[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.

                          ____________________