build America Bureau is getting better at 
delivering port infrastructure improvement opportunities. As an 
example, can be a tool for ports to explore ways to access private 
capital in public-private partnership. The Rail Rehabilitation 
Innovation Financing (RRIF) program has been in existence since 2002, 
and only late last year did a port (Port of Everett) receive a RRIF 
loan. One recommendation to make RRIF more accessible to ports is to 
provide 100 percent financing. AAPA members responded that there were 
potentially 75 BUILD/TIGER projects that would become RRIF-financed 
projects if the financing fee was removed.
    I will add that in building off the FAST Act, establishing a 
multimodal freight office within the DOT would best leverage across all 
modes planning tools and resources made available in the FAST Act an 
AAPA proposed maritime freight supply chain title.
    A multimodal freight office is an ideal spot to administer the 
soon-to-be-released multimodal freight network and the multimodal 
freight plan. Both these documents are templates to work from and would 
be best implemented in a mode-neutral office. Additionally, the 
multimodal freight office would have oversight over the FAST Act 
compliant state freight plans, which are all multimodal.
    Furthermore, with multimodal funding programs in USDOT's Federal 
Highway Administration, MARAD and FRA, a multimodal freight office will 
coordinate and direct investment and policy.
    Finally, AAPA believes that a multimodal freight office would 
complement the Build America Bureau within USDOT. In the original FAST 
Act, consolidating the Build America Bureau's lending and financing 
programs into one allowed for better leveraging of those programs to 
meet the Administration's goals. A freight office would be better 
positioned to work with these new, multimodal focused programs, and to 
lead the development of a multimodal network necessary to meet 21st 
century supply chain and transportation needs.
    This type of policy and organization within USDOT would not only 
leverage resources but allow for a more comprehensive approach to 
freight planning that integrates port states with non-port states such 
as South Dakota.
    Please feel free to follow up with me or AAPA if we can answer any 
additional questions. I look forward to working with you during the 
reauthorization process.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                            William Friedman
    Question. The Heartland Intermodal Gateway (HIG) in Prichard, West 
Virginia, sits on 100 acres of land donated by Norfolk Southern 
Railway, and various private property owners, along the Big Sandy 
River. This facility provides businesses with a truck-to-rail transfer 
facility along the Heartland Corridor running form the Port of Virginia 
through West Virginia to Chicago.
    Intermodal facilities such as the HIG decrease handling, improves 
security, reduces damage and loss, and allows freight to be transported 
faster. According to the West Virginia Public Port Authority, the HIG 
has filled a major hole in the country's intermodal network. The Port 
Authority has also identified close to 1,500 jobs being created as a 
result of the HIG.

   Before its construction, an economic study indicated that 
        the $30 million investment in the Prichard Intermodal Terminal 
        would generate a net increase of between 700 and 1000 jobs, and 
        a statewide benefit of $47-69 million by 2025. Intermodal 
        facilities, like the HIG, have significant benefits for our 
        economy. Can you speak to the economic benefits of such 
        intermodal facilities?

    Answer. Intermodal facilities that bring cargo to and from a 
maritime port help improve the efficiency of cargo movement through 
ports. Rail connections from ports to intermodal transfer facilities 
can:

   significantly decrease the amount of truck traffic coming 
        into a port,

   decrease truck traffic on interstate roads and subsequent 
        wear and tear,

   lessen pollution as rail movement is more environmentally 
        friendly, and

   improve delivery times.

    Ports are often located in coastal cities, where road congestion 
can impact a port's ability to move cargo efficiently. Intermodal 
transfer facilities can quickly move cargo from congested urban areas 
to less congested areas, especially those that utilize rail. Depending 
on the location, intermodal transfer facilities also can offer the 
added benefit of creating jobs and economic development in more rural 
areas. These intermodal transfer facilities often attract distributions 
centers, which also create local jobs.
    The Department of Transportation programs are very helpful in 
establishing and improving these facilities. The BUILD/INFRA/Fast Act 
grants provide an important incentive to get these projects built more 
quickly. Most multimodal transfer facilities are public-private 
partnerships and these Federal grants leverage private sector 
improvements. The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) has 
recommended that the multimodal caps on FAST Act funds be removed in 
the next reauthorization bill so there are not limitations on the 
amount of funds available for multimodal projects including intermodal 
transfer facilities. Other helpful Federal programs in funding the 
establishment of these facilities include the Transportation 
Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) and the Railroad 
Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program.
    The AAPA's State of Freight III report on Rail Access and Port 
Multimodal Funding Needs Report noted that 66.67 percent of ports 
reported that funding and financing options are the greatest barriers 
to have improved rail access. AAPA port members identified more than 
$20 billion in projected multimodal port and rail access needs in the 
next decade.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                            William Friedman
    Freight Investment. I have long been a champion of Federal funds 
for freight projects, which for the first time received dedicated 
funding in the FAST Act when I authored what became the INFRA program. 
Trade and the movement of goods is the backbone of our economy. In 
Washington state, we know this all too well as forty percent of our 
jobs are tied to trade.

    Question 1. Where do you see the main chokepoints that require 
multi-modal investments to keep freight moving? How can increased 
investments in the freight program better address these challenges?
    Answer. Increased interconnectedness and trade have increased the 
demands placed on our ports and on our infrastructure more broadly. 
While the commerce and travel that flows through our ports has been a 
boon to Americans and to our Nation's economy, it has also contributed 
to stressed capacity at our ports. Ports have plans to address 
increased wait times and other capacity issues with expansion and 
investment, but without Federal backing, there is a `chokepoint' in a) 
the literally accumulated cargo, and b) the figurative chokepoint on 
investment ports are able to undertake. Such a growing issue in the 
context of increasing ecommerce and consumer and business expectations 
about delivery speed are barreling towards a looming storm.
    Increased multimodal investments evidence Congress's attention to a 
dynamic and growing economy. As transport, distribution, and logistics 
companies innovate and create newer, faster systems, Congress should 
modernize its smart investments by doing away with artificial caps on 
investment in multimodal projects in order to continue encouraging 
innovation.

    President's Proposal. During his state of the union speech, 
President Trump continued his push for an infrastructure bill. This 
echoes his previous calls for a $1 trillion infrastructure investment. 
However, instead of Federal investment, his plan relied heavily on 
public-private partnerships, which would likely lead to more tolling. 
To pay for it, his budget also proposed cuts to current infrastructure 
programs.

    Question 2. What concerns do you have with the Administration's 
proposal to cut Federal funds for current infrastructure programs?
    Answer. Through member data, the American Association of Port 
Authorities finds that U.S. ports plan investment of $31 billion per 
year on average. AAPA is currently conducting its questionnaires for 
planned port investment for 2021-2025 and expects to find comparable 
numbers.
    Only with the help of the Federal Government's fulfilling its 
explicit Constitutional role for maintaining the national waterways, 
inter alia, can American ports have requisite resources to finance 
badly-needed investments. AAPA's data-backed survey of the investment 
landscape suggests ports continue to need the government as a partner, 
and, in fact, would benefit from government playing an increased role 
in infrastructure investment in order to meet growing demand and to 
leverage private capital.

    Question 3. One of the President's proposed cuts was to the BUILD 
grant program, how would that impact ports?
    Answer. In FY19, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) awarded 
seven marine-related projects, including five seaport projects, among 
the 55 selected for funding in the 11th round of BUILD. AAPA applauds 
these important projects around the country, but there's always more to 
be done. Moreover, though maritime represents one quarter of the 
intermodal mix, it only received 14 percent of BUILD grants this Fiscal 
Year. AAPA hopes to help Congress and the Department of Transportation 
boost that number--both in gross and percentage terms--in order to 
reflect the important role played by maritime transport.

    Paying for Infrastructure. We can all agree that we need a robust 
infrastructure investment, but when it comes time to pay for it the 
conversation dies down pretty quickly. Without significant leadership 
on how to pay for this much needed investment, I'm concerned that all 
we will have is conversation.

