[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S692-S697]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ALASKA RURAL ROADS SYSTEM
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are dealing with the Transportation
bill, and let me say I hope we truly deal with the Transportation bill
eventually because there has been a great deal of work on this measure
by the chairman and the ranking members of the relevant committees, and
I thank them for the hard work they have put into this. I support their
efforts to give States long-term security for moving forward with
Federal highway aid and transit programs. I support the efforts to give
States that long-term security for planning purposes, improve the
project approval process, and reduce duplicative and excessive
programs. However, I do have very serious concerns with certain aspects
of the legislation proposed. Most particularly, and the reason I have
come to the floor this evening, is to discuss what this legislation
does to the Indian Reservation Roads Program. This is the program known
as IRR.
IRR is a jointly administered program between the Federal Highway
Administration and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that addresses the
transportation needs of our tribes by providing funds for the planning,
the design, the construction, and the maintenance activities.
The Indian Reservation Roads are public roads. They provide access to
and within Indian reservations, Indian trust land, restricted Indian
land, and Alaskan Native villages. There are approximately 29,000 miles
that are under jurisdiction of the BIA and the tribes, and another
73,000 miles are under State and local ownership. IRR funds can be used
for any type of title 23 transportation project that provides access to
or within Federal or Indian lands and may be used as the State and
local matching share for a portion of Federal aid highway funds. The
IRR inventory is a comprehensive database of all transportation
facilities that are eligible for IRR Program funding by tribe,
reservation, BIA agency, region, congressional district, the State, and
the county.
I think it is important to understand how we came to the position of
where we are today with MAP 21. For years, Alaska received very little
assistance from the IRR Program because we only have one reservation, a
very small reservation down in southeastern Alaska, Metlakatla and,
therefore, little to no BIA-owned roads. The BIA maintains a national
database of roads, the IRR inventory, which is used to allocate IRR
funds and determine locations where IRR funds can be used. State and
county-owned roads comprise the majority of the road miles within the
IRR system. A few decades ago, there were very few villages in Alaska
that were putting any inventory into the system. TEA 21 gave the
committee criteria in establishing the funding formula based on the
needs of Indian tribes for transportation assistance, cost of road
construction, geographic isolation, and difficulty in maintaining all-
weather access to employment, commerce, health, safety, and education
resources. With the passage of TEA 21, a rulemaking committee was
established, the IRR Program Coordinating Committee, which helped to
develop the funding formula which was published in 2004. The
coordinating committee was made up of 12 primary members from Indian
tribes, one from each region. There were 12 alternates and two
nonvoting Federal representatives. Decisions that were made by the
committee were reached by consensus. It was not a majority decision
process.
The funding formula, which is known as the relative need distribution
formula, adopted in the IRR Program final rule, reflects Congress's
intent that the funding distribution method balance the interests of
all tribes and enable all tribes to participate in the IRR Program. I
should note that 40 percent of all federally recognized tribes in the
Nation reside in the State of Alaska--40 percent. I think that is
something many of my colleagues are not aware of. That balancing of
interests called for avoiding substantial allocations from the larger
tribes while still addressing the central problem that historically
left the smaller tribes out of the program. The prior formula
distributed funds based on an inventory limited to roads built and
owned by the BIA. But the new formula broadened tribal participation by
allowing the inclusion of State, county, and municipally owned IRR-
eligible facilities in the inventory so the actual IRR transportation
needs could be counted for funding purposes.
[[Page S693]]
In 2003, Loretta Bullard, who is with a regional nonprofit
representing the Bering Straits region of northwestern Alaska,
testified before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee saying that the
BIA had never surveyed any villages to identify the roads that were
eligible for support. So there just wasn't a complete inventory at that
time because there had never been a survey up in Alaska. That was back
in 2003. As a result of the 2004 rulemaking, which took 5 years, by the
way, Alaska increased its inventory. Alaska benefited from a
competitive grant program that was established under the rulemaking for
smaller tribes called the High Priority Project Program. This
legislation we are dealing with now seeks to undo all the gains Alaska
made through TEA 21, through the 2004 rulemaking, and through SAFETEA
LU. It is all unraveled with this legislation. Alaska is unfairly
harmed by MAP 21, more than any other region in the country. Alaska
loses $16 million a year under MAP 21 and tribes throughout the State
will be effectively shut out of the program. This is not acceptable.
