U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

63–001 2011

LONG-TERM FINANCING OPTIONS FOR THE 

HIGHWAY TRUST FUND INCLUDING MEMBER 

PROPOSALS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 23, 2009

Serial No. 111–29 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

WALLY HERGER, California 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN–WAITE, Florida 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JANICE MAYS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

JON TRAUB, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio, Ranking Member 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also, published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of July 16, 2009 announcing the hearing ............................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. James L. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Minnesota ......................................................................................................... 5 

The Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida ................................................................................................................... 17 

The Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon ............................................................................................................... 19 

The Hon. John J. Duncan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee ......................................................................................................... 26 

The Hon. Kendrick Meek, a Representative from the State of Florida .............. 33 

The Hon. Kevin Brady, a Representative from the State of Texas ..................... 42 

The Hon. Ken Calvert, a Representative from the State of California ............... 36 

The Hon. Adam Smith, a Representative from the State of Washington ........... ??(MISSING) 

The Hon. Jerry Moran, a Representative from the State of Kansas ................... 47 

The Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative from the State of Florida ............... 40 

The Hon. Roy Kienitz, Undersecretary of Policy, United States Department 

of Transportation ................................................................................................. 56 

Peter A. Picknelly, President, Peter Pan Bus Lines, Springfield, Massachusetts ....................................................................................................................... 63

Robert L. Darbelnet, President and Chief Executive Officer, American Automobile Association (AAA), Heathrow, Florida ................................................... 71 

C. Wick Moorman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Norfolk Southern 

Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia ............................................................................ 79 

Barbara J. Windsor, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hahn Transportation, New Market, Maryland ........................................................................... 94 

Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania ................................................................................... 116 

James M. Whitty, Manager, Office of innovative Partnerships & Alternative 

Funding, Oregon Department of Transportation .............................................. 122 

Janet Kavinoky, Director, Transportation Infrastructure Congressional & 

Public Affairs and Executive Director, Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition, United States Chamber of Commerce ......................................... 133 

Edward Wytkind, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL–CIO, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 160 

Don Weaver, Vice President, Weaver-Bailey Contractors, El Paso, Arkansas, 

and Chair of the Associated General Contractors of America, Washington, 

D.C. ........................................................................................................................ 168 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Kurt J. Nagle, Statement ........................................................................................ 181 

Leif Wathne, Statement .......................................................................................... 186 

Andrew Maybee, Statement .................................................................................... 187 

Gigi B. Sohn, Statement ......................................................................................... 187 

National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP), Statement ................................ 191 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

LONG-TERM FINANCING OPTIONS FOR THE 

HIGHWAY TRUST FUND INCLUDING MEMBER 

PROPOSALS 

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2009 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 

Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Hon. Richard E. 

Neal [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory of the hearing follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

Neal Announces Hearing on Long-Term Financing 

Options For the Highway Trust Fund, including 

Member Proposals 

July 16, 2009 

By (202) 225–5522 

House Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D–MA) announced today that the Subcommittee on Select Revenue 

Measures will hold a hearing on possible long-term measures to finance the Highway Trust Fund, including specific Member proposals that have been introduced in 

the 111th Congress. 2The hearing will take place on Thursday, July 23, 2009, in the 

main Committee hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning 

at 10:00 a.m. 

Oral testimony at this hearing will be limited to Members of the House of Representatives and other invited witnesses. However, any individual or organization 

not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing provides Members the opportunity to speak on behalf of specific proposals they have introduced that would affect the long-term funding for the Highway Trust Fund. Following the Members’ testimony, invited witnesses will comment 

on those and other proposals. 

BACKGROUND: 

The current authorization of surface transportation programs expires on September 30, 2009. Federal highway and transit expenditures are derived from the 

Highway Trust Fund. The Highway Trust Fund was established in the Highway 

Revenue Act of 1956 (P.L. 84–627) to meet certain financial obligations incurred for 

the construction of the interstate highway system and other federally financed highways, and was codified in Section 9503 of the Internal Revenue Code by the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 (P.L. 97–424). The Trust Fund was designed to be a selffinancing mechanism using new and existing highway user taxes. 

Recently, the balance of the Highway Trust Fund has fallen dramatically. Last 

year, $8 billion was transferred from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury to the 

Highway Account. In order to guarantee long-term stability for surface transportation programs, any long-term reauthorization must also include a stable source of 

revenue to support program funding. 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Neal stated, ‘‘An efficient and functional 

transportation network is crucial to maintaining the livelihood of the 

American people and the growth of the American economy. This hearing 

will address options before the Congress to provide the necessary longterm funding for investment in an economically sound and environmentally responsible way.’’ 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Committee Hearings.’’Select the 

hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
3 

here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, complete all informational forms and click ‘‘submit’’ on the final page. 

ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance with 

the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business Thursday, August 

6, 2009. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. 

Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings. 

For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 225–1721. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect 

format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official 

hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World 

Wide Web at http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov

f 

. 

Chairman NEAL. Let me call this hearing to order. And I would 

encourage our witnesses to take their seats. Let me welcome all to 

this hearing by the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee to explore options for financing our long-term transportation infrastructure needs. 

We are fortunate today to be joined by the bipartisan leadership 

of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee who 

come here this morning united in their message for a 6 year reauthorization bill. This committee has responsibility over the revenues generated to support any authorization. And many of our witnesses today will tell us that current revenues will not be sufficient 

to cover the cost of maintaining and improving our transportation 

infrastructure. 

As we heard in our last subcommittee hearing a month ago focusing on the needs of the system, all 50 states need substantial 

revenue simply to maintain the current state of infrastructure, and 

certainly more to improve it. 

Scottish Poet Robert Louis Stevenson said, ‘‘I travel, not to go 

anywhere, but to go. I travel for travel’s sake. The great affair is 

to move.’’ For me, Americans traveling for travel’s sake no longer 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
4 

carries the same joy it once had. The current state of our infrastructure, increasing congestion, and safety concerns are major reasons why. Whether it is the family cross-country road trip or a 

business visit across state, Congress must ensure that the infrastructure that delivers these travelers is safe, efficient and modern. 

Let me now recognize Mr. Tiberi for his opening statement. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we have heard from 

witnesses at last month’s transportation hearing held by this subcommittee and the Oversight Subcommittee, the demand for additional highway spending continues to grow. At the same time, concerns have been raised about the viability of the current Highway 

Trust Fund financing structure, as well as the fairness of the current structure. The Congressional Budget Office projects that simply extending the current Highway Trust Fund revenue and spending levels would result in a total shortfall of more than $70 billion 

over the fiscal year period of 2010 to 2015. 

As we are all aware, however, many reauthorization plans propose spending much, much more than the current level. Today, we 

will have an opportunity to hear about various proposals to pay for 

the new spending. We look forward to hearing today from our colleagues in the House, from stakeholders in our communities and 

from the Administration, which has proposed a more limited reauthorization and has already ruled out an increase in the gas tax. 

I know, Mr. Chairman, that the topic of this hearing is long-term 

financing options, but I think it is important to emphasize, as I did 

at last month’s hearing, the near-term shortfall in the Trust Fund 

that is staring us in the face. It is my understanding that there 

will be a shortfall of more $3 billion, perhaps as much as $7 billion, 

between now and the end of September. Based upon what I am 

reading in the papers, it sounds like this hole may be plugged by 

another transfer from the general fund of the Treasury, which is 

currently more than $1 trillion in the red for this fiscal year. 

I would like to make a couple of observations. The shortfall is not 

a surprise. We have known about it for months. And even now with 

the deadline looming, I am not confident that we have a true picture of how much funding will be required to keep the Trust Fund 

in operation through the end of September, given the conflicting estimates that I have read over the last couple of days. 

I hope today’s hearing will shed additional light on how the Majority plans to address the looming shortfall because this near-term 

issue needs to be more closely examined, and time is obviously running out. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Tiberi. And you should know 

that the Majority side here is very interested in getting the Minority side fully involved in how we finance the short-term needs. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. 

Chairman NEAL. We are very fortunate this morning to have a 

panel of experts from Congress and around the country to share 

their thoughts on our transportation needs. We look forward to 

their testimony here today, and we thank you for your participation. Without objection, any other Members wishing to insert statements as part of the record may do so. All written statements, writVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:22 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 063001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\63001.XXX GPO1 PsN: 63001

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
5 

ten or proposed by the witnesses, will be inserted into the record 

as well. 

Chairman NEAL. I do not think there is anybody that I have 

ever met that knows more about transportation or has a longer institutional memory than our first witness, Chairman Oberstar. And 

I would recognize Chairman Oberstar for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES L. OBERSTAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

thank all the members on both sides of the aisle for their participation, most of whom I have known for a great many years. And I 

was very touched by your opening quote of Robert Louis Stevenson 

who also wrote: ‘‘The greatest adventures in life are those we do 

not go forth to seek.’’ I think you could tie that to transportation, 

because transportation is an adventure. Everyday we go out on the 

roadways of America, as I did this morning, I could have driven 

from my hometown of Chisholm to Duluth, 90 miles in the time it 

took me to go 17 miles in Washington traffic this morning. That 

is an adventure none of us want to go forth to seek. 