    Question 4. Why is it so important that we heed these calls for 
action now? What will happen if we continue to punt this conversation 
down the road?
    Answer. To reiterate the above, AAPA's last investment 
questionnaire showed that ports plan for about $31 billion per year in 
infrastructure investment. Ports with growing volumes must invest 
continuously to meet demand, and in some cases, U.S. ports that don't 
offer the best possible service may lose business to ports in Canada or 
Mexico. In all cases, ports must offer a safe and reliable place for 
travelers and shippers to operate.
    Long-term, sustainable multimodal funding is critical, and we 
encourage you to start looking at solutions. AAPA has endorsed the 
concept of a 1 percent waybill fee as an equitable approach to provide 
immediate and long-term funding for multimodal freight infrastructure 
challenges. Additionally, AAPA supports a gas tax increase as well as a 
VMT program. With all increased funding, AAPA recommends that any new 
funding be multimodal-eligible.

    National Cyber Strategy. Modern infrastructure relies on 
interconnected broadband communication networks that optimize 
performance and efficiency. This applies to everything from intelligent 
transportation to smart grid, and smart cities systems.
    It's not just new personal devices--all of our infrastructure is 
becoming digital infrastructure.
    This increased connectivity comes with new threats--we have to get 
serious about cybersecurity in this country. This Administration's 
failure to implement a real, consistent and robust cyber strategy puts 
our national security and everything that uses our communication 
networks at risk.

    Question 5. Do you agree that it is time for the Federal Government 
to craft and implement a comprehensive national cyber strategy? What 
are the risks to our national and economic security without such a 
strategy?
    Answer. While AAPA currently does not take a position on a national 
strategy, cyber incidents have had an impact on the shipping industry. 
Moreover, because of the global nature of shipping, it is easy for 
malware to spread rapidly and without regard for borders. In that vein, 
international and private-public cooperation is just as important a 
national plan, especially in the ways an attack might occur, spread, 
and damage a global supply chain.
    Most ports are targets ripe for cyber attacks given the second-
order effects of disrupted supply chains and affected travelers. Ports 
are critical infrastructure as designated by DHS, so they will always 
be on the proverbial front lines of cyber security and are always ready 
to play their part.

    Question 6. What cyber security threats are you seeing to the 
infrastructure you rely on and what tools do you have to combat these 
cyber threats?
    Answer. An attack that takes down a port's connectivity and/or 
communications can freeze movement of all freight and bring operations 
to a standstill. Such an incident can cost millions of dollars just to 
get business back up and running to say nothing of the almost-
incalculable economic costs of halted goods--including perishables--not 
getting to where they need to go, along with stranded travelers.
    Supply chain partners must have top-notch firewalls and 
authentication between and among themselves because of their continuous 
communications about freight location, customer data, and more. 
Blockchain increases the level of interconnection almost infinitely. 
All partners in the supply chain should have redundant systems in case 
one is attacked by ransomware, for example.
    Not all of these issues face ports per se but rather their 
customers, tenants, and partners. Nevertheless, ports work hard to 
understand their industry issues and the growing interconnected between 
and among port users.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                            William Friedman
    The efficient flow of freight across America's transit systems is 
crucial to the competitiveness of our economy. When shippers are 
delayed by major congestion and outdated infrastructure, products don't 
arrive on time, businesses suffer and costs for consumers go up.

    Question. In addition to addressing major freight bottlenecks, what 
investments should we be making to improve supply chains and the flow 
of freight?
    Answer. Decades of growth in global trade have seen more people and 
businesses trading in America. In the last decade, the growth in the 
volume and market share of ecommerce has put more demands on 
infrastructure and supply chains, which do their best to keep up but 
which, as you note, need better, smarter investments.
    Increased multimodal investments evidence Congress's attention to a 
dynamic and growing economy. As transport, distribution, and logistics 
companies innovate and create newer, faster systems, Congress should 
modernize its smart investments by doing away with artificial caps on 
investment in multimodal projects in order to continue encouraging 
innovation.
    An overriding economic lodestar should be a welcoming business and 
investment environment. When businesses believe trade policy is 
predictable and welcoming, they are more likely to make the investments 
needed to meet the increased--and hopefully continuing--decades of 
increased demand in trade.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                            William Friedman
    Question. Mr. Friedman, it's not just physical infrastructure that 
can cause bottlenecks at our ports of entry. Technology also limits how 
fast we are able to process and inspect the increasing volume of trade 
at our borders. Innovations like non-intrusive inspection systems have 
helped alleviate some of these challenges. What technologies should we 
be thinking about right now to integrate infrastructure improvements 
that will improve security while also reducing friction at our ports of 
entry?
    Answer. For all its laudable work, Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) admits it is in desperate need of capital investment. Upgrades to 
its tools and technology will help the United States keep pace with the 
rest of the world in scanning and clearing goods; this is an issue so 
immediate that our government is consulting with other governments to 
learn how fast it is falling behind. Two immediate infrastructure 
investments--needed no matter how fast non-intrusive inspection grows--
are long-lasting conveyer belts and container straddle carriers.
    Scanning technology is still only as good as its users, and the 
Federal Government has a vital role to play with freight flow 
performance. For our ports to perform efficiently, CBP must be 
adequately funded and staffed. As an industry, with growing volumes in 
freight and passengers, we would like to see, at a minimum, annual 
hiring of CBP staff to 500 annually, over and above attrition. This may 
sound like an appropriations or Homeland Security issue, but it is a 
supply chain problem.
                                 ______
                                 
       Response to Written Questions Submitted by John Thune to 
                             Ian Jefferies
    Question 1. Mr. Jefferies, you mentioned in your testimony the 
importance of innovative technologies to the freight rail industry. 
Could you elaborate on how the railroads are utilizing emerging 
technologies to improve safety and enhance rail service?
    Answer. According to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) data, 
recent years have been the safest on record for the rail sector. This 
achievement is due in large part to the industry's strong safety 
culture, visible in everything from training to operational protocols.
    Even so, accidents sometimes occur. Railroads prioritize 
investments to address and eliminate the causes of these accidents, 
knowing they will have a significant impact on the long-term safety of 
the freight rail network.
    Technology plays a crucial role in achieving that goal. Today's 
rail technology enables railroads to inspect their track and equipment 
with greater efficiency and reliability: Railroads are using ultrasound 
technology to see inside steel rail; ground-penetrating electromagnetic 
radar to assess the condition of ballast and detect abnormalities; 
wayside detectors using infrared and lasers to assess bearings, axles, 
wheels and springs as trains pass by at up to 60MPH; and machine 
visioning that capture 50,000 images per second of service and safety 
critical components on a passing train. Railroads use these insights to 
improve safety by identifying potential problems and proactively 
scheduling maintenance, helping to keep small issues from becoming big 
problems.
    In addition to these important safety benefits, emerging 
technologies are also helping the railroads improve operations that 
allow railroads to maintain their competitive edge. By applying 
advanced software and technologies to operations, including advanced 
dispatch-planning to optimize train movements, railroads move freight 
more efficiently and cost-effectively than ever before--to the benefit 
of both the railroads and rail shippers. Efficiency and productivity 
improvements help railroads keep prices low. In fact, rail shippers 
today can move roughly twice the amount of freight for nearly the same 
price paid in 1980, giving them an edge in an increasingly globalized 
economy.