The current negotiated regulation, which was developed, again, by
consensus from tribes throughout the entire country, is focused on
need. The new formula which we see reflected in this legislation was
written behind closed doors by a handful of people with no government-
to-government tribal consultation. Its focus is on the population and
the urban areas. It disregards the trust responsibility that is owed to
the 566 federally recognized tribes in our Nation, 229 of which reside
in the State of Alaska--again, nearly half of all the recognized tribes
in the Nation.
I think every time I come to the floor and talk about something, I
have to put up the map of Alaska so we are all reminded how big it is.
This is the proportional size when we superimpose Alaska over the rest
of the lower 48. The red on this map is our road system. All these
areas in white where we don't see anything, there are no roads there.
Clearly our roads are pretty limited--our road system is centralized in
the middle of the state, with a few scattered roads in other areas.
What is behind this kind of great shadow of Alaska? The States that
are covered up behind it are North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
They are all kind of tucked under this great expanse. Just imagine if
one is from Missouri, it would be like saying we have no roads in the
state. That is what we are talking about. My map shows all the roads in
Alaska, not the IRR roads. These are our State roads and our Federal
highways. This is everything. So when we are talking about the IRR
piece, it is even more minuscule in terms of comparison to what the
Lower 48 has.
We have approximately 16,000 miles of road in Alaska, and 5,600 miles
of those are unpaved. That sounds like a lot, but keep in mind, we have
570,000 square miles of land to cover in my home state. When you put in
perspective, that's not a lot of roads we are talking about--16,000
miles of road for 570,000 square miles of state.
I would like to highlight some of the things we have been able to do
in the State of Alaska as a result of the IRR Program. The Indian
Reservation Roads Program funds the construction and maintenance of
roads and bridges within Alaska Native villages. In many cases, these
are not roads you and I would think of as typical roads.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes
from my colleague, if that is acceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, most of our roads, when we are talking
about the IRR roads, are not necessarily roads that are going to carry
a vehicle. These are roads that will carry pedestrians, a four-wheeler,
a snow machine. These are the ways that Alaska's Native people access
our subsistence resources, haul their subsistence food home. These are
the roads that form the link to the village airport, which is the only
way out during the wintertime. If there are no roads, you have to be
flying to all of these locations.
This is a picture of the village of Kwigillingok, which lies on the
western shore of Kuskokwim Bay, 388 miles west of Anchorage. In this
village, the primary mode of transportation is by foot, ATV, and snow
machine in the wintertime. But you look at this picture, it is all
nice, green--it looks beautiful. But it is tundra. It is wet and
marshy. If you get down there in your rubber boots, you are going to be
up to your knees in brush and water. You cannot walk through this and
would not want to put a vehicle on it.
So what you see here is a real technological breakthrough in how to
build rural roads in places where dirt and gravel either just do not
exist out there or just do not work. This was built using IRR funds
from the Native village of Kwigillingok, funding from the State of
Alaska, and funding from the Denali Commission. This is construction of
a geo-tech grid track. It looks like grading. It is like a plastic
grading that overlays the ground and provides access over the tundra.
IRR funding and the Denali Commission funding were leveraged with
other funding sources, and it provided jobs within the community.
The next picture we have is a boardwalk, a board road that was built
in Nunam Iqua, which is on the south fork of the Yukon River, about 500
miles northwest of Anchorage. Again, this project was made possible by
leveraging funds from the Denali Commission, the State of Alaska, and
Nunam Iqua's tribal shares from the IRR Program.
It is just a boardwalk, but you look at this picture, and you can see
it is kind of rippled and wavy. Well, that is what happens when you put
boards on top of wet, marshy tundra, but at least you can walk on it.
At least you can access it by your four-wheeler without doing damage to
the area and it connects your schools and health clinics to the homes.
This project created jobs within the community and a safe road system
for the residents to access public facilities.
This picture is from one of my visits down in the Y-K Delta. You can
see, this is their road system. It provides a connection to homes and
to community facilities. This is the means of transportation here. You
go out on the tundra there and, again, you sink.
I took Secretary Paige, the Secretary of Education, out there to one
of our smaller villages, Tuntutuliak, and we got out and got on the
boardwalk, and he said: When does it dry out here?
I said: Sir, this is as dry as it gets.
He said: Where do the children play?
I said: Well, this is it.
In the Lower 48 children play on the sidewalks and quiet neighborhood
streets, in rural Alaska children play on the boardwalks.
We also have some challenging conditions in other parts of our State.
In southeastern Alaska, we do not have to worry about the tundra, but
we do have some challenging conditions. The Craig Tribal Association
down in Craig has been working on the reconstruction of the Port Saint
Nicholas Road for the past 4 years. The road has several bridges that
are being replaced concurrent with the road construction.
