U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–591 PDF 2018

S. HRG. 115–201 

FREIGHT MOVEMENT: ASSESSING WHERE WE ARE 

NOW AND WHERE WE NEED TO GO 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 20, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming (ex officio) 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

DECEMBER 20, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 2 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 4 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 6 

WITNESSES 

Spear, Chris, President and CEO, American Trucking Associations .................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 31 

Response to an additional question from Senator Harris ............................. 38 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 40 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 44 

Policinski, Mark, Chief Executive Officer, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional 

Council of Governments, and member, Coalition for America’s Gateways 

and Trade Corridors ............................................................................................. 48 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 58 

Parker, Tim Jr., Chairman, Parker Towing Company, and Chairman, Board 

of Directors, Waterways Council, Inc ................................................................. 61 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Duckworth ................................................................................... 69 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 70 

Thomas, David M., Deputy Executive Director of Logistics and Port Operations, Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland Port Administration ................................................................................................................... 71 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Whitehouse ...................... 82 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter to Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, and Cardin from the American 

Association of Port Authorities, January 2, 2018 .............................................. 106 

(1) 

FREIGHT MOVEMENT: ASSESSING WHERE WE 

ARE NOW AND WHERE WE NEED TO GO 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Cardin, Capito, Boozman, Fischer, 

Moran, Ernst, Sullivan, Shelby, Whitehouse, Gillibrand, 

Duckworth, Harris, Barrasso, and Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. The meeting will come to order. 

We are honored to have some great witnesses today, and I will 

save the introductions. I know there are a couple of introductions 

that will be made from up here. 

This morning we will go ahead with our opening statements— 

myself and Senator Cardin—and then we are honored to have both 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the whole Committee 

here, so we will have Senator Barrasso, Senator Carper. 

Then I understand, Senator Cardin, you have an introduction to 

make also. 

Senator CARDIN. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, we will do that. 

Let’s recognize first Senator Carper, because he is going to be 

coming back and doing his a little bit later. 

Senator CARPER. Just very briefly. I welcome this important 

hearing, and I want to thank our Chair and Ranking Member for 

pulling this all together and giving us a chance to say something. 

I have a statement I would like to ask unanimous consent that it 

appear in the record. If I have a chance to come back and give it 

live later this morning, I will do that. 

But again, it is good to see you all. Thank you for joining us. 

This is important stuff. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I want to thank all of you for being here today. I would like to 

thank my friend, Ranking Member Cardin and his staff for their 

help in getting this hearing together. 

2 

You know, I have taken count. I think the last one, other than 

you and me, that came in the 100th Congress is retiring this year. 

That leaves you and me. 

Senator CARDIN. I hope that is not a message. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. All right. But anyway, we did come in. We spent 

a lot of time together, working together in a bipartisan way accomplishing things, and we enjoy continue that. Looking forward to 

working with my colleagues on this Committee as we work together 

in legislation that will benefit the users of our transportation networks and the economy. 

Since President Trump has been in office, we have seen a 3 percent growth in the economy. We have added over 2 million jobs, 

and the consumer confidence has skyrocketed. However, the economy will only continue to grow if our infrastructure is maintained 

and expanded to meet our future needs. In 2015 over 18 billion tons of freight, worth $19 trillion, moved 

over our highways, railways, waterways, and through the air. 

These numbers are only expected to grow, with an estimated 25 

billion tons of freight movement by 2045, worth an estimated $37 

trillion. 

Yet when freight is delayed on congested highways, diverted 

around structurally deficient bridges, or awaiting movement at our 

ports and on our waterways, an estimated $27 billion annually in 

increased costs are borne by businesses, raising prices on consumer 

goods. The more delays we see, the further behind we will become. 

According to the World Economic Forum, the U.S. ranks 12th in 

overall infrastructure quality, and the American Society of Engineers, which we have heard several times from, scored our infrastructure as a D∂ earlier this year, estimating that we need to spend close to $2 trillion in the next 10 years to improve all of our 

infrastructure and our overall economy. 

In order to address this need, in the last Congress we passed the FAST Act, which authorized $305 billion over 5 years. The FAST 

Act also established a $6.3 billion freight formula program for 

States to invest in freight projects on the National Highway 

Freight Network, and that is the first time that that had been 

done. It has created a $4.5 billion over 5 years grant program to 

improve the safety and movement of freight. Though the FAST Act 

was the largest transportation authorization in a decade, we have 

more work to be done before we close the gap between our funding 

and our needs. 

I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I enjoyed meeting them individually and reminding Mr. Parker that we 

in the State of Oklahoma, our best kept secret is we also are navigable. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Senator Inhofe, thank you for reminding 

me how long we have been here. I appreciate that very much. 

But Senator Inhofe and I have been friends since we both came 

to the U.S. Congress in 1987, and I do thank him for his dedicaVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:14 Apr 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\29591.TXT SONYA
3 

tion, his willingness to try to find ways to move things forward, 

particularly on infrastructure. Senator Inhofe has been one of our 

great leaders, so it is a pleasure to work with you on this Subcommittee that deals with infrastructure with Senator Barrasso 

and Senator Carper and the members of this Committee. 

Today’s topic is critically important, Freight Movement: Assessing Where We Are Now and Where We Need To Go. This nation 

was built by the fact that we were able to build up an economy, 

and our infrastructure was critically important for us being able to 

develop that economic strength that we all are so proud of and 

gives an opportunity to so many people. 

The U.S. freight system depends upon the multimodal system of 

infrastructure. Roads are critically important for our trucks. Rail is 

important for our freight moving by rail. Yesterday I had a meeting 

of the Maryland delegation with Mr. Foote, the new Acting CEO 

of CSX, as we talked about freight issues, including the challenge 

we have in Baltimore with the Howard Street Tunnel, where you 

can’t double stack. So, it is incredibly important that we maintain 

and strengthen our rail. 

We talked about the waterways, and I am glad that Mr. Thomas 

is here in regards to the Port of Baltimore and the importance that 

is to the movement of freight and our barges, our pipelines, and 

certainly our airports. Our airports are becoming more congested, 

and it is an important part of our freight. 

So, Mr. Chairman, over the next 30 years our transportation system, which has powered the rise of our nation and enabled generations of economic growth, could—could—become a drag if we do not 

pay attention to investing in America’s infrastructure. 

We already know how many hours a week are wasted in transportation through trucks stuck in traffic. Try to get through the 

Washington area on any day. Even on weekends it is becoming difficult. Even in the middle of the night. Mr. Chairman, I went home 

yesterday morning, from here to Baltimore, and there was some 

construction, and it took me longer than it should have to get home 

last night to Baltimore. 

So, there is congestion, and we need to do a better job in dealing 

with that. Trucks lose $28 billion in wasted time in fuel per year. 

Twenty-eight billion dollars. So, we have major tensions that we 

have to pay. Our major hub airports face severe congestion. Aging 

locks and dams are raising the cost of moving freight and fuel 

along the inland waterways. Ports need dredging and modernization if they are going to continue to compete and sustain jobs in 

our regional economy. 

Transit systems, the estimate is $100 billion of maintenance 

backlog in our transit systems in this country. And I can attest to 

the one here in WMATA and the need for maintenance there. The 

companies that depend upon our nation’s transportation system, 

and the millions of workers who power these companies will feel 

these effects. 

A robust multimodal freight transportation system is essential. 

Despite advances—and I really do applaud the leadership of this 

Committee in the FAST Act and MAP–21 that provides funding 

sources for these types of program—we need to build upon the 

4 

prior success of this Committee to provide the wherewithal to modernize our infrastructure. 

I am just going to highlight, because, as Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, I should at least promote one aspect of my State, 

and since Mr. Thomas is here, let me take that opportunity to brag 

a little bit about the Port of Baltimore and the importance it is to 

our economy. 

We are one of only, I think, four ports on the East Coast that 

has the depth and width necessary to take on the new ships that 

are coming through the Panama Canal. That is an important part 

of our economy. Baltimore has a 50 foot shipping channel and a 50 

foot container berth. What we are able to do, and I can give you 

a lot of statistics, and I will put it in the record, Mr. Chairman, 

so I don’t have to read the entire numbers in regards to the Port 

of Baltimore, but let me just point this out. 

Business at the port generates 13,650 direct jobs—direct jobs— 

the Port of Baltimore. More than 127,000 jobs in Maryland are 

linked to port activities. The port is responsible for nearly $3 billion in individual wages and salaries, and contributes more than 

$310 million in State and local tax revenues. 

So, none of this can be done without a strong Federal partnership. We can’t do it on our own; we need a strong Federal partnership. 

Yesterday we had a long discussion about jobs on the floor of the 

U.S. Senate. We all know that investing in infrastructure will not 

only build the tools necessary so that we can grow our economy; 

it will create the jobs of the future that we need to support the people of this nation. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel, and I 

thank them all for being here. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Carper, I would be happy to defer to you so that you 

don’t have to then come back later. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. I appreciate your doing that. 

Listening to what Ben just said about the Port of Baltimore, just 

before I leave, I just want to say the top banana port in America 

is Wilmington, Delaware. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. And my staff was good enough to drop off some 

bananas here so I could have a prop. I also told them just jokingly 

yesterday, I told them we are not only the top port for importing 

bananas, we are also the top port for importing prunes. That is not 

true, but they dropped off this package of prunes. I would be happy 

to share them with my colleagues. After the experience of these 

last few days, we could probably all use that. I am not going to say 

more. 