   As a follow-up, could you provide an example of where you 
        believe advancements in technology have outpaced the current 
        regulatory framework, and offer suggestions for how these 
        advancements could be better incorporated into regulation?
    Answer. The freight railroads have made significant advances in 
continuous rail inspection, currently deployed extensively in Europe, 
China and Japan, that makes it possible to use non-stop inspection 
vehicles to locate and repair potential rail defects much earlier than 
previous inspection methods. However, FRA regulations require that when 
such technology is used, potential defects must be verified within four 
hours. As a practical matter, this means the employees testing the 
track must stop and verify before the inspection vehicle can proceed--a 
tremendously inefficient use of expensive innovative technology. Stop 
and verify should be the rule only for significant defects. Although 
the FRA has granted waivers that allow certain railroads to deploy 
continuous rail testing, the uncertainty associated with temporary 
waivers is an impediment to long-term investment and innovation. AAR 
members believe regulations should allow for the use of such technology 
that results in equivalent or higher levels of safety.
    In addition, FRA should be encouraged to expand the use of test 
programs to more nimbly respond to rapid advances in technology. For 
example, new and alternative automated track inspection technologies 
provide an objective method to evaluate track conditions and to 
identify track defects. In contrast to visual inspections by track 
inspectors, as currently required by FRA regulations, automated 
inspections can take key measurements continuously and at track speed, 
allowing the inspection of more track in any given time period. Onboard 
computers process the enormous amount of raw data in real time and 
produce concise track condition reports, noting indications of track 
deficiencies so that track owners can take prompt remedial action. 
These technologies are making the railroad safer, but have also 
outpaced the current regulatory framework. Test programs are one way to 
provide the safety regulator with an efficient and effective way to 
authorize the demonstration of new technology or processes.
    Lastly, substantial data has conclusively established that reduced 
air brake testing, which would allow rail cars to be off-air for 
extended periods of time (well beyond the required four hours and as 
currently permitted in Canada) could be permitted without any safety 
degradation. In most situations, harmonizing FRA air brake testing 
regulations with Canadian regulations would better facilitate 
operational efficiencies across the North American rail network without 
jeopardizing safety.

    Question 2. Mr. Jefferies, as you know, the FAST Act made important 
strides to streamline the project permitting process for railroads. 
Building on these changes, does your industry see additional 
opportunities to improve project delivery and better enable investment 
in safe and efficient freight rail infrastructure?
    Answer. The freight railroads applaud Congress for their work in 
both MAP-21 and the FAST Act to streamline the Federal permitting 
process and speed project delivery through significant reforms, such as 
expanding categorical exclusions and allowing for concurrent reviews. 
Delays in permitting slow down the modernization of rail infrastructure 
and cost the rail industry billions of dollars each year, which could 
otherwise be invested back in the network. The freight railroads 
encourage the Committee to build upon the successful streamlining 
provisions from previous reauthorization bills to provide further 
relief.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                              Ian Jeffries
    Freight Investment. I have long been a champion of Federal funds 
for freight projects, which for the first time received dedicated 
funding in the FAST Act when I authored what became the INFRA program. 
Trade and the movement of goods is the backbone of our economy. In 
Washington state, we know this all too well as forty percent of our 
jobs are tied to trade.

    Question 1. Where do you see the main chokepoints that require 
multi-modal investments to keep freight moving? How can increased 
investments in the freight program better address these challenges?
    Answer. Within the interconnected freight network, the ``first 
mile'' and ``last mile'' connections, where freight is handed off from 
one mode to another, are highly vulnerable to disruptions and improving 
them would lead to especially large increases in network efficiency and 
fluidity. Policymakers can target multimodal investments by 
implementing or increasing funding for programs that improve these 
first and last mile connections.
    The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) 
Federal grant program, its replacement, the Better Utilizing 
Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Transportation grant 
program, and the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant 
program are examples of approaches to help fund crucial multimodal 
projects of national and regional significance that can bring 
significant improvements to the flow of freight throughout the country.
    Together, these programs have directed billions of dollars to 
critical infrastructure projects all over the country. As an example, 
the 2016 TIGER award is helping to modernize the Port of Everett 
(Washington) South Terminal. The project includes strengthening more 
than 500 feet of dock, creating a modern berth capable of handling 
roll-on/roll-off and intermodal cargo, and upgrading high voltage power 
systems. The project will also construct rail sidings to increase on-
site rail car storage. The entire freight network will benefit from the 
efficiencies achieved by this project and those like it.

    Paying for Infrastructure. We can all agree that we need a robust 
infrastructure investment, but when it comes time to pay for it the 
conversation dies down pretty quickly. Without significant leadership 
on how to pay for this much needed investment, I'm concerned that all 
we will have is conversation.

    Question 2. Why is it so important that we heed these calls for 
action now? What will happen if we continue to punt this conversation 
down the road?
    Answer. According to the most recent Budget and Economic Outlook 
from the Congressional Budget Office, the Highway Trust Fund is 
projected to run a deficit of $191 billion for the 10-year period 
beginning in 2020, when the FACT Act is due to expire. Already, 
Congress has had to transfer $144 billion from the General Fund to keep 
the Highway Trust Fund solvent since 2008. The status quo of funding 
public infrastructure--one in which the users of the system are not 
covering their full costs--is not sustainable.
    The movement away from the user-pays principle also puts the 
freight railroads at a distinct competitive disadvantage because they 
own, build, maintain, and pay for their infrastructure themselves--
spending $1 billion every other week to maintain their infrastructure.
    Each day that passes without action, the problem becomes more 
difficult and expensive to fix. The freight railroads believe a long-
term, two-part solution is required. First, the gas tax needs to be 
increased to bring revenues in line with expenditures. Second, freight 
railroads urge Congress to move to a vehicle miles traveled or weight-
distance tax as soon as practicable. Addressing the solvency of the 
Highway Trust Fund and restoring the user-pays requirement should be 
among the Congress' top priorities, and the freight railroads stand 
ready to support you in these efforts.

    Rail Safety. Rail safety continues to be a challenge. In December 
2017, Amtrak Train 501 derailed in DuPont, Washington resulting in 3 
fatalities and more than 60 injuries. In May 2016, a freight train 
hauling crude oil derailed and caught fired in the Columbia River 
Gorge.
    Rail safety, including the need to fully implement positive train 
control, will continue to be a focus this Congress as we work on the 
next surface transportation reauthorization.

    Question 3. What rail safety actions should Congress consider as we 
work on reauthorization?
    Answer. Railroads are safe and constantly working to get even 
safer. The train accident rate in 2017 was down 40 percent from 2000; 
the employee injury rate in 2017 was down 43 percent from 2000; and the 
grade crossing collision rate in 2017 was down 38 percent from 2000. By 
all these measures, recent years have been the safest in history.
    Of course, Positive Train Control (PTC) is an important technology 
to reduce accidents attributable to operator error. As noted in my 
testimony, Class I railroads had 83 percent of required PTC route-miles 
in operation at the end of 2018, well above the 50 percent required by 
statute, and each Class I railroad expects to be operating trains in 
PTC mode on all their PTC routes no later than 2020, as required by 
statute.
    Railroads believe that technology is the key to future significant 
improvements in rail safety. The industry has been actively looking at 
technology to improve the detection of defects before accidents occur, 
whether the defects be in track or rolling stock.
    Congress should work to ensure safety regulations provide an 
incentive to utilize technology that would improve safety, not a 
disincentive which is oftentimes the case today. One example is the use 
of continuous rail inspection, an area in which the freight railroads 
have made significant advances. Currently deployed extensively in 
Europe, China and Japan, continuous rail inspection makes it possible 
to use non-stop inspection vehicles to locate and repair potential rail 
defects much earlier than previous inspection methods. However, FRA 
regulations require that when such technology is used, potential 
defects must be verified within four hours. As a practical matter, this 
means the employees testing the track must stop and verify before the 
inspection vehicle can proceed--a tremendously inefficient use of 
expensive innovative technology. Stop and verify should be the rule 
only for significant defects. Although the FRA has granted waivers that 
allow certain railroads to deploy continuous rail testing, the 
uncertainty associated with temporary waivers is an impediment to long-
term investment and innovation. AAR members believe regulations should 
allow for the use of such technology that results in equivalent or 
higher levels of safety and, in the case of continuous rail inspection, 
can detect internal rail defects more widely than today.

    National Cyber Strategy. Modern infrastructure relies on 
interconnected broadband communication networks that optimize 
performance and efficiency. This applies to everything from intelligent 
transportation to smart grid, and smart cities systems.
    It's not just new personal devices--all of our infrastructure is 
becoming digital infrastructure.
    This increased connectivity comes with new threats--we have to get 
serious about cybersecurity in this country. This Administration's 
failure to implement a real, consistent and robust cyber strategy puts 
our national security and everything that uses our communication 
networks at risk.

