    [Senate Hearing 117-706]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-706

                  FREIGHT MOBILITY: STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S
                      SUPPLY CHAINS AND COMPETITIVENESS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, MARITIME, FREIGHT, AND PORTS

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 11, 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

    53-090 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023

           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

                                     ------

      SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, MARITIME, FREIGHT, AND PORTS

    GARY PETERS, Michigan, Chair         DEB FISCHER, Nebraska, Ranking
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TODD YOUNG, Indiana
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    JON TESTER, Montana                      Virginia
    RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia             RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                         CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on May 11, 2021.....................................     1
    Statement of Senator Peters......................................     1
    Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................     2
    Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    60
    Statement of Senator Baldwin.....................................    62
    Statement of Senator Scott.......................................    64
    Statement of Senator Lummis......................................    67
    Statement of Senator Warnock.....................................    68
    Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    72

                                   Witnesses

    Chuck Baker, President, American Short Line & Regional Railroad
      Association....................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Lamont Byrd, Director, Safety and Health, International
      Brotherhood of Teamsters.......................................    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
    Christopher J. Connor, President and CEO, American Association of
      Port Authorities...............................................    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    35
    Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
      Trucking Associations..........................................    39
        Prepared statement...........................................    40

                                    Appendix

    Response to written questions submitted to Chuck Baker by:
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    79
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    80
    Response to written questions submitted to Lamont Byrd by:
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    81
    Response to written questions submitted to Christopher J. Connor
      by:
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    82
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    84
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    84
    Response to written questions submitted to Chris Spear by:
        Hon. Maria Cantwell..........................................    85
        Hon. Amy Klobuchar...........................................    86
        Hon. Raphael Warnock.........................................    87
        Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................    88

                               FREIGHT MOBILITY:
           STRENGTHENING AMERICA'S SUPPLY CHAINS AND COMPETITIVENESS

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 11, 2021

                                   U.S. Senate,
     Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime,
                                    Freight, and Ports,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary Peters,
    Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Klobuchar,
    Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Baldwin, Duckworth, Tester,
    Warnock, Fischer, Thune, Blunt, Sullivan, Young, Johnson,
    Capito, Scott, and Lummis.

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

        Senator Peters. First, I want to thank all of our witnesses
    for joining us today for this important discussion.
        The fact that most Americans can safely assume the things
    they will need will be in stock, from groceries to household
    goods and more is certainly a testament of the freight
    industry. This is especially important during the pandemic.
    Deliveries have increased exponentially, so that American
    families can get what they need from the safety of their homes.
        We owe a debt of gratitude to the workers who have made
    this possible by putting themselves into harm's way by working
    around the clock.
        The freight industry is also critical to our economy at
    large and to American competitiveness. Every day the freight
    industry moves billions of dollars' worth of goods that power
    numerous industries and businesses. As a result, the freight
    industry has outsized impact on our economy.
        Unfortunately, this outsized impact means that problems in
    the freight industry have ripple effects, throughout the entire
    economy. This subcommittee held a hearing on April 27, where we
    learned that supplies in the auto industry, many of which are
    small businesses, are struggling to keep up with rapidly rising
    cost of freight and logistics. The issues involved are complex,
    and they include problems within and beyond the freight
    industry's control, many of which also stem from the pandemic.
        But the bottom line is that small businesses are
    experiencing higher prices and major delays and these
    challenges highlight a major issue that I am certainly
    committed to addressing, and that is the resiliency of our
    supply chains. Our supply chains are incredibly efficient but,
    unfortunately, not resilient. So, when unexpected happens, like
    a ship blocking the Suez Canal, thousands of miles away, supply
    chain problems can compound dramatically. And ultimately, the
    strength of our economy depends on the strength of the freight
    industry and our supply chains.
        A key part of this economic engine is the flow of
    international freight through our country's ports of entry. And
    as Chairman of Homeland Security and Government Affairs
    Committee, I am focused on the safe and secure facilitation of
    trade and travel at those entry points, which are staffed by
    our U.S. Customs and Border Protection, also called the CBP.
        CBP officers and agricultural specialists are critical to
    ensuring that cargo that enters the U.S. is secure and that
    pests that may inadvertently travel with that cargo, will not
    hurt our agricultural industry. I have led bipartisan measures
    to address major staffing shortages for this integral position,
    and I will continue to work to ensure that CBP has the adequate
    resources to fulfill its mission to keep freight moving
    efficiently through ports of entry.
        Our competitors, especially China, understand that
    infrastructure and supply chains are directly linked to
    economic competitiveness. That is why China is making
    unprecedented investments in infrastructure and logistics, not
    only in China, but around the globe, as part of its Belt and
    Road Initiative.
        Congress must ensure that the United States maintains its
    global leadership by investing in our infrastructure, in our
    freight industry, and our workers. The millions of workers
    employed in the freight industry are the backbone of our
    economy. We must ensure they have the pay and protections they
    deserve, along with a safe working environment.
        Safety is also essential to protect the public at large.
    Whether we are addressing trucks that share the road with
    millions of Americans every day, or railroad that move goods
    through and near our towns, Congress must make safety a top
    priority.
        In conclusion, we have a chance to enter a new era of
    freight mobility that will support countless jobs and families,
    grow new industries, protect the environment, and improve
    safety. And I look forward to looking with my colleagues on
    this subcommittee to make that vision a reality.
        And now, I invite Ranking Member Fischer to share her
    opening remarks.

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

        Senator Fischer. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman
    Peters, for convening this hearing.
        First, I would like to take the opportunity to thank those
    working in the freight transportation industry for their work
    throughout this pandemic. The truckers, railroaders,
    longshoremen, and other essential freight transportation
    workers across this country. They stepped up to deliver the
    critical supplies we needed to stay safe, healthy, and maintain
    vital services, throughout this very trying year. I am grateful
    for all their work and their sacrifice.
        Today's hearing on freight transportation is timely, given
    the ongoing discussion about the need to invest in our
    infrastructure. When we think about what core infrastructure
    is, and what America's core infrastructure needs, we think
    about the state of our roads and bridges, ports, railroads,
    waterways, airports, and also, broadband.
        We have heard, time and again, about the need to invest in
    infrastructure, either in hearings before this subcommittee,
    and also the full committee. From reports, such as the American
    Society of Civil Engineers' Infrastructure Report card, and
    from numerous organizations, including those represented here
    today.
        We know that investing in core infrastructure has
    bipartisan support. Just look at the FAST Act. We passed that
    in 2015, and the FAA reauthorization in 2018. Or the most
    recent Border Bills and the Pipeline Safety reauthorizations.
    Each of these bills passed either unanimously, or with large
    bipartisan majorities. And Congress has the opportunity to work
    on infrastructure again, in a bipartisan manner, as we look to
    reauthorizing our Federal Surface Transportation Programs, set
    to expire this September.
        The witnesses here today represent some of the users and
    operators of that infrastructure, and they have firsthand
    knowledge of what those needs are. Their testimony today will
    add to the extensive record that we have about the need for
    investments in that core infrastructure.
        Of course, a surface transportation reauthorization not
    only invests in infrastructure, but it also sets Federal policy
    for the safe and efficient movements of goods across that
    infrastructure. I look forward to hearing about the wide
    variety of issues affecting the freight transportation sector
    that Congress should consider in a surface transportation
    reauthorization.
        The first among these issues is how to improve freight
    transportation safety. There are a number of bipartisan
    proposals to improve transportation safety, including
    legislation I have introduced, with Chairman Peters, to
    understand the scope and the severity of blocked railroad grade
    crossings. Advances in technology, targeted policies can make
    our transportation network safer.
        Another important topic is how to improve the efficient
    movement of goods by developing Smart policy and removing
    unnecessary and burdensome regulations. The freight
    transportation industry is a broad and diverse part of our
    economy. Federal policies should be based on sound data and
    they should recognize the wide variety of operations that are
    handled, on a daily basis, across this country. For example, my
    bipartisan HALLS Act would provide targeted flexibility for
    agriculture and livestock collars, to ensure they can move
    their perishable products.
        Finally, there has been a widespread reporting of freight
    congestion at port facilities, cargo delays, and a lack of
    capacity that have been exasperated by the pandemic.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their
    work to address these problems and the potential long-term
    impacts the pandemic will have on the freight industry.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you. My apologies, we have a Markup
    in Rules Committee, so I will have to excuse myself. I hope you
    excuse me, as well, and I will be monitoring the hearing. So,
    thank you very much. Thank you to the panel.
        Senator Peters. Well, thank you--thank you for your open--
    thank you for your opening remarks, Ranking Member Fischer, and
    I know you are conducting important business. So, I know you
    will be doing that as well, following the developments in this
    committee. So, thank you for your opening statement.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Senator Peters. We appreciate that. Our first witness today
    is Mr. Chuck Baker, who is President of the American Short Line
    and Regional Railroad Association. Mr. Baker is here
    representing approximately 600 short line and regional
    railroads across the country, many in my home state of
    Michigan.
        Mr. Baker has many years of experience working with the
    rail industry, including as a partner at Chambers, Colin, and
    Hardwell. Welcome, Mr. Baker, to the subcommittee and you may
    proceed with your opening statement.

      STATEMENT OF CHUCK BAKER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SHORT LINE &
                     REGIONAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Baker. Thank you. Good afternoon, I am Chuck Baker. I
    am here representing the Nation's 600 short line freight
    railroads. These railroads operate in 49 states, over nearly
    50,000 miles of track, or approximately one-third of the
    Nation's railroad network.
        In the states represented by this subcommittee's members,
    there are 242 short lines operating over 20,000 track miles.
    Chairman Peters' state of Michigan is one of 10 states where
    short lines operate more than 70 percent of the state's rail
    network.
        Short lines are most often associated with small-town and
    rural America, but they also serve large urban areas and many
    of the Nation's busiest ports. And they are not always so
    short. The Rapid City, Pierre, and Eastern Railroad in South
    Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wyoming is 743 miles long.
        Regardless of size or location, there are four defining
    characteristics of today's short lines. One, most short lines
    operate a track that was previously headed for abandonment. As
    money losing branch lines, they received little investment by
    their previous owners. They were, at one time, the weakest link
    in the freight supply chain, but are now a success story,
    enabling our customers to remain competitive in the global
    economy. To be successful and rehabilitate this track, short
    lines invest up to 33 percent of their annual revenues into
    their infrastructure, among the highest percent of any industry
    in the country.
        Two, for larger areas of the country, short line railroad
    service is the only connection to the national freight rail
    network, providing an economic lifeline for thousands of
    businesses, manufacturers, and farmers, and allowing their
    products to be competitively priced in the global market.
        Three, flexible, friendly, local service is a key driver of
    our success. We deal face to face on a daily basis with our
    customers and communities, so we can respond quickly to their
    needs, and so they can stay competitive.
        And four, short lines are small businesses. Our combined
    annual revenues across the 600 short lines are less than the
    annual revenues of any one of the four largest Class I
    railroads.
        While it is absolutely crucial to enhance the
    competitiveness of American freight, and that is what short
    lines are focused on doing every day, it is also crucial to do
    so in an environmentally sustainable way. As you may have read
    in my written testimony--which incorporates an excellent
    environmental report from my friends at the AAR--EPA data shows
    that rail, which accounts for 40 percent of U.S. long distance
    freight volume, is responsible for just 2.1 percent of the
    transportation sector's greenhouse gas emissions.
        Freight trains can move one ton of freight more than 470
    miles on one gallon of diesel. My testimony highlights a series
    of examples where moving products by rail, as opposed to on the
    highways, saves millions of gallons of fuel and thousands of
    tons of CO2 emissions.
        In addition to the supply chain and competitiveness
    benefits of supporting rail, and the environmental benefits,
    there are other public benefits of policies that support rail,
    such as improved safety, reduced road congestion, and reduced
    highway maintenance needs.
        As this committee develops your portion of a surface
    transportation reauthorization package, we offer a few
    suggestions that will maximize the benefits that short line
    railroads can provide to America's supply chain. We strongly
    support the CRISI grant program, as it is the primary grant
    program that supports short lines, and it provides for direct
    short line eligibility. The authorization levels should be
    significantly increased and there should be no new commuter
    rail or large project set-asides that squeeze out short line
    participation.
        We support the INFRA grant program and urge you to allow
    the program to support the most efficient freight projects by
    removing the $500 million multimodal cap. We know that we are
    preaching to the choir on this issue, especially with full
    Committee Chairwoman Cantwell and we thank her for her
    relentless leadership on the topic. We also support the
    Cantwell-Blunt Railroad Grade Crossing Elimination Act and
    Senators Thune and Hassan's RRIF Reform Bill.
        And we urge you to refrain from any new laws that would
    undermine the economics of freight railroading and harm our
    ability to be an important part of America's supply chain, such
    as increasing truck size and weight limits or mandating
    railroad-crew size laws.
        In conclusion, we believe short lines are an important link
    in the freight supply chain, a link we have worked hard to
    strengthen since we began purchasing these light-density lines
    decades ago. We understand that in the big picture, our share
    of infrastructure funding will be limited. But you should not
    underestimate the power and leverage that that funding
    provides.
        That leverage brings three advantages. One, as described in
    my testimony's Michigan examples, properly targeted public
    funding helps subtract substantially larger amounts of private
    investment by our customers. Two, for rehabilitation of lines
    serving our smallest customers, targeted public funding is
    often the piece needed to justify our own private investment.
    And three, for larger projects, public funds can turn multi-
    year projects into single-year projects. So, the economic and
    environmental benefits you are seeking are realized much
    sooner.
        I appreciate the opportunity to present the short line
    perspective and I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Chuck Baker, President, American Short Line and
                         Regional Railroad Association
        I am Chuck Baker, President of the American Short Line and Regional
    Railroad Association (ASLRRA), the trade association representing the
    Nation's 600 Class II and III railroads.
        It is a privilege to testify before you today. As this Committee
    and the Congress look to make significant, necessary investments to
    strengthen America's supply chains and ensure American competitiveness,
    rail must be part of the solution.
        Freight railroads are a fundamental cornerstone of the Nation's
    logistics and supply chain network, providing the most efficient and
    environmentally-friendly means of surface transportation. The U.S.
    freight rail system is unique in that it is largely provided on a
    privately operated and funded right-of-way with a common carrier
    obligation. These unique factors combine to form what the World Bank
    has recognized as the best freight rail network in the world, offering
    the American economy an enduring and crucial competitive advantage,
    which should be maintained and expanded.
        My comments today will highlight how U.S. short line and regional
    railroads are an important part of the U.S. freight rail network,
    providing a safe, competitive, and environmentally friendly low-carbon
    option to thousands of customers and communities who would otherwise be
    cut off from the national railroad network, and I will offer
    suggestions for policies that enhance those benefits.
    SHORT LINE RAILROADS ARE A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE FREIGHT RAIL SYSTEM
        Those of you who have served on this Committee are very familiar
    with our story--the variety of goods that we haul, the variety of
    operational size, and the variety of ways we aggressively partner with
    customers to ensure they remain competitive. Full Committee Chair
    Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker, along with many other Members of
    the Committee have staunchly supported policies and programs enhancing
    the inherent economic and environmental benefits of freight rail,
    including short lines, which we greatly appreciate.
        The name ``short line'' can create the mistaken impression that
    these railroads are all very short rail lines. The fact is they come in
    all sizes. The Omaha, Lincoln & Beatrice Railway in Senator Fischer's
    State of Nebraska is 2 miles long, while the Rapid City, Pierre &
    Eastern Railroad in Senator Thune's State of South Dakota is 743 miles
    long. In Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,
    New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Vermont, short lines operate track
    that stretches almost the entire length or width of the state.
        Short line railroads operate in 49 states over nearly 50,000 miles
    of track, or approximately one third of the Nation's freight railroad
    network. In the states represented by this Subcommittee's Members,
    there are 242 short lines operating over 20,000 track miles. Short
    lines are often called the first mile/last mile of the Nation's
    railroad system and handle in origination or destination one out of
    every five rail cars moving on the national system. In 36 states, short
    lines operate at least one quarter of the state's rail network.
    Subcommittee Chairman Peters' State of Michigan is one of ten states
    where short lines operate more than 70 percent of the state's rail
    network--21 short line railroads operating approximately 2,800 miles of
    track.
        Although short lines are most often associated with small-town and
    rural America, they also serve large urban areas and many of the
    Nation's busiest ports, including Seattle and Tacoma, Miami, Los
    Angeles and Long Beach, Hampton Roads, Pascagoula, Savannah, Mobile,
    New Orleans, and New York/New Jersey. Likewise, various short line
    railroads operate as neutral terminal switching carriers for multiple
    Class I railroads in Chicago, New Orleans, Kansas City, and St. Louis.
    The Chicago South Shore and South Bend Railroad and the New York &
    Atlantic Railway operate freight traffic over two of the busiest rail
    commuter corridors in the country.
        For the benefit of those not as familiar with short lines, let me
    comment briefly on four defining characteristics. Taken together, we
    believe these characteristics contribute significantly to sustaining
    strong and competitive rail service for regions and businesses that
    would otherwise be left behind.
        Most short lines operate track that was headed for abandonment
    under previous Class I owners. These were light density lines in
    smaller towns and rural areas with challenging infrastructure that
    could not generate enough revenue to be viable under the cost structure
    of the big national carriers. These former branch lines served
    customers that were located ``off the beaten path'' for the larger
    railroads and that typically shipped smaller volumes. With marginal or
    unprofitable financial returns, the previous owners understandably made
    minimal capital investment, resulting in deferred maintenance. They
    were, in the lexicon of this hearing, the weakest link in the freight
    supply chain. Thankfully, rather than abandoning these lines, the
    larger railroads spun them off to local entrepreneurs to reconstitute
    as independent short lines, and that has been a remarkable success
    story over the last 40 years. To be successful, short line owners must
    not only eliminate that deferred maintenance but must upgrade the track
    to handle the heavier, longer trains that are operated today by our
    Class I connecting partners. Short lines therefore invest on average
    from 25 percent to 33 percent of their annual revenues into maintaining
    and rehabilitating their infrastructure, and this makes short line
    railroading one of the most capital-intensive industries in the
    country.
        Short line railroads are most often the first and last step in a
    logistics process. One in five cars on the network originate or
    terminate on a short line. We are small businesses, and we keep small
    businesses connected to the larger economy. Even our strongest
    supporters in Congress support us not because they are particularly
    interested in railroads but because they understand the importance of
    our service to farmers and businesses in their states. And that's the
    right way to think about it--the trains we run keep customers connected
    to the national railroad network, allowing them to reach their markets
    with safe and reliable service at competitive rates. It perfects the
    supply chain for tens of thousands of businesses and that perfection is
    required for American businesses to succeed in a competitive global
    economy. This is evident in every state in which we do business.
        In highly congested areas, we provide critical switching and
    transloading operations as supply chain options for shippers and
    receivers seeking flexible and creative ways to address logistics
    challenges. We do this with a high level of customer-focused service to
    ensure that every penny of value is squeezed out of every supply chain
    dollar to ensure competitiveness for American businesses in a
    competitive global marketplace.
        Flexible, efficient local service drives our success. Short lines
    create value not through our size or total market share but in who and
    where we serve. For large areas of the country and particularly for
    rural and small-town America, short line railroad service often offers
    the only connection to the national freight rail network. Without short
    line service, shippers and receivers in these areas cannot take full
    advantage of the efficiencies and reach of the national rail network.
    For the businesses and farmers in those areas, our ability to take a
    25-car train 75 miles to the nearest Class I interchange equals in
    importance the Class I's ability to attach that block of traffic to a
    100-car unit train and move it across the country. Our customers depend
    on the economics of rail service and our interline services with the
    Class I railroads to remain competitive in their domestic and
    international markets where pennies per bushel or dollars per ton can
    make the difference between winning or losing business.
        Short lines can make a go of it in challenging locations and
    markets because we deal face-to-face with customers and offer the
    flexible service their businesses require. If our customers require an
    extra switch on Sunday morning, or they need to double their deliveries
    with almost no notice, they can reach the President or the General
    Manager of the short line personally who will do everything they can to
    make it happen. The short line is a small enough operation with enough
    desire for growth, capacity to support it, and flexibility in their
    approach to be able to adjust to the ever-changing demands of the
    marketplace.
        Short lines are a growth engine--particularly for areas of the
    country that have not shared in all of the country's economic growth.
    Short lines are obsessed with growing our businesses by helping our
    customers grow their businesses. While we may only move the traffic a
    few miles to the interchange with the Class I, the service and access
    we provide each individual customer is critical to that customer's
    success. In a recent analysis undertaken by PwC (attached), each job on
    a short line indirectly drives an additional 2.6 jobs. In total across
    the U.S. economy, 0.51 percent of business inputs rely on
    transportation services provided by the short line industry, amounting
    to 478,820 jobs, $26.1 billion in labor income, and $56.2 billion in
    value added.
        Short lines work relentlessly to create new business opportunities
    with current and new customers. After all, a railroad can't pull up its
    rails and relocate, so they are committed to the success of their local
    communities. They invest in technology and innovation that provides
    increased safety and new opportunities for customers. They are problem
    solvers, seeking new ways to service a customer, and create value for
    themselves and the communities in which they operate. As any shipper
    will tell you, logistics transportation costs and service are huge
    determinants of success and we take that responsibility very seriously.
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF FREIGHT RAIL
        While the transportation sector is the biggest source of greenhouse
    gases in the United States, EPA data shows that rail, which accounts
    for 40 percent of U.S. long distance freight volume, is responsible for
    just 2.1 percent of the sector's emissions. As the AAR has documented
    (attached), freight trains move on average one ton of freight more than
    470 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel.
        Let me bring that down to the local level where short lines are
    making a considerable contribution. Tacoma Rail in Washington State
    moves an average of 69,000 tons of interchanged traffic daily, using an
    average of 350,000 gallons of fuel per year. Comparable truck moves on
    the highway would use 645,000 gallons of fuel--that savings is the
    energy equivalent of the annual electricity usage of 475 homes.
        The Nebraska Central Railroad moves 56,600 tons of corn from the
    Stromsburg Subdivision to Columbus, Nebraska using 7,850 gallons of
    fuel. For trucks to move an equivalent volume of corn from the same
    origins to the same destination would use approximately 39,900 gallons.
        The Louisville & Indiana Railroad in Indiana operates two shuttle
    moves in Southern Indiana to and from Consolidated Grain and Barge
    (CGB) in Jeffersonville. The first runs from Kokomo Grain in Edinburgh
    and averages 100 cars annually. Moving this on its privately owned and
    maintained rail line rather than the parallel publicly owned and
    maintained I-65 and US31 highways saves 8,759 gallons of fuel and,
    using EPA's Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator, avoids
    discharging 89 metric tons of CO2 into our environment. The
    second operates between CGB facilities in Jeffersonville and Louisville
    and averages 600 carloads annually. This move saves 18,118 gallons of
    fuel and 184 metric tons of CO2--that's the equivalent of
    taking 8,000 trash bags to the recycling center instead of the
    landfill.
        The Lancaster & Chester Railroad in South Carolina ships 281,500
    tons of soybeans, soy meal and soybean oil per year between the South
    Carolina cities of Chester, Fort Lawn and Kershaw. That move uses an
    average of 80,000 gallons of fuel per year. The comparable highway move
    would use over 320,000 gallons of fuel. That savings is the equivalent
    of growing 35,000 trees for 10 years.
        Lake State Railway in Michigan moved 296,000 tons of aggregate from
    Alpena, MI to Kawkawlin, Grayling and Flint, MI in 2020. Those moves
    used approximately 111,176 gallons of fuel. Comparable truck moves
    would use approximately 383,164 gallons of fuel. That savings is the
    equivalent of the power needed to fully charge every one of the 295
    million cell phones in the United States tonight.
        The Fulton County Railway in Georgia handles a huge amount of the
    refrigerated food and beverage rail traffic in the southeast United
    States, and kept vegetables and beer moving from as far away as Mexico
    and Washington State as demand spiked during the pandemic. In 2020, FCR
    handled approximately 592,000 tons of cold storage food and beer--
    apparently not even the coronavirus could quench America's thirst for
    Corona! Railroads largely exited refrigerated transportation in the
    20th century, but small short line innovators like FCR have been
    winning traffic back. Without this short line, this traffic would have
    moved the entire way by truck, consuming almost 8.7 million gallons of
    fuel, compared to 2.8 million gallons by rail. That savings is the
    equivalent of converting 2 million light bulbs from incandescent into
    LED.
        These savings are real, and they are realized on every short line
    in the country.
    INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES FOR SHORT LINES
        As Congress begins to develop what will likely be a robust and
    ambitious infrastructure program, your Subcommittee will play an
    important role in ensuring the continued strength of the American
    supply chain, and the competitiveness of businesses large and small
    across the U.S. Here we offer some suggestions that we believe will
    maximize the economic, competitive, and environmental benefits offered
    by the short line freight railroad industry.
    A) Include Short Line Railroads Fully in New Infrastructure Investment
        We strongly support the CRISI grant program as it specifically
    provides for short line eligibility and puts a focus on benefit-cost
    analysis. In our experience, with that level playing field, short line
    projects fare well. The authorization levels for the program should be
    significantly increased (we suggest that the $1.4b/year contemplated by
    the House in H.R. 2 in 2020 would be a reasonable target) and there
    should be no big, new set-asides or eligibilities (e.g., eligibility
    for commuter rail or set-asides for intercity passenger rail or large
    projects) to ensure an even playing field for all current applicants
    and allow for the potential continued success of short lines in the
    annual CRISI competition.
        We are also supportive of the INFRA grant program, or a successor
    program such as PNRS as proposed in H.R. 2 in 2020. There is value in a
    merit-based discretionary grant program open to multiple modes of
    transportation, especially one that is focused on freight and goods
    movement. We recommend three changes to this program:

      1)  Allow the program to support the most efficient and effective
            freight projects by fully removing or at least significantly
            increasing the $500 million cap on non-highway portions of the
            multimodal freight projects, as suggested in H.R. 2. We know
            that we are preaching to the choir on this issue especially
            with Chairwoman Cantwell and thank her for her relentless
            leadership on this topic!

      2)  Ensure that the program can fund efficient and effective projects
            by increasing the ``small projects'' set aside. Currently, the
            10 percent cap on small projects, defined as a minimum grant of
            $5 million for projects that do not meet the $100 million
            project minimum, does not provide enough opportunity for INFRA
            grants to be used to help with most short line infrastructure
            projects. The 10 percent set aside should be increased to 25
            percent to more accurately represent the many needs in the less
            populated regions of the country. There's certainly nothing
            wrong with dedicating funding to mega projects, but if a less
            expensive project can achieve significant economic and
            environmental benefits and improve America's supply chain and
            competitiveness, we should remain open to those smaller
            projects also. The proposal in last year's H.R. 2 to eliminate
            the small set-aside entirely in PNRS would move in the wrong
            direction and we hope will be reconsidered.

      3)  Maintain reasonable non-federal share requirements for INFRA
            grants and consider increasing the maximum permissible share of
            INFRA program funding per project from 60 percent to 80 percent
            for small projects. Giving increasing preference to grant
            requests with ``over-matching'' may appear logical but can lead
            to missing otherwise important short line projects that cannot
            overmatch with internal funds or are not located in urban areas
            that enjoy significant taxing and bonding authority.

        We'd also recommend including short line railroad project
    eligibility in any new transportation grant programs that are created
    targeting emissions, congestion reduction, resilience, or any similar
    goal where short lines can help be part of the solution. For instance,
    H.R. 2 in 2020 created two new programs (Sec. 1202, Increasing the
    Resilience of Transportation Assets--Pre-disaster Mitigation Program
    and Sec. 1213--Carbon Pollution Reduction) in which short line projects
    were not eligible but could have and should have been. Not only is rail
    an environmentally friendly way to move freight, it is also an
    attractive option to provide resilient infrastructure that can serve as
    a competitive alternative to the highway system and enhance America's
    supply chain. Adding freight rail project eligibility would help
    achieve the goals of the program and moving some freight to rail also
    improves mobility on public roads.
        As was done in H.R. 2 in 2020 and in the EPW Committee's America's
    Transportation Infrastructure Act of 2019, The National Highway Freight
    Program should become more multimodal and raise or eliminate the non-
    highway cap, so that program can become a source of funds for State
    DOTs to support freight rail projects if they choose. Maximizing short
    line access to this program, as well as the others I have referenced in
    my testimony, provides important leverage to attract private
    investment, provides flexibility to allow State DOTs to solve their
    transportation challenges in the way that they find most effective, and
    allows Congress to get the most bang for its buck out of finite
    resources.
        Let me give you a couple of examples from Michigan where the
    state's Department of Transportation (MDOT) provides funding to help
    connect new or expanding businesses to Michigan's rail system, through
    their Freight Economic Development Program. The grant program can cover
    up to 50 percent of the costs associated with rail infrastructure,
    including rail spurs, loading and unloading equipment, and site
    preparation.
        Cargill utilized these MDOT funds to build the rail infrastructure
    needed to serve a new $19 million animal nutrition manufacturing plant
    in Owosso. Previously, Cargill's animal nutrition business had 43
    manufacturing facilities across the U.S. and none were in Michigan
    until this plant was built, and the rail connection was an important
    fact in the decision to build.
        Zeeland Farm Services utilized MDOT funds to build the rail
    infrastructure associated with a new $130 million soybean processing
    plant in central Gratiot County. The plant is capable of processing
    more than 40 million bushels of soybeans annually and generated 75 new
    full-time jobs. Both facilities are served by Great Lakes Central
    Railroad and in 2020 they generated an additional 5,572 carloads for
    the railroad.
        These are huge private investments made possible in part by
    comparatively modest public infrastructure investments. Together MDOT
    invested $1.435 million in the rail portion of these projects. This
    public investment provides important leverage and short line railroads
    are well positioned to utilize this leverage to build or repair the
    infrastructure that shippers require. These are wins for American
    competitiveness and the supply chain at the same time as they're wins
    for jobs, the environment, and safety.
        Whether as part of existing grant programs or new ones, we would
    suggest several principles that would help short lines better utilize
    any infrastructure program:

      1.  Short lines should be directly eligible applicants for project
            grants, like CRISI. Too often in the past, Federal programs
            have been only open for application to local units of
            government, which in turn requires short lines to create
            unnecessarily complex and burdensome applicant structures and
            which sometimes favors politically popular projects over
            economically beneficial projects.

      2.  The application process needs to be as simple and transparent as
            possible. Short lines are small businesses and generally the
            individuals writing and engaging with the government on our
            applications are employees with other duties on the railroad.
            We do not have full time grant writers or the resources to hire
            expensive consulting firms.

      3.  The analysis used to judge a project should not be a rigid one-
            size-fits-all process. For example, the process to apply, the
            public planning and the engineering required, and the
            appropriate benefit-cost analysis format for incrementally
            upgrading a ten-mile segment of existing track serving five
            small grain elevators should not be the same as building a new
            subway line or adding lanes to an interstate highway.