Again, ``the Denali Commission has been a committed, critical
partner,'' in the words of the tribe. In this picture, you can see Dog
Salmon Creek Bridge prior to the construction. This was a dilapidated,
rotting, wooden bridge. Then, in the next picture, you can see what
$1.7 million from the Denali Commission and from IRR does--a modest
investment that really comes together. You have a paved road and a
solid bridge that is going to last for decades.
But these projects could not be built under the reduced funding
levels for small tribes that we have proposed in MAP 21. Tribal
transportation funding in the bill is directed toward populated areas,
and roads that are more established receive greater amounts of funding.
So again, when you take into account an area such as Alaska, where we
have many miles but few people, and a formula that is designed to work
against us, how do we ever make headway, how do we ever connect these
communities, how do we ever allow for a transportation system to
progress and be developed?
I have submitted an amendment I hope we will have an opportunity to
bring up. It restores current law and current regulations with respect
to the funding formula that was developed, again, after years of
negotiation in a very open and transparent process.
Just yesterday, at the Intertribal Transportation Association meeting
in
[[Page S694]]
Minnesota, we had tribes from the Rocky Mountain region, the Great
Plains region, the Midwest region, and the Navajo Nation who all agreed
that MAP 21 sets a dangerous precedent to allow Congress to overturn
the tribal rulemaking process, as it is a threat to tribal sovereignty,
and we are hearing more and more concerns every day about the
opposition coming from those who feel they have been circumvented by
Congress in this act.
In the past couple days, I have received letters from tribes from
California, as well as Alaska. I have a letter from the Susanville
Indian Rancheria, one from the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, who wrote:
Under MAP 21, smaller urban tribes with paved roads garner a
significant increase in funding while tribes such as the Ramona Band
which are rural and have poor roads, arguably those with the most need
and no other access to transportation funding, will see significant
decreases.
What I am trying to do is restore some parity.
I ask unanimous consent that these letters from not only the Alaskan
tribes but from the Californian tribes I just mentioned be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Susanville Indian Rancheria,
Susanville, CA, February 13, 2012.
Re Murkowski Amendment to MAP 21's Tribal Transportation
Program.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer, I write to you today on behalf of the
Susanville Indian Rancheria to encourage you to co-sponsor
and support the attached amendment to S. 1813, the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (``MAP 21'')
legislation proposed by Alaska Senator Murkowski. The
amendment would remove the population based Tribal
Transportation finding formula and replace it with the
funding presently in SAFETEA LU.
Based on the data provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(``BIA''), Tribes throughout Indian Country (California,
Alaska, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Utah, the Dakotas,
and Wisconsin) would lose millions in program funds under the
MAP 21 funding formula.
Under the proposed legislation, the current Indian
Reservation Roads Program (IRR) would be discarded and
replaced with what is called the Tribal Transportation
Program (TPP). The current IRR program is how federal
transportation funding is filtered to tribes. The TTP was
created to address what is argued to be the flawed IRR
program.
The great majority of Tribes strongly oppose MAP 21,
including 189 Alaska Tribes, the Navajo Nation, and the
majority of Tribes in California New Mexico, Michigan,
Minnesota, Utah, the Dakotas, and Wisconsin.
Unlike the original IRR formula distribution that was
ultimately finalized by negotiated rule making with tribes,
no tribes were consulted in the creation of the TTP. The new
TTP under MAP 21 was created without any tribal consultation,
and the program is based on population and not road needs.
This sort of formula would never be used by states in their
determination of road funding.
Tribes recognize that the current IRR formula has
imperfections; however, the TTP does nothing more than
exacerbate the issue and creates even greater problems than
before.
Under MAP 21, small urban tribes with paved roads garner a
significant increase in funding--while rural tribes with poor
roads, arguably those with the most need and no other access
to transportation funding, will see significant decreases.
While funding for California tribes would be increased by a
minimal $192,000 for 110 tribes, the California tribes with
the greatest needs and poorest roads would suffer significant
funding decreases.
The proposed solutions within MAP 21 do not adequately
address the problems inherent within Indian Country
transportation funding. The solution is not for Congress to
impose a flawed funding formula on Tribes and overturn the
SAFETEA LU funding formula that was agreed upon by all Tribes
in negotiated rulemaking. While federal agencies may believe
they are smarter than Tribes and know better how to resolve
the funding formula imperfections, we disagree and believe
the consensus among Tribes achieved in the negotiated
rulemaking that approved the funding formula under SAFETEA LU
must prevail is tribal consultation is to have real meaning.