    Question 4. Do you agree that it is time for the Federal Government 
to craft and implement a comprehensive national cyber strategy? What 
are the risks to our national and economic security without such a 
strategy?
    Answer. While the Federal Government and the private sector have 
worked to implement cybersecurity strategies in a number of key areas--
from the National Cyber Strategy of the United States of America to the 
2018 Department of Homeland Security 2018 Cybersecurity Strategy, as 
well as a strategy developed by the TSA's interagency and public-
private Transportation Systems Sector Cybersecurity Working Group (TSS-
CWG)--inconsistencies and omissions in implementation of the priorities 
defined in the respective strategies have resulted in missed 
opportunities to enhance their collective effectiveness. It is clear a 
comprehensive approach could provide real benefits to harden both the 
public and private sectors from cyber-attacks. Cyber threats pose a 
risk to both our national and economic security, which is why the 
railroads employ robust cybersecurity efforts, as described in detail 
below.

    Question 5. What cyber security threats are you seeing to the 
infrastructure you rely on and what tools do you have to combat these 
cyber threats?
    Answer. The types of illicit cyber activity railroads and industry 
organizations have encountered include phishing e-mails, attempts to 
commit fraud by impersonating corporate personnel, scans for 
information on corporate leadership, and occasional high volume or 
otherwise suspect activity from foreign Internet protocol (IP) 
addresses. The railroads typically report these incidents to government 
security and law enforcement agencies and industry partners.
    Railroads and industry organizations work continuously to protect 
against cyber threats. Perhaps most notable, the industry established 
the Rail Information Security Committee (RISC) in 1999 as the focal 
point of the its unified, coordinated cybersecurity efforts. The RISC 
is comprised of railroads' chief information security officers and 
information assurance leads, and is augmented by AAR staff and 
representatives of other industry groups.
    Also key to our cybersecurity efforts, the railroads work with 
public sector partners to share information on cyber threats and 
continually work to develop effective countermeasures. The industry's 
cyber threat intelligence priorities emphasize tactical analysis of 
successful cyber intrusions and blocked attempts that have targeted 
private sector and governmental entities. In addition, the railroads 
employ a host of other tools to combat cyber threats, including:

   Maintaining cybersecurity incident response plans that are 
        tested regularly in drills and exercises;

   Conducting regular comprehensive vulnerability assessments, 
        including ``penetration testing'' that simulates an attack from 
        malicious outsiders;

   Directing an annual comprehensive industry-wide security 
        exercise that integrates cyber and physical threats and 
        incidents; and

   Employing effective systems, software, and other 
        technologies to detect and quarantine cybersecurity threats.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                              Ian Jeffries
    Question. Mr. Jefferies, providing Customs and Border Patrol with 
additional funding and resources that aid in the inspection of goods 
being shipped from Mexico in a timely, efficient, and comprehensive 
manner is vital. How would increased investment in technology impact 
the railroad industry?
    Answer. A train at rest is a train at risk. Implementing innovative 
technologies that allow for faster speeds through the border will 
reduce risk and increase much needed capacity. Currently, 100 percent 
of railcars that enter the United States at the southern border are 
examined using outdated Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) technology that 
restricts train speed to 3-5 mph. This speed restriction creates risk 
for intrusion to the railcars before they enter the United States. 
Improved technology is available that would allow trains to move 
through the inspection point faster and yield clearer images for 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) examination. New technologies like 
Common Viewer and Machine Learning Algorithms would allow the images to 
be adjudicated automatically and viewed from almost any location. These 
capabilities would improve the process for both the railroads and CBP 
and enhance trade.
    Moving trains through the inspection points faster would add 
capacity to the rail network and mitigate potential risk. What might 
appear to be relatively small gains can result in significant increases 
in cargo throughput. Clearly, the railroads, CBP, and the U.S. economy 
would benefit from the addition of the enhanced technology.
    The rail industry supports investment in additional technological 
capabilities for CBP.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                              Ian Jeffries
Workforce Needs
    Question 1. What are the workforce needs in the railroad industry 
over the next ten years--especially in rural areas?
    Answer. Today, freight railroads employ approximately 165,000 
employees, from high school graduates to those holding graduate 
degrees, with average wages and benefits totaling $120,000.
    The number and geographic location of rail industry workers over 
the next ten years will depend on many factors, including, of course, 
the state of the economy, since demand for rail service is largely a 
function of how well the economy is doing.
    That said, America's freight railroads connect markets across the 
country and the world, operating on a network of nearly 140,000 miles 
in 49 states and the District of Columbia. A huge number of these miles 
are in rural areas. That won't change, so by necessity a large share of 
rail jobs will be focused in rural areas too.
    The specific requirements for jobs in the rail industry vary by 
position, but in general they require an unwavering commitment to 
safety, an ability to work well in teams, a can-do attitude, and, 
frankly, a willingness to work hard. These qualities are not exclusive 
to rural America, but they certainly are abundant there, which is why 
railroads will continue to rely heavily on rural Americans for the 
workers they need to meet our Nation's transportation demand.

    Question 2. What actions are being taken to provide training and/or 
job opportunities in the railroad industry aimed at hiring of veterans 
into positions where they could utilize their skills and develop 
professionally?
    Answer. The freight railroads depend on veterans as a vital part of 
their workforce. In fact, nearly one in five railroaders are military 
veterans, and the railroads aim to hire many new employees with 
military backgrounds.
    The skills developed and valued in the military--a sense of 
dedication, discipline, teamwork and adherence to safety--are the same 
skills that keep the backbone of the Nation's economy running 
efficiently. Veterans are particularly well-suited for railroad careers 
because of their experience working with machinery, focus on 
operational safety, adaptability to changing conditions and their other 
abundant, diverse skills.
    Railroads, unlike many other private industries, understand the 
technical aspects and demands of an armed forces job. That is why they 
work directly with the military to help talented service men and women 
transition from military service to private sector railroad employment.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                            Matthew M. Polka
    Question 1. Last Congress, I introduced the Gigabit Opportunity 
(GO) Act and I plan to reintroduce it this Congress. This legislation 
would seek expedited deployment of broadband services in low-income 
rural and urban communities. The GO Act gives states flexibility, 
streamlines existing regulations, and eliminates barriers to investment 
so we can connect our low-income and rural communities.

   In your testimony, you acknowledge the importance of 
        maximizing our use of limited Federal funds. As an example, 
        despite significant Federal and private investment, West 
        Virginia remains 48th nationally in broadband accessibility. 
        Encouraging broadband adoptability has been hamstrung by little 
        competition between service providers, burdensome regulation on 
        deployment, and unleveraged assets from Federal investments.

   Do you have suggestions on best practices for future Federal 
        investment in this area?

    Answer. ACA Connects views Federal Government investments 
expansively, including both direct investments and policies that drive 
investments, and we believe there are numerous actions by which the 
Federal Government can accelerate broadband deployments. First, the 
Federal Government can remove barriers to investment by private 
broadband providers. This includes facilitating access to poles/ducts/
conduits and public and private rights-of-way. Because access to this 
infrastructure is so essential and often costly, actions that remove 
barriers to such access would drive increased investment and 
deployments. Second, the Federal Government can educate communities 
about steps that can be taken to obtain access to high performance 
broadband networks for their residences and commercial establishments, 
thereby encouraging investments. NTIA's Broadband Now program is an 
example of this type of educational outreach, which can be readily 
expanded. Third, the Federal Government can directly subsidize 
broadband deployments in unserved areas. The evolution of the FCC's 
Connect America Fund (CAF) programs show how the Federal Government can 
award subsidies efficiently to accelerate the deployment of high 
performance broadband networks. For example, in 2015, the CAF Phase II 
cost-model program relied on an FCC-developed cost model to award 
support to price cap carriers to deploy 25/3 Mbps service in their 
service territories. By contrast, several years later, the CAF Phase II 
used a reverse auction that awarded far less support per location to 
winning bidders than the cost-model predicted to provide much higher 
performance broadband service--often 100 Mbps or even 1 Gbps service. 
That is a win for unserved communities and for the Federal Government 
as it allows existing funds to be used more effectively. Because of 
this success, FCC Chairman Pai has announced the FCC will use similar 
reverse auction process to award support for the new Rural Digital 
Opportunities Fund. Finally, the FCC can partner with states that have 
programs that support deployments in unserved areas to drive much 
higher performance broadband service in those states. As an example of 
such a partnership, two years ago, the FCC leveraged its CAF Phase II 
funding by joining with New York and its State Broadband Program to 
provide much more robust broadband service to unserved consumers in the 
state.