We have been working for two and a half years on the future of 

transportation, holding hearings on the operation and effectiveness 

of the existing Surface Transportation Act. Mr. DeFazio chairs that 

subcommittee. Mr. Duncan has been his partner on the Republican 

side. We’ve had over 100 hours of hearings, with over 200 witness, 

including testimony from all participants and players. We have 

thoroughly reviewed the issues, evaluated the reports of the two 

national commissions, the National Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and the National Transportation Finance 

Commission. Both of which highlighted the shortfalls of investment 

that is needed to bring our system up to a state of good repair and 

to advance that system to a state of higher level of efficiency. 

Out of all those ideas and testimony, I distilled a proposal which 

is on the screen, and I hope on the desks in front of you. The column on the left simply recites the evolution of the Highway Trust 

Fund from 50/50 revenues, 50 federal out of general revenues, 50 

state out of state funding, until the Interstate Highway System in 

1956 and the establishment of the Highway Trust Fund. And we 

had the gas tax that funded the Interstate Highway System, gave 

us the greatest mobility of any country in the world, expanded our 

gross domestic product from $345 billion in 1956 to roughly $13 

trillion that we have today, largely because of that mobility created 

by the Interstate Highway System. 

It was this Committee on Ways and Means that provided the financing, three cents fuel tax or ‘‘user fee’’ it was called on gasoline 

then was 30 cents a gallon. President Eisenhower signed the bill 

in September. Construction began in September of 1956 but in February of 1957, the Bureau of Public Roads said three cents is not 

going to be enough, we need another penny. That one cent was reported out of this Committee, brought to the House floor and 

passed on a voice vote. You cannot pass a prayer on a voice vote 

today in this body or the other body, but there were Members of 

Congress who stood on the brink of history, and looked forward to 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
6 

the future, and said we are going to be investing in a program, we 

are going to be taxing ourselves for a transportation system that 

we may not even use in our lifetime, and some of them did not. 

They invested in the future. And they did the right thing, they laid 

the foundations. Now, that Trust Fund and the system of surface 

transportation funding at the federal level is in need of serious 

overhaul. 

So, our bill, 775 pages, incorporates these principles that are in 

the schematic I laid out: Restructure the Department of Transportation, create a Council on Intermodalism and an under secretary 

for intermodalism, and require all the modal administrations in 

DOT to meet with each other. They have not done that in 40 years. 

I was also on the committee staff when we created the Department 

of Transportation in 1966. I have watched it over all these years. 

Those modal administrators have not done as much as what you 

are doing on this committee, sitting at the same table and talk 

with each other, in 43 years. It is time to fix that. 

We will require them to establish a national strategic plan, oversee the Mega Projects Program, meet at least monthly, and bring 

into that circle the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard 

and Amtrak, which does not appear to be on this schematic. And 

then we are going to take the 108 categories of funding and condense those down into four major formula programs and simplify 

the process, eliminate 75 categories, and give states greater flexibility. It will establish a national program and require states to develop 6 year national strategic investment plans with annual 

benchmarks of reporting so that the public knows both in those 

states and nationally where their transportation dollars are going, 

how they are being used, and whether progress is being made toward the goals that the states are setting. 

We will have the critical asset investment category, which was 

cited time and again, especially in the two national reports, as the 

most critical need. It will bring our Surface Transportation Systems up to a state of good repair, by fixing the bridge decking, the 

highways that we drive on, the potholes, and make the system 

work. It is not working now. And we are going to provide the funding and the structure for highway safety improvement, the surface 

transportation program, congestion mitigation and air quality improvement. Our plan includes a major emphasis on rural roads and 

a freight improvement formula. And on the second page, we will 

have—I do not know how you get to the second page, there you go. 

My staff wants me to learn the computer. I tell them, ‘‘If I learn 

it, then who needs you?’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So we move from a highly prescriptive program 

to a performance and outcomes-based surface transportation program in which there is a true partnership between the Federal 

Government and the states. And we restructure the Federal Highway Administration, create an Office of Expedited Project Delivery. 

