[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] PORT DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT AT THE PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH ======================================================================= (110-160) FIELD HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ AUGUST 4, 2008 (Long Beach, CA) __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ---------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43-963 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 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 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr., HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland (ii) SUBCOMMITTEE ON COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington DON YOUNG, Alaska CORRINE BROWN, Florida HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina BRIAN HIGGINS, New York WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland BRIAN BAIRD, Washington FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York, Vice TED POE, Texas Chair JOHN L. MICA, Florida LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California (Ex Officio) JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio) (iii) CONTENTS Page Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii TESTIMONY Filner, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of California..................................................... 5 Knatz, Geraldine, Executive Director, Port of Los Angeles........ 20 Loveridge, Hon. Ronald, Mayor, City of Riverside, California..... 11 Mack, Charles, Director, Port Division, International Brotherhood of Teamsters................................................... 38 Napolitano, Hon. Grace, a Representative in Congress from the State of California............................................ 6 Pettit, David, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council 38 Rohrabacher, Hon. Dana, a Representative in Congress from the State of California............................................ 4 Solis, Hon. Hilda, a Representative in Congress from the State of California..................................................... 7 Steinke, Richard D., Executive Director, Port of Long Beach...... 20 Warren, Elizabeth, Executive Director, Futureports............... 38 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................ 55 Richardson, Hon. Laura A., of California......................... 66 PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES Knatz, Geraldine................................................. 115 Loveridge, Ronald O.............................................. 128 Mack, Chuck...................................................... 133 Pettit, David.................................................... 139 Steinke, Richard................................................. 159 Warren, Elizabeth................................................ 166 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Richardson, Hon. Laura A., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, collection of public comments for the record......................................................... 71 ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD American Import Shippers Association, Hubert Wiesenmaier, Executive Director, written statement.......................... 177 Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors, Sharon Neely, member, written statement............................... 181 Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, written statement............ 187 Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference, Curtis Whalen, Executive Director, written statement.................................... 196 International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Joe Radisich, International Vice President, written statement................ 225 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Roger Snoble, Chief Executive Officer; Orange County Transportation Authority, Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer; Riverside County Transportation Commission, Anne Mayer, Executive Director; San Bernardino Associated Governments, Deborah Barmack, Executive Director; Southern California Association of Governments, Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director; Ventura County Transportation Commission, Darren Kettle, Executive Director, joint agency statement......................................... 228 National Retail Federation, written statement.................... 264 Retail Industry Leaders Association and the California Retail Association, joint written statement........................... 292 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] HEARING ON PORT DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT AT THE PORTS OF LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH ---------- Monday, August 4, 2008 House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Long Beach, CA. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:00 p.m., in Port of Long Beach Administration Building, 64 Board Room, 925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach, California, Hon. Elijah Cummings [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representative Cummings and Richardson. Also Present: Representatives Solis, Napolitano, Filner and Rohrabacher. Ms. Richardson. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chairman of the Subcommittee, Congressman Elijah Cummings, is on his way from San Francisco, where he just commissioned the Coast Guard's newest cutter, the Bertholf. Unfortunately, his plane has been delayed but he is en route. We anticipate his arrival shortly, but he asked us to begin the hearing, and therefore I will convene the hearing at this time. I ask unanimous consent for his entire statement to be submitted for the record, and without objection, it is so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Bob Filner and Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, Members of the Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure, may sit on the Subcommittee of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation and participate in this hearing. Without objection, it is so ordered. Also, I ask unanimous consent that Congresswoman Hilda Solis and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher may sit with the Subcommittee today and participate in this hearing. Without objection, it is so ordered. Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, let me say thank you for all of you being here today. It is quite an exciting time for us all to be here, to talk about, I think, one of the most important subjects that is facing this particular region today. You might hear us give some very formal things. This is an official congressional hearing, and therefore, we have to abide by the rules and regulations, without any exceptions, and we ask for your due diligence in that matter. I am going to begin with my opening statement as the Chair. However, I am waiting for a document of individuals that I would like to introduce, who are here present, and to acknowledge them appropriately. First of all, let me say thank you to Congresswoman Hilda Solis, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Congress Bob Filner, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, for being here and participating in this hearing today on the port development and the environment at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Sitting here today, surrounded by the United States' largest port complex, including both the Port of Los Angeles, we are provided with a unique insight on the daily operational challenges associated with providing goods in a quick and efficient manner to America and abroad. The ports' impact on the local, regional and national economies is extensive, to say the least. As you will hear in the testimonies today, these two ports move 45 percent--let me repeat that again--45 percent of the entire Nation's cargo moves through these two ports, with an overall value, from year to year, at a staggering number of $250 billion. As a former member of the City Council and State Assembly for the last six years, it became blatantly obvious that the infrastructure that supports this amazing strong economy is aging, it is deficient, and it is unable to meet the current demands of projected growth. In light of these facts, both the local organizations, the two ports that we have here, who will testify today, on the state level, State Senator Lowenthal, and now several federal proposals that are being considered, it became incumbent upon me, as a Member of the Transportation Committee, to make sure that we held this hearing today. As a Member of that Committee, it is important for us to ensure that any discussions of fees that would be collected, we need to, number one, validate the need for the fee, and I think that is going to be very clear today. We have to understand the implication of who pays for that fee, where the fees should be expended, and then I think, most importantly, we need to make sure that there are mechanisms in place, that we continue to have the public's trust. That where we say fees will be collected and how they will be used, we have to ensure that those proper mechanisms are there, so that we can maintain that trust. It is of great concern to this Committee that container fees could be applied on the local, state and federal level, with no coordination and negatively impacting the goods movement industry and the affordability of products. It would not make sense, and I think most would agree, to have three different proposals. So we applaud what the port has already done. We also understand that the governor is looking very seriously at the state senate bill, and then you have, as I said earlier, federal proposals as well. So it would be our hope, as Members of this Committee, to make sure we are all working in conjunction and not causing these negative impacts. Given the rising prices for fuel and the dwindling amount of revenue coming in from the federal gas tax, all levels of Government, including Congress, must examine new and creative ways of raising required capital to expand America's bridges, roadways, rail, while improving transportation efficiency and capacity. As Congress, we are the true keepers of the interstate commerce. It is our responsibility to evaluate new solutions in this 110th Congress and beyond. I applaud Chairmen Cummings and Oberstar for allowing us to come directly into the community where we are really being impacted, to get the input, and to make sure that the correct decisions are made. With that, I would like to, before I yield to my colleagues, acknowledge a few of the Members who are here, that rightly deserve introduction. For the city of Long Beach, we have four of the harbor commissioners who are here present. Our president of the Harbor Commission. Please welcome Mr. Jim Hankla. Next we have a dear friend, Mr. Mike Walter, who is also a professor at Cal State Long Beach. Welcome, Mr. Walter. Next we have our former president, who really I think many would say was an integral part of birthing what we call today the Green Port, here, in Long Beach. Please welcome, also attorney, Mr. Mario Cordero. And finally, our newest Member of the team who is here, one of our harbor commissioners. Why this gentleman is so critical is that he lives on the west side, directly where a lot of this activity and cargo goes. He is the neighborhood's conscience. Please welcome Mr. Nick Sramek. For the Port of Los Angeles, we have one of our commissioners who is here. I have known him for quite a few years. I also consider him a dear friend and an advocate, not only on behalf of the port, but also on the working people who move the cargo. He is a member of ILWU but today, he is in the capacity of an LA commissioner. Please welcome Joe Radisich. And finally, although we have many organizations, and we appreciate all of you being here, I have one other elected official who I would like to acknowledge we have with us today. She is our Long Beach vice mayor, here, in the city of Long Beach, but she is also our nominee for the California state legislature, and I am sure many of the things that she will hear today, she will incorporate as she moves forward as well. Please welcome Ms. Bonnie Lowenthal. With that, just a few little housekeeping. Because this is an official hearing, we will not be able to accept testimony from the audience. However, you should all have in your package a piece of paper where you can submit your questions, or your comments. That will be submitted into the record and we will make sure that it will be dealt with appropriately. With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman on my left, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher. STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, first of all, I would like to congratulate Laura on just a terrific job of getting us here and making sure that this official hearing took place. Laura has only been in Congress for a short period of time but her influence has been felt, and I can tell you that we have established a terrific working relationship, a bipartisan relationship that will be put to good use for the people of this area, and for the United States of America. So thank you very much for the hard work that you have put in, which this represents. As to the subject today, all of us on this panel have an interest in making sure that we have the policies in place that will be best for our country in terms of international trade and what goes on in our ports. A container fee, which is what we are focusing on today, will provide the needed resources to clear truck-related traffic congestion off of our freeways, to save fuel that is totally wasted, which comes directly from that overcongested freeway traffic, and let us note that to pay for a new system that will get rid of the trucks, and a new system that actually ends the wastefulness of fuel that the trucks waste, as well as the pollution that goes into the air--that new system is not just some kind of a dream. We know now, as Laura said, that there are 45 percent of the containers that come into the United States come in through these ports, and a large percentage of those containers go directly on our road system, and that means the congestion, that means the waste of fuel in that congestion, and the health-related cost to the people who live there. That can be fixed. This is not, as I say, an impossible dream. But we need the resources, and the resources are available through what? Through a container fee which is basically a user fee. We are asking those manufacturers, either Americans or foreign manufacturers, the Americans, many American capitalists have gone overseas, closed up their companies here and gone overseas to set up a production unit,while it is only fair for those people overseas and manufacturers overseas, that they pay all of the expenses related to manufacturing their product and transporting their product. What we have had now is a subsidy by the taxpayers of those people who are manufacturing overseas, by providing them these great facilities and the roads. And the worst subsidy of all is a health subsidy by the people who live in the inland areas where these trucks are going through and spitting out this pollution. It is possible to build a system that will be clean and take the congestion off of our roads, and will pay for itself, based on this user fee, container fee concept, and I am looking forward to working with my colleagues here today in making sure that we move forward and get this job done. We can do it, and we will do it, and this is the first great public step, and I salute you, Laura, for being the mastermind behind it, and I pledge myself to be working with you, and remember, the full cost of change and making it better--we are not going to have to raise taxes, we just charge those people who are using the system. That is fair to us and it is really fair to them as well. So thank you very much. I am looking forward to the testimony. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. I was remiss in not properly recognizing you. He has been a Member of Congress for 18 years, a Member of the Oversight, International Relations and Science Committee, a special assistant to Reagan, and oh, by the way, attended Cal State Long Beach. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Next, I would like to introduce--in Congress a lot is by order and seniority and all of that. So next in line for me to introduce is Representative Bob Filner. Mr. Filner came to Congress in 1992. He represents an area down in San Diego. He has been in Congress for 16 years, started off in local government, a doctor himself, was a professor, Chair of the Veterans Affairs, and most importantly today, a Member of the T&I Committee. Mr. Filner. STATEMENT OF THE HON. BOB FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Filner. Thank you, Congresswoman Richardson, and thank you for bringing us all together. Ms. Richardson has only been with us, one of our newest Members, having come in a special election. But we have learned already, you don't say no to Laura Richardson. When she says be here--I said, well, I don't know about my schedule, so she gave me a plane schedule to get me here. So she takes charge. I am not supposed to do this as someone who is representing the Port of San Diego, but I want to say we admire what you are doing here. In fact, we want some of the business! We are very impressed with the San Pedro ports plan, and want to learn what you are doing, what you have done, of course, at a time when the Federal Government Trust Funds are diminishing rapidly. In Washington, we even hear there are some problems with the budget in Sacramento, and what you decided to do is take things into your own hands, from a local point of view, and solve your local problems. As Rohrabacher and I never agree on anything, but I see a user's fee is one thing that we can agree on. So thank you for educating all of us, but helping us become leaders for ports all over the country. You know, when Mr. Cummings gets here, he represents the Baltimore port. I represent the San Diego port. You have got some inland people who are part of the inland port concept, and of course Mr. Rohrabacher represents Long Beach also. So we are here to learn and we are here to extend this to a wider area. Thank you, Congresswoman Richardson. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Filner. Next, we have Representative Grace Napolitano. Ms. Napolitano came to Congress in 1998. She represents the Los Angeles Norwalk area, and really is one of my mentors on the Transportation Committee. Well-known in the state legislature for her leadership regarding international trade, she is a Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as well as Natural Resources. Please welcome--and I would be remiss, I would like to acknowledge her grandson is in the audience, Nick, who came to learn a little bit about what grandma and her buddies do. Thank you. Please welcome Ms. Napolitano. STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Laura. It is really a pleasure. I am from the Norwalk area, and have been in local government for a long time. I know the area. I have been in this area for almost 48 years. I understand some of the issues that have happened, and I was one of the original assembly members on the Alameda Corridor when we were holding hearings to set it up, and we had hoped by now there would have been a lot more of the improvement that we expected to take the trucks off the freeway, but coming down 710, that has not happened. As we look at what has happened, the growth of the ports, the importance of the economy to the State of California, and the rest of the Nation--and believe me, folks, in Washington, they are beginning to get the idea that if they want on-time delivery for the product, they are going to help us do something about some of the issues of transportation. That is something that is long-fought for, and currently, they understand that if we ``get our act together,'' and are able to provide on-time delivery, they win. Their businesses win. It is not only economy but at whose cost, and cause I come from Norwalk and I go all the way to Pomona. Well, Alameda Corridor is doing well but Alameda Corridor East is not doing so well. The infrastructure is still in need of repair. The social and economic impact, the environmental impact is such, that out of the 54 grade separations from East Los Angeles to Pomona, only twenty are scheduled to be separated, which means that the other 34 are going to have an economic, environmental and safety impact on my whole district, cause it is a long snake from East LA to Pomona. And unfortunately, we want to ensure that as we are talking about container fees, as we are talking about being able to help the area, they don't forget those that are in the middle and take the brunt of a lot of that transportation going through our areas. We support much of what is being touted. We want to ensure that Bob Filner doesn't end up with a lot of the port traffic out in the San Diego area. We want to keep it where it is, but we want to ensure not only that you have the best methodology, the infrastructure, the technology. And at whose cost? We want to ensure it is not the taxpayer again, paying for that. You need it, we want to help make sure that we work collaboratively, with the county, state and other officials, so that we can get this done. Right now, about 160 trains go through my district. That's expected to double by 2020. That is one train in my district every 10 minutes. Guys, I don't think you would want to live anywhere near where you don't have much access to be able to cross some of those streets. What we want to ensure is that we consider everything, that people are allowed on the table, and that those that are benefiting, as was pointed out before, are at the table putting in their fair share. We don't want to lose them to any other country, to any other state, to anybody else, but we certainly want to ensure that we protect those that we represent, including the families of most of you who live in the district. So with that, Laura, thank you very much. I do sit on Transportation, three Subcommittees, Highway, Rail, and Water. So you know I have a great interest in this. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Ms. Napolitano. Next we have to introduce Congresswoman Hilda Solis. Congresswoman Solis came to the Congress in 2000. She represents the Los Angeles area and has been with us for eight years. She also had a local government background. She, in addition to local government, served in the state assembly from 1992 to 1994, and then quickly moved no to the California state senate before she came here to Congress. She serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Natural Resources, has had a long history of commitment to our environment, women, health, and immigration. Cal State Poly Pomona, and is also a USC graduate. A part of the Carter administration. Please welcome Congresswoman Hilda Solis. STATEMENT OF THE HON. HILDA SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ms. Solis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to my colleagues for inviting me, and also a special thanks to, of course, the Port of Long Beach for hosting this very important meeting. It is exciting to be here because this is a issue that we know is not going to go away, and I know we are going to be uniquely involved because transportation, passing cargo along from one city to another, and to its final destination impacts all of us. But I think it is very important to underscore what the title of this special hearing is, and it is on the port development and the environment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And I am particularly concerned about marine vessels and locomotives since we know that they are the largest unregulated source emitting more nitrogen oxides than all of the refineries, all of the power plants, and 350 other largest stationary sources in the South Coast Basin alone. Many of the communities on the frontlines of the pollution are environmental justice communities, ones that we find here. 92 percent of the people living within a three mile radius of facilities that are cited for violations in LA County, are typically minority communities, and 51 percent of those live under the poverty level. The California Air Resources Board estimates that each year, there are about 5,400 premature deaths, 2,400 hospitalizations, 140,000 cases of asthma, and 980,000 lost days of work productivity. Environmental conditions significantly impact the quality of our lives and the health of our workers and families who live near rail yards and face an increased cancer risk from increased diesel emissions from expanding goods movement. A recent study also indicates that residents in commerce near four rail yards are 70 percent to 140 percent more likely to contract cancer from diesel soot than people in other parts of Los Angeles. While ports and rail yards negatively impact the health of our local communities, they also play a large and growing role in our economy as we know. The Ports of LA and Long Beach are about the fifth largest in the world and the Nation's busiest. 43 percent of those goods coming into the U.S., they enter through these two ports. The amount of cargo handled by the ports is expected to triple in the next 15 years, and the value of those goods traveling through these ports will increase by more than $400 billion in the next 15 years. Together we must ensure that our economy grows and that our public health care improves for those workers that are here. I am pleased that this need has been recognized, and that together and separately, the ports are taking steps to mitigate these concerns. The container fee is a unique approach that will generate needed funds to improve infrastructure as was mentioned by my colleague, Grace Napolitano, regarding theAlameda Corridor. 70 miles of mainline railroad travel through the San Gabriel Valley. The train traffic through the corridor is expected to increase by 160 percent in the year 2020, and without continued infrastructure improvement, delays in the rail and highway crossings will increase by as much as 300 percent. I am interested in hearing today from our witnesses about the fee and how it will function, particularly ensuring that there is equitable distribution with all the stakeholders, and I am hopeful that today we can discuss the impact of air quality on our communities. And I am also pleased that the ports have taken steps to improve air quality as well. That is why I have authored H.R. 2548, the Marine Vessel Act. It has been supported by both the Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles. I am eager to hear more about the Clean Trucks Program, and also want to commend those individuals, the stakeholders that are involved in all of that. I also want to commend the longshoremen and the dock workers, and also the Teamsters, for coming together. But more importantly, the International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union, and Pacific Maritime Association, that came to an agreement on a very important element in this overall plan. So I want to commend you, I want to thank, again, the Chairwoman, and I see our Chairman here--welcome--and again just want to commend this body for having this hearing and hope to partake in other future hearings. Thank you. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Congresswoman Solis. The last part I am going to do here is to introduce a few other guests and then turn it over to our great Chairman, who I am really excited to see has made it, and is going to lead us in this hearing. First of all, I would like to acknowledge, we didn't have his name before and I apologize, the man who represents what he calls ``the donut hole.'' He says don't forget what is happening in Signal Hill where a lot of our oil is coming from. Please welcome from the Signal Hill City Council, Mr. Larry Forrester. Another champion of our environment, a lady I had an opportunity to serve with on the City Council. If you talk about the environment, I already introduced Ms. Lowenthal, but second to none would clearly be Ms. Rae Gabelich who represents the Long Beach City Council. She has been truly an advocate of our environment. Thank you for being here. Next I would like to introduce Mr. Steven John with the Environmental Protection Agency. Have you arrived? Yes; he is. So we do have the EPA who is here listening and willing to help as well. And then finally, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Felton Williams with the Long Beach Unified School District. They have been involved with what is happening in our environment and how it impacts cargo. Thank you, Dr. Williams. With that, I am going to turn it over to our able Chairman. I have got to tell you that coming into Congress nine short months ago, one of the key things of moving up the learning curve is getting some good mentors who take you under their wing, who have an expertise of the knowledge, and who are willing to see this country move forward. Chairman Cummings is the Chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Committee, the Subcommittee. He represents the Baltimore area, so he also covers a port as well, so he is very well-versed on these issues. And I just want to say on behalf of all of us here, thank you for bringing this hearing to us. Mr. Cummings. [Presiding.] Thank you very much. Thank you, Congresswoman Richardson, and good evening, good afternoon, I guess, to all of you. Today we convene the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation to consider the efforts of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to generate the financing needed to expand their infrastructure to meet the increasing demands of global trade, while working to reduce the release of polluting air emissions that result from all aspects of the ports' operations. The need to provide infrastructure adequate to accommodate transportation demands, while protecting our environment by reducing air emissions, are concerns of almost every facet of transportation policy in this Nation today, including maritime and freight transportation. Because the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach together comprise the largest port complex in the United States, as well as the largest single source of pollution in California's South Coast Air Quality Management District, their efforts to respond to these two critical challenges are of great interest to the Subcommittee as well as to ports throughout the entire Nation. And I emphasize that this is definitely going to be and becoming a national issue. I thank Congresswoman Laura Richardson, who requested this hearing, to give the Subcommittee the opportunity to see these issues firsthand. I also commend her for her steadfast leadership on the Subcommittee on issues relating to freight transportation and for the dedication with which she represents the interests of her constituents. I also thank all of our colleagues for being here today. I know somebody must have said it. This is basically the first day of our little break, and they find themselves sitting in a hearing room, which they, I guess, were anxious to get away from, but they needed to be here, so I am glad they are here, and I thank you all very much for being here. In an effort to generate additional capital to finance needed infrastructure, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach will begin assessing an infrastructure cargo fee in 2009, that will be expended on infrastructure improvement projects intended to ease congestion around the ports. The fees are expected to be $15 in 2009, but will fluctuate, depending on the resource needs of the projects to which the funding will be directed. Additionally, the State of California is considering legislation that would impose a fee of up to $30 per container passing through the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland. Half of this funding would be directed to infrastructure projects that contribute to congestion relief, while the other half would fund projects to mitigate air pollution. The need to generate income to pay for port development has been a challenge for decades. In 1986, for example, Congress established the Harbor Maintenance Tax, which I note was assessed on an ad valorem basis to pay for dredging projects, but the application of this tax to U.S. exports was eventually declared unconstitutional under the Constitution's Export Clause. This ruling, and rulings in related cases considering taxes and fees, are important touchstones as we consider container fees and other revenue generation mechanisms. We look forward to examining this very complex issue in more detail today. In an effort to take decisive action to reduce emissions from port-related activities, the State of California, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and other partners, have adopted the ambitious San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. This plan is intended to reduce polluting emissions from all facets of port operations, including from vessels calling on the ports, trucks providing drayage services at the ports, and freight railroad and cargo handling equipment operating at the ports. The part of the plan that has probably received the most attention is the Clean Trucks Program. Both the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach have adopted a Clean Trucks Program and the programs have many similarities. Both ports intend to assess a $35 fee on 20-foot equivalency unit containers, which will then be utilized to support the replacement of virtually the entire fleet of trucks currently serving the ports, with new clean trucks meeting current emission standards. Both ports will allow only licensed motor carriers that enter into concession agreements with the ports to provide drayage services at the ports. However, the Port of Los Angeles will phase in a requirement, over time, that will allow only individuals who are employees of the licensed motor carrier concessionaires to serve that port, while the Port of Long Beach will allow licensed motor carrier concessionaires to dispatch individuals who are either employees of the carrier or owner-operators. We look forward to the testimony of Mr. Richard Steinke, and the executive director of the Port of Long Beach, and Dr. Geraldine Knatz, the executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, regarding the efforts of both ports to meet their infrastructure needs and to combat air emissions. We also look forward to discussing with them the container fee programs that have been adopted at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach as well as the ports' decisions to adopt different models for their Clean Truck Programs. The witnesses who will appear on our second panel represent critical stakeholder groups affected by the ports' development and financing plans, including the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the members of FuturePorts. We invited a number of other stakeholder groups to join us today, but they were unable to join due to scheduling and other conflicts. Many of these groups have submitted statements that will, without objection, be included in the hearing record, and we invite them to submit statements within the next seven days. Finally, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here, and I want to thank all of you for taking up the time to be a part of Government. This is how Government works and I am glad that you have taken the time to be with us today. We will first hear from Mayor Ronald Loveridge, the mayor of the city of Riverside. Mayor, welcome. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RONALD LOVERIDGE, MAYOR, CITY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA Mayor Loveridge. Chairman Cummings, Members of the California delegation, thank you for holding this hearing in Southern California. Kudos also to what was, I thought, an excellent summary by the staff of the subject matter today. Ron Loveridge, mayor of the city of Riverside. I also serve on the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board and the California Air Resources Board, SCAG Regional Council, and I am the second vice president of the National League of Cities. I tried to decide who I am speaking for today, and I'm not speaking for Los Angeles or Long Beach. I'm not speaking for SCAG, I'm not speaking for the air districts, nor the National League. I am speaking as mayor of the city of Riverside. We are a city of 300,000 people. We are in the inland area, which Grace Napolitano knows. Some 4 million in population. We would be the 24th largest state if the Inland Empire was a separate state. What I would like to do today is not read my statement. You have my formal statement. What I would like to do is make a series of sort of observations off the statement, which is before you. First, goods movement in Southern California is really a national trade corridor. We are talking about more than the two ports and their immediate infrastructure We are talking about going beyond the 710 freeway. And as a I read the staff statement, the staff summary, I did think it effectively identified the impacts, the regional impacts of goods movement. One example I often use from Riverside, as an archetype new economy business, we have a Magnuson Furniture Company distribution center. They are headquartered in a small city outside of Toronto. They market out of High Point, North Carolina. Goods are manufactured in China. They come through the ports. They come to Riverside. There is one distribution center for all of North America, an example, it seems to me, of the global marketplace that we live in. I am also a professor at the University of California at Riverside, and have done a little teaching on this business of goods movement, and what strikes me as you read about other countries is how carefully other countries invest in their global trade corridors. It is seen as a national mission. When we talk about the two ports in Southern California, we are really talking about them as Southern California ports, we have identified how much comes into the United States and how that is expected to grow. What I would like to just briefly focus on is on rail freight. I could talk about trucks and the impact they have on the two major freeways through the inland area, the 60 and the 10, but let me talk about freight. And Riverside is about 60 miles from this place. So we are not talking about a short distance, we are talking about some 60 miles away. Our city is really trisected by both the Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe. We have 128 trains that daily go through Riverside. We have some 26 priority at-grade crossings. The crossing gates may be down for an average of three hours per day, and as long, some, as six hours per day at our 26 grade separations. I got a call last week from a fellow that said he stopped and the gates were down, and one train went by. The gate remained down and another train went by. The gate remained down for a third time and another train went by. He said for a half hour he was sitting at that intersection waiting to go through. Beyond this question of mobility and the inconvenience, there clearly are important impacts on public safety, I mean fire and police and ambulance, vehicular traffic, air quality and economic development. We have done a very careful tally of delays at these grade separations, and our estimate for 2007, there were 769 times there were delays. This is delays for fire, police and ambulance. 769 times, for as long as some 32 minutes. The challenge the city faces is grade separations, a cost somewhere between 30- to $50 million. We have got some funding in Proposition 1-B, the state bonds. There is legislation, which you may talk about today, that has been introduced by my Congressman, Ken Calvert, called the On Time Act, and I strongly applaud Calvert's bill as recognizing funding to key trade corridor projects. You also had mentioned Senator Lowenthal's bill which may shortly be on the desk of the governor. I was looking at a resolution, which I am sure all of you will receive, which is offered by the National League of Cities, and I thought I might just hit the top description. It says, ``Urging the Federal Government to create adequately funded, comprehensive national surface transportation plan.'' This is not simply the voice of the National League of Cities. It is many voices, when you read newspapers, when you read reports, when people look at our country. There is a unified call for a comprehensive effort to deal with national surface transportation. It is time for the Federal Government to take responsibility and join the locals and the state, to become partners in the funding for national trade corridors. We thank you for your attention, again speaking for the impacts that these two extraordinary ports have, regional impacts on inland empire and specifically on the city of Riverside. I would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much for being with us and I just want to ask you a couple questions, and then each panel member will have five minutes to ask questions. Through your work with the National League of Cities, have you found that there are other cities confronting rail and grade mobility issues, similar to the ones that Riverside is confronting? And what do you believe needs to be done to enhance our Nation's goods movement network, particularly around major port areas? Mayor Loveridge. I think the concept has to go beyond ports, that we have to see this as a corridor. The last time I think we really looked at the kind of national network pattern, in terms of trade, was when Eisenhower did it in 1958, and it seems to me that is really the call that is before Congress and before your own work. You hear it again and again from major cities, the kind of clash that exists between this increased rail traffic and mobility, and I read just one part of the resolution, but this is going to be a primary call of the National League, to try to call for a comprehensive transportation look. Mr. Cummings. Riverside has 26 at-grade crossings that need to be reconfigured. How much are those projects expected to cost, and have you approached the railroads about potentially contributing to the costs of those projects? If so, what has been their response? Mayor Loveridge. Well, our estimate is that if we were---- Mr. Cummings. I could almost guess but---- Mayor Loveridge. If we fund them, we are talking about 800 million to a billion dollars. That is our estimate of the cost, if we indeed build 26 grade separations. The railroads look at Riverside and they look at many other cities, and say they simply can't do it. They contribute a little bit at the edges, but the bulk of the money now is--we are looking at the state, we are looking at our own kind of transportation sales tax, we are looking at city funds, we are looking at fees we place on developers. We are looking for any place we can to locate money and we are in the process of building one. We have another one out to bid. We have several others in design. But it is not easy to come up with 800 million to a billion dollars. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Rohrabacher Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mayor, did you say that there are 128 trains a day that come to your city? Mayor Loveridge. Yes. Mr. Rohrabacher. Did you say 128 trains a day? Mayor Loveridge. That is counting the MetroLink. Yes. 128 trains go through. Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. And you outlined for us the traffic congestion. And you have an air quality problem in your city. Do you think the fact that these people standing at railroad crossings contributes greatly to your air pollution? Mayor Loveridge. It certainly contributes to it. And then there are some places in the inland area where it is, particularly with railroad yards, where there are very serious health effects. There is one place particularly, in San Bernardino, our sister city, where it is quite serious. Mr. Rohrabacher. You suggested it would cost 30- to $50 billion? Mayor Loveridge. 30 to $50 million per grade separation. Mr. Rohrabacher. But did you say the overall cost would be 30- to $50 billion? Mayor Loveridge. Cost would be 800 million to 1 billion. 800 million to $1 billion, if we did all 26 grade separations. Mr. Rohrabacher. But that is in your city or is that all the way, the 60 miles to---- Mayor Loveridge. Well, I have seen one estimate as much as $4 billion, the one that Norm King, heading the Traffic Institute at Cal State-San Bernardino--I'm not sure where he got the number but his estimate was $4 billion across the region. Mr. Rohrabacher. $4 billion. And how many containers? 128 trains. How many containers does that represent coming from this port to your city every day? Mayor Loveridge. I'm not sure what the container count is. You watch them go by. There are many of them. Mr. Rohrabacher. So it is in the thousands? Mayor Loveridge. I would think that is fair. Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. Let's just note that railroads are a technology that is about maybe 200 years old, the idea of pulling something on a rail with a heavy diesel engine, or whatever kind of engine it is, and of course trucks are at least a 100 years old technology. There are some other technologies that are options for you. Are you aware of any of the other, MAGLEV technologies that are being discussed? [Applause.] Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. Mayor Loveridge. I know there are technologies that are being discussed, that have been identified from electrifying the railways, to look into MAGLEV. For Southern California, with our 18 million people, adding 6 more million people, I think we must have new transportation forms, or else this whole place is not going to work very well. So I'm not sure what they are, that as you recognize, they are extraordinarily expensive, and to do something different than we are now doing is not easy. Mr. Rohrabacher. But in the meantime, we are stuck with a congestion rate in your city, which is just the same as what we have here for members of the panel. The congestion is not only a waste of fuel, which adds tremendous cost for our society, but has tremendous health impact for your citizens, and we are stuck with old technology that is a 200-year-old technology; but a powerful force in our society. Let's note: Railroads are a powerful force in our society. There is a better way. Thank you very much. Mr. Cummings. Ms. Richardson. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is very important, and I am glad you were able to accept the invitation to come here today, because oftentimes we think of the cargo activity that goes through in this complex, we tend to think of it stopping here on the 710 as you said. So thank you for accepting the invitation. Mayor Loveridge, a question for you. How would you rate the effectiveness--there has been discussion of, as we had the Alameda Corridor, us doing a full Alameda Corridor East. What are your thoughts on that? Mayor Loveridge. Exactly what form that should take, both in governance and funding--but no, I think the Alameda Corridor should be--we need to see this, again, as a regional effort as opposed to simply a local coastal effort. So I know some of that is involved in Lowenthal's bill, which he talks about the kind of governance if that passes and the funding that would be involved, in many ways is like an Alameda Corridor approach. Ms. Richardson. Okay. We have the Chairman who really helped shepherd through the original Alameda Corridor, who is present today, Commissioner Jim Hankla, so I have great respect, and that was one of, I think the few projects, that we actually completed on time and under budget. Mayor Loveridge, you talked a lot about the actual rail activity, and what I find particularly interesting, and why this hearing was so important, is I was sitting on a Transportation Subcommittee hearing when Mr. Calvert, who is from your area, presented his bill of On Time, and that is what really brought my concern, to be very frank with all of you here today, because it was at that point that I saw literally the possibility of potentially three different fees that could be levied on our cargo activity. It is interesting, though, I think you have a very good point, that some of these proposals do not include funding that could be allocated towards rail grade separations, and so on. So if I am hearing you correctly, you are supportive of the overall idea but you want to make sure that there is a comprehensive plan that is addressing everyone's needs. Would that be correct? Mayor Loveridge. That is a good summary. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, sir. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Mr. Filner. Mr. Filner. Just two brief comments, Mr. Chairman. One, let me play shamelessly to the crowd. I have been working on magnetic levitation trains in San Diego to try to solve our airport problems. I mean, this is a train, and I have ridden on a couple of them that reach speeds exceeding 300 miles per hour, and because it runs off electronic-magnetic forces, there is no pollution. So we ought to be looking at that, certainly. I was playing shameless to the crowd there. Let me also put the cost of this into some relative proportions, because when we say a billion to solve your problems, or 4 billion on the corridor, I mean, it sounds like an awful lot of money, which it is, but, you know, in relative proportions, I mean our budget is 3 trillion as a National Government, and one particular priority, right now, of our Government, is a war which is costing us a billion dollars every two days. Now if we could spend a billion dollars every two years, we have the money, as a Nation, to solve these and a lot of other infrastructure problems. So I would urge you not to think that we are asking for too much here. It is a question of priorities. This Nation has to focus on these infrastructure priorities. We have the money. We are the richest Nation in the history of the world. Much of this is not rocket science. It is very common sense, and you have shown some of that. I appreciate your testimony, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Loveridge. Thank you. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Ms. Napolitano. Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mayor, I am glad you are here. I am a past mayor, so I am pretty well aware of some of the factors that you face in your daily carrying out of your duties. Unfortunately, in your statement for the railroads, and their ability to help solve a problem is very minimal. Dismal. I believe it is 5 percent by Federal Government, an that is 3 percent normally, and then 2 percent in kind, which turns out to be nothing. Test we are moving transportation of goods to the benefit, and they have had several banner years, and I constantly remind them of that, because I think they need to be better partners in this effort, to be able to solve the issue of goods movement. The container fee. Where would you feel would be best put in being able to upgrade the infrastructure of the railroad, your grade separations, your rail crossings, better signage? Where would be the best use for that, if you were able to get some of--because you are impacted. And while you say you have 125 trains a day, I have 160 in mine. Mayor Loveridge. You have more than I do. Well, I think the important answer is that--I mean the word, kind of comprehensive. One, there needs to be a kind of comprehensive look at this region. You need to obviously establish priorities for projects and then we need to figure out how to fund them. I mean, the funding I think if we have a container fee as a way to do that, funding is here but we need to establish priorities, and there are different ways that we do that. Can't do everything at the same time. Besides spending the money in Riverside, it seems to me the argument needs to be made on a kind of comprehensive regional planning effort. I mean, there are transportation commissions that have worked these questions through, and I think we need to be respectful of their own priorities. I don't think the problem is one of, though, comprehensive planning. The problem really is the availability of funding and then having a governance structure that works. Ms. Napolitano. So you want a place at the table? Mayor Loveridge. Yes. Ms. Napolitano. Okay. We are looking at the ICE-TEA bill coming up next year, and I have suggested to some of my colleagues that Southern California basically needs to work together, both sides, collaboratively, to determine what those priorities ought to be, because it is important that we start now, and being able to have people come and put their case before a group of legislators, to find out where it is going to be best suited to start the prioritization, and with focus. Do you have any suggestions on that? Mayor Loveridge. Well, we have gone through this business of having a regional transportation plan. I mean, SCAG, Southern California Association of Governments has done that. But I think your invitation is really an important one, and which we ought to respect. We ought to try to figure out what are the particular priorities of Southern California and then come to our own delegation and say here is our take, what can we do to support you in advancing that agenda? One of the problems, at least my own judgment, one of the problems we have in Southern California is each sort of agency, city, area, has sort of been on its own, and I think we need to somehow---- Ms. Napolitano. Bring it together. Mayor Loveridge. --come together, and together, 18 million people can be an important force. Ms. Napolitano. Well, when the state assembly and the senate, back during the time of Mr. Hankla, I remember the Subcommittee with Betty Carmack, and myself, and several of the other Members, who were working with Juanita Millendar- McDonald--may she rest in peace--on being able to set the Alameda Corridor, and it was deemed the best solution, was to trench it. I just wish there had been a little more foresight in our area, that is on the Alameda Corridor East, to trench it. Then we wouldn't have to worry about pollution, safety issues, environmental and economic impacts. Is there any suggestions from any of the agencies to look at trenching, to be able to get---- Mayor Loveridge. I think the experience of Placentia, I don't think so. I've not seen trenching raised, as far as I know, by any transportation commission or any city. Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, for your answers, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Ms. Solis. Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I appreciate all the other hats that you wear, and wanted to touch base a little bit about what you didn't talk about, the environmental justice issues, and I know that you are a representative on various regional air quality groups, and wanted to hear a little bit about that, and what you feel we, as a Federal Government, can do to help provide any direction or mitigation there as well, because in the end analysis, much of the cargo and rail traffic maybe begins here, but it doesn't certainly end in Riverside. But certainly there are different impacts, and I know that the community out here in Long Beach and San Pedro have been assaulted, has been under assault because of the soot and diesel emissions that have very, very devastating impacts, health impacts that perhaps we are not even factoring in also as a part of this cost, that we should be looking at. Any thoughts? Mayor Loveridge. Research now is pretty clear on the health effects immediately around the ports. Number one. Number two is it is very clear, when you look at the sources of pollution, air pollution, a major role that this whole complex does, not simply to the areas immediately around it but as it pushes further inland, there is--I am, in some ways, representing the inland area. We argue that we are a downwind area, and so much of the--you look at the high measures of particularly ozone, and at particulate matter, you find it in our areas, and it comes--some of that is coming from pollution at the port, some of it is in the goods movement of trains and trucks as they move goods and services to the east of us. There are a number of major important steps this port, both ports have taken. CARB has taking some important steps, recently. You can see it in the materials before you. The South Coast is going to take on, and I think has played a significant role. And one of the reasons for that I think is--my own judgment--is that we understand that sort of clean air and good air go in tandem with fast freight, and we have got to see them as mutual objectives. They are not separate objectives. Ms. Solis. But one of the arguments that is always made when we talk about the efficiencies of scale, and what it means when you start to clean up areas that are heavily contaminated, is that there is a cost, either to jobs or to the industry. What would you have to say about that? Mayor Loveridge. Well, South Coast Air Quality Management District, in my judgment, is the best in the world at what it does. There used to be some alarm about its economic costs. What are we? the 10-th largest economy in the world in Southern California. It is a vital, exciting place. Having clean air, in my judgment, has helped that rather---- Ms. Solis. Can we do both? Mayor Loveridge. Yes. Ms. Solis. Can we meet those two objectives? I know that my colleagues on the Subcommittee have much more knowledge about the amount of revenue that is brought into the country regarding the importation of goods, and is perhaps their need to take a closer look at those products that are brought in, those companies that are involved in that, and asking them to help pay, and share the burden, so that we have also people who work in the industry, at the ports and in the trucking industry, have a fair share, and availability to have a good living. What concerns me, that we haven't talked about yet, is the impact in the truck program and the differences between Los Angeles and Long Beach. It is an economic impact, and we need to talk also about what that is going to mean for those independent truckers, many of whom are immigrant, many of whom are Latino, who are looking at not being able to get a license, not being able to associate with the appropriate fleet agencies because of rigorous requirements, and what happens to them? And if they even have an ability to be a part of a collective bargaining agreement that might, in Long Beach work well, but we are finding that there are some different regional--you know, next-door neighbor here, Long Beach, may have a different take on that. Those are issues too, that we need to think about, and I would like to hear very quickly, cause I know my time is running out, if you can address that. Mayor Loveridge. Well, I think the major point that one recognizes is that these things are going in tandem. I think we used to think about clean air and fast freight as separate kind of enterprises. We need to join them together, and as we move for faster freight, they need to be connected with what we can do for cleaner air. I mean, that is the overall summary point. Ms. Solis. And I agree with you on the regional aspect. It is not somebody else's problem, it is our problem, and we have to come up with collective solutions as stakeholders. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. We really do appreciate your testimony. I mean, you have brought some things to our attention, and I guess the issue becomes exactly to how far these fees will stretch and where will they go. We appreciate it, and you may appreciate more, in answering, I think, one of Ms. Napolitano's questions, how nice it is to come from a small state. There are only eight Members of the House from Maryland and so it is real easy for us to get together. I mean, you can fit us in a phone booth. But I do appreciate what you have brought to us, and we do thank you for taking the time to be with us. Mayor Loveridge. Well, thank you for the invitation, and thank you for the questions, and godspeed on your work. Mr. Cummings. Thank you again. As other witnesses come forward, Richard Steinke, the executive director of the Port of Long Beach and Ms. Geraldine Knatz, the executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, I might say that you have heard already some issues that have been brought up by the members of the panel here, and if there are some of these that you would like to address, like what was just brought up by Ms. Solis and others, feel free to intertwine those in your comments. Because one of the things that we try to do in these hearings is we try not to be so rigid that we don't have the effectiveness that we could possibly have. And again, I want to thank both of you for joining us today, and we will hear from you first, Mr. Steinke. RICHARD D. STEINKE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT OF LONG BEACH, AND GERALDINE KNATZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PORT OF LOS ANGELES Mr. Steinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and invited Members of Congress, my name is Richard Steinke and I am the executive director for the Port of Long Beach. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak before this Committee this afternoon. This is very, very important, that these issues are discussed in this kind of forum, because this is the future of goods movement, and this is how Government works, and Mr. Chairman, I think your comment was very appropriate, in your opening statement, that this is the process that gets things changed. As you know, the Port of Long Beach is the second-largest seaport in the United States. Last year, this port handled about 7.2 million containers known as 20-foot equivalent units, or TEUs, and we use that as a barometer of the success, or the business of ports around the Nation and around the world. Combined with our partner, the Port of Los Angeles, both ports handled over 15.7 million TEUs, which equals over 40 percent of all containerized goods entering United States ports. Due to the increase in consumer demands, both ports are expected to meet the growth in international cargo, which is estimated to more than double, from 15 million TEUs in 2007 to over 35 million TEUs by 2020. In an effort to reduce emissions related to current and future trade demands, the Port of Long Beach has adopted some very aggressive environmental mitigation programs to help improve air quality. The Board of Harbor Commissioners adopted the Green Port Policy in 2005 to protect the community from harmful environmental impacts related to port operations, to promote sustainability, and to employ the best-available technologies. We recognized that we could no longer continue to move cargo without recognizing the environment footprint and the impact on our communities. In November 2006, the Long Beach and Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners met in an unprecedented meeting, and approved the Clean Air Action Plan, a plan to reduce emissions associated with port operations by more than 45 percent over a five year period. As the most comprehensive air quality mitigation plan being implemented at any port complex in the world, the Clean Air Action Plan is expected to cut particulate matter pollution, nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide from source categories that include ocean-going vessels, harbor craft, cargo-handling equipment, railroad locomotives, and heavy-duty trucks. As part of the Clean Air Action Plan, over the next five years, the San Pedro Bay ports required 16 switching locomotives and thousands of pieces of cargo-handling equipment to be replaced or retrofitted, to meet or exceed U.S. EPA emission standards, that required cargo and cruise ship terminals to be equipped with shoreside electricity as well as look at new technologies to help further reductions. A key component in the Clean Air Action Plan is the Clean Trucks Program, as Congresswoman Solis referred to. A landmark plan that will dramatically modernize the port trucking industry and significantly reduce truck-related air pollution, by requiring all heavy-duty trucks operating at the ports be replaced with newer cleaner trucks that meet USEPA 2007 emission standards by 2012. The Clean Trucks Program is expected to result in truck- related air pollution reductions of approximately 80 percent. Although the ports do not own or operate the drayage trucks serving the port terminals, the ports have determined that a progressive ban, which will begin October 1, 2008, on dirty trucks, is the most direct way to cut pollution and reduce public health risks posed by dirty diesel trucks, on a timeframe that meets the needs of our local communities. Last December, both ports approved the cargo tariff, the clean truck fee to help fund the Clean Trucks Program, which is estimated to cost $2.2 billion. The fee will be charged to cargo owners, the beneficial cargo owners, that will place a $35 fee on every loaded TEU entering or leaving any terminal, by truck, beginning in October 2008. This fee is expected to generate $1.6 billion, in addition to the $143 million that has been committed by both ports. The ports are also expecting to receive $98 million from the state Proposition 1B bond, which California voters approved to help pay for major transportation and air quality improvement projects. As part of the Clean Trucks Program, only port-permitted concession trucks will be allowed to work at the San Pedro Bay ports. The concession system is designed to provide oversight and accountability for the trucking industry, and will ensure that our port's aggressive clean air plans are being met. Although the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles jointly adopted the Clean Trucks Program, and progressive ban on trucks, our respective boards have taken slightly different approaches to the concession program for the plan. The Clean Trucks Program at both ports require licensed motor carriers in good standing, and with a valid license, and to operate clean trucks consistent with the Clean Trucks Plan requirements and our port tariff. The major difference in the plan is that the Port of Long Beach concession system allows licensed motor carriers to use employee drivers, independent contract drivers, or a combination of employee and contract drivers, as they do now. Choice in the drayage industry is important, and the Long Beach plan, drivers can choose to be an employee or be their own boss while accomplishing the real goal of the Clean Trucks Program, and that is cleaning the air. Simply put, we want to clean the air as quickly as possible. As part of the concession system, the Port of Long Beach also requires licensed motor carriers to offer health insurance to all drivers. In addition, Long Beach will grant five year concessions to the licensed motor carriers who pay a one-time application of $250 versus a $2500 fee at the Port of Los Angeles, and a concession fee of $100 per truck, per year, in order to operate successfully in the ports. In addition to the Clean Trucks fee, the ports approved a tariff called the Infrastructure Cargo Fee to help finance harbor area, port-related infrastructure projects, and I would like to emphasize that those are harbor area, port-related infrastructures, projects unlike the senate Bill 974 which really looks at the infrastructure projects on a more regional basis. The money generated by this fee will be used to augment and complement funding received from federal and state sources, like Senator Lowenthal's container fee bill. The ICF, or the Infrastructure Cargo Fee, is separate and distinct from the Clean Trucks fee, and will be charged to cargo owners by placing a $15 fee on every loaded TEU entering or leaving any terminal by truck or train, beginning January 1, 2009. Direct industry user fees are needed because of the limitations in federal, state, local and port funding for high- priority projects like replacement of the Gerald Desmond Bridge. The fee was derived by estimating the cost of key harbor infrastructure projects that were identified by both ports and regional transportation agencies. The Infrastructure Cargo Fee will allow the ports to raise funds to pay for the projects as they progress, and the ICF establishes a way for the goods movement industry to pay for a share of the needed infrastructure improvements. Mayor Bob Foster, the mayor of Long Beach, and the board of Long Beach harbor commissioners, have committed that projects identified to be funded with the Infrastructure Cargo Fee will not move forward before the port moves forward on implementation of environmental projects. So this Infrastructure Cargo Fee and the Clean Trucks fee are linked together. One will not move in advance of the other. In order to improve air quality and to move goods more efficiently from the San Pedro Bay ports to regions across the Nation, additional investments will be needed to be made to fund environmental and infrastructure programs at the Nation's ports. The Port of Long Beach looks forward to working with the Committee, and other key stakeholders, to develop progressive environmental policies, and on the upcoming transportation authorization bill, to develop a list of critically-needed infrastructure projects that will allow goods that fuel our economy to continue moving. I think we need to change the behavior of the waterfront that has been taking place for many, many years. We are doing that here at the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. We have congestion pricing. We have done a number of things with incentives. You are seeing things like alternative fuels. We are investigating the alternate goods movement system that Congressman Rohrabacher has been mentioning. And so we are doing things that no other port complex in the world has attempted to do. We need to change the way we think about goods movement. We need to look at a systemwide approach at addressing the problem, which has not been done in the United States in terms of marine transportation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in front of your Committee. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Dr. Knatz. Ms. Knatz. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the Board of Harbor Commissioners and Mayor Villaraigosa, and the Los Angeles City Council, welcome to the San Pedro Bay Port Complex. I don't want to duplicate comments that were made by Mr. Steinke, so I think I am going to focus on trying to answer some of the questions that you raise, specifically with respect to the Infrastructure Cargo Fee. And I should say we call it an Infrastructure Cargo Fee instead of a container fee, because although it originally will start out on containers, at some point we do intend to expand the fee to other commodities. The Infrastructure Cargo Fee complements our Clean Air Action Plan because it deals with the way to improve goods movement while we also work to reduce emissions. To address what we view as the existing transportation system deficiencies, and to accommodate our future traffic, we have actually, over the past several years, expended millions of dollars on critical intermodal transportation projects, projects of national significance. But it is still not enough. We have identified about $3 billion in immediate infrastructure improvements that are needed in and just directly adjacent to the port, and these also are congressionally-designated projects of national and regional significance, and high-priority projects. Because these projects cannot, and arguably should not, be paid for entirely with federal and state funds, about three years ago, the two ports started working together on a container fee for local infrastructure, and we really took this on ourselves, for a couple of reasons. First, we thought if we didn't do it, there would likely be state fees, and possibly not on terms that we could support. Second, we saw the value in having a dedicated revenue stream to match bond measures devoted to goods movement. And three, we came to the conclusion we had to be really a self-help port complex. We hope that our fee will complement the next Federal Surface Highway Transportation bill, and we hope that that has a new dedicated federal account to support goods movement and environmental improvements associated with goods movement. But what was really unique about our Infrastructure Cargo Fee is that we used a bottoms up approach to develop the fee structure. The fees are established through the result of a thorough technical analysis and a three-year dialogue with industry that really began with agreement on what projects should be funded. Throughout this process, we worked to address industry concerns, they would agree to pay their fair share, and they wanted to see the results for their money. So we agreed that the fee would only be collected after an environment impact report was certified for that project, and these days, getting any EIR certified in Southern California is quite a feat; and I think it would be fair to say that getting to this stage now with the ports actually means something, because our EIRs are a primary vehicle for how we are imposing the measures in our Clean Air Action Plan. The infrastructure fee rate was established at a level based on a detailed and fair traffic nexus for each specific project. In other words, if 60 percent of the traffic that used a bridge, or any other infrastructure project, was cargo-related, then the container fee had to be set high enough to collect 60 percent of the cost of that bridge. Because our fee will be made up of a composite of fees for specific projects, all on different construction schedules, we anticipate that it will start at approximately $15 a TEU, go as high as $18 a TEU, based on the known list of projects. Once the industry's share was established, we then created a plan of finance for each of the proposed projects, which included contributions from the ports and a proposal for a fair share of the state bond money, and with that framework in place, then our Boards, in January, adopted the Infrastructure Cargo Fee. By the year 2014, we will have complete funding for $2.9 billion worth of port-adjacent bridge, highway projects, and rail improvements. And we adopted the infrastructure fee separate from the clean trucks fee because we recognize that the infrastructure projects take a long time, and as some projects are finished, new projects would come along. We believe that the approach we took, the bottoms-up, crafted a program that helped us avoid litigation, and to date, there have been no challenges on the fee, and we do not expect any. The fee is collected locally and the money stays locally. Because our local project focus fee--beyond our local project focus fee, we also recognize the need for industry fees to fund regional projects. In fact, the port has considered collection of a fee for regional infrastructure, initially identifying the Alameda Corridor East Project, and a major rail intersection known as Colton Crossing, but we actually dropped our regional fee in deference to the legislation that was pursued by Senator Lowenthal. Even though we tried to work the same strategy with industry on the regional fee, making sure the project was used for projects that industry supported, I cannot say, with absolute certainty, that we were able to develop the same support for the regional fees that we did for our local fees. But we are committed to taking up the issue on regional fees again, should it ever become necessary. We are aware that the Committee may be examining national infrastructure fees. Mr. Chairman, from our perspective, any national container fee now would be duplicative of what is in place here in California. We already have to work through some overlap, our ICF has, with Senator Lowenthal's proposed state fee and the rail portion of our infrastructure fee. We urge the Committee to ensure that port regions that have taken the initiative to help themselves not be penalized by yet more fees, and that any federal plan provides exemptions for independent action on the part of the state or the port region. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for your interest and that concludes my prepared statement. Mr. Cummings. I want to thank both of you for your testimony and as you were talking, you know, sometimes in these hearings, what happens is that people come after you and then you can't answer their questions because you have gone, and so you're not testifying anymore. And so I want to ask you a question about what FuturePorts--I am sure you are very familiar with them--have said. They claim that not enough analysis has been conducted of the potential economic impact all of the fees proposed to be levied on these containers may create. And so you believe that the market, particularly in this difficult economic climate, will bear all of the fees that are proposed for the ports? And I know in Baltimore, we compete fiercely. I mean, it is a fight, trying to get every single bit of business we possibly can get for our port. And I am just wondering what, if any impact, you all think this might have. Mr. Filner. Could you yield for just a corollary question. I don't know what the average size of a concession here would be or how many trucks they would have. But is there such a thing as an average cost, that would be meaningful for us to know, to an average business? Ms. Knatz. Okay. Let me address the first question. Mr. Chairman, we did look at this issue. You know, you have sort of the pile-on effect when you have the PierPASS fee, and then we have our clean truck fee, and then we have the infrastructure fee, both the local, and potentially, a regional state fee. We really felt like we got to the point where that was it, the system could not really stand any additional fees, so a national fee would really, I believe, affect our competitive position. I think the fact that we have worked with industry on our regional fee, they recognize that, and they supported it because if it increases velocity on their end, that is cost savings for them, and so it was important to bring them in on the process. We charge our fees against the cargo, the beneficial cargo owner, it is not paid by the terminal operator. So we tried to get the fee as close as possible to the goods, and in that way, kind of spread the fee among the greater number of users. Mr. Steinke. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that we have done some elasticity analysis for the ports here in San Pedro Bay, the Southern California Association of Governments has also done an elasticity study, and there is a point that there is significant diversion of cargo by, as Geraldine said, the pile-on effect. If there are too many fees, cargo will move some place else. We recognize that. But as Geraldine said, if we keep the fees associated with the cargo itself, not the marine terminal operator, not the ocean carrier, and not the licensed motor carrier, not the trucker, and it goes to the retailer that is bringing in the goods, I think there was some analysis done that it is pennies on an Ipod. It is, you know, 50 cents on a pair of Nikes. So that the hit to the consumer is fairly di minimis, even though the charge to the cargo owner is fairly significant on a per TEU basis. Mr. Cummings. Dr. Knatz, you have sent quite a bit of your testimony seeming to be concerned about a national fee. Can you talk about that for a moment. Just what is your biggest concern? That it will be harmful, or it would supersede your fees? Ms. Knatz. We would have several concerns. First of all, one of the things we like about our fee is it is collected here, it stays here, and it delivers the project. We are committed to carrying out the projects. Oftentimes when you pay a fee, and if it goes to Washington, then sometimes you have to fight to get the money back. So that would be one issue. And the second issue, we have been--I think we are pretty clear on what projects need to be done, both in the port region and regionally. The Mayor mentioned Alameda Corridor East. That is also the number one project on our regional list as well. I think there is a lot of consensus of the major good movement projects that need to be done in Southern California. So I think we are covered with the regional fees and the local fees, and as I said, some things will get done, the bridge will get done and then there will be the 710 that comes after it, or some new technology thing that we want to do, that Congressman Rohrabacher is looking at. There is always going to be something. But we are sort of managing the process and making sure that, you know, the fee will go up and down, and we deliver on what we collect. Mr. Cummings. just one other question. Mr. Steinke, when Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Congress phased out the use of the single haul tankers, and why would a simple phaseout of old trucks, coupled with the introduction of a mandate requiring the use of green trucks, accomplish some of your goals, and why wouldn't the market fuel a demand for trucks meeting the 2007 emission standards? Mr. Steinke. Mr. Chairman, I think we have experienced what the market can and cannot do without some kind of regulation here in San Pedro Bay. I think we know that the Clean Trucks Program, you know, with the concession program that both LA and Long Beach have proposed, provides the momentum and the motivation and the incentive for the truck fleet to be changed over. We are not talking about a insignificant number of trucks. We are talking about 16,000 trucks that need to be replaced between now and 2012. And so we need a mechanism that moves the market more quickly than the market would move itself, in order to stimulate a changeover, and that is why we have adopted the Clean Trucks Program. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. It was such a pleasure to hear you describe why the container fees should be kept here, locally. It is the argument that I made three years ago when both ports opposed the legislation that I had, that would have done exactly what you said. So thank you for indulging me on ``I told you so.'' But it is always good to have people coming over to your side rather than having to admit you were wrong and going to their side. But anyway, let me note that the ports--and again, I am going to admonish the ports on behalf of my colleagues, but I am sure they feel the same way. Look, when you are talking about what we are going to do, and where the fee is going to be put, and how that is going to affect this and that, you are acting like you are the big decision makers. I want to tell you something. You are not the decision makers. The region is the decision makers here. Now I am represent you in the United States Congress, but I represent a lot of other people in the United States Congress too. Whatever comes out of this idea for container fees and reforms, and modernization of the port system here, in Southern California, the goods movement system, is going to be a regional decision, and it is not going to be the ports having control of a certain amount of money and deciding where it goes. That is just not going to be it. We are going to be working together, and I am working together with our colleagues here, to make sure that we come up with something that is the very best solution, and it is a long-term solution and not just stop-gap solutions. So let me first admonish you, I think that that attitude was very present in your testimony today, and I will leave that to my colleagues to verify, whether they caught that or not; but I certainly caught it. Second of all, a lot of times I come up and, you know, try to deal with the ports, and I do not get what I consider to be a cooperative spirit. I mean let me just note. When I first talked about going at night, which was of course when we redistricted back into here, everybody said it wouldn't happen, and I got more guff from people trying to say that Dana Rohrabacher is being so, you know, how would you say it? I am not being responsible and I am not being practical enough to let the ports understand that they, as they explained to me, you can't open the ports at night because nobody will go then. Well, we have PierPASS now and 40 percent of the trucks are going at night. And then of course we started talking about the source of income for the container fees, and again received a bad reception, and now it is receiving a good reception. Let's go back to now, to the latest, which is this Clean Trucks Program. What is it that makes you seem to think that you guys can determine the best way to accomplish a goal? Is not the goal to bring down the emissions coming from the trucks that service your ports? Why is it that you had to come up with a complicated system of leasing trucks and involve yourself directly in the implementation of trying to achieve the goal, rather than permitting, quote, the market to work and saying, if you could achieve this level of emissions, that is fine, and just insist that that level of emissions be enforced. Mr. Steinke. Well, Congressman, I think that we have seen what the industry can do and what it can't do on its own, and I think that was the reason why the two ports, or the two cities have gotten together and worked together on a Clean Trucks Program, that through subsidies and incentives moves people into new trucks as quickly as possible. Mr. Rohrabacher. No, this is not a Clean Trucks Program. But it is not a Clean Trucks Program. It is a New Trucks Program. It is an assumption that new trucks are a more cost- effective way to deal with the issue than perhaps offering some type of effort to upgrade old trucks. And I will suggest, that as a senior Member of the Science Committee, I came to the ports for the last year and a half, suggesting that there might be some technology efforts that would save--you know, we are talking about, say, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per truck, and the ports were unwilling to test the new technologies that I was talking about. You know--look. We are all in favor of the trade that you are talking about. Mr. Chairman, I just think that we have to make sure that we open up this whole dialogue and this discussion, so that we are doing the most effective thing, at of course the most reasonable cost, and I don't think that we have had that same type of open discussion with the policies of the ports in the past, and I would hope with the Clean Trucks Program, I would hope it is not just going to lead us to, number one, a situation where we are wasting taxpayers' dollars that could have brought down emissions. There is a possibility the technology that I was talking about, which the final test will be out this week, would have lowered the emissions to make sure that older trucks are actually cleaner than the newer trucks, with the attachment on to the engine. One last thing. How much does it cost to take a container from the port to the inland empire, to the rail heads in the inland empire? Mr. Steinke. I think that dray cost is anywhere between 150- to $180; somewhere in that range. Mr. Rohrabacher. Someone told me it was $480. Is that way off? Mr. Steinke. I don't think it is that much. Mr. Rohrabacher. To hire a truck to go from dockside to inland empire railhead? Mr. Steinke. I don't believe the one-way trip is that much; no. Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings. Let me just say this, as we move to Ms. Richardson, it strikes me, as I listened to what you just said, and listened to the testimony of our witnesses, that the whole issue of the regional decisions make a lot of sense, because, in a way, what the witnesses have testified to, at least one of them, I can't remember which, is that when you talk about, say, the container fees, it is going to cost something on that Ipod, and those Ipods are going to be sold all over California, I mean, all up and down the coast here, and so it seems to me that it makes sense that you have the regional decisions. The other thing that you have got to keep in mind--this issue is one which is going to call for everybody, pretty much to be on board, and when people feel that they have a part of what is coming out of this revenue source, I think, and that they actually have a hand in it, in deciding where it goes, so the money, of course it is spent effectively and efficiently, they are more apt to be a part of it. And I think that while some may look at Mr. Rohrabacher's comments as strong, I think there is certainly something that is, you know, that we all need to consider there. Ms. Richardson. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I will take a slightly different approach. Let me say again, since I started here as being on the City Council and then the state legislature, I think it is important to kind a create a little framework. I clearly understand, and absolutely, Mr. Rohrabacher, and now the Chairman, but what I want to reiterate out of the testimony of our witnesses is something unique that is happening here. A lot of ports are talking about, because of the impact of the traffic, they want to do something at night. Well, thank goodness, we have two ports that have stepped forward, who have actually done that, and they have implemented PierPASS. We have also had a lot of ports talk about the negative impacts, and fortunately, we have had two ports who have come forward, more than any other ports in this Nation, and have established this Green Port Program. We also have a lot of ports who talked about all different things that we need to do, but this is really a miracle. We should realize that it is happening where you have the two largest ports in the Nation, who are actually sitting next to each other, talking to each other, have worked with each other for two or three years, and have developed a plan to do so. So I think it is also important to--and I wanted to highlight that, because I was here when all that was happening--that what I heard in your testimony was not a resistance to working on a regional plan, or a resistance of understanding there might be a national plan. It was just that we have gotten to the point, in this particular community, where we can't wait any longer, where the aging infrastructure, the diaper that is hanging over the Gerald Desmond Bridge, the highest rate of asthma and cancer in the country is right here--we had to move now. And that is what I heard of the testimony. And now what this Committee is saying, which is why we wanted to make sure to have this hearing here, is that unfortunately what you are hearing my colleagues talk about is that Representative Calvert's bill has brought to the attention, with this Committee, that we have a role as well, and that is what our responsibility is going to be. Now that we have heard all this, we hear what you are doing, and your plans, but we also have to acknowledge that we now have to step up. We have to make sure that if the regional stakeholders are not working with you, and it is not getting done, what you are hearing all these people here saying is, well, then we have got to make sure that that happens. And so I just wanted to provide that, just as a background of your comments. Now Mr. Steinke, you mentioned about the elasticity of a potential fee, and I thought I remember reading somewhere, that that could be anywhere between 100 and $150. Is that correct? Mr. Steinke. I think that is in the range of where we thought the diversion might start to occur, once we hit that amount, around 150, $160, something like that. Ms. Richardson. Okay. And also, there was discussion here about you are hearing us talk about interstate, which is what we do on a national level. What you have done is intrastate. What do you think about this discussion that we are having, that we applaud your efforts, but, you know, what is going to happen to the region as a whole? What are your thoughts? Mr. Steinke. Well, Congresswoman, I think, as you accurately portray it, I think we recognize the sense of urgency that this port complex had in needing to move forward with not only environmental initiatives, but also infrastructure initiatives. The Gerald Desmond Bridge is a good case in point. That bridge was built in 1965. It does not handle the amount of cargo that goes across it as efficiently as it should, and it is about a $900 million project. I think it would be presumptive for us to think that we were going to get $900 million from the Federal Government. So there needs to be other ways that we need to look at that through a public/private partnership, whether that is a local fee or whether that is 1B money, matching funds from the ports. But we recognize that, you know, if we just take a normal course of action, you know, we are going to have more serious deficiencies with that bridge than we currently have now. And I think that what we--you know, from my position, and only speaking as the executive director of the Port of Long Beach, where I am not certainly opposed to a national fee, you know, in the time that that dialogue takes place, I think we need to take some actions, initially, to see where we can come up with the matching fees we need for some of these very serious infrastructure projects that have national significance, not just local significance, not just significance for California, but 10 percent of the Nation's cargo goes across that bridge. Ms. Richardson. Okay. I have about 20 seconds, so let me wrap up with this, and Ms. Knatz, if you would like to comment on this point. Both of you talked about, ultimately, this price coming down to the consumer, and I work with my colleagues here, so I saw the hair raise and, you know, the collars raise. I understand that it is easier to do it in this way and it makes sense from your perspective. But what would you say to that consumer who--really, is it the consumer's responsibility to pay another 50 cents? Or what about the shippers and everybody else who are making money on these products? What is their responsibility to pay their fair share instead of adding it on to the consumer, and is that possible? Ms. Knatz. Well, I would say that every entity in this logistics chain has a role in this. I mean, in the whole Clean Air Action Plan, we have told the carriers, ``You have to clean up the ships,'' and we have told the railroads, ``You have to clean up the locomotives,'' and, you know, the trucks were something that we felt, because the industry was so diffuse, that the ports had to take that on themselves. There was a lot of discussion about charging the drayage companies, and a lot of the companies that we have now don't have any assets. They couldn't afford it. So the only way to really do it, and really be the fairest, was really to spread it among a larger consumer base, and I think the consumers nationally, maybe they don't recognize the fact that this region bears a burden for the entire country in terms of experiencing the health impact as a result of, you know, 45 percent of the goods coming through this area. So at least for that component, it was important to really spread it among a sort of wider base. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional time, and again, I think this particular panel has brought forward the point that clearly we have made some local progress here, but as you are hearing from my colleagues, there is great concern as we extend it out. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. I just want to make it very clear. As I became more and more familiar with this issue, I think you all ought to be complimented for not just looking at a problem and saying, ah, you know, we will pass it on. But you tried to grapple with it and to address it, and I mean, this kind of cooperation I think has to be complimented, because we don't see enough of this. [Applause.] Mr. Cummings. And so now the question is how do we move from here. Mr. Filner. Mr. Filner. Thank you. I would agree with your last statement. You know, we, in San Diego, have long admired what you do here. And Dr. Knatz, you sort of said that you didn't think there would be much of a legal challenge. I assume you were talking about the Infrastructure Cargo Fee. Ms. Knatz. Right. Mr. Filner. And were you distinguishing that from the Clean Trucks Program? I heard there was a legal challenge filed already. Ms. Knatz. Yes. Mr. Filner. And what do you make of this? I mean, do you feel very confident about surmounting a legal challenge? Ms. Knatz. Yes. I was differentiating, I was talking about the Infrastructure Cargo Fee and we felt very comfortable, there is just not going to be a legal challenge. There has been a legal challenge filed on the Clean Trucks Program against both ports, and yes, we feel very confident about our program. Mr. Filner. Just for a layman, what is the general basis of that complaint and why do you think you will overcome it? The counsel will say don't answer this but---- Ms. Knatz. Yes, right, exactly, and I probably am not going to do it justice. I would say from our perspective, we really have our proprietary interest on as ports in terms of the businesses that we operate, which gives us the opportunity to deal with certain things and set some conditions, and we believe that we have the right to do that, and the Trucking Association believes different, based on various case law. Mr. Filner. Good luck. Ms. Knatz. Thank you. Mr. Filner. I hope you prevail. You mentioned that you started with, you wanted to call it Infrastructure Cargo instead of a container fee because obviously there are other ways of bringing in cargo, but you haven't moved there. Give me some of those other ways of measuring, I mean, because of course we, in San Diego, don't have many containers coming in. Ms. Knatz. Right. Mr. Filner. By the way, if anybody says they are going to leave your port and come somewhere else, we can't take them anyway. I wish we could. Anyway, what other ways did you measure that? Tonnage of bulk? Ms. Knatz. Yes. Mr. Filner. That kind of thing? Is that what you are talking about? Ms. Knatz. Yes, exactly. It would be a very modest amount because that cargo is low value and couldn't handle it. But it is the principal of the thing, that the trucks that may handle the bulk cargos use some of the same infrastructure that the container trucks do. Mr. Filner. Right. I was wondering about that, because some of us don't have the containers that you all have here. You guys have differed in your approach, in your demands on the--I forget what you call them. Ms. Knatz. Concessionaires. Mr. Filner. Yes. IMC, or LMC? Mr. Steinke. Licensed Motor Carriers. Mr. Filner. Licensed Motor Carriers. I mean, is there a reason for that? I mean, why did you approach that differently? Mr. Steinke. Well, I think, Congressman, two philosophical positions by each respective board and elected official within each city. I think from the Port of Long Beach's standpoint, we wanted to keep things as close to the same as they are. These are landmark programs. They are pioneering programs. No other port complex has done that. We want to make sure that we try to ensure that cargo moves. But we need to make sure that we clean the air, and so we felt that the best way to accomplish continuing goods movement and cleaning the air as quickly as possible was to have the flexibility of either having a licensed motor carrier that has the employees, a licensed motor carrier that has independent owner-operators, or a licensed motor carrier who has a combination of both. Mr. Filner. And you took a different stance. Ms. Knatz. And I would say we took a longer-term view, you know, considering the fact that changing over this truck fleet is a $2 billion program. You know, we believe the program has to be sustainable, that five, seven years down the road, the trucks we buy today are no longer going to be the cleanest trucks out there. So we did not believe that giving grants to individual truck drivers was a way to build a sustainable trucking industry. Five to seven years from now, we would like to see licensed motor carriers that have the ability to buy the next generation of new trucks, without coming to us and trying to find $2 billion. Also using employees allows that truck to be used more than one shift. So that means less trucks to buy, less trucks on the road, less emissions. It creates some efficiencies in the system that we don't have today, where every driver has to own his own truck. Mr. Filner. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings. Ms. Napolitano. Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Knatz, in your statement you were talking about investment in rail improvements. Would you expound on that. Ms. Knatz. Yes. About as far as what we need to do in the near term, near area of the port, we need about $600 million in rail infrastructure, just surrounding the port area. That is not including new... dock rail facilities inside the terminals, and that is also not including the Alameda Corridor East, which, you know, a lot of that is actually highway work because it is overpasses. So when I talked about rail projects, I am talking about that $600 million or so, that is near the ports, where an investment is needed. Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, you were mentioning, in your statement, about the ports moving collaboratively, to work together to address the issue of the growth of the port, the economic impact, etcetera. But I would like to thank EPA, because they came to the ports years ago and said, ``You will clean it up.'' Am I correct? Ms. Knatz. I would also say yes, and with AQMD too, also was a big driver. Ms. Napolitano. Correct. It wasn't totally ``We see the light.'' Ms. Knatz. Oh, no, no, no. Ms. Napolitano. And I just want to make that for the general public, because we have been working on this issue for many, many years. And you heard from the mayor, saying that pollution from here goes through the inland empire and they get the brunt of what we send down. So it is something that we need to be sure that we understand, that all your efforts are great, and we do applaud you, but we have some way to go in moving forth on this. And I started back in the nineties, when I was in state assembly, trying to bring the ports together, to be able to have a view of the dredging, a view of the capacity, a view of the growth, and I was told I was crazy and that I, you know, ought to go somewhere and disappear. Along with Mr. Filner, it was like--just to make my point. And I can tell you, I have had some of my colleagues, and one of them, former Chair of Rules Committee, made a statement to me that I very much understand now, and that is that if we were to check every container that came in for the truth in statement, that every member of the United States, every person would have seven lawn chairs. So we are not charging for what is being imported in this country based on its value, just, rather, based on container. I think that has to change, because we are-iPods, other equipment is exceedingly expensive, we are not taking the fair share of what is being brought into this country, at the expense of people in our areas that are bearing the brunt, whether it is on the rail or the highways. And what I hear a lot is truck versus train. I don't hear you say anything that you are going to be working with the railroads, to try to get them to do the improvements for grade separations, or betterment on the grade crossings, and that is important. That is critical for some of us. That is our district. You talk about some 30 grade--I have got 54 from East LA to Pomona. So, you know, when you say you are going to try to keep that here, locally, I beg your pardon. Regionally, is we get all your traffic in our area, and I have been one of the strongest vocal opponents, on the Railroad Committee, to make sure that the railroads understand that we are going to start holding them accountable. Federal law limits of what they are capable of being forced to do. But I have got news. There are new sheriffs coming to town, and we need to understand how that is going to be looked at in the future, to being able to put the onus where it belongs, and getting that fair share back to the general public. And you are the entities, and I agree with Mr. Rohrabacher. I think we need to start taking a very close look at how you are doing some of these things. We never hear from you. We only sit on those Committees that look at the funding that comes into this area. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Ms. Solis. Did you all have a response? I am sorry. Ms. Knatz. Well, I just wanted to clarify one thing_the fee that will start collection in January 09 is for the local projects. That is about the $3 billion worth of improvements. There was also a regional fee that we developed, the two ports, that in deference to Senator Lowenthal's legislation, we did not move forward with and which, you know, depending on what happens with that, we, you know, our Board made commitments to do that, and so that was always part of the plan, and that dealt with those projects of national significance that were not so much designated by us but by others in the region, like Alameda Corridor East and Colton Crossing, and things like that. So I just didn't want you to leave with the misunderstanding that maybe we were not looking at regional projects. Ms. Napolitano. And Mr. Chairman, may I point out that we talk about green trucks but we don't talk about green trains, and they have been developed, and I think maybe the ports ought to look at forcing the railroads to use green trains. Thank you. Mr. Cummings. Ms. Solis. Ms. Solis. Thank you. A lot has been said but just a quick question for both of you. Are both of you supportive of the Lowenthal legislation? The different ports? Mr. Steinke. Yes. Our Board has supported the Lowenthal legislation. Ms. Knatz. Yes. And that's true. Yes. Ms. Solis. Okay. I can understand part of your argument about not taking on the bigger aspect of covering of the regional areas, because hopefully we will see Mr. Lowenthal's legislation go forward, which I support, but I do want to say that something that we have to keep in mind is that the cost of health care for individuals that are impacted by the business of the ports isn't just San Pedro's problem, or Long Beach or LA. It is all of us. The taxpayers have to pay for much of those individuals that are in the industry, and some that are working as independent contractors, what have you, and people that live in the surrounding area, that can't afford health care coverage, and there tends to be a large disproportionate number of truckers, and individuals along the corridor of Long Beach and LA port, that live in very high poverty-stricken areas. So I wonder what mitigation we also need to look at. Not all of us are going to agree on this, but I think it is a real cost for the American public, and I would just ask you to look at bigger regional issues, and who bears that cost. I represent more of the inland area and the San Gabriel Valley, and East Los Angeles. We also have some major issues with the railroad industry, and I do agree with my colleague. We have to go clean. We have to force them. Just as you are forcing these fleets to go forward with cleaner diesel trucks, and what have you, or another type of fuel that is more productive, I would say stand up, and I think Members of Congress will stand with you to see that that happens. I have also a concern with the terminal operators, the fact that somehow you are not actually going after them to pay what I think is a responsible amount of funding that should be made available for your operations, for your change to clean energy, and for upgrading the workers and their skills, and what training they are going to need. And I want to know why, why, deliberately, that was done. Mr. Steinke. Well, I think with respect to the marine terminal operators, those operators, we have entered into a number of green leases. The green leases require that the marine terminal operators change out all of their yard equipment. Ms. Solis. Can you give me an update on exactly who those are. Which ones haven't and which ones are. Because I personally took a tour and met with one of your main operators, and was very impressed by one lead operator, and having talked to him learned that the other operators in the area who are foreign-owned, are not paying their fair share here. And I would ask what is going on to help push them in that direction, or force them to come forward? Mr. Steinke. Well, specifically to your question, Congresswoman, we have ITS International Transportation Service, which is a subsidiary of K-Line, a shipping line out of Japan, they have entered into a green lease. We have Matson, which is a U.S. line, that has entered into a green lease. Those all have specific provisions that require them to use low sulfur fuels, to plug into shoreside electric power, to change out all of their yard equipment, and use the best environmental practices as possible. Ms. Solis. Well, which ones have not signed those agreements? Mr. Steinke. One of the things we have is leverage with a lease, and as those leases come due, that is one of our opportunities to impose green lease language in these leases. Ms. Solis. And how many leases do you have left to get to that? Mr. Steinke. We have about four other container terminal leases that we will have to get to, in terms of moving forward and implementing green lease into those. Ms. Solis. And I think that is a very important aspect for us to also focus in on, because there is a wealth of profits being made, also again looking at what comes into our ports, how that is handled, and the fact that everyone here, I believe the stakeholders have to be represented, and they may not be at the table right now but I think that we have to somehow kind of move that along. That is what my interest is in this particular matter, health-related, worker safety and protection, and making sure that those that can afford to pay more, because they do reap some really great profits here, we know that, we don't want to harm that industry, but we know that there has to be more transparency, there has to be more accountability, and on the part of both cities, I do want to say I do commend you for moving forward on the truck program, and your effort to try to clean up those vessels that come in, that add also to the soot and contaminants in the air. We need to work together, and I hope that that is something that you all will take home with you, because I think that is something that has been missing from this paradigm. This is the first time I have actually come to a hearing, to deliberately hear how the impact of the ports is going to affect positively or negatively in the future, and how these programs that you are rolling out are going to impact the residents and constituents that I represent. So I applaud our leadership for having this, but this is one in a series of hearings that I think we will have to have throughout the Southern California Basin, that is affected by these great ports and by the railroad industry. Mr. Cummings. I can tell you something else, Ms. Solis. That this issue is so significant. I mean, I don't know if people really realize how big this is, and I can see my people back in Baltimore asking, you know, why aren't we doing this, or trying to do it. I am sure we will, I know this Committee will have other hearings, and I am sure you will have them in your region. I want to thank you both for being with us, and I just want to ask you one last question. If the lawsuit should be successful in striking down the concession programs, what impact would that have on the Clean Trucks Program? Mr. Steinke. Mr. Chairman, speaking for the Port of Long Beach, we still intend to move forward with the progressive ban, starting October 1, where 1988 and older vehicles will be banned from accessing port terminals, and we still intend to collect the $35 per TEU fee. As I understand the lawsuit, they are not asking for an injunction on either one of those two elements of the Clean Trucks Program. Mr. Cummings. I just wanted to get Ms. Knatz and then I will go to you, Mr. Rohrabacher. Ms. Knatz. Right. The same. Mr. Cummings. Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me get this right. If a older truck is cleaner and meets an emission standard, might be cleaner than, for example, if it is using a new type of fuel or has a different type of upgrade on its engine, that older truck, even though it is cleaner, will not be permitted in the ports? Mr. Steinke. Congressman, as I understand it, and I don't know if we have any technical people here, you can't clean up an older truck to even meet the 2007 standards, through retrofit devices or cleaner fuels or anything else. The way---- Mr. Rohrabacher. That is not the question. The question is somebody does meet an emissions standard that is as clean as a new truck, they will not be permitted. An older truck that has a cleaner engine than a current engine will not be permitted to move forward and participate? Mr. Steinke. The way the program is designed, 1988 and older trucks will not be able to access terminals after October 1. Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, I just have to say that, to me, is almost nonsensical, considering how many technologies--I am on the Science Committee. People come to me with fuel additives every day. People come to me with different devices and different ways of upgrading the efficiencies of engines. It seems like to me, that somebody wants to make a lot of money selling new trucks, and there are some other powerful forces at play at this, if you don't just go with a standard that has to be met, and everybody has to meet the standard. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings. Thank you. Thank you very much. And again, I want to thank both of you for your testimony. Thank you very much.. We now call our final and our third panel. Mr. Charles Mack is the director of the Port Division of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and let me add, that we have in the audience UA 250, the Teamsters AFSCME District Council 36, and the International Longshoremen and Warehouse Union. We want to thank all of you for being with us. We also have on our panel Mr. David Petitt, who is a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ms. Elizabeth Warren, who is the executive director of FuturePorts. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings. Ms. Richardson. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I just want to let you know that outside, we actually have another room where folks are watching this on television. We had a standing room only, which is pretty exciting, and I just wanted to again make sure the public is aware, although we will not be able to take your questions as we are hearing testimony, please feel free to complete one of these forms, leave them outside if you are leaving a little bit earlier, and we will make sure that they are submitted to the Committee for appropriate review. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Charles Mack. CHARLES MACK, DIRECTOR, PORT DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; DAVID PETTIT, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; AND ELIZABETH WARREN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FUTUREPORTS Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, and Members. I welcome the opportunity to offer testimony on port development and the environment at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. My name is Chuck Mack. I am a Teamster vice president and also the head of the Port Division for the union. The Teamsters represent hundreds of thousands of transportation workers across the country. They depend upon the movement of freight through our maritime ports for their livelihood. Without a robust and vibrant port economy, our members who drive trucks, our members who work in rail, our members who work in the warehouse would be out of work. But in recent years, we have become acutely aware that the health of our members, their families, and the communities they live in are at risk because of the deadly diesel pollution spewing from dirty trucks, ships, cranes, and other equipment. Unless port operations, and particularly port trucking, and our whole global supply chain is made environmentally sustainable, our global economy will be at risk and transportation workers, especially port truck drivers, will suffer. What we have today is a system where the oldest trucks on the road end up at the ports. In fact the average port truck is nearly 15 years old, poorly maintained, and produces at least 10 times the diesel pollution as a new, properly-maintained 2007 diesel trucks. And the 2000 port trucks that were made before 1989 produce at least 60 times the pollution of a new truck. Just 10 percent of the port trucking fleet puts the equivalent of 120,000 new diesel trucks, spews pollution, on the road. No wonder data from the California Air Resources Board shows that pollution from port trucks kills two people each and every week. Failure to clean up the port trucks will cost the region nearly $6 billion in premature deaths, hospital admissions, respiratory illnesses, and lost school and work days over the next 10 years. Here is why. Port truck drivers are currently required to own their own truck in order to get hired to work in the industry by a trucking company. But the so-called trucking companies at the port currently shirk and skirt their responsibilities as legitimate employers and cheat the state out of millions of dollars in payroll taxes by hiring these owner-operators as independent contractors. Let's be clear. Port drivers are not small business owners. They are severely underpaid workers who must sign leases that usually force them to haul for only one company, with no ability to negotiate contracts, a fact that has led the attorney general to launch an industrywide investigation. Last week, California's attorney general filed complaints against two companies for illegally classifying their drivers as independent contractors, and denying them worker's compensation, unemployment insurance, and coverage of wage and hour, and health and safety laws that protect employees in the State of California and the country. This misclassification pins them with all the responsibility to buy and maintain the trucks. They receive no health care, no Social Security. They are paid only by the load not the trip. The traffic and the time is on them. They bring home, on average, only $29,000 a year. And it is far lower when the diesel price climbs over $5 a gallon as it is today. In fact many drivers can't survive on what they make at the port today. Over the weekend, Mario Aguilar, a long time so- called independent owner-operator, here at the San Pedro ports, brought us a copy of his last pay stub. I have it here to show you. His take-home pay was 1.76. That is not $176. That is one dollar and 76 cents out of a gross check of $656.59. His take-home pay was eaten up because 70 percent of the check went to fuel, insurance ate up the rest, and it is a good thing that he has got his truck paid off, because if he had truck payments, he would literally be paying to work instead of being paid to work. It shouldn't come as a surprise that labor unrest is pervasive factor in the port economy throughout North America and particularly here, in Southern California. In the nearly three decades since deregulation, drivers in U.S. ports have struck, staged convoys, and shut down the ports to protest their conditions related to the legal fiction that they are independent businesses and not workers. This frequent unrest adds additional cost to business, workers in the community costing port stakeholders millions of dollars. Los Angeles and Long Beach were the site of two major strikes that lasted several months in 1988 and 1995. It involved thousands of misclassified drivers, who halted all economic activity. With diesel costs soaring, more recently hundreds of drivers parked their trucks in protest in Oakland. There have also been several wildcat strikes involving hundreds of drivers over the past few months, here, in the San Pedro ports. The Los Angeles Clean Trucks Program is the only comprehensive, sustainable program, that economists, environmentalists agree, will clean the air in the long term and better equip the industry for today's rapidly-changing global economy. Fundamentally, what the Port of LA is trying to achieve with their Clean Trucks Program is to minimize the mount of equipment and hardware by maximizing the use of labor. Only a company-based system, that enables the port to hold trucking companies accountable for their operations, is capable of achieving this fundamental objective. If companies are responsible for the cost of owning and maintaining the trucks operating under their authority, they have economic incentives to maximize the hours that each truck is in service. An owner-operator system prevents these efficiencies from occurring because the owner of a truck is limited in the number of hours he or she can work. An owner-operator system makes drivers akin to sharecroppers on wheels. Minimizing the number of trucks serving the port by maximizing their hours of service will reduce the number of trucks, reduce congestion, and wait times, and increase operational efficiencies through more load matching. Finally, the ports need a program so they can achieve a greater level of security at the port. The transportation worker identification credential has taken years to get off the ground, and it is unclear when it will be actually operational. In the meantime, the ports need to be able to identify who the drivers are in case there is a problem. The Clean Trucks Program will enable them to register drivers and require companies to be held responsible for their workforce. While the San Pedro ports are the first ports in the United States to address port truck pollution, they are not the first in North America to enact a licensed program to stabilize the industry. In 1999, the Vancouver Port Authority, Vancouver, Canada, enacted a truck licensing program that restricts access to trucking companies that have obtained a license from the port--to only trucking companies that have obtained a license from the port. The Vancouver Port Authority credits its current workforce stability to a mandatory licensing system for trucking companies doing business at the ports that hire employees. The truck industry in Canada has accepted this business model without litigation. Further, the port is now phasing in truck standards to clean up the fleet. In the face of the unreasonable efforts by the American Trucking Association to block the enactment of the Ports Clean Trucks Program, the Teamsters Union urges the Committee to provide whatever support it can to ensure the successful implementation of the Los Angeles Clean Trucks Program for the health of our communities, the workers at the ports, and for the future health of our economy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have this pay stub in case you would care to see it. Mr. Cummings. I would love to see that. Please. Mr. Pettit. Mr. Petitt. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the chance to share my views on port development and the environment in Southern California. My name is David Pettit. I am a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and I am director of NRDC's Southern California Air Program. I have to say as a lawyer, when I face a panel of seven, they are usually wearing robes, and I seldom have a chance to get a sentence out. Mr. Cummings. Is your mike on? Mr. Petitt. It is on. I seldom get a chance to get a sentence out before I get questions. So what I would like to do is respond to some of the questions and remarks that I have heard from the panel this morning. Starting with Congresswoman Solis, you asked about the EJ communities, and what is the effect on those communities of what is happening in the ports. I have a graphic here that I would like to show you. Courtesy of Google Earth, we have a graphic that shows all of the so-called sensitive receptors within 5 miles of a huge proposed project that the Port of Los Angeles calls the China Shipping Project. And you can see that they are color-coded, so we tried to show all of the schools and medical facilities, nursing homes and the like, and as you can see there are a lot of them. As you know, these communities that are near our ports are largely working class communities of color. These are NRDC's clients. These are our clients who we attempt to represent. In the law suit that the American Trucking Association has filed, we have moved to intervene with a couple of our environmental partners, in order to defend and represent the health interests of these people as well as try to defend both ports clean trucking plants. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that this be made a part of the record. Mr. Cummings. So ordered. Mr. Petitt. Thank you. And in the written testimony I have submitted, there is a small version of the same chart. Congressman Rohrabacher, you asked a very good question. But why is it that an older truck that can meet these new standards, why do we kick that truck out? And there is a legalistic answer to that, and that is, under the Clean Air Act, when local jurisdictions start setting emission limits they get in trouble. NRDC recently lost a law suit that I participated in, having to do with the ability of the State of California to do just that, to set emission standards. That is how the court viewed it, anyhow, for marine fuel in auxiliary engines, and the 9th Circuit said no, you can't do that because it is preempted by the Clean Air Act. You have to go ask EPA first and maybe they will let you and maybe they won't. So for the ports here to say, well, any truck that meets this limit can come in, in my view, that is subject to litigation. As I said, our recent experience on that is not good. If you just say okay, a truck that is earlier than X year, that legally is a use restriction, not an emissions limit, it may seem like a crazy distinction but it is one that works. So the ports are on firm legal ground doing that and would be on shaky ground, at least in my view, if they said okay, if you meet a certain emissions limit, then you are okay. I should say, having said that, though, when the first part of the clean trucks ban goes into effect this October, 50 percent of all the truck-related diesel pollution will go away overnight. Overnight. So the people who live in the communities that you saw on that big charge, they will breathe better overnight, when that first ban goes into effect, and that is because the oldest trucks have a much higher percentage of the total truck pollution than you would think if you just did some sort of linear analysis. You get a similar result with the clean marine fuel programs that Dr. Knatz and Mr. Steinke were talking about. It is voluntary now but when the big ships, when they tie up at dock, mostly they run their auxiliary engines 24/7. So it takes like three days to load or unload a ship. You are talking about the pollution equivalent of a million cars, a million cars, and when you go to the cleaner sulfur fuel, 80 percent of that goes away overnight, and that is a result that, again, the people in those communities near the ports are going to see literally overnight, when those improvements go into effect. With respect to the clean trucks plan--oh, the other point I wanted to make, Congress Rohrabacher, is in terms of technology. It is NRDC's view that we try to sponsor a result, not a technology. I don't care what it takes to get clean air in this area. If I could stand on my head and that would clean up the air, that will be fine with me. If it is maglev, if it is, you know, electric guideways, if it is electric trucks, it doesn't matter to me, it doesn't matter to us what it is as long as this problem gets fixed. The Port of LA has recently rolled out an electric drayage truck which has a lot of promise, and I am hoping that we are going to see at least some of those on the road, literally, within the next year or so. Chairman Cummings, you had remarks about a regional approach. I completely agree with that. The pollution doesn't respect city or county boundaries. It goes wherever it goes. Much of it starts here at our ports, it flows into the inland empire. If you look at the studies that our local air board has done, AQMD, they have maps that shows where the pollution is worse, where the cancer risk is worse in our area. There is a huge cluster right at the ports, and then it goes right up the goods movement routes. If you look at the 710, which I drove on getting here, and some of you may have driven on, that is the worst of any of the throughways that the trucks or trains go on, in terms of the cancer risk for the people who live near it. And that kind of risk is exactly what the Clean Trucks Program is designed to fix. And let me just conclude by saying that in my view, you can't fix that, the Clean Trucks Program, without the container fee, and the reason for that is the new trucks are really expensive. They are about 150- to $175,000 each for a 2007 EPA-compliant truck, and as Mr. Mack has said, given the economics of the poor truckers right now, they can't afford that. If you have a gentleman who is making $30,000 a year, on average, and that is before the recent spike in diesel fuel, that person doesn't have $150,000 for a new truck. That person is not going to be able to get financing from the bank to go out and buy one of those new trucks. And so if we talk about a national standard for having new trucks, we need to say, okay, nationally, no one's driving pre- 1989 anymore, that is great, except then I think we have to confront squarely the issue of how are we going to pay for the new trucks to replace the lost cargo volume from those old trucks? And the Port of LA and the Port of Long Beach have come up with a way to do that, with container fees, and NRDC fully supports that. Thank you very much. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Ms. Warren. Ms. Warren. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Elizabeth Warren and I am the executive director of FuturePorts. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee this afternoon. We have nearly 60 member communities and partnering organizations, and we have at least two things in common. One is a vested interest in the economic performance of our ports of LA and Long Beach. The other is that we all believe in the need for clean air. We all live here and we are all part of the community. We believe that by growing our ports, we can advance economic performance while concurrently improving our environment by cleaning the air. This will not be easy nor inexpensive. How we achieve this and how we pay for it in an equitable and economically-sustainable manner is where the discussion and the dialogue needs to occur. We fervently believe that doing nothing is not an option, and to clean our ports, we must simultaneously and continuously grow, while growing green. Recently, the ports released their 2006 emissions inventories, and although there were increases in emissions over the 2005 levels, emissions on the per TEU basis were down. The benefits of many of the adopted programs, which were not in existence in 2006, are now being realized. Increased use of rail, which is two to three times more efficient than trucks has been a significant factor in this reduction. I have attached in my written testimony a factsheet from the California Resources Board summarizing many initiatives. Some of those are voluntary. There are also voluntary and incentive-based programs like the PierPASS Offpeak Program and the voluntary replacement of cargo handling equipment with newer cleaner equipment, installation of retrofit devices, and use of cleaner fuels. Other voluntary action includes vessel speed reduction programs and use of shore power. The success of these voluntary programs to cut pollution is highly encouraging. When the ports and business work together on air pollution problems from specific sources, we see dramatic results. With respect to the trucks, we have urged the ports and elected officials to focus on implementing a truck plan that has considered the legal implications of the port actions to mandate certain restrictions on the trucking industry. Business cannot function with the level of uncertainty that is currently occurring. We believe our first priority is to implement a sustainable air quality improvement program, with the highest emphasis on improvements that can be implemented in a timely manner, such as the truck replacement program. Regarding container fees, we are aware of the many fees that are currently in place and being proposed at the local, state and federal level. We have many concerns about how these fees are being proposed and implemented, the potential unintended consequences of these fees. I don't mean to say that industry opposes fees. Some fees, like the PierPASS in Alameda Corridor provide benefits. But user fees should be differentiated from the legislated fees. If fees are levied, they should be applied to specific projects that are identified, the account must be protected for use for the specific project for which it was intended, and there should be a sunset on the fee once the project is complete. Industry needs to see a return on that fees investment. Projects should be prioritized as those that will increase efficiencies while reducing emissions, therefore creating a win-win situation for the ports, the businesses, and the community. We are also concerned that not enough analysis has been given to the overall number of fees, and total amount being levied against shippers. A summary of the various adopted and proposed fees is attached. There is a threshold that will drive business away, creating unintended consequences of inefficiencies, emission increases, loss of jobs, and economic harm. We used to think that cargo volume at our ports could never be diverted in the numbers that it is today. Today, we have significant declines and our concern is that once the cargo is gone, it will never return. It is just like the water that it travels on. It will seek and find the path of least resistance. Billions of dollars of investment in new green terminals have gone to Houston, Jacksonville, Canada, Savannah, and all of this is because of the uncertainty facing Southern California. Those billions of dollars could have been invested here, creating state-of-the-art terminals that operate more efficiently, provide thousands of good jobs, and pump up the regional and local economy. We are no longer any shipper's first or only choice. We are one of many choices, and more often now we are coming into the last choice because of uncertainty and costs. We believe that quality of life begins with a job. Community leader, Father Boyle, from HomeBoy Industries, needs to be quoted. ``Nothing stops a bullet like a job.'' We have many construction projects waiting to be approved that would provide the boost to the economy that we need, and will also clean the air. Projects that achieve environmental benefits, increase port capacity and generate jobs must proceed as quickly as possible, and not be overburdened by uncertainty and expense. So thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee today. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with you and look forward to any questions. Mr. Cummings. I want to thank you all for your testimony. I was very moved by some of the things that were said about the health of people. I think so often what happens is that we are so busy trying to make business run and do well, that the health of people is sort of put to the side. I have seen a lot of that in my city. As a young boy I worked at Bethlehem Steel in the summers, and a lot of the people I worked with, older men, inhaled all kinds of fumes and died early, and went through a lot of pain. And I think that, you know, as I listened to you, Mr. Mack and Mr. Pettit, I was just thinking that we do have to balance the concerns that you rightfully bring up, Ms. Warren, with the health and safety, and it is good to hear our union folks talking about that, because I think it is so very, very important. I often say we have one life to live, this is no dress rehearsal, and this is the life, and there are too many people whose lives are ending poorly. So I am going to go straight to Ms. Richardson and then we will go to Mr. Rohrabacher. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Interestingly, a report that was made to the Los Angeles Board of Harbor Commissioners on March 6, 2008, the Boston Consulting group suggested that if, as happens, the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach adopt different clean truck programs, there is a risk that a volume of containers and supply of truckers could divert from Los Angeles to Long Beach. Ms. Warner, could you share your thoughts, if you think that that in fact would happen. The question is do you think that the traffic would divert completely to Los Angeles instead of Long Beach, given the difference of the two programs? Ms. Warren. We haven't fully reviewed all of the implications of the truck plans as far as the diversion from one port to another, although I think that it would be fair to say that if a trucking company can only operate in one port or the other, there would be increased levels of complications for them to do their work. They would not be able to work in both ports, if there are two different plans, unless they are, I guess, the concession. So that is not really an area that our board of directors has really focused on. We are really more concerned with getting a plan that's legally defensible, that can move forward, and not cause those diversions, not only to other port but other parts of the country, by causing uncertainty. Ms. Richardson. If I understand your testimony correctly, you said that the primary concern is the uncertainty in cost, and if in fact there was a program that had specific projects, that the funding was protected, that there was a sunset clause in it and that the projects would be prioritized, that there would be support in the industry for such a program. Did I summarize your thoughts correctly? Ms. Warren. Yes. They would like to have input on that, they would like to be brought to the table, but those are all areas that they had big concerns with when it comes to the different fees. Ms. Richardson. And Ms. Warren, could you, for the record, state, is your membership of your organization more on the retail side, the shipping side? Would you describe your membership. Ms. Warren. We have a very unique and diverse membership. We really represent the entire supply chain, so we don't have more than one group of another. We have transportation providers. We have marine terminal operators. We have labor. We have consultants, construction companies. Really, any company, any type of business that operates or depends on the ports for their business, is a candidate for membership in FuturePorts, if they have a concern at the ports. Ms. Richardson. So then some of the discussion that was had before your testimony, there was much discussion about whether the consumer should pay for this, the shippers, the cargo owner, etcetera. What are your thoughts, since you have members that are in all those areas? What would you anticipate the reaction would be, if it was more spread across the board, particularly in a national scenario? Ms. Warren. We have, as I mentioned, we have a very broad, diverse--and it is a very complicated issue, because what benefits one may not be as beneficial to another. So I think that because of the complexity of that issue, we are not going to be able to solve that in five minutes today, but I think that there would be a way for all of those members to come together and work on that issue, and to be able to solve some of these concerns. We have done it, we have proof that we have done it on other issues, so we have confidence that if we come to the table, we have a chance to discuss this, we can solve some of those issues. Ms. Richardson. Well, I look forward to those conversations. Mr. Pettit, much of the discussion has focused on the shortfall of the Federal Highway Tax Fund and the need to supplement the federal gas tax. However, no doubt, clearly, the air quality is a driving force in this whole discussion. How many large ports, would you say nationwide, would you estimate, and what percentage have this type of serious air quality situation that would require a more nationwide consideration? Mr. Petitt. Well, Congresswoman Richardson, all of the major ports have pollution problems similar to ours, here, in Los Angeles, where you have diesel equipment, where you have diesel-powered ships and trucks you are going to have the same emission issues. Here, in LA, as you probably know, we have the dirtiest air in the country. So what is exacerbated here with the total that people are breathing is worse than anywhere else in the country. I can't say--I mean, I have been to Baltimore, the weather was beautiful when I was there. I don't know, you know, what the air quality is like, in general. But here, we have just an awful problem, and we have the worst problem in the United States. But you shouldn't think that the problem of the actual emissions from the trucks and trains--from the trucks and ships is different than any other port, because it is not. Ms. Richardson. And Mr. Chairman, could I just do one last question, and Mr. Mack, if you could be very brief. In your opinion, do you feel that a port truck driver could in fact afford to replace their truck in the scenario of the Long Beach program? Mr. Mack. I don't think so. I think it would be very, very difficult to do that, given the current economic circumstances, and just having to come up with 20-, 30-, 40-, 50-, $75,000, whatever it would be, I think is going to be very, very tough to do. And if it is laid on the drivers, we are going to run into the same problems that we have today. As Ms. Knatz said, Dr. Knatz said, a few years down the road, of having to replace the equipment again, where drivers don't have the economic wherewithal, where they don't have the capital, one of two things has to happen. They have got to find a way to get it, or taxpayers again are going to be called upon to basically subsidize the industry. Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to revisit that answer compared to, I remember reading something about a lease program and the whole thing with the vehicle. So we will revisit that and I will make sure it gets back into the record. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming here today and holding this hearing, and again, thanks to Laura for being the prime, I would say inspiration, and I think this has been a great discussion. I think this is just the type of public discussion that we have needed on this issue. We have raised a lot of issues that I think will continue to be discussed because of this hearing. So thank you very much. Let me go on record, first, before I get to my questions, as saying that I do not, in any way, begrudge the Teamsters Union or Longshoremen Union, or any other union for trying to get their hands on more money for their members. There is a lot of money being made in this business of transporting goods from overseas, letting these manufacturers close their plants in the United States, manufacture overseas. There is a lot of money being made in that whole scenario, bringing it into our market, and a lot of the money being made is made on the shipping side of that, and if Teamsters can make more money, if, individually, Americans, Teamsters, or Longshoremen, I don't begrudge them that. With that said, it is not the purpose of regulation by our Government to basically deliver goods in any other way except to make it the most efficient, to have regulations so that we have the most efficient delivery of goods, goods that are safely delivered, goods that are basically consistent with the public health. That is what our concern is. Now how you organize it over there, and quite frankly, one of our witnesses stated that the purpose, that they are going to be building, I think it was Ms. Knatz, a more efficient trucking industry. Well, our goal here is not to increase membership in the Teamsters union and it is not even here to build a better trucking industry. The fact is taking goods from our ports, by truck, to the inland empire, where they are picked up by rail, is ancient history. It is outdated. It is not good for the public health, and it is not cost-effective in terms of use of scarce resources like oil and gas. This is something that we have to try to change, and evolve out of that dependency. That is yesterday. We need to build a better tomorrow, not based on what is good for the Teamsters, not what is good for the trucking industry, but what is good for the people of the United States at large, and especially here, in Southern California. That is what we are trying to do. In terms of our actual, the first step here, we heard about today this Clean Trucks Program, I would submit to you that this idea that--well, the EPA, there is just some regulation there that gets in the way of this, thus just setting a very strict emission standard, and enforcing that standard is not the answer, we have to come and give the specific solutions that happen to benefit people like the Teamsters Union. The fact is that that didn't just happen. I mean, this is part of the whole ball of wax of how these decisions are made, and, in the end, we didn't have a strict emissions standard, and certain people benefited, people who sell trucks and the Teamsters Union, and people who want to keep us dependent on trucks rather than trying to create a new system of transportation for containers, that will be clean and efficient, and eliminate these problems that we have been talking about today. Now, again, I am not begrudging the Teamsters Union for that at all. I think that union people should get not only their cut of the pie, but as we move forward, there are a lot of other people getting a lot of profits. Let's make sure our working people get those profits as well. But not in maintaining a system that is out of date, and so out of date it is hurting the health of our people. By the way, I would just say this. That, as I say, shipping by truck is bad for the economy, it is wasteful for energy. Shipping by truck, as we have heard today, is bad or the public health, and shipping by truck causes congestion which exacerbates all the other problems. Mr. Pettit, this would be a example of the ships that you are lauding, that we set these standards for those ships, but we would say, no, you have to have a new ship. That is this new truck program, or Clean Trucks Program. It is not a Clean Trucks Program. This is a new truck program, just like it wouldn't be a clean ship into the port program. It would be a new ship program, if that is what we demanded, and I do not accept the explanation, that there is some unsolvable EPA malaise up there, bureaucratic malaise. That was never even challenged from what I know. Now Mr. Pettit, were there challenges to those impediments made before we decided to go with this very expensive program for new trucks? Mr. Petitt. Well, I can say we lost--NRDC participated in losing a law suit on---- Mr. Rohrabacher. No; no. By this industry. When we moved forward, did the ports attempt to go to the EPA and challenge those EPA regulations and challenge them in court if necessary? Mr. Petitt. No. Mr. Rohrabacher. No. Mr. Petitt. I think they did not. Mr. Rohrabacher. That is the answer. Thank you. And I only have a couple seconds, in fact I am out of time now. I would like to again thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all those who participated today. We have the technological capability to solve this problem. If we aren't hampered by very powerful interest groups, both union and management interest groups, we can make a better tomorrow for Southern California. But we have got to make sure we are honest with ourselves, and we use the new technology and set high standards to protect our people, and let the technology and the innovators solve it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Ms. Napolitano. Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I certainly also add my thanks to you for taking on this issue to the local area. Mr. Pettit, back in the last Olympics that were held in Southern California, trucking went to nighttime delivery. Remember that? Mr. Petitt. Yes. I do. Ms. Napolitano. And a lot of pollution was cleared up. Actually, it was meant to clear transportation for tourism. And since I have been in Southern California back in the late fifties, there has been a great change in the pollution of California, and that is why we have additional taxes on our fuel. And that has helped. Yet we continue, because of our growth, or because we have been lax in certain areas, continue to have more and more pollution. Is it enforcement? Is it political will? One of my cities, not too long ago, was named the most polluted city in California. It had a lot of trucking companies there, and we started a program--not started, but we were able to get a program to be able to replace the engines. What is it that can happen, that we need to--is it informing the general public? Putting pressure on state, federal agencies? Getting some of these persons who are a part of the problem, to start helping clear the problem, in other words, to be able to have the health care costs become a part of the burden of doing business, a part of cost of doing business. Would you answer. Mr. Petitt. Yes. Thank you. I think the root of the problem that you are referring to is in growth, both population growth and in trade growth. Vehicle miles traveled or VMT, as it is often called, has been rising at a faster rate than the rise in population all throughout the country. That means there are more of us and we are driving even more than we used to. I think a simple answer to that, I mean simple technologically, but it has been difficult to get through Congress, is to raise the CAFE standards even more than they were recently raised, and to find ways, perhaps in the new transportation bill, to incentivize people to get out of their cars and to use public transit. And in terms of the growth in cargo, I mean we all--it has just exploded, here, on the West Coast in the last 10 years, and, you know, probably all of us are wearing, right now, something that was made in China, maybe with cotton that's raised in Texas, that is shipped over there, and then manufactured and shipped back here, cheaper than it could be manufactured and sent, you know, just down the street. And just the volume of that, and the fact that it is transported every step of the way by outdated diesel technology, that is what, in connection, even more so I think than the increase in passenger travel, is making cities in Southern California the most polluted in the country. And I agree with Congressman Rohrabacher, that we need technological solutions to that, and there are a lot of things that both exist right now and are on the drawing board, that can help fix that, and I just think we need the political and moral will to do it, and I am hoping that you folks can help with that. Ms. Napolitano. Well, also, if you will remember, it was found that truck driving at nighttime reduced a lot of the pollution simply because of the effect of the carcinogens, the sun hitting them and converting them quicker than at nighttime. They weren't as heavy. Mr. Petitt. Reduced the ozone, that is right, because ozone needs sunlight in order to form. Ms. Napolitano. Correct. Ms. Warren, in your organization, is the taxpayer, consumer represented? Ms. Warren. The taxpayer and consumer would be represented by us as members of the community, and members of--I mean, I am a taxpayer and I am a consumer. Ms. Napolitano. No. I am talking about rank and file, individuals who have--it is Joe Blow from the city has no position anywhere, other than he has concerns about his family or his community. Ms. Warren. He would be more than welcome to contact me---- Ms. Napolitano. The answer is no, you do not have any. Ms. Warren. We are a membership-based organization, so there are membership dues. We do have a level for individuals to join. We are a relatively new organization, so no one has joined at that level yet, but we would hope that someone would be interested in doing that. Ms. Napolitano. But do you advertise it as such? Ms. Warren. We are--it is posted on our Web site, that there is an individual membership, on our membership dues on our Web site. Ms. Napolitano. Because if you are going to take it, the overall picture, you also have to list the taxpayer, and I'm not talking about those that pay taxes that are business people that belong to the organization. I am talking about those that are nowhere included, whether it is political, or business or labor, or anything other than a concerned citizen, in other words. Ms. Warren. We started off as an organization that was started by business people. They had concerns about their business, and the future of their business, and that is how we were started. Again, we are relatively new, we are just a couple of years old, so hopefully, as we grow, as our budget increases for advertising and for more outreach, we would hope to include that. Ms. Napolitano. But is that local businesses in California? Is that foreign companies? Ms. Warren. They are--I am sure that some of them operate overseas, but most of them are based here in California, or they do operate throughout the country. Ms. Napolitano. Okay. There are some claims that not one port-approved CEQA, environmental impact report was legal. Anybody have an answer to that. I mean, you know, things do get out of hand sometimes; but is there truth to that? Mr. Petitt. Well, I think that is too broad a statement. I think my friend, Mr. Marquez, may have said that, and I don't totally agree with that, and, you know, at the end of the day, what is legal under CEQA is up to the judge. But we have--I mean, NRDC has challenged a number of projects under CEQA, and the one that went all the way to trial, we won, and the judge, the Court of Appeal did say that this EIR was illegal in the First China Shipping Project, and that changed a whole lot of things at the ports. The ports are now undergoing an expansion boom. There is a lot of EIRs under CEQA coming down the road, and we are looking at all of them. Ms. Napolitano. Is there enough oversight over some of these to be able to do an effective job? Mr. Petitt. No. In my opinion, there is not. Ms. Napolitano. Explain. Mr. Petitt. Well, the Southern California air team at NRDC is three lawyers, myself and two of my colleagues, and there is really only so much that we can do, and in terms of the legal oversight, if you will, from community groups, of the EIRs at our ports--this may sound like bragging, but I think the fact is NRDC is pretty much the only game in town. And so if we are not doing it, it is not getting done. It would be great if we had more ability, and we could look in more depth--some of these EIRs now are 6000 pages, and, you know, you have a limited time to comment. There is only so much that a person could do. Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Mack, any comments? Mr. Mack. Well, I had a couple of comments here, mainly in response to Congressman Rohrabacher. We appreciate that opportunity to negotiate contracts and do the best that we can for our members, and generally, overall, we have been pretty successful. But what we are talking about here, for drivers, is not a program--and it has been misconstrued, and sometimes intentionally--not a program that is going to organize the port truck drivers for the Teamsters. What we are talking about is putting a model in place that gives the drivers the right to decide whether they want to belong to a union or not. And then if they decide they want to belong, they have the right, then, to collectively bargain. Under the Sherman Antitrust Act--I am not an attorney--one caveat--but under the Sherman Antitrust Act, two drivers, two port drivers, immigrant truck drivers, get together and talk about how they are being victimized and taken advantage of, and talk about anything that would increase or improve the rates, and then propose a stoppage to get more money, they would be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. And the only thing that changes that around is to change the model, and to allow those drivers, like almost every other driver in this country, to belong to a union. Quite frankly, what we have in place with port trucking is a scam. It is nothing more than a scam. It is an idea that was conceived after truck deregulation to insulate the industry drivers from being organized, making them independent contractors, because then they had no power, they had no ability to bargain collectively, and it allowed the giant retailers like Walmart, Target, Lowe's, Home Depot and the rest of them, to continue to depress the transportation cost so they could maximize their profits. When we talk about what we are doing here, is not to promote trucking alone. Hey, we will take members, obviously. But we are in league here with the environmental community and the ports. We have come to the conclusion that if we don't step up, as a labor organization, to change the environment, we are not going to be able to make the necessary changes that need to be made in our communities, and there are communities where our members live, there are communities where they work every day with those trucks, and they are subject to that kind of pollution. So we are very interested, and very committed to this environmental approach as we go forward, cleaning up the air, making it better than it is right now. Now for those, and the suggestion that trucks may be outdated, let me say this. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees recently affiliated with the Teamsters Union. So now we have not only the trucks but we have got the rail too. Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, just not too long ago, less than 10 years ago, independent truck drivers were being scammed by the insurance industry here in the ports, because I remember several rallies and trying to get them--the insurance would issue kind of a blank number, and if they were stopped there was none existent. So it was a lot of other kind of fraud going on at the time, and so I have great concerns. We want to be sure that they have adequate pay, so that they can not have a $1.76 left out of their pay. Thank you very much again, and thank you, gentlemen. Mr. Cummings. Let me just say to the Members of Congress who came today. I want to thank you very much. We hold these hearings all over the country and this is the best participation of Members that we have had, and I really appreciate you all being here, even the two that had to leave just a little bit early, but they stayed 95 percent of the time, and so I really appreciate that. I also want to take a moment to thank Ms. Richardson, because without her, this hearing would not have been held. I want to thank her again for her leadership, and she may have some closing words, and then I will close out the hearing. Ms. Richardson, I yield to you. Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for those very kind comments, and I would also like to thank my colleagues, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. Solis, Ms. Napolitano, Mr. Filner, and of course you, Mr. Chairman. People have no idea, being a Member of Congress, a lot of people talk about what we do and what we don't do, but what I would like to share with the public is in my nine short months, people have no idea how committed the Members of Congress are to do the best that we can, and that's evident by the fact that all these individuals you see here could be doing other things, we're in our district work period but they chose to discuss the most important economic issue in the nation today, and so for that, we are all very grateful. Mr. Chairman, thank you for assisting me with Chairman Oberstar, getting this done. I think now we have a lot to report back when we go back to Washington. Many questions that have been said, I think now we will have sufficient input and information, that we can go back and be true role models and active in this whole process as it rolls out. Also, I would like to thank the harbor commissioners who were here today. I see three of them that are still here, from the Long Beach area. We thank you for your kindness. And also to the port, both the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach, but in particular, the Port of Long Beach for hosting us here, allowing us to be a part of this discussion and being willing to work with us. To the T&I staff, I want to say a special thank you to Mike, Elisa, and Christie. To the port staff, Samara Domininika and Sharon and Maricella, thank you. We could not have pulled this off. The Chairman said how great it was, and he is right. This is pretty unique, to do such an incredible job, let alone the short time frame that we had. And finally, I want to thank the staff that I work with, and I say work with. That they don't work for me, they work with me. For the short time that we have been together, Kim, my chief of staff, Matt Chiller who is here, Alex, William, Rosa, Tim, Dazha Genet and Henry--you guys have been amazing. As I close, I brought, in the true Long Beach fashion, something that we have that is pretty significant--well, it's representative of who we are here. We have that for each of the Members. And then finally, if you would indulge me, Mr. Chairman, I have something special for a staff member of mine. His wife is expecting in eight weeks. We had much questions of whether he would actually be able to come and participate, but as our deputy chief of staff and leg. director, he was committed and that is how strongly he felt about this issue. So from all of us, we have a little baby outfit. Mr. Rohrabacher. I have got lots of extra baby outfits in my house, if he needs them. Ms. Richardson. And the baby outfit says: This is how I roll. So welcome Baby Chiller to our family. Thank you very much. [Applause.] Mr. Cummings. Let me close out now. I just want to make sure we have put all of this in context, and I often tell the story about how I was practicing law for a while, and I had a big settlement, and I went to my father, who only had a 4th grade education, was a former sharecropper. And I said dad, I have got this big, big problem. I don't know how to solve it. He said what is the problem? I said, well, I just won this big case and I am trying to figure out whether to get an Acura or a Mercedes. And he said I wish I had your problem. The reason why I say that is that I think we have to understand--I think Ms. Napolitano recited the history of all of this. It has taken a while for all of us to get here. But we are here. I mean, I think that is what we have got to keep in mind. You have come a long way. And I know that she said is so true. That a lot of people, pressure was coming from here, a lot of discussions, probably people who didn't, never dreamed that you would get to this point. And I have got to tell you, that if you look at it from a football analogy, I think you are about on the 10 yard line, and you have got about 10 yards to go. But the fact is is that you have come a long way, and the question now is is how are we going to get over the goal line. And people will differ as to how to go about it. Others will differ as to how they want to handle the issues, where the money should go and all of that. But let us not lose sight of this is our watch. This is our watch, and we have a duty to create an environment which is better than the one that we found when we came upon this Earth, or got into the offices that we are in. That is why I was so moved by the testimony with regard to the health of people. Sometimes I think we forget about, you know, that these folks are working hard. They are working every day, and they are giving their blood, their sweat, their tears, and then they end up, sometimes at 40, 45, you know, even earlier sometimes, in terrible condition because of certain conditions. So I think the issue here is we are trying to balance making sure our ports are viable and strong, and on the other hand, we are trying to make sure that we deal with this environment. And I am telling you, this has been an eye-opening hearing for me, and I am sure, as Ms. Richardson has said, it gives us a lot to take back. How this will be a part, if at all, when we go in to do the new ICE-TEA bill, as Ms. Napolitano was talking about, we are not sure exactly how it will be affected by that. But one thing is for sure. This is something that you have put on the table, and you ought to be proud of it. I don't want to see you so caught up in our trying to figure out how we are going to do everything, that we could get, that we are on the 10 yard line. So I say that, as one who does not live in this region. And when I read the testimony, when I have read the testimony, and I have talked to my colleagues, and particularly Ms. Richardson, I tell you, I can hardly get down the hall without her talking about this issue. But she says, over and over again, this is a very, very important issue for all of us. And it is. So to all of you, I want to thank every single person who took up the time out of your busy schedules to be a part of this. This is what democracy is all about. This is it. This is it. People can talk about and say, oh, I want to be a part of-- this is it, you are in it, and you are participating. And so if you have comments, we welcome those comments. Unfortunately, the way the hearing structure is, basically you just have the Congress folks listening to our panelists and asking questions. But if you have things that you have heard here today, that you want to share with us, please do, and let us take them into consideration. And to all of our witnesses, if you have additional things that you want to comment on, please get those to us too. Thank you very much. May God bless our great country. [Whereupon, at 6:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]