      4.  If there is to be an associated environmental approval process,
            it must be streamlined to be completed in a reasonable period
            of time. Approval processes that last for years are a deal-
            killer to those running a business.
    B) Improve Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety
        We support the Cantwell-Blunt Railroad Grade Crossing Elimination
    Act (S. 1465) which would make an important contribution to enhancing
    safety and reducing traffic congestion. While short line railroads
    strive to work closely with our communities and customers to avoid
    causing any unwelcome impacts, there are many opportunities throughout
    the country to eliminate crossings to improve the mobility of people
    and goods, and improve the health and safety of communities. This
    legislation will help provide funds to our government and tribal
    partners to allow them to work with us to close, relocate or improve
    many challenging crossings.
    C) Improve the Rail Financing Loan Program, RRIF
        We support Senators Thune's and Hassan's RRIF reform bill, the
    Railroad Rehabilitation and Financing Innovation Act (S. 468), which
    would improve the RRIF program and make it more viable for short lines.
    It addresses several important issues that have been hurdles to
    participation in the RRIF program for our short line members, including
    the streamlining of the application process, the extension of loan
    lengths, the increased flexibility regarding collateral requirements,
    and the authorization of funds to reduce both the direct cost of
    applying and also the credit risk premium charges that have frequently
    been a hurdle to completing successful loans, which would bring the
    RRIF program more in line with the comparatively more successful TIFIA
    program. As Senator Thune said at the bill's introduction, ``States
    like South Dakota rely on short line railroads to transport
    agricultural products and other goods to market, and the RRIF program
    was originally designed to provide stable financing to small railroads
    for infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, short lines are often
    unable to afford the time and expense associated with the current RRIF
    application process, discouraging them from using the program. This
    legislation makes necessary updates to RRIF so short lines are better
    able to use the program as originally intended.''
    D) Implement Regulatory Policies Thoughtfully
        Finally, let me briefly mention two issues that we believe would
    severely threaten the economics of short line railroading and that we
    hope will not be included in any surface transportation reauthorization
    or infrastructure package.
        Avoid any Increases to Truck Size and Weight (TSW) limits--Any
    increases and exceptions to current Federal limits would further
    subsidize freight highway transportation, alter the economics of
    freight shipping, and would result in a shift from freight rail to
    highway transportation which would impact the environment and the
    public infrastructure paid for with taxpayer dollars. We oppose any
    legislation that increases current size or weight limits. As this
    committee specifically has jurisdiction over the length question, I'll
    note that Chairs Cantwell and Peters and Ranking Members Wicker and
    Fischer all voted in favor of the Wicker-Feinstein motion to instruct
    on this issue the last time it came up for a Senate vote back in 2015,
    and of course Ranking Member Wicker has been a tremendous leader on
    this issue for a long time.
        Avoid unnecessary operational mandates on private railroads, such
    as a crew size mandate--This is an unnecessary and unjustified concept,
    considering the lack of data regarding any safety benefits of such a
    mandate and the overall safety record of freight railroads. It would
    also discourage future innovation, while legislating on an issue that
    has properly been the subject of labor negotiations for more than a
    century. Further, this mandate would disadvantage railroads in the
    competition for freight and over time shift freight to the highway,
    where it is inherently more dangerous and less environmentally
    sustainable.
        While less headline-grabbing than a crew size mandate, there are
    also other potential unnecessary operational or regulatory mandates on
    railroads that are of concern to us, such as banning the transportation
    of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail or forcing STB mediation for
    commuter rail requests to access freight track. We urge caution on any
    new mandates or regulations that aren't supported by solid data, as
    they limit flexibility, stifle innovation, and ultimately harm our
    ability to deliver benefits to America's economy, supply chain,
    competitiveness, and the environment.
        For instance, we believe that the Fischer/Tester/Moran/Klobuchar/
    Peters blocked crossings portal bill (S. 700) is a thoughtful approach
    and likely to achieve a better result for everybody than the more
    inflexible approach taken in H.R. 2.
    SUPPORTING A BIPARTISAN EFFORT AIMED AT SUCCESS
        I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to give the views of the
    short line industry at this hearing. As I wrap up, I would like to
    share a personal observation prevalent among the small businesses I
    represent. The short line industry was involved in a decades-long
    effort to extend and then make permanent the short line 45G
    rehabilitation tax credit, legislation that many of you on this
    Subcommittee were instrumental in passing. The tax credit was made
    permanent last year.
        When we launched that initiative in 2003, short line economics were
    little understood by the majority in Congress. Indeed, for many, short
    lines were just a quaint name on the Monopoly board. We worked hard at
    developing and documenting our story and Members of Congress gave us
    the opportunity to tell that story, took the time to understand the
    story, and visited our local properties to get a first-hand look at who
    we were and what we did. Most importantly, our Congressional allies
    committed to leading a sustained bi-partisan effort, regardless of who
    controlled Congress. We worked to extend this legislation in seven
    separate Sessions of Congress, and party control of the House and/or
    Senate changed many times during that period. Regardless of party
    control, and often in the face of fierce partisan battles, our chief
    sponsors never wavered in their commitment to sticking together in bi-
    partisan support of the legislation. It showed that government works
    when you work hard at working it out. We need that today more than ever
    and I hope that can be the spirit in which you approach creating a
    much-needed surface transportation bill or broader infrastructure
    package.
        Toward that end, Congress should restore the Highway Trust Fund
    (HTF) to a user-pays system. The U.S. has historically relied upon a
    user-pays system to fund investments in public road infrastructure, and
    there is broad agreement in the transportation and business community
    and Congress that this is how the program should work. Unfortunately,
    since the gas tax user fee hasn't increased since 1993, revenues into
    the HTF have failed to keep pace with investment needs, requiring $157
    billion in general fund transfers since 2008. It'll be another $195b
    over the next 10 years at the current pace.
        As my colleagues at the AAR also point out in their written
    testimony, general fund transfers to the HTF distort the freight
    transportation market in favor of the commercial trucking industry and
    put other modes at an unfair competitive disadvantage. This is
    especially problematic for railroads which largely build, maintain, and
    pay for their own private infrastructure. Congress should address this
    modal inequity by reaffirming the user-pays system and increasing the
    fuel tax or moving to a VMT fee.
    CONCLUSION
        In conclusion, we seek equitable infrastructure investment in short
    line freight railroads, an industry with a proven record of success, as
    you seek to modernize the country's infrastructure for our collective
    future success. Congress should ensure that new infrastructure
    investment encourages as much freight as possible to move by rail
    because (1) the public benefits when freight moves by rail--in terms of
    improved safety, reduced congestion, reduced highway damage, and
    reduced environmental impact and (2) private freight railroads largely
    pay for their own infrastructure while highways have been relying on
    tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to cover what user
    fees don't. Investments into rail and policies that support rail or at
    least don't harm rail will translate into jobs and foster growth
    especially in rural America, reduce transportation's carbon footprint,
    and ensure that our Nation's supply chain supports American
    competitiveness.
    Attachments, additional resources and source material:
    Short Line ``101'' 2-pager
    http://files.aslrra.org/images/news_file/
    Short_Line_Railroad_Industry_101-032021.pdf

    PwC short line economic impact report showing economic contributions of
    short lines, most notably that 478,000+ jobs are dependent on short
    line service
    http://files.aslrra.org/images/news_file/PwC_ASLRRA_final_report.pdf

    AASHTO Freight Rail Study (update of their original Bottom Line report)
    showing benefits of mode shift to rail for pavement maintenance
    savings, congestion savings, environmental savings, safety savings, and
    shipper savings. It makes the conclusion that ``Relatively minor
    investments in rail infrastructure yields major public benefits.''
    https://rail.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2019/10/
    FRBL-2.pdf

    AAR-Freight Railroads and Climate-Change-Report
    https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AAR-Climate-Change-
    Report.pdf

    STB Railroad-Shipper Transportation Advisory Council (RSTAC) letter
    urging Congress to ``include short line railroads fully in any new
    infrastructure investment funding legislation that may be enacted''
    https://www.nacd.com/pub/?id=224EF08D-0AE0-771E-2A9C-129E0B497F9F

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Baker, for your testimony.
    Our second witness today is Mr. Lamont Byrd, Director of Safety
    and Health for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In
    that role, Mr. Byrd oversees the development and the
    implementation of comprehensive safety and health programs for
    the 1.4-million-member International Union. Mr. Byrd also
    serves as Chairman of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory
    Committee at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
        Welcome, Mr. Byrd. You may proceed with your opening
    comment.

        STATEMENT OF LAMONT BYRD, DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND HEALTH,
                 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS

        Mr. Byrd. Thank you. Chairman Peters, Ranking Member
    Fischer, and members of the Subcommittee, my name, again, is
    Lamont Byrd. I am the Director of Safety and Health for the
    International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Thank you for inviting
    me here today to testify about Freight Mobility: Strengthening
    America's Supply Chains and Competitiveness.
        The Teamsters Union represents more than 600,000 commercial
    truck drivers and through the Brotherhood of Locomotive
    Engineers and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees,
    we also represent more than 70,000 rail employees. Our members
    in these in industry sectors have seen their work demands
    increase dramatically over the past several years, and even
    during the COVID-19 pandemic, as many are classified as
    essential workers.
        In this opening statement, I will discuss infrastructure,
    globalization and cross-border operations, truck and rail
    safety regulations, and related operational policies. But many
    additional issues are discussed in our written testimony, and
    please feel free to ask me any questions you may have on those
    topics, as well.
        I would like to begin with infrastructure. The failure to
    invest and improve the Nation's infrastructure has adversely
    impacted trucking and the rail employers, workers, and
    consumers. The explosion of online shopping coupled with
    consumer demands has placed more freight in the system and more
    pressure on both truck drivers and railroaders to deliver goods
    quickly. Structural changes across both industries, such as the
    use of precision schedule railroading, by some carriers, has
    added to this enormous strain. Our hope is that this
    Administration can partner with Congress to move forward on
    rebuilding America's infrastructure, while simultaneously
    addressing serious operational concerns being raised by
    workers.
        Globalization and international trade agreements has also
    increased new challenges for American workers, including those
    in transportation. The renegotiation of NAFTA enabled the
    Teamsters Union to work with the U.S. Trade Representative to
    require foreign trucks and drivers that deliver goods into the
    United States, to comply with all motor carrier and driver
    safety laws, allowing us an opportunity to establish a
    framework to protect safe, good paying American trucking jobs.
    That was a good result, but much work remains to be done.
        We must ensure that carriers are prevented from bringing
    foreign drivers into the United States, under temporary
    business Visas, and violating Cabotage Laws. We must also
    address similar cross border issues in the rail industry, where
    serious problems have arisen at the southern border.
        The Teamsters Union continues to be concerned about the
    numerous exemptions to the Teamsters Union continues to be
    concerned about the numerous exemptions to Hours-of-Service
    regulations that are granted to motor carriers by the Federal
    Motor Carriers Safety Administration and legislated by
    Congress.
        We are specifically concerned about the FMCSA's changes to
    the short hour provision for CDL qualified drivers, the
    revision to the definition of rest break, which allows all non-
    driving work to be considered as rest. As well as the issuance
    of two pilot programs, one allowing under 21-year-old drivers
    to transport goods and interstate commerce, and the other
    permitting CMB drivers to pause their workday up to 3 hours.
    None of these regulatory revisions or pilot programs improve
    safety, and they should all be repealed.
        One of these pilot programs, which would allow under 21-
    year-olds to operate in interstate commerce, is apparently,
    being driven by the challenges employers face in recruiting and
    hiring qualified drivers. While long work hours, difficult
    work, and the need for clean driving and drug and alcohol
    testing records create hiring challenges for motor carriers, we
    do not believe that the solution to these challenges is to hire
    more foreign drivers or lower the minimum driving age. Pay and
    working conditions need to be improved so that drivers who are
    already in the industry are incentivized to stay.
        Part of incentivizing drivers to stay also includes taking
    a science-based approach to drug testing. The Department of
    Health and Human Services issued guidelines for hair testing
    for federally mandated drug testing programs late last year.
    The Teamsters oppose this method of testing, as there is
    significant, unresolved scientific issues associated with hair
    testing.
        Finally, autonomous vehicles have the potential to reshape
    the entire transportation sector, including the trucking and
    rail industries. While some of this technology has the
    potential to improve truck safety and efficiency, the threat of
    self-driving trucks replacing or degrading millions of truck
    driver jobs, is of great concern to our members. We need
    Congress to ensure that before we move forward with automation
    that proper protections are in place.
        Many of those safety protections may be needed for
    thousands of vehicles that are already on the roads. That is
    why we support a study on the use of commercial vehicles with a
    gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000 pounds in
    package delivery operations, as required in Section 4101 of
    H.R. 2. There is very little data, if any, relating to the
    safety performance and these same size vehicles are also likely
    to be used in autonomous operations. So, a detailed review of
    their operational safety is critical to our members.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    before the subcommittee today and I look forward to answering
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Byrd follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Lamont Byrd, Director of Safety and Health,
                     International Brotherhood of Teamsters
    Introduction
        Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer and Members of the
    Subcommittee: My name is Lamont Byrd, and I am the Director of Safety
    and Health for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). Thank
    you for inviting me here today to testify on ``Freight Mobility:
    Strengthening America's Supply Chains and Competitiveness.'' The
    Teamsters Union represents more than 600,000 members who start their
    workday behind the steering wheel of a truck. We also represent more
    than 70,000 rail employees in the United States who work as locomotive
    engineers, trainmen, and maintenance of way workers through the
    Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Brotherhood of Maintenance
    of Way Employees. Whether they are rail workers operating at one of the
    five major freight railroads, Amtrak, or a commuter rail system, or a
    Teamster driver operating an 18-wheeler or dropping a UPS package at
    your door, we have seen the demands on hundreds of thousands of our
    transportation members increase dramatically over the past several
    years, even as many of them put themselves in harm's way by continuing
    to show up to work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
        On the trucking side, the pressures these drivers face come from a
    variety of sources, some obvious, others not so obvious. But a
    recurring theme pushing drivers sometimes to their limit is a claimed
    need by carriers for flexibility and greater efficiency. There are many
    reasons that put the trucking industry and its drivers under the gun.
    And a lot of it has to do with policy or lack thereof that hasn't kept
    pace with an ever-changing transportation system. Specific policy
    issues relating to infrastructure, driver compensation, Hours-of
    Service regulations and exemptions from other safety regulations,
    detention time, outright driver harassment, driver health, driver
    training and retention, automation and globalization all contribute to
    these pressures and are discussed at length in our testimony that
    follows. It's a fact that a truck driver operates in a very regulated
    arena. From the time he/she obtains a Commercial Driver's License
    (CDL), the driver is subject to medical certification, drug testing,
    and dozens of safety regulations. Drivers for the most part are paid by
    the mile, work the longest hours in any industry (60 to 70 hours per
    week) and don't receive overtime pay. They make money by delivering a
    product on time, and the odds right now are stacked against them in
    doing so by many factors.
        On the rail side, many of these same conditions exist. There also
    are some stark differences that create great inequity for Rail
    Teamsters. Most BLET members have no fixed work schedules and are tied
    to a telephone; compounding matters is an almost complete lack of
    reliable information from which locomotive engineers and trainmen can
    regulate their off-duty time to ensure that they are fully rested when
    they have to report for work. A significant percentage of BMWED members
    work on traveling gangs that cover huge geographical territories,
    taking them from their homes and families for a week or more at a time.
        Rail Teamsters, and all rail workers, also face two other industry-
    wide challenges. One is a never-ending drive by rail carriers to
    replace workers with technology. For BMWED members this has taken the
    form of replacing human track inspection with drones. BLET members are
    increasingly being forced to run trains--upwards of three miles long--
    that exceed the boundaries of safety, and the carriers are actively
    seeking to cut the size of road freight crews in half. On top of this,
    the railroads have adopted a business model, called Precision Scheduled
    Railroading (PSR), which subordinates service, staffing and safety to a
    never-ending chase to reduce operating ratios, which is a railroad's
    operating expenses expressed as a percentage of its revenue.
    Infrastructure
        The failure to invest and improve the Nation's infrastructure
    impacts the trucking and the rail industry alike, its workers, and
    consumers in many adverse ways. The explosion of on-line shopping
    coupled with consumer demands of ``I have to have it tomorrow'' and an
    even greater emphasis on just-in-time delivery have put more freight in
    the system and more pressure on both truck drivers and railroaders
    alike to deliver goods quickly. The structural shift to PSR has thrown
    gas onto this fire and forced many railroaders to work at breakneck and
    unsafe speeds. The annual uncertainty around Amtrak funding not only
    makes operational planning for Amtrak difficult, but also leaves
    thousands of American railroaders with enormous question marks around
    what future they will have in the industry. For truck drivers, traffic
    congestion fueled by years of delayed highway construction and
    improvement projects, weight limits on deteriorating bridges that
    necessitate re-routings, and the general condition of some highways
    that cause road closures and detours all put truck drivers behind the
    wheel longer than they need to be and in a ``pressure cooker''
    environment of stop and go traffic. Traffic jams alone cost the U.S.
    $87 billion in lost productivity in 2018 according to data analyzed by
    the research firm INRIX. Our hope is that this Administration can
    return to the table and partner with Congress to move forward on
    rebuilding America's highways, railroads, bridges, ports, and other
    much needed infrastructure projects.
    Globalization/Trade/Cross-Border Operations
        Globalization and international trade agreements have opened new
    challenges for the American worker, including truck drivers. Ever since
    the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force in
    1994, the Teamsters Union has fought to ensure that highway safety is
    paramount in implementing the NAFTA provision that permitted Mexican
    domiciled carriers to perform long haul trucking operations beyond the
    commercial border zones. The renegotiation of NAFTA allowed the
    Teamsters Union to work with the U.S. Trade Representative to ensure
    that the foreign trucks and drivers delivering goods into the United
    States will continue to be required to meet all motor carrier and
    driver safety laws. The USMCA also afforded us an opportunity to
    establish a framework to ensure that good paying American trucking jobs
    are not supplanted by lower-paid foreign drivers. Specifically, the
    USMCA provides trucking industry stakeholders an opportunity to
    petition the International Trade Commission (ITC) and seek remedial
    action if it is determined that U.S. carriers and/or drivers have
    suffered material harm as a result of long-haul cross-border trucking.
    A survey by DOT of operating authority for Mexico-domiciled carriers
    currently permitted to enter the U.S. beyond the border commercial zone
    is currently underway as mandated under USMCA implementing legislation
    (PL-116-113, Title III, Section 327). Additionally, under USMCA, the
    DOT Inspector General is required to ``review the procedures and
    actions taken by the Secretary to determine whether each Mexico-
    domiciled motor carrier with any U.S. operating authority . . . is in
    compliance with applicable Federal motor carrier safety laws and
    regulations.'' (Statement of Administrative Action accompanying PL 116-
    113).
        One issue related to cross-border trucking not addressed by the
    USMCA cross-border trucking provisions is the use of drivers admitted
    to the United States under temporary business visas. Section 4307 (H.R.
    2, 116th Congress) requires the DOT Inspector General to report on the
    prevalence of these operations, including the country of domicile of
    the carriers, the demographics of the drivers and their contractual
    relationship with those motor carriers. It also requires a closer look
    at point-to-point transportation in the U.S. (cabotage) and possible
    violations of that law by foreign drivers. While monitored by Customs
    and Border Patrol (CBP), the Teamsters, through an investigation by
    EMPOWER, a Mexico City-based research firm, who conducted numerous
    interviews with Mexico-domiciled drivers have found evidence of drivers
    being transported across the U.S. border, then assigned a tractor
    trailer and performing point-to-point delivery in the U.S., a clear
    violation of cabotage laws.
        This is despite the fact that U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    (CBP) holds workshops with major B-1 employers about expedited border
    crossing programs and U.S. cabotage law. The Teamsters strongly support
    an investigation by the Inspector General to more closely examine these
    types of operations.
        The issues regarding cross-border operations permeates not just the
    trucking industry, but rail operations as well. The history of rail
    cross-border operations truly is a tale of two borders. To the north,
    there was international representation of operating employees and
    maintenance of way employees by the two unions that comprise the
    Teamsters Rail Conference, which dates back to 1870. Except when a
    rogue carrier on either side of the border attempts to exceed its
    contractual authority, operations between the United States and Canada
    generally are quite stable, with crew changes occurring at the border
    or in rail yards immediately adjacent to the border.
        It is a far different story on our southern border, where typically
    the yards are located beyond the border city. Cross-border trains block
    vehicular traffic in these cities for lengthy periods of time, while
    they travel through Customs and Border Protection scanners, and this
    problem has become significantly worse because of the excessively long
    trains the railroads insist on operating. Mexican law prohibits anyone
    who is not a Mexican national from performing any railroad work within
    that country's borders, making an operation similar to that on the
    northern border impossible. Rail carriers are using every trick in the
    book to use much lower paid Mexican crews to operate inside the U.S.,
    to the point that the last Federal Railroad Administrator essentially
    stopped enforcing the locomotive engineer certification regulations
    required by Congress at the southern border. We would be happy to
    provide detailed information on this subject if the Subcommittee is
    interested.
    Coercion/Harassment
        Similar to the evasion of regulatory requirements going on at the
    border for rail crews, motor carriers are increasingly exerting
    enormous pressure on drivers to be more productive even if it means
    violating various motor carrier safety regulations. For example, the
    Union is involved in a case where a driver/member reported that the
    cargo he was transporting via truck was loaded with melons on the
    bottom of pallets and improperly secured and consequently shifted while
    en-route. It should be noted that the driver was unable to thoroughly
    inspect the load prior to leaving the terminal because the truck was
    fully loaded when he picked it up. After reporting that the load had
    shifted and he could not safely deliver the cargo, he was instructed by
    management to unload the truck on the roadside, organize the cargo,
    reload the truck, and continue on his route. When he advised management
    that he could not safely perform these job tasks as he did not have
    load securing equipment (load bars--the ones that he had were damaged
    as a result of the shifting freight; no straps and shrink wrap) and to
    do so on the roadside would place him in danger. He would have also
    been at significant risk of work-related injury, having to climb up and
    down a small set of stairs to enter and exit the trailer while carrying
    cargo. This is a union shop where in addition to regulations and
    company policies that preclude the drivers from performing such
    dangerous work, there is language in the collective bargaining
    agreement that empowers the drivers to refuse to perform dangerous and
    illegal work. Yet, this driver was summarily terminated when he
    returned a short distance to the terminal for assistance. Although we
    anticipate being able to get this driver reinstated at his job, this
    practice not only adversely affected him, it sends a chilling message
    to other drivers who are aware of this situation.
    Hours of Service/Driver's Health
        The Teamsters Union continues to be concerned about the numerous
    exemptions to Hours-of-Service (HOS) regulations that are granted by
    FMCSA through petitions and those special interest exemptions
    legislated by Congress. We are also concerned about FMCSA's recent
    issuance of two pilot programs--one allowing for under-21 CDL holders
    to travel in interstate commerce and the other providing for a split
    duty period, permitting CMV drivers to pause their 14-hour on-duty
    period (driving window) with one off-duty period of no less than 30
    minutes and no more than three hours. The under-21 pilot was initiated
    prior to the completion of the pilot program permitting those with
    requisite military training. Section 5404 of the Fixing America's
    Surface Transportation (FAST) Act required FMCSA to conduct research on
    drivers who are 1820 years of age, are members of the armed forces or
    reserve components, and who are qualified in a military occupational
    specialty or rating to operate a CMV or similar vehicle. Not only did
    FMCSA not wait until this pilot was completed so a comparison could be
    made with drivers in a control group comprised of drivers 21-24 to
    determine if age was a critical safety factor, but the agency initiated
    another pilot program for under-21 CDL drivers. The split duty period
    pilot program will do nothing but extend an already long exhausting
    workday for drivers who are already fighting fatigue. Numerous studies
    have shown that ``time on task'' is a relevant factor in fatigue-
    related crashes. The Federal Register notice itself states that the
    ``pilot program seeks to gather statistically reliable evidence whether
    decisions concerning the timing of such flexibility can be aligned with
    employers', shippers', and receivers' scheduling preferences to
    optimize productivity while ensuring safety performance . . .''. It's
    clear that this rulemaking is all about the ``bottom line'' and nothing
    about a driver facing a 17-hour workday! These two pilot programs,
    issued at the end of the last Administration, should be rescinded, and
    it is why we support a provision in H.R. 2 (116th Congress) that would
    have paused the final rule published on June 1, 2020, titled ``Hours of
    Service of Drivers'' (85 Fed. Reg. 33396) until a comprehensive review
    of hours of service rules and the safety and driver impacts of waivers,
    exemptions, and other allowances that limit the applicability of such
    rules. This provision would further require a peer review, publication
    in the Federal Register and a period for public comment and a Report to
    Congress. Unfortunately, the final rule was issued and is now in
    effect. But the process for examining the numerous waivers, exemptions
    and other allowances is necessary and should move forward.
        With regard to the final HOS Rule published on June 1, 2020, the
    Teamsters have joined other safety advocates in bringing legal action
    against DOT to reverse these latest changes in the HOS regulations. The
    most egregious of these is the revision to the Short Haul Provision for
    Commercial Driver's License qualified drivers from a 12-hour workday to
    14 hours. The IBT has found that the proposed extension of the 12-hour
    exception to 14-hours results in short-haul drivers spending additional
    time loading trailers, staging freight, and making more deliveries. As
    a result, these drivers will continue to experience an increase in the
    incidence of occupational injuries and illnesses. Consequently, motor
    carriers will experience higher worker compensation costs and may
    experience an increase in the costs associated with fatigue-related
    crashes.
        The trucking industry already ranks among the industries having the
    highest occupational illness and injury rates in the United States and
    the worker's compensation costs to motor carriers are tremendous.
    According to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data for 2017, the non-
    fatal occupational incidence rate for truck transportation, nationally,
    was 4.2 injuries per 100 workers as compared to 2.8 injuries per 100
    workers for private industry.\1\ Several studies show that the majority
    of work-related injuries occurring among truck drivers result from non-
    driving work activities.\2\ When researchers further investigated these
    findings they found that the types of injuries experienced by truck
    drivers varied by industry sector but were generally associated with
    falling from heights, trips, slips, falls, and overexertion due to
    manual materials handling.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018.
        \2\ Friswell, Williamson, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2010
    Nov; 42(6): 2068-74.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Drivers who are involved in short-haul operations experienced
    occupational injuries primarily while performing three activities:
    ``(1) Operating the truck; (2) lifting/cranking; and (3) maneuvering
    into/out of truck cab.'' \3\ Chandler, et. al., in further describing
    the injuries indicated that incidents that occurred while operating the
    truck, included losing control of the truck, being struck from behind
    by another vehicle, and musculoskeletal injuries associated with
    extended routine driving. With respect to lifting/cranking related
    injuries, the researchers found that drivers were injured while
    manually handling cargo, connecting dollies, and lifting/adjusting
    ramps to the trailers. Researchers also reported that drivers
    experienced injuries due to trips, slips, and falls as they entered or
    exited the truck cab and trailer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Chandler, M., Bunn, T.L., Slavova, S., International Journal of
    Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2017, Vol. 24, No. 1, 120-130.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Commercial drivers, including short-haul drivers,
    disproportionately experience musculoskeletal injuries and illnesses.
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
    conducted a review of over forty studies that investigated the
    relationship between lowback pain/disorders and determined that there
    is strong evidence that correlates physical workplace factors such as
    heavy physical work, lifting, bending and twisting, whole body
    vibration (WBV), and static work postures with low back pain/
    disorders.\4\ All of these contributing factors to lowback pain/
    disorders are present in commercial driving, particularly in short-haul
    operations. This is critical when one considers that according to the
    American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) a survey conducted by
    the organization in 2003, MSDs costs the trucking industry
    approximately $4 billion dollars each year.\5\ The Bureau of Labor
    Statistics reported that workers in truck transportation experienced
    work-related musculoskeletal disorders at a rate of 62.3/10,000 workers
    as compared to 28.6/10,000 for private industry.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/pdfs/97-
    141.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB97141
        \5\ American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2003, ``American
    Industrial Hygiene Association position statement on ergonomics
    [online]. Available from: http://www.aiha.org/1documents/Government
    Affairs/P-ergonomics-1403.pdf
        \6\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Short-haul drivers will experience increased fatigue as a result of
    having to work an extended number of hours and concurrently experience
    more fatigue-related occupational injuries and crashes. The National
    Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a report
    that summarized over 50 studies that investigated the impact that long
    working hours have on illnesses, injuries, health behaviors, and job
    performance.\7\ Studies showed that workers who worked long shifts,
    i.e., 12 or more hours, each day and more than 40 hours per week
    experienced an increase in occupational injuries and ``a pattern of
    deteriorating performance on psychophysiological tests.'' \8\ This is
    of significant concern when considering the fact that shorthaul
    commercial drivers perform safety-sensitive job functions such as
    operating large trucks in oftentimes congested areas that are shared
    with passenger vehicles and pedestrians.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-143/pdfs/2004-143.pdf
        \8\ Ibid, p. 27
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 1996, NIOSH conducted an ergonomic study for drivers in the soft
    beverage delivery industry during which the researchers evaluated
    drivers over a four-month period.\9\ Researchers found that drivers had
    to routinely lift products that exceeded the recommended weight limit
    per the NIOSH Lifting Criteria.\10\ In addition, researcher collected
    data on the driver's heart rates to estimate metabolic output and
    determined that such drivers worked in a job that required a high level
    of energy. Drivers in this physically demanding job also experienced
    twice as many lost workdays when compared to workers in general
    manufacturing jobs. Although the study was conducted over twenty years
    ago, members of the Teamsters Union who have high tenure in the
    industry reported that not much has changed and that the changes that
    have occurred are generally not an improvement. For example, these
    drivers reported that traffic conditions are much worse; parking for
    large vehicles is more limited; they continue to have to manually
    deliver large quantities of heavy products such as cases and kegs while
    negotiating stairs, curbs, ramps, narrow entrances and exits to
    buildings, and having to perform these job tasks in inclement weather
    (heat, cold, ice). These external factors which directly contribute to
    the difficulty of a driver's workday cannot be ignored.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96-109/pdfs/96-
    109.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB96109
        \10\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/94-110/pdfs/94-110.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The current Hours of Service Regulation for non-CDL qualified
    commercial drivers who use the short-haul exception are allowed to work
    14 hours each day, extend the workday to 16 hours two times each week
    and drive up to 11 hours each day. According to BLS data these drivers
    have a higher rate of injury and severity of injury (based on the
    number of lost workdays per injury) than other commercial drivers,
    i.e., non-CDL drivers who do not use the Short-Haul provision and CDL
    qualified drivers. It should be noted that CDL qualified drivers
    operate larger trucks that are able to carry more freight that is
    larger and heavier than what is typically transported and delivered by
    non-CDL drivers. Therefore, one can reasonably expect injury rates to
    increase among CDL qualified short-haul drivers if the number of hours
    that they are permitted to work increases.
        The Massachusetts Department of Public Health released a report
    \11\ concerning the misuse of opioids among workers who are employed in
    industries, such as trucking, that has a high rate of occupational
    injuries. Drivers are very concerned about their risk of suffering a
    work-related injury, being prescribed pain killers such as opioids, and
    the possibility that the use of such drugs could result in not only
    adverse health outcomes, but also the chance of becoming medically
    disqualified to operate commercial motor vehicles. The Teamsters will
    oppose any efforts to expand the short-haul exemption for CDL-qualified
    drivers through legislative or regulatory actions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ https://www.mass.gov/news/department-of-public-health-taking-
    steps-to-keep-job-related-injuries-from-leading-to-opioid
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As a part of their final rule amending the Hours of Service
    Regulations, FMCSA also revised the definition of ``rest break'' to
    include all time not actually operating a CMV as ``rest''. Prior to the
    new HOS regulations, a driver had to take a 30-minute rest break after
    8 hours on duty. The new regulations mandate the break after they have
    driven for a period of 8 cumulative hours without at least a 30-minute
    interruption. In addition, the 30-minute rest period doesn't even
    require the driver to actually rest. Under the rule change, drivers are
    permitted to take their break as ``on-duty/not driving, meaning the
    driver could be loading or unloading cargo, refueling their truck,
    interfacing with a customer, or filling out paperwork, all while
    technically ``on break''. So long as the driver is not behind the wheel
    driving, he can do any type of physically demanding labor and have it
    considered as ``rest'' under the rule. The 30-minute rest break is the
    only rest period guaranteed to drivers under Federal law and is a
    crucial tool for mitigating fatigue. The Teamsters will continue to
    fight to have it restored as a true rest period.
    Recruiting/Retaining Drivers/Young Drivers
        Motor carrier employers face significant challenges recruiting and
    hiring qualified drivers. Increasingly long work hours, difficult work,
    the need for a clean driving record, and a drug/alcohol testing record
    that is free from positive results, create significant hiring
    challenges for motor carriers. As a result of increases in the demand
    for goods, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that between
    2016 and 2026, there will be a need for 108,400 additional drivers in
    heavy truck transportation.\12\ It should be noted as an aging driver
    workforce retires from the industry, there will be an even greater need
    for qualified drivers. According to 2018 data from the BLS over 21
    percent of the current driver population will reach 65 years of age in
    the next ten years, with over 46 percent reaching 65 within next 20
    years.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/
    heavy-and-tractor-trailer-truck-drivers.htm
        \13\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        There are some in the trucking industry who view lowering the
    minimum driving age for commercial drivers to 18 as one solution to the
    increasing demand for qualified drivers. As noted above, the Teamsters
    Union is particularly concerned about this issue as it should be noted
    that there is significant evidence which indicates that young drivers
    are more likely to be involved in crashes. This issue is even more
    concerning when one considers that absence of any comprehensive driver
    training regulation for entry-level commercial drivers. Several years
    ago, at the behest of the FMCSA, the Teamsters Union and over twenty
    other stakeholders participated in a ``negotiated'' rulemaking process
    to draft a rule for entry-level driver training. After several weeks of
    hard work, the negotiating committee reached consensus and provided the
    FMCSA with a draft rule. The Agency has yet to move forward on
    promulgating a Final Rule. The Union strongly believes that the Agency
    should not even consider revisions to any of the CDL requirements until
    such a rule is finalized.
        Another issue that affects retention is driver compensation.
    Teamster Union drivers are among the highest paid in the industry, with
    good health benefits and pensions, as well as a direct voice on the job
    allowing them to address operational and disciplinary concerns through
    a transparent, collectively bargained process. That is why the
    retention rate is much higher among unionized truck drivers than their
    non-union counterparts. Our National Master Freight Agreement also
    addresses the issue of detention time--that period of time where a
    driver is kept waiting for his truck to be loaded or unloaded. Under
    that Agreement, the Teamster Union drivers are paid for this time that
    they are waiting, which is why the practice is not prevalent in our
    sector of the industry. Paying drivers for wasting their valuable on-
    duty time gives motor carriers and shippers an incentive to have a load
    ready when a driver arrives at the loading dock. It also prevents
    drivers from being frantic to try and make up for lost time and
    possibly violating safety regulations in the process. Congress should
    take the necessary steps to mandate that drivers be paid for this
    detention time. That is why we support provisions in H.R. 2 (116th
    Congress) that require the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking
    establishing limits on the time that a CMV operator may be reasonably
    detained before loading or unloading occurs, if that operator is not
    compensated for the time detained.
    Truck Size and Weight
        Certain industry stakeholders continue to call for increases in
    truck size and weight. Whether it's increasing the weight limit on
    Federal highways to 90,000 lbs. or expanding the use of the twin 33'
    trailer configuration, the Teamsters Union opposes any increase in the
    current Federal weight limits for trucks or any increase in the current
    size of double trailers traveling on the National Highway System. Our
    Interstates and other major highways are in serious disrepair and half
    of our bridges are more than 40 years old with one in four being
    structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Increasing truck size
    and length will put further stress on an already deteriorating
    infrastructure system. While a properly deployed 6th axle can mitigate
    weight increases on road surfaces, the same cannot be done on bridges.
    In addition, our highways are not designed for longer combination
    vehicles. Our merge lanes and entrance and exit ramps are not designed
    for eighty-four feet long vehicles. Longer and heavier trucks take more
    time to get up to speed and require greater stopping distances. From a
    driver's perspective, our roadways are already congested like never-
    before. Reaction times are pushed to the limit as drivers attempt to
    maneuver big rigs around slowed-down vehicles and avoid quickly
    changing lanes in a maneuver that could put themselves and other
    drivers at risk. The claim that increasing truck lengths and weights
    will result in fewer trucks on the road is unfounded. Historically,
    each time increases have occurred truck traffic has grown as shippers
    take advantage of cheaper rates and divert freight from rail to
    highways. Currently, 39 states prohibit twin 33-foot trailers on their
    highways, and there is no justification to allow them to operate on our
    interstate highways.
        According to FMCSA's Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts, ``the number
    of large trucks involved in fatal crashes increased 10 percent from
    4,251 to 4,657, and the large truck involvement rate (large trucks
    involved in fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled by large
    trucks) increased 6 percent, from 1.48 to 1.56.'' Deaths from large
    truck crashes reached their highest level in 29 years in 2017,
    according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data.
    Fatalities from big truck crashes rose even though the overall traffic
    fatality rate declined. Large truck fatalities rose 9 percent to 4,761,
    an increase of 392 lives lost over the prior year. Congressionally-
    approved exemptions to weight and length limits based on a specific
    section of highway or a specific industry should be rejected. Piecemeal
    approaches undermine Federal transportation policy and further
    jeopardizes safety on our Nation's highways.
    Safety-Assist Technology and Autonomous Vehicles
        Autonomous vehicles have the potential to reshape the entire
    transportation industry, not just the trucking industry. While some of
    this technology holds the potential to improve truck safety and
    efficiency in the short term, the threat of self-driving trucks
    replacing, or degrading millions of truck driver jobs has many of our
    members on edge. We believe that the trucking industry will have the
    need for skilled drivers for decades to come. But some of that relies
    on this committee making sure the industry isn't forced into a self-
    destructive, and self-reinforcing race towards unsafe and job-killing
    automation without the proper protections in place.
        As this hearing examines ways to strengthen our supply chains and
    competitiveness, the common refrain from industry that automating
    sectors of our supply chain could somehow strengthen our
    competitiveness deserves a closer review. Drivers feel like disposable
    cogs in a machine when some members of this body talk gleefully about
    the prospects of automating away their jobs. What's worse, many
    drivers' only interaction with lower levels of automation have actually
    deepened their mistrust of new technologies. Our members have reported
    dangerous malfunctions of automatic braking systems that are in their
    trucks right now. These systems are supposed to make a driver's life
    easier, and we would gladly support them if they did. But drivers tell
    us stories of these systems often detecting snow or an oncoming
    overpass as an obstacle, and mistakenly slamming on the brakes without
    any warning. The driver is then the only thing stopping the truck from
    jack knifing or skidding off the road. Imagine surviving that incident
    and then having to show up to work the next day and drive a truck with
    the exact same technology on board? No one should have to feel like
    they are taking their life into their own hands just by showing up for
    their job. That is why the Teamsters have insisted that a Federal Motor
    Vehicle Safety Standard be created to establish performance
    requirements for the system itself and the software that it operates.
    Section 4404 (H.R. 2, 116th Congress) directs NHTSA to promulgate a
    rule for automatic emergency braking systems, and requires consultation
    with drivers regarding their experiences as a part of that process. We
    strongly support these safeguards. Congress must bring a healthy dose
    of skepticism whenever it is approached with a piece of automation
    technology that is being touted as improving safety or one that will
    make a driver's life easier. It may not live up to closer scrutiny.
        Another emerging issue with automated vehicles is the lack of
    uniform reporting around automated commercial vehicle testing and
    deployment. While some states like California have implemented laws and
    regulations addressing the disclosure of some elements of operation
    involving automated trucks, others have not. It is in the direct
    interest of public safety that people know where testing,
    demonstrations and commercial operations are being conducted. Section
    5311 of HR2 (116th Congress) is a step in the right direction. It would
    require the Secretary to establish a repository for motor carriers to
    submit information on operations of automated commercial vehicles. The
    Teamsters have been working with the self-driving industry to fine-tune
    those provisions so that the data required by motor carriers is not
    overly burdensome for industry, while still providing the necessary
    information to identify the company, the type and weight class of the
    vehicles being operated, the level of automation being used, safety
    protocols in place, including fatigue plans, training or certifications
    provided to drivers, and most importantly, through rulemaking;
    requiring motor carriers to report malfunctions, collisions, bodily
    injuries, and property damage, and make that information available on a
    public website. Road users, especially other truck operators, should
    have the right to know if they are sharing a road where commercial AVs
    are prevalent. We strongly support these reporting requirements as a
    necessary step to ensure the safe operation of these vehicles on our
    highways.
        Finally, the impact automation will have on truck drivers will not
    only come from self-driving trucks. Self-driving cars and delivery bots
    are already taking work currently done by truck drivers. A major
    Teamster employer is in the process of testing self-driving minivans to
    haul packages on a route currently driven by Teamster trucks. Nuro, a
    company focused on last-mile deliveries using a self-driving bot about
    half the size of a car is aiming to upend the work currently done by
    food grocery delivery drivers who currently haul the same loads in
    larger vehicles. The safety, performance, and impacts on workers by
    smaller AVs must be a core consideration as Congress contemplates any
    legislation to incentivize or pave the way for widespread adoption of
    commercial autonomous vehicles, regardless of their size.
    Small Commercial Vehicle Study
        The Teamsters support the study of the operation of small
    commercial vehicles utilized in package delivery as required in Section
    4104 (H.R. 2, 116th Congress). These vehicles with a gross vehicle
    weight rating of below 10,000 are increasingly used for ``last mile''
    delivery, especially as e-commerce has exploded, and even more so
    during the pandemic. They are not regulated by FMCSA in any capacity,
    and there is little if any data relating to their safety performance as
    their numbers exponentially increase. In addition, there are increasing
    complaints by drivers of these vehicles being pushed beyond reasonable
    work schedules and delivery demands. It is not uncommon to see these
    vans ``stacked to the brim'' with packages, often overflowing into the
    driver compartment and even on dashboards obstructing the windshield
    view of the driver. Unreasonable numbers of packages to be delivered
    during a work shift can potentially cause the driver to speed and or
    drive recklessly, creating an unsafe environment for those who not only
    share the road but for pedestrians as well. The study, which will
    collect information from both direct and contracted carriers, will
    evaluate such things as fleet structure and miles traveled, scheduling
    of deliveries and maintenance practices, driver compensation, training,
    and hours-on-duty, and safety performance including crash rates, moving
    violations inspections and other safety factors. This burgeoning
    segment of the package delivery industry should not operate outside the
    realm of safety.
    Problems with Truck Leasing Arrangements
        The Teamsters Union has long called for an examination of
    exploitative truck leasing arrangements, especially in the ports, where
    the union represents drayage drivers. In fact, the Teamsters arranged
    to have port drivers testify at a House Transportation and
    Infrastructure hearing several years ago which examined the abhorrent
    working conditions and exploitative leasing practices prevalent in the
    ports. Drivers testified to being charged by their company each night
    to park the company's leased vehicle in the company's own lot. They
    also reported the double-leasing of a single truck to more than one
    driver, paycheck stubs that showed drivers owing the company more money
    then they earned at the end a pay period because of the numerous
    ``charges and deductions'' made by the leasing company, and other
    abuses and shortfalls which the current system has allowed to occur
    over and over again. We strongly support provisions contained in
    Section 4305 of H.R. 2 (116th Congress) which establishes a Truck
    Leasing Task Force to examine predatory leasing agreements in the
    trucking industry and recommendations on changes to statutes or
    regulations that will address abuses impacting commercial motor vehicle
    drivers. This is long overdue in holding accountable those that would
    take advantage of driver who many not fully understand the ``fine
    print'' of a leasing agreement.
    Hair Testing
        In September of 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services
    (HHS) proposed guidelines for the use of hair samples as a method for
    drug testing Federal employees and safety-sensitive employees in
    federally regulated industries, including commercial motor vehicle
    operators. The Teamsters oppose this method of testing for several
    reasons. Hair testing is unreliable and inherently unfair; variations
    in hair texture and even length can impact test results, and false
    positives can occur because of absorption into the hair from second-
    hand smoke, external contaminants, and other environmental elements.
    While some motor carriers use hair testing to detect drug use for pre-
    employment testing at their own expense, hair testing should not be
    used in place of urinalysis testing for random testing purposes,
    reasonable suspicion/cause, postaccident, return-to-duty, or follow-up
    testing purposes until such time as the HHS is able to scientifically
    determine the accuracy of testing and account for the various
    differentiating elements like hair color, thickness, absorption rates,
    hair receptivity in relation to its location on the body and other
    factors.
    Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers
        The Teamsters Union supports provisions in Section 4408 (HR 2,
    116th Congress) which calls for updating the required amount of
    insurance for commercial motor vehicles from the current amount of
    $750,000. The amount of required insurance coverage has not changed
    since 1980. Since that time, the cost of living has increased over 200
    percent. Medical costs have skyrocketed and with people living much
    longer, the revised value of statistical life elements has increased
    significantly. Even vehicle values and other property that might be
    damaged or destroyed have risen to a point that the current coverage
    would not begin to cover the costs of a serious accident.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
    subcommittee today and I look forward to answering your questions.