It is intolerable that it takes 3 years to do a simple mill and overlay grind on the road surface that we now have and put it back 

in place. It is intolerable it takes 14 years for a transit project from 

idea to rider-ship, we can condense that from 14 years to, as we 

have structured it, to actually 3 years. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
7 

And then we are going to deal with the major metropolitan areas 

of this country where 80 percent of the congestion is situated and 

create Metropolitan Mobility Centers and give them a wide range 

of private and public sector tools to deal with their revenue needs 

and to address the congestion, and again develop 6 year investment 

plans with annual benchmarks of achievement and annual accountability and reporting. 

You cannot ask people to continue paying for a system that is not 

working. We are re-creating transportation and providing a system 

that will work more efficiently, address the needs of this country, 

and move our people and goods in our society more effectively. 

Unfortunately, the current Administration is not ready to move 

with a new idea, but we are. And we are not waiting for them. We 

do not have time for an 18 month head start program on transportation for the folks over at the White House, so we are moving 

ahead. 

Unfortunately, in the Highway Trust Fund, revenues have not 

kept up with needs. We should have indexed the highway user fee 

a long time ago, but that got lost in the process. 

So we have two needs, we need an infusion to various points 

raised. We need an infusion to carry the program under current 

law through the end of this fiscal year, not an extension of law. 

The law stays in place. Before the August recess, this Committee 

has a responsibility to provide $3 billion intra-governmental transfer to the Highway Trust Fund, as was done last year. It was $8 

billion. Carry us through the end of the fiscal year. And in the 

month of September, we can enact our larger program. With your 

participation, we can then address the long-term financing needs. The total shortfall by October 2nd will be $1.9 billion. We sug- gest a $3 billion transfer to cover that $1.8 billion and whatever 

re-estimate may result in August by the Office of Management and 

Budget and the Federal Highway Administration. They make a 

monthly adjustment of their numbers, and that number could go 

up or could go down, but we need a little a bit of cushion in there. 

We do not need $20 billion or $27 billion to carry us through the 

end of the fiscal year. And the $3 billion is simply a portion of what 

the Trust Fund is owed for not receiving interest from the Treasury 

on gas tax revenues deposited in the Treasury over the last 12 

years for the use of Highway Trust Fund revenues for disaster relief. When that money should have come out of general revenues, 

it was taken out of the Trust Fund over the past year, $6.8 billion, 

and other lost revenue over these years. 

There are a number of revenue options that Mr. Mica, Mr. 

DeFazio and other members of your witness panel today will discuss, long-term financing options that can generate over $250 billion. What we need is $144 billion long term to bridge the gap between current services of current law and the $450 billion figure 

of our surface transportation program out over the next 6 years. 

We need a 6 year bill, not an 18 month bill. States need continuity, 

dependability. 

Contractors need to know that when they start a project, the 

funds will be there at the end of it and not have to have a stop/ 

start the process. That has been the genius of the Highway Trust 

Fund, a dependable revenue stream, and that is what we are askVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:22 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 063001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\63001.XXX GPO1 PsN: 63001

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
8 

ing you. There are a whole series of proposals about issuing longterm Treasury bonds to finance increased funding. Mr. DeFazio has 

an interesting proposal on the transaction tax, on speculative trading of crude oil futures. Mr. Mica and I have talked about a number of his ideas engaging private sector financing. All of those ideas 

are welcome. We will take any dollar you can scare up for us for 

the Trust Fund. And Mr. Calvert also will come to you with a very 

interesting proposal for intermodal development at port from a container type of fee. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Oberstar follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
9 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 1 here 63001.001.eps
10 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 2 here 63001.002.eps
11 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 3 here 63001.003.eps
12 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 4 here 63001.004.eps
13 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 5 here 63001.005.eps
14 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 6 here 63001.006.eps
15 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 63001.007.eps
16 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 63001.008.eps
17 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Chairman Oberstar. 

Our friend, Mr. Mica, is recognized to testify. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN L. MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, members of the Ways and Means Committee for the opportunity to present some of our ideas, and you 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 63001.009.eps
18 

have to make some of the choices on finding viable financial solutions for our highway and national infrastructure. 

Let me say first of all that we all know that the need is great. 

We are looking at 9.5 percent unemployment. I have a statement 

from the Pennsylvania DOT secretary who said for construction 

workers, unemployment is 21 percent. I have some places in my 

district that have 15 percent unemployment and construction is 

probably equal to this 21 percent we are seeing across the nation. 

