[Senate Hearing 117-711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-711

   DRIVING THE ROAD TO RECOVERY: REBUILDING AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION 
                             INFRASTRUCTURE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             MARCH 24, 2021
                               __________

    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
                    
53-084 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024                   
                

       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                   MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia                 Virginia
                                     RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming

                    David Strickland, Staff Director
                 Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
       George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
                 John Keast, Republican Staff Director
            Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on March 24, 2021...................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     3
Statement of Senator Warnock.....................................     4
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    30
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    32
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    33
Statement of Senator Peters......................................    36
Statement of Senator Lummis......................................    37
Statement of Senator Young.......................................    39
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    40
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    42
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    44

                               Witnesses

Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary of Transportation; 
  Managing Partner, 3P Enterprises...............................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Douglas R. Hooker, Executive Director, Atlanta Regional 
  Commission (ARC)...............................................     8
    Prepared statement...........................................    10
Hon. Toby Baker, Mayor, City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi.........    15
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
Mark McAndrews, Port Director, Port of Pascagoula................    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    20

                                Appendix

Letter dated March 23, 2021 to Hon. Maria Cantwell and Hon. Roger 
  Wicker from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway & 
  Auto Safety....................................................    49
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. John D. Porcari 
  by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    60
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    61
    Hon. Kyrsten Sinema..........................................    62
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    62
    Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................    64
Response to written questions submitted to Douglas R. Hooker by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    64
Response to written questions submitted to Mark McAndrews by:
    Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    66
    Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    67

 
                     DRIVING THE ROAD TO RECOVERY:
           REBUILDING AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:27 a.m., in 
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell, 
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Cantwell [presiding], Blumenthal, Schatz, 
Markey, Peters, Baldwin, Tester, Rosen, Hickenlooper, Warnock, 
Wicker, Thune, Fischer, Sullivan, Young, Lee, Capito, Scott, 
and Lummis.

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

    The Chair. The hearing that we are having today is on 
rebuilding America's infrastructure, and I believe this is one 
of the most important topics before us, as it relates to our 
economy.
    We live in an ever-increasing global economy, where more 
than 95 percent of consumers live outside our borders. That 
means American workers and businesses need world-class 
infrastructure to reach customers, and we need to be 
competitive. Instead, The American Society of Civil Engineers 
gives the United States infrastructure a rating of C-. So, we 
definitely need to improve that grade. Right now, the United 
States only invests 0.7 percent of our GDP on transportation 
infrastructure. Other countries invest up to eight times that 
amount, and the United States needs to make more investments if 
we are to remain competitive.
    In 2018, America shipped nearly $19 trillion worth of 
freight. That number is expected to top $25 trillion by 2030. 
In my home state of Washington, we moved over $443 billion 
worth of goods alone, and every day we see the cost of failing 
to make this investment by the amount of delays in our movement 
of product. The Washington State Department of Transportation 
estimated that if truck congestion increased by 20 percent, it 
would cost farmers, manufacturers, and businesses $14 billion 
in operating costs, resulting in thousands of job losses.
    So, what we need to do today is start the conversation 
about how we are going to invest in America's infrastructure. 
To me, three things are very clear. One, Congress must provide 
funds to invest in megaprojects that are important to our 
Nation and regional economies. For example, in my State, the I-
5 bridge replacement between Vancouver and Portland, the West 
Seattle bridge repair, or the North Spokane Corridor, which is 
a major transportation hub of moving product from Canada 
through the United States, and onto other destinations. All 
three of these projects are significant regional projects that 
mean a lot to our Nation's economy.
    Second, we have already seen that freight and 
infrastructure programs have helped our economy be more 
economically efficient, but more needs to be done. If we can 
ease the congestion on our roadways, and at rail crossings, and 
our ports, it only helps our economy grow. Now is the time to 
partner with local and regional people to solve these problems 
and get more out of America's competitiveness. With 95 percent 
of customers living outside the United States, those products, 
whether they are from the South or from the Midwest or from the 
East Coast, need to get to their destinations.
    And third, I believe we need to do more to help at-grade 
crossings, particularly because of rail congestion. If we are 
seeing an increase of rail traffic and exports out of the 
United States, it is clear that we are also seeing more 
congestion at our railroads--that is, at railroad crossings. 
This is costing us safety and efficiency. We are releasing a 
report today, ``Railroad Crossing Congestion and Its Impacts to 
Safety and Efficiency,'' showing that these delays are really 
causing concerns.
    The report shows, for example, in Davis, Oklahoma, a town 
of 2,800 people, it took police about 20 minutes to respond to 
a person threatening suicide, even though the person was less 
than three blocks away. In my hometown, Edmonds, Washington, a 
train blocked the only access on the waterfront for 3 hours. 
This required first responders to literally crawl through the 
rail cars to aid a pregnant woman who was due to give birth. I 
am pretty sure that the story that is told locally is that they 
actually transported her out on a stretcher through the rail 
cars, to get her to the hospital. In Valley, Nebraska, on 
Christmas morning, firefighters were prevented from responding 
to a house fire for over an hour, only because a train blocked 
access to the home. These at-grade crossing issues are real, 
and we need to make more significant investments to help 
alleviate this congestion.
    We also need to help the serious congestion at our ports 
with containers. There are currently 26 ships anchored in idle 
at the Port of LA, Long Beach, because they are not able to get 
to port. When ships are unable to get to port, too often 
foreign-owned carriers offload goods at American ports and 
then, load up empty containers to go back to Asia, leaving U.S. 
exports behind. A recent investigation found between July and 
December 2020, carriers rejected at least $1.3 billion in U.S. 
agriculture exports.
    These are important issues to keep our economy going, so I 
am glad today we are going to hear from Deputy Secretary of 
Transportation in the Obama Administration, John Porcari. He 
has an extensive record on public and private activities 
related to infrastructure and, before joining the Obama 
Administration, was Secretary of Maryland Transportation. We 
also have three other individuals on the docket to hear from. 
Executive Director of the Atlanta-Regional Commission, Mr. 
Douglas Hooker, is going to be joining us remotely, and I am 
going to let our colleague from Georgia give a longer 
introduction of him in a moment. And two other individuals, 
Toby Baker, the Mayor of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Mark 
McAndrews, is going to be remote, from Pascagoula. But I am 
going to let my colleague, Ranking Member Wicker, make those 
introductions at the appropriate time. So now, I would like to 
turn to--unless we have gotten another member, I would like to 
turn to my colleague, Senator Wicker, for his opening 
statement.

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

    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me say at the 
outset, Senators are often late for votes, or late for lunch, 
but the history of this committee, under Democrats and 
Republicans, is that we hardly ever start late. I can just say 
that, for my part, I have had four of my committees meeting 
this morning and I am sure that is the problem with some of our 
colleagues. So, those of you visiting and those of us listening 
in, should know that we do everything we can, and this Chair 
has done everything she has been able to do, to start this 
meeting on time.
    But thank you, Senator Cantwell, for holding this important 
hearing to consider our Nation's infrastructure needs, and to 
discuss surface transportation reauthorization.
    Our Nation's transportation system deserves a long-term 
authorization that is paid for, in order to provide certainty 
and support for infrastructure investments. In 2015, Congress 
passed the overwhelmingly bipartisan FAST Act. Last year, 
Congress extended the FAST Act only until September 30. Given 
the FAST Act's upcoming expiration, and the impacts of COVID-19 
on the transportation sector, Congress, and this committee in 
particular, has an opportunity to provide funding sources and 
updates for transportation programs. Our State and local 
transportation officials depend on Federal programs to maintain 
roads and bridges, carry out safety programs, and perform other 
essential functions. The various users of our transportation 
system, including Amtrak passengers, trucks delivering 
essential goods, and ports moving imports and exports, rely on 
strong Federal programs. A long-term surface transportation 
reauthorization would support these programs and propel our 
economy forward, as we recover from COVID-19.
    Surface transportation reauthorization needs to be a 
bipartisan effort. Transportation issues have a tremendous 
impact on all Americans. Therefore, all Senators should be 
included in the legislative process. There has been some 
discussion of addressing infrastructure through budget 
reconciliation. Reconciliation is a process that is an overtly 
partisan exercise. This committee has a long track record of 
consensus and bipartisanship, I look forward to collaborating 
with Senator Cantwell and all members of this committee, to 
meet the needs of transportation infrastructure, and I hope 
that is done outside of reconciliation.
    Today's hearing provides an opportunity to hear regional 
and local perspectives on infrastructure needs. It also allows 
us to consider how best to support different modes of 
transportation and our freight network. For instance, this 
committee has jurisdiction over the Department of 
Transportation's Office of the Secretary, which includes 
programs like the BUILD grants. Our committee also has 
jurisdiction over the Build America Bureau, which administers 
several other grant and loan programs that are important for 
infrastructure investments. A priority of mine is to ensure 
rural communities are able to utilize and leverage these 
programs, given the unique challenges that rural areas often 
face in funding critical projects.
    Today, I have the privilege of introducing two 
Mississippians who have important perspectives on 
transportation issues. Mayor Toby Barker of Hattiesburg, 
Mississippi, has worked tirelessly to bring needed investment 
and updates to the transportation network that connects his 
city to the state and the rest of the country. From the local 
level, he has successfully navigated various Federal financing 
programs to improve his city. I look forward to hearing about 
his experiences with the Department of Transportation grant 
programs and his insights on managing infrastructure investment 
from the local perspective.
    Mark McAndrews will join us remotely. He brings a wealth of 
experience as Director of the Port of Pascagoula, which is an 
essential connection point in our transportation system, for 
both the regional and national economies. He has served as Port 
Director since 2001, adding to his nearly 40 years of 
experience in the maritime sector. I look forward to hearing 
his views on how we can improve our multimodal freight 
transportation system.
    Today's witnesses provide an opportunity for this committee 
to learn how Congress can improve the policies that ensure the 
safety and efficiency of our transportation infrastructure 
system. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member Wicker. Senator 
Warnock, would you like to introduce your witness from Atlanta 
today? Actually, let us wait 1 second, if you could, thank you.
    [Recess]
    The Chair. Now, we will return to the hearing for--the 
previously discussed hearing on America's infrastructure needs 
and we will go to our panel. But first, we are going to allow 
Senator Warnock to introduce one of the panelists. Senator 
Warnock.

              STATEMENT OF HON. RAPHAEL WARNOCK, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

    Senator Warnock. Thank you, Madam Chair and I am honored to 
have the pleasure of introducing the next witness who hails 
from the great state of Georgia. Doug Hooker is Executive 
Director of the Atlanta Regional Commission, and in his career, 
he has worked in the public sector and private sector 
organizations. Among the places that he has worked are the City 
of Atlanta's Department of Public Works, the State Road and 
Tollway Authority, with BioLab Inc., and with Atkins 
Engineering.
    The Committee will benefit, no doubt, from his wealth of 
experience working on important regional and local projects, in 
the areas of energy, education, transportation, transit, and 
water. I look forward to listening to his testimony, as he 
highlights the great work being done, right now, in Atlanta, 
and how the Federal Government can be a partner moving forward. 
Mr. Doug Hooker.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Warnock, and again, thank you 
for helping to get this witness here. We are going to go in 
order. Mr. Porcari, Mr. Hooker, who I think will be remote, and 
then, the other witness--is that right? I cannot see that far 
down the----
    Senator Wicker. It is Mayor Barker----
    The Chair. OK, thank you. OK, so, and then, we will have 
Mayor Barker, who is here, and Mr. McAndrews. So, we will 
proceed, and start with you, John Porcari. Thank you so much.

 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF 
        TRANSPORTATION; MANAGING PARTNER, 3P ENTERPRISES

    Mr. Porcari. Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, members 
of the Committee, thanks for the opportunity to testify today 
on this important topic.
    Transportation policy has never been more important to the 
future of our country, and indeed the planet, than it is today. 
We are compelled to admit that many past transportation 
investment decisions have not resulted in a cleaner, safer, 
more equitable world. We now face the urgent need to make 
immediate and profound changes, if we are to ensure a better 
future for the next generation of Americans.
    This fundamental change in direction is best implemented 
through two policy lenses, climate change and equity. Simply 
put, the transportation sector is the largest single source of 
CO2 emissions in the U.S. It needs to be the single 
largest component of our response to the existential threat of 
climate change. Equity, we have not paid adequate attention, in 
the past, to who benefits and who bears the burdens of our 
transportation investments. Equality of opportunity for all 
Americans should be a fundamental objective, not just the 
occasional happy by-product, of our investment choices. Each of 
the policy recommendations below will help directly address 
equity in climate change goals.
    First, electrification of our transport system across land, 
sea and air should be our singular short-term imperative. It 
starts with better stewardship of our public rights of way. We 
need to modify 23 U.S.C. 111 explicitly to permit charging 
facilities at rest areas and inductive charging in travel 
lanes. We need to use our highway rights of way for both 
renewable power generation and long-distance transmission of 
renewable energy, via buried High Voltage Direct Current lines. 
We need to encourage the use of railroad rights of way for 
buried renewable HVDC transmission lines to tax credits and 
incentives.
    America's ports, airports, and intermodal freight transfer 
facilities are the linchpins of our economy. The gantries, 
cranes, tractors, shore power for ships, aircraft tugs, and 
ground handling equipment can all be electrified immediately, 
and can be ramped up, through a competitive grant program that 
does not cap participation by freight projects.
    Next, we need to build on America's existing passenger rail 
network, providing benefits to every part of the country. 
Amtrak long distance service provides crucial connectivity to 
rural communities. New city pairs should be added to existing 
services as building blocks for a comprehensive national 
network. And promising private sector passenger rail proposals 
should be actively encouraged, through the use of the RIFF Loan 
Fund. Urgently needed improvements to the Northeast Corridor, 
Midwest and West Coast passenger service will continue to grow 
ridership.
    And a surface transportation program that adopts a systems 
approach to moving people and goods safely and efficiently, 
needs to separately fund projects of national significance that 
are physically located in one state or region, yet provide 
crucial system wide benefits. For example, the Brent Spence 
Bridge carrying I-75 over the Ohio River, may be located in the 
greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky region, but it plays an 
outsized role in supporting the auto industry ecosystem from 
Michigan to Georgia, carrying 3 percent of America's GDP 
annually over an outdated, substandard bridge. Projects such as 
the I-5 Columbia River multi-modal bridge, the Gateway 
passenger rail project, as well as various coastal ports, 
inland waterways, and Great Lakes cargo projects, play a 
similar national function. These projects should be treated as 
a separate category of nationally critical projects.
    The National Environmental Policy Act process should now 
incorporate climate change and equity considerations in the 
development of the foundational Purpose and Need statements for 
those documents. Our re-engineered interagency NEPA process can 
have the twin benefits of both a streamlined process and better 
environmental and community outcomes. Active transportation 
alternatives, such as bike lanes, trails, and last mile 
electrified mobility devices for persons with disabilities, 
must be included wherever possible.
    The TIFIA and RIFF loan programs should be broadened and 
simplified, to encourage the construction of fleet charging 
facilities, and the acquisition of electrified rolling stock 
for transit systems, freight and commuter rail, school 
districts, and municipal fleets. Local employment and skills 
training needs to be an integral component of the project 
procurement process. Pilot programs have shown that local 
hiring and training component in those procurements, creates a 
ladder for good paying, middle-class jobs. Similarly, a whole 
of government approach at the Federal level is required to 
maximize the U.S. manufacturing opportunities for local 
infrastructure projects.
    The genius of federalism, as it applies to our 
transportation system, is that project decisions are properly 
made at the local and State level based on local needs and 
priorities, and these projects aggregate into a national 
transportation system. We need to encourage bold, persistent 
experimentation by local jurisdictions in states through more 
aggressive use of the SEP-15 process and by funding innovative 
technology pilot projects, through the competitive grant 
programs.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Porcari follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary of 
            Transportation; Managing Partner, 3P Enterprises
    Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, members of the Committee:

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important 
topic. My name is John Porcari and I have had the opportunity to serve 
in the public and private sector in a variety of transportation and 
economic development positions, including the honor of serving as 
Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation and 
Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation.
    At no time during my lifetime has transportation policy been more 
important to the future of our country, and indeed the planet, than it 
is today. If we are honest with ourselves, we are compelled to admit 
that many past transportation investment decisions have not resulted in 
a cleaner, safer, more equitable world.
    We now face the urgent need to make immediate and profound changes 
throughout our transportation system if we are to ensure a better 
future for the next generation of Americans. A strong and compelling 
case is being made across the country and by my colleagues here today 
for increased investment across the transportation system. I would like 
to make the case for corresponding policy changes that would maximize 
the return on increased public infrastructure investments and rebuild 
our transportation infrastructure in a smarter, more resilient and 
sustainable way.
    This fundamental change in direction is best described through two 
policy lenses: climate change and equity.
    Climate change. Simply put, the transport sector is the largest 
single source of CO2 emissions in the United States, and 
must, therefore, be the single largest component of our response to the 
existential threat of climate change.
    Equity. We have not paid adequate attention in the past to who 
benefits and who bears the burdens of our transportation investments. 
Equality of opportunity for all Americans should be a fundamental 
objective, not just the occasional happy by-product, of our investment 
choices.
    For each of the policy recommendations below, I will briefly 
describe how they can directly address equity and climate change goals.
    Electrification of our transportation system across land, sea and 
air should be our singular short-term imperative. For our Interstate 
highway system, several legal and policy changes would accelerate these 
electrification efforts, including: modifying 23 USC Section 111 to 
explicitly permit charging facilities at rest areas and inductive 
charging in travel lanes; and commitment to both renewable power 
generation and long-distance transmission of renewable energy via 
buried High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) lines in highway rights-of-
way. Better stewardship of our public rights-of-way can greatly 
accelerate the generation and transmission of renewable energy. 
Similarly, early projects already underway utilizing private and public 
railroad rights-of-way for buried renewable energy HVDC transmission 
lines could be accelerated and scaled nationally through tax credits 
and incentives. These electrification efforts will also help to redress 
past inequities, in particular the disparate emissions impact on 
communities by diesel medium and heavy duty trucks, buses, and 
locomotives.
    America's ports and intermodal freight transfer facilities, 
linchpins of our economy, need to be electrified as well. Cranes, 
rubber-tired gantries, drayage tractors and shore power for ships are 
all candidates for electrification and would benefit from a 
turbocharged competitive grant program that does not cap participation 
by freight projects. Airports would similarly benefit on the air side 
in the short term from electrification of tugs and ground handling 
equipment, and land side airport projects that provide electrified, 
portal to portal transit for passengers and employees. Increased 
investment in cleaner, more seamless goods movement across the 
transportation system is one of the most cost-effective investments we 
can make for future economic growth.
    Building on America's existing passenger rail network will provide 
benefits to every part of the country. Amtrak long distance service 
provides crucial connectivity to rural communities. City pairs should 
be added to existing service in a building block fashion that will 
ultimately provide more of a national network, and promising private 
sector passenger rail proposals should be actively encouraged through 
the use of RRIF loans. Urgently needed improvements to the Northeast 
Corridor are a sound investment for a corridor with proven operating 
economics and strong growth potential. Likewise, Midwest and West coast 
passenger rail service has shown that infrastructure investments bring 
increased ridership. America's freight rail network is the envy of the 
world, and shared use of these rails can enhance both freight and 
passenger rail capacity, reducing our carbon footprint and providing 
mobility to underserved communities.
    A surface transportation program that adopts a systems approach to 
moving people and goods safely and efficiently needs to specifically 
recognize and separately fund projects of national significance that 
are physically located in one state or region, yet provide crucial 
system-wide benefits. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge carrying I-
75 over the Ohio River may be located in the greater Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky region, but it plays an outsized role in supporting 
the auto manufacturing ecosystem from Michigan to Georgia, carrying 3 
percent of America's GDP annually over an outdated, substandard bridge. 
Projects such as the I-5 Columbia River multi-modal bridge, the Gateway 
passenger rail project in New York/New Jersey, as well as various 
coastal ports, inland waterway and Great Lakes cargo projects, play a 
similar national function and should be treated as a separate category 
of nationally-critical projects.
    Transportation projects requiring either an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should now incorporate climate change 
and equity considerations in the development of the foundational 
Purpose & Need statements of those documents. This will bring 
mitigation and remediation of climate impacts, as well as specific 
equity considerations, into the project scope. Active transportation 
alternatives such as bike lanes, trails, and last-mile electrified 
mobility devices, including those for persons with disabilities, should 
be integral components of surface transportation projects. A re-
engineered interagency NEPA process can have the twin benefits of both 
a streamlined process and better environmental and community outcomes. 
The resulting NEPA documents will also be less vulnerable to legal 
challenges.
    The eligibility of USDOT's TIFIA and RRIF loan programs can also be 
broadened to encourage the construction of fleet charging facilities 
and acquisition of electrified rolling stock for transit systems, 
freight and commuter rail, school districts and municipal fleets. The 
use of Master Credit Agreements for electrification across asset 
classes by counties, cities and public authorities would help spur the 
concurrent electrification of multiple surface transportation systems. 
Electrified intermodal facilities for moving goods and people, 
particularly port/rail and air/transit, should be given expanded 
eligibility and expedited processing for these loan programs.
    The genius of federalism as it applies to our transportation system 
is that project decisions are properly made at the local and state 
level based on local needs and priorities, and these projects aggregate 
into a national transportation system. USDOT should, in the words of 
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, encourage ``bold, persistent 
experimentation'' by local jurisdictions and states through more 
aggressive use of existing mechanisms such as the SEP-15 process and by 
funding higher risk/reward pilot projects through the competitive grant 
programs. Encouraging innovation in response to climate change and to 
redress the impacts of past project decisions should be central 
elements of our Federal transportation program, and USDOT should strive 
wherever possible to assist local jurisdictions. This innovation agenda 
should also include connected/autonomous vehicles, safety and other 
technology innovations.
    At the same time, these local project choices should be encouraged 
at the Federal level to include local employment and skills training as 
an integral component of the project procurement. Multiple successful 
examples now exist of pilot programs that have squeezed more value out 
of infrastructure dollars by including a local hiring and training 
component that creates a ladder for good-paying middle class jobs. 
Similarly, a whole-of-government approach at the Federal level 
including USDOT, DOE, Commerce and other agencies is required to 
maximize the US manufacturing opportunities for local infrastructure 
projects.
    As we drive forward in rebuilding America's transportation 
infrastructure, it is worth remembering President Biden's vow to 
``Build Back Better''. What does that mean?
    ``Build Back'' is an acknowledgement that we have under-invested in 
our Nation's future, that we have to do much more if we are going to 
rebuild our economy and establish a stronger foundation for America's 
future. ``Better'' means we have to do it differently, explicitly 
taking into account climate change and equity as, together, we develop 
smarter ways to make foundational investments in a better American 
future through infrastructure.
    The policy suggestions in my testimony today are intended to help 
us Build Back Better by maximizing the impact of every dollar invested 
and putting our Nation on a glide path to a brighter, more sustainable 
future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

    The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Porcari. We are now going to turn 
to Mr. Hooker. Thank you so much for joining us.

  STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS R. HOOKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ATLANTA 
                   REGIONAL COMMISSION (ARC)

    Mr. Hooker. Good morning, Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Wicker, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me 
here to offer the Atlanta Regional Commission's perspectives on 
challenges and opportunities in developing our transportation 
infrastructure. My name, as Senator Warnock says, is Douglas 
Hooker. I am Executive Director of the Atlanta Regional 
Commission, or ARC. In addition to being the metropolitan 
planning organization for a region of 20 counties and 5.8 
million people, ARC leads important regional programs related 
to aging services, water resources planning, workforce 
development, and Homeland Security.
    Wise investments in transportation infrastructure will 
boost our economy, support more equitable community 
development, and advance interstate commerce. These are goals 
that ARC shares with this committee, your colleagues in the 
Senate and the House, and all of our government partners. And 
with these outcomes in mind, I will focus my remarks on four 
key recommendations that I elaborated on in my written 
testimony.
    First, continue to support the unique role the Nation's 
MPOs play in convening diverse groups of public and private 
stakeholders, to address transportation issues in metropolitan 
areas. Our work promotes regional efficiencies by avoiding each 
of our counties and cities having to fund its own 
transportation planning staff, along with all the technical 
elements needed to perform those functions effectively. In many 
ways, we serve, as a repository of services and professional 
expertise and the ARC is very proud to provide this vital role 
for our jurisdictions.
    Second, since interstate goods movement is important and 
vital to our regional and national economies, focus additional 
resources on addressing challenges faced by these industries. 
The Port of Savannah is the largest container terminal in the 
western hemisphere, and a major export gateway for the United 
States. Metro Atlanta's location allows trucks to deliver goods 
to the region and return to the port, within a single day's 
service time. Thus, Metro Atlanta has become a major center for 
warehousing and distribution for the entire Southeastern United 
States. However, one of the consequences of this success is 
that I-285, the region's bypass freeway, has two of the 
Nation's five worst freight traffic, interchange bottlenecks.
    Third, ensure that FAST Act reauthorization recognizes the 
critical role that quality-of-life considerations will play in 
building a stronger and more equitable economy when properly 
integrated into transportation development. We face the 
challenge of increasing housing costs for our work force, our 
Nation's most important resource. In Atlanta, one-third of 
homeowners and half of renters, are cost-burdened, meaning they 
spend 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing, or 50 
percent or more on housing and transportation combined. Due to 
limited affordability, many employees are forced to undertake 
long and expensive commutes, which further congest our 
roadways, and adversely impacts interstate commerce.
    Fourth, leverage the capacity of MPOs to convene broad 
stakeholder groups to plan for the future electrification and 
interconnection of our transportation system. For example, the 
ARC is partnering with Georgia DOT in several local communities 
to implement a large, connected vehicle, or CV, program. Our 
goal is to equip over 1,000 intersections with CV technology 
that enables vehicles and traffic signals to share safety and 
signal timing messages with each other. This will be the 
Nation's largest deployment of connected vehicle technology in 
one region.
    And in closing, I commend this committee for its focus on 
ensuring the future Federal transportation investments needed 
to support the Nation's interstate commerce, and in ways that 
will benefit all Americans. MPOs, such as ARC, are helping to 
forge consensus solutions, to advance critical interstate 
commerce goals. Your leadership and support are critical to 
help us build a more equitable transportation system that 
provides the opportunities for our Nation, and all of its 
residents to thrive in a global economy.
    Please view ARC as a resource as you continue your critical 
work. We look forward to working with you on our common goals, 
and thank you, again, for inviting me here today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hooker follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Douglas R. Hooker, Executive Director, 
                   Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)
    Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss the Atlanta 
Regional Commission's perspectives on the current challenges in 
developing our transportation infrastructure at the local, state, and 
Federal level, and how investment in transportation infrastructure can 
help boost our economy, support a more equitable community, and advance 
interstate commerce. My name is Doug Hooker, and I am the Executive 
Director of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). My Board Chairman, 
Kerry Armstrong, joins me in thanking you for this opportunity to have 
the ARC's voice heard.
    In 1947, the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC), was created in 
Atlanta and became the first publicly supported, multi-county planning 
agency in the United States. Ultimately renamed the Atlanta Regional 
Commission, the agency's responsibilities include: 1) being designated 
by the state of Georgia as a Metropolitan Area Planning and Development 
Commission as well as a Regional Commission; 2) the federally 
designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that is responsible 
for developing a multi-modal, financially constrained transportation 
plan; 3) the federally designated Area Agency on Aging for the Atlanta 
region, providing services and policy guidance to improve the quality 
of life of older adults; 4) planning staff to the Metropolitan North 
Georgia Water Planning District, which develops comprehensive regional 
and watershed-specific water resources plans; 5) the administrative 
agency for the Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board; and 6) the 
local administrative agency for the Atlanta Urban Area Security 
Initiative (UASI), which prepares and coordinates the region's response 
and recovery to homeland security issues. ARC's transportation planning 
area includes all or part of 20 counties and serves a population of 5.8 
million people.
    ARC's perspectives on meeting the infrastructure challenge and the 
need for investment to boost our economy and improve the transportation 
system.
The Nation's MPOs, in partnership with local communities, states, and 
        other regions are in a unique position to work with our Federal 
        partners to address and implement national transportation and 
        interstate commerce goals.
    The Nation's MPOs convene diverse groups of stakeholders that range 
from mayors, county commission chairs, local and state government 
staffs, business and community leaders, and Federal stakeholders, to 
address the pressing public challenges facing regions. These 
discussions cover a variety of questions: from `How do we fix dangerous 
intersections so freight trucks can safely get to warehousing 
districts?'; to `What are the best strategies to lower vehicle 
emissions to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gases?'; to 
perhaps the most important questions we must wrestle with: `How can we 
best design a transportation system that supports our economy while 
furthering equitable growth in our 20-county region?' `How do we design 
a system that works well to meet the needs of all of our residents?'
    Only a partnership among the local, regional, state, and Federal 
government officials can advance solutions to these challenges. This 
convening role is where regional planning agencies excel, including 
providing vital support as part of our mission for the under-resourced 
communities that exist within our region. The ARC is proud to play a 
supporting and coordinating role across many city, county, and state 
agency jurisdictions.
    In this capacity, the ARC and many other large MPOs have already 
started addressing the needs that are important to this Committee, such 
as providing funds for goods movement projects, planning for resilient 
transportation systems, factoring into our decisions the need to combat 
climate change, and strengthening equity considerations in the 
selection of the region's transportation investments. The ARC is 
closely monitoring the development of these policies by committees of 
Congress and the Administration, and hopes to work with you to fashion, 
strong, reasonable, and implementable changes in the Nation's 
transportation policies that serve our region and its people. We 
welcome the added emphasis to address these areas more thoroughly and 
comprehensively. MPOs will need additional resources beyond their 
current funding levels to implement these Federal priorities that 
advance interstate commerce, national economic competitiveness, and 
fairness at home.
    We have shared with staff from the Senate's Environment and Public 
Works Committee a list of our recommendations for planning provisions 
in the FAST Act reauthorization. That document is appended to this 
written testimony.
    We note that last year's House bill provided a 41 percent increase 
in funding resources for MPO planning to successfully address these 
national goods movement, equity, and environmental challenges. It is up 
to the Congress to decided what that number should be, but we strongly 
encourage that you make available the additional resources needed to 
implement any new responsibilities required of the Nation's MPOs.
    Along these lines, a reauthorized FAST Act can be strengthened by 
lowering the required non-federal match for MPO planning programs, from 
the existing 20 percent level to a maximum of 10 percent or even 
eliminating this match requirement.
    Further, the ARC supports creating the Metro Performance Program 
concept, for high-performing MPOs that direct funding to local 
communities, to advance transportation-focused investments that support 
Federal priorities related to goods movement, equity, congestion 
relief, climate change, and infrastructure resiliency.
    We note that a core goal of the Senate Commerce Committee is 
furthering the Nation's economic competitiveness through interstate and 
international commerce. We are extremely proud that Georgia was named 
in September 2020 as the ``Top State for Doing Business'' by the 
magazine Area Development. This was the 7th consecutive year that our 
State received this recognition. While there are many factors that led 
to this recognition, Georgia's strong goods movement and logistics 
sector--including the ability to cost-effectively transport goods both 
throughout the Nation and to international markets--is a core 
foundation of our community's economic success. The Georgia legislature 
continues to prioritize supporting interstate commerce, with the 
creation in 2019 of the Georgia Commission on Freight & Logistics. This 
legislative initiative emphasizes finding solutions to the challenges 
being faced by industries supporting interstate commerce.
    The state of Georgia has significantly increased transportation 
funding since 2015, with the passage of the Transportation Funding Act 
(HB 170). This action has doubled transportation revenues for the 
state. Local governments have also increased revenue to support 
transportation funding for both transit and roadways, including the 
transit funding referendums in both the City of Atlanta and Clayton 
County. It is critical that our Federal partners also identify 
strategies to increase transportation revenues.
Interstate goods movement is critical to Georgia and the Atlanta 
        region's economy.
    Nearly one-third of the jobs in Metro Atlanta are in industries 
that rely on freight transportation. These jobs comprise $514.8 
billion, or 38 percent, of our region's economic output. The Atlanta 
region's total freight tonnage will increase by 43 percent over the 
next 25 years. By 2050, the economic contribution of the goods movement 
sector will increase to $1.2 trillion.
    The Atlanta region has a close economic relationship with states 
and regions throughout the Nation, but the most critical goods movement 
partner is the Port of Savannah. The largest container terminal in the 
western hemisphere and the Nation's top export gateway, the Port of 
Savannah is a critical part of the Nation's interstate commerce. For 
example, while metro Atlanta is the Port's largest intermodal trade 
partner, the Memphis region is Savannah's No. 2 trading partner and is 
responsible for one out of every five containers. The Port of Savannah 
is one of the primary drivers of goods movement in the United States.
    The location of metro Atlanta, relative to the Port of Savannah, 
allows for the transportation of goods to metro Atlanta and back to the 
Port in one business day. This has allowed metro Atlanta--and Georgia--
to become a major center for warehousing and distribution for the 
Southeastern United States. Georgia continues to emphasize development 
of inland ports, including the Appalachian Regional Port, the 
Bainbridge Terminal, and the Northeast Georgia Inland Port that is 
scheduled to open later this year. The Georgia Ports Authority 
continues to assess the feasibility of additional future inland ports.
    The port's current annual capacity is four million TEUs, or twenty-
foot equivalent units. By 2028, the Port of Savannah will have a 
capacity eight million TEUs.
    The Atlanta region and other MPOs need the Committee's leadership 
to help our Nation's goods movement and logistics sector to succeed. 
The current USDOT National Highway Freight Program has helped states to 
improve goods movement bottlenecks. Additional funding is needed in 
this program to address the Nation's most significant freight movement 
bottlenecks. Two of the Nation's top five trucking bottlenecks are in 
the Atlanta region: #3 at the I-285 North/I-85 North interchange 
(DeKalb County) and #4 at the I-285 West/I-20 West interchange (Fulton 
County).
    Without the necessary rail and roadways improvements, our Nation's 
economy will be at a disadvantage when competing globally. The ARC, in 
partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation and local 
communities, conducts freight cluster plans to identify needed 
transportation improvements for our largest manufacturing and 
distribution centers. One outcome identified in these studies is that 
insufficient funding is available for the critical ``last mile'' 
freight connections that support interstate commerce. We recommend that 
the next transportation reauthorization bill not only increase freight 
program funding for states, but also provide the Nation's largest MPOs 
a suballocation of the National Highway Freight Program to fund needed 
improvements for these essential ``last mile'' freight bottlenecks.
    Within the Atlanta region, examples of these ``last mile'' freight 
improvements include two intersection operations projects on SR 6 (Camp 
Creek Parkway), south of Atlanta. These projects will improve safety 
and reduce congestion along a corridor that serves an Amazon 
distribution center and numerous other industrial businesses, while 
connecting to three interstate highways and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 
International Airport. Northeast of Atlanta, in the Gateway 85 area of 
Gwinnett County, several intersection projects have been identified 
that will add turn lanes, increase the turning radius on corners, and 
shift the location of stop bars at intersections so that trucks can 
turn left more easily. While these ``last mile'' projects are not as 
high profile as our largest interstate program projects, they are among 
the most critical needs identified by our trucking partners that use 
our roads.
    ARC has conducted a truck parking study of needs within the Atlanta 
region. Most interstate commerce corridors in our region suffer from 
truck parking shortages, with this shortage forecast to worsen in the 
future. To support the Nation's interstate commerce, the trucking 
industry needs safe and accessible parking. We ask that you keep these 
critical truck parking considerations on the agenda for your Committee. 
Safe and accessible truck parking is not just a local issue, the needs 
cross state boundaries. A national program is needed that focuses on 
interstate commerce corridors and addresses the unmet needs for safe 
and accessible truck parking.
    We need a strong national vision that encourages strategies to 
shift more of our Nation's interstate goods movement from trucking to 
rail. ARC often hears this desire from local and state officials. 
Increasing the share of interstate goods movement from trucks to rail 
is a strategy that would reduce crashes and congestion, lower truck-
related NOX and VOC emissions, and reduce greenhouse gases. 
Increased Federal assistance is needed to upgrade rail infrastructure 
and at-grade rail crossings in both rural communities and metropolitan 
areas. Due to economic factors associated with the rail industry, it is 
likely that train lengths will increase in the future and place 
additional delays at existing grade-crossings. To further community 
safety at these at-grade rail crossings, it is essential that the 
Federal Railway-Highway Crossings program be expanded well beyond the 
current $250 million per year.
    As the Committee continues deliberations on the necessary policies 
and investments needed to support interstate commerce and advance 
prosperity, we must always keep one item in mind. This leads to my 
third point.
Recognize the critical role that quality-of-life considerations play in 
        building a strong economy.
    One of the challenges we face is increasing housing costs for our 
workforce, the most important resource we have in our communities. No 
community can succeed in supporting interstate commerce without a 
diverse and affordable housing supply that meets the needs of our 
residents. We are rapidly losing housing affordability throughout the 
nation, and the Atlanta region is no exception.
    The Atlanta region has been long recognized across the Nation as 
having relatively affordable housing costs. Historically, this housing 
cost advantage helped fuel the region's growth, allowing workers in 
critical interstate commerce industries to achieve the American Dream: 
shifting from renting to ultimately owning a home. But quality, 
affordable, housing is becoming more difficult to find in our region: 
and not only affordable housing, but quality, affordable renting as 
well. This threatens our quality of life by reducing our residents' 
ability to improve their economic prospects in an equitable manner, 
because they fail to fully share in in the region's prosperity. In 
metro Atlanta, about one-third of homeowners and half of renters are 
now considered ``cost burdened''--that is, they spend least 30 percent 
or more of their income on housing or 50 percent or more on housing and 
transportation combined.
    Over the past five years, rents have increased almost 27 percent in 
Atlanta, which is the largest five-year increase among the Nation's 11 
largest metros. Rents have increased by 37 percent since 2011, but 
earnings have only increased 20 percent. Overall, housing prices in the 
Atlanta region are among the most reasonable among our peers, but once 
you add the cost of transportation, we are worse in terms of overall 
affordability than Seattle, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, to 
name a few major metros.
    Most of our workforce cannot afford housing close to where they 
work. High construction costs make it difficult to rehab existing 
housing stock and residential building permits are at about 1/3 the 
levels before the ``Great Recession.'' Housing costs near major 
employment centers have soared, forcing many employees to undertake 
long and expensive commutes that further congest our roadways and 
adversely impact interstate commerce. If a historically lower housing 
cost region such as the Atlanta region is experiencing these 
challenges, this is an item that must be a national priority for our 
Nation to compete globally in commerce.
    To further economic competitiveness and interstate commerce, ARC 
has developed multimodal transportation programs to address these needs 
through our pioneering Livable Centers Initiative. This program 
utilizes transportation investments to equitably plan for the 
development of mixed-use centers that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 
support equitable growth, increase transit ridership, reduce 
congestion, and encourage housing to be constructed in a variety of 
price ranges. In moving forward, Federal programs should consider 
equity and its role in supporting economic mobility.
    Congress can support these core Federal objectives by continuing to 
provide funding assistance to programs that clean our air and support 
resiliency goals. Funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
program should be expanded and dedicated exclusively to initiatives and 
projects that clean the air. This includes removing the current 
provision that permits 50 percent of program funding to be redirected 
to other programs.
    Transit operators in the Atlanta region are in the planning, 
engineering, and environmental review phases of several major transit 
expansions. Many of these projects are supported by sales tax programs, 
such as those in the City of Atlanta and Clayton County. Examples of 
these projects range from expanded bus services, such as Bus Rapid 
Transit (BRT), to potential rail expansions such as streetcars in the 
City of Atlanta and rail on the Clifton Corridor connecting the MARTA 
rail network to the Emory and CDC area.
    It is critical that the Federal government be major partners in 
these transit expansion programs, including having adequate funding 
through the FTA Capital Investment Program. Increases in transit 
funding will allow MPOs to meet the critical needs of our transit 
systems, which have suffered significant financial challenges because 
of the pandemic.
    This leads to my fourth point.
Leverage the capacity of MPOs to convene broad groups from the public 
        sector (local, state, federal) and the private sector, to plan 
        for the electrification of the transportation sector.
    One of the great challenges--and one that directly impacts 
interstate commerce--is the future electrification of our 
transportation sector. This transformation is being led by the private 
sector, for example with General Motors phasing out vehicles using 
internal combustion engines by 2035. Another example is FedEx recently 
committing to deploying electric-only vehicles by 2040. The trucking 
industry is evaluating clean energy technologies and major 
breakthroughs are expected in the coming years. We must prepare now to 
support this transition to electrification of the transportation 
sector.
    High capacity MPOs can use their unique convening powers to bring 
together the public and private sectors to meet the needs of interstate 
commerce and the traveling public. Because of the expected challenges 
in meeting the future demand of the evolving power grid--and one for 
which our communities were not originally designed to meet--federal 
leadership is also needed in identifying best practices for communities 
to follow in addressing this challenge. Opportunities will exist in the 
coming decade to co-locate broadband, power, and charging stations. 
This can support equitable outcomes for all residents that live in 
underserved communities, both in metropolitan areas and rural areas, 
ensuring they share in the benefits from electrification and expanded 
broadband services. However, achieving these goals will require Federal 
policy and Federal investment that help lower barriers to public-
private cooperation and reduce the risk of innovation in this frontier.
    The pandemic exposed the critical importance of broadband to our 
Nation. Due to the outstanding broadband availability in many parts of 
our region, ARC staff was able to work remotely. However, many rural 
and under-resourced communities lack these broadband resources, 
adversely impacting prosperity in our Nation. Creating synergy by co-
locating broadband and electrification improvements alongside 
transportation projects provides the opportunity to advance equitable 
outcomes that span multiple needs.
    One of the core missions of the Commerce Committee is the support 
of new transportation technologies. In the rapidly evolving arena of 
technology, what was once a state of the practice technology can be 
obsolete the next year. However, local governments and states need some 
stability to plan for and invest in needed transportation-related 
safety investments.
    An example of this challenge is within the arena of connected 
vehicles. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and ARC are 
pursuing a connected vehicle (CV) program called CV1K+. With a $10 
million budget, the initiative is a significant investment for the 
region. The goal is to equip over 1,000 intersections with CV 
technology that allows safety messages and signal timing information to 
be shared between vehicles and traffic signals. This will be the 
Nation's largest deployment of connected vehicle technology in one 
region. One of the great challenges in pursuing this project, which 
supports interstate commerce and safety, has been the rapidly evolving 
regulatory environment at the FCC in recent years regarding the 5.9 GHz 
safety spectrum. While we understand that the FCC must respond to the 
introduction of new technologies and changing needs, a stable 
regulatory environment is essential. While the project is now underway, 
instability in knowing what technologies will be allowed to use the 5.9 
GHz safety spectrum created delay and uncertainty in implementing the 
program.
    One item we have learned during the advancement of this technology 
program is the critical role of capacity-building. However nationally, 
many communities and smaller MPO's lack the technical capacity to do 
this. Our Federal partners need to emphasize capacity-building as a 
core element when designing Federal programs, allowing equitable 
outcomes to be achieved by all communities--metropolitan and rural--to 
advance our Nation's competitiveness.
    There is one final point I want to share with you.
Design Federal programs that permit communities to invest in what is 
        most needed for the community vs. pursuing Federal programs 
        that are narrow and limit solution options.
    Local communities best know their needs and what constitutes a 
priority investment. In the past the way Federal funding programs were 
funded prejudiced some decisions. An example is the Federal interstate 
program which permits funding as high as a 90 percent Federal share 
with a 10 percent non-federal match. Transportation projects off the 
interstate system historically have been largely funded with at an 80 
percent Federal share and a 20 percent non-federal match. The FAST Act 
included a rail title for the first time, leveling the playing field. 
The economic competitiveness of the Nation depends on having resources 
to support intermodal goods movement, including by rail. It is critical 
to provide funding for rail in future Federal bills.
                                 * * *
    I commend the Committee for its focus on ensuring that the billions 
of dollars being spent on transportation support our Nation's 
interstate commerce in a way that benefits all Americans--including 
those in those under-resourced communities. These under-resourced 
communities exist both in our Nation's large metropolitan regions--such 
as the Atlanta region--and rural America. MPOs such as the Atlanta 
Regional Commission are working to help find solutions to our important 
interstate commerce goals. Your leadership is needed in helping us 
build an equitable transportation system that not only supports the 
Nation in competing--but thriving--in international commerce. Please 
view ARC as a resource as you continue the critical work of this 
Committee. Thank you again for inviting me here today, and we look 
forward to working with you on these important issues.

    The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hooker. I think we could have had 
the same testimony from somebody from the Puget Sound region. 
So, I feel like the issues that you brought up are the exact 
same issues in a growing area of our State, as well.
    We now turn to a more local view of the transportation 
needs, Mr. Toby Barker, Mayor of the City of Hattiesburg. Thank 
you for being here and joining us.