The same proposed amendment herein included was added to
H.R. 7 in amendments offered by House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee Congressman Don Young during that
committee's markup of H.R. 7 on February 2, 2012.
Please support this fair and common sense amendment to MAP
21 and let us know how we may assist you to increase support
for this in the Senate.
Sincerely,
Mr. Stacy Dixon,
Tribal Chairman.
____
Ramona Band of Cahuilla,
A Sovereign Nation,
Anza, CA, February 13, 2012.
Re: Submission of Request to Support Amendment to MAP 21
Senator Lisa Murkowski,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: On behalf of the Ramona Band of
Cahuilla, a federally recognized Tribe located in California,
Chairman Joseph Hamilton submitted requests to Senator Boxer
and Senator Feinstein requesting their support for your
proposed amendment to MAP 21.
Attached is a copy of the request letters to each Senator.
As you can see, the requests were also forwarded to the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Additionally, the Ramona
Band will forward copies of the requests and a letter stating
the Tribe's support for the proposed amendment to
Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, our Representative in the
House.
The Ramona Band supports your proposed amendment as a fair
and common sense approach to address a critical issue in MAP
21 that would negatively impact numerous Tribes and hinder us
in our collective efforts to provide for the health and
safety of our communities.
Place feel free to contact the Ramona Band if you have any
question or wish to discuss this issue.
Respectfully,
John Gomez, Jr.,
Project Coordinator.
____
Ramona Band of Cahuilla,
A Sovereign Nation,
Anza, CA, February 13, 2012.
Re: Murkowski Amendment to MAP 21's Tribal Transportation
Program
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: On behalf of the Ramona Band of
Cahuilla, a federally recognized Indian Tribe located in
Riverside County, California, I write to you today to
encourage you to co-sponsor and support the attached
amendment to S. 1813, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century (``MAP 21'').
The attached amendment, as proposed by Alaska Senator
Murkowski, would remove the population based Tribal
Transportation funding formula found in MAP 21 and replace it
with the funding formula presently found in SAFETEA LU. The
amendment mirrors that which was added to H.R. 7 by
Congressman Don Young in the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee markup of H.R. 7 on February 2,
2012.
Under MAP 21, the current Indian Reservation Roads Program
(IRR) would be discarded and replaced with what is called the
Tribal Transportation Program (TTP). The current IRR program
is how federal transportation funding is filtered to tribes.
The TTP was created to address what is argued to be the
flawed IRR program.
Unlike the original IRR formula distribution that was
ultimately finalized by negotiated rulemaking with tribes, no
tribes were consulted in the creation of the TTP. The new TTP
under MAP 21 was created without any tribal consultation, and
the program is based on population and not road needs. This
sort of formula would never be used by states in their
determination of road funding.
Under MAP 21, small urban tribes with paved roads garner a
significant increase in funding--while tribes such as the
Ramona Band which are rural and have poor roads--arguably
those with the most need and no other access to
transportation funding--will see significant decreases.
Based on a comparison of the funding formulas, funding for
California tribes would be increased by a total of $192,000
for the 110 tribes under the MAP 21 formula. However, the
Ramona Band's funding would be reduced by nearly $70,000.00
(more than 70% of our current funding). California tribes
with the greatest needs and poorest roads would suffer
significant and disproportionate funding decreases which
would cripple their ability to address necessary planning
maintenance, and construction projects of their outdated and/
or damaged roads. While the current formula is not perfect,
it properly considers the needs of tribes and tribal
communities, the conditions of their current inventories, and
their desire to provide adequate, safe, and secure routes,
Changes to the current IRR funding formula, such as those
proposed in MAP 21, would greatly damage small, rural tribes
and have long-term negative impacts on their communities and
roads systems.
Furthermore, the proposed solutions within MAP 21 do not
adequately address the problems inherent within Indian
Country transportation funding. The solution is not for
Congress to impose a flawed funding formula on Tribes and
overturn the SAFETEA LU funding formula that was agreed upon
by all Tribes in negotiated rulemaking. While federal
agencies may believe they are smarter than Tribes and know
better how to resolve the funding formula imperfections, we
disagree and believe the consensus among Tribes achieved in
the negotiated rulemaking that approved the funding formula
under SAFETEA LU must prevail if tribal consultation is to
have real meaning.