Nothing can put people to work faster than building our nation’s 

infrastructure, nor can we more wisely invest the people’s money 

and have something tangible after we have expended the funds. 

One of the problems we are having with the current stimulus 

package, and also even the limited amount of dollars that went into 

infrastructure, was the inability to get the money is out. This is not 

what I have said. CBO and others have said that, there has been 

difficulty in getting that money out. I believe that we can increase 

the dollars available and actually get more dollars from what we 

are spending without raising taxes. 

So the first thing I propose for the record is my 437 day plan, 

which is speeding up the process, such as we did with the bridge 

that collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis, that horrible tragedy, but we built that bridge in 437 days. And this is a 

proposal, we have some of the elements in our bill, maybe you 

could adopt more, that would allow us to move these projects which 

will save time and money and get people working and infrastructure built. So, that is my first priority. 

The second is I think that we can do a lot more public/private 

partnerships, and we will have some specific suggestions on that. 

And that is also taking private dollars and bringing them into the 

infrastructure game and setting the rules for that. 

The gas tax as we know it, folks, is basically dead, 18.4 cents per 

gallon is less money coming in. Cars are driving further on one gallon of gas, and we are going to alternative fuel. So even if you raise 

the gas tax by $5 a gallon, at some point folks are not going to be 

using just gasoline. They are going to be plugging their car in, 

using other means, so that is dead. I would propose that we look 

at some alternatives. One that I might suggest is abolish the 18.4 

cent per gallon gas tax and move to a flat tax. A flat tax instead 

of having 18.4 cents per gallon would join 45 states and the District of Columbia with a flat sales tax. Right now, 7.5 percent, 

down from 18.4 cents, would raise a similar amount of money. Of 

course, we would have to have a cap so it does not go up too much. 

We would have to have a floor so it does not in fact evaporate our 

revenue. 

But there are more creative ways and fairer ways until we probably get down the pike to a vehicle miles travelled tax, some sort 

of chip that actually calculates the weight of the vehicle, the miles 

traveled, the type of fuel used, and then you pay on that basis. 

But I believe that in addition to abolishing the gas tax, there are 

a whole host of alternative financing options, not my proposals necessarily but some by the Revenue Commission that was created 

under the past SAFTEA–LU bill. Some of those include increasing 

the cap on private activity bonds raising $450 billion. The current 

cap is $15 billion, you could go to $45; create a new federal proVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:22 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 063001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\63001.XXX GPO1 PsN: 63001

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
19 

gram to fund state infrastructure bank, $72 billion. One billion invested in an infrastructure bank, properly leveraged, will yield $12 

billion in a year, and provide additional funding for TIFEA loans. 

That could create $24 billion in revenue. Create a national infrastructure bank, that is a whopping $300 billion. And just $5 billion 

a year in an infrastructure bank can be leveraged to fund $50 billion in projects. And, finally, what I mentioned in the beginning, 

the second part of my plan is not only speeding up the process but 

also bringing in public/private partnerships, defining, tolling and 

some of the things that we have not done that can create dramatic 

revenue. 

So, I am asking that members of the Ways and Means Committee not shove this aside. Mr. Oberstar and I believe that we 

must go forward with a 6 year bill. This is the only job stimulus 

hope that the people of this country have. 

Let me tell you, I brought this dollar too to demonstrate one 

thing. This is one dollar, and take this one dollar on infrastructure, 

ladies and gentlemen. Right now, according to my state of Florida, 

my local district secretary told me he is getting projects for 25 to 

30 percent lower. So for 75 cents, I can get a dollar’s worth of 

project right now. We will never have a bargain on building the 

country’s infrastructure again. 

So I urge you, with Mr. Oberstar, not to put this off. The problem 

is not going to go away. In fact, it is going to get worse. In fact, 

right now, the proposal is to take the money from general treasury, 

which could not be a worse—there could not be a worse solution. 

Here, if we take the money that we have got, we spend it more 

wisely, and we expand it, we can get a bargain for the buck. So, 

I urge you to do that, and I would like this dollar submitted as part 

of the record. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mica follows:] 

[COMMITTEE TO SUBMIT] 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Mica. And you should know 

that I share your position, along with Mr. Oberstar, that we should 

go forward as well. 

Mr. DeFazio is recognized for testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PETER A. DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 

interest in this subject and holding this hearing today. 