    Question 2. Congress has made several steps towards improving the 
deployment and accessibility of broadband to rural and tribal 
communities. For example, the AIRWAVES Act introduced in the last 
Congress by my Senate colleagues--Senator Gardner and Senator Hassan--
included a ``rural dividend'' that would have dedicated 10 percent of 
any future spectrum auction funds to support the deployment of wireless 
infrastructure in unserved and underserved communities.

   How will rural set asides like this be used differently than 
        Federal support already being distributed through programs like 
        USF and RUS?

    Answer. ACA Connects supports fully funding Federal efforts to 
bring high performance broadband service to unserved areas. Today, the 
FCC provides annually about $4.5 billion through its high cost fund 
programs (Connect America Fund). These programs have helped carriers 
afford the significant capital expense involved in the deployment of 
broadband service to many millions of unserved locations, reducing the 
number of households without access to high-speed Internet access each 
year. These programs also offset some operating costs in these areas. 
Over the past five years, the FCC, through its Connect America Fund 
programs, has found that the most efficient and effective way to award 
support is first to ensure that areas receiving support are truly 
unserved, so that private investment is not undermined, and second to 
use reverse auctions to award support. Additional support, such as a 
rural set aside, first should be awarded for both wireline and wireless 
services, since support for both is required to close the digital 
divide. Second, it would be most efficient to distribute any set aside 
funding through existing rules and mechanisms, which Congress and the 
FCC or RUS have refined and which are well-known to potential bidders.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                            Matthew M. Polka
    Paying for Infrastructure. We can all agree that we need a robust 
infrastructure investment, but when it comes time to pay for it the 
conversation dies down pretty quickly. Without significant leadership 
on how to pay for this much needed investment, I'm concerned that all 
we will have is conversation.

    Question 1. Why is it so important that we heed these calls for 
action now? What will happen if we continue to punt this conversation 
down the road?
    Answer. The great news about our broadband infrastructure is that 
the private sector is continually responding to the demands of 
consumers for faster and more reliable services by investing tens of 
billions of dollars annually in their networks and is expected to do so 
for many years. The government can accelerate deployments by private 
providers by eliminating public and private barriers that raise the 
costs of broadband builds, which does not cost the government anything. 
By removing these barriers, broadband providers will extend their 
networks to many locations that are currently uneconomic to reach and, 
thus, remain unserved, saving the government from having to subsidize 
service to them. In addition, without spending additional funds, the 
government can reach more unserved areas by making existing broadband 
deployment programs more efficient, as the FCC has been doing with the 
Connect America programs. That said, there will still be some unserved 
locations in very remote areas that will not be served without the 
government providing additional support. It is important to serve these 
areas because without access to broadband, people in these areas are 
bound to be left behind, economically, socially, and politically, and 
we cannot let that happen. In sum, we have an obligation to make sure 
all Americans have access to broadband service and with focused 
policies we can make that happen within budgetary constraints.

    Federal Broadband Investments. The Federal Communications 
Commission estimates that 32 million Americans lack access to robust 
broadband. That is completely unacceptable in a world where the 
Internet is a key driver of economic growth and innovation. Rural 
America is being shut out of the emerging opportunities for prosperity 
and growth created in our modern economy. We are contemplating 
investing a lot of money to solve the rural broadband problem, but we 
don't have good information about broadband and that's partly because 
the national broadband map hasn't been thoroughly updated in years. 
Last year GAO called out inaccurate data and mapping as key to why the 
FCC has been unable to help close the digital divide on Tribal lands. I 
don't see how we solve these problems with incomplete data. And that is 
why this Committee must explore ways to direct the government to 
collect adequate, verifiable data about those locations that currently 
lack service.

    Question 2. Mr. Polka, do we have an accurate picture of how much 
money would be needed to get high speed broadband to all the unserved 
areas of America? How do you come up with your estimate?
    Answer. It is important for Congress to have an accurate picture on 
the amount of money needed to get high speed broadband to all 
Americans. In deriving ACA Connects' estimates about the cost to bring 
current generation broadband service to unserved areas, we used a 
combination of public sources and work by a business consulting firm. 
The public sources are from the FCC and its Connect America Fund 
programs. Data from these programs give us reasonable numbers about 
unserved locations that have already been served and the number that 
are expected to be served. These programs also tell us the amount of 
support the FCC provides, and the FCC's Cost Model provides useful 
information about the cost to serve locations, although as we just 
learned from the Connect America Phase II auction, these costs are 
inflated. ACA Connects relied upon the deployment data available from 
Form 477, and we believe this information was sufficient to come up 
with a reasonable estimate.
    Let me add some final points about broadband mapping. First, we 
need to identify the purpose for which we are collecting the data 
because that will help establish an efficient collection process. ACA 
Connects believes the main purpose for a collection is to more 
precisely determine unserved locations in large, rural census blocks 
and that by focusing just on this problem, we can expeditiously find 
which locations still require service. Second, the perfect should not 
be the enemy of the good. With millions of households without broadband 
today, we cannot afford to delay implementation of the Remote Areas 
Fund (RAF) and the next Connect America auction in price cap carrier 
areas because we lack knowledge of broadband availability on a 
location-by-location basis. There are immediate, incremental steps that 
can and should be made to improve the broadband map, and that 
information can be used to better target support to unserved areas. 
Third, because information about both locations and service areas is 
not static, we will not obtain truly accurate information unless we 
have some sort of challenge process.
    And finally, I would add that there is often confusion between 
wireline and wireless services when there are discussions about 
providing service to everyone who needs it. ACA Connects believes that 
every household and business needs the kinds of high speed, reliable 
broadband that only wired services can provide. So as discussions are 
had about compiling useful data to determine served and unserved areas, 
we must keep in mind that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

    Question 3. Without additional direct investment in broadband, do 
you believe we will be able to finally close the digital divide?
    Answer. Because some remote locations are too costly for private 
sector providers to serve, we will continue to need government support 
in some form to reach them. That said, we urge Congress to consider 
innovative ways to provide this support. Certainly, using reverse 
auctions is a step in the right direction to ensuring each dollar is 
used as efficiently as possible. But, Congress should consider using 
auctions to award funding for one-time capital expenditures in robust 
wired networks to reach these unserved locations. After this support is 
awarded, there should be no or little need to provide additional 
funding. We also believe Congress should consider for ``in-fill'' 
unserved locations in price cap carrier areas, that is unserved 
locations that are within reasonable reach of current providers, 
providing vouchers for consumers to use to obtain broadband service 
from any provider.

    Question 4. Would you be supportive of spending some infrastructure 
funds on maintaining an updated map?
    Answer. Yes, we would support Congress appropriating new funding, 
including as a part of an infrastructure bill, to develop and maintain 
an accurate broadband map.

    Question 5. Will you and your member companies commit to work with 
this Committee on broadband mapping reform efforts?
    Answer. Yes, we commit to working with this Committee on broadband 
mapping reform efforts.

    National Cyber Strategy. Modern infrastructure relies on 
interconnected broadband communication networks that optimize 
performance and efficiency. This applies to everything from intelligent 
transportation to smart grid, and smart cities systems.
    It's not just new personal devices--all of our infrastructure is 
becoming digital infrastructure.
    This increased connectivity comes with new threats--we have to get 
serious about cybersecurity in this country. This Administration's 
failure to implement a real, consistent and robust cyber strategy puts 
our national security and everything that uses our communication 
networks at risk.