No, on a serious note, I do want to say this. Last night, when 

I gave my floor statement, I talked about all the ingredients that 

are part of a nurturing environment for job creation and job preserVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:14 Apr 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\29591.TXT SONYA
5 

vation, from access to capital, access to foreign markets, world class 

work force and infrastructure done well. Infrastructure, not just 

roads, highways, bridges, not just ports, not just rail, all the above 

and more, broadband and deployment and so forth. 

We have this reluctance to pay for this stuff. We have this reluctance to pay for this stuff. And a big part of our challenge is to figure out cost effective ways to make these investments in ways that 

leverage non-Federal moneys, State and local moneys, private sector moneys. 

And that is our challenge. That is our challenge. And it is important, having gone through a tough period of time on tax reform, my 

hope is that when we tackle infrastructure in the months to come, 

that we do it the right way and we do it together. It is a great opportunity. If we do that, we will do a much better job. 

What did Mark Twain used to say? If we do that, we will confound our critics and amaze our friends. So that is what we need 

to do. All right? 

Thanks so much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Subcommittee Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Cardin, before we begin I 

just want to take a moment and personally thank you for holding this oversight 

hearing on the movement of freight on our nation’s water and transportation infrastructure. 

Our nation’s freight transportation network—which includes an interconnected 

network of trucks, trains, aircrafts, ships, and barges—moves 55 million tons of 

goods worth more than $49 billion each day. In addition, freight supports 44 million 

jobs. 

Seaports and highways are economic engines and vital freight gateways to the 

global marketplace for American farmers, manufacturers, and consumers and serve 

as critical infrastructure for the U.S. military. It is, therefore, appropriate that this 

Subcommittee is examining the operation of our freight system because the safe and 

efficient movement of goods—both into and out of the United States—is the backbone of our economy. 

In my home State of Delaware, the Port of Wilmington has the largest dock-side 

refrigerated complex in North America and is the top North American port for imports of fresh fruit—specifically bananas—and juice concentrate. 

So think of Delaware the next time you are having breakfast! Our port also handles automobiles, steel, forest products, livestock, petroleum, and other cargo. 

This hearing is coming at a critical time. The amount of freight in the U.S. is projected to grow 40 percent by 2045, including by 44 percent for truck tonnage and 

38 percent for water. America’s trade volume is also expected to quadruple after 

2030, with the U.S. projected to export more than 52 million shipping containers 

through U.S. seaports each year. We must prepare the nation’s infrastructure to 

meet this growing demand for the safe and efficient movement of freight. 

As you know, the President has raised the issue of America needing to modernize 

and rebuild aging infrastructure. Democratic Senators released a blueprint for addressing infrastructure challenges earlier this year. I believe that members on both 

sides of the aisle are supportive of addressing our freight infrastructure needs, but 

before we can really understand the scope of the problem and what needs to be part 

of a bill, we need to have discussions such as we are having today. 

We must work in a bipartisan fashion to really address these concerns and build 

consensus on a path forward for our economy. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing, and I look 

forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Barrasso. 

6 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I introduce Mr. Spear to the Committee, I would like to 

just say a few words about today’s hearing. 

This morning the Subcommittee is examining Freight Movement: 

Assessing Where We Are Now and Where We Need To Go. Freight 

is a vital part of America’s economy, and I thank Chairman Inhofe, 

Ranking Member Cardin for holding this important hearing. 

Everyone benefits from goods being shipped on our roads, across 

our bridges, and through our ports. The freight industry allows for 

American made products to go from the heartland to the coasts, 

and even across the world. 

This hearing will also underscore the need to upgrade and maintain our highways and shipping lanes. Addressing America’s aging 

infrastructure is a shared bipartisan goal of this Committee. 

This year alone, the Environment and Public Works Committee 

has held seven hearings on the importance of modernizing America’s infrastructure. We have heard testimony on the infrastructure 

needs of both rural and urban communities, the new innovative 

building techniques being used, the value of streamlining so that 

we can cut Government red tape and get building projects started 

and finished faster, as well as the success of loan leveraging programs so taxpayers get the most bang for their buck. 

President Trump has made fixing our nation’s roads, bridges, 

and rails a top priority. In January the Administration will outline 

its broad vision for infrastructure. We have a unique opportunity 

ahead of us. If we can pass major infrastructure legislation, we will 

grow our economy and help ensure the health and safety of every 

American. 

So, I look forward to partnering with President Trump and members of our Committee as we work to improve America’s roads, 

bridges, water systems, dams, and ports. 

I would also now like to introduce Chris Spear, who has served 

as President and CEO of the American Trucking Associations since 

July 2016. Chris is a long time friend with extensive Wyoming connections, and I am very pleased that he has been invited to offer 

his expertise at this morning’s Subcommittee hearing. 

He attended college at the University of Wyoming, where he 

earned his Bachelor’s and his Master’s degrees; currently sits on 

the Board of Directors for the University of Wyoming’s Center for 

Global Studies. He began his career with the Senate in 1993, working as a professional staff member for then Wyoming Senator Al 

Simpson. He continued his work under Senator Enzi. In 1998 he 

was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously 

confirmed by the Senate as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Policy 

in the United States Department of Labor. 

Chris also served as Deputy Representative for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and was awarded the U.S. Department 

of Defense Joint Civilian Service Medal. 

In 2004 he entered the private sector at Honeywell International 

and then Hyundai Motor Company. In his current role as President 

and CEO of American Trucking Associations, Chris leads the ATA’s 

efforts to advocate and educate on behalf of the trucking industry. 

7 

He knows how vital freight transportation is to the economy and 

how States like Wyoming depend on an industry that employs upwards of 7 million people and is responsible for moving more than 

10 billion tons of freight annually. 

There is no better expert to discuss how we better move America’s economy forward. 

Mr. Spear, thank you. We look forward to hearing your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Cardin, I believe you want to introduce one of the witnesses. 

Senator CARDIN. I am very happy to have David Thomas here 

today. He was named the Deputy Executive Director of Logistics 

and Port Operations for the Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland Port Administration in December 2016. But 

David has been with the port now, I believe, 16 years and has a 

distinguished record and understands all the operations of the port. 

His current responsibility includes facility maintenance, crane 

maintenance, terminal operations, cruise operations, and intermodal logistics. 

So, we are pleased that he is here. We are pleased by his expertise for Maryland, but also, I think he can help us better understand the challenges that we have in moving our commerce and 

freight through our ports. 

He received his Bachelor of Science degree from Towson University, one of the great schools in Maryland, in 1982 in Business Administration. Two children, married, and resides in Forest Hill, 

Maryland. 

Nice to have you here. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Our other two witnesses that have not been introduced are Tim 

Parker, Jr., Chairman of the Parker Towing Company, Waterways 

Council, Tuscaloosa, and Mark Policinski, Chief Executive Officer 

of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments. 

So, we are going to start with our opening statements. We would 

ask you to try to confine your remarks to 5 minutes, but your entire statement will be made a part of the record. 

So, Mr. Spear, we will start with you and work across. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS 

Mr. SPEAR. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Cardin, Chairman Barrasso for the introduction, and members of 

the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to testify on this 

critical subject. 

We are grateful to each of you for recognizing freight in the previous two authorization bills as an important Federal responsibility. This has proven necessary, as the freight sector will need to 

move 5 billion additional tons over the next decade. That is a 40 

percent increase. 

This year alone trucks will move 71 percent of the nation’s freight tonnage, worth more than $10 trillion. Yet our national 

highway network is rapidly deteriorating, costing the average moVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:14 Apr 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\29591.TXT SONYA
8 

torist nearly $1,500 a year in higher maintenance and congestion 

expenses. 

Highway congestion also adds more than $63 billion to the cost 

of freight transportation each year. In 2015, truck drivers sat in 

traffic nearly 1 billion hours, equivalent to more than 362,000 drivers sitting idle for an entire year. Most concerning, in 53 percent 

of highway fatalities, the condition of the roadway is a contributing 

factor. 

The Highway Trust Fund is projected to run short of the revenue 

necessary to maintain current spending levels by fiscal year 2021, 

creating a huge funding gap that could force States to cancel or 

delay critical projects. The U.S. spends less than half of what is 

necessary to address these needs. As the investment gap continues 

to grow, so too will the number of deficient bridges, roads, bottlenecks, and most critically, fatalities attributable to inadequate 

roadways. 

ATA’s proposed solution is the Build America Fund. The Fund 

would be supported with a new indexed 20 cent per gallon fee built 

into the price of transportation fuels collected at the terminal rack, 

which would generate nearly $340 billion in new revenue over the 

first 10 years. 

This proposal would stabilize the Trust Fund and resource 

project backlog. However, we recognize that over time the fuel tax 

is a diminishing revenue source. To that end, we encourage the 

Subcommittee to implement a 10 year plan that identifies and provides long term stability for the Federal aid program with new, 

more sustainable user fees. 

ATA recognizes that trucks are but one part of the supply chain. 