             STATEMENT OF HON. TOBY BARKER, MAYOR, 
                CITY OF HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI

    Mr. Barker. Thank you Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Wicker, Members of the Committee for allowing me to share a 
local perspective on rebuilding America's infrastructure. Any 
mayor of any of the thousands of towns and cities across the 
United States could speak to the challenges faced when 
attempting to plan and finance infrastructure projects.
    Hattiesburg is a city of around 50,000 residents in South 
Mississippi. Home to both The University of Southern 
Mississippi and William Carey University, as well as two 
hospitals, and Camp Shelby, around 150,000 people work in 
Hattiesburg daily. In its early days, the railroad brought 
economic growth, both in goods and in people. We have been very 
fortunate to be at, or near, the top of job growth in 
Mississippi for several years. Wall Street 24/7 reported that 
out of all the MSAs in the country, Hattiesburg was #2 in job 
growth nationwide, between February and November of last year.
    Rail is a valued component of that growth, both freight and 
passenger. However, one challenge that developed over time is 
that when a city has a rail switchyard in the middle of its 
downtown, and 20 crossings, all at-grade in and around that 
downtown, problems will occur. Blocked crossings are part of 
daily life. Aside from being a source of frustration for 
motorists, they are a safety concern and have been the site of 
recent fatalities. It is a generations-old problem. The 
solution, of course, was simple. We need an overpass, or 
actually, two or three overpasses. Fortunately, we found 
Federal avenues to leverage our limited local capacity into 
real funding. In early 2020, we were awarded a CRISI grant to 
build the first overpass on a road just south of our downtown. 
And again, later last year, we were awarded a BUILD grant to 
build a second overpass. Our delegation, particularly Senator 
Wicker, were incredibly helpful in this effort. We also had the 
support of both freight railroads. If Federal surface 
transportation grants were not available, these projects would 
not happen for Hattiesburg.
    Cities have a tough enough time maintaining their existing 
infrastructure maintenance issues. Roads need paving. Bridges 
need replacing. Water, sewer, and storm water lines are 
undersized or aging. There is public demand for sidewalks. And 
the list goes on. There is very little money available after 
taking care of all those other things, if you can take care of 
them, either to solve a big challenge, or to invest in game-
changing projects that can lead to future growth. Surface 
transportation grants are a lifeline that communities can use, 
and it is critical that Congress reauthorize those programs.
    Furthermore, when weighing such reauthorization, there are 
a few items policymakers may want to consider. First, even with 
reauthorization, I believe the local community needs to 
continue to have skin in the game, through proper planning and 
prioritized budgeting. No community should expect the Federal 
Government to shoulder the full responsibility of 
infrastructure at the local level.
    Second, I would encourage more investment in these 
programs. We went after an INFRA grant once and BUILD grant 
twice before finding success in 2020. There are other 
communities with strong projects that could be funded, if the 
available pool had the certainty and funding provided in a 
long-term surface transportation reauthorization.
    Third, communities need technical support and assistance 
with planning when accessing these programs. We engaged local 
firms to assist with our grant, particularly for benefit-cost 
analysis and engineering. The city incurred costs for those 
programs, and we were more than willing to pay them. However, 
some communities might be weighing projects that require more 
outside expertise, and thus, more cost when it comes to even 
proposing a solution. Having funds available for planning would 
help, and it would also allow DOT to gain understanding on a 
community's unique challenges prior to the grant application 
going in.
    Fourth, any transportation system must accommodate the 
needs of all users, whether in a vehicle, on a train, in a 
wheelchair, on bike, or on foot. Modern cities are expected to 
build out complete streets. However, other than TAP and FTA's 
5339 grant program, or including complete street style elements 
in large projects, the direct resources available to cities, 
counties, and MPOs are limited.
    Finally, it is important that programs remain accessible to 
communities of all size. Right now, there is a proposal before 
the Office of Management and Budget that would double the 
minimum population requirement from 50,000 to 100,000 for a 
community to be considered a metropolitan statistical area. 
This would adversely affect Hattiesburg and 143 other cities, 
and the implications of this could be profound on grants and 
other Federal programs, particularly in the transportation 
space. If this metric is changed, and we hope it is not, it is 
critical that any reauthorization not tie grant eligibility to 
the definition of an MSA.
    In conclusion, the U.S. Department of Transportation's 
discretionary grant programs are vital to the aspirations of 
every city. As we look to where we want each of our communities 
to go, in economic development, in education, in tourism and in 
quality of life, I believe shared infrastructure investment 
between Federal, State and local governments can build strong, 
visionary cities, which, in turn, will be cornerstones of an 
even stronger nation. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Barker follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Toby Barker, Mayor, City of Hattiesburg, 
                              Mississippi
Introduction
    Thank you Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, Members of the 
Committee for allowing me to share a local perspective on rebuilding 
America's infrastructure. Any mayor of any of the thousands of towns 
and cities across the United States could speak to the challenges local 
elected officials face when attempting to plan, finance and oversee 
infrastructure investments.
    I believe every mayor wants similar things for his or her town. We 
want a good quality of life for our residents. We want safe 
communities. We want opportunities for economic growth. We want to 
provide solutions when our constituents have complaints. Quality 
infrastructure is both the bedrock and the catalyst for making these 
things happen.
The Hattiesburg Story
    Hattiesburg is a City of around 50,000 residents in South 
Mississippi, about an hour north of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Home to 
both The University of Southern Mississippi and William Carey 
University, as well as two major medical facilities and Camp Shelby, 
around 150,000 work in and around Hattiesburg on a daily basis. In its 
early days, it earned the nickname ``the Hub'' because of its central 
location to other regional commercial centers such as New Orleans, 
Mobile, Gulfport, Jackson and Meridian. As with many towns in that era, 
it was the railroad that brought economic growth, both in goods and in 
people.
    In our case, those rail lines continue today, serving the freight 
needs of our industrial park and the many rail lines that intersect in 
and around Hattiesburg. Additionally, those rail lines serve passenger 
rail, as Hattiesburg is Mississippi's third most visited city and a 
beneficiary of being on Amtrak's Crescent Line. We have been very 
fortunate to have been at or near the top of job growth in Mississippi 
for several years in a row. Even in the pandemic, we have held strong. 
In fact, Wall Street 24/7 reported that out of all the metropolitan 
statistical areas in the country, Hattiesburg was #2 in job growth 
nationwide between February and November of last year.
    Freight is a valued component in that growth. However, a challenge 
that developed over the course of the 135-plus years of our city's 
existence is that when a city has a rail switchyard in the middle of 
its downtown--and 20 at-grade crossings in and around that downtown and 
no grade separated crossings--problems will occur. Blocked crossings 
are a part of daily life in Downtown Hattiesburg. Aside from being a 
source of frustration for motorists, they are also a safety concern and 
have been the site of recent fatalities. It has been a generations-old 
problem for Hattiesburg. The solution, of course, was simple. We needed 
an overpass. Actually, we needed two or three overpasses. However, 
overpasses cost a great deal of money--money that a city like 
Hattiesburg would not simply have at its disposal.
    Fortunately, we found Federal avenues to leverage our limited local 
capacity into funding that could build those overpasses. In early 2020, 
we were awarded a CRISI grant--Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and 
Safety Improvements Program--that matched local support to build the 
first overpass on a road just south of our downtown. We were lucky a 
second time in 2020, as we were awarded a BUILD grant to build a second 
overpass along that same road, south of our downtown. Our Congressional 
delegation, particularly Senator Wicker, were incredibly helpful in 
this effort. We also had the support and collaboration of both freight 
railroads on our CRISI and BUILD applications.
    By the time both of these overpasses are built, there will be one 
road--with one grade separated crossing on each end--that motorists, 
cyclists and pedestrians can take when trains are across the tracks.
    If Federal surface transportation grants were not available, these 
projects would not happen for Hattiesburg. Most cities and towns 
cannot--on their own--solve these longstanding challenges without 
state, but more often, Federal support.
The Problem Facing Every Community
    Cities and counties have a tough enough time meeting their existing 
infrastructure maintenance issues. There are roads that need paving. 
There are bridges that need replacing. There are water lines that are 
undersized or aging. There are sanitary sewer issues that lead to 
consent decrees, putting another external pressure on a municipality. 
There is a need for more storm water capacity. There is public demand 
for sidewalks and ADA accessibility.
    However, there is very little extra revenue available--after taking 
care of all those other things, if you can take care of them--to either 
solve a longstanding challenge; or to invest in game-changing projects 
that can set the stage for potential growth areas. Surface 
transportation grants are a lifeline that cities and counties can use, 
and it is critical that Congress reauthorize those programs. 
Furthermore, when weighing such reauthorization, there are a few items 
I believe policymakers may want to consider.
#1--Local Governments Should Participate in Funding Infrastructure
    First, even with reauthorization, I believe the local community 
needs to have skin in the game. No community should expect the Federal 
government or state government to shoulder the full responsibility of 
infrastructure at the local level. Proper planning and prioritized 
budgeting are responsibilities of local leaders. In our case, we were 
paying off some general obligation debt and used that existing debt 
service capacity in our millage to issue new bonds that will match the 
Federal investment on both of these grants.
#2--Additional Investment Needed
    Secondly, I would encourage more investment in these programs. We 
went after an INFRA grant once and BUILD grants twice before finding 
success in 2020. I know there are other communities with strong 
projects that could win awards if the available pool of funding had the 
certainty and funding provided in a long-term surface transportation 
reauthorization. Our grade crossing projects were one longtime 
transportation challenge. However, there are a dozen other projects on 
my desk now waiting for funding so we can solve those problems and 
capitalize on opportunities for economic growth.
#3--The Need for Planning Funds and Technical Support
    Third, communities need technical support and assistance with 
planning when trying to access these programs. We had a local firm that 
assisted in writing our grant and doing the benefit-cost analysis; and 
an engineering firm that helped with plans on where the overpasses 
should go, as well as cost estimates on the project. The city incurred 
costs for those services, and we were more than willing to pay them in 
order to apply for CRISI and BUILD. However, some communities might be 
weighing projects that require more outside expertise--and thus, more 
expense--when it comes to even proposing a solution to a transportation 
challenge. Having funds available for planning costs would help, and it 
would also allow for DOT to gain understanding on a community's unique 
challenges prior to the grant application going in.
    I would also encourage DOT to continue providing technical support. 
Having this dialogue helped us improve our application with each 
application round, and I know many cities and counties could benefit 
from this outreach.
#4--Need for Direct Assistance to Cities, Counties and MPOs on Complete 
        Street Infrastructure
    Fourth, any 21st-century transportation system must accommodate the 
needs of all users, whether in a vehicle, on a train, in a wheelchair, 
on bike or on foot. Modern cities are expected to build out complete 
streets. Our residents demand it. However, other than TAP, FTA's 5339 
grant program or including complete street style elements in large 
projects such as BUILD, the direct resources available to cities, 
counties and MPOs are limited.
#5--Reauthorization in Light of Potential OMB's Change to MSA 
        Definition
    Finally, if and when these programs are renewed, it is important 
they remain accessible to communities of all size. Right now, there is 
a proposal before the Office of Management and Budget that would double 
the minimum population requirement--from 50,000 to 100,000--for a 
community to be considered a metropolitan statistical area. This would 
adversely affect Hattiesburg and 143 other cities around the country, 
and the implications of changing this definition could be profound on 
grants and other Federal programs, particularly in the transportation 
space. If this metric is changed--and we certainly hope it is not--it 
is critical that any legislation that reauthorizes these grant programs 
not be tied to the definition of an MSA.
Conclusion
    In conclusion, the U.S. Department of Transportation's 
discretionary grant programs are vital toward the aspirations of every 
city around the country. As mayors, we have a responsibility for 
maintaining what's here now. But if we stop there, we are choosing to 
settle for status quo. As we look to where we want each of our 
individual communities to go--in economic development, in education, in 
tourism and in quality of life--I have to believe shared infrastructure 
investment between federal, state and local governments can build 
strong, visionary cities--which in turn will be cornerstones of an even 
stronger nation.

    The Chair. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much for that 
testimony and definitely, we will have questions to follow up 
for you from your statement.
    Now, we are going to have Mr. Mark McAndrews, the Director 
of Port of Pascagoula. Welcome, thank you for joining us.

            STATEMENT OF MARK McANDREWS, DIRECTOR, 
                       PORT OF PASCAGOULA

    Mr. McAndrews. Good morning Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Wicker, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for having me.
    My name is Mark McAndrews, and I am the Port Director at 
the Port of Pascagoula in Mississippi and the past Chair of 
both the American Association of Port Authorities and the Gulf 
Ports Association. I would like to thank the Committee for 
working to ensure that our infrastructure system, and in 
particular, our freight, intermodal, and maritime 
infrastructure is, once again, the pride of our Nation. To make 
our observations as broad as possible, we solicited some input 
from AAPA, which is the collective voice of our Nation's 
seaport industry.
    Port authorities exist to create and support economic 
activity by building transportation infrastructure and managing 
operations at our facilities. U.S. seaports represent a vital 
economic engine of our national economy. They have also played 
a crucial role in our national defense, a point acknowledged 
through the designation of 17 of our Nation's ports as 
``strategic seaports,'' by the Department of Defense, including 
our sister port of Gulfport, just down the road.
    Investing in our port infrastructure and intermodal freight 
system pays dividends. Ports have seen significant impacts over 
the past year, and in order to remain competitive in the global 
economy, we must protect and expand Federal intermodal and port 
infrastructure investments and remove limitations on freight 
infrastructure investment.
    The COVID-19 pandemic caused 2020 to be one of the most 
erratic and volatile years in terms of cargo volumes. Early in 
the year, China's efforts to stem the pandemic shuttered 
factories, led to canceled sailings, and coupled with a drop in 
consumer spending in the United States as shutdowns were 
implemented to stop the spread of the virus, ports experienced 
significant drops in volumes across the industry throughout the 
first half of 2020.
    The second half of the year saw a rebound for many in the 
maritime industry, and these surges in cargo have led to 
challenges, from container shortages for the U.S. export 
market, to issues of chassis availability. But despite these 
challenges, goods and cargo have continued to move through our 
ports.
    At the Port of Pascagoula, our major commodities at the 
public facilities are lumber, steel, forest products, and 
agricultural products, and our export partners for these are 
largely located in the Caribbean, Central, and South America. 
The price of lumber has nearly tripled through the course of 
the pandemic and tonnage has declined significantly. Domestic 
demand is high due to an active hurricane season and an upsurge 
in new home construction in the U.S. While many experienced 
surges in cargo in the second half of the year, others saw 
little recovery in revenue. What is clear is that each port has 
been impacted differently.
    I commend the Chair and the Ranking Member for working to 
ensure that the Maritime Transportation System Emergency Relief 
Program became law at the beginning of this year as part of the 
National Defense Authorization Act. While not yet funded, this 
new program gives the Maritime Administration the tools 
necessary to help ports respond to and recover from natural 
disasters. While critical to our national economy, our ports 
and our marine transportation system, do not always receive the 
attention they deserve as a main link in our Nation's supply 
system.
    Energy commodities, such as petroleum and coal, are the 
dominant commodities moved through the ports by weight. At the 
Port of Pascagoula, over 27 million tons of crude oil is 
received, refined, and shipped out from Chevron's Refinery in 
our East Harbor. Presently, the Port of Pascagoula has several 
major projects in progress. The Gulf LNG terminal in the port 
is planning to add liquefaction and export capabilities to 
their import terminal. We have a $60 million biomass export 
facility underway in our Bayou Casotte Harbor. It is a public/
private partnership scheduled to be completed and functioning 
before 2021. Our ongoing $37 million Rail Relocation project, 
partially funded through TIGER and CRISI grants, was a major 
factor in attracting this regional economic development 
venture.
    The American Society of Civil Engineers gave ports a grade 
of B- in their 2020 Infrastructure Report Card. In the U.S. 
Committee on the Maritime Transportation System's Economic 
Analysis of Spending on Marine Transportation System 
Infrastructure, CMS notes that new funding for investment in 
our marine transportation infrastructure will help the United 
States catch up from a well-documented backlog of deferred 
infrastructure projects.
    And as the Committee considers a surface transportation 
reauthorization and other transportation proposals, we offer 
the following recommendations, with more detail found in the 
written submission. Number 1, increase funding for the Port 
Infrastructure Development Program/Port and Intermodal 
Improvement Program. Number 2, increase funding for the FAST 
Act's INFRA and freight formula programs. And number 3, remove 
multimodal funding caps on the INFRA and freight formula 
programs.
    To close, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts 
on infrastructure investment, how best to facilitate the 
movement of freight, and the infrastructure needs of our 
Nation's ports. I appreciate the Committee's continued 
leadership and the ongoing commitment of Chair Cantwell and 
Ranking Member Wicker to highlight freight and the movement of 
goods by water as issues critical to our Nation's economic 
growth. I'll be glad to answer any questions at the appropriate 
time. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. McAndrews follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Mark McAndrews, Port Director, 
                           Port of Pascagoula
    Good morning Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and members of 
the Committee.
    My name is Mark McAndrews, and I am the Port Director at the Port 
of Pascagoula in Mississippi as well as a previous Chair of the 
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). I would like to thank 
the Senate Commerce Committee for working to ensure that our 
infrastructure system, and in particular our freight, intermodal, and 
maritime infrastructure, is once again the pride of our Nation.
    This Committee's recognition of the important role played by ports 
and by those throughout the freight supply chains has been critical to 
ensuring investment in our multimodal transportation system, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss importance of 
infrastructure investment for regional and national freight movements, 
the particular infrastructure needs of ports, and how to rebuild our 
infrastructure to help drive the economic recovery from the ongoing 
COVID-19 pandemic.
Seaports are vital to the U.S.
    Port authorities exist to create and support economic activity by 
building transportation infrastructure and managing operations at our 
facilities. U.S. seaports represent a vital economic engine of our 
national economy. In the National Economic Impact of the U.S. Coastal 
Port System, Martin Associates of Lancaster, PA, stated that America's 
seaports influence nearly 31 million U.S. jobs and generate $378 
billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. This report found 
that nearly 26 percent of the Nation's economy is created by cargo 
activities in our deepwater ports, producing $5.4 trillion in total 
economic activity.
    Our nation's seaports deliver vital goods to consumers, facilitate 
the export of American-made goods, create jobs, and support local and 
national economic growth. The economic impacts of a port carry far 
beyond our own geographic regions because ports are not simply local 
assets in urban centers. Our port system is a fundamental foundation of 
the U.S. economy, supporting every region of the country--moving 
automobiles from the Midwest, agricultural commodities from the 
Heartland, airplanes from the Pacific Northwest, and more, from each 
and every corner of our nation, to markets abroad.
    In fact, the American Association of Port Authorities has joined 
with Farmers for Free Trade to call for the removal of tariffs that 
hurt American exporters. Polling shows heartland Americans agree that 
investing in trade infrastructure to move their goods abroad is a top 
priority.
    Ports also play a crucial role in our national defense--a point 
acknowledged through the designation of 17 of our Nation's ports as 
``strategic seaports'' by the Department of Defense.
    Investing in our port infrastructure and intermodal freight system 
pays dividends. Although ports have seen significant impacts over the 
past year, to remain competitive in the global economy we must protect 
and expand Federal intermodal and port infrastructure investments and 
remove limitations on freight infrastructure investment. Doing so would 
help ensure sustained investment is made in our intermodal and freight 
systems.
COVID 19 Impacts on Ports Business
    Like nearly all aspects of life, ports have endured significant 
impacts over the past year.
    Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, our port has worked 
with AAPA and other ports to monitor the impact of the pandemic, to 
communicate regarding the need for Federal relief and recovery, and to 
share best practices with one another as we all manage through this 
ongoing crisis. On this point I would highlight how impressive the 
collaboration within the industry has been; typically, the fiercest of 
competitors--ports have set aside market share aims in favor of keeping 
port workers safe and healthy, and moving critical goods, including 
personal protective equipment and other medical supplies, to the 
frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to consumers like you 
and me.
    Ports, working with marine terminal operators and others operating 
within port footprints, have put in place protocols to maintain the 
health, safety, and well-being of our employees and all involved in the 
movement of goods and cargo throughout our facilities. AAPA has worked 
with port members to establish recommended COVID-19 protocols and best 
practices for the port industry. The maritime industry has not had 
sector-wide issues in terms of outbreaks, and we continue to 
voluntarily follow public health guidelines.
    The COVID-19 pandemic caused 2020 to be one of the most erratic and 
volatile years in terms of cargo volumes. Early in the year, China's 
efforts to stem the pandemic shuttered factories, which led to 
cancelled sailings. Coupled with a drop in consumer spending in the 
United States as shutdowns were implemented to stop the spread of the 
COVID-19 virus, ports experienced significant drops in volumes across 
the industry throughout the first half of 2020. By the end of the year 
commercial cargo volumes had declined across the industry--with total 
waterborne trade volume down 4.8 percent compared to the prior year, 
while the value of trade dropped by 11.3 percent totaling nearly $200 
billion.
    In the spring, the U.S. economy seemed headed for an historic 
collapse. Millions of people lost their jobs. Then, the second half of 
the year saw a rebound for many in the maritime industry, and these 
surges in cargo have let to challenges--from container shortages for 
the United States export market, to issues of chassis availability. But 
despite these challenges and others, goods and cargo have continued to 
move through our ports. We surely could not have accomplished this 
without the hard work and dedication of our frontline port employees 
and dockworkers. In this process though, many workers have taken ill 
and some have passed away. The maritime industry has lost many to the 
COVID-19 pandemic.
    At the Port of Pascagoula, our major commodities at the public 
docks are lumber, steel, forest products, and agricultural products, 
and our export partners for these are largely in the Caribbean, Central 
America, and South America. The price of lumber has nearly tripled 
through the course of the pandemic and tonnage has declined 
significantly. Domestic demand is high due to an active hurricane 
season and an upsurge in new home construction in the U.S.
    While many experienced surges in cargo in the second half of the 
year, others saw little recovery in revenue. What's clear is that each 
port has been impacted differently. While there were encouraging signs 
at the end of the year for some of those ailing, the outlook for the 
coming year remains uncertain.
    I commend the Chair and Ranking Member for working to ensure that 
the Maritime Transportation System Emergency Relief Program became law 
at the beginning of this year as part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act. While not yet funded, this new program gives the 
Maritime Administration (MARAD) the tools necessary to help ports 
respond to and recover from natural disasters and other emergencies, 
including the COVID-19 pandemic. Our port lies along the Gulf Coast and 
has been impacted by hurricanes in the past, and I believe that this 
new program will prove to be critical in the future as the Port of 
Pascagoula and others respond to extreme weather and other emergencies 
that may occur.
Our Port System's Infrastructure Challenges
    While critical to our national economy, our ports and our maritime 
transportation system do not always receive the attention they deserve 
as a main link in our Nation's supply chains. I appreciate the 
attention that has been paid to ports and the needs of our intermodal 
freight system by this Committee and believe that my being invited to 
speak today at this hearing is the type of highlight necessary to bring 
about a greater understanding of the needs of our ports.
    Ports facilitate trade and the movement of cargo throughout the 
supply chain. Ports of course move containerized cargo, but containers 
are only one important piece of a bigger picture. Millions of tons of 
non-containerized cargo are shipped annually through U.S. ports--
commodities such as steel, coal, iron ore, cement, grain, soybeans, 
fertilizers--the raw and semi-processed inputs so vital to the 
functioning and health of our national economy.
    Energy commodities such as petroleum and coal are the dominant 
commodities moved through ports by weight. At the Port of Pascagoula, 
over 27 million tons of crude oil is received, refined, and shipped out 
from Chevron's Refinery in our East Harbor. These commodities play a 
significant role in cargo movement at many Gulf Coast ports, and over 
the years significant investment has been made in energy 
infrastructure. Ports and our terminal partners expect to continue to 
make significant investments in the future.
    Presently, the Port of Pascagoula has several major projects in 
progress: The Gulf LNG terminal in the Port of Pascagoula is planning 
to add liquefaction and export capabilities to their import terminal. 
This is an $8 billion investment.
    We also have a $60 million biomass export facility underway in our 
Bayou Casotte Harbor. This venture is a public/private partnership 
which is scheduled to be completed and functioning before year end 
2021. Vessel traffic will increase by approximately 30 percent in the 
Port when the terminal becomes operational. Of course, this project 
would not be viable without the $40 million Bayou Casotte Channel 
Improvement Project, currently in the final phase for approval of 
assumption of maintenance by the U.S. government.
    Prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, in information collected as 
part of the Port Planned Infrastructure Investment Survey, American 
Association of Port Authorities members and port property tenants 
projected that they would invest $163.1 billion in port-related 
infrastructure by 2025. These investments are in marine terminals, 
berths, piers, roads, yard equipment, storage facilities, security, 
rail links, environmental controls, shipping channels, and more. 
However, as ports and port tenants have faced the challenges of the 
pandemic, and the resulting changes wrought by shifting supply chains, 
some ports have indicated that these investments would be delayed.
    To take advantage of the billions of dollars being invested by 
ports and port tenants, we must ensure Federal investments like that in 
the Bayou Casotte Channel Improvement Project are being made, and that 
we are adequately investing in our Nation's intermodal infrastructure 
and in first and last mile connections to ports.
    The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave ports a grade 
of B-in their 2020 Infrastructure Report Card. While this grade 
represents an increase over the C+ earned by ports in the 2017 Report 
Card, due in large part to the creation of the Port Infrastructure 
Development Program (PIDP), investment in ports through discretionary 
grant programs, and recent changes to ensure that Harbor Maintenance 
Tax receipts are invested in harbor and channel maintenance, the ASCE 
notes that there remains a significant need to invest in intermodal 
infrastructure and that this type of infrastructure has been 
historically underfunded.
    Building a modern port system requires that we address the system's 
current deficiencies. This challenge is significant, and additional 
Federal investment and focus will be necessary to be successful in 
modernizing this sector.
    But it isn't enough to simply maintain our current port 
infrastructure and ensure a state of good repair--we must also expand 
our port system's ability to handle more cargo. This need has been made 
clear recently as our Nation has struggled with cargo congestion. 
Freight volumes are projected to increase in coming years with the 
Department of Transportation predicting freight to double by 2045. 
Addressing this need will require steady investment, as many seaport 
terminals require restoration and modernization.
    As a key component of global freight networks, ports must also 
manage the impacts of business decisions made by the shipping industry 
that have directly impacted how ports operate. These decisions impact 
the whole of our freight network. Ships using our ports are larger than 
ever before--as long as a skyscraper and as wide as a freeway. 
Accommodating these newer, larger ships requires major investment at 
ports, including deeper berths and deeper navigation channels; larger 
cranes and stronger docks to support them; electrical grid upgrades; 
new, high-efficiency cargo-handling equipment; and improvements to 
container yards and intermodal facilities to handle the flow of cargo 
coming from these ships.
    In order to leverage the billions of dollars of investment being 
made inside the gate at port facilities, by public port authorities and 
by port tenants, the road and rail infrastructure that connects ports 
to the rest of the national freight system we must likewise invest in 
this infrastructure to accommodate the efficient movement of cargo.
    To put multimodal needs into perspective, in the American 
Association of Port Authorities' State of Freight III survey, AAPA port 
members identified more than $20 billion in projected multimodal port 
and rail access needs.
    Additionally, many of these port projects have an on-dock rail 
component. 73 percent of our ports have on dock rail, but many of these 
systems are out-of-date and need to be significantly enhanced and 
reinforced, as well as integrated with new technology to accommodate 
rising shipping volumes.
    With the creation of two funding programs; INFRA discretionary 
grants and National Highway Freight Program formula funding, the Fixing 
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act has proven a great start to 
investing in our Nation's freight system. The bill dedicated a total of 
$11 billion for 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 essential to our 
freight network, but ports are multimodal facilitators, involving 
trains, trucks, and ships, all of which need access to these funds. One 
could argue that as our supply chains becomes more sophisticated, and 
as consumers continue to shift to e-commerce resulting in the use of 
more inland distribution centers, demand for multimodal funding will 
increase.
    It is also important to note that the port business is competitive. 
This is particularly true for discretionary cargo--that cargo bound for 
inland regions that can be shipped through any number of ports. Our 
international neighbors to both the north and south have recognized the 
importance of investing in their ports and in their intermodal 
infrastructure. Canada's national gateway initiative includes a 
strategy to serve America's heartland and Mexico's Interoceanic 
Corridor seeks to provide an alternative to the Panama Canal.
    These investments have already begun to bleed discretionary cargo 
from ports in the Pacific Northwest. Should the United States not make 
port and intermodal investment a priority, we could see this pattern 
intensify in coming years.
How Can the Federal Government Help
    In the U.S. Committee on the Maritime Transportation System's (CMS) 
Economic Analysis of Spending on Maritime Transportation System 
Infrastructure, CMS notes that ``new funding [for investment in our 
maritime transportation infrastructure] will help the United States 
catch up from a well-documented backlog of deferred infrastructure 
projects that have accumulated, including maintenance, repair, and new 
capacity'' and that ``greater infrastructure investment will help 
sustain economic growth and resiliency.'' Essentially, this report is 
advising that by investing in our Nation's maritime transportation 
system and intermodal infrastructure we can Build Back Better.
    The FAST Act has laid out the programmatic framework for a 21st-
century multimodal freight network, with the Port Infrastructure 
Development Program and Marine Highway Programs likewise providing the 
framework for inside the gate investments. However, to fully leverage 
the success of the FAST Act's freight provisions, the next 
reauthorization bill will need to address increasing funding levels 
while identifying a multimodal funding source.
    As the Committee considers a surface transportation reauthorization 
or other transportation proposals, I offer the following 
recommendations:

1. Increase funding for the Port Infrastructure Development Program/
        Port and 
        Intermodal Improvement Program
        We at the Port of Pascagoula and those throughout the U.S. port 
        community were encouraged by the creation of the Port 
        Infrastructure Development Program, now codified as the Port 
        and Intermodal Improvement Program. I would like to thank Chair 
        Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker for your efforts to see this 
        program authorized and to see the authorized level of funding 
        raised to $750 million. For Fiscal Year 2021, $230 million has 
        been authorized for the program, despite the program being 
        oversubscribed by nearly 4-to-1 last year, under the $225 
        million appropriation. These appropriations levels are 
        significant, and this funding helps ports leverage Federal 
        dollars to make critically needed infrastructure investments. 
        However, if we hope to keep our ports competitive, we must 
        increase the level of funding provided to this program.

