November 3, 2021 9:35AM # Build Back Slower By [Scott Lincicome](https://www.cato.org/people/scott-lincicome) and Ilana Blumsack --- SHARE As [discussed](https://www.cato.org/blog/supply-chain-crisis-doesnt-demand-more-federal-infrastructure-spending) in a previous blog post, proposed spending on U.S. ports in the bipartisan infrastructure bill is not only unnecessary but might actually slow down needed upgrades in the our port system, which [ranks](https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ports-problem-decades-making) as one of the more [expensive](https://www.joc.com/port-news/longshoreman-labor/international-longshoremen%E2%80%99s-association/tentative-ila-usmx-master-contract-has-terminal-automation-ban_20180814.html) and least [efficient](http://savannahceo.com/news/2015/10/why-arent-americas-shipping-ports-automated/) systems in the world. Buried in the latest version of congressional Democrats’ reconciliation bill is more bad news: the $2.65 billion in [additional](https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5376RH-RCP117-17.pdf) federal spending on ports (to reduce air pollution) appears to exclude investment in automation – the lack thereof being one the key reasons that U.S. ports are currently so inefficient. In particular, the bill provides grants for U.S. ports to purchase and install “zero-emission port equipment or technology” at their facilities. However, the bill’s new [definition](https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5376RH-RCP117-17.pdf) (at pp. 307–308) of eligible projects reads as follows (emphasis ours): > The term ‘zero-emission port equipment or technology’ means **human-operated equipment or human-maintained technology** that (A) produces zero emissions of \[relevant air pollutants\]; or (B) captures 100 percent of the emissions described in subparagraph (A) that are produced by an ocean-going vessel at berth. Robots therefore need not apply. As noted, there was already little reason for subsidizing U.S. port modernization, but that’s *especially* the case where those funds can’t be spent on the very modernization that ports need most. But, hey, at least the longshoremen’s unions – long [resistant to U.S. port automation](https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ports-problem-decades-making) – are probably pleased. ##### Related Tags [Economics](https://www.cato.org/economics), [Tax and Budget Policy](https://www.cato.org/tax-budget-policy), [Trade Policy](https://www.cato.org/trade-policy) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).