        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Byrd. Thank you for
    your testimony. Thank you for being here today.
        Our third witness today is Mr. Chris Conner, President and
    CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities, also known
    as AAPA. The AAPA represents more than 130 public port
    authorities in the U.S., Canada, the Caribbean, and Latin
    America. Mr. Conner has a wealth of experience, having spent
    over 35 years in the ocean shipping industry, before leading
    AAPA.
        Welcome, Mr. Connor. You may proceed with your opening
    comments.

    STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER J. CONNOR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN
                    ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES

        Mr. Connor. Thank you, and good afternoon, Chairman Peters,
    Ranking Member Fischer, and members of the subcommittee. My
    name is Chris Connor, President and CEO of the American
    Association of Port Authorities. I would like to thank this
    subcommittee, as well as the full committee, for holding this
    hearing. And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss maritime
    and trade infrastructure, and the related investment needs, on
    behalf of public port authorities throughout the U.S. and its
    territories.
        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. Ports also play a
    crucial role in our national defense, witnessed by the
    designation of 17 of our Nation's ports as Strategic Seaports
    by the Department of Defense.
        Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, the total economic value
    generated in terms of revenue to businesses, personal income,
    and economic output by U.S. deep draft ports, accounted for
    $5.4 trillion annually, or roughly 26 percent of GDP. Research
    also shows that nearly 31 million Americans were employed in
    jobs generated as a result of port activity.
        AAPA is mindful of and grateful for this committee's
    positive efforts on the passage of MTSERA, as well as for the
    increased authorization levels for PIDP. It is imperative,
    however, as this committee considers reauthorization of our
    Nation's surface transportation policies, that we develop and
    fund a robust national freight strategy to remain competitive
    in the global economy.
        The FAST Act made significant strides in this regard,
    through the creation of the discretionary INFRA grant program
    and the formula based National Highway Freight Program. These
    existing freight programs are primarily highway focused. And
    while highways are essential to our freight network, ports are
    multimodal facilitators connecting trains, trucks, and ships,
    all of which need access to ports.
        As we look to build off the progress made under the FAST
    Act, it is critical that the following be considered. All
    freight program funding should be made 100 percent multimodal.
    Second, lift the 10 percent state caps for BUILD grants. Third,
    continue freight planning through State freight plans and a
    national freight strategic plan. Finally, establish an Office
    of Freight and Multimodal Infrastructure policy.
        We also have an opportunity to lower carbon emissions, and
    improve air quality at near port communities and reduce
    congestion on highways. Let us eliminate the double HMT
    taxation and incentivize increased use of marine highways, the
    cleanest, safest, and most efficient form of transport in the
    U.S.
        Ports across the country were pleased to see dedicated
    funding proposed in the President's American Jobs Plan, as well
    as in the Republican Roadmap. It is a great start and an
    encouraging development. Investments, such as those outlined in
    both plans, will be critical to ensuring that the U.S. has a
    21st century, multimodal freight network to compete globally
    and deliver locally.
        To support our Nation's deep draft ports and maritime
    industry, AAPA recommends the following be included in any
    large-scale infrastructure package. Including $20 billion for
    deep draft port infrastructure and intermodal freight movement
    connectors, robust funding for electrification of dockside ship
    connections and zero, or near zero, emission port equipment, $6
    billion for the U.S. Army Corps Coastal Navigation Program, and
    $500 million for port development of offshore wind energy, in
    order to catalyze it at scale.
        Finally, I want to bring to light something that our ports
    are not able to say themselves. Ports are being held hostage by
    CBP to pay for extravagant facility upgrades and officer
    staffing shortfalls. The brave men and women at CBP need and
    deserve a designated facilities fund. I know that Chairman
    Peters is aware of this issue, and we thank him for his
    interest and support.
        Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to share with the
    subcommittee our thoughts regarding freight mobility and I hope
    you will consider the steps outlined here, that Congress can
    take to help ports and our Nation's trade infrastructure remain
    strong. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Christopher J. Connor, President and CEO,
                    American Association of Port Authorities
        Good morning Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer, and members
    of the Subcommittee.
        My name is Chris Connor, and I am the President and CEO of the
    American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). I would like to thank
    the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Maritime, Freight, and
    Ports and the full Committee for working to ensure that our Nation's
    maritime transportation system remains functional during the ongoing
    pandemic and responsive to the surges recently seen throughout our
    supply chains. Your recognition of the important role played by our
    ports and by our partners throughout the maritime supply chain has been
    critical, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our maritime
    infrastructure and investment needs as it relates to infrastructure
    investment and the reauthorization of our Nation's surface
    transportation policies.
        AAPA is the unified voice of the seaport industry in the Americas,
    and my testimony is given on behalf of state and local public agencies
    located along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, the Great Lakes,
    and in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
    For more than a century, AAPA membership has empowered port authorities
    to serve global customers and create economic and social value for
    their communities. Today, AAPA represents ports in our Nation's Capital
    on urgent and pressing issues facing our industry, promotes the common
    interests of the port community, and provides critical industry
    leadership on security, trade, transportation, infrastructure,
    environmental, and other issues related to port development and
    operations.
        AAPA's members remain committed to the continued flow of freight
    and goods to markets across the Nation and across the globe. I am here
    today to discuss what investments and policy changes are necessary to
    ensure that ports, our trade infrastructure, and our national supply
    chains remain resilient and are able to accommodate the movement of
    trade in the future. It is critical that we make the investments
    necessary now to ensure that we do not fall behind our global
    competition and risk losing market share and access.
    Seaports are Vital to the United States Economy
        Port authorities are governmental entities that own facilities at
    one or more ports. While the role of port authorities in port
    operations vary, most ports can be categorized as Operating Ports or
    Landlord Ports. Operating Ports own and construct port facilities, own
    cargo handling equipment, and hire labor to move cargo through port
    premises. At these operating ports, stevedores hire dockworkers to move
    cargo between ships and the dock. Landlord Ports, on the other hand,
    own the land and wharves of a port and lease these premises to our
    partners in the Marine Terminal Operator industry.
        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. 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.
        According to Martin & Associates,\1\ an internationally-recognized
    economic and transportation consulting firm, prior to the outbreak of
    the COVID-19 pandemic the total economic value generated in terms of
    revenue to businesses, personal income, and economic output at U.S.
    coastal ports accounts for $5.4 trillion annually, or roughly 26
    percent of GDP. This research also showed over 30.8 million Americans
    are employed in jobs generated as a result of port activity. Ports also
    generate significant tax revenue, with $47.1 billion annually of
    direct, induced, and indirect Federal, state, and local tax revenue
    created through the economic activity taking place at ports across the
    Nation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 2018 National Economic Impact of the U.S. Coastal Port System.
    (2019, March). http://aapa.files.cmsplus.com/
    Martin%20study_executive%20summary%202018%20US%20coastal%20
    port%20impacts%20final.docx
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Freight Policy Modernization Will Support Our Trade Infrastructure
        Nations across the globe have recognized the need to make
    significant investments in their multimodal freight networks to
    accommodate increasing trade volumes, larger vessels, and dynamic
    shifts in trade to be globally competitive. The port industry is
    mindful of-and grateful for this committee's positive efforts on the
    passage of the Maritime Transportation System Emergency Relief Act
    (MTSERA), as well as for the increased authorization levels for the
    Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP). It is imperative, as
    this Committee considers reauthorization of our Nation's surface
    transportations policies, that we develop and fund a robust national
    freight strategy to remain competitive in the global economy. To do
    this, the United States must make a sustained investment in its
    multimodal freight network.
        The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act made
    significant strides in committing sustained funding to our Nation's
    multimodal freight system through the creation of the discretionary
    Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant program and the
    formulabased National Highway Freight Program. These investments
    totaled $11 billion in dedicated freight funding over the five-year
    authorization. However, of that total, only $1.13 billion was
    multimodal eligible. AAPA and its members appreciated seeing increased
    flexibility and funding levels to invest in freight infrastructure in
    last year's bipartisan America's Transportation Infrastructure Act.
        The immediate challenges confronting these freight programs are
    funding levels, as well as 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, and
    trains, trucks, and ships all need access to them. One could argue that
    as our supply chain becomes more sophisticated, and there are more
    inland distribution centers with the advent of e-commerce, demand for
    multimodal funding will increase. A top priority for the port industry
    continues to be multimodal funding.
        As this Committee considers reauthorization of our surface
    transportation policies and as we look to build off the progress made
    under the FAST Act, it is critical that all freight program funding be
    made 100 percent multimodal. A first step in accomplishing this would
    be to lift the multimodal cap on INFRA grants and on the National
    Freight Highway Program.
        Equally important from a supply chain perspective, the FAST Act
    requires that states complete state freight plans to continue receiving
    their freight formula funding. The results have been telling. Only
    three years after FAST Act passage, 95 percent of the states had
    submitted multimodal state freight plans to USDOT, signaling those
    states recognize the value and have the demand for multimodal projects.
    States and ports will need increased eligibility through INFRA grants
    and the National Freight Highway Program to build out their state
    freight plans. A dedicated freight fund should also be considered.
        State freight plans and a new National Freight Strategic Plan can
    be the blueprint for multimodal state and Federal investments. By
    establishing an Office of Freight and Multimodal Infrastructure Policy,
    the Department of Transportation can best leverage planning tools and
    resources made available in the FAST Act across all modes. This new
    Office would be in a prime position to administer state freight plans
    and coordinate a national freight plan. As states and the Federal
    Government look to strengthen supply chains and build out multimodal
    infrastructure, coordination will be paramount and this Office will be
    positioned to work with these programs and to develop the multimodal
    network necessary to meet 21st century supply chain and transportation
    needs, while ensuring that our trade infrastructure remains world
    class.
        Similarly, as authorization of the Rebuilding American
    Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE), formerly TIGER
    and BUILD, discretionary grant program is considered, the Committee
    should explore expanding port eligibility for the program. In the past,
    BUILD awards to any given state have been capped at 10 percent. These
    limitations put ports at a distinct disadvantage in competing for these
    grants, and artificially limit investment in our Nation's trade
    infrastructure. Far from only supporting the states where they are
    located, ports are national infrastructure resources that support all
    states, areas, and supply chains, both urban and rural. In fact,
    according to a recent AgTalks report, participants in virtual townhalls
    agreed that ``investing in infrastructure improvements will ensure
    America's agricultural producers continue to be the global leader in
    food production while supporting jobs.''
        We also have other opportunities to lower carbon emissions, improve
    air quality at near-port communities, and reduce congestion on
    highways. An increased use of marine highways--the cleanest and safest
    means of cargo transportation--can help accomplish these goals. Ports
    are actively exploring expanded use of the Maritime Administration's
    Marine Highway Program to accomplish freight distribution. The process
    involves imported cargo being transferred to barges and then
    transported to a second location for unloading. Freight unloaded from
    the ship to the dock and then transferred to a barge has the Harbor
    Maintenance Tax (HMT) collected twice: once as imported cargo and a
    second time as domestic cargo. AAPA seeks to have the HMT collected
    just once. This is a very minor amount of HMT revenue, less than 1
    percent, but the tax is an additional cost and serves as an impediment
    to Marine Highway use.
    Seaports Need Federal Investment in Port & Trade Infrastructure
        America's ports need robust support from the Federal Government to
    make investments in infrastructure that will enable the efficient flow
    of trade while ensuring that port operations do not harm the
    environment and their surrounding communities. Ports exist to
    facilitate an integrated, end-to-end supply chain, and to optimize
    goods movement. America's ports serve as an engine for economic
    prosperity in our communities and provide access to markets across the
    globe for communities nationwide.
        Ports serve as the beginning point for our Nation's multimodal
    freight system. For the decade spanning 2018-2028, AAPA identified $20
    billion in multimodal and rail access needs at ports.\2\ Federal
    investment in these multimodal projects can leverage billions of
    dollars in additional port investment. Freight volumes may double by
    2045, according to the Department of Transportation. Our country has an
    opportunity to invest $1 in infrastructure on the front end to produce
    $2 to $3 of economic growth on the back-end, based on an analysis by
    the U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The State of Freight III--Rail Access + Port Multimodal Funding
    Needs Report. (2018, May 16). https://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/
    State%20of%20Freight%20III.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ports across the country were pleased to see dedicated funding in
    President Biden's American Jobs Plan and in the Republican Roadmap.
        As populations shift, cargo volumes grow, and as we continue to
    embrace e-commerce and direct to consumer shopping, investments such as
    those will be critical to ensuring the United States has a 21st century
    multimodal freight network to compete globally and deliver locally.
        To support our Nation's coastal ports and maritime industry, AAPA
    recommends the following to be included in any large-scale
    infrastructure investment package:

       $20 billion for coastal port infrastructure and intermodal
            freight movement connectors, such as expanded on-dock rail and
            off-port assembly of efficient unit trains; expansion and
            development of double stack rail--the next generation of
            containerized freight movement. These funds could be allocated
            through the Department of Transportation's existing Port
            Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP).

       Robust funding for electrification of dockside ship
            connections and zero or near-zero emission port equipment.
            Ports are already making investments in decarbonization. Some
            have adopted Clean Air Action Plans to reduce emissions, with
            others are investing in these technologies and looking to plan
            for the future. Implementing plans to replace cargo handling
            equipment, drayage trucks, and other port equipment with lower
            emissions technologies will require significant resources to
            ensure success, likely requiring an investment on the scale of
            $50 billion to replace current equipment with zero or near-zero
            emissions cargo handling equipment. This investment would
            result in improved environmental quality at ports and near-port
            communities.

       $6 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' coastal
            navigation program; $3 billion for completion funding of 12
            Federal navigation channel improvement projects, currently
            underway or awaiting initial funding; and $3 billion to repair
            and restore Federal navigation channels and 140 critically
            deficient coastal navigation structures that are essential for
            safe and efficient freight movement. The jetties, and other
            coastal navigation structures work, will address sea level rise
            and resilience.

       $500 million for port development in support of offshore
            wind energy, identified by the Administration as necessary to
            catalyze the development of offshore wind at scale. These funds
            are critical to strengthen docks for storage, assembly, and
            transport of offshore wind energy components. These loads are
            up to 10 times the normal dock operating loads.

        And finally, in addition to infrastructure investment, it is
    important to consider how cargo screening impacts the efficient
    movement of freight. Our members rely on Customs and Border Protection
    (CBP) to inspect cargo and keep our country safe. But, in recent years,
    more of the cost of inspection has been shifted onto ports. As a result
    of CBP facilities cost-shifting and understaffing, more and more ports
    are being told they must pay for extravagant facilities upgrades and
    overtime costs for officers. These demands place onerous burdens on
    ports' already tight budgets; ports are threatened with business
    slowdowns, which would make worse the supply chain congestion the
    pandemic has wrought.
        We ask that Congress work with ports, CBP, and other stakeholders
    to find a funding mechanism for CBP's facilities needs and staffing
    shortfalls in order to give CBP the resources it needs without saddling
    ports with the bill.
    Conclusion
        I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the infrastructure needs of
    our Nation's ports. Over the past year, since the beginning of the
    COVID-19 pandemic, ports and port workers have tirelessly worked to
    continue to move cargo; to ensure that food, medical equipment, and
    other essential goods are available for the citizens of this country.
    While we have faced challenges, we are proud of the fact that ports
    have remained open. As we continue to recover from the pandemic, ports
    can play a role by ensuring that our supply chains remain strong.
        Investments in our multimodal-and port infrastructure is critical
    to meeting the current and growing needs of our supply chains as we
    look to expand America's reach to global markets. Robust, thoughtful
    investment is key to ensuring that we are successful in accomplishing
    this goal.
        Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to share with the
    Subcommittee thoughts regarding Freight Mobility: Strengthening
    America's Supply Chains and Competitiveness, and I hope you will
    consider the steps outlined here that Congress can take to help ports
    and our Nation's trade infrastructure remain strong.

        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Connor, for your
    testimony and your presence here today.
        Our last witness is Mr. Chris Spear, who serves as
    President and CEO of The American Trucking Associations, also
    known as ATA. ATA represents every sector of the trucking
    industry across all 50 states. Prior to joining ATA, Mr. Spear
    worked in the private sector and served in the Federal
    Government. His career spans working in the transportation,
    energy, labor, and technology sectors across five continents.
    Most recently, Chris worked for Hyundai Motor Company, where he
    served as Vice President for Governmental Affairs.
        Welcome, Mr. Spear. You may proceed with your testimony.