I think if everyone in the hearing room were quiet for a moment 

and we listened, we would basically be able to hear America’s infrastructure crumbling around us. A status quo bill, as recommended by the Administration and supported by two committees 

in the Senate, guarantees that we will not even begin to deal with 

the backlog of deferred maintenance, $80 billion of deferred maintenance on our transit systems in America. That means people are 

dying, as they did in Washington, D.C., because of our lack of investments in those transit systems. And if we continue down that 

path with a status quo bill, more people will die. More accidents 

will happen. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
20 

We have 160,000 bridges on our National Highway System that 

are either load limited, structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, again causing accidents, causing delay, adding to cost for business and consumers all across America, people stuck in traffic. We 

could go on at some length. Those are all the things that will not 

be addressed by an 18-month extension. 

There is another thing we walk away from, we walk away from 

one million jobs a year if we support a status quo bill. That is what 

the White House proposal and the Senate proposal would do. If we 

failed to pass this bill with enhanced and additional investment, 

we walk away from one million jobs a year. And I think we could 

use those jobs and that investment in America. 

Obviously, it is difficult to find the funding we need to get to a $450 billion bill, we need $140 billion of additional revenue. We 

have proposed a number of things. Mr. Mica has talked about an 

infrastructure bank, yes, that is great except guess what, infrastructure banks mean the local district or state has to pay the loan 

back. There is no transit system in the world that makes money. 

An infrastructure bank is going to do nothing for transit. Unless 

you want to have toll roads everywhere, the infrastructure bank is 

not the solution to our bridge or highway problem. So I believe we 

need additional investment. 

I have tried to accommodate the concerns of the White House 

and others to find ways outside the traditional gas tax. It seems 

to me the one no-brainer that we could adopt would be to stop losing ground and that is when the construction industry comes back, 

and it will, and when construction inflation kicks in again, index 

the gas tax to the cost of construction inflation. If we had done that 

back in 1993, we would not be in this state of disrepair. We would 

have been able to make a much bigger investment. We have lost 

more than a third of the value of that dollar Mr. Mica showed us 

since 1993. 

You could take a second step, you could take the anticipated and 

scoreable estimates on construction cost inflation over the term of 

the bill, and you could use it to finance bonds. CBO says that we 

could, this is an informal analysis from CBO, but basically a one 

penny increase in the gas tax could back a 10 year bond of $13 billion. So if we go back to historic construction inflation, say if the 

economy recovers in 18 months or 2 years, and we index the gas 

tax, we could put $50 or $60 billion up front in the Trust Fund in 

the first year and pay it back out of those small increments that 

would come in the gas tax in the later years of the bill. 

If you want to be more ambitious, and I think we should be, you 

could look at taxing a barrel of crude oil. The idea would be to 

move some of the burden and the cost upstream from America’s 

consumers, from the truck drivers, from the individual passenger 

vehicle owners and others, and move it upstream. If you put a dollar per barrel tax, you would raise approximately $24 billion over 

6 years for one dollar on a barrel. Now, remember last year, there 

was one day when the speculators drove up the price of oil $24 in 

one day. Well, $24 would be perhaps a bit steep to put on a barrel 

of oil but a dollar or say $5 would virtually pay the bill. And the 

prospect is that some of that would come out of the OPEC countries. It would restrain their capability of manipulating and jacking 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
21 

up the price. It could come out of some of the people further upstream. It could come out of the obscene profits of Exxon-Mobil. It 

could come out of some of the speculators and others. 

Yes, some of it would get passed on to the consumers but since 

we are talking about a competitive industry here, the provision of 

fuel to the American people, of course they could not pass on all 

those costs, so there would be some way of sharing the burden 

there. So a $5 tax per barrel would raise almost what we need for 

the bill. 

And, finally, I was inspired flying back to Oregon a couple of 

weeks ago reading the paper where the paper said the price of 

crude oil had doubled this year, demand is flat, and it is all due 

to speculation. And I started thinking about that and I thought, 

well, what if we just taxed speculative trades? And the Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission conveniently divides the world between hedgers and speculators, so we would protect hedgers like 

airlines, trucking companies, steamship lines, railroads, others who 

are ultimate consumers of fuels, but the financial speculators 

would pay a very modest fee. 

If we put a two-tenths of one percent tax, two tenths of one percent, on crude oil trades and a half percent tax on crude oil options, 

estimates are that could raise $190 billion over 6 years, which 

means we could pay for the bill, and we could pay for something 

else, maybe part of healthcare or we could reduce the deficit with 

some of that money or you could make the tax a little lower and 

just come out even. 

