[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 98 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H4151-H4153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4348, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                     EXTENSION ACT OF 2012, PART II

  Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Hahn moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed 
     to agree to the freight policy provisions in Sec. 1115, Sec. 
     33002, Sec. 33003, and Sec. 33005 of the Senate amendment.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Denham) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  My motion to instruct the conferees would be in favor of the Senate 
language as it relates to freight and goods movement. It would 
authorize a national freight plan, national surface transportation and 
freight policy, and a port infrastructure development initiative.
  We have all heard that the conference report is close to being filed. 
I have also heard that the Senate freight provisions are not in the 
final agreement. I want to come to the floor tonight and make one last 
attempt to ensure that our country has a national freight policy.
  Madam Speaker, the Port of Los Angeles is in my backyard; and when I 
was on the city council in Los Angeles, I focused on transporting the 
goods that arrive in the port to the rest of the Nation. When I came to 
Congress almost a year ago, I was surprised that there was not enough 
attention on our ports, and I was surprised that we didn't even have a 
ports caucus. So I cofounded the bipartisan Ports Caucus with my good 
friend, Ted Poe from Texas, to educate the rest of our Members on the 
importance of our ports and goods movement to our Nation's economy. So 
first, for those who don't know what ``goods movement'' is, I would 
like to talk about why it's crucial for our Nation.

[[Page H4152]]

  We are a consumer economy. Whether it is a mom-and-pop store on the 
corner or a large retailer like Target, we don't think twice when we go 
to these store to purchase groceries, toys for our children or 
clothing. When we go to the store, we expect that the milk and the 
Barbie dolls are on the shelf.
  Simply, goods movement is transporting products, whether they are 
made in America or imported through our Nation's ports to retail 
stores. The goods that are transported throughout the country are 
transported by freight rail, trucks and, in some cases, waterways. The 
efficient transportation of these goods is crucial for our economy. We 
need to invest in all modes of transportation for freight, including 
roads, rail, and grade crossings to reduce bottlenecks.
  But, Madam Speaker, this Nation does not focus enough resources on 
freight policy and goods movement. We don't have a national freight 
plan to guide us. According to Robert Puentes at the Brookings 
Institute:

       The Nation has no comprehensive strategy or plan for the 
     maintenance and development of transportation assets related 
     to international freight movement. The country's freight 
     transportation industry is highly decentralized, with private 
     operators owning almost all of the trucks and rails, and the 
     public sector owning the roads, airports, and waterway 
     rights. And unlike our international peers, such as Germany, 
     Canada, and Australia, the United States doesn't have a 
     unified strategy that aligns disparate owners and interests 
     around national economic objectives.

  Madam Speaker, without a national plan, we have bottlenecks 
transporting our goods. For example, goods that leave the Port of Los 
Angeles take 48 hours to arrive in Chicago and take another 30 hours to 
travel across the city. What does this bottleneck and others like it 
mean? It means higher costs for consumers, more congestion, more 
pollution, and fewer jobs.

                              {time}  2300

  We need to stop this piecemeal system and develop a national plan. 
It's so crucial that we develop this plan now because the amount of 
freight will increase drastically in the next 20 years. In southern 
California, it is expected to triple.
  In addition, this administration wants to double the exports by 2014. 
And I think we need to have an efficient system to export our products 
overseas. This will provide opportunities for our small businesses. And 
we need to prepare for that increase. According to the Federal Highway 
Administration, the U.S. surface transportation network, which includes 
rail and highway, is reaching or has reached capacity in many areas. 
The congestion largely stems from the lack of capacity to meet traffic 
demand and lack of infrastructure.
  A U.S. Department of Transportation report, ``Freight Transportation 
Improvements and the Economy,'' estimates the cost of carrying freight 
on the highway system at between $25 and $200 an hour. Unexpected 
delays can increase the cost of transporting goods by 50 to 250 
percent. Because the supply chain is a ``network of retailers, 
distributors, transporters, storage facilities, and suppliers that 
participate in the sale, delivery, and production of a particular 
product,'' congestion resulting in unreliable trip times and missed 
deliveries can have major business implications, which adds cost at 
every link of the supply chain.
  If the transportation function is efficient, manufacturing and retail 
firms can carry less inventory because they can rely on goods being 
delivered when and where they are needed. If the transportation system 
is congested and unreliable, a firm must carry more inventory to ensure 
production processes are uninterrupted and the availability of goods is 
maintained.
  Carrying inventory is not free. Not only is a firm's capital tied up 
in the inventory, but it must be stored and insured. This model of 
business carrying more inventories to buffer transportation 
unreliability costs money to the companies and ultimately to the 
consumer.
  One of the reasons that I like working on ports and freight policy is 
because it's a bipartisan issue. It's something we can find common 
middle ground on. For example, Bob Poole of the libertarian Reason 
Foundation stated:

       Goods-movement infrastructure has not gotten enough 
     attention in recent decades, either at the Federal level or 
     in the transportation plans of urban area Metropolitan 
     Planning Organizations. The larger question before us is what 
     the Federal Government's direct role should be.

  Mr. Poole continues:

       Despite my general decentralist leanings, I agree that 
     facilitating free flow of commerce--with the world and among 
     States--is one of the tasks the Constitution gives to the 
     Federal Government. I'm favorable to the idea of the Federal 
     Government making strategic investments in critical corridors 
     and key nodes in the goods-movement system. And obviously, 
     this needs to involve all the modes that make economic sense 
     for shippers to move cargo.

  What organizations support a national freight plan? In addition to 
many transportation and port organizations, a national freight plan is 
supported by the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National 
Retail Federation. The Chamber of Commerce recently sent a letter this 
month to the conference committee stating:

       The reliable and timely movement of goods is critical to 
     U.S. economic health. Unfortunately, the condition and 
     capacity of the transportation system has failed to keep up 
     with the growth in trade volume and freight movement. 
     Congestion caused by bottlenecks threaten to choke future 
     economic growth. The Chamber believes the Senate-passed bill 
     includes strong provisions to establish a freight program 
     that would improve regional and national freight movement by 
     targeting investments and improvements that would 
     demonstrably facilitate the movement of freight, such as 
     truck-only lanes, railway-highway grade separations, and 
     improvements to freight intermodal connectors.

  As part of the Freight Stakeholders Coalition, the retailers stated:

       Substantial investment in the Nation's freight 
     transportation system must be given a high priority. Without 
     the ability to quickly and cost-effectively move goods into, 
     out of, and through the United States, America will not be 
     able to maintain our high standard of living and high 
     employment levels.

  I also have letters of support from the American Trucking Association 
and the American Association of Port Authorities in support of this 
motion, as well as many other supporters.
  We all know that congestion--especially truck congestion on our 
highways--causes air pollution. In my part of the country, South Coast 
Air Quality Management District said that diesel emissions are 
responsible for 71 percent of the major pollutants in the region. This 
means more asthma in our children and more cancer. Eliminating 
congestion will help improve air quality and our Nation's health.
  Also, America's farmers would benefit from a national freight policy. 
Not only do America's farmers provide food in our grocery stores and on 
our table, but they feed the world as well. America is the world's 
bread basket. The U.S. is the world's top wheat exporter. And all that 
grain needs to be transported from America's heartland to our ports. It 
is crucial that we have the infrastructure to transport our goods from 
California or the Midwest to export them.
  In conclusion, last week, the PORTS Caucus met with Transportation 
Secretary LaHood. He said the Department was beginning to plan a 
national freight policy but that Congress needed to prioritize goods 
movement. This is our chance. The last transportation bill was passed 7 
years ago. We cannot wait another 7 years before we make a national 
commitment and a priority for a freight policy in this country.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for my motion, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.


                               American Trucking Associations,

                                     Arlington, VA, June 27, 2012.
     Hon. Janice Hahn,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Hahn: The American Trucking Associations 
     would like to express our strong support for your motion to 
     instruct conferees to support MAP-21's freight provisions. In 
     particular, ATA believes that full funding for the National 
     Freight Program in Sec. 1115 is an essential step toward 
     addressing the nation's most critical freight transportation 
     bottlenecks. Approximately 60% of the U.S. economy moves on 
     the back of trucks, and inefficiencies in major truck routes 
     will negatively affect economic output and job creation. We 
     are pleased that MAP-21 recognizes the critical importance of 
     efficient freight networks by focusing a portion of available 
     funding on highway freight projects, and we join you in 
     urging the conference committee to retain the Sec. 1115 
     program and other important freight-related elements of MAP-
     21.