        Additionally, while PIDP dollars can and should be used to 
        improve the movement of goods into, out of, and around ports, I 
        encourage the Committee and the Department of Transportation to 
        explore how to use this program to also invest in freight 
        intelligent transportation systems, digital infrastructure 
        systems, environmental mitigation measures, and operational 
        improvements directly related to enhancing the efficiency of 
        ports and intermodal connections to ports.
2. Increase funding for the FAST Act's INFRA and freight formula 
        programs
        U.S. ports view the INFRA and freight formula funding programs 
        created in the FAST Act as another step towards adequate 
        investment in our Nation's multimodal freight system. However, 
        as noted earlier in my testimony, funding levels for these 
        programs are not sufficient to meet the needs of our gateways 
        and trade corridors and limits are put on these funds being 
        invested in intermodal infrastructure. The INFRA program is 
        oversubscribed, and state planning efforts required by the FAST 
        Act have demonstrated that the freight formula program also is 
        underfunded. Now on a year-long extension, with the FAST Act 
        expiring later this year, this Committee has the opportunity to 
        expand funding for these programs, while ensuring that the 
        INFRA program remains focused on freight movement.
3. Remove multimodal funding caps on the INFRA and freight formula 
        programs
        As the Committee knows, our freight system is multimodal and 
        Federal freight programs must reflect that reality if they hope 
        to be effective. FAST Act funding programs currently cap the 
        amount of funding that can go to non-road projects. INFRA 
        intermodal funding was capped at $500 million over the original 
        five-year FAST Act authorization, while intermodal dollars were 
        capped at 10 percent of freight formula funds. These 
        limitations must be removed to allow our Nation to modernize 
        our seaports and the first and last mile infrastructure that 
        connects ports to the rest of the freight system and would 
        allow for much needed flexibility to invest in critical, shovel 
        worthy, multimodal freight projects.

        Both the House and Senate found it appropriate to raise these 
        caps in surface transportation reauthorization proposals 
        released and considered during the 116th Congress. However, 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.
Conclusion
    To close, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on 
infrastructure investment, how best to facilitate the movement of 
freight, and the infrastructure needs of our Nation's ports. Without 
enhanced and sustained investment in port and freight infrastructure, 
we risk falling behind the competition, and risk our Nation's trade 
infrastructure limiting our ability to compete economically on a global 
scale. Ports are our Nation's trade gateways, and it is critical that 
we make the investments necessary to remain an economic superpower.
    I appreciate the Committee's continued leadership and the ongoing 
commitment of Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker to highlight 
freight and the movement of goods by water as issues critical to our 
Nation's economic growth. The American Association of Port Authorities 
and I look forward to working with the Committee as you consider FAST 
Act reauthorization and search for the most effective ways to invest in 
freight and intermodal infrastructure.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

    The Chair. Thank you--thank you, Director McAndrews, and 
thank you for, you know, mentioning the work that Senator 
Wicker and I were able to do, as it related to improvements in 
the NDAA bill, in enhancing port competitiveness. And thank you 
for that detailed list. In the State of Washington, I like to 
say, ``ports are us.'' So, to hear from a port director, it is 
music to my ears to hear about the competitiveness of our ports 
around the Nation. But I am going to defer to my colleague, 
Senator Warnock for the first round of questions.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much, Madam Chair, and 
thanks to all of you for your testimony. Keeping everyone 
moving and connected is critical. Without transportation 
mobility, there is little or no opportunity for social 
mobility. Poor people, disconnected communities find 
themselves, literally and economically, stuck.
    And so, highways can play a big role in correcting this 
problem. Georgia is home to some of the busiest eight-lane 
highways in the country. However, there is a long history of 
transportation infrastructure, particularly highways and 
bridges, being used to segregate communities of color and 
cutting off access to job opportunities. I have seen this even 
in the highway infrastructure right near my church.
    In other cases, the highway is built through the middle of 
blue-collar neighborhoods, displacing working class residents. 
Midtown Atlanta is a case in point, with I-75/I-85 splitting 
the community in two and limiting mobility and safe access 
across Atlanta's east-west divide.
    I know that the ARC and other regional partners are 
exploring ways to reconnect midtown with an ambitious and 
creative solution that not only would enhance mobility, but 
also improve safety and create new greenspace and environmental 
benefits. I believe these are the types of bold projects that 
we need to be supporting.
    Mr. Hooker, can you tell us a little bit about this 
project, and how metro Atlanta residents would benefit from 
such a project?
    Mr. Hooker. Thank you, Senator. Yes, happy to offer a 
thought about that. The Midtown Connector Project is being led 
by a private non-profit group called the NPC Foundation. They 
are two-thirds of the way through a 3-year feasibility study. 
And they are constantly in consultation with us at ARC and we 
offer them a lot of technical advice, as well.
    This project seeks to re-knit the city in the middle of its 
core. And the Midtown area, as you say, and provide 
transportation access--easy transportation access, for 
neighborhoods on the west side, to the east side of the city, 
where there had been a lot of strong job growth, primarily 
through innovation types of employment. Our early indications 
that this project will have a significant improvement on 
congestion in the downtown corridor, and safety, and restores 
tree connections, as you pointed out so well, that were lost 
when the interstate was originally built. And in addition to 
providing those benefits, it will give us the added benefit of 
25 acres of additional green space and trails. And the early 
work on the feasibility of this suggests that there will be a 
large infusion of private capital, to go along with public 
capital and help make this possible.
    Georgia DOT, and other stakeholders, as well as ARC, 
continue to work on this and our goal is to finalize a 
feasibility study within the year. A very exciting project and 
very innovative and creative project. Thank you.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you, Mr. Hooker. In your view, is 
the Federal Government providing adequate funding or any 
targeted funding that reconnects these communities that have 
been divided by highways, in order to improve mobility in these 
communities?
    Mr. Hooker. Senator, I will say that, in honesty, no, we do 
not have enough funding. As we as a Nation, and as a region, 
are waking more to the need to address inequities that have 
been created by some of our highway construction. Having 
additional funding, particularly through programs like our CMAQ 
program, our Transportation Alternatives program, that will 
help us look at ways to reconnect our communities that were 
divided would be greatly appreciated. In addition to 
reconnecting communities and providing greater access and 
greater equitable development for communities, it will also 
improve our air quality outcomes, by making our transportation 
more seamless and efficient.
    Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much. It is clear to me 
that Congress can and ought to do more to support these kinds 
of creative solutions that reconnect these communities that 
began to heal our communities, and provide greater mobility to 
communities that are marginalized, in terms of physical 
infrastructure, and therefore, marginalized economically. Not 
to mention the support for green space and overall air quality. 
And so, as we turn to infrastructure, I look forward to being 
in touch with you and other stakeholders. I will be doing 
everything I can to make sure that we support and fund these 
kinds of projects.
    I yield the last 5 seconds of my time, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. I just wanted to make sure. You are a man of 
many talents. So, I just wanted to make sure we were not going 
to hear more, thank you. And again, thank you for getting us a 
witness for a regional perspective on these issues.
    So now, I am going to turn to Senator Wicker.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you. Well, let me start with Mayor 
Barker. On page 5 of your testimony, you say that local 
communities need to have skin in the game and not look to the 
Federal or State Governments to shoulder the full 
responsibility. I think we all agree with that. Let us talk 
about ways for you to have more skin to put into the game.
    I introduced a local infrastructure act last year, which 
would provide additional funding through advanced refunds on 
tax-exempt municipal bonds. It would allow cities like 
Hattiesburg and local governments that use tax-free bonds to 
take advantage of the low interest rates, which we have right 
now. I have introduced the American Infrastructure Bonds Act, 
which would authorize a class of direct pay taxable bonds, to 
help State and local governments. Could either of these 
programs benefit cities like Hattiesburg, in coming up with the 
needed funds for that local skin in the game?
    Mr. Barker. Thank you, Senator, and the answer is 
absolutely. The BUILD grant and the CRISI grant were game 
changers for us; because there was no way that we could have 
accessed those without those funding programs. We matched that 
BUILD and CRISI grant with our own general obligation bonding. 
We had some bonds that were rolling off. We used that existing 
debt millage--debt service millage to access those.
    But more specifically, to your question, municipal finance 
tools can play a critical role in bridging the current funding 
gap. Direct pay bonds and the ability to advance refund 
municipal debt on a tax-exempt basis are two tool that local 
and State governments could use. And I know, back in the 2009-
2010 Build America bond, we saw investment in all 50 states, 
with over $150 billion coming in.
    And then, regarding advanced funding, just as all Americans 
have the opportunity to refinance their mortgage at a lower 
interest rate, reinstating such a tool would similarly provide 
State and local governments the ability to refinance 
outstanding debt at a lower interest rate, and free up 
borrowing capacity for new infrastructure investments, and 
boost local economy, in turn.
    Senator Wicker. On the advanced refunding, Senator Stabenow 
and I will have this local infrastructure act to do that. I 
just do not see the downside of allowing State and local 
governments to refinance at these lower interest rates if, 
through advanced refunding, we can do as we have done in the 
past and hold harmless the investors who have invested in 
these, which is the whole idea.
    Let me turn to Mr. McAndrews--you have utilized some of our 
infrastructure assistance. It needs to be better. What two or 
three extra things would you do if we could get more 
infrastructure money to you?
    Mr. McAndrews. Well, sir, I think (poor connection). We 
have difficulty hiring consultants to----
    Senator Wicker. You know, Madam Chair, if I could 
interject, we actually tested this communication before the 
hearing, and it worked fine. It is my luck with technical 
things, so I may have brought Mr. McAndrews bad luck here. Let 
me, turn to Mayor Barker. Mr. McAndrews will certainly supply 
that information on the record, and it will appear right here 
in the hearing.
    Mayor,talk to us about technical assistance and how it is a 
big negative if you do not get it.
    Mr. Barker. Well, feedback from DOT, in the form of the 
debriefing calls that we were offered each time, we were not 
successful. And I mentioned that we applied for INFRA and BUILD 
twice before we were able to secure CRISI and BUILD. Helped 
Hattiesburg, both in terms of navigating the grant programs and 
determining the actual components that we should submit. There 
were several iterations of what we wanted to do, and having 
that debriefing helped us reach that. And it helped us improve 
our application, with each round.
    I would also say that, and I think that Mr.--the gentleman 
from the Port of Pascagoula was about to get to this. Expanded 
funding for planning and preliminary engineering for projects 
have merit, because they may give you a step forward in a 
project that has merit but does not meet DOT standard of 
project readiness yet. So, both those things are important 
because they are--the challenge may be so large that, if you do 
not have some funds to go and hire the right people to help you 
figure out what the solution is, you never get in the game to 
begin with.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mayor Barker. Let me just say 
that we actually had an announcement in Hattiesburg and the 
mayor was kind enough to invite me. I was late getting to that 
announcement because our car was blocked by a train. I yield.
    The Chair. Well, thank you for that handoff. I heard all 
the witnesses, I believe, say that more investment in INFRA and 
helping us to move product and reduce congestion is key. You 
may have said it, you know, each differently, but I would like 
to have a, kind of, global discussion about this, if we could, 
Mr. Porcari. The context is, obviously, we do want more money 
for INFRA. We definitely feel this notion that the United 
States is growing and making things, but the big ``aha'' moment 
here is that the world market has just exploded with the growth 
of the middle-class around the globe. So, we have lot more to 
ship and we are feeling that. We are feeling the congestion and 
pains of that. We were able, with the INFRA project, to get the 
Landers Street project in Seattle, kind of like, a last mile, 
if you will, between I-5 and the Port of Seattle. So, big 
success.
    So now, as we look at this, and I listen to what Mayor 
Barker explained, that very project is an example. So, do you 
increase INFRA? Do you go back to the CRISI grant program and 
look at at-grade crossings and put them on more steroids? What 
do we do? Because I feel like there are these big projects, 
like Lander and megaprojects, and we are getting some of them 
done, but I would say probably not enough of them done. And 
then, we have other regional projects that are also just, you 
know, the communities just left to deal with the congestions or 
not allowing an elected official to get to an important event. 
But, you know, there are these examples of projects, both 
enormous economic impact to a region, and then, these projects 
that are just the level of congestion. So, what do we do when 
looking at the Surface bill, to get this right? Mr. Porcari and 
Mayor Barker and Mr. McAndrews, if we got him back.
    Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Madam Chair. That really is the key 
question, and the short answer is, we need to do all of the 
above and do it in a targeted way. You mentioned INFRA and 
CRISI grants. Those are very helpful. I think you could make a 
strong argument for broadening the eligibility for some of 
those grants. Providing more technical assistance, as Senator 
Wicker has indicated, because that is essential for many 
jurisdictions. You are not born knowing this and being able to 
have some technical assistance getting there is an important 
part of it.
    And I had mentioned projects of national significance, but 
there is a whole cohort of projects, dozens and dozens of them, 
just below that level on goods movement, for example. Inland 
intermodal container transfer facilities, inland waterway 
projects, just to name two categories that, from a benefit cost 
point of view, are very effective investments for Federal 
dollars, in particular when they are matched by private and 
local dollars. And if we are going to take a systems approach 
to goods movement--and I know that you have worked hard to do 
that, both in your home state and nationally--we really need to 
look at the seams in the system, in particular where the 
shortcomings are, and make sure that competitive grant programs 
address those. That is an argument, in my opinion, for both 
more funding for those grant programs and broader eligibility 
to meet the particular needs of those projects.
    The Chair. So, since I know you are familiar, where would 
you put the West Seattle Bridge in that? So, do you we need 
funding for megaprojects, or are those more dollars for INFRA 
related--because they clearly--that is clearly a huge economic, 
you know, part of our delivery system?
    Mr. Porcari. In the Seattle example, I think you could make 
a strong case that that is a project of national significance--
regional national significance, given its larger impact on the 
region. In my testimony, I mentioned that these projects are 
all in a specific place, but tend to have national and regional 
import, and that is certainly true in that case.
    The Chair. So, do that. Make sure that we are funding 
those, because they also have a big economic impact to the 
Nation, and then, increase INFRA, based on a similar formula 
that we have today.
    Mr. Porcari. That is right. And I would specifically say, 
on INFRA, that freight projects, because of their cost 
effectiveness, should not be capped in terms of how they can 
participate. One other element I would mention, that goes back 
to the original TIGER grants, is a rule set aside to make sure 
that there are rural projects coming through the pipeline 
getting that assistance, is important, as well.
    The Chair. Thank you. If I could, Mayor, ask you the same 
question. How are you looking at this?
    Mr. Barker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. The Ranking Member is letting me go over my time 
here, so I can get an answer. But you--yes, thank you.
    Mr. Barker. Thank you, Madam Chair. As Mr. Porcari said, I 
think it is an all of the above type thing. I think you have to 
have a balanced approach that tackles those problems of 
national and regional significance, but also allows a community 
to shape its own destiny and future. I think INFRA and BUILD, 
CRISI, those are all good grants. But it is--you work several 
years to get one and, what happens is--you know, we had this 
long-standing transportation challenge, but we have a dozen 
other ones that are waiting behind it and you have to get 
creative in how you possibly could tackle two or there, within 
the next decade. And really, an overall further deepened 
commitment to infrastructure that would spread across INFRA, 
CRISI, BUILD, even down to some of your TAP type programs. 
Those direct allocations to cities and counties and MPOs is 
very important.
    I would also just echo the thought that there needs to be 
set asides for all communities to be eligible. And I go back to 
this potential rule; it is before OMB right now, which would 
change the definition of a metropolitan statistical area. That 
would take 144 cities out of those 390+ metropolitan areas we 
have nationwide right now. And so, does that affect eligibility 
for transportation grants, if definitions are tied to the 
definition of MSA.
    The Chair. Thank you. Well, we do want to followup. And 
just to clarify, you--so, you are supporting more dollars for 
INFRA, but you think we need to do more on at-grade crossings, 
as well, and projects of----
    Mr. Barker. I think there are a lot of cities with a lot of 
challenges. And any avenue that we can take to get there, to 
solve those challenges, in whatever form it takes, is welcomed.
    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Fischer.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

    Senator Fischer. Mr. Barker, I appreciate your testimony 
about the blocked railroad crossings in Hattiesburg. Railroads 
are important for our communities, but issues like blocked 
crossings are not only inconvenient, but they can hinder 
emergency vehicles.
    I recently reintroduced bipartisan legislation with several 
members of this committee that would authorize the Federal 
Railroad Administration's Blocked Crossing Portal. Basically, 
this bill would give the public and law enforcement an 
opportunity to inform FRA of blocked crossings in their 
community. The FRA would then better understand the locations 
of frequently blocked crossings, which would lead to better 
policies to address blocked crossings going forward.
    Mr. Barker, would you agree that if the Federal Government 
were better able to identify frequently blocked at-grade 
crossings, it would be in a better position to work with local 
communities to address these issues?
    Mr. Barker. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I do 
believe that data of any kind, that can help us figure out 
where these problems are happening most frequently, is 
absolutely important. I think train congestion is, hopefully, a 
symptom of growing rail traffic, which is a symptom of economic 
growth and commerce. It is a growing pain of something that 
ultimately could be good, but is still a pain, nonetheless. And 
I think any sort of data that would allow us to steer more 
investment, and steer assistance to those communities that can 
then meet the needs of both the railroad and the surrounding 
community would be welcomed.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Hooker, your testimony 
touched on the issue of the lack of truck parking spaces in the 
Atlanta region, and across many interstate corridors. As you 
know, the lack of truck parking is not only an inconvenience, 
it is also a safety issue for truck drivers. What did the ARC 
study that you mentioned find about the truck parking needs, in 
the Atlanta region? And additionally, do you think there are 
barriers or lack of awareness at the State and local level, 
regarding truck-parking needs?
    Mr. Hooker. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Yes, our study 
identified that we lacked a great deal of truck parking in the 
metro area. Most of our truck parking, unfortunately, is 
outside of the bounds of the metro region, which means trucker 
have to decide--make a decision very early on, are they going 
to stop outside of the region, even though their delivery is 
inside the region, or whether they will have time to make it 
through the congestion to get there. Because they are limited, 
obviously, by regulatory limits on how long they can drive the 
truck itself. And that creates a problem. We think that, at 
least in the Atlanta region, our local governments are 
increasingly more aware of the problem, because of the study we 
have done, because our transportation committee is composed of 
the elected officials of 20+ counties. And so, we are more 
aware of it, but I think, at large, a lot of us are 
appreciative of the systems problem that we have here.
    With the increased regulation on the safety for truck 
drivers, which is very necessary, that throws another quandary 
to the system, as where can we safely park when they need to 
stop, before they are able to deliver. And a lot of time, even 
the place they have to deliver to will not allow them to be 
there for very long or stay overnight. So, it is a very tough 
problem for our truck drivers, who are trying to do us an 
essential service. So, I think, as a whole, the Nation, as well 
as many of our metro areas, are only beginning to wake up to a 
serious problem that we have.
    Senator Fischer. I hope you will be a messenger and spread 
that across the country, and really increase awareness. So, 
thank you.
    Mr. Hooker. Happy to do so, thank you. Thank you.
    Senator Fischer. Mr. McAndrews, as you noted the 
transportation network, including ports, has experienced a lot 
of freight volatility in the last year. In your opinion, do you 
expect the current surge of freight, and related congestion, at 
port facilities to continue? And has this congestion brought to 
the forefront any specific infrastructure needs at ports, that 
could be better addressed, the issues that we are seeing with 
that increase in freight, such as, using technology?
    Mr. McAndrews. Yes. I hope you can hear me. I am going to 
get a little bit closer to the mic here. Freight is supposed to 
greatly increase Route 2045. So, the problem is only going to 
get worse.
    First mile and the last mile, both highway and rail, is a 
critical part of what we do. And we have addressed that, here 
in Pascagoula, by what we call the Rail Relocation project, and 
it was funded by all kinds of things. The first phase was 
funded by a TIGER grant, funding from the State legislature, a 
Mississippi DOT grant, and our own funds. Phase two, is funded 
by a Mississippi Department of Transportation grant, 
legislative appropriations, BP Economic Damages Fund, port 
funds, and CRISI grant. It makes for messy bookkeeping, and 
difficult implementation. And perhaps, if the process of both 
application and implementation were streamlined, it would be 
better.
    This is an important project here. It closed 17 at-grade 
crossings and rerouted the Mississippi exports mainline through 
some property that we own, off CSX's mainline, to move the 
interchange from downtown.
    Senator Fischer. OK, thank you very much. I see our time is 
out.
    Mr. McAndrews. Oh, OK.
    Senator Fischer. But if you would like to complete your 
thoughts and send it to the Committee that would be great.
    Mr. McAndrews. Will do, thank you.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Yes, thank you. I am going to make sure all of 
Director McAndrews' comments are, you know, in the record for 
us. His testimony, I find very compelling. The statement that 
he just made on closing of at-grade crossings and streamlining 
the port's efficiency, exactly what we want to understand. And 
so, we have Senator Blumenthal next.