We rely on our air, water, and rail partners to keep the supply 

chain moving smoothly and efficiently, and we are grateful for the 

resources provided specifically for freight projects in recent legislation. We urge you to retain those programs and increase funding 

for freight, while maintaining the share currently dedicated to 

highway projects, particularly, freight intermodal connector roads 

deserve dedicated funding, creating greater connectivity between 

the modes and a more efficient and safer movement of our nation’s 

freight. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to state ATA’s unequivocal support for continuing a strong Federal role in funding and overseeing 

highway improvements. States aren’t waiting on Congress to act; 

several have already adopted funding schemes that toll Class A 

trucks only to fund their roads and bridges. 

Now, representing an industry that pays nearly half of the tab 

into the Highway Trust Fund, and is willing and ready to pay 

more, we consider such State schemes as nothing more than a 

fleecing of our industry. Other States have chosen regulatory regimes redundant of existing Federal standards, such as California’s 

duplicative meal and rest breaks, commonly referred to here in 

Washington as F4A. These burdensome barriers are elevating safety risks to the motoring public, while lining the pockets of highly 

inefficient toll booth operators and trial lawyers. That is trucking 

revenue that would have been spent on driver pay, training, and 

purchasing safer, more environmentally friendly equipment. 

9 

Federal inaction has allowed States to create a maze of added 

compliance costs that impede our industry’s ability to grow and 

support our nation’s economy, making State preemption a top priority of trucking companies. This is not about States’ rights. Rhetorical statements in support of devolving responsibility to the 

States fail to acknowledge the Federal Government’s constitutional 

obligation to support interstate commerce and projects whose benefits extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries. 

My written testimony includes GPS heat maps tracking the live 

movement of freight. These illustrations underscore how freight 

isn’t a local, State, or even a regional problem, as much as today’s 

political rhetoric tries to suggest; it is a Federal issue, and one with 

serious and measurable national economic and security implications. 

I applaud this Committee for its razor focus each of you bring to 

these problems. ATA is a committed partner to helping each of you 

and your Senate colleagues produce an infrastructure bill in 2018 

that Republicans, Democrats, and most importantly, the American 

people can be proud of. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spear follows:] 

10 


29591.001
11 


29591.002
12 


29591.003
13 


29591.004
14 


29591.005
15 


29591.006
16 


29591.007
17 


29591.008
18 


29591.009
19 


29591.010
20 


29591.011
21 


29591.012
22 


29591.013
23 


29591.014
24 


29591.015
25 


29591.016
26 


29591.017
27 


29591.018
28 


29591.019
29 


29591.020
30 


29591.021
31 


29591.022
32 


29591.023
33 


29591.024
34 


29591.025
35 


29591.026
36 


29591.027
37 


29591.028
38 


29591.029
39 


29591.030
40 


29591.031
41 


29591.032
42 


29591.033
43 


29591.034
44 


29591.035
45 


29591.036
46 


29591.037
47 


29591.038
48 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Spear. 

Mr. Policinski. 

STATEMENT OF MARK POLICINSKI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OHIO-KENTUCKY-INDIANA REGIONAL COUNSEL OF 

GOVERNMENTS, AND MEMBER, COALITION FOR AMERICA’S 

GATEWAYS AND TRADE CORRIDORS 

Mr. POLICINSKI. Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Cardin 

and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to share my views. 

I am representing both the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional 

Council of Governments, as well as the Coalition for America’s 

Gateways and Trade Corridors. These are diverse groups of public 

and private organizations seeking to increase Federal investment 

in multimodal freight infrastructure. 

OKI, as the metropolitan planning organization for the Greater 

Cincinnati region, has final authority over all Federal spending on 

surface transportation. The region is home to the nationally significant Brent Spence Bridge. The bridge is a linchpin on the I–75 

trade corridor. It is a bridge that connects Michigan to Miami, and 

it carries over $1 billion of goods every day. But it is suffering due 

to structural deficiencies and overcrowding. This results in costing 

around $750 million annually in wasted time and fuel. It is a prime 

example of U.S. freight needs. 

The Constitution’s commerce clause calls on the Federal Government to make investments supporting interstate commerce. Seventy-seven percent of all freight crosses State lines, but States and 

localities cannot shoulder investment to improve them. I applaud 

this Committee for prioritizing freight in the FAST Act; it is a 

down payment on our needs. But as we know, more is needed to 

keep pace with a growing global economy. We must remember that, 

as a percentage of GDP, China spends 4 times what the United 

States does on infrastructure. 

The FAST Act created a formula program designed to target 

freight investments and improvements. However, the ability of formula dollars to fund complex freight projects is limited. Recognizing this, the FAST Act created a much needed competitive grant 

program, or INFRA, designed to target large freight and highway 

projects which often span modes and jurisdictions. 

Competitive programs encourage applicants to bring forward 

their best ideas, and they frequently incentivize non-Federal dollars to get involved. INFRA awarded roughly $800 million in fiscal 

year 2016, and it leveraged $3.6 billion in total investment. 

But just because a project is more affordable to the Federal Government does not mean it is the most valuable investment for a 

country’s economy. Projects should first be evaluated on their ability to meet congressionally defined program goals. To foster strategic investment, we respectfully make five recommendations. 

No. 1, a national vision in investment strategy should shape and 

guide the nation’s freight infrastructure system with active coordination among States and regions. A focus on multimodal freight 

should be established within USDOT’s Office of the Secretary to 

guide policy and programming with a focus on nationally significant projects. 

49 

No. 2, provide a dedicated, sustainable, and flexible funding 

source. Investment in the freight network has a much larger return 

on investment than other transportation spending. Existing programs available for freight infrastructure, like INFRA and TIGER, 

are vastly oversubscribed. In the first round, INFRA sought $13 in 

requests for every $1 available. A minimum annual direct Federal 

investment of $2 billion above current levels is necessary. Congress 

should also eliminate caps on non-highway spending under the 

freight formula and INFRA programs. Freight does not only move 

on highways. Where public benefit is derived, public investment 

should be made. 

No. 3, successful grant applications must meet merit based criteria that prioritize projects with a demonstrable contribution to 

the national freight efficiency. 

No. 4, Congress should oversee the FAST Act implementation to 

ensure investment aligns with congressional intent and there is 

sufficient decisionmaking transparency. Despite Congress’s development of strong, merit based criteria for INFRA, GAO was unable 

to determine USDOT’s rationale for selecting the first round’s 18 

successful projects. 

And last, a partnership with the private sector. Funding should 

leverage private participation and provide the largest possible toolbox of funding options. An advisory council of freight industry 

members and system users could assist USDOT to foster partnerships with the private sector. 

I thank the Committee for their time and attention to this critically important topic. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Policinski follows:] 

50 


29591.039
51 


29591.040
52 


29591.041
53 


29591.042
54 


29591.043
55 


29591.044
56 


29591.045
57 


29591.046
58 


29591.047
59 


29591.048
60 


29591.049
61 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Policinski. Also thank you for 

being specific, because you specified five things. This Committee is 

going to have to make some decisions, and I think those are excellent suggestions. 

Mr. Parker. 

STATEMENT OF TIM PARKER, JR., CHAIRMAN, PARKER TOWING COMPANY, AND CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WATERWAYS COUNCIL, INC. 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Cardin, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the topic of ‘‘Freight Movement: Assessing Where We Are and Where We Are Going.’’ I know 

other witnesses this morning will concentrate in their testimony on 

MAP–21 and the FAST Act, so I will not do that. Instead, I will 

focus on the importance of the inland waterways transportation 

system and potential reforms that could modernize this critically 

important system. 

I currently serve as Chairman of Parker Towing Company. We 

are headquartered in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and operate 26 

towboats and 340 barges. I am also Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Waterways Council, Inc., WCI, which is the national 

public policy organization that advocates for a modern and well 

maintained system of inland waterways and ports. 

The inland waterways transportation system is made up of nearly 12,000 miles of commercially active inland waterways, including 

intracoastal waterways. Of this total, nearly 11,000 miles comprise 

the fuel tax portion of the system on which commercial operators 

pay a diesel fuel tax that is deposited into the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund. Users like Parker Towing Company successfully advocated in support of raising our taxes by 45 percent in 2015 to its 

current level of 29 cents per gallon. This tax currently pays for up 

to half the cost of new construction and major rehabilitation of inland waterways infrastructure, principally locks and dams, but also 

including channel deepening. 

At the outset, I would note that after having only one order enacted between 2001 and 2013, it is very encouraging to see this 

Committee putting WRRDA bills back on a 2 year cycle with the 

enactment of WRRDA 2014 and WRRDA 2016. I would especially 

like to thank this Committee for passing the important policy 

changes contained in WRRDA 2014, particularly the change in cost 

share policy for Olmsted Locks and Dams. This cost share change 

from 50 percent Inland Waterways Trust Fund and 50 percent 

General Fund, to 15 percent Inland Waterways Trust Fund and 85 

percent General Fund. This change in policy at Olmsted has led to 

significant improvements in the construction timeline and cost of 

the project. 

At the November 3rd Inland Waterways User Board meeting just 

a few weeks ago, the Corps reported that the Olmsted project will 

be operational next year, perhaps as early as June, with full completion now expected in 2022, in both instances 4 years ahead of 

the previously estimated project operation and completion dates. In 

terms of cost, Olmsted is now scheduled to be completed approximately $330 million below the new estimated cost. 