    Question 6. Do you agree that it is time for the Federal Government 
to craft and implement a comprehensive national cyber strategy? What 
are the risks to our national and economic security without such a 
strategy?
    Answer. A comprehensive strategy that marries the efforts of 
federal, state, local, other public entities and the private sector is 
essential, especially when confronting nation-state level threats. No 
one company in ACA Connects has the ability to fight the ever-evolving 
set of threats without the benefits of that kind of cooperation 
(information sharing, best practices, etc.). The Congress and the 
Administration have offered numerous ideas about how to make that 
partnership a reality.
    Many good ideas are common in various proposals that seek to secure 
Federal networks and information, secure critical infrastructure, and 
combat cybercrime and improve incident reporting. Many proposals 
specifically contemplate that the Federal Government will work with the 
private sector to manage risks to critical infrastructure, including 
communications networks, and maturing existing cybersecurity offerings 
and engagements to better manage those risks. We support that approach, 
and urge the Federal Government to build on initiatives that already 
exist rather than attempt to reinvent the wheel.
    We would caution against adopting prescriptive cybersecurity 
mandates for the private sector. No mandates of any kind can reflect 
the realities of the risk-based nature of the networks, systems and 
data involved and the challenge that small, capital constrained, 
entities have to deal with such new costs. There is no such thing as a 
``one-size-fits-all'' approach to cybersecurity, and the threats to the 
ecosystem grow and evolve far too quickly for mandates to prove 
effective. Private industry, and the communications sector in 
particular, must have the continued flexibility to adapt quickly to new 
threats. The government has an important role in promoting efforts to 
identify and mitigate risks, but should be wary of taking any actions 
that may interfere with private industry's efforts to evolve in 
response to an ever-changing threat environment.

    Question 7. What cyber security threats are you seeing to the 
infrastructure you rely on and what tools do you have to combat these 
cyber threats?
    Answer. While ACA Connects is a member of several information 
sharing organizations, including DHS's National Coordinating Center for 
Communications, we do not collect information about specific threats to 
our members, or their cybersecurity practices. Companies generally view 
that kind of granular information as sensitive and confidential. That 
said, there is publicly available information on broader industry 
trends, including the CSRIC report mentioned above.

    Innovative Partnerships to Advance Broadband. In Washington we have 
a robust system of public utility districts and port districts--many of 
them have unused fiber capacity. We have seen some successful cases 
where public entities team-up with private companies and get service to 
unserved areas using extra fiber capacity. It saves money and gets 
communities connected faster than laying new fiber.

    Question 8. Have you seen successful use cases in which existing 
infrastructure like dark fiber is leveraged to extend broadband 
coverage and if so what are the features of those projects?
    Answer. We do not have information from our members that they are 
leveraging existing public entities' unused or underutilized 
infrastructure to extend broadband coverage to reach unserved 
locations.

    Question 9. What can we do to support the replication of these 
successful partnerships?
    Answer. ACA Connects has long supported policies such as Dig Once 
where public conduit and rights of way are accessed more efficiently 
and would encourage implementation of similar opportunities in any new 
infrastructure package. Where we have good models about how providers 
leverage existing infrastructure to extend broadband coverage to reach 
unserved locations, we suggest having NTIA incorporate them into its 
Broadband USA program.

    Innovative Last-Mile Technologies. Technologies that connect cities 
and urban centers are not a one-size-fits-all solution to bringing 
broadband to every American in underserved regions. Approaches that 
work in urban environments often are cost prohibitive or impractical in 
sprawling rural areas. We need innovation to solve the current rural 
broadband divide.

    Question 10. What novel technologies are in development or being 
deployed to solve the last-mile broadband problem?
    Answer. ACA Connects' members today are bringing sophisticated 
DOCSIS 3.0/3.1 and all-fiber technologies to rural areas. These 
technologies provide the highest performance broadband capabilities and 
help ensure that rural residents, businesses, and institutions have the 
same type of connectivity found in urban areas. ACA Connects believes 
we should endeavor to supply all Americans with these superior 
broadband technologies. In much more remote areas where it would be 
cost prohibitive to deploy all-wireline plant, some ACA Connects 
members are using a combination of fiber backbones with fixed wireless 
tails to deliver broadband service. While the performance for such 
networks are not as great as an all-wireline network, these members 
find it provides good service and can be an interim step before an all-
wireline deployment is economically justified.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                            Matthew M. Polka
    As co-chair of the Next Generation 9-1-1 Caucus, I recognize that 
our Nation's 9-1-1 system is in urgent need of an upgrade--and that 
infrastructure is a key aspect of addressing public safety issues.

    Question. Why should upgrading our Nation's 9-1-1 systems be an 
infrastructure priority?
    Answer. For decades, 9-1-1 has been the critical lifeline that 
Americans rely on to obtain help in times of emergency or distress. As 
technology continues to evolve and Americans migrate to more advanced 
communications infrastructure, it is essential that the Nation's 9-1-1 
system evolve with them, so that they can continue to get the help they 
need when they need it. Today, ACA Connects' members and their industry 
peers are working in close partnership with the public sector to 
facilitate the transition to Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1), 
replacing the copper-line technologies of yesterday with the feature-
rich, advanced Internet Protocol networks of today and tomorrow. ACA 
Connects has contributed to these efforts in part through its 
participation on the FCC's Communications Security Reliability and 
Interoperability Council (CSRIC), a diverse, multi-stakeholder body 
that has developed recommendations and voluntary best practices aimed 
at promoting a smooth and swift NG 9-1-1 transition. Through 
cooperative efforts such as these, the communications industry, 
emergency authorities, and other stakeholders are working to deliver to 
the American people the next-generation 9-1-1 system they deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                            Matthew M. Polka
    Question. Your testimony spoke to the importance of ``dig once'' 
legislation. Can you outline specific ways that ``dig once'' principles 
can benefit rural buildout?
    Answer. Deploying new fiber is expensive, and most of the cost 
involves construction, that is, digging to bury fiber or stringing 
fiber on poles. Therefore, if you can lower the cost of construction, 
you can ``move the needle'' to accelerate fiber deployments. ``Dig 
once'' policies are one way to lower the cost of construction because 
they enable multiple providers to share the cost. For example, in a 
rural area, if there is new road construction or if a gas or water 
provider is opening a trench, it would be more cost effective for a 
broadband provider to install fiber at the same time.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to 
                            Matthew M. Polka
Needed Level of Infrastructure Investment
    Question 1. How much money would it take to build out 5G and Cable? 
Can you break it down between private and public dollars (including an 
additional breakdown between Federal and state funds?
    Answer. ACA Connects members are in the process of upgrading their 
wireline networks to deliver DOCSIS 3.0/3.1 and all-fiber technologies 
to the rural areas they serve. They also are expanding their networks 
where economically justified. We estimate they are spending 
approximately $1 billion dollars annually and that they will continue 
these expenditures at least over the next decade. Private investments 
by ACA Connects members and other providers will bring high performance 
broadband service to most rural areas, but many areas are too costly to 
serve with private investment alone. In these areas, public 
expenditures are required, and the FCC spends approximately $4 billion 
annually on its Connect America programs, although this funding is both 
for capital and operating costs. The FCC also is providing billions of 
dollars annually for E-rate and Rural Telehealth support. As for the 
RUS, it provides support for capital investments through grants, loans, 
and loan guarantees. FY 2018 RUS appropriations provided $5 million for 
broadband loans, $30 million for Community Connect grants, about $1 
billion for loan subsidies for the Telecommunications Infrastructure 
program, and $600 million for the new Reconnect pilot program. We do 
not know the amounts that states are spending to support broadband 
deployments in unserved areas. We also do not know the cost of 5G 
deployments.

    Question 2. You mentioned your members are investing $10 billion 
per year. At that rate, how long will it take to completely buildout 
rural areas?
    Answer. ACA Connects' members have invested approximately $10 
billion over to the past decade in their broadband networks, and we 
estimate they are spending about $1 billion annually to upgrade and 
extend these networks. We further estimate they will continue this 
expenditures for the next decade.
Workforce Needs
    Question 3. Do you have adequate workforce to continue broadband 
buildout? If we need workers, what types of training programs can be 
established in rural areas?
    Answer. ACA Connects' members have not reported they are 
encountering any issues in getting enough workers to upgrade and expand 
their networks.