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

    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you 
for having this hearing. Thank you to Ranking Member, as well.
    Secretary Porcari, in the course of your service as Deputy 
Secretary of Transportation, did you become familiar with the 
Gateway project?
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, I did, Senator.
    Senator Blumenthal. And you know about the need to replace 
the tunnel under the Hudson?
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Blumenthal. And that tunnel is decaying, becoming 
decrepit, and severely dangerous, correct?
    Mr. Porcari. Correct. It is 110 years old and----
    Senator Blumenthal. And what has been the reason--and I 
apologize for interrupting, but as you know, we are limited in 
time. In your view, what has been the reason for the delay in 
meeting that very, very urgent need?
    Mr. Porcari. Senator, it is the very definition of a 
project of national significance, like the Brent Spence Bridge, 
I-5 over the Columbia River, and the other examples I mentioned 
before, where the project may be in a jurisdiction, or in a 
region in this case, but 20 percent of America's GDP is 
represented by the Northeast Corridor.
    Senator Blumenthal. What is the reason for the delay? Just 
stating--and I agree that it is important.
    Mr. Porcari. The environmental impact statement was under 
review for over 27 months by the previous DOT leadership, with 
no response.
    Senator Blumenthal. The previous DOT leadership being who?
    Mr. Porcari. Secretary Chao.
    Senator Blumenthal. And is there any rational explanation 
for why there has been that 27-month delay?
    Mr. Porcari. There is not, Senator. It took us 22 months to 
put it together, which is actually very quite fast. But the 
review, I do not have an answer.
    Senator Blumenthal. I do not know whether you can respond 
in writing as to what an answer might be, but I am not going to 
press you further because I know that you did not come here to 
talk about that issue. But I do think it is absolutely 
unconscionable that it has not moved more quickly. You have 
said absolutely correctly that it is of vital national 
importance. It is the gateway to the entire eastern region for 
freight, passenger rail. If it is crippled, the entire 
Northeast Corridor is crippled, correct?
    Mr. Porcari. That is correct, Senator.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Let me ask you, later this 
week or next, I expect to write to President Biden, asking him 
to implement the Connect Northeast Corridor 2035 plan. It is a 
consensus-based plan for Northeast Corridor stakeholders to 
identify and sequence capital investments. Early estimates 
suggest implementing the plan will cost approximately $55 
billion over the next 10 years. I think that that is 
underestimating, vastly, the amount but I am using that figure 
as a place to begin. Can Congress ensure that stakeholders 
along the Northeast Corridor are empowered to identify and 
prioritize projects in a good state of repair?
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, I think Congress plays a very important 
role in that and, in particular, in the Northeast Corridor, has 
done a good job of marshalling of consensus opinion on the 
improvements needed.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you about another proposal. 
I am the lead drafter of the Intercity--the Passenger Rail 
Trust Fund Act, which would provide a steady source of 
investment in rail. Every year, Amtrak depends on discretionary 
appropriations, to meet both capital and operating needs. As a 
result, the company's ability to make long-term plans and to 
make effective use of the support taxpayers provide is 
compromised. Rail is the only source and the only major type of 
transportation without a dedicated, reliable funding stream. Do 
you think that the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund Act is 
worth support?
    Mr. Porcari. I do, Senator. I think it is critical that 
intercity passenger rail be put on an equal footing with the 
formula highway program that is out there. And I mentioned 
climate change inequities as two really important lenses that 
we should be looking through here. A trust fund would provide a 
great basis to, actually nationwide, move forward with 
passenger rail that is more equitable and more climate 
friendly.
    Senator Blumenthal. Excellent points. I really thank you 
for being here today, Mr. Secretary, thanks. Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Sullivan.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to 
thank the witnesses for being here. And I want to raise an 
issue that I think should be very bipartisan. As a matter of 
fact, Mr. Porcari, you just touched on it in Senator 
Blumenthal's questioning. It is about permitting reform, 
streamlining our permitting. You know, if we can do a $3 
trillion, we can do a $7 trillion bill on infrastructure. And 
if you cannot permit the projects to get them out in time, it 
is going to be wasted money. So, this is a priority of many 
people. I think, actually, the more local you get--mayors, 
Governors, regional transportation officials, the more they see 
it as an imperative. The building trades, all our top unions 
that build things in America, this is a top priority of theirs.
    We had a hearing here a couple years ago on airport 
infrastructure. The head of the Sea-Tac airport was talking 
about their new runway that they build at Sea-Tac. The 
Chairman, obviously, is very interested in that. Took 15 years 
to permit, 15. It was unbelievable. He actually said--I was 
asking him the question, he said, ``Senator, I believe it took 
the--I believe the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids in a 
shorter amount of time than--'' Just to get the permits.
    So, here is my question. In 2018, a lot of the top 
infrastructure permitting agencies, DOT, FERC, EPA, Interior, 
the Corps of Engineers, signed a memo of understanding that 
they agreed to complete a single environmental review. One 
point of contact. That was working well. I think it was very 
bipartisan. Unfortunately, President Biden, one of his numerous 
executive orders revoked that. So, I would like each of you to 
just talk a little bit about--briefly, because I have one more 
question--you know, if we are going to build back better, do 
you not think it makes sense to have a one Federal policy 
decision, similar to that previous MOU that has been revoked? 
And what other ways in which can we streamline permitting? We 
had a gold mine in Alaska took 20 years to permit. Twenty 
years, crazy.
    So, maybe I will start with you, Mr. Porcari, and others, 
if you could keep your views short but succinct, how important 
is streamlining permitting for the topic we are talking about?
    Mr. Porcari. Senator, it is imperative, I think. And as I 
have in my written testimony, it is certainly possible to have 
both a streamlined process and better outcomes. And there are 
multiple examples of that around the country. It is less a 
question of one Federal permitting agency, although that is--
that can be helpful--than having concurrent review upfront, not 
consecutive review, by all the resource agencies.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes.
    Mr. Porcari. By all the resource agencies.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes.
    Mr. Porcari. Which, if you look at the Tappan Zee bridge 
project, the environmental impact statement was 19 months, 
beginning to end, which is a record.
    Senator Sullivan. Which is OK. It is still not great. I 
mean, I think we have, kind of, dumbed down what we believe is 
good. But I hear your point.
    Mr. Porcari. And it was typically 5 years or more before 
that.
    Senator Sullivan. Yes.
    Mr. Porcari. But it is the interagency process part of it 
that I know is part of a build back better plan, where the 
benefits----
    Senator Sullivan. You think China takes 5 years for EISs 
when they build infrastructure?
    Mr. Porcari. China does not have that process and a lot of 
their environment reflects that.
    Senator Sullivan. Oh, I know. I agree with that. But I am 
not talking about cutting corners. I am talking about 
streamlining permitting that makes sense. Any other witnesses 
would like to weigh in on that?
    Mr. Barker. Thank you, Senator. I think it is important to 
understand that some of the principle goals of infrastructure 
investment are to promote safety and to boost economic 
development. And any process that would streamline those things 
that, whether it is a grant program, or whether it is a permit, 
are vitally important. We have a mega site south of our city, 
right now, that, you know, we are waiting for environmental 
permits that we could use to hopefully attract a----
    Senator Sullivan. Are you waiting for Federal agencies?
    Mr. Barker. That is correct. In trying to----
    Senator Sullivan. How long have you been waiting?
    Mr. Barker. Well, it has been a process. And we are trying 
to have a permit that can be flexible enough that, when we do 
have a potential, you know, manufacturer that comes down, that 
they can move faster to construction, as opposed to waiting in 
the process for an additional few years before it happens.
    Senator Sullivan. Well, let me ask another, just very 
quick, question. Senator Blumenthal talked about projects of 
national interest. I just read that we are now importing more 
Russian oil than ever. So, America is the superpower of energy, 
and yet, we have a new administration that wants to curtail the 
production of oil and gas. And what is going to happen? We are 
going to import more oil and gas from our enemies. That is just 
obvious. It is happening right now, record----
    We have a project in Alaska that would be of national 
significance, although, it is not directly related to surface 
reauthorization. President Biden himself has said, when we are 
building back, he is all in on natural gas. How important do 
you see natural gas for the development of your economy's clean 
burning, reduces greenhouse gas emissions? And should we look 
at ways to help expand the use of pipelines for natural gas? 
Additionally, big projects in Alaska, we have an L and G 
project that has been fully permitted by the Federal 
Government. Took years but it is shovel-ready, and we think the 
Nation needs it. So do our allies, and certainly, we do not 
want to be importing more Russian natural gas and oil. So, any 
thoughts on that?
    Mr. Porcari. Senator, I will be happy to express my 
personal opinion on this, which is that natural gas is, at 
best, a bridge strategy toward where we need to be, which is 
our--and I am specifically talking about our transportation 
system. It needs to be electrified as quickly as we can if we 
are going to meet the climate challenge, this existential 
challenge that we have. And anything that detracts from that 
singular goal will be to the detriment, again in my opinion, of 
the Nation.
    Senator Sullivan. The International Energy Agency thinks 
that we are going to need oil and gas for at least the next 
five, six, seven, eight decades.
    The Chair. Thank you.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Peters. And, Senator, I am 
going to ask you to chair for a few moments while I run over to 
vote. But thank you so much.

                STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN

    Senator Peters. Oh, absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair. 
Thank you for your testimony here today. We appreciate you 
coming in.
    Mr. Porcari, my first question is for you. Your written 
testimony suggests that we need to specifically recognize, and 
separately fund projects of national significance that are 
physically located in one state or region. And you use the 
example of an outdated crumbling bridge that pays and outsized 
role in supporting our Nation's auto manufacturing, carrying 3 
percent of America's GDP annually. You also highlight Great 
Lakes Cargo projects, as well, which play a similar national 
function. I am well aware of both of these projects from the 
State of Michigan, and how important projects like these are 
critical, not just for a state but also for an entire country.
    So, my question to you is, what changes would you recommend 
that we make to enable the Department of Transportation to 
identify these nationally important projects, that do not 
always compete successfully, for one reason or another, in our 
existing transportation grant programs?
    Mr. Porcari. It is an excellent question, Senator, and I 
argue that there needs to be, first, a separate funding 
category for projects of national significance. In the examples 
that you mentioned, it is arguably beyond the capability, 
certainly of local jurisdictions, but also, the states--or a 
state or states--to fund those projects by themselves.
    It would be relatively easy for U.S. DOT to show, from a 
systems prospective, the national importance of a cohort of 
projects that, frankly, we have not invested in for 
generations. And in the case of the Brent Spence Bridge, from 
Michigan to Georgia, that is a significant facility.
    So, that should be a separate funding category. It should 
be intermodal in the sense of sometimes they are bridges, 
sometimes it is passenger rail. It could be any mode of surface 
transportation. But we should think about those things in 
intermodal terms, and we should actually build for the future.
    What we have found is, with these major projects, their 
effective life is 50 or 75 years, or in the case of Gateway, 
110 years. So, we need to look far into the future, as we are 
thinking about capacity and future needs.
    Senator Peters. Great, thank you. Additionally, Mr. 
Porcari, you have noted that, as a matter of equity, promising 
private sector passenger rail proposals should be more actively 
encouraged, through the use of the Railroad Rehabilitation 
Improvement Financing loans. So, my question for you is, is 
encouragement enough, or are there legislative changes to the 
program that we should consider?
    Mr. Porcari. Well, certainly, Senator, encouragement for 
the private proposals. There may be legislative tweaks. One 
would be to put RIFF on par with the TIFIA program, where the 
credit risk premium is paid up front by a public funding pool. 
One of the real drawbacks, and one of the reasons that the RIFF 
program is underutilized, is because the credit risk premium 
has to be paid up front, maybe 10 percent of the loan cost or 
more, by the applying entity, which is unlike the TIFIA 
program.
    Senator Peters. Very good. Mr. McAndrews, your testimony 
recommends Congress utilize the Port and Intermodal Improvement 
Program to further invest in freight intelligence, 
transportation systems, and other operational improvements 
directly related to enhancing the efficiency of ports and the 
intermodal connections to ports. Do you have the available 
tools and flexibility you need from the Federal Government to 
be able to invest in AI and digital infrastructure? Or are 
changes needed to more explicitly promote the use of grant 
funding to improve efficient, along these lines?
    Mr. McAndrews. Well, I believe--Senator, thank you for the 
question. I believe that a bill such that Senator Wicker 
introduced last Congress, the Rural Infrastructure Advancement 
Act, would be very helpful to smaller ports, smaller cities, 
and giving advice for not just the project development, but in 
the application, feasibility studies, and cost-benefit 
analysis. We have been stuck on the cost-benefit analysis in 
the Port and Intermodal Investment Program for two rounds now, 
and we just cannot seem to, despite the assistance of the 
Metropolitan Planning Organization, we struggle with that.
    Senator Peters. All right, thank you. Mr. Porcari, in your 
testimony--your testimony mentions there are multiple 
successful examples of pilot programs that have maximized 
Federal infrastructure spending, to include local hiring and 
training components, creating opportunity for good paying jobs, 
which are essential to marry these two things together, with 
our transportation projects. What are some of the takeaways 
from these pilot programs to inform how we might better utilize 
jobs and training potential associated with these projects?
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator, there is a U.S. Employment Plan 
that has been successfully used in several procurements. 
Chicago Amtrak has used it, Los Angeles, and others. And one of 
the takeaways from it is, on these large, complex projects, 
people can climb the skills scale from flagger to--I met a 
Chief Safety Officer that started, actually, as a flagger on 
that same project. So, the larger point, I think, is to turn 
infrastructure into a twofer or a threefer, by maximizing the 
local employment and skills training, and the threefer part of 
it is U.S. manufacturing.
    Senator Peters. Great, thank you. Thank you for your 
answers. I now recognize Senator Lummis. Senator Lummis, you 
are recognized for your questions.

               STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Lummis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My first 
question is for John Porcari, and thank you, witnesses, for 
participating today.
    Mr. Porcari, I was concerned to learn about the FCC's 
decision to share the 5.9-gigahertz radio frequency band with 
other non-transportation related users. Auto manufacturers and 
State DOTs were relying on this spectrum, to deploy innovative, 
and potentially life-saving technology, like vehicle to 
everything communications. Does this decision by the FCC 
concern you, as well? And do you think the decision could lead 
to interference on the spectrum and then, slow down the 
deployment of these new technologies?
    Mr. Porcari. Senator Lummis, it is an excellent question. I 
do believe the FCC's decision on 5.9 can really hurt. This is 
an important safety improvement. It is on where you are asking 
the industry ecosystem to invest billions of dollars in a, as 
you point out, vehicle to everything, including pedestrians. 
They are not going to do that without consistent and 
predictable support on the frequency side. The--I use the FAA 
analogy for air safety. The FCC should have to prove that it is 
safe and that there will be no signal interference from shared 
use of the 5.9 gigahertz frequency. As opposed to permitting 
mixed use of it for which it was specifically reserved for 
safety technology that, not coincidentally, is an opportunity 
for U.S. leadership.
    Senator Lummis. Well, thank you for that response, and I 
appreciate your thoughts about how to address it. I have been 
struggling with that. My ideas have been far more complicated 
than what you just raised, so thanks for providing that.
    For Toby Barker, I was pleased to see you mention the 
possible OMB change to their definition of a metropolitan 
statistical area. I joined a letter by my colleague, John 
Thune, because like Hattiesburg, Casper and Cheyenne, Wyoming 
would have been downgraded, as well. Is it your understanding 
that this change would adversely impact these cities, when it 
comes to Federal funding opportunities? And how concerned are 
you about this change?
    Mr. Barker. Thank you for that question, Senator. We are 
very concerned because this is so widespread. One hundred and 
forty-four cities, and I think that, out of the folks on this 
committee, every member, except for Senator Blumenthal and 
Senator Hickenlooper, will have one metro area affected by 
this. And between all the Committee members here, 91 cities 
will no longer be considered metropolitan statistical areas, 
out of the state's represented here. So, we are very concerned 
and--because you do not know the real implications, because 
these programs have existed for quite some time, and if they 
are tied to being a metropolitan statistical area, then that is 
a problem.
    The other thing that concerns us is that, I referenced 
Hattiesburg last year was listed as #2 out of the almost 400 
metro areas, in terms of job growth as far as job growth during 
the pandemic. If our metro area status was stripped, and we are 
now a more rural micro-politan status, we would not be 
mentioned in that job growth analysis. And site selection 
consultants and companies considering new and expanded 
facilities, you know, they want to locate in metro areas. And 
so, taking 144 of those off the table with this rule change, 
would be a hamper to recruitment and especially when it comes 
to trying to get talent and retain jobs, as well.
    Senator Lummis. Well, thank you for that response, too. 
That is a massive concern for my state and our communities of 
Cheyenne and Casper, our two biggest communities, by the way.
    Finally, for Mark McAndrews, do you believe that the Rural 
Project Initiative will prove to be a valuable resource to more 
rural, multimodal facilities, like the port you operate?
    Mr. McAndrews. Yes, ma'am. We can use all the technical and 
expert advice that we can get our hands on. Our projects are 
complicated, multimodal projects. And with multiple funding 
sources, we would greatly appreciate any assistance that we can 
get.
    Senator Lummis. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding 
the hearing and I want to thank all three of the witnesses who 
responded to my questions. It is really an important panel 
discussion. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Lummis. Senator 
Young.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Well, I thank the Chairman for holding this 
hearing and I want to thank all of the witnesses for your 
appearance today before the Committee. My home state of Indiana 
is home to nearly 20,000 bridges, more than 250 high-hazard 
dams, 350 miles of inland waterways, approximately 4,500 miles 
of rail, five major water ports, over 100 public access 
airports, 355 miles of levees, and over 75,000 miles of road. 
So, as the crossroads of America, and then most manufacturing 
intensive state in the country, Indiana, of course, relies 
heavily on transportation infrastructure.
    The State of Indiana and our localities leverage every 
Federal dollar to the greatest extent possible. And the Hoosier 
State's transportation infrastructure consistently ranks as one 
of the best in the country.
    As we discuss, debate, and draft the Long-Term Surface 
Transportation Reauthorization Bill, it is essential that we 
focus on our core needs revolving around our Nation's 
infrastructure. Hoosiers know best that successful 
infrastructure projects are a product of timely and efficient 
cost and environmental assessments, strict but fair 
accountability standards throughout the process, and the use of 
incentives, to stretch every dollar as far as it can go. It is 
with these lessons that I believe we must fine tune existing 
programs where necessary and appropriate, eliminate those found 
to be ineffective, and continue to support our successful 
initiatives, all while embracing creative solutions and 
innovations to repair and upgrade our Nation's infrastructure.
    I ask each of our panelists, could you discuss your 
thoughts on which transportation infrastructure program should 
be fine-tuned, maintained, or eliminated? Very general 
question, if you would just go down the line, please.
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator Young, I will be happy to start. 
In the surface transportation program, as you point out, given 
the need for bridge rehabilitation and road rehabilitation, 
that is a program that can be plussed up, knowing that we can 
impact the state of good repair and have better state of good 
repair. On the transit programs, there is--because it is 
essentially a race to the bottom, with a single pot of money 
for new starts and core capacity projects, in particular that 
is a program that I believe we really need to increase the 
funding of, as well as the technical assistance that is out 
there.
    The local project decisions are made at the local level 
properly. And that mix of projects should be flexible, meeting 
local needs. And I think you see that by and large, in the 
program, but anything we can do to increase that flexibility 
for the local decisionmaking, should be encouraged.
    Senator Young. Thank you, sir. Should any programs be 
eliminated, as a followup?
    Mr. Porcari. I do not know of any programs that should be 
eliminated, Senator. There are some where maybe broadened 
eligibility or streamlined process would be useful.
    Senator Young. Thank you. Our next witness, please.
    Mr. Barker. I would just say, from a mayor's perspective, 
any program that helps us solve a problem--and we have to be 
creative in how we use these, because they are--when we had an 
issue--we first realized we really needed to do something 
about--the blocked grade crossings. We first went the BUILD 
route and that was not successful the first 2 years. And so, we 
pivoted to hit CRISI, and we were able to use that for the 
first one, and then, go back to BUILD for the second one. So, I 
think the ease and flexibility is important, and really, an 
overall investment that cities, counties, and NPOs can access, 
is important.
    Senator Young. I hear that time and again. More 
flexibility, streamlining existing programs so that the 
application process is easier, and implementation is easier. 
What about elimination? Are there any programs that you just 
found to be completely ineffectual or so burdensome that you 
think they merit elimination all together?
    Mr. Barker. Senator, I have not. But again, I approach it 
from a municipal, trying to solve a problem, standpoint.
    Senator Young. Sure.
    Mr. Barker. And I would say, broadening eligibility is the 
key thing. And then, increasing overall investment, because we 
do spend multiple years accessing one grant, and it does take 
the burden of solving a long-standing transportation challenge 
very difficult.
    Senator Young. Thank you, sir.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Tester.

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

    Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate 
the opportunity to visit with you guys. I just want to add to 
the record a little bit. A previous Senator talked about 
importation of Russian oil. The stats that he gave came from 
the Trump Administration. I just want to make that clear, as 
far as importing of Russian oil.
    Mr. Porcari, I want to talk to you a little bit. In your 
testimony, you mentioned the importance of maintaining a 
national transportation system. And I agree, rural 
transportation projects are--they provide critical system wide 
benefits. And I believe it is critically important we maintain 
our current system of formula funding. What is your opinion on 
that, when it comes to real investments being vital to our 
national network and the funding formula, overall?
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, it is a great question, Senator. I think 
the short answer is that continued rural investment is 
essential for us as a Nation. And formula funding is one way to 
do that, but from the founding days of the republic, our 
ability to export, for example, agricultural products, has been 
foundational to our economic success. In my opinion, we under 
invest of some of our national resources, like the inland 
waterways and Great Lakes, that can certainly be stronger on 
the export side for our rural economies.
    In addition, I will say we need, also, to think about 
transportation writ large, when we are talking about the use of 
public right of way, in particular. Bringing broadband to every 
corner of America is something that better use of our right of 
way resources can help with, as well.
    Senator Tester. I could not agree with you more on all of 
the above. And I would tell you that those inland waterways 
that you are talking about, even though it does not affect my 
state of Montana by having waterways, it affects our market 
because it would reduce the cost of transportation, which can 
make a big difference in the bottom-line of folks that are 
family farmers on the ground.
    Another important thing is avoiding regulations that are 
one-size-fits-all kind of regulations, that make perfect sense 
in urban areas but rural areas, it really is really tough to 
sell, quite frankly, and they do not make a lot of sense. Let 
me give an example. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
has a rule in the books that does not take into account the 
challenges faced by livestock farmers. And they are different, 
by the way. They do not understand that, you know, when you are 
hauling a live animal, often times you just cannot pull over 
anywhere. And by the way, I might add on a previous thing we 
were talking about, municipalities and trucking--parking spots 
in municipalities. You are absolutely right. We need more of 
those. But you also have to be aware that--I fell asleep one 
night at a truck stop, and a load of hogs came by me in the 
wintertime and parked beside me and about took me out of the 
vehicle. That could be a problem in municipalities, okay. But 
the truth is, we do need them.
    I want to talk about these regulations, though. And, Mr. 
Porcari, once again, from your experience on DOT, what is the 
best way to ensure that these regulations that impact rural 
America, in a whole different way, in my opinion, are taking 
into consideration, while the department formulates rules, or 
Congress develops transportation policy?
    Mr. Porcari. Senator, all of those rules and regulations 
really should start from a premise of safety and they, by and 
large, do. On things like truck size and weight, hours of 
service requirements, there should be a science and evidence-
based basis for proposed regulations and rules. There has also 
been a lot of give and take and discussion about particular 
needs, for example, for rural economies during harvest season 
and other times of the year. The balance is, again, safety and 
wear and tear on bridges and highways, as opposed to the short-
term needs. There is a balance there and I think what you find 
in practical terms is, when you use a science and evidence-
based approach, starting from a safety perspective, you end 
up--and maybe not everyone is happy, but you end up in both a 
defensible and a good place.
    Senator Tester. Man, oh, man, I will tell you what. You 
take the words right out of my mouth. I think it is really 
critically important that we do use--we keep safety in mind, 
and we use science. It is really important.
    Mr. Barker, I want to turn to you very, very quickly, and I 
want to thank you for your testimony. I am glad that you have 
had concerns with the OMB's proposal to increase the size of 
metropolitan statistical areas. I will just ask you point 
blank. Should OMB move forward with this? Are you worried about 
how this is going to affect your city, and you city's ability 
to invest infrastructure?
    Mr. Barker. Absolutely, and beyond infrastructure, be able 
to recruit companies and promote economic development. I think 
all of those are concerns. They are very real.
    Senator Tester. Yes, well, we need to shut this rule down. 
I am just telling you. It just totals out the State of Montana. 
Thank you all very much.
    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Thune.

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

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would echo 
what my colleague from Montana said on MSAs. That rule needs to 
be shut down. I find that very concerning and recently led a 
letter with nine other Senate/House colleagues, encouraging OMB 
to reject that recommendation to increase the population 
required for communities to qualify for MSA.
    I want to thank all the witnesses that are here today for 
your input as we begin working toward a reauthorization of 
surface transportation programs.
    Transportation infrastructure investments has always been 
an area for bipartisan cooperation, as evidenced by the passage 
of the FAST Act in 2015, which enjoyed wide popularity in 
Congress and among states, and by the bipartisan Highway Bill 
reported out of the EPW Committee last Congress. We simply 
cannot tackle a reauthorizing of these programs without working 
together in a bipartisan manner.
    Recognizing our Nation's diverse and highly interconnected 
transportation system, from my perspective, is crucial that 
transportation policy and investment continue to recognize the 
importance of rural areas, where the vast majority of 
agricultural and industrial commodities originate. I have said 
it before, and I will say it again. Those investments benefit 
the entire country, not just rural areas, by keeping the 
national transportation system fluid and interconnected. And 
while they may not be located in major cities or experience 
high traffic volumes, rural freight corridors are a crucial 
component of the Nation's transportation system, ensuring that 
goods are transported around the Nation and the world safely 
and efficiently.
    So, thanks again to all the witnesses for being here today. 
I look forward to discussion. I want to start with Mr. Porcari 
and talk about automated vehicles, which I think have the 
potential to dramatically reduce highway fatalities, relieve 
congestion, and provide a safe and accessible transportation 
option for our seniors and persons with disabilities. I have a 
bill with Senator Peters, that we have worked on over the past 
several years, to enact automated vehicles legislation, which I 
believe, is the key to ensuring that AVs are tested and 
deployed under a safe and consistent regulatory framework. And 
I remain committed to working with him to advance this 
critical, emerging technology.
    Mr. Porcari, you mention in your testimony the importance 
of encouraging innovation in transportation policy and 
investment. Do you see AVs and other innovative transportation 
technologies as part of the solution?
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator Thune, it is an integral part of 
the solution. And if we are to have national leadership on 
this, we need to move forward quickly. There are great 
opportunities throughout the country, including in our rural 
areas, for things like truck only lanes and platooning, that 
would greatly help on the freight movement side.
    Senator Thune. So, the National Council on Disability has 
recognized the potential of AVs to greatly improve the lives of 
persons with disabilities and together with several disability 
organizations, provided helpful input on passed drafts of AV 
legislation. Do you believe AVs will be a critical part of a 
more equitable and accessible transportation system?
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, I do, Senator. I think they are an 
integral element of a more equitable and safer transportation 
system.
    Senator Thune. Mr. Barker, in 2019 DOT established the 
Routes Initiative, meant to address important issues with rural 
access to discretionary grant programs like INFRA and BUILD. 
Additional outreach from the department can really make a 
difference for rural transportation agencies with limited 
resources to allocate for the application process. Mr. Barker, 
you discussed the need for additional planning and technical 
assistance to local governments applying for discretionary 
grant programs. Do you believe these programs should be 
continued under the current administration?
    Mr. Barker. I think it is as vital that local communities, 
particularly those that are rural, that have limited means, to 
have access to some sort of planning or technical assistance. 
Simply because, you know, a lot of communities may not have the 
expertise in house to try and figure out what the solution is 
to a long-standing transportation problem. And so, having 
resources that are there, so they can go and get the solution, 
will actually assist them in trying to find that solution. And 
then, also, the technical assistance from DOT is incredibly 
important to keep projects--getting the feedback is important, 
not only for the rural community to better their application, 
but also to DOT to understand what the unique challenges are, 
in communities around the country.
    Senator Thune. And do you have any other recommendations to 
improve Federal planning assistance to small and mid-size 
communities?
    Mr. Barker. I think there is a need for planning dollars, 
when going after things like BUILD and INFRA, because they are 
big projects. And having some set aside there, that you can go 
and access the engineering expertise or the cost-benefit 
analysis, would help smaller communities find their way into 
the game.
    Senator Thune. OK. How am I doing time wise?
    The Chair. Eleven second.
    Senator Thune. OK, all right. All right, well I have 
another rural question, but I will yield back, Madam Chair, 
since my time has expired. Thank you.
    The Chair. Thank you.
    Senator Thune. Thank you to all the witnesses.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Thune. Senator Rosen.

