Transportation and Infrastructure

Transportation and Infrastructure Priorities

1. Goods Movement Title

During the 112th Congress I reintroduced the Freight FOCUS bill, H.R. 1122. This bill would enhance our freight planning, designate corridors of national significance, establish freight corridor coalitions, create a goods movement trust fund, implement a national merit based grant program to alleviate goods movement chokepoints, and reduce delays which have a significant negative impact on our economy.

In light of your public comments that have indicated that no revenue raisers will be included in the bill, I strongly believe that at a minimum an office of freight planning should be established to prioritize goods movement. This reflects the desire of the goods movement industry, and the private sector should have a formal mechanism to provide input to the office.

On the other hand, I suggest a fee of twelve cents per gallon on the diesel tax used by trucks to pay for this program. The Chamber of Commerce, the American Trucking Association, and virtually every aspect of the goods movement industry, from labor to the warehouse groups to the retail industry to larger industry associations, have joined in and called for additional revenue to be raised as long as it is spent responsibly. They have agreed to pay this fee on top of the current gas tax as long as they know the funds will be invested in their industry as this bill would do. I urge the inclusion of this bill in the reauthorization proposal. I have attached a one page explanation of this bill to this letter which includes all of the organizations supporting the bill, as well as the legislative text.

However, in light of the Republican Caucus' stated policy of no revenue raisers, I want to reiterate the strong suggestion of implementing the numerous provisions in this bill, such as the office of Freight Planning and National Freight Corridors of National Significance Program, which would be funded within the current revenues of the Department of Transportation.

For several years I have worked on freight legislation, bringing several proposals forward, and through this process I have learned of the pitfalls the other freight legislation falls into, especially when revenues are considered to fund a grant program.

For example, The ON TIME Act, which considers a container fee to fund a freight program, has several fatal flaws:

• The cost of collecting the fee would be consume a large percentage of the funds collected as a whole new infrastructure would have to be constructed and administered.
• Not all cargo is containerized, such as cars and many agricultural products
• Often an individual container contains cargo for multiple sources complicating the payment process
• Constitutional and trade issue that arise depending on where the fee is collected. For instance, fees collected at ports of entry can be considered duties violating our trade agreements, and there is a constitutional ban on collecting fees on exports.

Another example is The FREIGHT Act, originally drafted by Senator Lautenberg and introduced in the House by Congressman Sires.

• Our bill overlaps greatly with this bill, including setting up an Office of Freight Planning and a merit based grant program. However, because of the jurisdiction of the Senate Committees where this bill originated, it does not include surface transportation at all. Without roads and bridges, this bill ignores the means with which the majority of freight moves.

Finally, as we look at improving our goods movement infrastructure, we must look at innovative technologies that minimize the impact on our local communities while increasing our energy independence and invest in these types of projects and the research necessary to develop the technologies. These should include the use of zero or near zero-emission cargo movement systems, dedicated zero-emission truck lanes, and zero-emission heavy duty trucks. The Freight FOCUS act sets aside funding for these types of projects, and I urge a set aside for such projects in your reauthorization bill regardless of the inclusion of the Freight FOCUS Act framework.

2. Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

I commend your initial plan to increase the amount of available funds for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). As you know, many large transportation and infrastructure projects are abandoned or postponed every year because of inadequate funding. Consistently we heard multiple times during the field hearings, including extensively at the Los Angeles field hearing on February 23rd, TIFIA is an essential tool to finance certain types of transportation projects.

The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) Expansion Act of 2011 (H.R. 1123), which I authored, expands and improves on an essential tool that funds large transportation projects.

The TIFIA Expansion Act of 2011 improves TIFIA by making several changes:

• It increases the amount of funding for this program from $122 million annually to $375 million annually.
• It increases the amount of the project that can be funded from 33% to 49%.
• It allows for interconnected projects to enter into a newly created "master credit agreement" so entities can get financing certainty for future projects.
• It allows the Department of Transportation to use leftover, unused funds from the previous year (if there are any) to offer a lower interest rates IF interest rates had gone up between the time of the signing of the master credit agreement and the dispersal of funds.
• It provides a potential bonus for companies that use clean construction machinery.
• It allows for greater flexibility by not requiring that in all circumstances TIFIA loans would need to "spring" to be equal with other forms of credit in the event of default, which is an essential provision for projects with revolving credit agreements to be able to fully use TIFIA.

TIFIA has proven that it can stretch federal funds, with each federal TIFIA dollar providing $10 in TIFIA credit assistance and leveraging $30 in transportation infrastructure investment. With interest rates low, but credit hard to come by, this is the perfect time to invest in innovative financing programs like TIFIA that provides local communities the credit they need at reasonable rates. Again, I am pleased that your initial plan has expanded from my legislation the amount of money available for the TIFIA program but TIFIA should not be considered a replacement for massive spending cuts to our nation's infrastructure.

3. Project Streamlining

A common theme throughout the field hearings, as well as during several of our hearings in DC (February 15th), has been the need to work on project streamlining. As we heard from such witnesses such as Orange County Transportation Authority CEO Will Kempton and Kansans DOT Secretary Debra Miller, streamlining project delivery can create huge cost savings and efficiency gains for States.