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

        Mr. Spear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
    Fischer, and members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of the more
    than 34,000 members of the American Trucking Associations,
    thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify.
        ATA is an 87-year-old federation of 50 state trucking
    associations and the largest, most diverse trade association
    representing the trucking industry. Trucking now employees, 7.8
    million Americans in every State and Congressional district,
    including 3.6 million truck drivers. That is 1 in 16 jobs in
    the United States, where the top job in 29 states is a truck
    driver. And despite commercial vehicles being only 4 percent of
    the vehicles on our Nation's highways, the trucking industry
    moves more than 71 percent of the Nation's freight tonnage and
    pays nearly half of the tab into the Highway Trust Fund.
        Today, more than 80 percent of U.S. communities rely
    exclusively on trucks for their freight transportation needs.
    Coming into the global pandemic, trucks moved $10.4 trillion
    worth of goods annually, more than half of U.S. gross domestic
    product. And despite a chronic and growing shortage of drivers,
    our industry and our intermodal partners here today, are the
    glue that kept this economy together these past 14 months.
    Despite near biblical accounts of empty store shelves, we never
    ran out of milk, eggs, toilet paper, or even fuel. There was
    plenty in the supply chain and always a hard-working, patriotic
    drive to make sure that those shelves were restocked.
        America's supply chain yields tremendous potential. It is a
    catalyst for economic growth, beyond that of any other nation.
    For that to happen, however, I ask that this committee consider
    four key elements that both feed and benefit our Nation's
    supply chain--infrastructure, safety, workforce development,
    and environmental stewardship. These elements together, shape
    and define the resiliency of our supply chain.
        Those of us testifying here today, have no problem
    identifying issues of difference. But there is no argument,
    between any of us, that our dependency on one another is what
    allows our supply chain to withstand the pressures of a global
    pandemic. In fact, no pandemic, hurricane, flood, fire--no
    tariff, no tweet, or senseless partisan bickering, is going to
    keep our industry from doing its job. But we are here today to
    ask that you do yours.
        Investments in our supply chain are desperately needed,
    including the roads and bridges that connect our ports,
    railyards, and airports to the national highway system. Do that
    and you will witness measurable efficiencies including gains in
    productivity and safety, job growth and sustainable employment,
    and historic reductions in carbon emissions.
        Infrastructure is not partisan. And if anyone in Congress
    believes that roads and bridges are political, you have not
    been driving on them. But they are in desperate need of your
    leadership and support. In just the last year, Congress spent
    $6 trillion in response to the pandemic, of which $4 trillion
    was passed with bipartisan support. Reasons aside, this was an
    unprecedented level of spending our country has never
    witnessed, not ever. And not one cent of it was paid for. Yet
    according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal
    Highway Trust Fund will be bankrupt, flat broke, next summer.
    The good news for Congress is that it can and should be paid
    for by users, all of them, including truckers.
        However, you craft legislation, please consider the written
    testimony provided to you today and understand that, if these
    investments are indeed made, you have an opportunity to go
    home, before your constituents, and point and say, ``That road,
    that bridge, that railroad, port, waterway, airport, I did
    that. I made that happen.'' In other words, stop blaming each
    other for the things you do not do, and start taking credit for
    the things you should do.
        These investments are long overdue. They are the things
    Americans--your constituents--need, use, and rely on every
    single day. They will be grateful, and I guarantee you that the
    nearly eight million people that make up the trucking industry
    will be, too.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to taking your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive
                    Officer, American Trucking Associations
        Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer, and Members of the
    distinguished subcommittee, on behalf of the American Trucking
    Associations (ATA)\1\, thank you for providing me with the opportunity
    to testify before you today.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade
    association for the trucking industry. Through a federation of 50
    affiliated state trucking associations and industry-related conferences
    and councils, ATA is the voice of the industry America depends on most
    to move our Nation's freight. Follow ATA on Twitter or on Facebook.
    Trucking Moves America Forward.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ATA is an 87-year-old federation and the largest national trade
    organization representing the trucking industry, with affiliates in all
    50 states. ATA's membership encompasses over 34,000 motor carriers and
    suppliers directly and through affiliated organizations. Our
    association represents every sector of the industry, from Less-than-
    Truckload to Truckload, agriculture and livestock transporters to auto
    haulers and movers, and from the large motor carriers to the owner-
    operator and mom-and-pop one truck operations. In fact, 80 percent of
    our membership is comprised of small-sized carriers, and only two
    percent of ATA's membership would be classified as large carriers.
        As evidenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, trucking is the dynamic
    linchpin of the United States' supply chain that keeps the wheels of
    our economy turning. This year, our industry will move more than 70
    percent of the Nation's freight tonnage. Over the next decade, trucks
    will be tasked with moving 2.4 billion more tons of freight than they
    do today, in addition to delivering the vast majority of goods to
    American communities.\2\ Trucks will continue to be the dominant
    freight transportation mode for the foreseeable future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2020 to 2031. American Trucking
    Associations, 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        More than 80 percent of U.S. communities rely exclusively on trucks
    for their freight transportation needs. In 2017, trucks moved $10.4
    trillion worth of goods, representing more than half of U.S. gross
    domestic product.\3\ The trucking industry is also a major source of
    employment, with nearly eight million people employed in trucking-
    related occupations, including 3.6 million truck drivers.\4\ Indeed,
    trucking accounts for 1 in every 18 jobs in the U.S.,\5\ and ``truck
    driver'' is the top job in 29 states.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ U.S. Census Bureau Commodity Flow Survey, 2017.
        \4\ American Trucking Associations, American Trucking Trends 2020.
        \5\  American Trucking Trends 2018, American Trucking Associations.
        \6\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/keep-on-truckin-in-a-
    majority-of-states-its-the-most-popular-job-2015-02-09
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Without trucks, our cities, towns, and communities would fail to
    thrive, and would lack essential necessities such as food and drinking
    water; there would be no clothes to purchase, nor parts to build
    automobiles or fuel to power them. The rail, air, and water intermodal
    sectors would not exist in their current form without the trucking
    industry to support them as the final link in the supply chain. Trucks
    are central to our Nation's economy and our way of life, and every time
    the government makes a decision that affects the trucking industry,
    those impacts are also felt by everyday Americans and the millions of
    businesses that could not exist without trucks.
        As you hold this hearing, the trucking industry, the infrastructure
    that we operate upon, and our national economy are all rapidly
    approaching a crisis point. Even as the Nation claws its way back from
    the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are facing
    significant headwinds, hurdles, and challenges that threaten to grind
    the engines of our economy to a halt. Headwinds--such as deteriorating
    roads and bridges, severe congestion, bottlenecks, and unprecedented
    backlogs at our maritime ports--delay the movement of people and goods,
    threatening our global competitiveness and the continuity of the
    international supply chain. Hurdles--like the crippling shortage of
    drivers and mechanics, recruitment pipelines that were decimated by the
    pandemic, and barriers preventing the industry from reaching a new
    generation of drivers--increase freight transportation costs and
    imperil the supply of consumer goods. And challenges--such as
    antiquated regulatory barriers that could delay a technological
    transformation in the movement of freight--threaten to impede an
    industry-wide shift toward greater sustainability, allowing trucks to
    move more safely and efficiently, and with less impact on the
    environment than we ever dared to imagine.
        That said, the serious headwinds, hurdles, and challenges that led
    us to this crisis point can be overcome if Congress, the
    Administration, the stakeholders at this table, and the American people
    come together in the pursuit of a meaningful investment in real
    infrastructure. As Transportation Secretary Buttigieg has often said of
    late, including in testimony before this very Committee, before us is a
    ``generational opportunity'' for America's infrastructure. An
    opportunity to meaningfully invest in the safety and efficiency of our
    transportation network. An opportunity to spur technological
    advancements and innovations in our trucks, cars, and highways. An
    opportunity to address labor shortages that threaten the trucking
    industry and the fragility of our supply chain. And a moment to look to
    the transportation sector to lead our Nation's efforts to confront the
    impacts of climate change.
        As this subcommittee considers infrastructure legislation and a
    possible surface transportation reauthorization, we encourage you to
    look to four key areas, including (1) Infrastructure Investment, (2)
    Safety Improvements, (3) Workforce Development, and 4) Environmental
    Stewardship. Each of these important policy areas are addressed in my
    testimony below and will have a direct and meaningful impact on the
    trucking industry, the supply chain, the economy, and the American
    public.
        As you know, just over a year ago, our industry dutifully answered
    the Nation's call to deliver medicine, food, fuel, water, and other
    basic necessities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, tasked
    with critical vaccine distribution, trucking proudly and courageously
    shouldered the important responsibility of moving COVID-19 vaccines
    safely across the country. We welcomed these challenges because it was
    the right thing to do. We now call on Congress, in that same spirit, to
    likewise embrace the challenges and work before it to ensure our
    Nation's infrastructure needs are met. In that effort, America's
    trucking industry stands ready to support and work hand-in-hand with
    you, as we build a better America for all Americans.
        We commend you for holding this important hearing today, and for
    your continuing efforts to address the challenges that impact the
    trucking industry, interstate commerce, and the millions of Americans
    and U.S. businesses that rely on the safe and efficient movement of our
    Nation's goods.
                         1) INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT:
    THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW:
        The trucking industry welcomes the efforts of Congress and the
    Biden Administration to pursue a real and meaningful investment in our
    Nation's infrastructure. For decades, Federal policymakers have
    deferred and delayed infrastructure investments that American families
    and businesses desperately need to enhance safety, reduce congestion
    and improve commerce. The thoughtful leadership of this subcommittee
    and Congress over the coming weeks and months can provide a road map to
    address the past, present, and future needs of our Nation's roads and
    bridges.
        A well-maintained, reliable, and efficient network of highways is
    crucial to the timely delivery of the Nation's freight--both
    international and domestic--and is vital to our country's economic and
    social wellbeing. Underfunded roads and bridges are increasingly
    choking the economy's supply lines, making it costlier and more time-
    consuming to get goods to market. Decrepit roads and bridges cost
    motorists $1,600 annually in wasted gas, lost wages, and vehicle
    damage.\7\ The typical motorist loses 42 hours of their life every year
    sitting in traffic, and the trucking industry loses 1.2 billion hours
    of productivity to congestion, which is the equivalent to more than
    425,000 drivers sitting idle for a year.\8\ Highway congestion also
    adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight transportation each
    year.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Bumpy Road Ahead: America's Roughest Rides and Strategies to
    make our Roads Smoother, The Road Information Program, Oct. 2018; 2015
    Urban Mobility Scorecard. Texas Transportation Institute, Aug. 2015.
        \8\ Ibid.
        \9\ Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2018 Update.
    American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This caused the trucking industry to consume an additional 6.87
    billion gallons of unnecessary fuel in 2016, representing approximately
    13 percent of the industry's fuel consumption, and resulting in 67.3
    million metric tons of excess carbon dioxide (CO2)
    emissions.\10\ Mr. Chairman, the large investments the private sector
    trucking industry has made over the last three decades to significantly
    reduce emissions--to the point that today's trucks emit up to 60 times
    fewer emissions than trucks manufactured in the 1980s--have been
    decimated by a lack of public sector commitment to build the highway
    infrastructure capacity necessary to accommodate growing traffic.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Fixing the 12 percent Case Study: Atlanta, GA. American
    Transportation Research Institute, Feb. 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A report \11\ by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) requested
    by Congress focused specifically on the current state and future needs
    of the Interstate Highway System. This critical network connects
    American communities across the Nation and reaps immeasurable economic
    and national security benefits for the United States. Most importantly,
    interstates are far safer than surface roads; the construction of the
    Interstate System has prevented nearly a quarter million people from
    losing their lives in vehicular crashes since 1967.\12\ Furthermore,
    the Interstate Highway System accounts for about one-quarter of all
    miles traveled by light-duty vehicles and 40 percent of miles traveled
    by trucks.\13\ The TRB report estimates that, conservatively, the state
    and Federal investment necessary to address the Interstate System's
    maintenance and capacity needs will have to double or triple over
    today's expenditures in the next 20 years.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway
    System: A Foundation for the Future (2018). Transportation Research
    Board, National Academy of Sciences.
        \12\ Ibid, p. 2-18
        \13\ Ibid, p. 2-10.
        \14\ Ibid, p. S-5
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The recent pattern of shoring up the Highway Trust Fund (HTF)
    without providing the long-term stability that transportation planners
    need is troubling and highly inefficient. According to the American
    Society of Civil Engineers, the U.S. spends just over half of what is
    necessary to address critical surface transportation needs.\15\ As the
    investment gap continues to grow, so too will the number of deficient
    bridges, miles of roads in poor condition, number of highway
    bottlenecks, and, most critically, the number of crashes and fatalities
    attributable to inadequate roadways.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. American
    Society of Civil Engineers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Facing those glaring realities, it is abundantly clear that the
    time to invest in infrastructure is now. The impacts and compounding
    ramifications of underinvestment in our roads and bridges are serving
    as a roadblock to mobility, economic growth, and job creation
    nationwide. As we emerge from a severe economic crisis, putting
    Americans back to work and getting our economy's wheels turning once
    again hinges on our collective ability to solve this problem in the
    right way. We hope you will act with the urgency and expediency that
    this moment requires.
    TRUCKING INDUSTY PRIORITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
            INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS:
        As this subcommittee and Congress consider targeted investments in
    infrastructure which will inevitably have a significant impact on the
    trucking industry, supply chain and economy, the below priorities merit
    your strongest consideration.
       Freight Intermodal Connectors
        Freight intermodal connectors--those roads that connect ports, rail
    yards, airports, and other intermodal facilities to the National
    Highway System--are critical to trade and a seamless supply chain.
    While intermodal connectors are an essential part of the freight
    distribution system, many are neglected and are not given the attention
    they deserve in spite of their importance to the Nation's economy. Just
    nine percent of connectors are in good or very good condition, 19
    percent are in mediocre condition, and 37 percent are in poor
    condition.\16\ Not only do poor roads damage both vehicles and the
    freight they carry, but the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) found
    a correlation between poor roads and vehicle speed. Average speeds on
    connectors in poor condition was 22 percent lower than on connectors in
    fair or better condition.\17\ FHWA further found that congestion on
    freight intermodal connectors causes 1,059,238 hours of truck delay
    annually and 12,181,234 hours of automobile delay.\18\ Congestion on
    freight intermodal connectors adds nearly $71 million to freight
    transportation costs each year.\19\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Freight Intermodal Connectors Study. Federal Highway
    Administration, April 2017.
        \17\ Ibid.
        \18\ Ibid.
        \19\ An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2018 Update.
    American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018. Estimates
    average truck operational cost of $66.65 per hour.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        One possible reason connectors are neglected is that the vast
    majority of these roads--70 percent--are under the jurisdiction of a
    local or county government.\20\ Yet, these roads are serving critical
    regional, national, and international needs well beyond the geographic
    boundaries of the jurisdictions that have responsibility for them, and
    these broader benefits may not be factored into the local
    jurisdictions' spending decisions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \20\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While intermodal connectors are eligible for Federal funding, it is
    clear that this is simply not good enough. We urge Congress to set
    aside adequate funding for freight intermodal connectors to ensure that
    these critical arteries are given the attention and resources they
    deserve.
       Resources to Address Port Congestion and Bottlenecks
        The dramatic increase in freight entering the Nation's ports has
    received a great deal of attention, both in Congress and in the media,
    in recent months. Ports have had difficulty managing an influx of
    container ships, and the increased traffic in the maritime domain has
    created significant challenges for every link in the worldwide supply
    chain. Intermodal motor carriers play a critical role in the global
    supply chain, moving freight to and from the ports and railyards, as
    well as providing the last mile of delivery to get products directly to
    customers. Bottlenecks and congestion at ports have a trickle-down
    effect on the motor carriers who haul intermodal freight, and existing
    shortages of containers, chassis, terminal appointments, draymen, and
    truck drivers only exacerbate these supply chain disruptions. These
    supply chain issues have also created problems for American exporters,
    especially in agriculture, by making it more difficult for producers to
    get their products to overseas markets.
        The increased cargo volumes at ports and the resulting bottlenecks
    have demonstrated the importance of reliable, well-maintained
    infrastructure to handle the intermodal aspect of international trade,
    which will continue to grow in the coming years. Without question,
    additional resources are needed to facilitate truck drivers' timely
    access to ports, as well as their ability to obtain equipment to load
    and unload containers in a timely fashion. Greater focus and attention
    from all parties on ways to enhance efficiencies at ports will improve
    the trucking industry's ability to get international freight from
    overseas producers into the hands of American consumers, and to get
    American products into international markets.
        ATA applauds the many members of this subcommittee who have
    recently raised concerns about growing congestion at our Nation's
    ports, and the impact that is having on our supply chain. Additionally,
    ATA commends Committee Chair Cantwell for prioritizing ``mega-project''
    infrastructure, which would provide much-needed resources to address
    the serious congestion at our ports. As Congress and this subcommittee
    consider infrastructure legislation in the coming months, we urge you
    to prioritize forward-leaning investments in our Nation's ports to
    ensure that intermodal operations can keep pace with ever-increasing
    freight demand. We are eager to work with Congress, port authorities
    across the country, and our partners in the supply chain to find long-
    term solutions that will ease the movement of products around the
    globe.
       Freight Funding Programs
        With the creation of two new freight funding programs in the FAST
    Act, Congress recognized the crucial role that the Federal government
    plays in facilitating the efficient movement of freight in interstate
    commerce--a role memorialized by the U.S. Constitution. Both the
    Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program (AKA INFRA)
    and the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) provided dedicated
    funds for projects that improve traffic flow and enhance safety on
    transportation facilities with significant freight volumes.
        These programs should be continued with increased funding.
    Moreover, ATA supports maintaining the 10 percent cap on non-highway
    projects under these programs. Trucks move 70 percent of freight
    tonnage and are key to the efficient movement of intermodal freight.
    Furthermore, trucking is the only freight mode that contributes
    directly to the Highway Trust Fund and should not be forced to further
    subsidize modes that do not contribute. We urge Congress to give
    priority under the INFRA program to projects that address freight
    bottlenecks identified under 49 USC 70102(b)(4). Furthermore, we
    recommend eliminating the NHFP's 50 percent transferability to other
    apportioned programs in order to ensure that all available resources
    are used for their intended purpose.
       Truck Parking
        Research and feedback from carriers and drivers suggest there is a
    significant shortage of available, safe parking for truck drivers in
    most regions of the country. In 2019, the FHWA found that the 98
    percent of drivers regularly experience difficulty finding truck
    parking, and that truck parking is most problematic along key freight
    corridors, near major ports, around intermodal facilities, and in
    metropolitan areas.\21\ Given the projected growth in demand for
    trucking services, this problem--as well as the clear safety
    implications for truck drivers and the motoring public--will likely
    worsen. FMCSA regulations require drivers to take rest breaks after
    they have driven for a specified number of hours, and if a driver is
    unable to find safe, legal parking, he or she is in a lose-lose
    conundrum, forced to either operate illegally or park in an unsafe or
    unauthorized location. Federal hours of service (HOS) rules were
    designed to promote the highest levels of highway safety, but the
    shortage of safe truck parking spaces makes it difficult, if not
    impossible, for drivers to follow the law.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ National Coalition on Truck Parking. Office of Freight
    Management and Operations, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
    Department of Transportation. 1 December 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Funding for truck parking is available to states under the current
    federal-aid highway program, but increasing truck parking capacity has
    not been a priority due to a shortage of funds for essential highway
    projects. Therefore, we urge Congress to enact the Truck Parking Safety
    Improvement Act (H.R. 2187), legislation that would establish a
    competitive discretionary grant program and dedicate $755 million from
    the Highway Trust Fund over the course of five years for truck parking
    projects across the country. With a focus on increasing capacity, the
    bill would provide funding for the construction of new spaces at both
    public and private facilities, while also helping public entities
    convert existing facilities--such as weigh stations and closed rest
    areas--into truck parking locations. The Truck Parking Safety
    Improvement Act will both provide truck drivers with the means to
    comply with their Federal HOS requirements and enhance the safety of
    our Nation's highways.
       Resiliency Funding
        ATA recognizes that changes in climate put highway infrastructure
    at risk, and adaptations must be implemented to avert or reduce this
    risk. However, the potential costs are likely to be significant. Given
    the overall lack of funding for core infrastructure projects, setting
    aside funds for resiliency without a significant increase in Highway
    Trust Fund resources will accelerate highway system deterioration. ATA
    urges Congress to either increase HTF funding to levels sufficient to
    address highway funding shortfalls and pay for resiliency projects, or
    fund resiliency from sources that do not deplete funding for core
    highway programs.
    HOW TO PAY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE:
        As the leading payer into the Nation's Highway Trust Fund, trucks
    cover nearly half the entire user-fee tab while accounting for only
    four percent of vehicles on the road. Our industry is proud to pay our
    fair share, and we'll continue to do so. But, we call on policymakers
    to maintain an equitable system that draws on the contributions of all
    who use and benefit from it. Although fuel expenses are one of the
    largest cost centers in our business, the trucking industry supports
    modest and phased increases in the fuel user-fee, because we know the
    following to be true:

       In order to create value for road users, infrastructure
            needs funding predictability. An infrastructure bill with no
            dedicated funding stream has no efficacy. Without budget
            certainty over a multi-year window, transportation officials
            can't move projects from the planning phase to the construction
            phase. Ground can't be broken, jobs are frozen, and any
            progress is bogged down by Congress' annual appropriations
            cycle. Major projects await the certainty of longer-term
            funding streams, which increases backlogs and puts fewer
            construction professionals to work.

       There's no tax that safeguards taxpayer dollars as
            vigorously as the fuel user-fee does. Contrary to the
            ideological demagoguery surrounding this policy, the ``fuel
            tax'' is a model example of Federal revenue efficiency. That's
            because it is collected at the wholesale level long before
            gasoline reaches the retail pump. There are roughly 1,300
            wholesale racks across the country collectively operated by
            less than 270 entities--meaning fewer than 300 entities
            actually remit this tax.

        The result is a tried-and-true system that minimizes overhead costs
            and maximizes efficiency--i.e. value--for road users. Ninety-
            nine cents of every dollar collected flows directly into the
            Highway Trust Fund. Compare that to alternatives like tolling
            or vehicle-miles tax systems, where as much as 20 cents of
            every dollar is lost to administrative and collection costs.

       Decoupling infrastructure funding from user-fees will only
            make a bad situation worse. For many decades following the
            creation of the interstate highway system, the user-fee model
            formed the bedrock of our Nation's transportation systems,
            powering interstate commerce and fueling America's economic
            engine. Dismantling this system by linking the Highway Trust
            Fund to corporate tax rates would destabilize current funding
            formulas by introducing political uncertainty into the
            equation.