[[Page S695]]
Please support this fair and common sense amendment to MAP
21 so that tribes like the Ramona Band can plan for the
future and provide for the health and safety of our
community.
Sincerely,
Joseph D. Hamilton
Tribal Chairman.
____
Wrangell Cooperative Association,
Wrangell, AK, December 12, 2011.
Re: MAP 21 ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act''
Senator Lisa Murkowski,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski, The Wrangell Cooperative
Association (hereinafter referred to as the WCA) has reviewed
the Senate Minority Environmental Public Works proposed
legislation MAP 21, ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act'' and shares the following concerns.
Previous legislation, which you were instrumental in
authoring, ``SAFETEA LU'', provided the opportunity for
Alaska and Federally Recognized Tribes to participate in the
transportation program at 100%. Proposed legislation, ``MAP
21'', takes a step backwards and decreases funding for tribes
significantly, basically uprooting their transportation
programs.
Under Section 1116, Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation
Programs, these are a few of the programs to be affected
should the MAP 21 legislation be passed: Indian Reservation
Roads Bridge Program (IRRBP), Tribal Scenic Byways, Indian
Reservation Road High Priority Project Program (IRRHPP),
Tribal Transit Program, Tribal Safety Programs.
The National Bridge and Tunnel Inventory Identified within
MAP 21 have already been completed as a result of SAFETEA LU.
Having separate inventory developed with another set of
standards will be time consuming and costly to tax payers.
Currently an AASHTO standard is being used to assure that
everything is designed and built properly.
National Facility Inventory identified in MAP 21 has
already been established per SAFETEA LU and the Final Rule
2004, 25CFR, PART 170 Indian Reservation Roads Program.
Returning prior to October 1, 2004 would take away the
ability of Alaskan Tribes, established by SAFETEA LU, to
participate in the Transportation Program at 100% and would
NOT capture the transportation needs within Alaska;
therefore, we strongly oppose this legislation.
The Funding Formula identified in MAP 21 will not work
because it only calculates population and lane miles. Here in
Alaska, tribes would not be able to sustain building roads at
the local level because our populations would not generate
enough funding to create a local match for projects. We need
to keep the current formula Or the relative need distribution
formula (RNDF) that is currently in the regulations of 25
CFR, PART 170.
The proposed legislation goes away from the Average Daily
Traffic (ADT), Cost to Construct (CTC), and Vehicles Miles
Traveled (VMT) of the equation in which is valuable in
developing design standards when planning, designing, and
constructing roadways.
Since SAFETEA LU, many Alaskan communities have built very
successful tribal transportation programs and have had, do
have and will continue to have great projects if MAP 21 does
NOT pass. This Proposed legislation is a huge threat to our
transportation programs, specifically Alaska.
WCA/ANTTC just finished our first IRR Program project this
past summer. IRR HPP Funding was an integral part of the
funding that was put together to finance the project. Under
MAP 21 IRR HPP is gone. We are sure there are other
components of MAP 21 that will hurt Alaska and Alaska Tribal
Governments in this proposed legislation. Attached are
pictures of before the project began and after the project
was finished. Quite a contrast in what was there before and
what is here now. WCA encourages you to come up with a longer
term solution to the overall picture within the
Transportation and Infrastructure picture throughout our
great country and not support MAP 21.
Thank-You,
Dawn Hutchinson,
WCA President.
____
Association of Village Council
Presidents, Administration,
Bethel, AK, December 8, 2011.
Re: EPW MAP 21
Inter-Tribal Transportation Association,
c/o John Healy, President,
Harlem, MT.
Dear President Healy and ITA Members: The Association of
Village Council Presidents (AVCP) is a Native Non-profit
organization comprised of 56 federally-recognized Indian
Tribes in southwest Alaska. On behalf of AVCP's member
Tribes, we wish to convey concern over certain provisions of
Section 1116 of the proposed MAP 21 bill.
As background, the AVCP Tribes are not connected by any
road system and are scattered over an area approximately the
size of Oregon. The Tribes transportation needs are
significant and framed against the backdrop of significant
challenges, including short building seasons, shipping costs
that reach 40% of total project budgets, building in remote
locations without any road infrastructure, and no access to
very basic human needs, such as health care and education. A
large portion of the AVCP region has no roads at all, and
that fact is critical to understanding its member Tribes'
transportation plans. It wasn't until approximately 10 years
ago that, by statute, Alaska Tribes were allowed to
participate in the Indian Reservation Roads program. Since
that time, they have been vigorously developing
transportation programs on the premise of meeting very basic
but essential needs. The struggles over having to choose
between purchasing food or purchasing gasoline and figuring
out how to get to the nearest health facility for basic
health care were beginning to be resolved through road
building. Having a better understanding of the underlying
realities facing Alaska Native Tribes will lead to a better
understanding of their unique challenges and a fair and
equitable solution to any proposed legislation.