    Question 4. What do you see for our Nation's veterans who have come 
home with a variety of skills that might be useful in deploying 
broadband and cable across the nation?
    Answer. Given that cable and other broadband providers are making 
enormous investments in their networks and will continue to do so, we 
expect there will be substantial opportunities for veterans to be hired 
by broadband construction firms.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John Thune to 
                              Chris Spear
    Question. Mr. Spear, as you know the booming economy has led to the 
lowest unemployment rate since 1969, which means that many industries, 
including yours, are looking to expand their workforce. As we move 
toward consideration of infrastructure issues this Congress, workforce 
development is sure to be a part of that conversation. Does ATA have 
any recommendations for policies which encourage hiring and connect 
people to well-paying jobs?
    Answer. Thank you for this question, Senator. As you may be aware, 
according to a March 2018 report by the Council of Economic Advisers, 
truck drivers are among the top ``infrastructure occupations'' that 
will be needed and in increased demand with expanded investments in 
infrastructure.\1\ However, the trucking industry is already facing a 
severe labor shortage that threatens to increase the cost of moving 
freight and reduce supply chain efficiencies. In 2017, for example, the 
industry was short 50,000 drivers, the highest level on record. If 
current trends hold, the shortage could grow to more than 174,000 by 
2026. Over the next decade, the trucking industry will need to hire 
roughly 898,000 new drivers, or an average of nearly 90,000 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Council of Economic Advisers, ``The Economic Benefits and 
Impacts of Expanded Infrastructure Investment,'' March 2018, at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In recognition of challenges like these, at last March's 
infrastructure hearing before this Committee, Labor Secretary Alex 
Acosta specifically advocated for workforce development reforms to be 
included in an infrastructure package. In particular, Secretary Acosta 
testified in support of occupational licensing reform. As you may be 
aware, reforming outdated occupational licensing requirements has been 
a bipartisan priority of the past three administrations, and there is 
broad bipartisan support for rolling back these unnecessary barriers 
that hold back so many Americans, which disproportionately affect 
African-Americans, Hispanics, military spouses and veterans, returning 
citizens, and the poor.
    To help alleviate this problem in the trucking industry, ATA 
supports a number of occupational licensing reforms.
    First, ATA supports lowering the minimum age requirement for 
interstate truck driving from 21 to 18--but only for qualified 
apprentices that satisfy the safety, training, and technology 
requirements spelled out in the DRIVE Safe Act (S. 3352 in the 115th 
Congress). Modern-day vehicle safety technologies have advanced by 
several orders of magnitude since the current minimum age requirement 
was promulgated decades ago before the advent of the internet. And 
research has shown that the technologies that would be required by the 
DRIVE Safe Act and endorsed by the NTSB--technologies such as active 
braking, collision avoidance, and event recorders--significantly 
improve safety performance. Meanwhile, 6.4 million Opportunity Youth in 
this country are neither employed nor in school, even as the Nation is 
short 50,000 truck drivers. An update to the minimum age requirement is 
well over-due.
    Second, to better connect job-seekers to trucking careers that 
offer a median salary of $54,585, health and retirement benefits, in 
addition to potentially thousands of dollars in signing bonuses, ATA 
supports efforts to require states to better serve the growing number 
of truck driver candidates who receive driver training outside their 
state of domicile. Currently, out-of-state trainees have to travel back 
and forth to their home state, every time they pass either the CDL 
knowledge test or skills test--just to obtain the basic occupational 
licenses necessary to launch their trucking career. This arrangement 
imposes unnecessary financial burdens on those who can least afford it 
and exposes them to skill degradation. This problem could be addressed 
by requiring states receiving Federal funds for infrastructure projects 
to allow such out-of-state trainees to (1) complete all training, (2) 
take all necessary tests, and (3) obtain all necessary credentials in 
the state in which they are receiving training- without having to 
travel back to their home state.
    As the Council of Economic Advisers has noted:

        Because [occupational] licenses are largely granted by states 
        (rather than being nationally recognized), licensing inhibits 
        the free flow of licensed workers across state boundaries to 
        better match labor supply to labor demand. Unless the 
        geographic footprint and skill needs of expanded infrastructure 
        investments match the geographic distribution of currently 
        unemployed infrastructure workers, some reshuffling of workers 
        across state lines may be needed. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Id. at 33 (emphasis added).

    In the trucking industry, the geographic distribution of currently 
unemployed truck driver candidates does not match the geographic 
footprint of Federal workforce development investments. Accordingly, 
individuals aspiring to become truck drivers are crossing state lines 
to obtain state-of-the-art training from motor carriers that have the 
support of Federal workforce dollars and have been hiring minorities, 
veterans, apprentices, and other underrepresented populations at 
industry-leading rates.
    To better facilitate and scale this innovative model of workforce 
development, ATA supports efforts to require states of domicile to (1) 
accept the results of an applicant's CDL knowledge test administered in 
another state, and to (2) electronically transmit or deliver by mail 
the relevant credential--be it a CLP or a CDL--to the applicant without 
requiring him or her to physically come back to the state of domicile.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                              Chris Spear
    Question. Thanks to a recent approval of $1.6 billion dollar road 
bond referendum by West Virginia voters, my state has already begun to 
move forward on numerous infrastructure projects. This has been a huge 
investment. Despite my state's relatively small population we have been 
able to step up.
    For example, as part of the referendum our state is upgrading U.S. 
Route 52 (King Coal Highway) into a high-speed four-lane divided 
highway. This road links an intermodal facility in Prichard, West 
Virginia with I-64, and its expansion will facilitate the movement of 
freight and increase safety for truck drivers who currently have to 
navigate a two-lane road almost 15 miles.

   Have you seen other examples of states who have taken it 
        upon themselves to improve their surface transportation 
        systems?

   How can we continue to promote such initiatives as Congress 
        continues to work towards a highway bill?

    Answer. Over the past 5 years more than half the states increased 
their fuel taxes. In addition, during the 2018 election voters in 31 
states approved 79 percent of 352 state and local ballot measures. 
These measures are expected to generate an estimated $30 billion in 
one-time and recurring revenue for transportation infrastructure 
investments. While many states and their citizens have shown a 
willingness to invest in transportation, without additional Federal 
investment our highways will continue to fall into disrepair. On 
average, the federal-aid highway program covers about half of states' 
highway capital budgets. Despite increased revenue generation, West 
Virginia continues to rely heavily on Federal aid to maintain and 
improve its highways, with $371 million in Federal funds supplementing 
the State Road Fund in FY2018. Furthermore, the state issued $500 
million in GARVEE bonds, which are backed by anticipated future 
federal-aid funds.
    ATA hopes that more states will follow West Virginia's example by 
raising additional money for local investments. Generally speaking, the 
public will support these initiatives if they perceive that the money 
is likely to be used productively. Congress can assist in this regard 
by ensuring that Federal funds are used on the most cost-beneficial 
projects and by further streamlining the project approval process.
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                              Chris Spear
    Freight Investment. I have long been a champion of Federal funds 
for freight projects, which for the first time received dedicated 
funding in the FAST Act when I authored what became the INFRA program. 
Trade and the movement of goods is the backbone of our economy. In 
Washington state, we know this all too well as forty percent of our 
jobs are tied to trade.

    Questions 1. Where do you see the main chokepoints that require 
multi-modal investments to keep freight moving? How can increased 
investments in the freight program better address these challenges?
    Answer. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) 
releases an annual report on the worst highway freight bottlenecks. 
These chokepoints cause a disproportionately high share of the $75 
billion congestion cost borne by the trucking industry, which moves 70 
percent of the Nation's freight. As part of our $340 billion renewed 
commitment to surface transportation infrastructure, funded by an 
indexed 20 cent per gallon increase in the fuel tax, ATA has proposed a 
$5 billion set-aside of funding for highway bottlenecks. Furthermore, 
Congress should dedicate funds to highway intermodal connectors, which 
connect the National Highway System with seaports, airports, rail 
terminals, pipeline terminals and other intermodal facilities. A 2017 
Federal Highway Administration report found that many of these crucial 
roadways are poorly maintained and highly congested.

    President's Proposal. During his state of the union speech, 
President Trump continued his push for an infrastructure bill. This 
echoes his previous calls for a $1 trillion infrastructure investment. 
However, instead of Federal investment, his plan relied heavily on 
public-private partnerships, which would likely lead to more tolling. 
To pay for it, his budget also proposed cuts to current infrastructure 
programs.