        Other proposed funding mechanisms, including those that attempt to
            impose a sales tax on freight, are fraught with high
            administrative costs, are highly susceptible to evasion, and
            enjoy little support among the business community.
       The Build America Fund: A Pathway to Nationwide Highway
            Improvements:
        ATA's proposed solution to the highway funding crisis is the Build
    America Fund. The BAF would be supported with a new 20 cent per gallon
    fee built into the price of transportation fuels collected at the
    terminal rack, to be phased in over four years. The fee would be
    indexed to both inflation and improvements in fuel efficiency, with a
    five percent annual cap. We estimate that the fee would generate nearly
    $340 billion over the first 10 years. It would cost the average
    passenger vehicle driver just over $100 per year once fully phased
    in.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2019, Table
    VM-1. Average light-duty vehicle consumed 518 gallons of fuel.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We also support a new fee on hybrid and electric vehicles, which
    underpay for their use of the highway system or do not contribute at
    all. We look forward to working with the subcommittee to identify the
    best approach to achieve that goal.
        Ultimately, the fuel tax is the most immediate, cost-effective, and
    conservative mechanism currently available for funding surface
    transportation projects and programs. Collection costs are just 0.2
    percent of revenue.\23\ There is a misguided perception that the fuel
    tax is no longer a viable revenue source due to the availability of
    electric vehicles and improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. This
    notion is belied by the facts. In 2019, Americans consumed more on-road
    fuel than in any previous year.\24\ Furthermore, according to the
    Congressional Budget Office's latest estimates, annual revenue from
    fuel taxes will drop by just $1.1 billion over the next decade.\25\ A
    modest increase in the fuel tax, coupled with a new fee on alternative
    fuel vehicles, can easily recover these lost revenues.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ American Transportation Research Institute. A Framework for
    Infrastructure Funding, Nov. 2017.
        \24\ Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics.
        \25\ Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook:
    2021-2031, Feb. 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FUTURE REVENUE SOURCES:
        While ATA considers an increase in the fuel tax to be the best and
    most immediate means for improving our Nation's roads and bridges, we
    also recognize that improvements in fuel efficiency and the development
    of new technologies may eventually render the fuel tax to be a
    diminishing source of revenue for surface transportation improvements
    over the long term. We therefore encourage Congress, in consultation
    with the executive branch, state and local partners, and the private
    sector, to continue to work toward identifying future revenue sources.
        ATA urges Congress to include in the imminent surface
    transportation reauthorization bill a plan to bolster current highway
    funding mechanisms in the short-term, and ultimately replace them with
    new, more sustainable revenue sources in the long-term. We recommend a
    ten-year strategy that includes the creation of a blue-ribbon
    commission to explore the effectiveness of existing pilot programs, and
    provide recommendations for Congress to consider as it eventually
    transitions away from the fuel tax.
       VMT Taxes
        While a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) tax might ultimately be the
    favored approach, as many have suggested, full implementation faces
    several hurdles. Such a tax would have to be collected from millions of
    taxpayers--all those driving vehicles in the taxing jurisdiction.
    Indeed, there are over 276 million registered vehicles in the United
    States, and nearly all would need an account under a VMT tax
    system.\26\ A recent report by the American Transportation Research
    Institute (ATRI) estimated that the capital cost of implementing a VMT
    tax could be as high as $13.6 billion, and administrative costs could
    consume 10 to 20 percent of revenue.\27\ As for the recorders now
    outfitted on commercial trucks, Federal regulatory requirements for
    these devices were designed to ensure an accurate record of hours
    driven, not the number of miles driven. Nor do the requirements provide
    an ability to broadcast data to taxing authorities. Furthermore, most
    commercial vehicles--72 percent--are not required to be equipped with
    recorders. They are not, as currently configured, adaptable for taxing
    purposes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2019, Table
    VM-1.
        \27\ American Transportation Research Institute. A Practical
    Analysis of a National VMT Tax System, March 2021.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These are just some of the challenges we have identified; there are
    many hurdles to full-scale implementation that are known, and likely
    many more that are currently unknown. This is why rushing into a VMT
    tax system is unwise, especially as the HTF looms toward insolvency. We
    would be especially opposed to a truck-only VMT tax, or any other
    scheme that unfairly targets the trucking industry exclusively. ATA
    would oppose any reauthorization legislation that attempts to extract
    revenue only from trucks.
        However, ATA supports a robust research and testing regime for VMT
    taxes. It should also be noted that most experts--and even ardent
    advocates of VMT taxes--believe that we are at least a decade away from
    full implementation.\28\ Failure to provide interim funding for urgent
    surface transportation needs while these solutions are developed would
    be highly irresponsible.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \28\ For example, this was universally acknowledged by witnesses
    during a March 7, 2018 House Transportation & Infrastructure hearing on
    longterm surface transportation funding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Interstate Tolls
        Interstate highway tolls are highly inefficient compared to many
    other funding options. On average, toll collection takes 16 cents out
    of every dollar paid, compared to a penny in administrative costs for
    collecting state fuel taxes and 0.2 percent for the Federal fuel
    tax.\29\ Furthermore, the diversion of traffic to alternative routes
    created by tolls causes needless safety, congestion, environmental, and
    quality of life problems.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ American Transportation Research Institute. A Framework for
    Infrastructure Funding, Nov. 2017 and American Transportation Research
    Institute. A Financial Analysis of Toll System Revenue: Who Pays & Who
    Benefits, Jan. 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For these reasons, ATA opposes the implementation of tolls on
    existing Interstates. Federal law governing tolls on existing
    Interstates should be revised to ensure that the public interest is
    taken into account, that the negative impacts of diversion and other
    consequences of tolling are accounted for and minimized, and that
    tolling authority and the use of revenue derived from tolls are
    limited.
        While restrictions on states' authority to toll Interstate highways
    have been imposed since the inception of the Interstate Highway System
    in 1956, over the years, a patchwork of exceptions has been created.
    Federal law governing where, how, and under what circumstances a state
    may toll existing, generalpurpose lanes of the Interstate System is now
    a confusing, contradictory mess that serves neither transportation
    agencies nor highway users very well.
        While ATA will continue to oppose all attempts to toll existing
    Interstates unless a viable toll-free option is available, we recognize
    that some in Congress would like to maintain some level of tolling
    flexibility. We believe it is important to have a tolling regime that
    is easily understood and is tied to Federal policy considerations that
    take into account fairness and equity for highway users, safety,
    interstate commerce, the environment, as well as states' desire to use
    tolls as a tool to address congestion and fill their transportation
    funding gaps.
                            2) SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS:
    LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROVIDE THE GREATEST
            BENEFIT TO HIGHWAY SAFETY & EFFICIENCY:
        As Congress contemplates a surface transportation reauthorization
    and accompanying infrastructure package, this subcommittee and the
    broader Committee have a responsibility to ensure that those
    transportation policies are coupled with a comprehensive safety title.
    Forward-learning investments in infrastructure must be considered in
    tandem with forward-leaning safety policies to ensure that
    infrastructure and reauthorization efforts are reflective of 21st
    century safety innovations and investments.
        Safety on our Nation's roads and bridges, and the safety of the
    motoring public, is of the utmost importance. And safety anchors the
    very foundation of the trucking industry, shaping our core values and
    decision-making. That is why the trucking industry invests
    approximately $10 billion annually in safety initiatives. While some of
    these investments are made to comply with a myriad of regulatory
    requirements, many of them are voluntary, progressive safety
    initiatives that are paying dividends in highway safety. In that vein,
    like this subcommittee, the trucking industry remains committed to a
    goal of accident and fatality-free highways.
        Since 1980 when the trucking industry was deregulated, both the
    number of fatal truck crashes and the rate of fatalities have declined
    dramatically. From 1980-2018, there has been a 68 percent decrease in
    the large truckinvolved fatal crash rate, and a 70 percent decrease in
    the combination truck-involved fatal crash rate.\30\ This decline since
    the 1980s is due, in part, to industry-supported initiatives, many of
    which were commonplace among motor carriers prior to becoming Federal
    mandates. For example, the voluntary use of Electronic Logging Devices
    (ELDs) was prevalent in ATA member fleets dating back to the early
    2000s. Now, Federal regulations require motor carriers to utilize ELDs,
    and highways safety has since improved dramatically. Hours of service
    violations have dropped significantly--a direct result of the ELD
    mandate.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \30\ Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2017,Trends chapter, Table 4,
    page 7, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.
    https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2020-09/
    LTBCF%202018-v5_FINAL-09-15-2020.pdf.
        \31\ https://eld.fmcsa.dot.gov/File/Open/18f45f72-df16-e41b-e053-
    0100007fe49a .
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, ATA is also acutely aware that the rate of truck crashes
    has increased in recent years. This trend is concerning and has driven
    ATA's ongoing consideration of important safety-related policies. To
    address this, ATA is taking proactive steps to support regulations,
    technology, and policies that have a direct impact on highway safety.
    Meaningful improvements will require an acknowledgement of the
    principal causes of truck crashes and a commitment to making data-
    driven countermeasures the highest priority.
        Notably, in response to an increase in speed-related crashes and
    the evolution of technologies to combat this, ATA updated its decade-
    old speed governing policy to reflect a more holistic approach that
    recognizes safety technologies widely deployed in fleets today. The
    updated policy includes provisions for the use of Automatic Emergency
    Braking (AEB) and Adaptive Cruise Control technology. Further, the
    policy includes a direction that the Department of Transportation
    conduct a recurring 5 year review of speed governing regulations to
    ensure that the regulations are appropriate and consistent with
    currently deployed technologies. ATA believes that the development and
    promotion of proven safety technologies, coupled with speed control
    measures, will result in the greatest positive impact on road safety.
        ATA members support the use and deployment of additional
    initiatives that will improve safety, such as a requirement for states
    to manage an employment notification system to alert employers of
    drivers' moving violations and license suspensions in a timely fashion,
    the use of alternative testing specimens to detect drug use, and
    vehicle safety technologies to create a safer environment for all road
    users.
    TRUCK CRASH CAUSATION STUDY AND CRASH DATA:
        For the trucking industry to continue improving upon our safety
    record, we must focus more research and attention on the root causes of
    truck-involved crashes, with a particular emphasis on countermeasures.
    According to multiple studies, available data, and other indicators,
    the vast majority of large truckinvolved crashes are the result of
    passenger vehicle driver behavior and errors. Furthermore, data
    indicates that other motorists, not professional truck drivers, are
    more likely to be at fault. According to a Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration (FMCSA) report, 70 percent of fatal crashes involving a
    large truck and a passenger vehicle are initiated by the actions of, or
    are the fault of, passenger motorists.\32\ The American Automobile
    Association (AAA) conducted their own version of this study and found
    that in truck-related crashes, the critical factor leading to the crash
    was attributed to the passenger vehicle driver 75 percent of the
    time.\33\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ Financial Responsibility Requirements for Commercial Motor
    Vehicles, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
    Safety Administration, January 2013, page xii, footnote 2.
        \33\ Kostyniuk LP, Streff FM, Zakrajsek J. Identifying Unsafe
    Driver Actions that Lead to Fatal Car-Truck Crashes. Washington DC: AAA
    Foundation for Traffic Safety, April, 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In February 2020, when I testified before this subcommittee, I
    reiterated ATA's desire for an updated Large Truck Crash Study. ATA was
    pleased to see that Congress has since appropriated funding for a Large
    Truck Crash Causal Factors Study (LTCCFS).\34\ It has been more than 16
    years since the last major investigation into the root causes of, and
    contributing factors to, crashes involving commercial motor vehicles.
    In the intervening time, data has shown an uptick in the rates of
    truck-involved crashes.\35\ To better understand this increase, our
    industry needs accurate information that can direct our efforts to
    deploy appropriate countermeasures and invest in the most effective
    safety technologies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ 85 Fed. Reg. 2481 (January 15, 2020).
        \35\ Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2017,Trends chapter, Table 4,
    page 7, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration, Washington, D.C. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
    fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/safety/data-and-statistics/461861/ltcbf-2017-
    final-56-2019.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Just as a LTCCFS will help identify the causes of large truck
    crashes, unified electronic crash report data will help to provide
    accurate and timely data on truck-involved crashes. Several states have
    already adopted electronic collection of crash reports, and many of
    those states have successfully leveraged the ability to provide more
    timely and accurate information to stakeholders. Real-time data allows
    law enforcement and transportation safety professionals to respond more
    quickly to escalating trends and ``hot spots,'' and helps ensure
    limited resources are allocated to areas with the greatest need. ATA
    supports Federal funding for states to adopt electronic crash report
    data collection, along with consistent funding to support and upgrade
    existing systems, implement NHTSA's Model Minimum Uniform Crash
    Criteria data fields, and train staff on new systems.
    HOURS OF SERVICE:
        Driver hours of service continue to be a foundational block of
    motor carrier safety. The Federal rules governing working hours were
    specifically designed to ensure drivers get adequate rest, take breaks
    when they need them, and remain refreshed throughout the workday--all
    to achieve the highest levels of highway safety. Our industry's
    operations are diverse, and it's nearly impossible for all segments to
    agree on any one standard. However, as the trucking industry comes into
    full compliance with the ELD mandate, drivers and motor carriers now
    have a better understanding of how the underlying HOS rules can be
    further improved for safety and efficiency.
        This is why ATA was pleased when, last year, DOT incorporated new
    flexibilities into the hours of service rules. DOT's process followed a
    two-year rulemaking that considered over 8,000 public comments from
    nearly every stakeholder. Many aspects of this rule make good sense
    from both a safety and operational standpoint. For example, instead of
    requiring drivers to operate in potentially hazardous conditions, the
    extension of the adverse driving provision by two hours encourages
    drivers to pull off to the side of the road and wait out hazards. In
    addition, rather than requiring drivers to use on-duty time sitting in
    their truck cab as loads are loaded and unloaded, drivers can
    productively count idle time toward their required rest break. And
    DOT's approval of a new 7/3 sleeper berth split better allows a driver
    who prefers to sleep seven hours with a longer nap later in the day to
    choose that option, instead of requiring eight consecutive hours.
        Despite some attempts to claim otherwise, these changes did not
    alter the maximum number of driving hours--they merely provide drivers
    with a means to better account for factors that influence their
    operations. Importantly, these changes provide flexibility for real-
    world situations, while at the same time preserving the same level of
    safety. ATA believes other flexibilities can be incorporated into the
    current regulations so long as the data supports such changes and
    safety is not compromised.
        Moving forward, any changes to truck drivers' HOS rules must be
    grounded in the same science, data, safety, and stakeholder engagement
    that was exhibited in the regulatory process that led to the 2020 HOS
    rule changes.
    COMPLIANCE, SAFETY, ACCOUNTABILITY:
        Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) was launched by FMCSA in
    2010 as a way to use data to streamline enforcement programs and target
    the least safe motor carriers for enforcement intervention. Since its
    inception, the methodology behind CSA ``scores'' has been called into
    question with regard to its correlation with future crash risk. The
    relationship between scores and crash risk is a reflection of the many
    methodological and data problems that plague the system. These include
    the flawed weighting of violations, a lack of data on a large portion
    of the motor carrier population, and the scoring of carriers on all
    crashes they are involved in, regardless of fault. In light of these
    issues, Congress requested that both the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) and the DOT Inspector General conduct reviews of the CSA
    program and its scoring methodology. Ultimately, both entities
    confirmed that the system is still grappling with serious flaws. In
    December 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
    removed motor carriers' CSA scores from public view while the National
    Academies of Science (NAS) conducted a thorough review of CSA.\36\ The
    FAST Act also stipulated that FMCSA prepare a corrective action plan to
    address the shortcomings identified by the study and remove carriers'
    CSA scores from public view until the study and resulting
    implementation plan are completed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \36\ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
    2017. Improving Motor Carrier Safety Measurement. Washington, DC: The
    National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24818.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In June 2018, FMCSA released their corrective action plan
    responding to the NAS review of CSA.\37\ FMCSA indicated that they
    would pursue a different methodology, known as an Item Response Theory
    (IRT), and would conduct testing of the IRT methodology to determine
    its accuracy in identifying motor carriers who are at risk for future
    crashes. As of today, the agency has yet to implement any changes to
    the CSA program. Motor carriers seek changes to this program so that
    they are not mischaracterized by a flawed scoring system that has
    proven ineffective in identifying unsafe carriers. Congress should
    continue to monitor FMCSA's corrective actions, and ensure that any
    changes to the CSA system are available for stakeholder review and
    comment prior to implementation. During the period of time that such
    changes are made, CSA scores should continue to remain unavailable to
    the public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ The National Academy of Sciences Correlation Study, Corrective
    Action Plan Report to Congress. Retrieved January 27, 2020, from
    https://cms8.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/ docs/mission/
    policy/407251/nas-correlation-study-corrective-action-plan-enclosure-
    finaljune-2018.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DISTRACTED DRIVING:
        While many of the regulatory items discussed in this testimony are
    specific to trucking, there are safety regulations that can be
    implemented and should be applied equitably to all road users. For
    example, Federal regulations prohibit commercial motor vehicle drivers
    from using a handheld mobile device at any time while driving,
    including while stopped at traffic control devices. And although 70
    percent of fatal crashes involving a large truck and a passenger
    vehicle are initiated by the actions of, or are the fault of, a
    passenger vehicle,\38\ there is no Federal law preventing passenger
    vehicle drivers from using handheld mobile devices while driving. Our
    nation's professional truck drivers encounter distracted drivers all
    the time, and, unfortunately, no level of defensive driving can prevent
    all accidents from occurring when there is limited accountability for
    passenger vehicle drivers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Financial Responsibility Requirements for Commercial Motor
    Vehicles, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
    Safety Administration, January 2013, page xii, footnote 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As such, ATA believes that the SAFE TO DRIVE Act (S. 195),
    introduced by Senator Klobuchar, is a tremendous opportunity to focus
    greater resources and attention on accidents that our professional
    drivers cannot easily anticipate: those caused by distracted passenger
    motorists. In commercial trucking, we require drivers to keep their
    eyes on the road ahead at all times--and we should expect the same
    vigilance from every motorist on the road. Sadly, convenient access to
    social media and streaming services has only increased the number of
    potential road hazards, leading to increases in the quantity and
    severity of distracted driving incidents. In 2019, the number of
    fatalities in distraction-affected crashes was 3,142, or 8.7 percent of
    all fatalities in 2019. This represents an increase of 284 more
    fatalities than the previous year--an increase of 9.9 percent.\39\ We
    believe S. 195 represents an important first step towards combating
    this disturbing trend.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ Traffic Safety Facts: Overview of Motor Vehicle Crashes in
    2019, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic
    Safety Administration, December 2020.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION SYSTEM:
        ATA supports the establishment of a national employer notification
    system to provide motor carrier employers with timely alerts to
    driver's license actions, such as suspensions, revocations, and
    convictions for moving violations. Use of this system should be
    voluntary, at least initially. Under the current process, motor
    carriers are often not notified about drivers' convictions in a timely
    manner. Employers are required to check each driver's record once per
    year, and this check may reveal violations committed up to 11 months
    earlier. Employees are required to notify their employer of a violation
    of any State or local traffic law (other than a parking violation)
    within 30 days of a conviction, and of a license suspension,
    revocation, or cancellation within one day. However, they are often
    reluctant to do so because of the potential negative ramifications on
    their employment. FMCSA estimates that at least 50 percent of drivers
    may not notify employers of convictions and licensing actions within
    the required timeframes.\40\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ Driver Violation Notification Service Feasibility Study, U.S.
    Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
    Administration, July 2005, figure 1, page 1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2007, a pilot ENS program was conducted to assess the
    feasibility, cost, safety impact, and benefits of such a system. The
    pilot program, tested in Colorado and Minnesota, allowed motor carriers
    to register with the driver's express permission, which enabled them to
    receive timely electronic notification of driver convictions and
    suspensions. The results of the pilot indicated that a nationwide ENS
    is needed and would likely have significant safety and monetary
    benefits for motor carriers. ATA supports a standardized ENS approach
    and advocates for a national ENS system to further enhance the safety
    of our Nation's highways.
    DRUG AND ALCOHOL CLEARINGHOUSE:
        Since the late 1990s, ATA has supported the establishment of a
    database to close a known loophole in existing regulations that allows
    CDL drivers who test positive for prohibited substances to escape the
    consequences of their actions. As required by the 2012 highway
    reauthorization legislation (MAP-21), FMCSA published a final rule
    creating a Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse in December 2016. The
    Clearinghouse would act as a central repository for drug and alcohol
    violations of CDL drivers, allowing carriers to search its database
    when hiring a driver for the first time and on an annual basis. On
    January 6, 2020, the Clearinghouse became operational, and as of April
    2021, 70,652 DOT drug and alcohol violations have been entered into the
    Clearinghouse, with 54,237 drivers currently in a prohibited operating
    status. Within only 16 months of operation, the Clearinghouse has
    become an essential safety tool for motor carriers in reducing
    preventable, substance-involved crashes.
        Even though the Clearinghouse is helping to prevent motor carriers
    from hiring drivers in a prohibited status due to a DOT drug and
    alcohol violation, many drivers with unaddressed drug and alcohol
    violations continue to hold an active CDL and operate on our Nation's
    highways, putting themselves and the motoring public at risk. For FMCSA
    to close this dangerous regulatory loophole, the agency must first
    fully implement the requirement that State Drivers Licensing Agencies
    (SDLAs) downgrade active CDL holders with DOT violations. Although
    required under FMCSA's final rule, the agency announced a three year
    implementation delay due to ``a forthcoming rulemaking to address the
    States' use of driver-specific information from the Clearinghouse, and
    additional time needed to develop the information technology platform
    through which States will electronically request and receive
    Clearinghouse information.'' \41\ ATA urges Congress to ensure no
    additional delays of FMCSA Clearinghouse requirements for States are
    needed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ 84 Fed. Reg. 68052 (December 13, 2019). https://
    www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/rulema
    king/2019-26943
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    HAIR TESTING:
        An increasing number of motor carriers are conducting pre-
    employment and random drug tests using drivers' hair as a testing
    sample. Hair tests provide a longer, more accurate picture of an
    applicant's past drug use and are more difficult to subvert compared to
    other testing methods. However, since urine is the only sample type
    permitted under DOT regulations, companies that voluntarily conduct
    hair tests must do so in addition to mandatory urine tests. This
    duplicated time and expense deters fleets from adopting this more
    effective testing method. To help eliminate this redundancy and
    incentivize fleets to utilize this effective means of testing, ATA
    strongly supports the recognition of hair testing as a federally-
    accepted drug testing method.
        Congress sought to address this issue in the Fixing America's
    Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 by including a provision that
    would facilitate the adoption of hair follicle testing as a federally
    recognized drug testing method. The provision directed the Department
    of Health and Human Services (HHS) to develop technical guidelines for
    the use of hair testing as an alternative to urinalysis for motor
    carriers to meet DOT drug testing requirements. Regrettably, we are now
    more than 5 years since the enactment of this important provision, but
    nowhere closer to unlocking this critical safety tool.
        In the fall of 2020, HHS issued proposed guidelines to allow
    Federal Executive Branch agencies to incorporate hair testing into
    their Federal drug testing programs. However, these guidelines neither
    met the requirements included in the FAST Act nor provided a path
    forward for the use of hair testing as an alternative drug testing
    method for motor carriers. Regrettably, the proposed guidelines
    included several alarming implementation stipulations that, if
    codified, could have devastating effects on current levels of highway
    safety, and could increase private-sector employers' employment and
    liability litigation risk. For example, HHS's proposed ``two-step
    approach'' to confirm a positive hair test would result in thousands of
    false-negative drug test reports by medical review officers (MROs)
    annually because a negative follow-up urinalysis is far more likely to
    reflect a shorter detection window than the initial hair test. In their
    proposed guidelines, HHS provided zero evidence that false-positive
    hair testing results are a material problem that justifies reversing
    thousands of laboratory-confirmed and MRO-reviewed positive hair test
    results. ATA conducted a small survey of 12 motor carriers, who employ
    over 68,000 drivers \42\ and found that if DOT were to have adopted
    HHS's additional evidence requirement, 89.47 percent of MROconfirmed
    positive hair test results would have been reversed in 2019.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ ATA Collected Motor Carrier Driver Data from FMCSA Safer
    Company Snapshot https://safer.fmcsa.dot.gov/CompanySnapshot.aspx.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        During the years since the FAST Act was signed into law, our Nation
    has experienced a growing substance abuse epidemic, and particularly a
    massive prescription opioid abuse crisis, which the trucking industry
    is not immune from. This is a glaring reminder that drug-impaired
    driving remains a very serious issue, which poses a tremendous risk to
    the safety of our Nation's highways. And, yet, we are unable to fully
    realize the tremendous safety benefits of hair testing--which was
    mandated by Congress in 2015--and, therefore, prevented from truly
    making our highways safer and achieve our shared goal of zero highway
    fatalities.
        Ultimately, HHS failed to heed the Congressional intent of the hair
    testing provisions included in the FAST Act. This failure will have a
    significant impact on motor carriers' ability to keep drug users from
    behind the wheel of their trucks and will unnecessarily endanger our
    Nation's roads, bridges, and the motoring public. For these reasons,
    and because the proposed guidelines have fallen so far outside of the
    instructions required by the FAST Act, it is imperative that Congress
    and this subcommittee take the legislative steps necessary to pave the
    way toward adoption of this important safety initiative.
    MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION & IMPLICATIONS FOR ROAD SAFETY:
        Recent marijuana legalization efforts have uniquely challenged our
    industry, and have exposed critical issues related to workplace and
    highway safety. As states move to legalize marijuana, the trucking
    industry, like the rest of American society, is evaluating and
    considering changes to keep pace with the evolving regulatory
    environment. Our members also recognize that public opinion toward
    marijuana legalization has shifted dramatically over the last two
    decades. However, trends and popular opinion do not always lead to good
    policy, and while debates about decriminalization are timely, policies
    that limit employer drug testing programs to the detriment of
    transportation safety will result in more crashes, injuries, and
    fatalities.
        An example of this can be found in the Marijuana Opportunity
    Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, legislation approved by the
    U.S. House of Representatives last Congress. As originally drafted, the
    MORE Act neglected to recognize the significant impact that removing
    marijuana from the schedule of controlled substances would have on
    highway and workplace safety. The legislation would have effectively
    prevented motor carriers from testing for marijuana as a condition of
    employment, which would adversely impact the safety of our Nation's
    roads, bridges, and the motoring public. Thankfully, before final
    passage of the MORE Act, the House included a drug testing carve-out
    for federally mandated drug testing programs.
        Until there is an enforceable national impairment standard for
    marijuana, and until Congress grants DOT the authority to specifically
    regulate marijuana use, any marijuana-related legislation must take
    into account the impacts that such changes would have on the safety of
    our transportation network, as well as employer's ability to maintain a
    safe working environment.
    AUTOMATIC EMERGENCY BRAKING, ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS:
        Substantial advancements have been made in commercial vehicle
    collision mitigation technology throughout many types of advanced
    driver assistance systems (ADAS). Automatic emergency braking (AEB) is
    a form of ADAS that has been supported, promoted, and scrutinized
    before becoming the most impactful safety technology since the
    deployment of anti-lock braking systems in cars and trucks. In fact,
    forward collision warning and AEB-equipped commercial vehicles can
    prevent up to 52 percent of rear-end crashes annually, including an
    estimated 11,499 crashes that result in 7,703 injuries and 173
    deaths.\43\ In 2016, NHTSA and the automotive industry announced a
    commitment to standardize AEB on virtually all Class 1 vehicles sold in
    the U.S. by 2022, and Class 2 vehicles by 2025.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ Glassbrenner, D., Morgan, A., Kreeb, R., Svenson, A., Liddell,
    H., Barickman, F. (2017, July). A Target Population for Automatic
    Emergency Braking in Heavy Vehicles (Report No. DOT HS 812 390).
    Washington DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
    DOT.
        \44\ NHTSA. (December 17, 2020). NHTSA Announces 2020 Update on AEB
    Installation by 20 Automakers. Washington, DC: Retrieved from https://
    www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-announces-2020-update-aeb-
    installation-20-automakers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Since NHTSA's 2017 mandate that tractors be equipped with
    electronic stability control (AEB sourcebased technology), Class 7 & 8
    manufacturers have voluntarily made AEB standard on most models. ATA
    supports mandating AEB on all new vehicles--passenger and commercial--
    after the technology is adopted successfully over time by manufacturers
    for fleets. Like passenger vehicles, tractors have matured
    significantly with the availability of AEB, and both sets of vehicle
    classes should be considered for regulation to improve highway safety.
    In addition to mandating AEB, incentivizing investments in safety
    technology and equipment will increase adoption rates of ADAS (i.e.,
    AEB across Class 1-8 vehicles), thereby reducing crashes and saving
    lives.
    AUTOMATED TRUCK OPERATIONS:
        The trucking industry remains firmly supportive of automated
    vehicle (AV) technologies, which will increase safety for all road
    users and provide more freight efficiency to support our Nation's
    economy and society overall. For decades, truck manufacturers and
    suppliers have improved safety and efficiency technologies that
    demonstrate measurable improvements to freight transportation and
    highway safety. As technical solutions have evolved, and as costs have
    become more reasonable, policymakers and regulators are trying to catch
    up to the market-driven innovation and proliferation of advanced
    technologies. New technology companies, as well as traditional
    equipment suppliers, are also developing AV technology specifically for
    the trucking industry, further accelerating the development of
    automated trucking operations.\45\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ (April 27, 2021). Plus, Cummins Partner on Self-Driving CNG
    Trucks. Retrieved from https://www.ttnews.com/articles/plus-cummins-
    partnerself-driving-cng-trucks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While some have raised concerns about the potential impacts of
    automation on the workforce, ATA does not perceive this technology to
    be completely ``driverless'' for the trucking industry, but instead a
    vital service in monitoring and operating certain freight deliveries.
    We expect that there will continue to be a role for drivers in trucking
    for the foreseeable future and have confidence in how the role of
    drivers assisted by automation will be modified and adjusted as the
    technologies continue to advance.
        Because of the complexity and diversity of the trucking industry,
    drivers will retain an essential role in trucking for a long time to
    come, with automated truck technology applied to improve their safety
    and productivity. In addition to monitoring automated driving systems
    and manually driving in the cityscape and at loading docks, drivers
    will retain their current responsibilities related to securing cargo--
    particularly hazardous materials--as well as interacting with
    customers, shippers, and receivers. Additionally, these new
    technologies are expected to make drivers safer and more productive,
    making truck driving a more attractive career choice, and attracting
    new people to our industry.
        ATA holds the unwavering belief that the deployment of AV
    technology for all vehicle types has the potential to improve safety,
    reduce congestion and overall environmental impacts, and save fuel. The
    widespread benefits of these technologies include a reduction in crash
    risk and roadway fatalities, improved quality of life, enhanced
    mobility for all individuals, lower energy usage, and streamlined
    supply chain management.
        For those reasons, as this subcommittee and Congress consider AV
    legislation, we strongly recommend that any legislation establishing a
    Federal role overseeing the advancement, development, and deployment of
    AV technologies should capture all road users, including passenger
    vehicles, commercial trucks, buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists, as
    well as the supporting infrastructure.
    CONNECTIVITY & 5.9 GHz TRANPSORATION SAFETY SPECTRUM:
        The safety benefits from advancing automated truck technology also
    parallel the importance of intelligent transportation systems. Plans to
    enhance vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I)
    communications--collectively known as V2X--have significant future
    safety benefits to next-generation U.S. transportation.\46\ NHTSA
    estimates V2V technology alone has the potential to prevent 89 percent
    of all light duty crashes.\47\ In addition, NHTSA estimates that V2V-
    equipped commercial motor vehicles can prevent 45,775 crashes, and save
    857 lives and $7.8 million in crash comprehensive costs annually.\48\
    V2V crash warning applications for trucks have an estimated 49 percent
    crash avoidance effectiveness. Importantly, these V2X technologies are
    dependent on a 5.9 GHz spectrum originally dedicated to vehicle safety
    applications.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ Chang, J. (2016, July). Summary of NHTSA heavy-vehicle
    vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications research. (Report No. DOT HS
    812 300). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration.
        \47\ 82 FR 3854. (January 12, 2017). Pg. 3991.
        \48\ Guglielmi, J., Yanagisawa, M., Swanson, E., Stevens, S., &
    Najm, W. J. (2017, November). Safety benefits of heavy-vehicle crash
    warning applications based on vehicle-to-vehicle communications (Report
    No. DOT HS 812 429). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unfortunately, while much work has been done to develop V2X
    protocols and applications,\49\ recent actions taken by the Federal
    Communications Commission (FCC) to reallocate the 5.9 GHz spectrum have
    turned back the clock on highway safety. The decision made by the FCC
    in November 2020 rejects the foresight the Commission demonstrated when
    it originally allocated spectrum for improving traveler safety,
    decreasing traffic congestion, and reducing air pollution. The FCC's
    decision will increase the already-large spectrum allocation for Wi-Fi
    so that it can be used to connect our TVs, refrigerators, washing
    machines, and even toilets, because the FCC believes that connected
    consumer devices are evolving quickly and are more widely deployed than
    the vehicle communications services in the 5.9 GHz spectrum. There is
    no reasonable justification for prioritizing faster Internet speeds and
    streaming infotainment over saving lives and reducing the environmental
    impact of our transportation system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ (October 4, 2018). Preparing for the Future of Transportation
    Automated Vehicles 3.0. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/
    av/3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The FCC's 2020 decision clearly demonstrates that the agency
    undervalues efforts that could overwhelmingly improve the safety and
    efficiency of our transportation network. ATA urges this subcommittee
    and Congress to support retaining the full 75 MHz spectrum of the 5.9
    GHz band for V2X technology to improve safety, reduce traffic
    congestion, and curb emissions.
    MISGUIDED SAFETY TECHNOLOGY MANDATES:
        Safety technologies are paramount to achieving our shared goal of
    zero highway fatalities. However, a clear distinction must be made
    between proven safety technologies and other technologies that have yet
    to be effectively researched, tested, or deployed. One such technology
    that has not been proven effective in operational scenarios is
    underride guards equipped to the side and front of commercial motor
    vehicles. Over the past few years, ATA has raised strong concerns about
    the Stop Underrides Act because the legislation promotes a solution
    that is neither data-driven nor proven to be effective in real-world
    highway settings. While we remain committed to the goal of zero
    fatalities on our Nation's highways, we cannot ignore the serious and
    potentially dangerous consequences of this legislation.
        The Stop Underrides Act calls for mandating these devices on the
    sides and front of all newlymanufactured commercial vehicles.
    Unfortunately, the bill disregards proven safety technologies, such as
    automatic emergency braking, camera monitoring systems, and active lane
    keep assist. And, it ignores the diversity of our industry, failing to
    take into account the fact that trucking is not a one-size-fits-all
    industry, and that investments in certain technologies that one company
    makes may not make sense, or be safe, for another. Standards for new
    truck equipment should be based on sound economic and engineering
    principles that enhance safety, take into account real-world
    operations, and weigh possible unintended consequences.
        Our concerns regarding the operational feasibility of installing
    front and side underride guards on all new commercial motor vehicles
    are shared by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In April
    2019, in response to a Congressional request, the GAO published a
    report \50\ on the topic of underride crashes. After a yearlong
    investigation, which included numerous interviews with State and
    Federal government officials, local police departments, foreign
    governments, and over 29 industry groups--including those supportive of
    this mandate--GAO concluded that the Department of Transportation ``. .
    . should conduct additional research on side underride guards to better
    understand the overall effectiveness and cost associated with these
    guards and, if warranted, develop standards for their implementation.''
    \51\ When these results were published, ATA concurred with GAO's
    findings and recommendation for additional research on the efficacy of
    side underride guards. To date, this additional research has not taken
    place, and until it does, any Congressional action on the Stop
    Underrides Act would be premature.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \50\ (March, 2019). Truck Underride Guards, Improved Data
    Collection, Inspection, and Research Needed (Report No. GAO-19-264).
    Retrieved from United States Government Accountability Office: http://
    www.gao.gov/assets/700/697585.pdf.
        \51\ Ibid, pg. 33.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Ultimately, ATA is committed to our shared goal of eradicating
    highway fatalities, including those resulting from underride crashes.
    We believe, however, that the Stop Underrides Act should be reimagined
    to help mitigate crashes before they have occurred. Rather than
    expending limited resources on unproven mitigation efforts, we should
    instead focus on proven and emerging mechanisms to reduce the
    likelihood of crashes occurring altogether.
        This subcommittee and the broader Committee have a responsibility
    to create a forward-leaning safety framework for the imminent surface
    transportation reauthorization and accompanying infrastructure package.
    Just as safety shapes the trucking industry's core values and decision-
    making, safety should also be the guiding principle that buttresses all
    investments in our transportation networks. ATA remains unwavering in
    our commitment to improving the safety and security of our Nation's
    roads and bridges, and we look forward to our continued work with
    Congress, the Administration, enforcement, and other interested parties
    to that end.
                           3) WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT:
    THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY IS ESSENTIAL, AND THE DRIVER SHORTAGE IS AN
            ECONOMIC AND SUPPLY CHAIN CRISIS:
        The trucking industry has always been essential--more than 80
    percent of American communities rely exclusively on trucks for their
    freight transportation needs--but the COVID-19 pandemic greatly
    underscored that fact. Essential workers, like truck drivers, kept
    America moving forward even as the Nation hunkered down. The trucking
    industry worked diligently behind the scenes to ensure that Americans
    all over the country had access to critical goods like food, medicine,
    fuel, and even toilet paper while they were quarantining at home. The
    trucking industry shouldered this incredible responsibility with the
    fortitude that being `essential' demands, all while grappling with a
    devastating driver shortage.
        Seventy percent of the Nation's freight is carried by commercial
    trucks, and while demand is projected to increase over the next decade,
    the current driver shortage threatens to disrupt the continuity of the
    supply chain. This is especially problematic as the Nation and our
    economy recover from the monumental impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
        The trucking industry's successful mobilization in response to the
    public health crisis demonstrates how essential our industry truly is
    to the economy, our emergency response supply chain, and our way of
    life. The driver shortage is a looming threat that, if unaddressed,
    could destabilize the continuity of our operations throughout the
    country. And those monumental impacts threaten to ripple across the
    supply chain and hamstring our Nation's recovering economy.
    NOW MORE THAN EVER, THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY IS HIRING:
        According to a recent estimate, the trucking industry needs an
    additional 60,800 truck drivers immediately--a deficit that is expected
    to grow to more than 160,000 by 2028. In fact, when anticipated driver
    retirement numbers are combined with the expected growth in capacity,
    the trucking industry will need to hire roughly 1.1 million new drivers
    over the next decade, or an average of nearly 110,000 per year.
        The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated the truck driver
    shortage, and the temporary closures of state DMV's and truck driver
    training schools disrupted the already-fragile pipeline of new drivers
    entering the trucking industry. While portions of the trucking industry
    have somewhat weathered the pandemic's economic storm, according to the
    BLS April 2021 Report, the trucking subsector had a net loss of 42,500
    jobs in 2020.\52\ As a result of the already-crippling driver shortage,
    companies in supply chains across the economy are now facing higher
    transportation costs, leading to increased prices for consumers on
    everything from electronics to food. Perhaps the best evidence of the
    acute need for more drivers is the recent media reporting of a possible
    summer gas shortage.\53\ The country depends on a qualified
    transportation workforce, and the trucking industry offers great
    middle-class careers that do not require the debt that often
    accompanies a college degree.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ Employment in trucking rebounds after modest decrease in
    February (landline.media)
        \53\ https://abcnews.go.com/US/lack-truck-drivers-lead-fuel-
    shortage-summer/story?id=7737
    4905.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported a mean salary of
    $47,130 for truck drivers in a May 2020 report.\54\ Additionally, an
    industry survey shows the average truck driver earns over $54,000 per
    year, plus benefits like health insurance, a retirement plan (e.g.,
    401(k)), and paid time off.\55\ Since 2014, private fleet drivers have
    seen their pay rise from $73,000 to more than $86,000, or a gain of
    nearly 18 percent.\56\ In addition to rising pay, many fleets offer
    generous signing bonuses and other expanded benefit packages to attract
    and keep drivers. We want to welcome more individuals into the trucking
    industry, but we need Congress' help to open up career pathways that
    are otherwise closed to qualified people due to obsolete regulatory
    barriers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \54\ Heavy and Tractor-trailer Truck Drivers: Occupational Outlook
    Handbook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov)
        \55\ ATA Driver Compensation Study (2017); American Trucking
    Associations. https://www.ata
    businesssolutions.com/ATAStore/ProductDetails/productid/3852684.
        \56\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    THE DRIVE SAFE ACT, A LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION TO THE DRIVER SHORTAGE
            GROUNDED IN SAFETY:
        Given the severity of the existing driver shortage and the
    overwhelming expectation that the shortage will continue to grow in
    tandem with freight demand, we encourage Congress to explore
    initiatives that will expand the pool of qualified drivers and reduce
    backlogs. To stem the growing driver shortage immediately, we urge
    Congress to consider proposals to remove obsolete regulatory barriers
    that prevent trucking from replenishing its aging workforce with
    younger, qualified workers who have received the appropriate training
    and experience required to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV).
    Although forty-nine states and the District of Columbia currently allow
    18 to 20-year-olds to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce, Federal law
    prevents these same 18 to 20-year-olds from driving across state lines.
    ATA believes the most effective and safety-focused solution to the
    trucking industry's dire workforce dilemma is the DRIVE Safe Act
    (S.659), legislation championed by subcommittee Members, Senators Todd
    Young and Jon Tester, and supported by several Members of the Commerce
    Committee and United States Senate. Data and experience both show that
    properly-designed training--such as the training regimen found in the
    DRIVE Safe Act--can enable young people to operate equipment and
    machinery safely.
        As a testament to the safety considerations underpinning the DRIVE
    Safe Act, all qualified drivers who participate in the apprenticeship
    program established by the bill would only be allowed to drive trucks
    outfitted with the latest safety technology, including active braking
    collision mitigation systems, forward facing event recording cameras,
    speed limiters set at 65 miles per hour or less, and automatic or
    automatic manual transmissions. Professional drivers training within
    the program are also required to be accompanied by an experienced
    driver throughout the process. Ultimately, the DRIVE Safe Act is not
    just a workforce replenishment tool--it's a job creation and safety
    enhancement bill.
        Importantly, the DRIVE Safe Act would impose a robust safety regime
    for 18 to 20-year-old qualified drivers where one currently does not
    exist. Under current law, the day a 20-year-old turns 21 is the magical
    day that they are arbitrarily deemed to be safe enough to drive in
    interstate commerce. This bill would add an extra level of safety by
    requiring qualified 18 to 20-year-old CDL holders to complete a
    rigorous multi-step apprenticeship program before they drive in
    interstate commerce so that they can develop the skills and attitudes
    necessary to lead a long, safe and successful career in trucking.
        Significantly, even though the minimum age for interstate driving
    is 21, the reality is that the average age of entry-level drivers
    enrolled at private truck driver training schools is actually 35.\57\
    This means that many drivers entering our industry may be on the back
    end of their second, third, or fourth careers pursuing a job in
    trucking as an opportunity of last resort. As such, the trucking
    industry is unable to tap into the ambitions of the next generation's
    workforce and replenish its aging workforce with younger workers.
    Unfortunately, blue-collar professions are still stigmatized in our
    society and culture, which place a disproportionate emphasis on four-
    year-degree colleges at the expense of vocational schools and the
    skilled trades.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \57\ The average age of a truck driver is 49, 7 years older than
    that of the typical U.S. worker.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In light of the proven safety performance of 18 to 20-year-old
    drivers--who are already allowed to operate trucks in forty-nine U.S.
    states and the District of Columbia--and given the threats that the
    driver shortage poses to the cost of moving freight and to supply chain
    efficiencies, ATA urges Congress to address this problem now, by
    including the DRIVE Safe Act in any forthcoming surface transportation
    reauthorization package. In making that recommendation, I would also
    note that this bipartisan legislation was previously cosponsored by
    over one third of the House and Senate last Congress, and now enjoys
    the support of over 120 organizations and companies throughout the
    supply chain with a presence and impact in every state and
    Congressional district across the nation, and support is still growing.
    ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO HELP STEM THE DRIVER SHORTAGE:
        ATA supports other legislative initiatives designed to bring
    greater attention to the growing driver shortage and attract a new
    workforce into the industry. Empowering individuals to seek rewarding
    careers enjoys broad, bipartisan support, and ATA overwhelmingly
    supports legislation that would help promote job opportunities for all
    Americans, regardless of race, gender or socioeconomic status. Two such
    bills are the Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act (S. 469) and
    the Promoting Service in Transportation Act (S. 3303 in the 116th
    Congress).
        The Promoting Women in Trucking Workforce Act, introduced by
    Senators Moran, Baldwin, Tester, and Subcommittee Ranking Member
    Fischer, rightly notes that although women currently make up 47 percent
    of the U.S. workforce, they make up less than 7 percent of truck
    drivers, and only a quarter of all transportation and warehousing jobs
    in trucking. Through the establishment of a Women of Trucking Advisory
    Board under the leadership of the FMCSA, this legislation will bring
    greater attention to the recruitment, retention, training, and
    mentorship of women in the trucking industry. This, in turn, will lead
    to increased female representation in trucking and greater industry
    diversity, while providing another tool to help the trucking industry
    confront and stem its growing driver shortage.
        The Promoting Service in Transportation Act, introduced by
    Subcommittee Chairman Peters last Congress, is a further crucial step
    that will enhance the use of broadcast, digital, and print media public
    service announcement campaigns to promote job opportunities, and also
    encourage improved diversity in the transportation workforce. ATA
    supports both of these important legislative efforts, and encourages
    their inclusion in any forthcoming safety title to accompany a surface
    transportation reauthorization bill.
    THE PRO ACT, LEGISLATION THREATENING TO FURTHER EXACERBATE THE DRIVER
            SHORTAGE:
        Finally, I would be remiss if I did not address a piece of
    legislation the Senate may consider that would be extremely harmful to
    the trucking industry and hurt the very workers it purports to help:
    the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act (S. 420). The PRO Act,
    which I know many of you support, includes a provision that would
    effectively bar the trucking industry from utilizing the independent
    contractor business model. The trucking industry and American consumers
    depend on independent contractors, and the implementation of a
    restrictive national test to limit independent contractor status would
    jeopardize the livelihoods of over 350,000 owner-operators,
    destabilizing America's supply chain and irreparably harming the U.S.
    economy.
        The involvement of independent contractors in trucking promotes
    efficiency and an increased ability to meet customer demand, which has
    been acutely necessary during heightened delivery periods like the
    COVID-19 pandemic, and annually during the holidays. Americans choose
    to work as independent contractors because of the economic opportunity
    it provides and the empowerment to select the conditions (e.g., hours
    and routes) that suit their lifestyles. Accordingly, the Americans who
    choose to become owner-operators in trucking should be respected and
    supported in their endeavors, not driven out of business because of the
    authoritarian view that employee status is better for them. Enactment
    of the PRO Act would be a clear signal to the 350,000 owner-operators
    in the trucking industry that Congress is indifferent to their chosen
    professions and apathetic about the loss of their livelihoods.
    REGULATORY SOLUTIONS TO HELP ADDRESS THE DRIVER SHORTAGE:
        ATA appreciates and supports the steps agencies have taken to
    address driver recruitment bottlenecks by issuing emergency waivers and
    declarations during the pandemic, and believes some of those should be
    made permanent. For example, permanent waivers on certain requirements
    for Commercial Learners Permits and Third Party Testing could assist in
    easing the current delays associated with the testing of drivers who
    wish to obtain their CDL. These delays existed prior to the COVID-19
    public health crisis and have only been exacerbated by the pandemic.
    ATA anticipates that the existing backlog of testing appointments will
    steadily increase in the future and encourages FMCSA to harmonize state
    licensing procedures, including, for example, state of domicile
    requirements and Third-Party Testing.
        FMCSA has mandated that an individual's state of domicile must
    accept the results of a CDL skills test that was administered out-of-
    state; however, the rule does not require the state of domicile to also
    accept the results of an out-of-state knowledge test. As a result,
    driver candidates who obtain training out-of-state are required to
    travel back to their state of domicile to obtain their credentials,
    creating an unnecessary burden. It has become all the more important to
    allow trainees to test, train, and receive their relevant credentials--
    be it a CLP or a CDL--without having to travel back and forth to their
    state of domicile during the pandemic, and there's no safety
    justification that would warrant returning to that requirement as we
    recover from the public health crisis.
                         4) ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP:
    THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY'S COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY AND THE
            ENVIRONMENT:
        The trucking industry's commitment to sustainability is well-known
    and ongoing. Before 1985, there was no such thing as Federal emission
    standards for trucks. The historical progress made since then is
    nothing short of phenomenal. Since the mid-1980s, newly-manufactured
    trucks have reduced emissions of both nitrogen oxide (NOX)--
    associated with smog and ozone formation--and particulate matter (PM),
    or ``soot,'' by over 98 percent. Put another way, 60 new trucks
    purchased today emit the equivalent NOX and PM emissions of
    a single truck back in 1988.
        Trucking virtually phased-out sulfur in diesel fuel beginning in
    2006. This fuel, more commonly referred to as ultra-low sulfur diesel
    fuel or ``ULSD'', practically eliminated sulfur dioxide
    (SO2) emissions and further reduced overall fine particulate
    matter emissions from trucks.
        But it does not stop there. In 2011 and 2016, our industry
    supported two separate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations
    establishing first-ever standards for truck engine, vehicle, and
    trailer greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption standards (known
    as Phase 1 and Phase 2 respectively) to promote a new generation of
    cleaner, more fuel-efficient trucks and engines.
        The Phase 1 standards, implemented between 2014 and 2018, were
    projected to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 270
    million metric tons, save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50
    billion in fuel costs, and eliminate the use of 530 million barrels of
    oil over the lifetime of new vehicles purchased under the program.
    Phase 1 improved fuel efficiency and reduced carbon emissions from each
    new truck/engine by up to 23 percent. The Phase 2 standards being
    implemented between 2021 and 2027 are expected to further lower
    CO2 emissions by 1.1 billion metric tons, save vehicle
    owners fuel costs of around $170 billion, and reduce oil consumption by
    up to 2 billion barrels over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under
    the program. In short, Phase 2 picks up where Phase 1 left off,
    improving fuel efficiency and reducing carbon emissions from new
    trucks, engines, and trailers up to an additional 34 percent.
        Our industry is also working closely with EPA and other
    stakeholders to further reduce NOX emissions from new trucks
    under EPA's Cleaner Trucks Initiative (CTI). While the latest round of
    NOX reductions for new trucks was implemented in 2010,
    achieving unprecedented near-zero levels, CTI will raise the bar even
    further, likely achieving 90 percent or greater NOX
    reductions from all new trucks A proposed rule is expected later this
    year and should be finalized by the end of 2022.
        When discussing sustainability, we should not forget about the
    award-winning, voluntary EPA SmartWay Transport Partnership program
    developed to reduce freight fuel use, curb greenhouse gas emissions,
    and improve transportation efficiency. Since 2004, this groundbreaking
    public/private partnership, developed between EPA and Charter Partners
    such as ATA, has saved fleets $42 billion in fuel costs, reduced
    consumption by over 312 million barrels of oil, and eliminated over 150
    million tons of air pollutants.\58\ SmartWay and its 3,700+ partners
    continue to stand out as a stellar example of how the Federal
    government can work side-by-side with industry to achieve real results
    outside regulatory frameworks.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \58\ SmartWay Program Successes, U.S. EPA, https://www.epa.gov/
    smartway/smartway-program-successes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are entering a major transitional period as transportation moves
    towards a new generation of loweremission and zero-emission equipment.
    However, it is important to note that this transportation shift will
    not happen overnight, and fossil fuels will not magically disappear
    with the flip of a switch. It is therefore essential to address the
    existing and near-future stock of equipment and their corresponding
    fuel needs given trucking's essentiality in moving the Nation's economy
    forward. To this end, ATA has identified the following areas to help
    further decarbonize the trucking sector:
       The Road to Sustainability Must be Multi-Modal
        ATA urges Congress to better address the needs of the medium-and
    heavy-duty truck sector in the context of the current infrastructure
    and clean energy debates. Many bills being introduced in Congress lack
    specificity and tend to be focused on the advancement of light-duty
    vehicles. For instance, while an electric charging location may be
    compatible for an electric car, it is incompatible for a big rig
    pulling a 53-foot trailer. The real estate requirements, energy needs,
    charging connectors, facility costs, and physical placements are far
    different than those for other vehicle classes. Other bills focus
    exclusively on electric charging as the sole fuel solution to reduce
    carbon emissions, with no reference to other sustainable fuels, such as
    hydrogen, renewable natural gas, or other energy sources utilizing
    carbon capture. If goals related to increased grid demands,
    infrastructure build-out, financial incentives, and carbon reduction
    are to be successful, discussions must include a diverse array of
    potential solutions.
       Research and Development Funding is Critical
        ATA supports increasing Federal financial support for research and
    development (R&D) in all aspects involving the decarbonization shift.
    Several Federal entities serve key roles in overseeing, analyzing, and
    researching advanced vehicle technologies and their supporting needs.
    The Department of Energy (DOE), for example, funds a wide range of
    research activities on heavy-duty trucks through its Vehicle
    Technologies program. The DOE's 21st Century Truck Partnership
    addresses important national challenges related to medium-duty and
    heavy-duty truck efficiency, safety, and emissions by pursuing
    collaborative research and development among government and industry
    partners. The DOE's 17 National Labs conduct R&D work to tackle the
    most critical scientific challenges of our time and possess unique
    instruments and facilities, many of which are found nowhere else in the
    world. Additionally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a
    significant role to play in the assessment of the transmission of
    electricity in interstate commerce, the reliability of high voltage
    interstate transmission systems, and the monitoring of national energy
    markets. Finally, the military's extensive research on alternative
    fuels and vehicles is critical in assessing new fuels and technologies
    as it seeks safer and cleaner mobility options for national security
    interests.
        Increased funding for R&D is not only needed by all Federal
    departments and agencies to ensure that advanced vehicle technologies
    and fuels for the transportation sector are feasible, affordable, and
    do not result in unintended consequences, but also for non-federal
    research needs as well.
        While current research has resulted in a steady decline in battery
    costs and continuous improvements in battery energy density, weight,
    and size, more critical research is still necessary. Therefore, R&D
    funding levels must be robust enough to finance, at a minimum, a more
    thorough analysis of the Nation's electrical grid system, an assessment
    of the availability of precious metals and feasible alternatives, and
    further research into green hydrogen production, alternative fueling
    infrastructure expansion, trailer refrigeration electrification,
    vehicle technology pathways, and battery development and storage.
        Without sufficient and coordinated funding for R&D on all aspects
    involving advanced vehicle technologies and fuels, the timelines for
    the transition to zero and near-zero trucks may be delayed or may
    prompt disruptions in the Nation's supply chains.
       Zero-Emission Vehicle Fueling Infrastructure Incentives are
            Needed
        Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
    (FCEVs) are widely-recognized as the most promising technologies to
    reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and air
    pollution in trucking. However, the chicken-or-egg quagmire continues
    in that zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) require compatible ZEV fuels--
    whether that fuel is electricity or hydrogen. Scaling up charging
    infrastructure is a necessary enabler for a widespread ZEV transition.
    Whereas local and regional hauling operations are generally anticipated
    to be powered by ``electric'' fuel, longer hauling operations may trend
    towards the use of hydrogen fuel given their unique challenges. The
    Federal government is not--and should not be--in the business of
    choosing fuel and technology winners and losers. Likewise, not all
    fueling locations are created equal. The cost of a single 150-350 kW
    electric truck charger and installation can cost up to $220,000.\59\
    Likewise, an onsite hydrogen fueling station with a capacity of 700kg/
    day with delivered hydrogen could cost $2 million or more.\60\ If
    hydrogen production were to occur on-site, that figure could increase
    exponentially by over eight-fold.\61\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \59\ South Coast Air Quality Management District, Second Draft
    Staff Report, Proposed Rule 2305--Warehouse Indirect Source Rule--
    Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program
    and Proposed Rule 316--Fees for Rule 2305, Page 127, April 2021.
        \60\ Id at 130.
        \61\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ATA stands ready to work with Congress and the Biden Administration
    to establish programs and provide economic incentives to reduce costs
    and barriers facing EV charging infrastructure installation and the
    expansion of a hydrogen fueling infrastructure along key freight
    corridors. Such efforts could include participation on the anticipated
    task force with Federal agencies and the private sector to support
    vehiclegrid integration, the creation of load management strategies,
    public-private co-financing approaches, and the standardization of
    smart charging infrastructure.
       Truck Purchase Incentives are Important
        Fleets will encounter markedly higher vehicle costs when purchasing
    BEVs or FCEVs. Today, while product availability remains limited, the
    price of a new Class 8 BEV can cost over $200,000 when including
    payment of the 12 percent Federal Excise Tax.\62\ Class 8 FCEVs, which
    are not currently available in the marketplace, are expected to retail
    for $300,000 or more.\63\ Given that 97 percent of trucking companies
    own 20 trucks or less and are, by definition, small businesses, these
    companies will be hard-pressed to expend increased capital outlays for
    new equipment given that they already operate on razor-thin profit
    margins. It is therefore critical to provide sufficient financial
    incentives to trucking companies to ensure ZEV equipment is affordable
    to all users, while also achieving greater market penetration rates of
    such equipment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \62\ See: https://cleantechnica.com/2020/08/06/head-to-head-
    nikolas-hydrogen-fuel-cell-trucks-vs-the-tesla-semi/.
        \63\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Funding Must Continue
        The transition to ZEVs in the trucking sector will take
    considerable time since diesel-powered trucks can operate for 15 years
    or more. Given their long, useful lifespan, ATA has strongly supported
    the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) to reduce emissions from older
    diesel equipment, and has worked to secure continued funding for the
    program since 2008. DERA provides funding in the form of grants and
    rebates to incentivize owners to retrofit or replace older diesel
    engines and equipment. Since implementation, DERA has become one of the
    most cost-effective Federal clean air programs.
        The EPA's most recent estimates indicate that every $1 in Federal
    assistance is met with $3 in non-federal matching funds, including
    significant investments from the private sector. Furthermore, each
    Federal dollar generates between $11 to $30 in public health and
    economic benefits, including $2 in fuel savings for each dollar
    invested. Moreover, states benefit because 30 percent of the funding is
    directed to support state programs. As demonstrated in the EPA's fourth
    report to Congress, the value of this program continues to provide an
    important tool to allow the EPA and communities around the country to
    meet their Clean Air goals in the most cost-effective and feasible
    manner.
        ATA supports the expansion of DERA funding to incentivize ZEV
    purchases through increased Federal cost-sharing. Increased funding
    would require legislation, though diesel eligibility could be addressed
    through EPA regulatory action.
        The trucking industry recognizes that it is good business to be a
    conscientious environmental steward, and we hope to collaborate with
    Congress, the Administration, and like-minded stakeholders to further
    our shared goal of becoming a cleaner and greener industry. ATA looks
    forward to partnering with you to tackle the numerous challenges ahead,
    and stands ready to assist as you consider solutions to rebuild our
    Nation's infrastructure, improve the safety of America's roads and
    bridges, promote employment opportunities in the transportation sector,
    and tackle the climate crisis.
    CONCLUSION:
        Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Fischer, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you again for providing ATA with the opportunity to
    testify before you today. Due to a variety of circumstances, the
    trucking industry, our Nation's infrastructure, and the broader supply
    chain are facing increasing pressure, which is fast approaching crisis
    levels. The absence of Congressional action to address this imminent
    crisis will yield catastrophic consequences. However, I am confident
    that your leadership, along with that of the entire Congress and the
    Biden Administration, will address the infrastructure challenges of
    today with forward-leaning solutions that will bring much needed
    certainty, sustainability, and opportunity to the trucking industry,
    our Nation's supply chain, and the economy as a whole.
        The actions of this subcommittee, Congress, and the Administration
    over the coming weeks and months could shepherd the trucking industry
    towards tremendous advancements in safety, efficiency, and
    productivity. We urge you to take the steps necessary to provide the
    resources and regulatory framework that will make our fleets safer and
    more connected. Your efforts could empower our industry to safely meet
    the growing driver shortage head-on and recruit a workforce for the
    next generation of trucking. Providing a significant investment in real
    infrastructure will help stem and reverse the continued decay of our
    Nation's roads and bridges, and meaningfully address climate change.
    With your leadership, we remain hopeful that Federal action can solve
    this growing national crisis.
        Our steadfast hope is that Congress and the Biden Administration
    will now roll up their sleeves, work together and make the tough
    decisions to support infrastructure, the economy, and the industry that
    moves it. In that effort, ATA and the trucking industry stand ready to
    work hand-in hand with you. Thank you.