With respect to our objections to MAP 21, our concerns
include the following. The Bill sets a dangerous precedent by
tearing apart formulas that were developed during an
extensive negotiated rule-making process, opening the door to
disassembling other Tribal programs, such as Housing and the
reauthorization for NAHASDA. The Bill further eliminates
entirely the High Priority Program, which has provided an
enormous amount of support for Alaska Tribes, who have just
begun developing their infrastructure.
The Bill further eliminates the Population Adjustment
Factor. Because the average population number, at least in
the AVCP region, for our Tribes is 200, only those Tribes
with large population numbers will benefit.
The Bill also changes the ability for Alaska Tribes to
participate in a meaningful way by altering the distribution
formula. Alaska Tribes were only recently allowed to
participate in the IRR Program, which means that only a scant
number of roads prior to 2004 were entered into the system.
This proposal would essentially obliterate Alaska Tribes'
existing programs. Moreover, as a large portion of the roads
in Alaska are not paved, Alaska Tribes would further suffer
from the lane mile formula, counting unimproved roads as one
lane mile and paved roads as 2-lane miles. The proposed
funding formula contained in MAP 21 would result in an 85%
reduction to our Tribes' programs. Alaska Tribes together own
44 million acres of land with little to no roads within them.
The inventory they have built up in efforts to building an
infrastructure to improve the health and safety of their
members will disappear, funneling those funds to Tribes with
a decades-long road systems and larger populations.
The Bill is inequitable, and we urge the ITA to take a
serious look at the unfair consequences it places on Alaska
Tribes.
Sincerely,
Myron P. Naneng, Sr.,
President.
____
Klawock Cooperative
Association, Tribe,
Klawock, AK, December 5, 2011.
Re: MAP 21 ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act''
Hon. Senator Lisa Murkowski,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: The Klawock Cooperative Association
(KCA) has reviewed the Senate Minority Environmental Public
Works proposed legislation Map 21, ``Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act'' and shares the following
concerns.
Previous legislation, ``SAFETEA LU'', provided the
opportunity for Alaska and Federally Recognized Tribes to
participate in the transportation program at 100%. Proposed
legislation, ``MAP 21'', takes a step backwards and decreases
funding for tribes significantly, basically uprooting their
transportation programs.
Under Section 1116, Federal Lands and Tribal Transportation
Programs, these are a few of the programs to be affected
should the Map 21 legislation be passed: Indian Reservation
Roads Bridge Program (IRRBP), Tribal Scenic Byways, Indian
Reservation Road High Priority Project Program (IRRHPP),
Tribal Transit Program, Tribal Safety Programs.
The National Bridge and Tunnel Inventory Identified within
MAP 21 have already been completed as a result of SAFETEA LU.
Having separate inventory developed with another set of
standards will be time consuming and costly to tax payers.
Currently an AASHTO standard is being used to assure that
everything is designed and built properly.
National Facility Inventory identified in MAP 21 has
already been established per SAFETEA LU and the Final Rule
2004, 25 CFR, PART 170 Indian Reservation Roads Program.
Returning prior to October 1, 2004 would take away the
ability of Alaskan Tribes, established by SAFETEA LU, to
participate in the Transportation Program at 100% and would
NOT capture the transportation needs within Alaska;
therefore, we strongly oppose this legislation.
The Funding Formula identified in MAP 21 will not work
because it only calculates population and lane miles. Here in
Alaska, tribes would not be able to sustain building roads at
the local level because our populations would not generate
enough funding to create a local match for projects. We need
to keep the current formula or the relative
[[Page S696]]
need distribution formula (RNDF) that is currently in the
regulations of 25 CFR, PART 170. The proposed legislation
goes away from the Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Cost to
Construct (CTC), and Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) of the
equation which is valuable in developing design standards
when planning, designing, and constructing roadways.
Since SAFETEA LU, many Alaskan communities have built very
successful tribal transportation programs and have had, do
have and will continue to have great projects if MAP 21 does
NOT pass. This Proposed legislation is a huge threat to our
transportation programs, specifically Alaska, therefore; we
encourage you to vote against it and come up with a long term
solution to the overall picture within the Transportation and
Infrastructure in our great state.