62 

Also noteworthy, not only did the cost share change help 

Olmsted, it has allowed construction to resume on the Lower 

Monongahela Locks 2, 3, and 4, Kentucky Lock, and Chickamauga 

Lock. 

Finishing Olmsted as quickly as possible comes at a critical time 

for the inland system. Starting in early September 2017, locks and 

dams 52 and 53, which are the locks and dams that Olmsted will 

be replacing, have been experiencing repeated failures, causing 

multiple complete closures of the Ohio River. At one point, there 

were 74 towboats and 842 barges waiting to lock through. These 

recent emergencies vividly show that locks and dams built in the 

1920s, like locks and dams 52 and 53, are in critical need of modernization to maintain American competitiveness. 

Currently, we have a portfolio of 25 high priority inland projects 

either in construction or waiting to begin construction, with a total 

cost estimated at $8.8 billion. At the current rate, many of these 

projects will not even begin their construction in the next 20 years. 

We would hope the Committee will consider the same kind of 

change for the inland waterways that was include in last year’s 

WRRDA for deep draft coastal ports. In WRRDA 2016 Congress 

changed the cost share policy for funding the construction of deep 

draft ports with depths of 45 to 50 feet from 50 percent non-Federal project sponsor and 50 percent Government to 25 percent nonFederal project sponsor and 75 percent Federal Government. By 

doing the same thing for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, this 

Committee would allow for the inland navigation capital program 

to remain operating at or above the $400 million level that has 

been achieved since the cost share at Olmsted. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to participating in this roundtable discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parker follows:] 

63 


29591.050
64 


29591.051
65 


29591.052
66 


29591.053
67 


29591.054
68 


29591.055
69 


29591.056
70 


29591.057
71 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Parker. 

Mr. Thomas. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID M. THOMAS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF LOGISTICS AND PORT OPERATIONS, MARYLAND 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MARYLAND PORT ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. THOMAS. Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Cardin, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing focused on national freight movement. 

The Helen Delich Bentley Port of Baltimore is one of the busiest 

and most diverse seaports in the United States. We have six public 

marine terminals and 30 privately owned marine terminals located 

in our harbors. 

Of approximately 190 major U.S. ports, the Port of Baltimore 

ranks first and handles more cars and light trucks, farm and construction equipment, and imported sugar than all other major U.S. 

ports. In total, it ranks 9th among major U.S. ports for total dollar 

value of international cargo handled and 14th for the total amount 

of international cargo tonnage. 

For the last several years, the Port of Baltimore has been ranked 

among the most productive container ports in the nation. The Journal of Commerce named us the fourth fastest growing port in 

North America in 2016. 

Overall last year, our port saw 31.8 million tons of international cargo cross its piers, valued at approximately $49.9 billion, and we 

expect to surpass both of those numbers this year. 

Today, the Port of Baltimore can accommodate some of the largest container ships in the world. We have the necessary infrastructure to welcome ships that can safely transit the newly expanded 

Panama Canal. 

The Port of Baltimore is the leading economic engine for the 

State of Maryland. We feel strongly that if freight is moving efficiently through our port, then our economy is moving efficiently as 

well. Business at our port generates over 13,600 direct jobs, while 

about 127,000 jobs in Maryland are linked to port activities. 

Yes, we are having success now, but we also have hurdles that 

we need to clear. 

A pressing need is for double stack rail clearance in and out of 

our port. For those of you who aren’t familiar, double stack rails 

is stacking of two international or domestic containers on top of one 

another on a rail car for transportation into or out of our major 

port. The ability to do this doubles capacity and creates operating 

efficiencies in the overall supply chain. 

The Class I railroads do not currently have that ability to handle 

double stacked trains in Baltimore. The CSX owned Howard Street 

Tunnel, located in the city of Baltimore, is a 122 year old freight 

tunnel that does not have the required clearances under its current 

configuration. Recently, new engineering technologies were developed that would bring the total project cost for increasing the clearances of the tunnel to less than a $500 million project. 

The Maryland Department of Transportation and CSX agreed to 

share $290 million of the total $445 million project cost. We then 

submitted, as a public-private team, for Federal funding for the 

72 

balance of the project cost under the 2016 FASTLANE grant program. Despite very positive feedback from USDOT officials, we 

were unsuccessful. Still, we felt we have a strong application, and 

we are optimistic that we will be successful if we applied again in 

round two. 

The deadline to apply for funding under the now INFRA grant 

program was November 2nd, 2017. Only a few short days before 

that deadline, we were informed by CSX that they were pulling 

their support for the project. Without CSX, the owner of the asset, 

we could not move forward with the grant application. The ability 

to handle double stacked trains is not only critical to the Port of 

Baltimore’s long term future, but it would create an improved 

intermodal connection both regionally and nationally. 

Currently, the Howard Street Tunnel is viewed by industry as a 

freight logistics bottleneck. In CSX’s own words, the tunnel, with 

increased clearances, would remove trucks from highways and generate $640 million in benefits to 25 eastern States. An improved 

tunnel would mean a more efficient logistics network, creating 

more intermodal movements and supporting additional jobs. 

We must also be sure our waterways can handle these larger 

ships. Efficient freight movement through ports like Baltimore depend on adequate authority and funding for U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers to complete channel maintenance and dredging. Channel 

dredging is the maritime equivalent of highway construction maintenance. 

We also must dispose of the dredged sediment responsibly. Congress has provided many allowances for this purpose, including 

beneficial uses of dredged sediment for ecosystem restoration. The 

Port of Baltimore, for example, has a congressionally authorized 

project known as Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Project that uses 

dredged sediment from our 50 foot deep channels to restore natural 

habitat in the Chesapeake Bay. The project is currently awaiting 

preconstruction engineering and design funding. 

The Port of Baltimore urges you to support projects like this that 

tie directly to efficient freight movement. Like all WRRDA 2014 

projects, it faces deauthorization in calendar year 2021 if it does 

not receive Federal funds for construction. 

The Mid-Bay Island Project is critical to the Port of Baltimore’s 

channels because it will provide approximately 40 years of sediment placement capacity. I ask this Subcommittee to support report language in the next Water Resources Development Act to ensure continued authorization of the Mid-Bay Island Project. 

In closing, the Federal Government plays a vital role in providing 

efficient freight flow performance. For ports to perform efficiently, 

Customs and Border Protection must be adequately funded and 

staffed. In 2015, the last time CBP was funded to hire additional 

staff, only 10 of 2,000 staffers were assigned to our seaports. This 

is a supply chain problem. Ports need this additional support of 

CBP to keep cargo moving. Without it, the flow of cargo through 

our nation’s ports cannot perform at peak levels. 

Again, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak before 

the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:] 

73 


29591.058
74 


29591.059
75 


29591.060
76 


29591.061
77 


29591.062
78 


29591.063
79 


29591.064
80 


29591.065
81 


29591.066
82 


29591.067
83 


29591.068
84 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. 

As was made obvious to us in our opening statements, Senator 

Cardin and I have been on this Committee since we have been in 

the Senate, and we were on the comparable committee in the 

House prior to that, so we have been through all of the reauthorization bills since 1987. So, I kind of needed to remember that one 

of our big problems used to be we had too much money in the Highway Trust Fund. That is not a problem anymore. 

So, we are looking at, and it was called to your attention by you, 

Mr. Spear, in my opening statement that we didn’t have a freight 

provision in all these reauthorization bills until MAP–21 and then 

again in the FAST Act. 

Let’s start with you. Is there anything you didn’t say in your 

opening statement concerning the progress, the positive things you 

can attribute to the freight provisions in both MAP–21 and the 

FAST Act? 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, I think both bills, Mr. Chairman, represent a 

significant step forward, largely because you are prioritizing, you 

are trying to look at a problem as it is growing. Alongside with the 

economy, we are seeing congestion, as I stated in my written and 

oral statement, $63 billion our industry loses each year to congestion. We know where the bottlenecks are. We track them every 

year; we report on them every year. That research is done in concert with our industry and the Department of Transportation. 

So, taking the authorization bills and prioritizing it, and putting 

a real good focus on freight, not just the program itself, but the 

grants, as well as the strategic plan, which, as I understand, in 

MAP–21 we are a little bit delinquent on in terms of reporting back 

to you on what that is supposed to look like. So, the Administration, I believe, needs to do more in terms of prioritization and 

building a strategic plan that allocates that money accordingly, and 

has the most impact in those bottleneck areas. 

But I think the last two authorizations were quite significant because they put the focus on where the problem is. Now we need to 

continue funding it, and begin really working with the agencies, 

Federal, State, and local, to get the maximum out of the requirements. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Policinski, you stated—and I didn’t write it 

down, repeat it for me—the amount of applications that were made 

as opposed to the awards on the grant program. 

Mr. POLICINSKI. Thirteen dollars in requests for every dollar. 

Senator INHOFE. Thirteen to one. 

Mr. POLICINSKI. Thirteen dollars in requests for every one dollar 

available. 

Senator INHOFE. I see. I see. So, would you agree with the comments made by Mr. Spear on the things that were good in the program; it is just a matter that it is not adequate enough? 