Now, there are some who say, ‘‘Oh, my God, the liquidity in the 

market setting and all the things that happen that are beneficial 

because of speculation,’’ you would still have a lot of robust trading 

among hedgers, and I think some speculators would still trade. 

Some of them are not just trading on the two-tenths of one percent 

margin, and there would still be a market. But we assume that the 

price of oil would fall dramatically because a lot of speculators 

would get out of the market, and we assume that that trading 

would drop by 60 percent. That still raises the $190 billion. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I think there are ways to get to the investments the American people need and want, produce the jobs, give 

people the help they are going to get out of traffic, fix our broken 

system, repair the bridges, invest in our transit systems, and make 

America competitive once again and put the joy back in traveling. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeFazio follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
22 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 63001.010.eps
23 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 63001.011.eps
24 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 12 here 63001.012.eps
25 

f 

Chairman NEAL. I certainly thank the witnesses. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman NEAL. Yes, Mr. Mica? 

Mr. MICA. If I may, our ranking member of the subcommittee, 

Mr. DeFazio’s counterpart, is not able to be with us; Mr. Duncan. 

And I would ask unanimous consent to submit his statement for 

the record. 

Chairman NEAL. So ordered. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 13 here 63001.013.eps
26 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 086 here 63001.086.eps Insert offset folio 87 here 63001.087.eps
27 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 63001.088.eps
28 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 63001.089.eps
29 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 63001.090.eps
30 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 63001.091.eps
31 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 63001.092.eps
32 

f 

Mr. MICA. It is shorter too. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 63001.093.eps Insert offset folio 94 here 63001.094.eps
33 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you very much. We will get to Mr. Calvert shortly. Since we have the opportunity to interact with many 

of the witnesses on an everyday basis, it strikes me that hearing 

from some of the witnesses that are here as well on a busy day 

might not be a bad idea as we go forward. Is there anybody who 

would like to be recognized to question our colleagues here? 

Okay, I want to thank you for your very thoughtful testimony. 

And certainly the engagement that you offered, I think will be very 

helpful to us down the road. 

Let me call up our second panel this morning. 

Mr. Meek, you are recognized to offer your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KENDRICK MEEK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. MEEK. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to come before the subcommittee. I guess I am just changing seats here from where you 

are and other members are at this particular time to be a witness, 

and I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. 

Mr. Chairman, I have already entered my full testimony for the 

record. And I wanted to just share with the committee members 

and the members that are not on the committee, that this hearing 

is going to be very, very significant to moving forward, moving on 

transportation issues. And I have a piece of legislation, which is 

H.R. 1806, the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act 

of 2009. I filed this legislation because I welcome the opportunity 

to mitigate not only congestion on our highways and remain competitive in the global market but alsoconserve energy and reduce 

harmful emissions and lessen the cost of highway maintenance. 

My legislation provides a 25 percent tax credit for infrastructure 

investment and new tracks, intermodal facilities, yards, locomotives and projects that will expand rail capacity. Railroads will 

be eligible for the credit but so will shippers or any other entity 

that invests in new rail capacity. 

The second investment incentive would allow the expensing of all 

qualified rail infrastructure capital expenditures. This will be an 

outstanding step towards making sure that we expand our rail capacity. 

I think it is also important to note that my bill also requires compliance with the Federal Wage Act, the requirements under the 

Davis-Bacon Act as a condition of eligibility for the tax credit and 

expensing allowances provided by the bill. 

I think it is important also, Mr. Chairman, to point out to the 

committee that this dramatic increase in volume will be able to assist transportation of freight in the United States of America. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation predicts the doubling of 

freight volume moving across the nation by 2035 which will be able 

to assist our economy in competing with other global markets. 

And I also want to add for the committee, for the record here, 

Mr. Chairman, when we look at freight rail, it plays an important 

role in reducing not only congestion but also carbon emissions. We 

can move one ton of freight 436 miles on a single gallon of fuel. 

One train can pull 280 trucks, take 280 trucks off of the road and 

also allow us to break down as it relates to the level of traffic that 

we have on the road now. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
34 

I think it is very important, Mr. Chairman, in these very tough 

times that this industry has put forth a number of dollars towards 

building capacity. This bill will provide jobs in this very difficult 

time in our country’s history, and will also allow us to be ahead 

of many other countries that are still dealing with the issue of 

freight capacity. 

There is an article, Mr. Chairman, I would like to also enter into 

the record, just talking about the investment of transportation. I 

did not want to keep Chairman Oberstar here for a very long time, 

but it is in this edition of Newsweek. And I happened to read this 

article, it is Newsweek on July 27, 2009 and it is on page 13, and 

it talked about the need for speed. 