Sincerely,
A. Webster Demmert III,
Tribal President.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have other concerns with this
Transportation bill. I have mentioned the Denali Commission several
times today. I have joined my colleague, Senator Begich, in filing an
amendment to this bill that would restore the Denali Commission's
transportation program--an incredibly important program to our State. I
have also raised concerns about a provision within the banking title
that relates to our Alaska Railroad.
These are concerns that, while they might not register fully with all
of our colleagues here in the Senate, to Alaska they are critical. Our
transportation needs are different. Some might say they are unique. But
we have risen to the challenge with limited funding and smart people
trying to do good things to connect us in ways that make sense.
Through the work of the Denali Commission, our IRR funding, and our
Alaska Railroad, we have been engaged in building up the transportation
infrastructure of the Last Frontier. In order to continue the progress
that we've made thus far, I ask for your support and consideration to
address the problems I've outlined with this legislation.
With that, I thank my colleague from Oregon for giving me some
additional time this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I too wish to address transportation
infrastructure. I enjoyed the presentation of my colleague from Alaska.
Her State certainly has some unique challenges in terms of creating a
way for goods and people to move around the State effectively. I look
forward to hearing the details of her amendment when we get to the
Transportation bill.
Meanwhile, we are sitting here in this Chamber--both of us--unable to
present our amendments before this body because we are not yet on the
Transportation bill. Why would that be?
Well, apparently, there are Members of this body who have decided to
obstruct the normal ability to assemble the bill that comes from four
committees on this floor in order to do nongermane amendments that have
nothing to do with transportation and to hold this entire body hostage,
to hold hostage those on the left side of the aisle and to hold hostage
those on the right side of the aisle, to hold transportation hostage,
to hold, if you will, jobs across America hostage. This hostage-taking
is just not right. It is just not right that when we should be building
infrastructure in America, which is right in the short term for jobs
and in the long term for our economy, we are instead sitting here
talking about the amendments we would like to offer to make the
transportation system work better, to improve upon the bill as it came
out of committee.
Now, just to refresh the memories of my colleagues, this
Transportation bill has gone through four committees successfully. It
has gone through Commerce. It has gone through Finance. It has gone
through Banking. It has gone through Environment and Public Works. In
the course of that, in two of these committees, the bill was unanimous.
And in the other two committees, it was not unanimous, but it was
bipartisan. So we have had this bill come to the floor with the support
of 85 Senators in the four committees. Yet we cannot get the
conversation on the floor started. This is enormously frustrating to
everyone across America.
I found it interesting to see this letter from 2 days ago. I thought
I would just read it to you. It has a list of about 20 organizations
that are appealing for the commonsense deliberation of transportation
infrastructure. It is dated February 13, 2012.
It says:
To Members of the United States Senate:
The time is now to pass S. 1813, [the] Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century [bill], the bipartisan highway
bill crafted by the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Last Thursday, eighty-five Senators voted to invoke cloture
on the motion to proceed to S. 1813, clearly demonstrating
bipartisan support for passing the highway and transit bill.
While we are encouraged by this show of support, the
undersigned organizations are concerned that progress may be
impeded if non-germane amendments are offered as part of the
deliberations on this bill.
The organizations that we represent may hold diverse views
on social, energy, and fiscal issues, but we are united in
our desire to see immediate action on the Senate's bipartisan
highway and transit reauthorization measures.
This does come from a broad array of organizations. It comes from the
AAA, the American Automobile Association. It comes from the American
Association of State Highway and Transit Officials. It comes from the
American Bus Association. It comes from the American Concrete Pavement
Association. It comes from the American Council of Engineering
Companies. It comes from the American Highway Users Alliance. It comes
from the American Moving & Storage Association, from the American
Public Transportation Association, from the Road and Transportation
Builders Association, from the American Society of Civil Engineers,
from the American Traffic Safety Services Association, from the
American Trucking Associations, from the Associated General Contractors
of America, the Associated Equipment Distributors, the Associated
Equipment Manufacturers, the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, the Governors
Highway Safety Association, the Intelligent Transportation Society of
America, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Motor &
Equipment Manufacturers Association, the National Asphalt Pavement
Association, the National Association of Development Organizations, the
National Construction Alliance II, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel
Association, the Portland Cement Association, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
That is an extraordinary array of groups that are saying: Enough with
the posturing on social issues. Let's get to work building the
infrastructure of America.
Now, one of the amendments a colleague wants us to spend our time on
is an amendment that says: If you are the owner of a business, anything
you consider to be a health care perspective, you can impose on your
employees. There is some interesting humor on this on late-night
television.