        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Spear. Thank you for
    your opening statement. We have a day with a lot going on.
    Members are going back and forth, a number of markups. And so,
    I am going defer my questions as members are here. Senator
    Blumenthal, you are recognized for your 5 minutes.

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

        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Baker, I am very, very focused on freight because I agree that
    it is really critical to our future, even in a small state like
    Connecticut. As you may know, we have ports in New London,
    Bridgeport, and New Haven. Rail lines connect each of them,
    although most people in Connecticut really are not aware of it.
    The rail in eastern Connecticut is being revived so that it can
    carry freight from New London, up through Connecticut to
    Massachusetts. And I wonder if you have any thoughts about how
    we can raise awareness about the potential for freight, not
    only in the Congress, but also in the country?
        Mr. Baker. Thank you for the question, Senator. One of the
    ways, I think, to raise awareness--and I associate myself with
    the comments that Mr. Spear made and both Senator Peters and
    Senator Fischer made in their opening statements--is
    recognizing the incredible role that freight transportation and
    freight workers played over the last 14 months, helping our
    country survive a once in a century disruption.
        You know, in general, in the freight world, we are used to
    not being particularly high profile. There is, of course, this
    famous political saying, ``Freight don't vote'', and you know,
    that is OK. We do not necessarily need to be in the limelight.
        But I do think, with this surface transportation bill
    pending in front of you, there is a historic opportunity on the
    freight rail side. The CRISI grant program is a huge
    opportunity to support those kind investments. Then, we would
    also point to the INFRA grant program and the ability to make
    that more multimodal. I think with those sort of investments
    and the success will garner attention.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Mr. Byrd, in--in many of the
    fatal truck crashes, as you know--and there seem to be quite a
    few of them--truck driver fatigue is often a factor, in fact, a
    leading factor. What recommendations do you have to prevent
    truck driver fatigue causing these kinds of accidents?
        Mr. Byrd. I thank you for your question, Senator. I think
    you have raised a very important point, in terms of the
    contribution that fatigue makes toward unsafe driving and
    contributes toward truck crashes. I think that if we--what we
    really need to revisit the hours-of-service regulation. These
    drivers are working in excess of 60 hours a week. More often
    than not, they are working 14 hours a day and they are
    constantly--their constant pressure on changing these
    regulations to further relax them or weaken them.
        I think we really need to revisit the hours-of-service
    regulation and we need to look at this from the perspective of
    the impact that it makes on driver--driver health and the
    ability to get restorative rest. So, I think a first step is
    just revisiting the hours-of-service regulation because they
    allow just too much--too many hours for drivers to work each
    week.
        Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Spear, do you agree?
        Mr. Spear. Oh, I certainly agree, Senator, that it is a
    problem. We acknowledge it. I also agree with Lamont on hours
    of service. We are not out there pounding pavement for hours-
    of-service suspension. Those suspensions have to be a really
    high bar.
        We have a driver shortage. You are well aware of that. And
    to--having a suspension of hours of service and work our
    existing drivers even harder, is going to exacerbate that
    problem that you just described.
        But I am also remiss that you also have to look at the
    overall fatalities involving trucks. And DOT data shows that
    two-thirds of the accidents, fatal accidents, involving trucks
    are actually caused by passenger vehicles and the two leading
    causes are speeding and texting.
        So, as we look at this panoramically, you have to deal with
    tired drivers, you have to deal with keeping the hours in
    check. ELD's, electronic logging devices, we certainly
    advocated that, and I think it is having measurable benefits
    since we put that technology in place to making certain that we
    are staying with the hours. And we have a long way to go, in
    terms of really bringing the overall fatalities down. We share
    that goal. We will certainly work with you and members of the
    Senate to make sure that happens.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks very much. Thanks to the whole
    panel for your testimony today. My time is expired. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator
    Baldwin, you are recognized for your questions.

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

        Senator Baldwin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. In
    Wisconsin, we make things. And in this discussion about
    stronger supply chains, we need to ensure that we have a
    stronger workforce to transport our goods to market.
        Women currently make up less than 10 percent of the truck-
    driving workforce and removing barriers that get in the way of
    women pursuing, retaining, and advancing in careers in trucking
    is key. Those are jobs as drivers and freight firm owners.
    Senator Moran and I have introduced a bipartisan bill, also
    supported by Senators Tester and Fischer, which would support
    women in the trucking industry and establish a Women in
    Trucking Advisory Board. And I will be working to include that
    bill in our surface transportation reauthorization.
        Mr. Spear, thank you for your support of that legislation.
    Could you share a little bit more about how we need to break
    down these barriers for women in trucking and how that would
    improve the strength of our supply chains and competitiveness
    in the United States?
        Mr. Spear. Absolutely, Senator, and thank you for your
    leadership and sponsoring that bill. ATA is a supporter of it.
    And we do need to acknowledge the short falls in our workforce.
    Bringing more minorities and women into it is certainly a
    challenge and you just cannot talk about it. You have to do
    something about it. Your introducing this bill is a significant
    step forward. We, internally, at ATA have set up diversity
    workforces to define policies and create platforms that we can
    help you all advocate; to make it attractive to people out
    there that may not need to know about our industry, and to
    bring them in.
        We have a seven percent participation rate for women in our
    driver workforce. That is way too low. And we need to take
    steps really highlight why that is a good profession for anyone
    interested in being in our industry. It is good pay--pays in
    the mid-50s on average, with full benefits. It is a very, very
    supportive environment with a lot of diversity and options for
    anyone to choose from to earn a good salary and living.
        For women, we have to make it safer for them out there on
    the road. It is a bit intimidating when you are on--when you
    are doing long haul as a woman and going to truck stops at
    night. Many do not feel safe to get out on their own. We have
    to work with our partners, our members in the truck stop sector
    of our industry, to make certain that they feel just as welcome
    as anyone else that moves freight.
        And we have also gone to great lengths, Senator, really to
    highlight the champions in our industry, including women, by
    putting them on our America's Road Team. We have had them at
    the White House; we have had them on panels; we have had them
    meet with Members of Congress; and really showcasing that women
    very much are a part of this industry. But we need to do more.
    And with your leadership and support of this legislation, I
    believe we are on the right path.
        Senator Baldwin. Well, thank you. Mr. Connor, like you, I
    am incredibly supportive of the Port Infrastructure Development
    Grant Program, both as a member of this committee and on the
    Appropriations Committee. I was so pleased to hear that the
    Port of Milwaukee was a great--was a recipient of the first
    round of grant funding. And ports across the Great Lakes are
    competing well for these funds.
        I would like to have you share a little bit more about how
    these grants are being put to work to make us more competitive,
    and including how they can help ensure our port infrastructure
    as more resilient to varying and higher lake levels in the
    Great Lakes?
        Mr. Connor. Senator Baldwin, thanks for that question. I
    just want to make one quick anecdotal comment to you previous
    question to Chris. I am just proud to inform you that amongst
    the 80 U.S. port members that AAPA has, 14 percent of the CEOs
    of those ports are women, which is about double the average of
    the Fortune 500 companies. So, I think that is interesting. In
    a rough and tumble business, as ports may be perceived to be,
    that we have such a strong representation of female CEOs.
        To your question, yes, I was delighted to see about Port
    Milwaukee getting that grant. That program is, you know, one of
    a kind. It is the only program, you know, for ports only. It is
    amazingly oversubscribed. Each time--so we are in our third
    cycle, I believe now. The grant requests exceed about a billion
    dollars, where the grant authorization has been somewhere in
    the neighborhood of, 250-300, depending on the year. It has
    trended up in the last couple of years, so we are encouraged by
    that.
        But these are important dollars to allow ports to improve
    their infrastructure, to prepare for the challenges that you
    are now seeing played out in front of us in real time, by the
    volume surges and the long-term resiliency challenges that we
    have from, not only sea level rise, but weather events--
    Earthquakes, fires, or any kind of major accidents. So, these
    are important dollars. But I have to say, Senator, but they
    fall short of what is needed.
        Senator Baldwin. Thank you and I yield back my time.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. Senator Scott,
    you are recognized for your questions.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SCOTT,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

        Senator Scott. I want to thank Chairman Peters and Ranking
    Member Fischer for holding this important meeting. I want to
    thank all the witnesses for being here today.
        So, I became Governor of Florida back in January 2011 and
    we were in a big down trend in our economy. But we figured out
    how to invest in our ports--our ports--our seaports and our
    airports. We invested $85 billion over 8 years and we did it
    without raising any taxes.
        I understand there is a labor shortage for commercial truck
    drivers. My dad was a truck driver. He drove for Navajo Freight
    Lines. This shortage directly impacts the supply chain of goods
    and causes delays for the manufacturers, consumers, and
    corporations across the U.S. And as you all know, we are seeing
    significant inflation right now.
        I have heard from our State's Ag community. They have been
    hit hard by COVID-19 and many unfair trade practices and they
    are struggling, on top of that, to find drivers to transport
    their crops.
        I watched my dad be gone a lot. He was an over road truck
    driver, he was gone a lot and it is a tough job. I recently co-
    sponsored the Drive Safe Act with my colleagues, Senator Young
    and Senator Tester, which would allow 18- to 21-year-olds to
    drive trucks safely across state lines, once they have
    completed an apprenticeship, enhanced safety training in job
    opportunities for young truckers.
        Mr. Spear, Mr. Connor, do you believe allowing 18 to 21
    years olds to drive nationally will help the commercial truck
    driving labor shortage we see today? And do you think it makes
    sense?
        Mr. Spear. I do, Senator, and thanks for the question. I
    think it is one of several things we need to be doing. On its
    own, it will not do everything we need to sure up the shortage.
    But it is a significant step. We need access to younger talent
    pool.
        And just let me, quickly, just point out that the folks
    that oppose this legislation need to understand that 49 states
    and the District of Columbia, right now, allow an 18-year-old
    to drive a Class 8. You just cannot cross state lines. So, you
    can go from Texarkana, Texas to El Paso and back, but you just
    cannot cross into Texarkana, Arkansas. That makes no sense.
        But what makes really no sense, is the fact that these 49
    states and the District have no training standards or
    technology attached to it. The bill that you are sponsoring has
    400 hours of training, of which 240 you have to have an
    experienced driver in the cab. You also have collision and
    mitigation systems, AEBs, speed limiters, cameras attached to
    the equipment. This is a step toward safety, much better than
    what you have in 49 states and the District, not away. And if
    we can entrust an 18-year-old, my son included, who commissions
    as a Second Lieutenant next Saturday, into the Army to go serve
    and protect our freedom--if we can train them to do that, on
    our behalf, I am quite confident that we can train them to
    cross state lines in a Class 8.
        Senator Scott. First off, for Senator Peters and me, thank
    you very much for your son's service. This committee is very
    supportive of our military and--so, thanks for doing that. I
    guess it was a hard year to get in the Navy? Is that what it
    was? I was in the Navy.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Spear. It was not at the Air Force; I can assure you.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Scott. So, Mr. Connor?
        Mr. Connor. Senator, thanks for the question. I would just
    simply say that AAPA and its members would be fully supportive
    and would strongly encourage Congress to pass legislation,
    which improves the cargo fluidity across our Nation and
    strengthens our freight network.
        Senator Scott. Yes. I mean, it probably is--it probably,
    you know, if you think about it for a small state, it is a
    bigger deal. But Florida, it is still an important--it is
    important for us and places like Texas. But boy, for smaller
    states, it is probably even a bigger deal.
        I guess for everybody, I was a big supporter of our ports.
    In my eight years, we invested $1.4 billion in our ports. And
    we have 15 seaports in Florida. We are the closest ports on the
    East Coast to the Panama Canal. So, it was a big opportunity,
    and we actually created a lot of jobs.
        As you all know, the Panama Canal now accommodates the new
    Panamax vessels, and it is clearly changing shipping patterns.
    Our goal was to get all the shipping that goes to the West
    Coast to come to Florida, if it can. So, what do you--what do
    you all think Congress should be doing to ensure that all of
    our ports have the opportunity to deal with these Panamax
    ships? Probably not somebody in the Great Lakes, but clearly,
    along our East and West Coasts?
        Mr. Baker. Well, I am sure that Chris Connor, with the
    AAPA, will have a lengthy answer to this, also. But I would
    add, from a rail point of view, one of the places that we are
    very much in agreement with ports, in addition to supporting
    the Port Infrastructure Development Grant Program, which was
    just discussed. We would also point to the INFRA grant program
    and recommend to Congress removing the multimodal cap on that
    to allow the applicants to choose to invest wherever they think
    is most beneficial. And often times, those are port projects
    or, perhaps, rail access to port projects, which would be a two
    for one for Chris and I. And I would--I would point to both of
    those as attractive options.
        Senator Scott. Yes, it is--rail connection is pretty--it is
    pretty important to us and how fast--what I learned in the
    ports--I am not an expert on the ports but what I learned on
    the ports is how fast things got off those ships and got into
    the rails. It was a big deal, especially as it came up the East
    Coast. And so, if our--if the Port of Miami could do better
    than Brunswick, it would really create a lot of jobs in
    Florida.
        Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. It is a very--the freight network is
    extraordinarily interconnected, and we rely on trucks and rely
    on ports and we all work together. But it is also
    extraordinarily competitive and, you know, competition is an
    incredible motivator for folks. And ports competing with each
    other and competing with coasts and rails--competing with each
    other and rails, competing with trucks, tends to have
    beneficial results.
        Senator Scott. I do not know if this happens in all the
    states, but in my years as Governor there were so many
    companies that showed up that just created logistics. They were
    just logistics companies that were trying--I do not know if--
    if, Senator Peters, if that happened in your state, but you
    have all these people that all they did was create logistics
    all day long. And they were--everybody was bidding to figure
    out the cheapest way of doing things. And so, if we can--my
    experience is, if we can invest in our ports and our airports
    and our roads, it really does create a lot of jobs, so--anybody
    else?
        Mr. Spear. Just a quick note, Senator, on the freight
    intermodal connectors, these are the roads to ports, railyards,
    and airports. We are looking at that data. Nineteen percent of
    that is mediocre condition. Thirty-seven percent of that is in
    very poor condition. We really started to understand, when
    ports invest they dredge, they modernize technology, and so on.
        All that money getting poured in--I remember touring the
    New York-New Jersey Port Authority, about 3 years ago after
    they poured, you know, several million--several hundred million
    into their port. And when you look at the heat map around that
    and freight was still red. It was all bottlenecked around the
    port because these intermodal connectors were not invested. And
    we looked into that and 70 percent of those roads--those
    intermodal road connectors, are under the jurisdiction of local
    and county governments.
        So, the Federal and the State role in that is--there is a
    huge separation there that has to be addressed because, no
    matter how much money you pour into the ports, if the boxes are
    still sitting there and we cannot get out of the port area, a
    lot of good that did you. So, I think the coordination, when
    you look at legislation to make sure that we are pulling those
    counties and local governments in and make sure they get the
    money, I think you are going to see more efficiency there.
        Senator Scott. So, I will tell a cute story. This will be
    off a little bit. We put up all the money for the--to go
    underneath the port so the trucks could get out, straight from
    the port, up to, I guess it was 95 in Miami. And the Feds came
    down, put up no money, and we had to wait for them to start the
    event. And we all--they were on time for the other one, but we
    also did the same thing in Tampa. We--we made it easier to get
    from the Port of Tampa onto, I guess, 75--75 in--whatever the
    road is on the bypass. So, over toward I-4. It does--it really
    made a big difference, so--and then, when we were doing the
    announcement, the first truck that was supposed to come though,
    somehow was delayed. So, for, like, 15 minutes we were all
    waiting there.
        It was--it is--it really paid off--what you just brought
    up, it really paid off for the Port of Miami and the Port of
    Tampa. So--but we are--you are right. We all have to work
    together and every part of it really matters, so--although my
    dad did not like anything going on rail when I was going up.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Connor. Senator, if I could just add one final comment
    to your question about the larger ships coming through the
    canal. Of the $6 billion, that I mentioned earlier in my
    testimony, $3 billion of that would be specifically for
    completion funding of 12 Federal navigation channel improvement
    projects that are currently underway or awaiting initial
    funding. So, we--we certainly recognize the advent of the
    larger canal and the deeper draft ships that come with that and
    encourage Congress to include that spending in any
    infrastructure package. Thank you.
        Senator Scott. It is a lot--it is a lot of good paying--by
    the way, those are really--the people around the ports, they
    have got a lot of money. It is really good paying jobs. It is
    really nice, so--Thanks, everybody, thank you.
        Senator Peters. Well, thank you. Thank you, Senator Scott,
    for you question. Senator Lummis, you are recognized for your
    questions.