Mr. POLICINSKI. Well, it is monumental what you did. For the 

first time you recognized freight as being a primary driver of transportation spending. We believe that freight is the future. We are 

all part of a global economy for the first time. Our competitors are 

from all over the world, as are our business partners, bankers, or 

lawyers. The simple fact is that by concentrating on freight, you 

elevate projects from large projects in our region, like the Brent 

85 

Spence Bridge, a $2.6 billion project solely involved that is going 

to move freight dramatically for the nation, all the way down to 

smaller projects like double stacking, which we invest in as well. 

By bringing freight to the forefront, you make it easier for us to 

carry the case to the public that this type of spending must be 

done. So, what has been done is invaluable. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I was Chairman of this Committee during 

MAP–21 and then the FAST Act, and I have to give credit where 

credit is due. The one who actually focused on this was Alex 

Herrgott on our Committee. Now he is in the White House, so he 

is transferring that initial concern that he has for freight that you 

will see, I think, in the legislation that comes forward. 

Mr. Parker, I have said that one of our best kept secrets in Oklahoma is our navigation way. Everybody knows about Baltimore and 

all of this, but we are there, too. And here is the problem that we 

have. We are considered to be a newer State, and we were; our 

State was in 1907, so we came along later in this. 

However, now we are passed our lifespan on all the locks and 

dams that we have. We are having really serious problems right 

now, particularly in two of our locks and dams, the deterioration 

that is taking place. One of the best things that happened is we 

put the provision in allowing users to participate financially. That 

doesn’t happen in government very often, that they actually want 

to, and have to give permission to give the government money. 

That is essentially what we went through. 

So, we have come a long way on that, but we also have, on some 

of the far inland, like we are in Oklahoma, the lifespan has now 

already passed us. So, I am interested, you said in your testimony 

that a change in the cost share in Inland Waterways Trust Fund 

might be helpful. How would you suggest that would impact project 

delivery? 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Senator. Using the example at Olmsted, 

when you made the policy change there that enabled the Corps to 

go in, and with adequate funding and proper planning, able to 

bring the Olmsted Lock and Dam $330 million in early, under 

budget, and under time, we can take the same policies. And if we 

are able to make this policy change that we are requesting, I think 

it will enable us to go ahead and reinvest in these aging locks and 

dams we have throughout the system, not only the Arkansas River, 

but throughout the country, and I think that is an important aspect to that to keep this infrastructure up to speed and up to date. 

Senator INHOFE. That is very good. I appreciate that. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank 

all four of our witnesses. 

I think this Committee will continue to strengthen our authorization bills, including the movement of freight. But we are going to 

need to come together on the revenues necessary to support the 

type of infrastructure this country needs, which will help our economy and will create jobs. 

Mr. Parker, I appreciated your statement of your industry supporting increased diesel fees in order to get the necessary resources 

to deal with our inland waterways. I think we need to look at that 

type of an example to figure out how we can make sure we have 

86 

adequate resources devoted toward infrastructure improvements. 

And it is intermodal; if you don’t pay attention to all of the means, 

you are going to short change the efficiency factors of moving 

freight through America. 

Mr. Thomas, I want to talk about two issues that you did raise. 

First, let me talk about Mid-Bay for one moment. Mr. Parker also 

mentioned the fact that this Committee has been successful, at 

least recently, in passing biannual WRRDA bills. I hope we will 

have a chance to pass another WRRDA bill next year. We do that 

because we can then adjust some of the policy issues to keep 

projects on track. 

Mid-Bay I find to be very interesting. My predecessor, Senator 

Sarbanes, authored the Poplar Island authorization, which was 

unique for its time because it allowed for the availability of dredge 

material to be placed, which is not always without controversy. 

This was one that was supported because it was part of environmental restoration. 

So we not only were able to keep our shipping lanes dredged to 

the necessary level, but we were able to put the dredge material 

to use by reclaiming islands that used to exist in the Chesapeake 

Bay, and actually had habitation to be returned for the natural importance within the Chesapeake Bay of having these land masses 

to protect erosion, et cetera, and gives us the habitat for different 

species that are in the region. So, it was a win-win situation, very 

popular. Everybody likes it, and it was very efficient. 

Lo and behold, we recognized that Poplar Island will be at capacity, and we recognized that many years ago. We recognized it, I 

guess, with the Army Corps in 2009, when it produced the chief’s 

report recommending the construction of Mid-Bay. Now, here is the 

interesting thing. They recognized that probably about 20 years before it would be ready to actually be functioning, because that is 

how long it takes; it is not something that can be done overnight. 

And that is, I guess, one of the points I wanted to raise, Mr. 

Chairman. You need lead time for a lot of these projects. And now 

we are running into a situation that, because it is inactive, it may 

not be further authorized. We are working to make sure, in fact, 

it continues. Congress not only authorized it, it is prepared to move 

forward on it. 

But how important is it that we stay on track for Mid-Bay? 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, for Mid-Bay, every port job, every Baltimore 

job adds benefit to the national economy, and there would be substantial job losses and economic impact without this project if the 

dredging of the 50 foot authorized channel depth is delayed due to 

the acceptable dredge material placement site being put online. 

Without Mid-Bay, MPA expects that within 2 to 3 years of the most 

recent dredging event, the 5 foot channel would shoal to a 45 foot 

depth, resulting in the following losses that we calculate: approximately 12,780 direct jobs, $800 million in personal wage and salary 

income, and $656 million in business revenues, and $85 million in 

State and county municipal taxes that would be put at risk if we 

were not able to maintain our 50 foot channel. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you for that. 

Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that Mid-Bay, for the Maryland delegation, bipartisan delegation, this is our top priority, to 

87 

make sure that we stay on track with Mid-Bay for the dredging of 

the Baltimore Harbor. 

You talked a little bit, also, about the double stacking at Howard 

Street. That is somewhat unique, that we have one of the few bottlenecks for double stacked trains through Baltimore. You gave 

numbers. You were ready for an INFRA grant request, and you 

had to pull it because CSX changed their views. That was the 

former CEO, who recently passed away. I take it you strongly support us moving forward if we can get CSX to move forward? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, Senator. Thanks for that question. I think the 

Port of Baltimore, we are very well positioned today, due to our 

public-private partnership that we entered into back in 2010. It 

gave us the ability to expand our Seagirt container terminal. 

And we are big ship ready. We have a very strong consumer market. We have the 50 foot deep channel. We have new container 

berths, new cranes. We have productive labor. The one box that we 

do not check off is the double stacked rail and having that ability 

to grow our cargo volumes through the Port of Baltimore. We estimate with the Howard Street Tunnel coming online, if we were 

successful, that would increase our volumes roughly 100,000 containers annually. They said 6,000 construction jobs during that 

project and another 7,200 jobs linked to the Howard Street activity 

if it is completed. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that Senator 

Harris, who was here a little bit earlier, that the letter from the 

Port of Los Angeles, including two charts, be made part of our 

record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

88 


29591.069
89 


29591.070
90 


29591.071
91 


29591.072
92 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you to you 

and the Ranking Member for convening this hearing. 

Let me ask kind of a specific question, then a broader one. 

I will start with Mr. Spear. 

Good morning. You indicate in your testimony some doubts about 

the INFRA program and its impact on or the consequences in rural 

aspects. That program has a 25 percent set aside, and I wondered 

if you would expand on what we might be concerned or should be 

concerned about when it comes to rural projects. 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, I think prioritization is really pivotal, and the 

last two authorizations reflect that. I think making certain that we 

preserve the 1956 Federal Aid Highway Program that is largely 

centered on distributing funds down to State and localities, those 

States and localities are an integral partnership with the freight 

program priorities, but they are also receiving their funding, as 

well. 

I think what we are seeing, because funding is so strained, that 

everybody is competing for the same type of funds. The 

prioritization of the last two authorizations is helpful, but increasing the funding on top of what has already been done is really 

where we need to see more results I think will occur on the local 

level. 

So I think it is a funding issue. You have the framework in place, 

but putting more money into the programs is what is really going 

to see a lot of results at that level. 

Senator MORAN. I appreciate your highlighting that. What we 

have discovered time and time again is that off system roads and 

bridges, which are so important, particularly in a State like Kansas 

or Oklahoma in getting grain to market, there just is no source of 

any revenue to rebuild, restructure infrastructure that lends itself, 

then, to trucking across the country. Getting it from farm to market has to begin someplace. It is a pretty rural place in the case 

of our State. So, thank you for that reminder. 

My broader question is, I use this as an opportunity to tout 

something that I think is important to the economic well being of 

our country and would have an impact upon all transportation 

modes, and that is NAFTA. The value of our ability to export commodities and manufactured goods across borders, particularly those 

to the north and the south of us, in my view, is a significant component certainly of how we earn a living in Kansas. 

I would highlight that I believe there is a sense out there that 

agriculture, in particular, will always be just fine because Mexico, 

Canada, and others will always want our agricultural commodities. 

I wish that was true. I hope that is true. I think when it comes 

to quality, no one can compete with us. But it is interesting to me 

to see the cost of freight and the differential between our ability 

to get grain to Mexico, as compared to Argentina or even Russia, 

when we use waterways and the Gulf to get grain to Mexico. We 

have a competitive, I don’t know that I would say disadvantage, 

but the competition is great for us to be able to compete economically with grain coming from someplace else being shipped even as 

close to us as our neighbor to the south. 