    Question 2. What concerns do you have with the Administration's 
proposal to cut Federal funds for current infrastructure programs?
    Answer. The President's recently released budget proposal calls for 
a $1 trillion infrastructure investment, including $200 billion in new 
revenue over the next decade. Thus far the White House has not released 
details about how the additional revenue should be invested or where 
the money is to come from. The budget proposal also calls on Congress 
to provide long-term funding for the Highway Trust Fund, but once more 
does not identify a funding source. The traditional user fee model that 
has served our Nation well since 1956 should continue, with a greater 
Federal commitment through an increase in the Federal fuel tax and more 
strategic investment of resources. While state and local governments 
should also do their part to increase transportation investment, this 
cannot supplant the Federal role in improving the safety and mobility 
of America's surface transportation system, a role that is explicitly 
delineated by the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, public-private 
partnerships are viable only in very limited circumstances on 
facilities with significant traffic volumes. The vast majority of 
projects will not qualify for a P3.

    Question 3. How would incentivizing tolling impact trucking 
companies?
    Answer. Tolling is among the least efficient revenue generating 
mechanisms and should be avoided whenever possible. While the cost of 
collecting the fuel tax is less than one cent on the dollar, even the 
most advanced electronic tolling systems waste 10 percent to 12 percent 
of their revenue on capital and administrative costs. On some toll 
roads the cost of collection exceeds one-third of revenue. These costs 
are passed on to the trucking industry, and carriers are, in turn, 
forced to increase their freight rates in order to survive. This raises 
the cost of manufactured products, food, housing, and everything else 
that Americans purchase. It also makes U.S. businesses less competitive 
in global markets. Furthermore, tolls provide an incentive for 
vehicles, including trucks, to take alternate routes which are likely 
less safe and not as well constructed, increasing crash risk, 
maintenance costs, congestion and emissions.

    Paying for Infrastructure. We can all agree that we need a robust 
infrastructure investment, but when it comes time to pay for it the 
conversation dies down pretty quickly. Without significant leadership 
on how to pay for this much needed investment, I'm concerned that all 
we will have is conversation.

    Question 4. Your organization has spent a lot of time thinking 
about how to pay for infrastructure and meeting with members to find a 
path forward. Given your conversations, where have you found any 
consensus on paying for infrastructure?
    Answer. There is near universal agreement among surface 
transportation stakeholder groups that increasing the fuel tax 
represents the best solution for surface transportation infrastructure 
funding for the foreseeable future. In addition to ATA, groups that 
have endorsed a fuel tax increase include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
National Association of Manufacturers, AAA, American Society of Civil 
Engineers, Associated General Contractors, and many more. Furthermore, 
voters have not penalized elected officials who have supported state 
fuel tax increases. Virtually all politicians who have voted for a fuel 
tax increase have been reelected. ATA believes that a bipartisan 
agreement among Members of Congress to increase the fuel tax, along 
with White House support, would produce a successful vote.

    Question 5. Why is it so important that we heed these calls for 
action now? What will happen if we continue to punt this conversation 
down the road?
    Answer. In the short term, the Highway Trust Fund is projected to 
collapse beginning in FY 2021. Should this happen, approximately 
200,000 jobs will be eliminated and vital projects will be canceled 
nationwide. Over the long term, the failure to invest in surface 
transportation will drive up freight transportation costs, increasing 
the price of every product; U.S. businesses will be less competitive, 
leading to lost jobs and lower salaries; and congestion will worsen, 
and with it more emissions will pollute the air and accelerate climate 
change impacts. Most importantly, critical highway safety improvements 
will not be made, resulting in more deaths and injuries on our 
highways.

    National Cyber Strategy. Modern infrastructure relies on 
interconnected broadband communication networks that optimize 
performance and efficiency. This applies to everything from intelligent 
transportation to smart grid, and smart cities systems.
    It's not just new personal devices--all of our infrastructure is 
becoming digital infrastructure.
    This increased connectivity comes with new threats--we have to get 
serious about cybersecurity in this country. This Administration's 
failure to implement a real, consistent and robust cyber strategy puts 
our national security and everything that uses our communication 
networks at risk.

    Question 6. Do you agree that it is time for the Federal Government 
to craft and implement a comprehensive national cyber strategy? What 
are the risks to our national and economic security without such a 
strategy?
    Answer. ATA supports industry specific standards and best practices 
for trucking cybersecurity issues and concerns. There are as many 
computers, communications, and code in a modern commercial vehicle as 
there are in the office buildings that increase business through order 
tracking, vehicle monitoring, and logistically maneuvering freight to 
those vehicles. ATA has been equally heavily involved with 
cybersecurity as with onboard electronic systems that communicate or 
automate safety technologies and views security best in industry 
vertical integration.
    The Federal Government has addressed cybersecurity through the 
Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's 2016 Cybersecurity Best Practices for Modern Vehicles 
and the Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and 
Technology's 2018 version Cybersecurity Framework, to name a few. ATA 
has supported these guides, and continues to implement their 
recommended actions by way of ATA's many events and meetings. 
Additionally, ATA supports the Department of Homeland Security's 
recently established Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency 
in protecting critical infrastructure from physical and cyber threats. 
We also continue to work with stakeholder coalitions supporting the 
Cyber SAFETY Act.
    Of these working strategies, and others that ATA would be glad to 
share with the committee, we feel that the ATA has been committed to 
working collaboratively with the Federal Government efforts to address 
cybersecurity risks, and will continue to do so.

    Question 7. What cyber security threats are you seeing to the 
infrastructure you rely on and what tools do you have to combat these 
cyber threats?
    Answer. In February 2018, ATA launched the Fleet CyWatch program 
for trucking cybersecurity, national security information sharing and 
cybercrime reporting. Through our Fleet CyWatch program, ATA is working 
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland 
Security, and other regulating agencies to assist industry in reporting 
cybercrime. Since Fleet CyWatch has been active, there have been no 
reported threats on commercial vehicle equipment or infrastructure 
connected devices.
                                 ______
                                 
     Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to 
                              Chris Spear
    Question 1. Mr. Spear, to follow up to the question that I asked 
Mr. Willis, how does the lack of funding for infrastructure projects 
affect our workers--particularly long-haul truckers that are in such 
short supply?
    Answer. The trucking industry was short 50,000 drivers at the end 
of 2017, and--due to its aging workforce (average age of 49, which is 7 
years older than the average American worker)--needs to hire 890,000 
new workers over the next decade to keep up with demand. According to a 
report by the American Transportation Research Institute, in 2016 truck 
drivers sat in traffic for 1.2 billion hours, equivalent to more than 
425,000 drivers sitting idle for a year. Without congestion there would 
be no truck driver shortage. If Congress continues to fail to provide 
the resources necessary to address our traffic challenges, congestion, 
along with the driver shortage, will continue to worsen. This will 
increase the cost of freight transportation, along with the price of 
every product Americans buy.

    Question 2. Mr. Spear, Intel Corporation is a leader of the 
Internet of Things in my home state of New Mexico. It estimates the 
U.S. freight transportation industry alone could save $168 billion 
dollars per year in fuel reduction by implementing I-O-T solutions in 
the industry. How can new freight tracking technology help us create a 
more efficient supply chain? What efficiencies do you expect to gain 
through new Internet of Things solutions?
    Answer. Freight tracking technology has been developing a new 
generation of services for some time. This type of IoT solution for the 
trucking industry allows visibility to the supply chain via real-time 
cargo tracking and monitoring. New freight tracking technology 
increases visibility, for example, locational scanning (tracking 
freight between locations with the knowledge of arrival and delay 
times), driver tracking (apps or devices tied to an ELD for HOS, GPS 
and GIS updates), and transportation management systems (shipment 
pattern analyses, connecting and integrating loads simultaneously).
    Advancing IoT solutions is very important to the trucking industry 
as it further develops safety technologies, such as vehicle-to-
everything (V2X) connectivity for surface transportation safety 
communications. Developed V2X has been shown to greatly reduce 
automobile accidents with trucks. In addition, IoT currently has a 
large impact on fleet management software systems that manage, 
organize, and coordinate vehicles from a central data platform. IoT has 
allowed motor carriers manage their fleet operations more smoothly, 
thereby reducing costs, improving performance, and ensuring compliance 
with government regulations.

                                  [all]