I believe it was Jon Stewart's show, ``The Daily Show,'' in which he
said: You know, in my business, I happen to think that humor is the
best medicine. So I am going to impose a health care bill or a health
care policy on all the folks who work for me that says, if you get
sick, you have to go to a comedian for therapy or you have to read a
joke book or something like that.
I mean, this is not a serious amendment, and it is not about highway
infrastructure.
While we sit here doing nothing in this Chamber, China is spending 10
percent of its gross domestic product on infrastructure. I had a chance
to go to China 14 years ago and then once again last year. In the
intervening timespan, they went from a couple ring roads and virtually
no connecting roads between major cities to an enormous highway system,
an enormous expansion of the infrastructure in major cities, light rail
systems, high-speed trains. It was enormously strange to get on a train
in Beijing and go at 200 miles per hour to Tianjin. I cannot get on a
train here in DC and go 200 miles per hour anywhere. There are vast
infrastructure projects across that nation in cities we have never even
heard of because they are spending 10 percent of their gross domestic
product building the infrastructure that will be the foundation of a
future thriving economy.
Europe is spending 5 percent--half of what China is spending but
still substantial. What are we spending here in America? And when I ask
this question in townhalls, normally folks say 1 percent or maybe they
venture 5 percent.
[[Page S697]]
But depending on how you count it, the answer is 2 percent. So it is a
fraction of what Europe is spending and one-fifth of what China is
spending. Thus, we are barely able to repair the infrastructure we
have, let alone build the infrastructure for the economy of tomorrow.
Now here we are, spending our time awaiting the opportunity to have
the highway and transit bill here on the floor of the Senate so that we
can direct resources to build that infrastructure. But instead of
debating, we wait.
So I say to my colleagues across the aisle, who somehow have lost
sight of the fact that infrastructure is essential for building
America, who have lost sight of the fact that the construction industry
is flat on its back and ready to go to work, who have lost sight of the
fact that right now with low interest rates and an unemployed
construction business this is the best time to be investing in
infrastructure, the most cost-effective time to be investing in
infrastructure, I say to my colleagues who have lost sight of the fact
that there is a responsibility to spend a dollar wisely, in
construction and infrastructure, now is the time when you get the
biggest bang for the buck, now is the time when it is wise.
This is not just about the infrastructure that makes our economy work
better, it is about creating jobs. Maybe some folks in this Chamber
say: Well, we want to play politics with jobs. We do not want people to
go back to work. We want America to be broken so we can promote our
Presidential candidate over someone else's Presidential candidate.
I say that is irresponsible. It is absolutely irresponsible to be
playing these political games with the livelihood of working Americans.
The bill that came out of the House or the bill that was proposed in
the House was a 35-percent reduction in highway spending,
infrastructure spending. What would that mean for my State back home?
Well, it would mean projects all over the State that address critical
chokepoints in transit and transportation will not get addressed.
I have a 36-county tour. Every year I go and listen to folks in every
one of my 36 counties, and I talk, and I have a special meeting with
the county and city officials beforehand. Inevitably, they say: Here
are our infrastructure challenges. Please go back and fight to do
something so that we have the resources to tackle these challenges and
make our economy stronger.
So I am here on the floor awaiting the embargo imposed by my
colleagues who are not so concerned about infrastructure, who
apparently have not talked to their city and county officials who are
desperate to take on these chokepoints in their local economy. So I say
to them: Stand aside. If you cannot get on board with making America
work, stand aside so the rest of us can put America to work.
In Oregon, this is also 7,000 living-wage jobs--the difference
between the vision the House had on the other side of this building and
the vision the Senate had. The Senate vision is not, quite frankly,
that ambitious. The Senate vision simply says that we are going to
maintain the fiscal 2011 support for the transportation process, for
the transportation infrastructure. It is not building beyond that. It
should be, but it is not. So it is a modest vision. But compare it to
the vision on the other side of the Capitol and the other side of the
aisle which says: Let's not only not spend 2 percent, let's cut the
entire budget by one-third--let's put 7,000 people out of work in
Oregon who are not only building a foundation for their families, they
are building the foundation for the future economy. I know that in
every State there are similar portions of workers who want to be at
work, getting up with a mission in their life to go out and do
something useful for their society, to build something useful, and to
have a paycheck to put the foundation under their family.
The time has long passed for us to be fully debating this bill. I
urge my colleagues to come and do the work the American citizens expect
of us all.
____________________