93 

So, I wanted to give you, first, the opportunity to tell me how, 

if NAFTA went away, what it might mean to the consequences to 

freight and the use of trucks or the use of our waterways, and second, the opportunity to highlight what you have been telling us in 

this hearing, the importance of investment in infrastructure so that 

we can compete in a global economy. 

And that could be you, Mr. Parker; you, Mr. Spear; or anyone. 

But if you could highlight for me the value of trade with Mexico 

and then, second, how important it is to be able to be competitive 

globally as a result of being able to compete with efficient infrastructure. 

Mr. SPEAR. I will quickly answer it. From our perspective in 

trucking, it is absolutely essential. I mean, to tweak or even walk 

away from our obligations under NAFTA since 1994. It is not a 

perfect agreement. Perfect agreements, I don’t believe in that; I 

think there are always imperfections. It is trying to improve it in 

a manner that is reflective of the economy that we are finding ourselves in. But since 1994 trucks now move 76 percent of the 

NAFTA surface freight. Eighty-one percent of the border crossings 

with Mexico are moved by truck; 71 percent with Canada. 

To tweak or walk away from it, we talk about the recession of 

2008, it is not only a recession we would be looking at; it would 

be catastrophic to our economy. I also think our partnerships to the 

north and south, Canada being our largest trade partner in the 

world, would really jeopardize national security. Our ability to 

work with other countries on different levels, trade is an integral 

part of that, beyond the economic benefits. National security benefits, trucks are very much a part of that. We connect all the modes; 

we really make a lot of the freight move through connected means. 

And to walk away from those obligations or to really tweak them 

would have a dramatic effect on every State, including Kansas. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Parker. 

Mr. PARKER. Senator, with or without NAFTA, American agriculture is in intense competition around the world. We know what 

the Brazilians are doing and everything else. And of course, as you 

so correctly stated, our key is our interior infrastructure; our rivers, our rails, our highways, and our ports. 

I think the two things that we could do to make sure that we 

keep American agriculture competitive as it relates to the rivers is 

the policy change I suggested relative to the Inland Waterways 

Trust Fund, General Fund Obligations, and the use fund fee. That 

would be a huge step toward modernizing these aging locks and 

dams and making sure that we can keep American agriculture 

competitive in these world markets. 

The other thing is the Navigation Ecosystem Sustainability Program, NESP as it is frequently referred to, which is on the Upper 

Mississippi River, Illinois River. That is a key component going forward and we would hope that the Congress will direct some steps 

to start that funding to look at changing those locks to 1,200 foot 

locks to help agriculture in that area moving forward. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Parker, thank you very much. We don’t 

have navigable waters in Kansas, at least that I can find, and we 

certainly didn’t find them under WOTUS, but I would say that, as 

94 

a Kansan, we care greatly about those waterways, those locks and 

dams; among several other methods, they are our connection to the 

rest of the world. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Chairman. I welcome the panel and I appreciate, when we have these infrastructure hearings, where the bipartisanship of this panel is so apparent 

and of this Committee is so apparent. 

Mr. Spear, the ATA has taken a position that it would support 

adding a price to gas and diesel to pay for additional highway road 

and related infrastructure; is that correct? 

Mr. SPEAR. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Policinski, does your organization take 

the same position? 

Mr. POLICINSKI. We do in fact support increasing the gas tax. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And one of the reasons for this I take from 

an article titled ATA President Pushes Federal Gas Tax Hike to 

Pay for Infrastructure Plan in which Mr. Spear is quoted as saying, 

‘‘Taxpayers are already paying dearly for the Government’s inaction on fixing our nation’s highways.’’ Could you explain what you 

mean by that? 

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, I do, and your State is a good example, Senator, 

Rhode Island. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We are actually one of the highest cost 

States in terms of car damage from bad road repair that there is 

out there. 

Mr. SPEAR. That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We are coastal and old and so forth. 

Mr. SPEAR. It doesn’t matter how big your State is, everybody is 

feeling it, and at least to the previous questions about States. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, you are referring to the hundreds of 

dollars that consumers have to spend in repairing their vehicles 

from bad roads that have been pretty well documented to this 

point. 

Mr. SPEAR. That is correct. I testified, oral and written, that 

$1,500, on average, per motorist is what they are spending on 

maintenance and congestion fees. States like Rhode Island probably wouldn’t be having to tax Class A trucks to pay for their existing roads and bridges that we have already paid for through taxation. 

So now we are being double dipped to help pay for those roads 

and bridges because the Federal Government is not adequately 

funding the programs that it has created. So that is a problem. In 

contrast, that $340 billion through the 20 cent increase that I testified about, that is, on average, $100 per motorist for a year, per 

year for all roads and bridges in the country. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, by adding a little bit to the cost of fuel, 

you could make an investment in the quality of roads that would 

save far more than the motorist would experience from paying that 

added price in savings to them in wear and tear and damage and 

delay in their vehicles. 

95 

Mr. SPEAR. Absolutely. That $100 extra from the 20 cent tax gives you all $340 billion in new revenue in the first 10 years for 

roads and bridges. You go out here to I–66, one way, 1 day on one 

road, they are now hitting you at $44 just to go a few miles. You 

have almost paid half of what you pay for a year through the taxation on the 20 cents we are talking about for all roads and 

bridges. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. While we are talking about roads and 

bridges and highways, let me ask you guys. We have seen that a 

lot of freight goes through Rhode Island, in and out of Rhode Island 

by rail, and it goes in and out by highway; I–95 goes right along 

the coast through Rhode Island. In Sandy, we saw I–95 closed because it was flooded, and we have seen flooding of the Amtrak rail 

system. Particularly in Connecticut it is very, very high risk from 

sea level rise and from storm surge. 

Let me ask you guys, how alert do we need to be to the sea level 

rise and storm surge effects on coastal infrastructure? 

Chris or Mark, Mr. Spear or Mr. Policinski. 

Go ahead, Mr. Spear, let me ask you first. 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, I think it is certainly a concern. As infrastructure ages, you have to maintain it, but you also have to add to it. 

I mean, the economy demands it because of the demands that are 

on our industry. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And if it faces new risks, we should prepare for the new risks, correct? 

Mr. SPEAR. Absolutely. As freight increases, you have to add infrastructure, shore it up. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Policinski. 

Mr. POLICINSKI. There is no way you can look at the fact that you 

just stated and say we shouldn’t be prepared. We have to be prepared. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So, let me turn to Mr. Thomas and our 

ports representative. First of all, let me thank you for the Port of 

Baltimore’s participation in the North Atlantic Ports Association 

and your support for the marine planning efforts that help keep 

our ports efficient. 

And I would like to have their letter made an exhibit in this proceeding, if I may. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

96 


29591.073
97 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Thomas, what we have heard from 

Norfolk Naval Station is that sea level rise is imperiling the very 

existence of that base, and that even if you raise the piers as the 

sea levels rise, it is really hard to go back and raise all the infrastructure behind the piers; the schools, the houses, the roads, the 

markets. It is an ecosystem, an economic ecosystem, and the military is now predicting that Norfolk Naval Station may be out of 

business in just a few decades. 

What is the lesson from this for our ports, our commercial ports 

like yours? 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you for that question and the recognition 

with NAPA. I was just able to attend the annual NAPA, meeting 

and it is on all ports’ radar screens with how they are going to deal 

with sea level rise. And I can tell you the Maryland Port Administration, we have begun development of a port resiliency program 

for climate change that incorporates a 2010 vulnerability assessment for all of our port infrastructures. 

So, currently, all port infrastructures that we build, new builds 

now, we have raised. We are at a plus 10, so we have raised it 2 

feet above current elevations. Our newest automobile port at Fairfield Marine Terminal was built at plus 10, taking into consideration what the studies are showing us with sea level rise. It is a 

real thing. 

Our newest project that we are working on now is at Dundalk 

Marine Terminal. We have rehabilitation of three berths there as 

well that we are going to raise to 10 feet. And to your point, you 

can raise the berth to 10 feet, but what happens behind it? So 

those are the things that we are struggling with now. We have a 

couple strategies. We are constructing stormwater vaults—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I think out of courtesy to my colleagues, 

I should cut you off there. If you want to fill out your answer a little bit further, I more than welcome you to do it in writing. But 

we are now a minute over and there are other colleagues waiting, 

so, if you will forgive me, I will defer to my other colleagues. But 

I appreciate it, Mr. Thomas. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Shelby. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to submit the bio of Tim 

Parker, who is testifying here, and ask that it be made part of the 

record. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

Senator SHELBY. I have a few observations here. I believe that 

the infrastructure, the ports, the intermodal centers, the river systems, the locks, everything that goes with it, our highways are at 

a critical time that we have to do something here in the Congress 

about. If we don’t, we are going to cripple our economy, I believe, 

down the road. You have to move things. Everybody here knows 

this. You have to move freight. That is the key to it, whether it is 

through the oceans, in our ports, through the river systems, 

through the trucks, through the railroads. It works together. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe, and I have talked with you about this 

before, and a lot of them, this is ripe for a bipartisan infrastructure 

bill. It is going to cost money, and we have to figure it out, and 

98 

we can’t think small; we have to think big, as Chairman Inhofe has 

for years. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me interrupt you at this point and share 

what I have shared with you with this Committee. We have already been doing this. 