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

    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Cantwell and thank you to 
the witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate it.
    I want to talk a little bit about our national strategy on 
travel and tourism infrastructure. Tourism, of course, 
essential to Nevada's economy, as well as the entire Nation. It 
is part--it is a comprehensive infrastructure plan that 
incorporates intermodal transportation to facilitate travel and 
tourism mobility.
    So, the National Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism 
Infrastructure drafted its 2020 report, during a healthy and 
robust economy, before the public health crisis of COVID-19 
happened. And of course, Nevada's tourism grinded to a 
screeching halt. It cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. Over 
a year later, the national strategy on travel and tourism is 
needed now more than ever to bring our industry back to pre-
pandemic strength. And it means identifying strategic 
infrastructure investments that will enable our tourism economy 
to thrive in the future. As Chair of the Subcommittee on 
Tourism, Trade, and Export Promotion, I look forward to working 
with the administration and the Committee and all of the 
witnesses to make that happen.
    And so, of course, we have to have a broad view of 
infrastructure, including a new Interstate 11, connecting 
Phoenix to Las Vegas to Reno. That is going to help our 
tourism, of course, in three of our major metropolitan areas. 
So, Mr. Porcari, as former Deputy Secretary of Transportation, 
can you talk about the importance of national strategy on 
travel and tourism, how surface transportation infrastructure 
investments can be part of that, especially as we recover from 
this downturn, as a result of the pandemic?
    Mr. Porcari. It is a great question, Senator Rosen. 
Clearly, a national strategy, as I have referred to before, 
using a systems approach to how we actually build and maintain 
infrastructure, would be very helpful. Just in the Nevada 
example of travel and tourism, making sure that we are 
multimodal that--you mentioned Interstate 11, certainly there 
is also a private sector passenger rail proposal that would 
directly serve the tourism and hospitality industry, and air 
service. And all of those are key elements of the strategy that 
ultimately work together to promote travel and tourism. The 
beauty of the system is that we can do that. It cuts across 
committees of jurisdiction and, certainly, funding lines. But a 
longer integrated strategy would benefit everyone.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit more, 
building upon that, about future infrastructure, technology 
initiatives. You know, in Nevada, we have our Las Vegas 
Convention Center and, of course, we have a highly innovated 
project going on, called our Convention Center Loop. It is a 
revolutionary, underground transportation system that is going 
to serve the entire 200-acre Las Vegas Convention Center 
campus. It will allow convention attendees to be transported 
across campus in over a minute, free of charge, in all electric 
Tesla vehicles.
    And so, I just have a short time left, but Mr. Porcari, 
this is new and innovative work. How can Congress bring 
transportation innovations to the forefront, to help us start 
moving again, like the kinds of things we are doing at our Las 
Vegas Convention Center?
    Mr. Porcari. The Convention Center Loop project is a great 
example of one that does not fit neatly into any of the 
existing funding categories yet is an incredibly important 
pilot project that could be replicated, to some extent, 
nationally. So, the kind of flexibility in Federal funding for 
innovation--now, I mentioned before that project decisions are 
made at the local level. Those individual decisions should be 
supported through pilot projects, some of which are fairly 
high-risk reward, to prove the technology and show that it can 
part of an integrated transportation system.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to move to another topic, 
predictive analytics and transportation. We know how much data 
that we collect. We know the data tells a story. And our 
Regional Transportation Commission has been on the forefront of 
using predictive analytics to improve highway safety and 
efficiency. We can anticipate where congestion spots are and we 
can modify transportation patters, perhaps in advance. And so, 
Mr. Porcari, can you speak to how predictive analytics, how we 
can use that, how it is supported, how this technology can help 
us reduce crashes, increase railway capacity, and reduce 
emissions for fuel and waste, all at the same time?
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator, Nevada has been very aggressive 
and a leader in predictive analytics. And the explosion of 
available technology for analytics is incredible. Whether it is 
traffic congestion, spot safety issues, weather, or the 
vehicles themselves, and where the analytics can actually 
support better decisionmaking on routing, just in time 
delivery, and then like. What we have not done, as a country, 
is maximized our opportunity with predictive analytics.
    As you know, there is a research program at DOT, where some 
of this, actually, I think in terms of pilot projects, would be 
a very useful expenditure of funds to build national 
leadership, on a more holistic, predictive analytics system.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Rosen. Thank you 
so much. So, gentlemen, we are going to take a 15-minute 
recess. I think we are done, but we are not sure. So, we are 
going to treat this as a last call to members, if they want to 
come back at that 15 minute and ask questions. If we have some 
takers we will continue. If not, we will close out the hearing. 
But if you could give us that time, we will recess for 15 
minutes. Thank you.
    [Recess 12:01 p.m.]
    [End Recess 12:17 p.m.]
    The Chair. The Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
Committee will come back into order. Again, thank our witnesses 
for waiting. I am not sure if we have other members who want to 
ask a question. But I wanted to follow up on the discussion 
from earlier about the funding of megaprojects and INFRA and 
these port competitiveness issues. And wanted to ask the 
witnesses if, on this megaproject funding concept: I am 
assuming states have had the same dilemmas, right? States have 
had projects that have been huge, significant impacts to their 
State budget. In our state, we used to call the Cat-C projects, 
Category C. And, at times, you have to take action to eliminate 
your backlog. Literally, eliminate and get those projects done, 
otherwise they dwarf the whole transportation funding.
    So, what have we seen in innovative ways to deal with this 
same dilemma? Mr. Porcari?
    Mr. Porcari. Madam Chair, one way is states are making 
better use of the loan funds that are out there. And those are 
limited tools, but for--with TIFIA and RIFF, in particular, you 
can use them as a project finance tool. One of the realities of 
the big projects is, we do not fund projects anymore, and we 
finance them. And so, you need to structure a finance program 
for them.
    Another one is, in select cases, for the right project 
profile, public/private partnerships can be very useful. On a 
personal level, I did one with our container terminal at the 
Port of Baltimore. There are a number of examples around the 
country, on the aviation side, for example, where public/
private partnerships have worked well. They can also work well 
with freight and cargo projects, again, in particular at ports.
    The Chair. And so, what would--what are you--tell me more 
on that. Would you--are you saying that that is a way for us to 
get more mileage now?
    Mr. Porcari. Yes, it is a way to get more mileage. A couple 
of things. As you know, the TIFIA and RIFF programs are both 
35-year loans. Maybe a more appropriate way to think about it 
is, if you are building a 75- or 85-year facility, maybe the 
loan term should be 75 percent of the lifespan of that 
facility. So, it would go beyond 35 years, in that example. 
That might be--that would significantly help jurisdictions that 
use those loan programs. Again, where appropriate. You cannot 
do that if it is a 20-year facility.
    The Chair. Well, I mean, a lot of states have 
transportation benefit districts and other things that they 
have used to make regional improvements make sense for the 
region. Get buy-in from individuals in that community. So, how 
would you suggest we look at the megaprojects this way? Like, 
what percentage of the megaprojects do you think might benefit 
from this, or broadening the INFRA functionality?
    Mr. Porcari. Both of them, broadening the INFRA 
functionality--and if you establish a category of nationally 
significant projects, and separately fund it, having the loan 
programs more flexible, as I described, would be an additional 
way to help move those projects forward. You have a Federal 
funding component, but even financing the local share of it, 
whether it is 50 percent or whatever, with a more flexible loan 
program, would be very helpful.
    The other short-term finance aide might be, the 
jurisdictions that have existing TIFIA and RIFF loans, 
refinancing those at today's interest rates can open headroom 
in a capital program. So, if they have a significant TIFIA 
portfolio, a refi of those TIFIA loans can help them.
    The Chair. Anybody else on this point?
    [No response.]
    The Chair. Mayor or--yes.
    Mr. Barker. I will just say that the problem that faces all 
cities is, we have become a maintenance only type setup. You 
know, whether it is roads or bridges or water and sewer, and 
all of the external pressures that you put on municipalities 
and counties to take care of those things. There is very little 
left over to try to tackle big issues. And so, anything that is 
out there, whether it is INFRA or BUILD or CRISI, helps.
    I think that the local governments should have skin in the 
game. For us, we took some--we had some--we are paying off some 
debt, and so, we use that existing debt service millage, and we 
max that out, under the current millage rates, to take out more 
that would match our CRISI and BUILD grants. If we had an 
opportunity to go after an INFRA grant, the 40 percent non-
INFRA funding match is a challenge for smaller communities. And 
you really have to, kind of, either find a creative way to fill 
that gap, or collaborate with the State DOT to try to put an 
application in.
    But again, it is a--you are dealing with areas that have 
become more focused on maintenance, and we can go after, maybe, 
one or two long-standing challenges, or game changing projects 
that could induce more growth. But there may be a dozen 
opportunities that are out there that you just will not have 
the resources to do.
    The Chair. And the project you mentioned earlier, what was 
the non-INFRA funding? The 40 percent, where did that come 
from?
    Mr. Barker. That was the challenge for us with INFRA is 
trying to come up with that 40 percent non-Federal----
    The Chair. But the project you mentioned earlier that, 
like, on the third try actually did get INFRA funding. So, 
where did you come up with that? That was the city, or----
    Mr. Barker. That was the--that was our BUILD and CRISI 
grants on the third try. And we used--we took out bonds 
ourselves to fill that funding gap, because we were paying off 
some other debt and we wanted to target our municipal borrowing 
toward long-term projects, as opposed to just paving streets. 
And so, that is what we used as our match for both CRISI and 
BUILD.
    The Chair. So, Mr. Porcari, what about that example? What 
would you do there?
    Mr. Porcari. In that specific example, I think looking at 
capacity to come up with the local share makes a difference. 
And there may be jurisdictions that may be based out of size, 
for example, where the local match might, appropriately be, 
lower or different than it would be for other projects.
    The Chair. But bonding capacity?
    Mr. Porcari. Bonding capacity--the Build America bonds 
program, I thought, was very successful as an additional 
funding source. You heard from you fellow Senators today that 
there is a lot of interest in that and having opportunities on 
both non-taxable and taxable debt financing at the local level 
would be very helpful.
    The Chair. Well, to me this is--we know what the issue is. 
We have a ton of infrastructure investment we need to make. So 
then, the question becomes, what are the tools that we can give 
ourselves, that can drive down the cost of making that 
investment. And seems to me, that some additions or 
restructuring of some of these programs might give us the 
ability to finance more projects in a more timely fashion and 
drive down the overall cost. Is that--am I getting this right?
    Mr. Porcari. I believe that is right. And as I mentioned 
before, in general terms, the larger the project, the more 
likely it is to be financed, as opposed to funded on a cashflow 
basis. So, it becomes more and more important for those 
nationally and regionally significant projects.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I do not know if we 
have any other members. It looks like we have no takers, at 
this moment. But we will leave the record open for a period of 
time here. Any Senators who want to submit questions for the 
record have 2 weeks to do so. And we ask, obviously, people to 
get back to us on those questions.
    So, again, thank you to all the panelists for joining us, 
both here and virtually. A lot of illuminating information for 
the next steps of infrastructure investment.
    With that, we are adjourned.
    Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                      Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
                                                     March 23, 2021

Hon. Maria Cantwell, Chair,
Hon. Roger Wicker, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker:

    Thank you for holding tomorrow's hearing, ``Driving the Road to 
Recovery: Rebuilding America's Transportation Infrastructure.'' 
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) urges you to 
prioritize the safety of all road users as you consider policies and 
legislation investing in infrastructure. We respectfully request this 
letter be included in the hearing record.
    Every major surface transportation bill passed by Congress over the 
last three decades has included significant public safety improvements 
such as airbags,\1\ electronic stability control\2\ and safety belts on 
motorcoaches.\3\ These advances have garnered bipartisan support and 
saved thousands of lives. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) estimated that between 1960 and 2012, over 
600,000 lives have been saved by motor vehicle safety technologies.\4\ 
The recent crash involving Tiger Woods is a prime example of the 
lifesaving benefits of regulations. Mr. Woods' life was saved, at least 
in part, by a seat belt, air bags and roof crush performance standards, 
all of which are required as standard equipment in cars. As Auto Week 
succinctly explained, ``The details of Tiger Woods' crash are still 
being sorted out by investigators, but in general, the world's greatest 
golfer can thank more than 50 years of government-mandated safety 
advances that he is alive.'' \5\ Technologies, such as advanced driver 
assistance systems (ADAS) and impaired driving prevention systems, if 
similarly required, could be saving lives now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).
    \2\ Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005).
    \3\ Pub. L. 112-141 (Jan. 3, 2012).
    \4\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069 
(NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5 
endnote 1.
    \5\ Mark Vaughn, Tiger Woods Owes His Life to Decades of Government 
Safety Standards, Auto Week (Feb 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Safety advances are urgently needed to address the persistently 
high and costly crash death and injury toll. Every year on average, 
over 36,000 people are killed and 2.74 million more are injured in 
motor vehicle crashes. Preliminary estimates from NHTSA indicate that 
the fatality rate and total for the first nine months of 2020 increased 
over the same time period in 2019. This is in line with troubling 
trends reported across the country, and confirmed by NHTSA, of drivers 
engaged in riskier driving behaviors including speeding, impairment, 
and lack of seat belt use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Media and 
analytics reports note distraction increased as well. Needless to say, 
the concurrent decline in vehicle miles traveled did not result in 
anticipated safer conditions on our roads.
    In addition, the number of pedestrian and bicyclist deaths remain 
at or near the highest levels in three decades, with 6,205 and 846 
fatalities respectively. Further, in 2018 and 2019, over 100 children 
were killed due to heatstroke as a result of being left unattended in a 
vehicle or gaining access independently into an unoccupied vehicle 
according to NHTSA. In 2019, more than 5,000 people were killed in 
crashes involving a large truck. Since 2009, the number of fatalities 
in large truck crashes has increased by 48 percent.\6\ An additional 
159,000 people were injured in crashes involving a large truck, and the 
number of large truck occupants injured increased by 18 percent. In 
fatal crashes involving a truck and a passenger vehicle, 96 percent of 
the fatalities were passenger vehicle occupants, according to the 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The cost to society from 
crashes involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) was estimated to be 
$143 billion in 2018, the latest year for which data is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Note, the 48 percent figure represents the overall change in 
the number of fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to 
2019. However, between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data 
collection at U.S. DOT that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to 
2015 the number of fatalities in truck involved crashes increased by 21 
percent and between 2016 to 2019, it increased by 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The overall annual cost crashes impose on society exceeds $800 
billion, including $242 billion in direct economic costs (NHTSA), based 
on 2010 data. When adjusted only for inflation, comprehensive crash 
costs now near one trillion dollars, with direct economic costs 
amounting to $292 billion. This is equivalent to an $885 ``crash tax'' 
on every American. Additionally, crashes cost employers $47.4 billion 
in direct crash-related expenses annually, based on 2013 data from the 
Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS). Similarly adjusted, the 
cost to employers is now approximately $54 billion annually. Ending the 
physical, emotional and economic toll of motor vehicle crashes is 
achievable. As the Committee begins consideration of an infrastructure 
package/surface transportation reauthorization, we urge you to address 
these serious safety challenges with the proven ``vaccines'' detailed 
below.
    Require and expand the use of proven technologies which are 
demonstrated by data, research and experience to advance safer 
roadways, safer drivers and safer vehicles.\7\ Advanced vehicle safety 
technologies, also known as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), 
prevent and lessen the severity of crashes. Research performed by IIHS 
has clearly demonstrated the benefits of these technologies. For 
example, IIHS determined that automatic emergency braking (AEB) can 
decrease front-to-rear crashes with injuries by 56 percent. The 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included increasing 
implementation of collision avoidance technologies in its Most Wanted 
List of Transportation Safety Improvements since 2016. These 
technologies should be required in all new vehicles, subject to a 
minimum performance standard which sets a floor, not a ceiling, from 
which manufacturers can innovate. Congress should also direct NHTSA to 
update the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to include ADAS in vehicle 
ratings. The NTSB has recommended enhancing NCAP to include these 
safety improvements and Euro NCAP already evaluates a number of these 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Past legislation which promotes these issues and should be 
advanced includes: Moving Forward Act (116th Congress, H.R. 2); 
Protecting Roadside First Responders Act (116th Congress, S. 2700/H.R. 
4871); 21st Century Smart Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6284); 
Reducing Impaired Driving for Everyone (RIDE) Act (116th Congress, S. 
2604); HALT Drunk Driving Act (116th Congress, 4354); Safe Roads Act 
(116th Congress, H.R. 3773); Hot Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 3593); 
School Bus Safety Act (116th Congress, S. 2278/H.R. 3959); Stay Aware 
for Everyone Act (116th Congress, S. 4123); and, Five-Stars for Safe 
Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6256), among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, access to these lifesaving crash avoidance 
technologies currently is not equitable. They are often sold as part of 
an additional, expensive trim package coupled with other non-safety 
features, or included as standard equipment in high end models or 
vehicles, which are unaffordable to many families. A report from 
Consumer Reports found an astounding upcharge of more than $16,000 for 
AEB with pedestrian detection in the second most popular vehicle sold 
in the U.S. Requiring vehicle safety technology as standard equipment 
will reduce its base cost due to economies of scale, make safety 
equitable and expedite the benefits to all road users from broad market 
saturation.
    Many individuals rely on walking or biking for economic reasons, 
rather than choice, to reach work or school. The inability to afford a 
car or the decision to walk or bike should not come with an elevated 
risk for injury or death. Mandating safety equipment in new vehicles 
would ensure the protection of vulnerable road users. Moreover, efforts 
to address climate change including domestic production of electric 
vehicles (EVs), which requires automakers to reconfigure their 
production lines, can efficiently and economically coincide with 
integrating ADAS technologies.
    Requiring that autonomous vehicles (AVs) meet minimum standards and 
that operations are subject to adequate oversight throughout 
development and deployment will save lives as well as costs for both 
the consumer and the manufacturer. Sweeping promises have been made 
about AVs bringing meaningful and lasting reductions in motor vehicle 
crashes and resulting deaths and injuries, traffic congestion and 
vehicle emissions. Additionally, claims have been made that AVs will 
expand mobility and accessibility, improve efficiency, and create more 
equitable transportation options and opportunities. However, these 
potentials remain far from a near-term certainty or reality. Without 
commonsense safeguards to ensure these desirable outcomes, the 
potentials are imperiled at best and could be doomed at worst. The 
absence of protections could result in adverse impacts including safety 
risks for all people and vehicles on and around the roads, job 
displacement, degradation of current mobility options, infrastructure 
and environmental problems, marginalization of certain users, and 
others.
    The public backs a prudent and thoughtful approach to AVs. 
According to a 2020 poll commissioned by Advocates, 71 percent of 
respondents support government-mandated minimum safety requirements for 
new driverless car technologies and 68 percent reported that they would 
be less concerned about driverless cars if they knew that companies had 
to meet minimum safety requirements before selling them to the 
public.\8\ Moreover, on the path to driverless cars, ADAS can prevent 
or lessen the exorbitant death and injury toll now while laying the 
foundation for AVs in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Engine Insights CARAVAN 
Survey: Public Concern about Driverless Cars is Strong, and the Support 
for Performance Requirements is Clear, January 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In November 2020, Advocates led a group of 60 diverse organizations 
to release the ``AV Tenets'' which must be the foundation for any AV 
policy that is considered.\9\ The core principles of the AV Tenets are: 
(1) prioritize safety for all road users; (2) guarantee accessibility 
and equity; (3) preserve consumer and worker rights; and, (4) ensure 
sustainable transportation and retain local control. During this 
transformational time in surface transportation history, we should pay 
heed to Benjamin Franklin's infamous quote from 1736, ``An ounce of 
prevention is worth a pound of cure.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ The complete AV tenets are attached to this letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As this Committee moves forward with an infrastructure package/
surface transportation reauthorization bill, a strong safety title must 
be at its core and provisions which would further degrade 
infrastructure and safety must be rejected. The variations in road use 
during the pandemic highlighted vulnerabilities inflicting our Nation's 
roads. Now is the time to advance effective solutions to save lives.
    Thank you again for holding this essential hearing and for your 
consideration of these issues. We look forward to working with you to 
improve safety on our Nation's roadways.
            Sincerely,
                                           Catherine Chase,
                                                         President.
cc: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation
                                 ______
                                 
                   Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ These tenets are limited to vehicles with a gross vehicle 
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less unless otherwise noted; 
however, it is imperative that automated delivery vehicles (including 
those used on sidewalks and other non-roadways) and commercial motor 
vehicles be subject to comprehensive regulations, including rules 
regarding the presence of a licensed, qualified driver behind the 
wheel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               March 2021
                               
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Prioritizing Safety of All Road Users
    Safety Rulemakings: All levels of automated vehicles\2\ must be 
subject to comprehensive and strong Federal standards ensuring they are 
safe and save lives. While the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 
has the authority to issue motor vehicle safety standards for all 
levels of automated vehicles, for the last four years, it has abrogated 
this responsibility by focusing its efforts on inadequate voluntary 
initiatives. When Congress considers legislation on AVs, it is 
imperative that the protection of all road users is the guiding 
principle and that legislation requires the DOT to commence rulemakings 
on safety standards and issue final rules by a prompt date certain with 
a reasonable compliance date. The rulemakings must address known and 
foreseeable safety issues, many of which have been identified by the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other research 
institutions, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Partially automated vehicles (SAE International Level 2) and 
conditional/highly automated vehicles (SAE International Levels 3, 4, 
5).

   Revising Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Any actions 
        by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, 
        Agency) to revise or repeal existing Federal Motor Vehicle 
        Safety Standards (FMVSS) in order to facilitate the 
        introduction of AVs must be preceded by and conducted in a 
        public rulemaking process and cannot be undertaken by internal 
        Agency actions. Any revision must meet the safety need provided 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        by current standards.

   Collision Avoidance Systems: Certain advanced safety 
        technologies, which may be foundational technologies for AVs, 
        already have proven to be effective at preventing and 
        mitigating crashes across all on-road modes of transportation 
        and must be standard equipment with Federal minimum performance 
        requirements. These include automatic emergency braking with 
        pedestrian and cyclist detection, lane departure warning, and 
        blind spot warning, among others. A lack of performance 
        standards has contributed to instances of dangerous 
        malfunctions of this technology, highlighting the need for 
        rulemakings for collision avoidance systems and other 
        fundamental AV technologies. As collision avoidance technology 
        continues to improve and evolve, it should also be required to 
        detect and prevent collisions with all vulnerable road users 
        and objects in the operating environment.

   ``Vision Test'' for AVs: Driverless cars must be subject to 
        a ``vision test'' to guarantee an AV will operate on all roads 
        and in all weather conditions and properly detect and respond 
        to other vehicles, all people and objects in the operating 
        environment including but not limited to Black and Brown 
        people, pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users and people 
        with assistive technology, children and strollers, motorcycles, 
        roadway infrastructure, construction zones and roadside 
        personnel, and interactions with law enforcement and first 
        responders. Any algorithm that will inform the technology must 
        be free of bias. Risk assessments for AVs must ensure adequate 
        training data which is representative of all users of the 
        transportation system. Manufacturers and developers must be 
        required to meet basic principles in the development and use of 
        algorithms including: the use of algorithms should be 
        transparent to the end users; algorithmic decision-making 
        should be testable for errors and bias while still preserving 
        intellectual property rights; algorithms should be designed 
        with fairness and accuracy in mind; the data set used for 
        algorithmic decision-making should avoid the use of proxies; 
        and, algorithmic decision-making processes that could have 
        significant consumer consequences should be explainable. The 
        DOT must review algorithms and risk assessment procedures for 
        potential issues, and any identified problems must be then 
        corrected by the developer or manufacturer and verified by the 
        DOT. Coordination and oversight should be led by the Office of 
        the NHTSA Civil Rights Director in partnership with the Office 
        of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, NHTSA 
        Office of Vehicle Safety Research, and NHTSA Chief Counsel's 
        office. The Office of the NHTSA Civil Rights Director should be 
        given adequate resources, expertise and authority to accomplish 
        this role.

   Human-Machine Interface (HMI) for Driver Engagement: 
        Research demonstrates that even for a driver who is alert and 
        performing the dynamic driving task, a delay in reaction time 
        occurs between observing a safety problem, reacting and taking 
        needed action. For a driver who is disengaged from the driving 
        task during autonomous operation of a vehicle (i.e., sleeping, 
        texting, watching a movie), that delay will be longer because 
        the driver must first be alerted to re-engage, understand and 
        process the situation, and then take control of the vehicle 
        before taking appropriate action. Therefore, an AV must provide 
        adequate alerts to capture the attention of the human driver 
        with sufficient time to respond and assume the dynamic driving 
        task for any level of vehicle automation that may require human 
        intervention. This mechanism must be accessible to all 
        occupants, including people with disabilities and vulnerable 
        populations.