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

        Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And one of the fun
    things about this job is you get to hear about all of the
    different states and the issues they deal with. I come from the
    very large landlocked state of Wyoming, through which
    interstate 80 passes, which I think is now the major corridor
    for truck traffic that is going coast to coast. So, we see a
    lot of trucks. I farm on one side of the state and ranch on the
    other side, and I take I-80 all the time and there are so many
    trucks it is just unbelievable.
        My question for Mr. Spear. Because of the hours-of-service
    regulations, there is a lack of dedicated truck parking and I
    see it. I see it with my own eyes on interstate 80. How large
    is the gap between the number of trucks we have on the road and
    the amount of parking made available to them?
        Mr. Spear. Well, thank you, Senator, for that question and
    we have legislation now introduced up here on the Hill, that
    would channel monies to the Highway Trust--from the Highway
    Trust fund into truck parking, $755 million of it, through the
    Truck Parking Safety Improvement Act. And it is a huge problem.
        You do not have to go far from this--this dais. You can go
    just up way here and get on 95 to Baltimore and you are going
    to see multiple trucks parked on the shoulders, on the on and
    off ramps, and it is a hazard. But they have to comply with
    their rest breaks, and without parking to do that, they are
    putting the motoring public at risk. And this has become a
    national problem. So, you do not have to go far from here to
    see it.
        It exists in Wyoming. I always call Wyoming, my home state,
    the high--you know, land of high altitude and low multitude.
    But there are a lot of trucks and there is not a lot of
    parking. And it becomes a problem when that intermixes in
    states as sparse as Wyoming with motoring traffic, passenger
    vehicles.
        So, it definitely needs to be part of any legislation that
    you consider. This component really is key, and our entire
    industry is very much behind it. So, really appreciate you
    drawing attention to it, Senator.
        Senator Lummis. Yes, thank you for that. And in addition to
    that, there is some traffic bottlenecks in my neighborhood. The
    American Transportation Research Institute identifies each
    year, the top 100 freight bottlenecks in the country. Three of
    them are in my neighboring state of Colorado and trucks can sit
    for hours on the way to Wyoming. So, that drives up prices and
    sometimes delays business for people in my state.
        So, do these large bottlenecks require attention from
    Congress, as well? And how much economic input, or output, is
    lost from these larger bottlenecks?
        Mr. Shear. They--they are considerable. We put that report
    out every year. I am on the Board of ATRI and I think that data
    is extremely useful for Members of Congress to see their
    states, districts, and where these bottlenecks exist. We track
    it through GPS data, and it is really an outstanding report.
        Real-time, I have to give a shout out to Senator
    Blumenthal. He has seven of them in the State of Connecticut.
    Small state of Connecticut has seven of the top 100. And so, I
    applaud him for being here. He has a vested stake in this.
    Colorado, as you said, Senator, has three.
        We can certainly--we have shared that with your staffs.
    That report is very, very helpful in showing the impact that
    congestion and the lack of investment of infrastructure is
    having 425,000 drivers sit idle every year, for an entire year,
    sitting in those top 100 bottlenecks. That is $75 billion to
    the annual cost of freight transportation each year. And for
    anyone that has cared about the environment, that is 67.3
    million metric tons of CO2 being omitted, just
    sitting in traffic.
        If we can just deal with those top 100 bottlenecks, and
    those intermodal freight connectors I spoke about earlier, you
    would see so many efficiencies, so many improvements in
    productivity, safety, and environment. If you are a driver and
    you are sitting in traffic--we already have a driver shortage--
    you have a lot of time on your hands to think about, hey, I
    could probably being doing something else.
        And so, congestion is very impactful, and not just to
    mention, as the Senator rightfully did, the impact on the
    prices we pay for goods. So, making that a key component of any
    legislation would draw a lot of support from ATA.
        Senator Lummis. Well, thank you. We have all seen a
    dramatic increase in e-commerce and the need for logistics and
    deliveries of all of this e-commerce. And I do not see that
    changing just because COVID is starting to lift. So, thank you
    for you testimony today.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Senator Lummis, for your
    questions. Senator Warnock, you are recognized for you
    questions.

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

        Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank all of you for your testimony today.
        Georgia is known for its freight transportation and
    logistics prowess, due to an extensive infrastructure network.
    We have one of the busiest airports in the world, but we also
    have the third top container port, with the most extensive rail
    terminal facility in the country. We have nearly 4,700 freight
    rail miles, operated by nearly 30 railroads. We also have six
    interstates, 1,200 highway--that cover 1,200 highway miles.
    This allows our state to serve as a freight hub for the entire
    Southeast.
        Mr. Baker and Mr. Connor, could you speak to the importance
    of investing in multimodal freight infrastructure, not just
    highways? And to ensure that all of our freight transportation
    systems are able to interact and connect efficiently, why is
    that important?
        Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator for the question.
    As we have discussed a little bit already today, freight is
    very much an integrated network and rail works closely with our
    friends in port, our friends in the trucking industry. There
    our competitors, but they are also all part of an integrated
    network.
        But we would very much agree with the premise of your
    question, that investment in rail and ports is crucial. I have
    suggested a few ways that Congress could help that. Our Class I
    railroad friends do the investment on their own. They are
    privately owned and funded, and they largely just need policies
    to not harm their ability to do that. On the short line side
    and, as you have noted, there are dozens of short line
    railroads in Georgia, many smaller businesses in rural areas.
        We agree with our friends at the Class I's and we also--we
    do ask Congress for a little bit of help on the grant funding
    side. We think there are huge benefits to doing that for the
    Georgia economy, for rural Georgia, and for the environment,
    also. So, I would point to, in particular, the CRISI grant
    program and the INFRA grant program, as two areas that we would
    love your support on.
        Senator Warnock. So--so, it seems, given what you have said
    and spoke to this--much of this earlier in the--in our hearing
    today, it would suggest that we simply cannot rely on one mode
    over another. That part of the reason Georgia has been
    successful at attracting manufacturing and its businesses, is
    we have diversified our transportation network.
        What more can we do here in Congress, to ensure that we are
    making smart investments that would improve safety and
    efficiency, while reducing congestion and harmful emissions?
        Mr. Connor. Well, Senator, thank you for the question. This
    is Chris Connor from AAPA. One of the things that we are
    strongly advocating in the reauthorization of the FAST Act is
    the creation of a--within DOT, an Office of Multimodal Freight
    Transportation, so that DOT has the ability to better leverage
    all modes.
        As my colleagues on the panel, I think, have nailed it each
    time, it is a connected network. Regrettably, we have not
    always looked at it that way. It has not been invested in that
    way. But I think a much more high-level, strategic approach,
    which was originally outlined in the 215--2015 passage of the
    Freight Act.
        If we could take that equality of that national freight
    strategy up a few floors higher, I think we could really start
    to look upon our country as a system of connected networks. One
    that includes ships, trucks, trains, and short sea transport,
    not only along our coasts, but also in our navigational inland
    routes, to deliver goods and services to our citizens.
        Senator Warnock. So, it is all of the above and this is
    work that cannot be efficient and at the same time, operate in
    silos. We have to see it in an integrated manner that does not
    place, kind of, arbitrary caps on intermodal infrastructure. It
    is really an integrated approach.
        Thank you so much and I look forward to working with you to
    make sure that that is the kind of vision that we put forward,
    certainly for the State of Georgia, but for our country at
    large.
        Mr. Connor. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Warnock, for you
    questions. Mr. Byrd, my first question is for you. You know,
    Mr. Byrd, I am someone who supports technological innovation.
    If we are able to make workplaces safer, if we create new jobs
    in the process, I think there is just tremendous opportunity
    there.
        But I would also agree with the statements that you made in
    your opening testimony that we have to tread carefully with the
    rise of automation, which is happening now, and will continue
    to happen in the future. I would categorize it as--automation
    is, perhaps, one of our biggest opportunities, as well as one
    of our biggest challenges for our country and the world in this
    next century.
        And we certainly have our work cut out to ensure that
    technology continues to be a force for good and that everybody
    benefits from technological advances and innovation, not just a
    few. And that probably really depends on enacting the right
    policies today. You cannot wait, particularly as technology is
    moving as rapidly as it is now. We have to have those policies
    today, so that these advances have real benefits for workers
    and for the American middle-class, not in the future, but now.
        So, my question for you, Mr. Byrd, is when it comes to the
    freight industry, if we could harness technology in a way that
    vastly improve safety, also will expand job opportunities--if
    we can do that to help our country, is that something that we
    should be striving for? And would you support that type of
    innovation within our country?
        Mr. Byrd. Thank you very much for your question, Senator.
    Yes, we could--we could support that type of innovation, but we
    have to make sure that, as you indicated, on the front side we
    have to make the necessary investment to ensure that--that
    there--there is regulatory authority established and we
    understand which agency, or agencies are going to have that
    regulatory authority.
        We have to keep in mind what has to be done for the
    training of the workforce, to ensure that they can adequately
    operate the new vehicles or be retrained to provide maintenance
    or other support functions for those automated vehicles.
        So, I think if we take a step back and take a comprehensive
    look at all of the elements that are necessary to move forward,
    we could do this in a way that would not be necessarily harmful
    to the existing workforce. It could help move us forward, in
    terms of us being able to innovate as a country.
        Senator Peters. Well, that is good to hear. And we have
    to--we probably have to do it simultaneously. You mentioned
    stepping back, but technology is moving rapidly. From a
    competitive standpoint, you know, we are facing international
    pressures from significant competitors. The Chinese are
    investing billions of dollars into this technology--Europeans.
        So, if we do it simultaneously, that--and we are thinking
    about both equally, that sounds like something you would
    support, and your organization would support?
        Mr. Byrd. Yes, and I also think that it is important that
    we understand, as a country, what companies are moving forward
    with the innovation. Where is this happening? We need to have
    information about the challenges that these companies have
    encountered, in terms of implementing these types of
    technologies, the type of malfunctions, the other types of
    problems that they may have encountered. Then, we need to get
    input from the workforce that is actually interacting with this
    technology, to get their input, to understand how this is
    having an impact on workers, also.
        Senator Peters. Right, thank you. Mr. Baker, in 2017, a
    notorious railroad crossing in Plymouth, Michigan was blocked
    for 9 hours. Unfortunately, blocked railroad crossings are not
    something unique to Plymouth. That is a problem that happens in
    towns all across my State, all across the country, as you are
    fully aware.
        Unnecessary delays hurt local businesses, making it harder
    for them to operate, and hurts families trying to get their
    kids to school and activities. Makes it difficult for them to
    get to and from work, and worst of all, it can be an enormous
    public safety problem. Blocked railroad crossings can prevent
    first responders from attending to life-or-death situations,
    and many other safety concerns.
        That is why I work--I am currently working with Ranking
    Member Fischer to address this problem. Chair Cantwell and
    Senator Blunt are also working on this issue with legislation
    that they have put forward.
        So, my question to you, Mr. Baker, is do you support my
    efforts and Senator Fischer's efforts, and the efforts of many
    other members of this committee, to address delays at rail
    crossings, to improve safety at these crossings? And could you
    comment on how your members are addressing this incredibly
    important issue?
        Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. Let me--I will try to answer each of
    those questions. We--on the addressing it first, the short line
    railroads are extraordinarily committed to addressing those
    individually, in real-time, with communities. Frankly, it is
    probably a little bit easier for short lines than some of my
    Class I friends, given that we typically have smaller track
    and--or shorter track and simpler networks to manage. And we
    generally can address those problems and we work very hard to
    mitigate any of those impacts before you would ever hear about
    them. However, there, obviously, are still challenges and we
    are not perfect and sometimes they are unavoidable.
        We are very supportive of Senator Cantwell and Blunt's
    proposal to fund grade crossing elimination and we have
    endorsed that publicly. And we think that in times where we
    cannot solve the problem operationally, throwing some money at
    the problem, frankly, to help separate the crossings would
    address the issue.
        And with--with this Fischer/Tester/Moran/Klobuchar/Peters
    bill--S. 700, I believe--I believe we have said publicly we do
    not oppose the bill. Frankly, I would say we find it a much
    more thoughtful approach than your friends in the House took in
    H.R. 2 last year. And if that bill finds its way into surface
    transportation authorization, we do think that it would be
    beneficial to gather some of that data and it would be a
    useful, productive step.
        Senator Peters. Great. Good to--good to hear that. Mr.
    Spear, just to follow up to that. I mentioned some of the
    challenges when you have railroad crossings blocked. But
    certainly, that means problems for the trucking industry, as
    well. Could you just briefly tell the Committee what happened
    when you have Plymouth, for example, with a 9-hour delay, what
    that could mean for the freight industry? For your industry,
    what sort of challenge does that present? And why do we need to
    fix this problem?
        Mr. Spear. Yes, I think it really underscores the
    intermodal, you know, nature of our supply chain now and it has
    repercussions. It certainly backs up the movement of freight.
    We have seen it there. We have seen it in, you know, blockage
    of the Suez Canal, as was mentioned earlier. These things are
    very measurable. You know, and we have to look at each one
    individually as they are all a little bit different.
        This latest cyber-attack of the Colonial Pipeline,
    certainly something that we are working hand in glove with DOT
    to ensure that, you know, not only as a backup, but we get that
    fuel to where it needs to go. We do not want long lines. We
    want to make certain we maintain supply.
        But when you talk about resiliency, it is these instances;
    they have a compounding effect on our ability to get freight on
    time. It not only delays, but it escalates what we pay. And it
    is also an issue of safety, particularly when you have hours of
    service suspensions and working that, you know, already
    depleted workforce harder.
        So, these are all things that you have to look at
    panoramically and really understand the complexity of a supply
    chain. How resilient, really, is it? You know, one of these
    instances, we are pretty darn good at managing--even a natural
    disaster, to a global pandemic. But when you compound all those
    at the same time, there is a break point. And that is what I
    think the--the next bill really needs to look at is, in
    totality, the whole supply chain and equip government with its
    private sector partners in a way that we can manage those
    instances effectively.
        So, you are spot on right looking at these problems
    because, added up, they are going to be a real, real
    significant impact on the economy.
        Senator Peters. Yes, absolutely, Mr. Spear. Thank you for
    that answer. Senator Thune, you are recognized for your
    questions.

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

        Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all the
    witnesses for being here today to discuss the importance of a
    robust, fluid, and interconnected freight transportation
    system. It is crucial that freight policy continue to recognize
    the importance of rural areas where the vast majority of
    agricultural and industrial commodities originate. 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 goods
    are transported around the Nation and the world safely and
    efficiently.
        Mr. Connor, record container volumes in our Nation's ports
    have exasperated port congestion and highlighted the need for
    investments that alleviate congestion throughout the Nation's
    freight transportation system, including ports. This is
    especially true as we look forward to a strong recovery from
    the pandemic.
        The container shortage has harmed a wide swath of shippers,
    but exporters of agricultural commodities whose container
    turnaround times are often longer, have been hit especially
    hard. With more than 20 percent of agricultural production
    exported in the United States, our producers depend on access
    to foreign markets. Could you describe any actions that port
    authorities are taking to alleviate the harmful effects of the
    container storage--shortage, I should say?
        Mr. Connor. Senator, thanks for that question. Let me
    respond this way. There was a report that dropped on Friday by
    the World Bank and IHS market that was headlined, ``American
    Ports Fail to Make the Grade on Efficiency''. And it was a
    report on the container port performance index from 2020 called
    the CPPI. And they measured--they ranked the 351 of the world's
    largest container ports on dwell time, which is a measure that
    is largely seen as a reflection of how ports have processes and
    their infrastructure.
        The topped ranked U.S. port in that study was ranked number
    53. The second ranked U.S. port was ranked number 87. Not
    surprisingly, Asian ports led the way. So, you know, we are
    getting--we are getting beat on infrastructure spending,
    particularly by China.
        I would highlight, anecdotally, that AAPA is in the early
    stages of a white paper that we are writing called, ``Staying a
    Superpower''. And in the early analysis that we have done, when
    it comes to public spending on all things related to water
    borne transportation, China outspends the U.S. by a measure of
    two to one.
        So, getting back to your point, I think all of the problems
    we are experiencing right now are a function of decades of
    underinvestment in port and intermodal connections to move
    freight. I do understand your specific question about access to
    markets, particularly by interior state producers. I think, on
    that note, you know, the good news is that, you know, barge and
    rail car traffic is reaching the ports to be exported overseas.
        I think the challenges are on the container side and
    containers not being dispatched to interior point locations.
    That is a legitimate concern, one where AAPA and some of its
    leading members have convened with the FMC and others to try
    to, really, come up with the best strategy. Because, of course,
    all of these shortages, in a way, take place on the port's
    footprint. But the ports do not necessarily control all the
    levers, nor the commercial relationships that govern whether or
    not that empty container gets out to the center of the country
    to load an export load overseas.
        Senator Thune. Thank you. Mr. Baker, I appreciate that your
    testimony mentioned the Railroad Rehabilitation and Financing
    Innovation Act, which is legislation that I introduced, along
    with Senator Hassan, this year to improve the accessibility and
    viability of the RRIF loan program for smaller railroads,
    including short lines. Could you elaborate on why the current
    RRIF application process presents such a formidable barrier to
    entry for short line railroads?
        Mr. Baker. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. RRIF has
    long, as you know, for decades, held this tantalizing promise
    to help the short line industry invest and grow, and
    particularly in places like South Dakota. And it has never
    quite--it has never quite gotten there. And over the last 10
    years in particular, RRIF has essentially stopped working for
    short lines.
        I think your bill would be remarkably helpful. It does a
    few things that we--we find crucial. It would streamline the
    application process. It would extend the length of the loan
    terms, out to as long as 50 years, which would better match the
    length of the assets. It would increase flexibility regarding
    collateral requirements. And then, perhaps most importantly, it
    would authorize funds to pay for the credit risk premiums,
    which would make RRIF look and function a little bit more like
    TIFIA. I do not know if folks would say TIFIA is the world's
    most successful program, but compared to RRIF, it is
    gangbusters.
        So, we think your bill would be--would be a huge step in
    the right direction. We appreciate you introducing it.
        Senator Thune. Thank you. My time has expired, Mr.
    Chairman. But yes, I look forward to working with you and your
    organization. It would be nice to get that enacted. We need
    that program to be accessible to short lines and smaller
    railroads in this country.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Thune, for your
    questions. Mr. Connor, my next question is for you. You know,
    the Great Lakes navigation system is essential to freight
    mobility in the United States and there is no question our
    Great Lakes ports support countless jobs all across the
    country.
        I want to talk about one particular piece of critical
    infrastructure, and that is the Soo Locks, which are the--
    really, the lynch pin for the whole system. They are located
    Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and they connect Lake Superior to
    Lake Huron. And roughly 80 million tons of cargo pass through
    the Locks each year and most of that is iron ore produced in
    the United States. So, that starts up in Minnesota and travels
    down to Michigan and steel mills all along the Great Lakes. An
    essential link in the supply chain for domestic steel
    production and manufacturing that relies on steel--certainly,
    the auto industry in particular.
        But there is a major problem that only one Lock in the Soo
    Locks complex, the Poe Lock, is big enough to handle large
    cargo vessels. And as a result, the Poe Lock handles roughly 89
    percent of the total tonnage that transits the Soo Locks. And
    if the Poe Lock fails, it would be devastating to the whole
    economy. In fact, a 2015 report from the Department of Homeland
    Security, estimated that an unanticipated closure of the Poe
    Lock would trigger a national recession and would cost upwards
    of 11 million jobs in the United State.
        That is why I fought, along with my colleagues in my
    delegation, to fund construction of another large Lock in that
    complex that will create the redundancy and mitigate the
    threat. But we also need to make other infrastructure
    improvements in the Locks.
        In fact, as I toured the Locks with the Corps of Engineers,
    some of the pumps that pump the water were made back in the
    early 1900s. That is certainly a testament to how good the Army
    Corps of Engineers is in keeping things running. But we should
    not have pumps that are from the early 1900s for a critical
    piece of infrastructure that could have a devastating impact,
    should it fail.
        So, my question to you, Mr. Connor, is specifically related
    to that. You have addressed it with the congestion at the ports
    but talk to me how important it is to make sure, in any
    infrastructure package--we are funding projects, like the Soo
    Locks and other pieces of infrastructure, that may not be a
    port but are an integral link to the mobility system.
        Mr. Connor. Yes, absolutely and, Senator, you said it so
    well yourself. You know, the inland waterways are essential
    mover of goods to coastal ports and to the global marketplace--
    to and from the global marketplace. And specific to the Soo
    Locks project, in our $6 billion Army Corps of Engineer ask
    that I articulated earlier, we are seeking completion funds, so
    that the Sioux Locks project can--can be completed and no
    longer be a bottleneck for trade.
        But there are so many essential pieces of the integrated,
    intermodal network from coast to coast that facilitates trade
    between nations that need to be addressed in this
    infrastructure package. I think now is the moment to make the
    commitment to get the spending in place and to prepare this
    country for not only the next generation, but maybe the next
    two generations, if not three generations, so that we can
    compete in the world economy.
        Senator Peters. Well, you are absolutely right, Mr. Connor.
    And another issue that I would love to have you address here,
    too, and you talked about that with previous questions related
    to ports and the crowding that we have, particularly on the
    East and the West Coast and the need for significant
    infrastructure investments. But as you are well aware, we have
    a lot of smaller ports across this country, and in the Great
    Lakes, for example, the number of smaller ports where
    investments--considerably less in terms of dollar amount.
    Investments in those ports could yield huge returns toward--in
    terms of capacity and to bring some of that freight up the St.
    Lawrence Seaway and into the heartland and then, to connect
    with rail and trucking and other assets.
        What is your sense of the necessity for us to make sure
    that we are funding infrastructure improvement projects in
    smaller ports, located across our country, but in particular,
    those in the Great Lakes that, historically, have always been a
    major center of commerce?
        Mr. Connor. Yes, absolutely and again, I would cite what I
    said to Senator Baldwin earlier. You need only to look at the
    PIDP process over the last couple of years and the--the
    subscription for that program was in excess of a billion
    dollars each year. I four-fold exceeded the amount of the
    appropriation to get a sense of the need from ports of all
    sizes, including many, many of the small to mid-size ports of
    which you are referring. These ports include those in the Great
    Lakes, who are seeking to improve their port infrastructure, so
    that they can be more efficient and more competitive in the
    global marketplace.
        So, it is a huge priority and something we are a big fan
    of, PIDP. But we would be an even bigger fan if we could see
    that dollar appropriation get significantly higher.
        Senator Peters. And one final point related to that point.
    In your testimony, you discussed the challenges that ports
    have, due to CBP screening requirements and resources. Clearly,
    the Department of Homeland Security and CBP have a really tough
    job. They have to do two very important things. One, they have
    to keep us safe, first and foremost. And second, they need to
    move trade, as efficiently as possible, across the border. But
    sometimes, smaller ports, smaller facilities have challenges
    getting the security personnel--the CBP personnel necessary to
    facilitate that trade.
        In your mind, how can we best balance security concerns and
    evolving threats, with port operations, to move freight more
    efficiently? What should we be thinking about doing?
        Mr. Connor. Yes, what I mentioned in my opening remarks is,
    you know, some type of a funding mechanism for CBP; so that
    they can create what they need, at ports, to best do their job.
    In the absence of that, the trend that we have seen, and has
    become a growing concern for our members, is a shifting of the
    cost burden for facility upgrades and for officer shortfalls,
    away from CBP onto the shoulders of the ports.
        This has gotten very problematic in that, it, at times,
    comes with concerns over if the ports do not pony up, that the
    speed in which cargo is screened, will slow down, you know,
    further compounding the whole freight movement issue we have
    been discussing here, this afternoon. So, I think it is
    incredibly important that we address this, we bring it out into
    the open, and we find a permanent solution to make sure that
    CBP has the funds that they can operate, true to their original
    mission.
        Senator Peters. All right, thank you. Mr. Spear, in my
    final question here, as we wrap up the hearing today I am going
    to talk a little bit about international ports of entry. In
    Michigan, we have two of the busiest ports of entry in North
    America. In fact, of the top five, in terms of the volume of
    cargo that goes across an international border, two of them are
    in Michigan--Port Huron Sarnia and Windsor, Detroit.
        And in certainly any kind of infrastructure package
    requires us to make sure that we are moving that freight more
    efficiently. And right now, the construction of the Gordie Howe
    International Bridge is underway to alleviate some of the
    traffic that is on the current bridge. In fact, you can see
    trucks just lined up, as they try to come across that very,
    very, busy, busy border.
        So, my question to you is, how will investments to enhance
    capacity at these ports of entry--how is that going to improve
    your ability of your industry to move cargo and freight in a
    resilient and timely fashion, and why is it something that
    should be a priority for us?
        Mr. Spear. Well, I think partnerships are something that I
    would emphasize, especially when you are looking at crossing
    borders. You mentioned a significant crossing. I have been to
    Laredo, as well. You know, I have seen 11 to 14,000 a day going
    across that. It is staggering to watch the dance unfold. And
    that dance involves a lot of partners. And when you look at the
    private sector industry, we have a vested stake to move that
    freight quickly, but safely and securely. And we take that very
    seriously.
        The partnerships that we have with DHS, but beyond CBP, we
    have got FMCSA looking at the safety of that equipment, making
    certain that, you know, those crossing in that are not U.S.
    plated, are doing it according to the law. These are all rules
    of the game that we have to play very well, and those that do,
    have very strong understanding of the relationships that we
    have with our Federal law enforcement agencies.
        So, I think we build on those partnerships. I think it
    builds trust. Creating programs that really underscore
    efficiency is extraordinarily important. You then toss in good
    infrastructure and alleviating those choke points, you will be
    able to see those partnerships really take advantage of the
    throughput, and not compromise safety and security.
        So, the infrastructure is important. I also think good
    trade policy and good tax law is important. You do all those
    things at the same time; I think you are really coming up with
    a good recipe.
        So, something that we really underscore, we really want to
    partner and really have good transparency with our law
    enforcement partners. We do, and going forward, I think any
    legislation that you fund or insert any policies, we would look
    for that to be a leading part of the bill.
        Senator Peters. Right. Well, thank you, Mr. Spear. And as
    this hearing concludes, I certainly would like to reiterate my
    appreciation and my thanks to each of our witnesses for being
    here today and offering your thoughts. Certainly, the freight
    industry is the backbone of the American economy and I look
    forward to working with my colleagues on this committee to
    support workers and to invest in infrastructure, so we can
    ensure a bright future for the industry and for our Nation.
        The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks. And any
    senators that would like to submit questions for the record
    should do so within 2 weeks. And with that, this hearing is now
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                  Chuck Baker
        Railroad Crossings. There are at least 50 railroad crossings in the
    State of Washington that are each blocked by trains for an average of
    two hours every day. Eliminating each of these crossings would cost an
    average of $30 million, while some projects like the Lander Street
    project in Seattle can cost over $100 million. Many cities and towns do
    not have the funds needed to undertake these projects, and Federal
    programs are not currently meeting the needs of communities across the
    Nation. That's why I introduced the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act
    with Senator Blunt, which would provide dedicated funding to help
    address desperately needed grade separation projects across the
    country.

        Question 1. How will the funding included in the Railroad Crossing
    Elimination Act impact your ability to deliver goods across the
    country?
        Answer. Chairwoman Cantwell, the American Short Line and Regional
    Railroad Association supports the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act
    proposal, which you and Senator Blunt introduced. As I've said
    elsewhere, short line railroads strive to work closely with our
    communities and customers to avoid causing any unwelcome impacts.
    Still, opportunities exist throughout the country to improve or
    eliminate highway-rail grade crossings. Doing so can aid the mobility
    of people and goods and improve the health and safety of communities.
    If passed, this legislation will help provide funds to our governmental
    and tribal partners closing, relocating, or improving many challenging
    crossings, and we look forward to doing so whenever and wherever
    possible.

        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. In my home
    state of Washington, a 20 percent increase in truck congestion could
    cost freight-dependent businesses $14 billion. But it's not just
    freight bottlenecks that can increasing shipping costs. Significant
    disruptions to the supply chain, like the blockage of the Suez Canal
    and ongoing container shortages, can also lead to a significant
    increase in the price of moving freight--costs that are passed on to
    manufacturers and consumers.

        Question 2. What investment or policy priorities would best
    mitigate congestion impacts and improve the efficiency and reliability
    of goods movements?
        Answer. The short line and regional railroad industry strongly
    supports the CRISI (Consolidated Rail Infrastructure Safety
    Improvement) grant program, which has helped fund more than 80 short
    line freight rail infrastructure projects across the country at an
    average of approximately $6.4 million per project. We urge the
    Committee to continue to support the program and to consider raising
    the authorized funding level while ensuring the bulk of the funding
    goes to eligible recipients for the relatively small size of the
    individual projects where true need does exist. Using CRISI for large
    passenger and commuter rail projects that can be more appropriately
    funded under programs intended specifically for large passenger and
    commuter projects limits the available funding for small operators such
    as short lines. We also support other grant programs such as the BUILD
    program. Finally, we are also strong supporters of the rail-highway
    grade crossing program under 23 USC 130, as well as the application of
    Federal funding for grade crossings arising from eligibility through
    other programs.

        Rise of E-Commerce and Multimodal Freight. E-commerce accounted for
    792 billion dollars in sales in 2020--that's 14 percent of all retail
    sales. This resulted in an average of 10 million packages per day
    travelling through our ports, over rail, and on trucks to reach
    consumers last year. With the value of freight already set to increase
    40 percent by 2030, this shift in consumer behavior will only further
    strain the freight system. We need to make sure our policies and
    investment address end-to-end supply chain resiliency and support
    infrastructure that can accommodate rising freight traffic.

        Question 3. What is the importance of providing adequate multimodal
    funding, especially with regard to first and last mile delivery of
    goods?
        Answer. As short line railroads, we are the actual first and last
    mile. Toward that end, as noted above, we are strong supporters of
    grant programs such as CRISI and BUILD that enable short lines to
    address projects that are generally small when compared to those of
    some other modes, but are very large to those small businesses that
    operate Class II and Class III railroads. The typical short line
    railroad reinvests 25 percent to 33 percent of its gross revenue in its
    operation to upgrade track that it took over after the major North
    American railroads abandoned it due to lack of profitability. But those
    tracks are the vital link that keeps towns and cities--often located in
    rural areas -connected to the national economic mainstream. In many
    instances, short lines provide the majority of rail transportation in a
    state. Increased Federal funding availability will further enable short
    lines to improve efficiencies while continuing to provide safe and
    environmentally friendly freight transportation.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                                  Chuck Baker
        Background. There was a lot of focus on disruptions to our supply
    chains at the beginning of the pandemic where we saw how our reliance
    on foreign sources for everything. From pharmaceutical ingredients and
    medical supplies to basic household items, the supply chain and foreign
    shipments were subject to disruptions largely outside of our control.
    Now, more than a year into this pandemic, our supply chains are still
    suffering--but not from a lack of goods. Our ports are experiencing
    significant increases in cargo volume as most sectors of the economy
    are returning to full strength. This has led to congestion at several
    bottlenecks across the Nation that is challenging our ability to meet
    cargo movement demands. Dozens of ships sitting are offshore waiting to
    get into ports to offload their goods. Imports and exports are both
    delayed. This harms our economy, our global competiveness, and our
    national resilience.

        Question 1. For each of your sectors, can you briefly share what
    actions can be taken right now to provide immediate relief to the
    crippling congestion in our vital supply chains?
        Answer. Short line railroads have generally been performing well
    throughout the pandemic, and that includes the current situation. By
    our nature, short lines generally tend to have comparatively simple
    operations to manage and we generally have available capacity.
    Therefore, while we agree with the premise of the question and are
    witness to many bottlenecks and delays throughout the supply chain at
    the moment, we are generally not the cause of those delays nor are we
    able to directly affect them. However, we happily renew our public and
    private pledges to do everything within our power every day to serve
    our shippers, communicate effectively with our partners, and keep
    freight flowing as efficiently as possible.