Senator SHELBY. I know. 

Senator INHOFE. We have been over to the Democrat side; we 

have had private meetings on the floor. And we have been successful in the past. 

Senator SHELBY. Absolutely. 

Senator INHOFE. In these areas, as well as the WRRDA bills. 

This will continue. 

Senator SHELBY. It is ripe for a bipartisan push right now, I believe, Mr. Chairman, and so forth. 

Now, I would like to focus. I was very interested in the Port of 

Baltimore, which is very important to Senator Cardin and Mr. 

Thomas talking about. You are 50 feet deep, I understand, is that 

right? 

Mr. THOMAS. Yes, sir. 

Senator SHELBY. That is optimal. In Mobile, in Alabama, we are 

45 feet, and we are trying to go to 50. If we go to 50, we will be 

one of the deepest ports on the Gulf. Everybody knows, and you 

spoke for it, what that means for the port, what it means for Baltimore on the East Coast and what it could mean for Mobile, Alabama, which is a busy port moving toward, more and more, like a 

freight of the world container. We used to be mainly a commodity, 

shipping commodities in and out, and we still do that. Most ports 

do. 

Mr. Parker, what is your observation? You have been chairman 

of the Port Authority; you and your family have been in the barge 

business a long time, transportation on water. You speak for the 

Water Council. How important is the modernization, all of it, highways, but speaking of the Port of Mobile, to the southeast and to 

the State of Alabama? 

Mr. PARKER. Senator, it is critical, as you can imagine, not only 

for our balance of trade deficit, helping our export products move, 

but keeping our industrial plants competitive, modern as they 

bring raw materials in. 

You have championed the Port of Mobile and the deepening 

project there, and we know the benefits, as all ports do. Deeper 

drafts means lower ocean freight rates, more competitive products 

moving in and out. So, I applaud you for what you have done, and 

hopefully we will keep pushing in that direction and get that deeper channel. 

Senator SHELBY. On behalf of the Truckers Association, I think 

a lot of your remarks have been spot on, but we all, whether it is 

Rhode Island, whether it is Alabama, whether it is New York, 

whether it is California, we are facing the same challenges, are we 

not, sir? 

Mr. SPEAR. Absolutely, Senator. Mobile, Baltimore. I was just up 

at the New Jersey-New York Port Authority giving a talk, and we 

were talking about how they have deepened and modernized technology and so on. They have really made that port very efficient. 

99 

But if you can’t move the boxes on the trucks, it doesn’t matter 

how much money you invest in the port. 

Senator SHELBY. That is right. 

Mr. SPEAR. Doesn’t matter. So that intermodal connectivity is absolutely pivotal. That is what the heat maps I put in the testimony 

is to illustrate that it doesn’t stop right there. Those trucks, those 

rails, those things go well beyond that port into many States, and 

the economy reflects that. The price of goods that we pay will reflect that. So, to the earlier point that Mr. Parker made, it is absolutely paramount to invest. 

Senator SHELBY. The health of the economy is based on efficiency 

in the marketplace, isn’t it? 

Mr. SPEAR. Absolutely. 

Senator SHELBY. And transportation is so essential to moving 

goods and services. 

I thank all of you. I think we have gotten something out of this. 

I am a junior member of this Committee. I am on a lot of others, 

so I came on this Committee because I believe that we are going 

to do an infrastructure bill, that we need it desperately, and I want 

to work with the Chairman and Ranking on all of this. We have 

to do it and we have to do it soon, have we not, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. We do. 

Senator SHELBY. Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Shelby. 

Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I want to thank the Chair and Ranking 

Member for convening today’s hearing, and I want to thank our 

witnesses for participating in this very important conversation. 

Mr. Chairman, transporting freight efficiently and effectively is 

the linchpin of a prosperous economy. Few States play a greater 

role in our national freight system than my home State of Illinois. 

It is the epicenter of our rail network and our inland waterways 

system. To compete in a 21st century global marketplace, we must 

consider our transportation system as a competitive advantage. 

Unfortunately, this advantage is rapidly eroding. 

Mr. Policinski, broadly speaking, do you agree with the American 

Society of Civil Engineers that the United States has somewhere 

in the ballpark of about $2 trillion in infrastructure investment gap 

over the next 10 years? 

Mr. POLICINSKI. Not only do I agree with it, but I hope that people would shout it from the rooftops over and over again. It is a 

driving force. The need is so great. We can’t look the other way. 

In comments that Senator Shelby made about a bipartisan approach, it is very important to the country that we do this, not just 

economically solving this problem, but the idea that Congress can 

come together and address such an important issue that has such 

a direct impact on jobs is something that we cannot just turn from. 

The steps that this Committee has made and Congress has made 

to put freight forward have been dramatic and very important, but 

our job isn’t done. People often say, well, we have to do more on 

freight because there will be 70 more million Americans by the 

year 2045. Well, there will be 2 billion more people on this earth 

in 2045, and those people will be residing in countries and econoVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:14 Apr 19, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\29591.TXT SONYA
100 

mies that will be competing for our businesses, for our jobs, for our 

income. 

So, the idea that we have a shortfall in how we fund our freight 

program, how we fund our highways and our ports is a dramatic 

statistic, and we cannot look away from it because literally freight 

is the future. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. Thank you. I couldn’t agree 

with you more. Mr. Parker, with that $2 trillion gap, would you agree that our inland waterways system requires somewhere $110 billion over 10 

years to rebuild our locks, levees, and dams? 

Mr. PARKER. Well, these are fuel taxes that we pay. We generate about $110 million, $115 million per year, which is matched right 

now. So, we need to continue that. But if we do the policy change 

we talk about, we can get back to a $400 million per year program. 

That will go a long way to getting our locks and dams, particularly 

our older locks and dams modernized, up to date, and make sure 

that we keep the industry in Illinois competitive in world markets. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I couldn’t agree with you more. In fact, 

speaking to what my colleague, Senator Moran, mentioned, we had 

bumper crops the last several years in Illinois, but the southeastern United States bought corn and soybean from Brazil because they could get their crops into the United States faster than 

we could move crops down to Mississippi from Iowa and Illinois, 

and we still have silos that are filled with grain. My concern is that the President has secured, now, a $1.5 trillion 

tax cut that is geared toward large corporations and the ultrawealthy. I hope that we can finally see the details of his plan to 

rebuild our aging infrastructure. Unfortunately, the President and 

his allies prioritize the trickle down shell game over building up 

the middle class through the proven economic engine of infrastructure investment, and this is, to me, a really disturbing trend. 

Mr. Spear, your testimony suggests that the President’s budget, a roadmap of his policy priorities that cuts $150 billion from transportation spending, is misguided as it relates to infrastructure investment. 

Mr. SPEAR. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is misguided. It is 

certainly inconsistent with what we have been advocating. We go 

big, we go bold, and we are willing to pay more. We are already 

paying half the tab into the trust fund as the trucking industry, 

and we are only 4 percent of the vehicles on the road. But when 

you are moving 70 percent of the domestic freight in this country, 

that is our backyard. You invest in your backyard. That is our 

plant, so to speak. So, having good roads and bridges reduces the 

amount of maintenance, it reduces congestion costs. These are all 

measurable returns for raising the fuel tax. It hasn’t been done 

since 1993. Had it been indexed, we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now. 

And the lack of funding coming down to the States and localities 

to connect all the modes and to address the economic demand, 

States are picking up the slack, and they are doing a lot of things 

that are destructive to our industry. They impede our ability to 

grow and embrace interstate commerce and really serve consumers 

the way we would expect. 

101 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

In my last 12 seconds, I just want to say that during the campaign, President Trump repeatedly suggested that repatriating 

overseas corporate revenue could pay for robust infrastructure investments, and unfortunately, those revenues were exclusively 

used to buy down the corporate tax rate in this new tax bill and 

zero repatriate dollars would actually be set aside for infrastructure, and there is about $1 trillion there. 

The Republican tax bill also preserved a loophole that allows 

hedge fund and private equity managers to pay capital gains rates 

on their carried interest, which President Trump repeatedly 

pledged to eliminate. Responsible reforms that close this loophole 

would generate enough revenue to rehab every lock on the inland 

water system twice. 

Adding insult to injury, President Trump reportedly will rely on 

budget cuts to pay for his infrastructure proposal, cuts that will 

hurt Illinois families and businesses. 

So, to summarize, despite all the rhetoric, the President and his 

allies did nothing to plan for infrastructure investment in their 

budgets; in fact, they cut infrastructure spending by almost $200 

billion. Their trickle down tax bill does nothing to build up infrastructure. And now the President plans to pay for his proposal on 

the backs of hardworking Illinois families while preserving handouts for Wall Street. 

I hope we can dispense with shell games next year. Forty-four 

million jobs rely on our freight transportation network. We need to 

roll up our sleeves and get serious about how we are going to invest in our infrastructure and grow our economy, because countries 

we are competing against, like South Korea and Japan and China, 

they are making these investments and we are not, and we are 

going to get left behind when we should be dominating the world. 

So, with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

We will now hear from my partner in the McClellan-Kerr Navigation Way, Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Speaking of that, Senator Inhofe mentioned the importance of 

that system and the wear and tear on the locks and dams, and he 

has been a tremendous champion, and we really do appreciate. The 

State of Arkansas really does appreciate your leadership in that 

area. 