   Cybersecurity Standard: Vehicles must be subject to 
        cybersecurity requirements to prevent hacking and to ensure 
        mitigation and remediation of cybersecurity events. The Federal 
        Aviation Administration (FAA) has a process for the 
        certification and oversight of all U.S. commercial airplanes, 
        including avionics cybersecurity, although improvement is 
        needed according to a recent Government Accountability Office 
        (GAO) study.\3\ The DOT should be directed, in cooperation with 
        the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to 
        develop a cybersecurity standard for automated driving systems. 
        The DOT should then require the cybersecurity standard be 
        applied to all new vehicles. The DOT must be engaged in all 
        relevant discussions on artificial intelligence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ United States Government Accountability Office, Aviation 
Cybersecurity, FAA Should Fully Implement Key Practices to Strengthen 
Its Oversight of Avionics Risks, GAO-21-86 (Oct. 2020).

   Electronics and Software Safety Standard: Vehicles must be 
        subject to minimum performance requirements for the vehicle 
        electronics and software that power and operate vehicle safety 
        and driving automation systems individually and as 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        interdependent components.

   Operational Design Domain (ODD): The NHTSA must issue 
        Federal standards to ensure safeguards for driving automation 
        systems to limit their operation to the ODD in which they are 
        capable of functioning safely. An ODD includes elements such 
        as: the type of roadway, geographical area, speed range, 
        vehicle operating status, and environmental and temporal 
        conditions in which the vehicle is capable of operating safely; 
        any roadway or infrastructure asset required for the operation 
        of the vehicle, such as roadside equipment, pavement markings, 
        signage, and traffic signals; and, the means by which the 
        vehicle will respond if the defined ODD changes or any 
        circumstance which causes vehicle to operate outside of its 
        defined ODD. The rule shall also: specify requirements for how 
        the vehicle will safely transition to a minimal risk condition 
        as a result of a malfunction or when operating outside of the 
        ODD, including the necessity for human intervention that is 
        accessible to all occupants including people with disabilities 
        and vulnerable populations; and, the ability of the vehicle to 
        comply with local laws as part of whether the vehicle is 
        operating inside the ODD.

   Functional Safety Standard: Requires a manufacturer to 
        ensure the design, development, verification and validation of 
        safety-related electronics or software demonstrates to NHTSA 
        that an AV will perform reliably and safely under the 
        conditions the vehicle is designed to encounter. Additionally, 
        NHTSA must validate that the manufacturer's certifications of 
        functional safety are accurate and reliable by conducting their 
        own testing as needed.

   Safe Fallback: Every driving automation system must be able 
        to detect a malfunction, a degraded state, or operation outside 
        of ODD and safely transition to a condition which reduces the 
        risk of a crash or physical injury. In the event of a failure, 
        it is essential that the occupants of a driverless car have the 
        ability to assume manual control to complete or command a safe 
        transition to reach a safe location and safely exit the 
        vehicle. This mechanism must be accessible to all occupants, 
        including people with disabilities and vulnerable populations. 
        Commercial vehicles, including those used for public 
        transportation or freight, present distinct challenges, such as 
        the need to identify qualifications necessary to operate, that 
        will need to be addressed separately.

   Crash Procedures Standard: Requires manufacturers to have 
        procedures in place, including proper shutdown protocols, for 
        when an AV is involved in a crash to ensure the safety of all 
        occupants of the AV, other road users and emergency responders.

   Standard for Over-the-Air (OTA) Updates: Requires consumers 
        be given timely and appropriate information on the details of 
        the OTA update and ensures any needed training or tutorials are 
        provided. Limits the circumstances in which manufacturers can 
        update a vehicle OTA and provides requirements for OTA updates 
        that necessitate a recall or an additional demonstration of 
        safety. OTA updates that enhance the safety of a vehicle should 
        not be optional or require the consumer to incur any additional 
        expense. During the update process cybersecurity must be 
        maintained. In developing the OTA standard, NHTSA should 
        develop rigorous testing around the most effective way to push 
        out OTA updates to owners and operators of vehicles. Updates 
        must be accessible for all users, including people with 
        disabilities. In addition, information on OTA updates should be 
        available in multiple languages, similar to compliance with 
        Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112), 
        and via video with closed captioning as appropriate, as well as 
        other means of communication to promote access. In a commercial 
        setting, it will be especially critical for there to be clear 
        protocols for how and when OTA updates are carried out.

    Safety and Performance Data: With the increasing number of vehicles 
with different automated technologies being tested and some being sold 
to the public, standardized data elements, recording, and access to 
safety event data are necessary for the proper oversight and analysis 
of the performance of the driving automation systems. Vehicles on the 
road today are already producing enormous amounts of data, and the 
amount and type of data will only increase as driving automation 
evolves. There are many stakeholders who need that data for numerous 
and varied reasons, most importantly safety. The DOT must issue a FMVSS 
requiring all vehicles to be equipped with technology that captures all 
necessary data to understand and evaluate the safety performance of AVs 
on the road. Moreover, following best practices, data on disengagements 
and near-misses would help to identify flaws in the technology and may 
allow cities and states to proactively invest in infrastructure 
improvements or update the design of dangerous intersections and 
corridors to ensure safety for all street users. Real-time data on 
vehicle speeds, travel times, and volumes enables states, cities, and 
communities to manage congestion and speed, uncover patterns of 
excessive speeds, evaluate the success of street design projects, and 
ultimately improve productivity and quality of life. It could also 
facilitate emergency response by summoning and providing important 
information to emergency personnel, assist in the safe extraction of 
occupants, and provide a way for first responders to safely disable and 
secure the vehicle. Safety and performance data should be made 
available to relevant stakeholders such as state and local governments, 
Federal agencies, operators or dispatchers of the vehicle itself, 
independent research bodies, law enforcement, first responders, 
insurers, and the public, with appropriate privacy protections.
    Manufacturer Submissions to NHTSA: Any submission to NHTSA by AV 
manufacturers or developers must be mandatory, publicly available and 
include thorough and adequate data and documentation. Additionally, 
NHTSA must be directed to review and evaluate all submissions to assess 
whether an approach to automated driving system (ADS) development and 
testing includes appropriate safeguards for operation on public roads. 
Moreover, submissions should be substantive and include, but not be 
limited to the following issues: ADS control capabilities; ODD; other 
limitations and constraints; methods and timing of driver engagement 
(if applicable); data definitions; recording; and, accessibility. Miles 
accumulated by simulation, as opposed to on-road testing, cannot 
substitute for on-road testing or serve as the sole basis for the data 
included in the submission. (See section below on Proper Oversight of 
Testing.) If NHTSA finds information indicating further operation of 
these vehicles on public streets poses a danger, the Agency must be 
able to intervene and enforce the law\4\ effectively, which will 
require not just the greater use of its existing authority but also 
new, stronger enforcement authorities that should be enacted by 
Congress (See section below on Additional Resources and Enforcement 
Authorities for NHTSA). If the Agency determines that a submission is 
deficient, manufacturers must be required to submit any additional 
information requested. The legislation should clarify that the Agency 
has civil and criminal penalty authority for false, fictitious or 
fraudulent submissions under 18 United States Code (USC) 1001. This 
submission process cannot be a substitute for NHTSA promptly issuing 
minimum performance standards through a public rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Pub. L. 89-563 (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Proper Oversight of Testing: AV testing is already underway in many 
states and localities. Fundamental and commonsense safeguards must be 
instituted for testing on public roads including the establishment of 
independent institutional review boards (IRBs) to certify the safety of 
the protocols and procedures for testing of AVs on public roads. The 
IRB requirements established by the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) in 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 46 should serve 
as a basis for the requirements for IRBs overseeing AV road testing and 
be modified as needed for this particular use. Test vehicles should be 
prohibited from providing a service for compensation. In Section 24404 
of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) Act (Pub. L. 
114-94), Congress excluded test vehicles from having to comply with 
Federal standards as long as those vehicles are not sold to the public.
    NHTSA actions required:

   Develop empirical data reporting standards and metrics for 
        such data;

   Mandate developer reporting of the metrics to the public to 
        enable comparison of AV safety performance among developers;

   Require manufacturers to provide data on the safety and 
        performance of test vehicles and systems and to report safety-
        critical events including crashes and incidents that occur 
        during testing that result in death, injuries or property 
        damage;

   Verify developer compliance with all applicable laws;

   Make safety-critical event information publicly available 
        with the rebuttable presumption in favor of disclosure, unless 
        it is deemed proprietary or confidential in accordance with 
        Federal law;

   Determine which safety-critical events must result in the 
        suspension of testing until a thorough review is completed and 
        additional safeguards are implemented and verified by the 
        Agency, as necessary; and,

   Prior to the introduction of the AV into commerce, review 
        and analyze testing for oversight and research purposes, 
        including but not limited to rulemaking.

    Additional Resources and Enforcement Authorities for NHTSA: 
Ensuring NHTSA has adequate resources, funds, staff, and enforcement 
authority is essential for the Agency to successfully carry out its 
statutory mission and address the multiple challenges presented by the 
testing and deployment of self-driving technologies. The Agency also 
should be given additional enforcement powers including imminent hazard 
authority, and enhanced authority to pursue criminal penalties and levy 
larger civil penalties to ensure industry accountability and thwart 
misconduct.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ If NHTSA is not to have authority over the commercial operation 
of an AV, these same oversight powers must be conveyed to the 
respective modal agency responsible for overseeing the deployment of 
commercial AVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteeing Accessibility for All
    Access for Individuals with Disabilities and Older Adults: Nearly 
one in five people in the U.S. has a disability (more than 57 million), 
and 16 percent of the U.S. population is over the age of 65. Yet, 
significant barriers to accessible, affordable and reliable 
transportation remain across all modes, and many people with 
disabilities are unable to obtain a driver's license and cannot afford 
to purchase an accessible vehicle. Autonomous driving technology has 
the potential to increase access and mobility for older adults and 
individuals with disabilities, including those with sensory, cognitive, 
and physical disabilities, wheelchair users, and people with 
neurological conditions, who have varying needs as well as 
traditionally underserved communities. This goal can be realized by 
Congressional directive ensuring access for everyone, including 
accessible HMI, and ramps and securement for wheelchair users. 
Discrimination on the basis of disability in licensing for SAE 
International level 4 and 5 AVs must also be prohibited. In addition, 
the diverse needs of all members of the disability community and older 
adults must be accommodated for systems that require human engagement 
as well as when developing a safe fallback.
    Access for Underbanked Populations: Access to on-demand transport 
services is often predicated on the ability to make digital payments. 
Twenty-five percent of U.S. households are unbanked or underbanked, 
with higher incidence in working-age disabled households, lower-income 
households, less-educated households, younger households, Black and 
Hispanic households, and households with volatile income. AV-based 
transport services must consider a variety of ways in which payment for 
service can be made in order to ensure that this technology supports 
equitable access and the inclusion of all.
    Equity: Transportation is an imperative part of life. It is the 
connector for people's work, medical care, worship, recreation, 
essentials for life and all other tasks. As new modes of transportation 
continue to grow and evolve, investment and development must include a 
process where all people can safely participate.
    Accessibility, Passenger Safety, and Transportation Services: The 
safety of passengers is not a monolith, and the measurement and 
descriptions of safety differ for all people in particular for those 
who are part of marginalized communities. The use of public 
transportation safely is currently partially in control of the 
operators of the modes and vehicles. Human interaction remains 
essential even when there is an AV and no operators. There must be 
clear plans that coordinate the safe transportation for all people 
including the need for delivery of medical care as well as laws that 
embrace social equity to protect those who are marginalized (Black and 
Brown people, Indigenous people, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, 
queer, + (LGBTQ+) people, people with disabilities, women, older 
adults, and all other groups) in the implementation of these 
transportation services.
Preserving Consumer and Worker Rights
    Consumer Information: Consumer information regarding AVs should be 
available at the point of sale, in the owner's manual, including 
publicly accessible electronic owner's manuals, and in any OTA updates. 
The vehicle identification number (VIN) should be updated to reflect 
whether certain features were built into the vehicle, either as 
standard or optional equipment. Additionally, similar to the user-
friendly safercar.gov website, NHTSA must establish a website 
accessible by VIN with basic safety information about the AV level, 
safety exemptions, and limitations and capabilities of the AV driving 
system including those resulting from OTA updates. The U.S. New Car 
Assessment Program (NCAP) was the first government program to provide 
the public with comprehensive auto safety ratings, including crash test 
results. It is vital that Congress require NHTSA to act upon consumer 
and stakeholder recommendations to modernize U.S. NCAP (See Claybrook/
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety paper) and include ratings on how 
vehicles perform in crashes with motorcyclists, pedestrians and 
bicyclists. This enhancement of NCAP will be especially crucial as AVs 
are introduced into the marketplace. Consumer information should be 
available in multiple languages, similar to compliance with Section 508 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112), and via video with 
closed captioning as appropriate, as well as other means of 
communication to promote access.
    Privacy: Passenger vehicles have the potential to collect 
significant amounts of data that could interfere with personal privacy 
rights. Therefore, all manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles, 
including AVs, should be required to comply with robust data privacy 
safeguards and policies. Any personally identifiable information (PII) 
should only be collected or shared for purposes of delivering the 
services a consumer has requested or affirmatively opted-in to, with 
appropriately tailored exceptions for essential public purposes, 
safety, data security, compliance with regulatory requirements, and 
analytics/performance monitoring, among other purposes. Companies 
should be required to be transparent with consumers and workers 
operating a vehicle about the collection and sharing of information, 
protect information associated with the vehicle and the vehicle itself 
from data breaches, obtain consumers' express permission to sell or 
disclose their PII to third parties, and provide consumers the ability 
to access and delete PII that is not needed to support essential public 
purposes, safety, data security, compliance with regulatory 
requirements, and analytics/performance monitoring. The ability of 
NHTSA, the NTSB, and local law enforcement to access critical safety 
performance data, while preserving the integrity of personal, private 
or identifying data, in a timely manner for research, crash 
investigation and other governmental purposes must be preserved. In 
addition, radio spectrum needed for traffic safety purposes including 
vehicle-to-everything communications must be limited to non-commercial 
use.
    Workforce Protections: The deployment of AV technology will have a 
significant impact on our Nation's workforce. While these technologies 
will create new business and employment opportunities, they will also 
lead to displacement and major shifts in jobs and job functions that 
will not necessarily be linked to those new opportunities, especially 
for those same individuals who are being displaced. Policymakers have a 
major role to play in determining whether AV deployment will help or 
harm working people and whether the benefits from these technologies 
will be broadly shared. Absent strong leadership, AV technology risks 
worsening severe inequalities already inherent in our society, 
predominantly for blue collar workers. Existing and foreseeable issues 
which stand to be greatly exacerbated by this technology must be 
addressed before this technology is broadly deployed on our roads. 
Similarly, unforeseeable issues throughout deployment will need to be 
resolved with input from affected stakeholders. Congress must ensure 
that workers and unions are partners in the development and 
implementation of AV technology and policy. It must recognize the 
projected negative effects of a transition to AVs, including but not 
limited to ensuring strong worker protections in Federal funding and 
procurements, and providing worker support programs for current and 
future workers including training and re-skilling to ensure that 
displaced and otherwise affected workers are able to move into middle 
class jobs created by technological change. In order to achieve these 
goals, Congress must also take action to require companies and 
government agencies that plan to transition to AV fleets to be 
transparent and honest with their workers regarding budgets, plans--
including training programs--and timelines for the implementation of 
new technology. In workplaces where the employees are unionized and 
thus bargain collectively, these issues should be negotiated.
    Whistleblower Protections: Employees or contractors of any 
manufacturer, supplier, or operator of software or hardware for AVs who 
want to report safety defects to NHTSA should not be prevented from 
doing so as the result of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). The type of 
protections afforded whistleblowers in Section 31307 of the Moving 
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act (Pub. L. 112-141) 
as well as Section 24352 in the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94) must be 
extended in any AV bill. In addition, the Department of Labor prohibits 
a NDA that prevents an individual from providing information to the 
Federal government. However, only a limited number of cases have been 
filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 
Therefore, more must be done to inform employees as to their rights and 
responsibilities when such a situation arises.
    Consumer and Worker Rights\6\: The well-established rights of 
consumers to seek accountability in a court of law for injuries 
suffered as a result of AVs must be preserved. Nothing in this bill 
shall exempt a person from liability at common law or under a state 
law, or permit a consumer to be required to forgo their rights by a 
manufacturer or provider of AVs. Moreover, exploitative independent 
contractor relationships that shield AV companies from liability and 
deny workers basic workplace rights should be explicitly prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety does not take a position 
on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring Local Control and Sustainable Transportation
    Local, State and Federal Regulatory Roles: The statutory mission of 
the DOT established by Congress in 1966 is to regulate the performance 
of motor vehicles to ensure public safety, which now includes AVs. In 
keeping with existing law and practice, the Federal government should 
prescribe regulations for the performance of these vehicles, leaving 
regulation of the operation of these vehicles to the states. Even after 
Federal regulations are in place regarding AVs, existing federalism 
practices demand that states retain a legal right and a duty to their 
residents to develop proposals and implement solutions to ensure public 
safety. In addition, state and local governments have the authority to 
manage the operation of vehicles on their streets to address concerns 
such as safety, noise, local air quality, and congestion. Any action on 
the regulation of AVs shall not preempt states and localities from 
regulating the operation of these vehicles just as they do for 
traditional motor vehicles.
    In-Depth Study of AV Impacts on Transportation Systems and 
Environment: AVs could have direct and indirect negative impacts on 
safety, congestion, pollution, land use, accessibility, transportation 
infrastructure capacity and needs, energy consumption, public transit, 
jobs and job functions, mobility and equity. DOT must be directed to 
undertake a comprehensive study to inform policymakers and the public 
about how these vehicles will impact our existing transportation 
systems and ensure effective mitigation of problems identified. 
Implementation of infrastructure to support the safe operations of AVs, 
such as placement of electric vehicle charging stations, visible lane 
striping, and uniform and unobstructed signage, must be equitable for 
all communities to ensure equal opportunity for people of all racial 
and socioeconomic backgrounds.

    NOTE: The AV Tenets outlined in this document do not constitute the 
entirety of each supporting organization's policy priorities related to 
AVs.
                                 ______
                                 
              Supporters of Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets
Active Transportation Alliance (Metro Chicago)

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

American Association for Justice

American Motorcyclist Association

American Public Health Association

American Trauma Society

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals

Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico

BikeNWA

BikeOklahoma

Bike Pittsburgh

BikeSD

BikeWalkKC

Brain Injury Association of America

California Association of Bicycling Organizations

Cascade Bicycle Club

Center for Auto Safety

Center for Disability Rights, Inc.

Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways

Consumer Action

Consumer Federation of America

Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety

Consumer Reports

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund

Emergency Nurses Association

Environmental Law & Policy Center

Families for Safe Streets

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association

GorgePedal.com

Health by Design

Idaho Walk Bike Alliance

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Joan Claybrook, President Emeritus, Public Citizen, Former 
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

KidsAndCars.org

LA Walks

League of American Bicyclists

Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation

National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)

National Coalition for Safer Roads

National Consumers League

New Urban Mobility Alliance

Parents Against Tired Truckers

Public Citizen

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy

Ride Illinois

San Francisco Families for Safer Streets

Shenandoah Valley Bicycle Coalition

SoCal Families for Safe Streets

The Daniel Initiative

Transport Workers Union

Transportation Alternatives

Transportation for America

Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO

Trauma Foundation

Truck Safety Coalition

Walk SF

Washington Bikes

Whirlwind Wheelchair International

Wyoming Pathways
                                 ______
                                 
                          Glossary of Acronyms
ADS--Automated Driving System

AV--Autonomous Vehicle

CFR--Code of Federal Regulations

DOT--Department of Transportation

FAA--Federal Aviation Administration

FAST--Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L. 114-94

FMVSS--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

GAO--Government Accountability Office

GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating

HHS--Health and Human Services

HMI--Human-Machine Interface

IRB--Institutional Review Board

LGBTQ+--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, +

MAP-21--Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. 112-
141

NCAP--New Car Assessment Program

NDA--Non-Disclosure Agreement

NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NIST--National Institute of Standards and Technology

NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board

ODD--Operational Design Domain

OTA--Over-the-Air

PII--Personally Identifiable Information

SAE--Society of Automotive Engineers

USC--United States Code

VIN--Vehicle Identification Number
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                          Hon. John D. Porcari
    Megaprojects. Large infrastructure projects are critical to 
increasing transportation capacity and improving mobility across the 
country. The I-5 Bridge in Vancouver, Washington across the Columbia 
River is a prime example. The bridge, which includes a span that is 
more than 100 years old, carries 135,000 vehicles and roughly $110 
million in freight traffic each day. Congestion on the bridge rose 278 
percent between 2011 and 2016. Now, due to its seismic vulnerability, 
it is in desperate need of replacement to reduce congestion, improve 
safety, and enhance freight access. However, it is often challenging to 
fund these megaprojects due to their high cost and multistate 
jurisdictions.

    Question 1. What are the primary obstacles for constructing mega 
projects with multi-state jurisdictions?
    Answer. Primary obstacles to constructing multi-state mega projects 
include synchronizing the electoral, funding and procurement cycles of 
the states, as well as recognition of their national and regional 
significance through a separate Federal funding source.
    Let me illustrate these obstacles through a project that I 
personally led, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement over the Potomac 
River, connecting Maryland and Virginia. Like the I-5 bridge over the 
Columbia River, the existing Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95/495) was 
outmoded, well beyond its design capacity, and presented an ongoing 
safety issue. The existing bridge also had a highly disruptive 
drawspan, which was operated by the District of Columbia. As a result, 
two states and the District of Columbia had to partner in its 
replacement, although the District of Columbia did not bear any 
financial responsibility for the replacement structure. The first 
obstacle that had to be overcome was to build a tripartite governance 
structure for the $2.4 billion replacement bridge that would survive 
multiple changes of administration in the District of Columbia, 
Maryland and Virginia (the two states are on different gubernatorial 
election cycles), and at the national level. Governors in both states 
had to make multi-year financial commitments that would bind their 
successors to fund their share of the bridge replacement. Changes of 
administration (and parties) in both states, as well as a change in 
control of Congress and the Presidency during the design and 
construction period, threatened the continued progress of the project 
at multiple points. The governance structure ultimately proved durable 
enough to withstand these changes of administration and political 
support.
    Both states used substantial portions of their FHWA formula funds, 
as well as two substantial direct appropriations by the Congress. In 
this sense, the Wilson bridge replacement was treated as a project of 
national and regional significance, and funded accordingly. The 
procurement and operational responsibilities were divided between the 
two states, with Maryland being the actual procurement agency.
    A primary lesson learned in delivering this project was that the 
political, financial and legal structure had to be designed from the 
beginning to anticipate and survive multiple electoral and funding 
cycles in order to deliver a successful project.

    INFRA. The INFRA grant program was intended to provide funding for 
nationally and regionally significant freight projects. However, 
multimodal freight projects are subject to a 10 percent cap. The 
program is also significantly oversubscribed and has only been able to 
fund less than 10 percent of projects that have applied to the program.

    Question 2. What reforms to the INFRA program would provide the 
greatest benefit to transportation stakeholders?
    Answer. Arbitrarily capping intermodal freight projects in the 
INFRA grant program at 10 percent, in my opinion, works against one of 
the primary benefits of the program, which is to connect the seams in 
the national goods delivery system. A substantially larger INFRA 
program, without the 10 percent cap, would better serve America by 
helping to reduce the substantial backlog of worthy projects that have 
direct economic, environmental and other benefits.

    RRIF Reforms. The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing 
(RRIF) program is authorized to provide up to $35 billion in loan 
guarantees to finance the development of rail infrastructure. Despite 
changes to the RRIF program under the FAST Act of 2015 intended to 
increase use of the program, utilization remains low.

    Question 3. What can Congress to do increase utilization of the 
RRIF program and to ensure that transportation projects are receiving 
the funding they need?
    Answer. The single most important reform of the RRIF program to 
encourage its wider use would be to have a Federal allocation for the 
credit risk premium, as the TIFIA program does. Multiple potential RRIF 
applicants have identified that as an insurmountable barrier to using 
the program.
    Process reforms that result in a shorter, more consistent process 
would also be helpful. RRIF is truly an underutilized tool, and 
eliminating the need for the applicant to pay the credit risk premium 
and a shorter, more predictable process will make the program 
significantly more attractive to applicants.

    Climate and Resiliency. In 2020, the United States endured 22 
separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters that have harmed 
transportation infrastructure, disrupted service, and increased 
maintenance and operating costs. Climate impacts on transportation are 
not limited to individual events--the transportation sector is the 
largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the United 
States, accounting for nearly 30 percent of all GHG emissions.