Last Congress I introduced the Jobs through Environmental Safeguarding and Streamlining Act of 2010 (JESSA, H.R. 6299) based on the positive experience California has had with the pilot program. I took the feedback given to the committee, worked with Committee staff and outside groups, and reintroduced an improved version of this bill this year, HR 2160, Jobs through Environmental Safeguarding and Streamlining Act of 2011.

I believe it is essential that we make the pilot program in section 6005 of SAFETEA-LU permanent and also enhance the program so more states can join and realize even greater benefits. For the growing number of states with strong environmental controls, legislators should make every effort to eliminate duplicative procedures that delay projects, while maintaining environmental safeguards. I look forward to working closely with you and your staffs to strike this delicate balance.

4. Transportation Opportunity and Accountability Act

I have recently introduced the Transportation Opportunity and Accountability Act of 2011. This legislation represents a federal commitment to repair critical accountability gaps in ensuring equal opportunity, non-discrimination, and efficiency in federally funded transportation projects.

Prior legislation, such as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21, Public Law 105-178), created common sense federal regulations to ensure that American values of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity are honored in transportation investments. Transportation has always been a way for all Americans to get where they need to go, whether to work, to visit family, or for any other purpose. However, adherence to regulations and enforcement of safeguards that protect all Americans fair access to transportation have become drastically inadequate.

For example, recent investigations at the U.S. Department of Transportation have documented the broad failure of many state highway departments to implement basic anti-discrimination protections in highway spending. By incorporating the language from the Transportation Opportunities and Accountability Act, the reauthorization bill will help support agencies to meet their regulatory obligations and avoid unnecessary last minute delays which have stalled projects in the past.

Further, The Transportation Opportunity and Accountability Act of 2011 would:

• Provide adequate resources for agency enforcement of civil rights protections to repair the accountability gap.
• Empower citizens to support accountability through private enforcement of Title VI protections against discrimination
• Maintain the Transportation Equity Research Program, which has been instrumental in illuminating the impact of transportation planning, investment, and operations on low-income, minority, and transit-dependent populations
• Support a quadrennial equal opportunity assessment by DOT that surveys overall compliance with civil rights and equal opportunity laws

I urge you to include the language from this bill in the surface transportation reauthorization bill.

5. Ensuring Fair Distribution of Jobs in Transportation

One in 10 civilian jobs is in the transportation sector. Jobs in the transportation sector—including construction, maintenance, and operation—can provide pathways to middle class careers for workers, including those from disadvantaged communities. However, low-income people, communities of color, and women have been historically underrepresented in the transportation construction workforce. For example, in the transportation construction industry, only 6% of employees are African American and 2.5% are women, far below their shares of the U.S. workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008).

In the next transportation bill, I ask that we build upon the past work of Chairman Schuster and Congressman Clyburn who decades ago set the blue print of how to address these inherent barriers in a constructive and bipartisan manner.

Last Congress, Chairman Oberstar built upon chairman Schuster's efforts by holding several meetings with the Congressional Black Caucus, Secretary LaHood, and other parties to discuss the participation of minorities in building the projects we are poised to reauthorize. As Congressman Schuster worked with Mr. Clyburn, I ask that you work with me to continue the development and protection of these issues. Our meetings produced the foundation for continuing this long legacy of bipartisanship on these issues and I ask you to include the proposals that have come out of past meetings in the reauthorization bill:

• create apprenticeship programs
• ensure new worth caps are at appropriate levels
• improve bonding assistance
• unbundle projects

6. Transparency and Reporting Requirements

Congress made a huge investment into the transportation sector with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We promised to create and maintain jobs; however there was a significant failure to adequately track jobs data which has hurt our ability to communicate our successes to the American people.

We all envision this reauthorization bill as a job creator. Under your leadership, I hope we will fix the problems from ARRA to make sure we document job creation, both new jobs and maintained jobs, in the next reauthorization bill to ensure we are accurately communicating statistics for future planning and programs.

As we recently heard from Calvin Scobel, DOT's Inspector General, the manner in which DOT collects and makes public jobs data needs dramatic improvement. Mr. Scobel's team identified weaknesses in the Agency's jobs data reporting- some of which extended across DOT. This hindered the agency's ability to meet ARRA's transparency and accountability requirements and will continue to hinder our ability to assess the effectiveness of our transportation investment in the future.

I hope to work on legislation and work with the committee on improving reporting requirements to better track the investment we make in our this reauthorization bill.

7. Pavement Preservation Program

States are permitted to use their federal-aid highway funds for preventative maintenance activities if the State demonstrates that the activity is a cost-effective means of extending the useful life of Federal-aid highways. Currently, it is not clearly codified in law that pavement preservation programs are eligible expenditures, despite the fact that every dollar spent on pavement preservation yields $6-$10 in savings. Historically States interpreted guidelines to preclude pavement preservation and spent their funds on roads that have already suffered major distress. Given the limited resources of the States it is important that States have the ability, in light of this confusion, to invest intelligently and for the long term.

I suggest making clear in federal statute that States and localities are allowed to use their federal-aid highway funds for pavement preservation programs and activities that employ a network level, long-term strategy that enhances pavement performance by using an integrated, cost-effective set of practices that extend pavement life, improve safety, and meet motorist expectations. We hope to preserve and maintain our nation's infrastructure investment in the most cost effective manner possible, and I believe investing in pavement preservation is a common sense manner in which to achieve that goal by extending the life of our existing infrastructure before costly rehabilitation and replacement is necessary. I hope you include this clarification of existing law in the reauthorization proposal.