[[Page H4153]]

       Thank you for your support of these provisions. We hope to 
     be of continuing assistance throughout the reauthorization 
     process.
           Sincerely,
     Bill Graves.
                                  ____

                                              American Association


                                          of Port Authorities,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 27, 2012.
     Hon. Janice Hahn,
     House of Representatives,
     Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hahn: We write this letter today to 
     voice the American Association of Port Authorities' (AAPA) 
     strong support for your motion to instruct the conferees to 
     agree to the freight policy provisions in MAP 21. AAPA 
     promotes the common interests of the port community and 
     provides leadership on trade, transportation, environmental 
     and other issues related to port development and operations. 
     The creation of a national freight policy is one of AAPA's 
     top policy goals for surface transportation authorization. 
     These provisions are important to seaports' ability to 
     efficiently connect America to the global economy and help 
     our nation plan for future freight growth. A recent Corps of 
     Engineers study noted that over the next 30 years, the U.S. 
     population is expected to increase 32 percent, while imports 
     should increase fourfold and exports (so critical to our 
     economic growth) are projected to see a sevenfold increase. 
     These freight provisions are important to our ability to plan 
     for this increased trade and avoid gridlock.
       AAPA urges Congress to support the provisions in MAP 21 
     which provide for a national freight program and policy in 
     the surface transportation authorization bill. Freight and 
     goods movement often cross state lines and are best planned 
     for in more comprehensive ways. This transportation bill aims 
     to reform our transportation programs and including freight 
     is critical to developing a system focused on the needs of 
     the future.
       Now more than ever, the needs of our goods movement network 
     must be addressed as system use continues to grow in lockstep 
     with America's recovering economy. The inclusion of a 
     national freight plan with supporting policies, strategy and 
     funding will help ensure America's international 
     competitiveness, create jobs and bolster the U.S. economic 
     recovery.
       Thank you for your consideration of these important issues.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Kurt J. Nagle.

  Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This motion instructs conferees to the surface transportation 
reauthorization conference to agree to several provisions in the Senate 
bill relating to freight policy. As I'm sure you're aware, the 
conferees and their staffs have been working around the clock, and it 
is our hope to file a bipartisan, bicameral agreement as soon as 
possible. This agreement is aimed to tackle serious issues facing the 
infrastructure of the United States, which is the utmost importance to 
the stability and future growth of the American economy.
  As soon as it's filed, I encourage the gentlewoman from California to 
review the conference report and take special note of the freight 
policy language that a majority of the House and majority of the Senate 
conferees chose to include.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. HAHN. I appreciate my colleague from California saying that. But, 
again, I have letters of support from major organizations who felt like 
the freight policy language was not as good as the Senate bill. Just to 
make clear, the freight policy in the Senate bill does not increase the 
total cost of the bill. And by leaving the provisions that I talked 
about out of the final bill, we're not reducing the cost of the bill, 
and we're not reducing the deficit.
  I just think the Senate language really sets forth something that I 
think we've never done in this country, and that's really to prioritize 
and to understand the importance of moving forward and being 
competitive in this global economy and establishing once and for all a 
comprehensive freight policy that will put goods-movement at a level 
that I think it should be.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENHAM. I am prepared to close if the gentlelady is prepared to 
yield back.
  Ms. HAHN. I am ready to close, too. The hour is late. For those of 
you watching C-SPAN, it's nearing the final hour of the day. It's past 
11 p.m. But I really did feel like one of the reasons I did come to 
Congress was to raise the level of importance of our ports, of goods 
movement, of cargo, what it means to this economy, what it means to 
jobs, and I just wanted to give it one last shot that we might instruct 
the conferees to include what I think is the better language in the 
final transportation bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. DENHAM. Madam Speaker, I will just close by saying that I can 
appreciate the gentlewoman from California's passion on this issue. I, 
too, see the great ports of California and throughout the Nation and 
the need to have an overall freight policy, and I look forward to 
working with her in the future on this very important issue.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
instruct.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________