    Question 4. How can Congress ensure that climate and resiliency are 
priorities for transportation projects across the country?
    Answer. Requiring consideration of climate and resiliency factors 
in the Purpose & Need statements that are a component of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) 
and Environmental Assessments (EA) will be an important step in 
building these considerations into the scope of projects from the 
beginning. No project should be going forward from this point without 
preferred alternatives and design elements that accommodate climate 
change and resiliency needs. Climate change and resiliency need to be 
integral elements of the selected project alternative.
    Additionally, including climate and resiliency considerations as an 
evaluation criteria in USDOT competitive grant applications will also 
help build these considerations into project scopes.
    Finally, USDOT can modify guidance on asset management requirements 
for transit, highway and other systems to include climate and 
resilience as a required component of lifecycle cost evaluations.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                          Hon. John D. Porcari
    Infrastructure Investment. As one of the first Senators to support 
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, I understand the 
critical importance of direct investment in transportation 
infrastructure for local economies. A recent report by the American 
Public Transportation Association estimates that every $1 invested in 
public transportation generates $4 in economic returns.

    Question 1. Can you speak to the critical importance of direct 
investment in transportation infrastructure, particularly for rural 
communities?
    Answer. There is no substitute for direct and sustained investments 
in transportation infrastructure in communities across America, 
including rural communities. From the founding of the Republic, 
particularly in rural areas, we have come together as a nation to build 
farm to market roads, developed our unparalleled system of inland 
waterways and Great Lakes waterborne transportation, and built 
railroads that helped make America an agricultural export giant. By any 
objective measure, we are now living off the infrastructure investments 
made by previous generations, and by failing to pay it forward we are 
``eating our seed corn''.

    Empire Builder: Rural Communities and Economies. The Empire 
Builder, one of Amtrak's longest rail lines, contributes $327 million 
to the economies of the states in which it operates and provides a 
critical link for many rural communities in Minnesota helping students 
get to college, workers get to job centers, and tourists get to travel 
destinations.

    Question 2. How vital are long-distance routes in connecting rural 
areas to urban centers, particularly for local economies?
    Answer. Long distance passenger rail routes are crucial to the 
communities they serve today, the additional communities that they can 
serve in the future, and as a component of our national transportation 
network. For our citizens who depend on rail travel or live in 
underserved rural communities, these routes are a lifeline. The Empire 
Builder also plays a critical role for the tourism industry, travelling 
directly through Glacier National Pak and the Cascade Mountains. Long 
distance passenger trains such as the Empire Builder are a source of 
continued economic vitality for small towns and cities across America.
    Adding additional city pairs to the existing network of long 
distance routes will help weave communities together and provide an 
environmentally-friendly transportation alternative for generations to 
come.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to 
                          Hon. John D. Porcari
    Interstate 11. A transportation priority for Arizona is I-11, which 
will run from the U.S./Mexican border to Phoenix, Las Vegas, and north 
through Nevada. Interstate 11 will be an important link between two of 
the largest cities in the county, will increase trade and commerce with 
Mexico and Canada throughout the region, and will relieve air pollution 
and congestion in downtown Phoenix.

    Question 1. Based on your experience at the Department of 
Transportation, do you agree that interstate projects such as 
Interstate 11 are an important aspect of our Nation's transportation 
infrastructure, particularly given the continuing population growth in 
the region?
    Answer. Interstate highways such play a crucial role in our 
Nation's economy, and the proposed I-11 has the potential to become an 
important north-south trade corridor in one of the fastest growing 
regions of the country.

    Question 2. If so, what recommendations do you have for Congress 
and the Administration to continue to support the development and 
construction of such projects?
    Answer. It is important to stipulate that maintaining and 
rebuilding our existing highway assets must be our first priority.
    Providing that there is adequate funding for system preservation of 
our existing highway assets by the Federal government and states, 
proposed projects such as I-11 can benefit from a number of best 
practices that can be incorporated in the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) process. These include the latest tools for more thorough 
citizen and community involvement, careful consideration of design 
alternatives from an all-hazards resiliency and climate change 
perspective, and a more sophisticated review of potential impacts on 
historic properties, tribal lands and environmentally sensitive areas. 
In addition, the proposed corridor can provide the right-of-way for 
other essential infrastructure such as broadband and buried High 
Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission of renewable energy.

    Amtrak Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited. In my home state, the 
Southwest Chief provides service to Flagstaff, Kingman, and Winslow, 
Arizona. The Sunset Limited serves Tucson, Benson, Maricopa, and Yuma, 
Arizona. In these communities, Amtrak service is a significant 
financial driver. For example, over 50,000 riders disembark in 
Flagstaff each year and provide more than $12 million in tourism 
dollars to the city.

    Question 3. Based on your experience at the Department, do you 
agree that long-distance Amtrak service such as the Southwest Chief and 
the Sunset Limited provide crucial connectivity for many rural 
communities and can be significant financial drivers?
    Answer. Yes, existing long-distance passenger rail routes such as 
the Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited provide crucial connectivity and 
economic opportunity to rural communities. Augmenting this network with 
proposed additional service such as the ``Amtrak Connects US'' plan 
will further assist rural communities throughout the country.

    Question 4. If so, what recommendations do you have for Congress 
and the Administration to continue to support Amtrak long-distance 
service?
    Answer. Consistent and predictable multi-year Federal financial 
support for long-distance service is essential to its stability and 
growth. Beyond that base support, funding for new rolling stock and co-
investments with host railroads for track, bridge and signal 
improvements are sorely needed and are crucial for the long-term growth 
of the cross-country network. Finally, support for the ``Amtrak 
Connects US'' vision, which includes adding service to cities such as 
Phoenix, will ensure that we are handing over a significantly improved, 
environmentally friendly passenger rail network to the next generation 
of Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                          Hon. John D. Porcari
    Question 1. It takes an average of seven years to complete an 
environmental impact statement for a highway project. This process 
should be reviewed and can be improved in order to be able to ``Build 
Back Better,'' we need to be able to ``Build Back''. During your time 
at DOT, did you experience roadblocks that made it difficult for States 
to move projects from concept to completion?
    Answer. That is an excellent question, Senator and gets to the 
heart of timely, consistent and predictable project delivery. I will 
admit that I came to the USDOT Deputy Secretary position with a bit of 
a chip on my shoulder, having twice served as Secretary of the Maryland 
Department of Transportation, where I delivered a number of large, 
complex highway, bridge, transit, airport and port projects, including 
coordinating highway and commuter rail improvements with the State of 
West Virginia. I made sure that re-engineering the NEPA process was an 
important component of our work program.
    As you know, more than 90 percent of the NEPA transportation work 
is conducted under a Categorical Exclusion (Cat X) and another 3-4 
under an Environmental Analysis (EA). The remaining approximately 3 
percent of projects require a full Environmental Impact Statement 
(EIS). These projects, almost by definition are large, complex and 
involve a host of state and local agencies.
    In the Obama administration, we established a cross-agency 
permitting Rapid Response Team across the executive branch, which I co-
chaired with the Chair of the President's Council on Environmental 
Quality. The purpose of this team was to establish and validate process 
improvements, which would result in measurably better outcomes, 
including environmental outcomes, in a shorter, more predictable 
process. One of the first projects we tackled was the Tappan Zee Bridge 
replacement in the State of New York, where the EIS was approved in a 
record 13 months. We found that the single most significant process 
improvement was to front-load the EIS process and have all of the 
environmental resource agencies at the state and Federal level declare 
their objectives and specific issues up front, rather than one at a 
time at the end of the process. By literally having everyone around one 
table talking directly to each other, rather than through a series of 
interminable e-mail daisy chains, we were able to establish clear 
environmental priorities for the Tappan Zee replacement, incorporate 
them into the Final EIS/Record of Decision, and get the project 
underway. This Rapid Response Team approach was used successfully for 
other major projects as well. A similar process was undertaken for the 
Columbia River Crossing, a proposed I-5 bridge replacement connecting 
Oregon and Washington. And these lessons have now been incorporated 
into the work of the OMB-Chaired Permitting Improvement Council.

   Follow-up: Do you agree that we should explore ways to 
        improve this process?
    Answer. Yes, I strongly agree that we have shown that we can 
simultaneously be both good environmental stewards and implement a 
better process. In fact, most major projects would happily trade 
additional mitigation in return for a faster, more consistent process.
    Close attention to the leadership and work program of the 
Permitting Improvement Council can substantially advance this agenda.

    Question 2. Under the previous administration, former DOT Secretary 
Chao did a very good job recognizing that rural areas were being 
underfunded and make a concerted effort to use the Department's 
discretionary authority to help rural America. In your testimony, you 
mention that President Biden's vow to ``Build Back Better'' means 
rebuilding our economy and making foundational investments in America's 
future through infrastructure. I believe that investments in rural 
communities can maximize Federal funding and address our Nation's most 
immediate infrastructure needs. How can we utilize a whole-of-
government approach to maximizing economic growth in rural states, like 
West Virginia?
    Answer. From the founding of the Republic, rural development has 
been seen as an important national goal. Our earliest national pikes 
(roads) and our magnificent system of inland and Great Lakes waterways 
are two important examples of where a broad consensus of citizens 
understood that it is in everyone's interest to connect our rural 
communities with opportunities.
    This determination to help our rural communities did not begin with 
Secretary Chao, nor should it end with her successor. For example, an 
essential element of the $48 billion of infrastructure funding in the 
Recovery Act (ARRA) in 2009 was the TIGER competitive grant program, 
where President Obama established a rural set-aside to 
disproportionately advantage rural areas.
    I strongly believe that this was the right thing to do, and you can 
see the same philosophy today, for example, in the Build Back Better 
plans to connect all of America with high-speed internet. Bringing 
high-speed Internet service to every corner of rural America now counts 
as ``core'' infrastructure, and is consistent with the economic 
development goals of infrastructure development.
    The Executive Branch has strong convening authority across agencies 
and departments and can be used to bring some non-traditional actors on 
grid resiliency, broadband, rural air service and other issues to the 
forefront. This executive branch-wide convening authority should be 
synched with efforts of regional entities such as the Appalachian 
Regional Commission for maximum impact.
                                 ______
                                 
  Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to 
                          Hon. John D. Porcari
    Question 1. In your opening statement, you mentioned 
``Transportation projects requiring either an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should now incorporate climate change 
and equity considerations.'' Could you please define what you mean by 
``equity'' in this statement?
    Answer. Thank you for asking this important question. The ``Purpose 
& Need'' section of an EIS or EA is where the fundamental justification 
for a project is outlined, including consideration of both the benefits 
and the impacts of the proposed project.
    In this context, ``equity'' means understanding who gets the 
benefits, and who bears the burdens, of the proposed improvement.
    In the past, communities of color have borne a disproportionate 
impact of interstate highway construction, rail expansion, pipeline 
construction and other infrastructure projects. Using equity as a lens 
to more fully understand who has benefitted and who has borne the 
burden of alignment and siting decisions in the past, combined with 
undertaking a similar analysis of current community conditions, 
provides a critical context for where, what, and how future 
infrastructure projects should be determined.

   Follow-up: NEPA is one of the most burdensome regulatory 
        hurdles to rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. County 
        officials in Tennessee constantly tell me how ridiculous it is 
        to get a project approved due to this onerous regulation. Why 
        should we continue to impose more regulatory requirements on 
        states that are trying to get projects done in a more 
        efficient, and effective matter?
    Answer. I fundamentally disagree with this premise. When President 
Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act on January 1, 1970, 
he clearly embraced the premise that infrastructure construction and 
environmental protection are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are 
symbiotic.
    This has been my personal experience of over 35 years delivering 
both mulit-billion dollar and smaller-scale projects at the local, 
state and Federal level. Front-loading the NEPA process by engaging all 
stakeholders at the beginning, rather than the end of the process 
invariably results in better project alternatives selection--and a 
streamlined process.
    It is true that the NEPA process can be very intimidating for local 
officials that have not been through it before, and some states provide 
technical assistance and training, which I highly recommend.

    Question 2. Many states, including Tennessee, are right-to-work 
states, but Federal rules like the Davis-Bacon Act and Project Labor 
Agreements mandate union pay scales and work rules across the country, 
increasing the cost of infrastructure projects by 10 to 30 percent. Due 
to these cost increases in infrastructure projects, why should we 
expand these rules, as the Biden administration has stated it intends 
to?
    Answer. It is important to go back to the original premise for 
public investments in infrastructure, and remember that infrastructure 
is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In other words, the larger 
objective of these public investments is to build a stronger economy, 
enhance communities and provide equal access to opportunities for 
individuals.
    The Davis-Bacon Act was signed into law in 1931 by President Hoover 
to prevent a race to the bottom on wages by requiring the payment of 
local prevailing wages for qualifying projects. Similarly, the Federal 
government requires the use of steel manufactured in the United States 
for federally-funded projects. In both cases, this is a recognition 
that public infrastructure investments should help build a stronger 
economy. I strongly support that premise, and believe that it makes 
sense for the Biden administration to review existing requirements, and 
update them for today's conditions where necessary.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                           Douglas R. Hooker
    Congestion. Freight congestion has real economic impacts for 
consumers and businesses. Nationally, truck congestion increases 
business operating costs by about $74.5 billion annually.

    Question 1. How is the Atlanta Regional Commission looking to 
leverage innovation to reduce freight congestion?
    Answer. The Atlanta Regional Commission is looking to leverage 
innovation both through our regional MPO freight plans and our local 
plans, known as Freight Cluster Plans, which are focused on freight 
movement and industrial development. Freight Cluster Plans help local 
jurisdictions identify ways to move freight more efficiently, improve 
safety, and expand access to jobs at industrial businesses. Project 
recommendations include some major, expensive projects such as highway 
interchange expansion/reconstruction, capacity projects, and major 
intersection improvements. They also include smaller, local projects 
such as adding turn lanes, increasing the turning radii at 
intersections, and shifting the stop bars further back so its easier 
for trucks to turn, all of which can help address local bottlenecks 
near industrial businesses. Recommendations also include adding bus 
shelters, sidewalks, and improving pedestrian crossings so that workers 
can safely get to jobs at these growing industrial businesses.
    Other recommendations focus on ITS (Intelligent Transportation 
Systems) and CV (Connected Vehicle) technology. Much of this technology 
is new, and it can help address traffic congestion and safety. However, 
identifying national standards for this technology, especially for CV 
technology, is vital for successful implementation for all vehicle 
types. Freight Cluster Plans also analyze truck parking in each study 
area, but expanding truck parking in major urban areas like Metro 
Atlanta is consistently a challenge. One growing issue nationally 
appears to be driver delay at industrial businesses. Truck drivers will 
allot a certain amount of time for a pickup or drop-off, but then might 
be delayed at this location for an extended period, maybe even for 
hours. The driver's hours of service are impacted while they are 
waiting, meaning they have little or no time to find a safe parking 
location once they leave this business. This issue can't be solved at 
the local or regional level.
    These local Freight Cluster Plans will feed into ARC's next 
Regional Freight Plan Update, which will kickoff later in 2021. These 
plans also help local jurisdictions identify freight project needs of 
all types, providing them with clear freight project priorities in a 
way that they've never had in the past.

    INFRA. The INFRA grant program was intended to provide funding for 
nationally and regionally significant freight projects. However, 
multimodal freight projects are subject to a 10 percent cap. The 
program is also significantly oversubscribed and has only been able to 
fund less than 10 percent of projects that have applied to the program.

    Question 2. What reforms to the INFRA program would provide the 
greatest benefit to transportation stakeholders?
    Answer. Many regions of the country are reaching the limit of being 
able to accommodate ever-increasing truck volumes on its freeways, 
arterials and other access roadways, and reorient Federal policy 
accordingly. Urban congestion and safety concerns created by trucks, 
coupled with a crippling shortage of drivers, means shifting a greater 
share of freight traffic to the other modes (including those which are 
still under development) will be critical to the long-term success of 
the U.S. economy. We would encourage future rounds of INFRA funding 
eliminate all caps on project types and encourage creative projects 
that facilitate long-distance freight movement by other viable existing 
transportation infrastructure, while also leveraging any new 
technologies which may become viable in the near future.
    Many projects likely to be funded under an INFRA grant already have 
numerous other Federal programs at their avail at the state and 
regional level. Any Federal discretionary program should prioritize a 
smaller number of large-scale projects which are difficult to implement 
through traditional means, rather than a larger number of small-scale 
projects which can be advanced in other ways. For example, the INFRA 
(then FASTLANE) funded Mason Mega Rail project in Savannah will allow 
the port to construct longer trains on-site without disrupting the 
local roadway network, extending the port's reach via rail further 
outside the southeast. The INFRA funded C.R.E.A.T.E program of rail 
improvements in the Chicago area addresses the challenges with lots of 
rail movement in an urban area, a problem that also exists in Metro 
Atlanta. Projects such as these, as well as roads and highway 
interchanges serving industrial businesses, improved air cargo 
connections, truck parking facilities, and new technology for freight 
movement should be the focus of the INFRA grant program going forward. 
These types of projects show a clear need and purpose related to 
freight movement, which is necessary to best support freight movement 
nationally.
    Finally, under the current manner in which sponsors apply for 
funding, implementing larger-scale projects of true national 
significance may be hindered if they cross multiple local, regional and 
state boundaries and/or involve multiple modes. We believe that to 
realize the full potential of the INFRA program (and other similar 
national competitive discretionary funding programs), consideration 
could be given to expanding the role which USDOT can serve in 
assembling, managing and overseeing the broad coalitions of agencies 
and organizations which will be required for such projects.

    Climate and Resiliency. In 2020, the United States endured 22 
separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters that have harmed 
transportation infrastructure, disrupted service, and increased 
maintenance and operating costs. Climate impacts on transportation are 
not limited to individual events--the transportation sector is the 
largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, 
accounting for nearly 30 percent of all GHG emissions.

    Question 3. How can Congress ensure that addressing climate impacts 
and resiliency are priorities for transportation projects across the 
country?
    Answer. ARC believes that national goals related to addressing the 
challenges of climate change and infrastructure resiliency can be best 
achieved by ``mainstreaming'' best design and planning practices 
throughout all aspects of related legislation. We see numerous 
references to these issues throughout initial transportation 
reauthorization proposals, which is encouraging.
    There is some concern with the possible creation of numerous, and 
potentially duplicative and overlapping, discretionary programs 
targeted at narrow and isolated aspects of these challenges. By 
isolating such initiatives into relatively small programs with limited 
budgets, it can create the impression that these are unique ``one-off'' 
projects, while much larger funding programs will be allowed to 
continue following ``business as usual'' decision-making processes. Of 
particular concern is the ability of state DOTs to flex funds from the 
well-established CMAQ program to other core programs, which do not 
always have the same focus on air quality beneficial outcomes.
    Rather than creating new small pots of money which may advance the 
same projects which are CMAQ-eligible, we believe a better approach 
would be to simply clarify the intended purpose of that existing 
program, increase the amount of funding it receives, and restrict the 
ability to divert funds to projects which do not support its 
objectives. This will send a much stronger message regarding Federal 
priorities than multiple underfunded and duplicative discretionary 
programs will.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to 
                             Mark McAndrews
    Freight Congestion. Freight congestion has real economic impacts 
for consumers and businesses. Nationally, truck congestion increases 
business operating costs by about $74.5 billion annually. According to 
the state's freight plan, freight shipments in Mississippi are expected 
to increase by 48 percent by 2040.

    Question 1. What Federal policy or investment priorities would help 
prepare you to accommodate increased freight movement and to avoid 
congestion?
    Answer. Investment in our Nation's multimodal transportation system 
is critical to easing the congestion that may occur as freight 
shipments increase over the next two decades. Funding for non-road, 
intermodal infrastructure was limited in the last reauthorization of 
our Nation's surface transportation policies. INFRA intermodal funding 
was capped at $500 million over the original five-year FAST Act 
authorization, while intermodal dollars were capped at 10 percent of 
freight formula funds. Raising, or wholly eliminating, these artificial 
investment caps will give the U.S Department of Transportation and 
State Departments of Transportation the flexibility necessary to make 
critical investments needed to accommodate increased freight volumes 
and avoid congestion that may result.

    E-Commerce. E-commerce has exploded, growing from just $27 billion 
in sales in 2000 to $792 billion in 2020--that's 14 percent of total 
sales. These packages travel through ports, over rail, and on trucks to 
reach consumers. I am concerned about the congestion our ports are 
currently experiencing, as well as export challenges facing American 
farmers and businesses working to export their products to global 
markets. Increases in e-commerce will continue to stress the shipping 
and port infrastructure.

    Question 2. What port infrastructure investments should be made to 
prepare our economy for this emerging opportunity as consumers pivot to 
e-commerce?
    Answer. As e-commerce continues to be prevalent, it becomes 
increasingly important to ensure that each state plans for supply chain 
cargo flows by all modes of transportation and benefits within each 
state freight plan and includes the impacts of e-commerce on freight 
infrastructure. By planning for an increasingly sophisticated freight 
system, investments can be prioritized to ensure the smooth movement of 
freight through our Nation's maritime gateways.
    Multimodal funding has taken on a greater relevance in recent years 
because of large population shifts to metropolitan areas where many 
ports are located. Additionally, projects are becoming more complex, 
integrating freight flow demands with passenger needs on both the 
highway and rail networks. With growing populations and rising freight 
volumes, rail access has been one of the vital tools in moving large 
volumes of freight to distribution centers outside major population 
centers. Increasingly, multimodal funding has been used to connect rail 
not only to ports but also to distribution centers nationwide.
    As mentioned in my written testimony, the American Association of 
Port Authorities has identified more than $20 billion in funding needs 
for public port authorities alone to improve our Nation's multimodal 
infrastructure, and as supply chain becomes more sophisticated the 
demand for multimodal funding will only increase. I applaud the 
committee for prioritizing investment in our multimodal freight system, 
and this focus must continue to ensure proper planning, investment, and 
modernization to accommodate freight flows as consumers continue to 
pivot to e-commerce.

    INFRA. The INFRA grant program was intended to provide funding for 
nationally and regionally significant freight projects. However, 
multimodal freight projects are subject to a 10 percent cap. The 
program is also significantly oversubscribed and has only been able to 
fund less than 10 percent of projects that have applied to the program.

    Question 3. What reforms to the INFRA program would provide the 
greatest benefit to transportation stakeholders?
    Answer. Because the safe and efficient movement of freight requires 
many modes to work together, I recommend eliminating the arbitrary 10 
percent cap on non-highway funding, allowing all projects to compete 
for much-needed funds, regardless of mode. I would also recommend 
greater transparency in the decision-making process to give 
stakeholders and Congress an increased understanding of 1) what 
differentiates a successful project, and 2) whether USDOT is correctly 
applying Congressionally directed criteria, such as increasing global 
economic competitiveness, improving connectivity between freight modes, 
and improving the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement 
of freight and people. Finally, the oversubscription of the program 
demonstrates a true need for additional funding. In the combined FY17 & 
FY18 round of awards, USDOT received $12 in unique requests for every 
$1 available; all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 
have submitted applications to the program, demonstrating freight 
infrastructure needs across the Nation. Based on these needs, the INFRA 
program should receive a minimum annual Federal investment of $12 
billion, dedicated to multimodal freight infrastructure.
                                 ______
                                 
   Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to 
                             Mark McAndrews
    Minnesota: Port Infrastructure Improvements. The Port of Duluth 
supports industries from agriculture to manufacturing--it is the 
largest and busiest port on the Great Lakes with 900 vessels and an 
average of 35 million short tons of cargo per year. And in 2017, a new 
intermodal terminal opened for Canadian National Railway and Duluth 
Cargo Connect to improve the flow of freight in and out of the Midwest.

    Question 1. Can you speak to the importance of viable ports in 
supporting rural communities?
    Answer. Seaports have national and international reach, and ports 
are national infrastructure resources that support supply chains and 
produces in areas metropolitan and rural alike via the deep-water ports 
on the Pacific, Gulf and Atlantic coasts and the Great Lakes/St. 
Lawrence Seaway. Through intermodal connectors, ports leverage energy 
efficient transportation options to connect rural American farmers, 
manufacturers, workers, and consumers to the global marketplace. And in 
rural communities, connecting both surface and maritime transportation 
modes provide supply chain flexibility to regional businesses and 
logistics cost savings that keeps businesses competitive globally.

    Question 2. In your view, why are investments in multi-modal port 
infrastructure helpful in reducing delays and congestion in the 
shipment of goods?
    Answer. Ports serve as centers of commerce where freight and 
commodities are transferred between cargo ships, barges, trucks, 
trains, and pipelines. Port infrastructure supports transportation of 
critical bulk commodities that could not be moved any other way. At the 
Port of Pascagoula, we have undertaken a $36 million Rail Relocation 
Project. As a result, the Mississippi Export Short Line and CSX 
Interchange were relocated, increasing connectivity and efficiency, and 
closing sixteen at-grade crossings in the cities of Moss Point and 
Pascagoula.
    And, when moving iron ore on the Great Lakes, one vessel replaces 
2,800 trucks on our highways. To supply our Nation's steel mills by 
road, at every point on the Interstate Highway System between Minnesota 
and Indiana there would be a truck loaded with iron ore passing every 
20 seconds on one side of the road and one truck returning empty on the 
other side of the road. The Interstate Highway System would have to be 
shut down to all traffic except for the iron ore trucks and no road 
maintenance could occur. Multi-modal investments ensure that this is 
not the case, and that freight and commodities are able to move through 
our freight system without causing undue congestion.

                                  [all]