[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]