Sometimes I don’t think we are very smart in the way that we 

do things. Arkansas now has a 9 foot channel. We would very much 

like to go to 12 feet. We can do that with a relatively inexpensive 

expenditure. Certainly, that would make less openings, less wear 

and tear on the locks and dams in the sense you can carry about 

40 percent more product on the same barge. 

Can you talk a little bit about that, just the importance of really 

thinking through these things, the importance of trying to get a situation where we can take the dollars that we have and spend those 

most efficiently? 

Mr. PARKER. Well, you are absolutely right, Senator; a more efficient system, whether it is loading barges deeper or bigger locks or 

more efficient locks that lessen maintenance, that will help the 

102 

whole system lower freight costs, make American agriculture, our 

industrial plants, steel mills, coal mines more competitive in the 

markets they have to serve. So, I think there are a lot of things 

we can do, and we appreciate the leadership that this Congress has 

and this Committee has with the last WRRDA bill. And if we can 

enact policy changes like we have talked about this morning, I am 

confident that the Corps of Engineers, given the resources, can 

manage these projects and effectively move this country forward. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I was going to talk about the importance of 

the intermodal system, and the good news is you have heard from 

every member in the panel regarding that. Democrats, Republicans 

are united in getting our systems such that they work together, 

and that is so, so very important to our economy. 

Mr. Spear, let’s talk about some specific things. I understand 

now that there is a significant shortage in truck parking spaces. 

Can you talk a little bit about that and if there is anything that 

we can help you with in that regard? What is the solution? 

Mr. SPEAR. It is a shortage. Within the last 5 to 7 years we have 

really begun to do a lot of research to capture the problem, and it 

is reflected on the lack of investment in our infrastructure. While 

we are maintaining a lot of the infrastructure, we are not adding 

more infrastructure. 

We are also adding a lot of regulatory requirements on our industry. One of them is the 30 minute rest break that came into effect in 2013. So now you have drivers, for good reasons, so that 

they are not fatigued, pulling over on shoulders, on on- and offramps, in undesignated places, putting themselves, their equipment, and the motoring public in jeopardy. That is elevating risk. 

The infrastructure simply does not accommodate the truck parking situation, yet we are requiring these drivers to be rested. So, 

it is a reflection. It is a regulation, it is an indirect, but it has an 

impact on our industry and the movement of freight. Because we 

are not investing to expand infrastructure, this is what you get. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Very good. You mentioned increasing the fuel 

tax as a pay-for. Have you got any other ideas besides that that 

we could delve into? 

Mr. SPEAR. We definitely do. In the written testimony, I go into 

greater detail, but registration fees. States already collect them, so 

there is a very low administrative burden, that is $29 billion in 

extra money in addition to the $340 billion in new moneys over the 

first 10 years you would receive in the 20 cent at the rack. 

We look for other ways to work with Congress and other modes 

to raise revenue, particularly for connectivity. We put some criteria 

in the testimony to be certain that it is consistent, whatever policy, 

to make certain that it is inexpensive to pay and collect, that it has 

a low evasion rate, that it be tied to highway use, not diverted to 

other causes, especially if we are paying into it. That is a sensitive 

point with our industry and in avoiding creating impediments to 

interstate commerce. So those criteria we would apply to any proposal. We would entertain anything that Congress puts on the 

table. Meeting those criterias, we would shape our support around 

that. 

We recognize that the fuel tax is antiquated, and probably beyond 10 years it is not going to capture the environment we are 

103 

in. So, we would challenge Congress to really look beyond a 10 year 

bill and start talking about, now, what we are going to do to collect 

fees to fund future infrastructure. You are going to have a lot more 

hybrids, a lot more alternative fuel vehicles on the road in the next 

10, 20, 30 years, and the way that we raise revenue is currently 

not capturing that audience, and it is just going to make the problem worse. 

So, we would work with you to identify new means to raise revenue, but our Build America Fund is our centerpiece, and we think 

it is the wisest, most efficient, cost effective, lower than 2 percent 

administrative cost to put money into roads and bridges immediately, so that is what we would advocate. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Very quickly, Mr. Parker, we went without the big water resources bill, the WRDA bill, from 2007 to 2014. Can you talk about 

the importance of getting the WRRDA bills done on a 2 year cycle 

so that we don’t get ourselves in that situation again? 

Mr. PARKER. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I think it is critically important that we are not constantly playing catch up; we stay ahead 

of the curve, we do the proper planning, do the studies, the chief 

reports done. So, I think that 2 year cycle is just critical in this 

whole process so we can look ahead and adapt to the changes and 

just not playing behind the curve, so to speak. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Spear, I would like to ask you some questions relating to an 

important safety issue that I have been working on, preventing 

underride crashes. An underride crash is when a car slides under 

the body of a large truck, such as a semi-trailer, during an accident. When these accidents happen, a car’s safety features are not 

able to protect passengers because most of the car slides under the 

trailer and the truck crashes straight through the windows and 

into passengers. The passengers in their car often suffer severe 

head and neck injuries, including decapitation, on impact with the 

truck. These accidents are fatal even at low speeds. 

This past summer, four individuals were killed when their car 

slid underneath a disabled milk tanker that had swerved to avoid 

a deer in New York State. Two cars crashed into the truck and continued to slide completely under the truck. All four people were 

pronounced dead at the scene. 

I recently introduced a bill to require trailers to be fitted with 

underride guards so that the car could no longer slide underneath 

the truck during an accident. Are you aware that the National 

Transportation Safety Board has recommended that trucks be 

equipped with side guards and improved rear guards since 2014? 

Mr. SPEAR. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And are you aware that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety petitioned the U.S. Department of 

Transportation to require stronger rear guards on trucks after 

studying how guards that comply with the current Federal regulations often fail and result in serious injury or death? 

104 

Mr. SPEAR. I am, Senator. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And are you aware that the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety performed a successful side underride 

guard at 40 miles per hour? 

Mr. SPEAR. I am, Senator. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And would providing a weight exemption 

for the weight of adding an underride guard make it easier for industry to add this safety measure? 

Mr. SPEAR. Most definitely, Senator. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. And do you think this is a safety measure 

we should push forward with? 

Mr. SPEAR. I wouldn’t dismiss it. And I applaud you. One fatality 

is too many. Forty thousand a year is just inexcusable. We need to 

be doing more. One area that I would ask that you press NTSA on 

at DOT is to speed up their analysis of this and report back on the 

weight, the added weight of the underride guard to be sure that it 

does not compromise the integrity of the trailer itself. 

We are talking about 80,000 pounds in these trailers. You are 

adding more weight underneath it. You don’t want to be trying to 

solve a safety problem by creating another one. So, I would very 

much like to have that report, that data back that validates that 

the added weight of the underguards would not compromise the integrity of the trailer itself. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I think the weight is not that much. I think 

it is about 800 pounds a panel. So relative to the overall weight, 

it is not a lot. And from what I understand, the only opposition was 

because it just means they carry less freight. So, they are putting 

money in front of safety. 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, your exemption is appreciated. 

Well, I think it would also add to the cost of the requirement. 

If you are saying that we have to reduce freight to pay for the 

added weight of the underguards, that is going to be a massive figure. We are talking millions of trailers, so that is a big number. 

So, I think the exemption is well taken. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. If cost is the only issue, those are the kinds 

of things Congress can address. 

Mr. SPEAR. Well, I am saying that the added weight, making certain it does not compromise the integrity of the trailer, if it is not 

a problem, then why not report on it? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. OK. 

Mr. SPEAR. Thank you. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Separate topic. With regard to highway infrastructure, leasing highway infrastructure to private entities, in 

your opinion, who would benefit from selling or leasing our highway infrastructure to private entities? 

Mr. SPEAR. That is really hard to say. Certainly not my industry, 

and certainly not the American people. We are 7.4 million strong. 

We are 1 in 16 jobs in the U.S., and we are the top job in 29 States. 

We are paying half the tab into the trust fund, and we are moving 

70 percent of the freight. If we did the 20 cents on the gallon at 

the rack, that is $340 billion in extra money that you all can spend 

on these priorities, on the great framework that you put together. 

We are paying half the tab, and we are willing to pay more. I 

think that is the best means of doing it. We believe that tolling, 

105 

particularly on existing roads and bridges, these schemes are extortion. They are double dipping. When we are happy to pay more, 

and we are offering it up here, I would recommend you take that; 

that is a good deal. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cardin, do you have any further comments to make? 

Senator CARDIN. I just want to thank the panel. I think this has 

been an extremely important hearing, and I just would underscore 

the point that Senator Shelby made and I think our witnesses, that 

we have to find a bipartisan way to get the revenues we need in 

a package that will allow us to move forward with infrastructure 

in this country, and we have to do that in the tradition of this 

Committee. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I thank you, and let me just give the 

panel our assurance that is going to happen. I can remember during the last year, year before last, when we would have our meetings, when I would report on what this Committee is doing, I would 

always say, now from the Committee that really does things. And 

we are going to continue to be the Committee that really does 

things. 

It has been very helpful to have all of your input in this Committee. We thank you very much for coming. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

106 


29591.074
107 


29591.075
108 

Æ 


29591.076