        Question 2. Your written testimony urged appropriate streamlining
    for NEPA approvals. Additionally in your testimony, you noted that a
    project to improve 10 miles of shortline track to rural grain elevators
    should not have the same burdens as a project to add a new subway line
    or add lanes to an interstate highway. Do you have any specific
    examples or anecdotes of needless project delays in shortline railroad
    projects you could mention?
        Answer. I am aware of a short line project in Massachusetts that
    was rehabbing 10 miles of track--it would have normally been granted a
    categorical exemption (CE), but b/c of a 20 foot long ``bridge'' in the
    middle of the project, it ended up being subject to a lengthy Section
    106 Historical Review delay. It progressed eventually, but time and
    money was wasted.
        There is a similar project in Arkansas with a short line track
    upgrade project being held up for reviews involving bat habitats, even
    though the project was just upgrading and maintaining existing track
    and bridges.
        I believe the Alaska Railroad in your home state has had multiple
    challenges involving historic preservation reviews also. While each of
    these reviews and delays are likely within the letter of the law and
    individually may appear reasonable, in total, they result in projects
    taking more time and money than necessary, and given that railroads are
    an environmentally preferable solution as opposed to trucking, project
    delays ironically result in environmental harm.

        Question 3. FRA's Consolidated Rail & Infrastructure Safety
    Improvement grants allow eligibility for shortline railroads, including
    the Alaska Railroad, which has benefitted from these grants. In your
    testimony. it says these grants should be equally available to
    shortline railroads and to not add a set-aside for only large mega-
    projects over $100 million or $500 million. I agree that saying ``small
    railroad projects need not apply'' would not make sense for the Alaska
    Railroad. Since, I am not personally aware of efforts in this committee
    to steer these funds to large mega-projects, could you please
    elaborate?
        Answer. This committee's rail title, as written in the Surface
    Transportation Investment Act, which passed your committee on June 16
    by a vote of 25-3, is excellent for short lines, including in the way
    it handles the CRISI program. The concern I was referencing is from the
    House bill, which while it does include a substantial increase in CRISI
    authorization levels, also sets aside 25 percent of the program for
    mega projects over $100m. While short lines do not mind competing
    against mega projects for funding dollars on an even playing field, we
    do not see why projects that can provide substantial benefit but cost
    less than $100m would be excluded from any portion of the program.
    Generally spending less is desirable!
        Similarly, the House version of the surface transportation bill
    transitions the INFRA program into the Projects of National and
    Regional Significance program but eliminates any eligibility for
    projects under $100m, whereas the current INFRA program has a 10
    percent set-aside for smaller projects. The Senate Commerce bill
    increases that small project set-aside to 15 percent.
        On both the CRISI issue and the INFRA/PNRS issue, we support the
    Senate version of the legislation and request that you do everything in
    your power to ensure that the Senate version prevails in public law.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                                  Lamont Byrd
        Background. There was a lot of focus on disruptions to our supply
    chains at the beginning of the pandemic where we saw how our reliance
    on foreign sources for everything. From pharmaceutical ingredients and
    medical supplies to basic household items, the supply chain and foreign
    shipments were subject to disruptions largely outside of our control.
    Now, more than a year into this pandemic, our supply chains are still
    suffering--but not from a lack of goods. Our ports are experiencing
    significant increases in cargo volume as most sectors of the economy
    are returning to full strength. This has led to congestion at several
    bottlenecks across the Nation that is challenging our ability to meet
    cargo movement demands. Dozens of ships sitting are offshore waiting to
    get into ports to offload their goods. Imports and exports are both
    delayed. This harms our economy, our global competiveness, and our
    national resilience.

        Question. For each of your sectors, can you briefly share what
    actions can be taken right now to provide immediate relief to the
    crippling congestion in our vital supply chains?
        Answer. Senator, one of the most important actions that can be
    taken to alleviate disruptions throughout the entire supply chain is to
    address a self-destructive business model that has overtaken the
    freight rail industry. This Wall Street-driven practice known as
    ``precision scheduled railroading'' has crept in like an invasive
    species and is causing pain for everyone in the supply chain, minus the
    railroads themselves. Class 1 freight carriers are making an
    intentional choice to squeeze both shippers and their employees,
    thereby limiting efficiency and freight volumes in order to maximize
    short-term profits. This practice is jeopardizing long-term freight
    capacity, rail worker safety, and harming American companies trying to
    get their goods to market, as well as the consumers now experiencing
    painful delays and higher costs. We will gladly provide you with
    additional details on what this process is, how it is harming shippers
    and workers alike, and how we believe it can be addressed.
        On the trucking side, the best way to alleviate disruptions is to
    keep more drivers in the industry. Some segments of trucking have over
    90 percent turnover year-over-year. That means companies are losing
    almost every driver that they bring in or have to hire multiple times
    for the same position during a one-year period. Keeping drivers happy
    and reducing turnover ensures that there are more ``butts in the seat''
    ready to haul our Nation's freight, while having the added benefit of
    increasing the number of drivers who are experienced, safe, and for the
    sake of this question, efficient. Experienced drivers know the best
    routes to take, where to stop in order to maximize their allowable
    driving time, how to accelerate and brake in order to save fuel
    (thereby limiting the number of stops they need to make during a run),
    and are less likely to be involved in accidents. The nature of long-
    haul trucking is somewhat to blame for these high turnover rates, but
    drivers will tell you this is not the full story. They say that it is
    more a direct result of carriers who have made a conscious choice to
    embrace a high-turnover business model rather than ensuring drivers are
    well compensated, provided with good equipment, and have decent working
    conditions. The entire supply chain is now reaping the consequences of
    this short-sightedness and the continued mistreatment of truck drivers.
    Increasing pay and benefits, working to limit the time drivers need to
    wait at a shipping facility to pick up or drop off a load, scheduling
    drivers so that they have more of a work-life balance and aren't on the
    road every week out of the year are all steps that can be taken right
    now to attract more drivers into the industry, get them to stay for the
    long run, and help our entire supply chain get through the ongoing
    pandemic.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                             Christopher J. Connor
        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. In my home
    state of Washington, a 20 percent increase in truck congestion could
    cost freight-dependent businesses $14 billion. But it's not just
    freight bottlenecks that can increasing shipping costs. Significant
    disruptions to the supply chain, like the blockage of the Suez Canal
    and ongoing container shortages, can also lead to a significant
    increase in the price of moving freight--costs that are passed on to
    manufacturers and consumers.

        Question 1. What investment or policy priorities would best
    mitigate congestion impacts and improve the efficiency and reliability
    of goods movements?
        Answer. Ports are keenly focused on safe and efficient freight
    movement and this requires a strong and resilient supply chain that
    includes ports, rail, roads, barge, and intermodal connectors. Also
    trucks and equipment, such as cranes. Much of the current supply chain
    issues are linked to the decades of a lack of this type of investment.
    AAPA offers three key recommendations:

            Invest more. AAPA views programs like the Port Infrastructure
            Development Program (PIDP), Rebuilding American Infrastructure
            with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) and Infrastructure for
            Rebuilding America (INFRA) as essential investments for 21st
            century freight movement. AAPA advocates for increased funding
            both in annual appropriations and infrastructure investment
            opportunities. Funding for these programs is critical to U.S.
            export cost competitiveness in the global marketplace. U.S.
            agricultural exports have seen their transportation cost
            differential essentially wiped out over the last decade as
            other countries, such as Brazil, have made infrastructure
            investments that reduced transportation costs.

            Minimize truck use. Marine Highways move freight with decreased
            truck transportation, and reduced highway congestion, while
            having the lowest carbon emissions. One way to increase the use
            of Marine Highways is to eliminate the Harbor Maintenance Tax
            for freight moved on them. The `HMT Double Tax' occurs when
            fright arrives at a port and is transloaded from ships to
            barges, first as an import and then as domestic cargo when it
            arrives at a secondary location. This is a relatively small
            amount of national HMT revenue but a significant operating
            expense when businesses and ports consider establishing this
            service.

            Policy priorities. Buy America is a common-sense approach
            supported by everyone, including ports, that has become mired
            in bureaucracy as Federal agencies seek to assure all
            legislative and agency implementation requirements are met. So,
            you may get put in a position where, in order to keep a project
            on track, you would have to delay the project or borrow
            dollars--which is what you tried to avoid when you pursued the
            grant.

        A second issue is that the threshold for Buy America exemptions has
    been raised to such a level that exemptions are practically impossible.
    This is true even for items that haven't been manufactured in the U.S.
    for decades, for example ship-to-shore cranes--equipment essential to
    safe and efficient freight movement. Over the medium-and long-term
    Congress can help incentivize the reshoring of key supply chain
    equipment aand inputs such as cargo moving equipment.
        Finally, there is currently a suggestion that Buy America
    requirements apply to even the components of basic construction
    materials like concrete, where legislation is proposed to disallow
    foreign components such as sand, gravel, and cement. Such a policy
    would exacerbate shortages of these aggregates in coastal areas and
    drive up construction costs, which are already soaring.

        Rise of E-Commerce and Multimodal Freight. E-commerce accounted for
    792 billion dollars in sales in 2020--that's 14 percent of all retail
    sales. This resulted in an average of 10 million packages per day
    travelling through our ports, over rail, and on trucks to reach
    consumers last year. With the value of freight already set to increase
    40 percent by 2030, this shift in consumer behavior will only further
    strain the freight system. We need to make sure our policies and
    investment address end-to-end supply chain resiliency and support
    infrastructure that can accommodate rising freight traffic.

        Question 2. How do our transportation policy priorities need to
    change to adapt to the impact of this continued growth in e-commerce?
        Answer. AAPA and our member ports are aware of reports indicating
    U.S. consumer purchasing practices may be shifting from traditional
    retail stores to direct-to-consumer delivery. We interpret this as an
    increased demand for imported products, and thereby increased freight
    movement through ports. Accommodating increasing freight volumes will
    require continued focus and funding for freight transportation to meet
    the needs of both consumers and the manufacturing sector.
        Remove multi-modal caps. Removing caps on programs like INFRA and
    the National Freight Highway Program would allow the Department of
    Transportation more flexibility to put dollars where the need is
    greatest, rather than basing those decisions on arbitrary allocations.
        Expand freight corridors. Increase investments in on-dock rail and
    dedicated connectors to Interstate and Federal highways.
        More CBP inspectors. This will expedite security screenings
    enabling freight to move through ports quicker. It will also end CBPs
    current reliance on ports to pay for overtime costs.
        Buy America waivers. Allow Federal funds to be used towards
    purchase of cranes and other port equipment. This is currently subject
    to near-impossible Buy America waivers, even though the equipment
    hasn't been made in the U.S. in decades.

        Question 3. What is the importance of providing adequate multimodal
    funding, especially with regard to first and last mile delivery of
    goods?
        Answer. The `first and last-mile' component of freight movement is
    extremely important and usually outside the port's property. The
    opportunities for expanded truck lanes, additional inspection personnel
    and equipment, rail connectors to yards building unit trains, and at
    grade crossings, would have significant impact on the speed and
    efficiency of cargo movement.
        The current freight focused Federal investment programs have been a
    tremendous success. Programs like PIDP and RAISE have been over-
    subscribed and show a great return on investment. AAPA strongly
    supports increased funding both in annual appropriations and in
    infrastructure investment legislation.

        Port Infrastructure Investments. Ports serve as a critical gateways
    for our Nation's exports and our economic success. Washington state
    alone shipped over $440 billion in freight through its ports in 2018.
    But if we can't get the goods coming from rural America moving because
    our ports and freight infrastructure are in disrepair, no one will
    benefit from that rural investment. I am concerned about the port
    congestion in Los Angeles, as well as serious container availability
    and export challenges facing American farmers and businesses working to
    export their products to the Asian market. These disruptions in the
    network only hurt U.S. businesses. Increases in e-commerce will
    continue to stress the shipping and port infrastructure.

        Question 4. What port infrastructure investments should be made to
    prepare our economy for this emerging opportunity as consumers pivot to
    e-commerce?
        Answer. As we have acutely seen during the global pandemic, our
    country's supply chain infrastructure is in desperate need of
    investment if e-commerce purchasing continues to rise. To allow for the
    expansion of cargo volumes, Congress must prioritize and adequately
    fund improvements to the freight network. In addition to general
    increases in infrastructure funding, such as expansion of PIDP, AAPA
    suggests the following policy changes:
        Remove multi-modal caps. Removing caps on programs like INFRA and
    the National Freight Highway Program would allow the Department of
    Transportation more flexibility to put dollars where the need is
    greatest, rather than basing those decisions on arbitrary allocations.
        Expand freight corridors. Increase investments in on-dock rail and
    dedicated connectors to Interstate and Federal highways.
        More CBP inspectors. This will expedite security screenings
    enabling freight to move through ports quicker. It will also end CBPs
    current reliance on ports to pay for overtime costs.
        Buy America waivers. Allow Federal funds to be used towards
    purchase of cranes and other port equipment. This is currently subject
    to near-impossible Buy America waivers, even though the equipment
    hasn't been made in the U.S. in decades.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                             Christopher J. Connor
        Promoting Rural Exports. Over the last 20 years, Minnesota's total
    agricultural exports grew by over 200 percent, making us the fourth
    largest agricultural exporting state in the country. To get exports to
    market, our farmers in Minnesota need to have access to efficient,
    workable, and timely rail service. I introduced legislation that would
    establish a Rural Export Center at the U.S. Commercial Service to
    provide support to rural businesses looking to export their products to
    new international markets.

        Question 1. Can you speak to how creating a center that helps rural
    businesses export their agricultural and forest products can help to
    spur economic growth?
        Answer. With only 5 percent of the world population, exports such
    as agricultural and forest products are essential to our Nation's
    continued economic growth. There's wisdom in the statement that `we can
    only sell so much to ourselves'. While U.S. goods are preferred by
    global consumers, they must be cost competitive. A key component of
    what makes U.S. exports competitive in the global marketplace are the
    water transportation cost savings which requires getting goods to
    coastal ports safely and efficiently. Having a Center that can explain
    use of the supply chain will encourage participation through educating
    business leaders on the benefits of global marketing. Such a Center
    could encourage participation through explaining and assisting with the
    processes required to pursue business globally.

        Multimodal Port Infrastructure. The Port of Duluth is the largest
    and busiest port on the Great Lakes and is a national leader for
    shipping. 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 2. How can investments in multi-modal port infrastructure
    help reduce delays and congestion, and the economic benefits for local
    economies?
        Answer. One of the major contributors to economic growth is safe
    and efficient freight delivery. This is true of imports and exports.
    Ports are keenly focused on safe and efficient freight movement and
    this requires a strong and resilient supply chain that includes ports,
    rail, roads, barge, and intermodal connectors. Also trucks and
    equipment, such as cranes. Much of the current supply chain issues are
    linked to decades of underinvestment, particularly at the Federal
    level.
        The current freight focused Federal investment programs have been a
    tremendous success with a great return on investment. AAPA views
    programs like the Port Infrastructure Development Program (PIDP),
    Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity
    (RAISE) and Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) as essential
    investments for 21st century freight movement. AAPA strongly supports
    increased funding both in annual appropriations and in infrastructure
    investment legislation. The opportunities for expanded truck lanes,
    additional inspection personnel and equipment, rail connectors to yards
    building unit trains, and at grade crossings, would have significant
    impact on the speed and efficiency of cargo movement. All these efforts
    contribute to reduced delays and congestion, both for freight movement
    and the commuting public.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                             Christopher J. Connor
        Background. There was a lot of focus on disruptions to our supply
    chains at the beginning of the pandemic where we saw how our reliance
    on foreign sources for everything. From pharmaceutical ingredients and
    medical supplies to basic household items, the supply chain and foreign
    shipments were subject to disruptions largely outside of our control.
    Now, more than a year into this pandemic, our supply chains are still
    suffering--but not from a lack of goods. Our ports are experiencing
    significant increases in cargo volume as most sectors of the economy
    are returning to full strength. This has led to congestion at several
    bottlenecks across the Nation that is challenging our ability to meet
    cargo movement demands. Dozens of ships sitting are offshore waiting to
    get into ports to offload their goods. Imports and exports are both
    delayed. This harms our economy, our global competiveness, and our
    national resilience.

        Question. For each of your sectors, can you briefly share what
    actions can be taken right now to provide immediate relief to the
    crippling congestion in our vital supply chains?
        Answer. Senator, thank you for that question. I will turn to the
    national picture in a moment; but I must tell an interesting story
    about the Port of Alaska first.
        The American Association of Port Authorities holds regular
    `surveillance' members with its members in order to watch market trends
    and share best practices. You might imagine that the issue of
    congestion--which is a phenomenon all around the world and not just
    limited to America--has been one of the biggest topics we have been
    trying to address.
        I have to give a big shout out to Port of Alaska--in one of the
    recent calls, the Port gave a presentation about how it operates longer
    hours by necessity and with flexibility and therefore has avoided many
    of the bottleneck issues we see elsewhere around the world. The Port
    has no choice because Alaska is a `secondary' port of call for many
    carriers, and so it must be ready at all times to take inbound vessels
    after they have stopped elsewhere.
        Nationally, the ports have been heroic and innovative in trying to
    fit the proverbial eleventh gallon through the ten-gallon bucket. In
    the face of certain spates of close-proximity workers getting sick,
    ports and terminal operators have used new work schedules and
    protocols. They have tried to hire up to meet the increased throughput,
    they have increased health and safety protocols for workers generally,
    they are using longer gate hours, and they are maximizing capacity and
    efficiency--some of the largest ports are operating at 98-99 percent
    capacity, which means they are truly stretching the limits of what is
    possible. Terminal operators have made allowances where appropriate for
    `free time' where cargo owners are not charged `overages' if
    disruptions outside their control make it impossible to pick up or
    return boxes. Some of the overflow of ships simply find less-crowded
    ports, or big container ships will, where possible, re-order their port
    calls.
        Congress has a generational opportunity to help invest in port and
    transportation infrastructure to meet persistently growing
    international trade and the U.S. ports' ability to handle more and
    faster throughput--yes, partly driven by the much-talked-about rise in
    ecommerce; and to handle the larger means of trade such as larger
    container vessels and the next generation of cargo moving equipment. We
    respectfully call on Congress to make these investments in our ports,
    which are literally the gateways to our economy.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
                                  Chris Spear
        Railroad Crossings. There are at least 50 railroad crossings in the
    State of Washington that are each blocked by trains for an average of
    two hours every day. Eliminating each of these crossings would cost an
    average of $30 million, while some projects like the Lander Street
    project in Seattle can cost over $100 million. Many cities and towns do
    not have the funds needed to undertake these projects, and Federal
    programs are not currently meeting the needs of communities across the
    Nation. That is why I introduced the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act
    with Senator Blunt, which would provide dedicated funding to help
    address desperately needed grade separation projects across the
    country.

        Question 1. How will the funding included in the Railroad Crossing
    Elimination Act impact your ability to deliver goods across the
    country?
        Answer. First and foremost, I would like to offer ATA's full
    support and endorsement of your and Senator Blunt's important
    legislation, the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act. As you well know,
    train passage through at-grade crossings can block traffic for hours at
    a time, and is one of the leading causes of rail-related fatalities.
    Your legislation would go a long way in eliminating these
    intersections, greatly improving safety on our Nation's roadways.
        With respect to the implications for the trucking industry's
    ability to deliver freight, the Railroad Crossing Elimination Act would
    take significant steps in improving the industry's productivity and
    efficiency. Each minute that a truck is forced to sit at a railroad
    grade crossing adds $1.09 to the cost of that truck's operation. Given
    that there are over 200,000 grade crossings that regularly interrupt
    deliveries, the legislation would save the trucking industry and
    consumers significant costs.

        Megaprojects. Large infrastructure interchanges are critical to
    keeping goods and our economy moving 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 110 million dollars in freight traffic
    each day. Other examples include the I-70 Highway in Missouri, which
    carries 100 million tons of freight annually, and the I-10 Highway in
    Louisiana, which carries over 160,000 vehicles per day. These
    infrastructure projects are critical for keeping commerce and goods
    moving not just regionally, but across the country and around the
    world. However, like many megaprojects across the country, these
    interchanges were not built to handle the level of traffic they see
    today and are in need of repair. In fact all three of those
    interchanges are on the top 100 most bottlenecked areas in the country.

        Question 2. What would it mean for freight transportation if those
    three bottlenecks were repaired or improved to accommodate increased
    freight and trade movement?
        Answer. The American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) ranks
    the Nation's top 100 bottlenecks annually, and the 3 bottlenecks you
    mentioned were identified as being particularly problematic in terms of
    congestion. The 1-5 bottleneck in Vancouver, WA is ranked #23, the
    bottleneck along 1-70 in Missouri is ranked #54, and the I-10
    bottleneck in Louisiana is ranked #18. The identified bottlenecks are
    key segments in major freight routes that serve both regional and
    national needs. The congestion experienced by trucks at the 3
    identified bottlenecks, as well as the other 97 bottlenecks identified
    in the ATRI report, substantially increase the cost of moving freight.
    These costs are borne, in part, by consumers, who pay a higher price
    for retail goods, and by businesses, who are trying to compete in a
    global economy. In addition, freight bottlenecks are a major cause of
    mobile-source emissions. For these reasons ATA has recommended that $5
    billion per year should be set aside in a surface transportation bill
    to target improvements at major highway freight bottlenecks.

        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. In my home
    state of Washington, a 20 percent increase in truck congestion could
    cost freight-dependent businesses $14 billion. But it's not just
    freight bottlenecks that can increasing shipping costs. Significant
    disruptions to the supply chain, like the blockage of the Suez Canal
    and ongoing container shortages, can also lead to a significant
    increase in the price of moving freight--costs that are passed on to
    manufacturers and consumers.

        Question 3. What Federal policy or investment priorities would help
    prepare you to accommodate increased freight movement and to avoid
    congestion on our highways?
        Answer. First and foremost, a long-term, dedicated, user-based
    revenue source that is sufficient to address highway maintenance and
    capacity needs is essential. Second, a portion of this revenue should
    be dedicated to address major highway freight bottlenecks. In addition,
    environmental review requirements for highway projects, which take, on
    average, seven years to complete, must be reformed. The highway
    reauthorization legislation recently passed by the Senate EPW Committee
    includes several of these reforms, including codification of One
    Federal Decision. In addition, as Congress pursues policies to reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions, we urge this Committee to ensure that such
    policies do not further restrict states' abilities to increase highway
    capacity, as such restrictions will result in additional congestion and
    the unintended release of GHGs. These include restrictions on the use
    of federal-aid money to increase highway capacity, decreasing the share
    of Highway Trust Fund revenue that is dedicated to highways and
    increasing eligibility for non-highway projects.
                                     ______

       Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
                                  Chris Spear
        Infrastructure. In order to meet the demands of our 21st-century
    economy, including getting goods to market, we must invest in a 21st-
    century infrastructure network. In your testimony, you note that 80
    percent of American communities rely on trucking for delivery of goods.

        Question 1. Can you speak to the importance of direct Federal
    investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure, particularly
    our multimodal freight system?
        Answer. The Federal government has played an historic role in
    building the Nation's transportation infrastructure, whether it was
    construction of the canal system, the transcontinental railroad or the
    Interstate Highway System. This role is critical because an interstate
    transportation system must serve the needs of all Americans, and these
    systems cannot function properly if they stop at state borders.
    Moreover, states should not be saddled with the cost of building or
    maintaining infrastructure that all Americans benefit from. Without
    Federal involvement, state and local transportation agencies'
    investment and planning decisions would be too parochial to account for
    the impacts of those decisions on the movement of freight beyond their
    borders. For example, Interstate 35 in Iowa carries a large number
    amount of grain and livestock from southern Minnesota farms to Iowa
    processing facilities and to Mississippi River barges for international
    export. Without Federal funding, it is unlikely that the transportation
    infrastructure that allows these Minnesota farms to prosper would have
    ever been built. Continued Federal involvement is necessary to ensure
    that the infrastructure is adequately maintained.

        Question 2. Can you speak to the importance of these investments
    for rural communities?
        Answer. Agriculture is the economic bulwark of rural economies. In
    turn, agriculture is largely dependent on the trucking industry for
    moving raw product to processing plants and finished goods to
    consumers. Trucks move 69 percent of the value of agricultural
    commodities, and almost every agricultural shipment includes at least
    one truck move. Agriculture is an internationally traded commodity, and
    the highway system is key to the success of America's agricultural
    sector and its ability to compete globally. An efficient transportation
    system has always allowed U.S. farmers to maintain their competitive
    edge, even as their competitors enjoy a land and labor cost advantage.
    However, our deteriorating highway infrastructure at home pales in
    comparison to the transportation improvements pursued by global
    competitors, and the disadvantage threatens U.S. farm income. Because
    rural roadway systems tend to be less dense than urban systems, any
    disruption can have major impacts. For example, when bridges are closed
    or load-posted, trucks are forced to add many miles to their trips,
    adding significant cost and time to the trip. Furthermore, goods that
    are shipped through ports to international destinations often get hung
    up in urban traffic, adding additional cost and time in transit to
    those shipments.
        Meanwhile, other countries are improving their transportation
    systems to better compete with U.S. producers. For example, in 2013
    Brazil took over the U.S.'s preeminent role as the largest exporter of
    soybeans, in part due to its highway and railway investments. If we
    fall further behind, American farmers will lose income and market
    share, and rural communities will suffer the consequences.
                                     ______

      Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to
                                  Chris Spear
        Speed Limiters. According to the Institute for Safer Trucking,
    urban fatal truck crashes have increased by 100 percent from 2009 to
    2019 in Georgia. From 2009 to 2019, 82 percent of trucks involved in
    fatal crashes were class 7 or 8 trucks, which weigh over 26,000 pounds.
    Speed limiters, which are already standard on most heavy trucks, are
    proven effective at preventing high-speed fatal crashes like the one
    that tragically took the life of Georgia native Cullum Owings in 2002.
    Over the past few years, motor carriers have begun adopting automated
    emergency braking and adaptive cruise control on most purchased and
    leased vehicles, and the integration of these devices with speed
    governing technology is showing enormous promise for transportation
    safety.

        Question 1. How would requiring the use of speed limiters,
    especially on commercial motor vehicles without other advanced safety
    technologies, impact the safety of all road users?
        Answer. We agree that equipping commercial motor vehicles with
    speed limiters--especially used in combination with other advanced
    safety features such as Automatic Emergency Braking and Adaptive Cruise
    Control--can positively improve road safety. In 2016, when DOT
    initially published a proposed rulemaking concerning speed limiters,
    ATA and many motor carriers shared concerns about the efficacy of such
    a one-size-fits-all solution. Foremost among ATA's concerns were the
    possible unintended consequences of limiting commercial drivers to one
    universal speed limit despite the varying limits set for passenger
    vehicles on interstate and secondary roads. ATA was also unsure of how
    a rule would adapt to the rapid evolution of vehicle safety
    technologies. Since then, technological advancements have increasingly
    enabled motor carriers to adopt proven technologies, prompting ATA to
    support new and safer approaches to speed management. As you rightly
    point out, automated emergency braking and adaptive cruise control on
    purchased and leased vehicles show tremendous promise for
    transportation safety. The growing consensus around the benefits of
    these proven safety technologies has not only driven ATA to update its
    decade-old policies to reflect the current operating environment, but
    has also led Congress to reconsider its stance on legislation directing
    CMV speed governance. This year, ATA and Road Safe America--the
    nonprofit organization led by Cullum's father, Steve--partnered in
    supporting the Cullum Owings Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act,
    which requires speed-limiting devices on commercial motor vehicles over
    26,000 pounds and promotes incentives to encourage adoption of newer
    technologies. This legislation, which reflects ATA's updated safety
    policy on speed governance, calls for speed limits of 70 mph for trucks
    equipped with Automatic Emergency Braking and Adaptive Cruise Control.
    If a truck does not have these technologies, the legislation sets a
    maximum speed of 65 mph, incentivizing fleets to adopt safety
    technologies. Furthermore, given the constant emergence of new safety
    technologies, this legislation calls for a recurring 5-year review of
    any speed limiting regulations to make sure that these regulations are
    most impactful with currently-deployed technologies.

        Question 2. What other benefits are there for requiring speed
    limiters especially in heavy trucks that don't have other advanced
    safety technology?
        Answer. ATA's updated policies are inclusive of speed limiters for
    trucks with and without safety technologies, and we believe any future
    legislation or rulemaking should account for both scenarios. Fleets
    that utilize Automatic Emergency Braking and Adaptive Cruise Control
    would be afforded a maximum of 70 mph, and fleets that do not have
    these added safety technologies would be limited to 65 mph. This
    differential may incentivize a fleet to equip vehicles with safety
    technologies beyond speed limiters. ATA's safety policy on speed
    governance and the Cullum Owings Large Truck Safe Operating Speed Act
    both reflect the proven benefits of safety technologies that mitigate
    these concerns and the decades-long process to reach industry and
    stakeholder consensus on this issue.
                                     ______

        Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
                                  Chris Spear
        Background. There was a lot of focus on disruptions to our supply
    chains at the beginning of the pandemic where we saw how our reliance
    on foreign sources for everything. From pharmaceutical ingredients and
    medical supplies to basic household items, the supply chain and foreign
    shipments were subject to disruptions largely outside of our control.
    Now, more than a year into this pandemic, our supply chains are still
    suffering--but not from a lack of goods. Our ports are experiencing
    significant increases in cargo volume as most sectors of the economy
    are returning to full strength. This has led to congestion at several
    bottlenecks across the Nation that is challenging our ability to meet
    cargo movement demands. Dozens of ships sitting are offshore waiting to
    get into ports to offload their goods. Imports and exports are both
    delayed. This harms our economy, our global competiveness, and our
    national resilience.

        Question. For each of your sectors, can you briefly share what
    actions can be taken right now to provide immediate relief to the
    crippling congestion in our vital supply chains?
        Answer. Highway congestion adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of
    freight transportation each year. In 2016, truck drivers sat in traffic
    for nearly 1.2 billion hours, equivalent to more than 425,000 drivers
    sitting idle for a year. A disproportionate share of these impacts are
    caused by bottlenecks, primarily on the Interstate Highway System. For
    example, a single bottleneck on I-10 in the Los Angeles area caused
    trucks to be delayed more than 217,000 hours in 2019, adding over $164
    million to the cost of moving freight. Many of these bottlenecks will
    require significant investment, and many states do not have sufficient
    resources to address them. Furthermore, their benefits often extend
    well beyond state borders, with freight moving through these
    bottlenecks to and from locations nationwide, in addition to serving
    international markets. Therefore Congress should set aside funds to
    address major highway bottlenecks, refrain from imposing limits on
    states' ability to expand highway capacity and streamline the NEPA
    process, which unnecessarily delays projects and increases their costs.
        Furthermore, the extraordinary volume of imported freight we are
    seeing come through our Nation's ports is creating extreme challenges
    to a struggling supply chain. While our ports are having trouble
    accommodating the unprecedented numbers, the volume has also
    overwhelmed inland intermodal hubs in places like Chicago, Dallas and
    Memphis. Though it is certainly true that the pandemic has created its
    own challenges, many of the issues we are seeing are not new and have
    been present for years. Motor carriers in particular face a unique set
    of challenges that are the result of long-term inequities and the fact
    that many parties in the supply chain actually see economic benefit
    from inefficiencies. In today's environment, this is particularly true
    of foreign-owned ocean carriers who are making record profits and
    appear to have little incentive to work with other parties and provide
    the access to information that is needed to ensure the efficient
    movement of containers. This means that truckers face a host of
    challenges every day that often require them to make multiple trips to
    different locations in order to find the right chassis, drop off empty
    containers and pick up loaded ones. The time and cost associated with
    these additional moves are significant and are eventually passed on to
    American consumers as are the skyrocketing detention and demurrage
    charges that result from the inability to operate efficiently. Focusing
    all parties in the supply chain on the data sharing that will provide
    the long-term visibility needed to properly allocate equipment where
    and when it is needed is critical and long overdue.

                                   [all]