It is talking about high-speed rail, but it is also talking about infrastructure and capacity. It mentions in Germany, there are $58 

billion in subsidies over 5 years in incentives, $58 billion in Germany. And in France, there is a 1,180 miles of track that has been 

laid and the train that is the second fastest train in the world, an 

investment has been made of $45 billion. Thirteen billion has also 

been placed in other countries but it says here as it relates to our 

investment it is in the millions. 

And I think when we have an industry, such as the freight industry in moving freight and cargo in our country, willing to put 

forth the dollars to increase capacity, then we can definitely meet 

them with the two initiatives that I have pointed out here into the 

record of the 25 percent tax credit for infrastructure investment 

and also making sure that those who put forth expenditures in increasing capacity, that they are incentivized to do so. These are 

very rough times. There are a lot of jobs that can be created. It is 

green. It is something that we can all embrace on the bipartisan 

level. And I can say that both of the incentives that I have identified here this morning have support on both sides of the aisle, and 

it is American. It cannot be outsourced. And it is green. And it is 

a beautiful, beautiful piece of legislation. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MEEK. So I am hoping that we can see fit to add this, not 

only see this bill move forward but also be added to any legislation 

that moves through this subcommittee. Thank you so very much, 

sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meek follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Kendrick B. Meek 

Chairman Neal, Ranking Member Tiberi, and fellow Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased that Chairman Neal and Chairman Lewis held the Joint Ways and 

Means Subcommittee Hearing on June 25, 2009, to review highway and transit investment needs. Chairman Neal and Ranking Member Tiberi, I thank you for holding this Subcommittee hearing today, and allowing me the opportunity to tell you 

about my legislation that I filed—H.R. 1806, the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2009. 

I filed the Freight Rail Infrastructure Capacity Expansion Act of 2009 because I 

welcome the opportunity to help our nation mitigate congestion on our highways 

and remain competitive in the global market, as well as conserve fuel, reduce harmful emissions, and lessen the costs of highway maintenance. We need a coherent federal policy regarding freight movement in general, and its role in congestion in particular. 

The dramatic increases in the volume and value of goods moved via surface transportation modes over recent decades is evidence of a need for a coherent federal polVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:22 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 063001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\63001.XXX GPO1 PsN: 63001

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
35 

icy regarding freight movement in general And its role in congestion in particular. 

Arguably, traffic congestion is the biggest problem that faces the nation’s highway 

system. Miami is the 8th most congested city in the U.S. The hours of delay per 

traveler per year in Miami is 50. Congestion in Florida’s largest 5 urban areas— 

Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg, Orlando, Jacksonville, Sarasota-Bradenton—costs 

drivers in those areas $5 billion annually in lost time and extra fuel costs. Most experts agree that urban road traffic congestion has intensified and becomes more 

widespread during the past quarter century. 

Many observers are concerned that unless there are significant increases in 

freight infrastructure investment, especially investment targeted at bottlenecks, the 

transportation network could become inefficient and a drag on the economy. As the 

nation faces escalating fuel prices, increasing traffic congestion and an ever-growing 

need for more freight transit, railroads will be a major part of the answer. Although 

trucks continue to transport about 75% of the total value of shipments in the U.S., 

rail can be seen as an efficient, cost-effective, and environment-friendly substitute 

for a good deal of this traffic. 

Even though railroads are investing record amounts in capital spending, it will 

not be nearly enough to meet expected future demand. A report by the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) states that 

America needs an additional $2 billion a year in rail infrastructure investment in 

order for the railroads to maintain market share and meet the country’s minimum 

future freight transportation needs. 

Our economy cannot prosper if we have a shortage of transportation capacity. Already, transportation gridlock costs our economy hundreds of billions of dollars each 

year, a tab that will only grow if we do not address our transportation capacity challenges. My legislation is one way to help address this challenge while also providing 

a valuable economic stimulus. 

For these reasons, I have filed legislation which provides a 25% tax credit for infrastructure investments in new track, intermodal facilities, yards, locomotives and 

other projects that expand rail capacity. Any and all businesses that make capacityenhancing investments, not just railroads, would be eligible for the credit; 

i.e.,shippers. A second investment incentive would allow for expensing of all qualifying rail infrastructure capital expenditures. This incentive recognizes the extremely capital-intensive nature of the rail industry, where capital expenditures exceed 17 percent of revenues. 

My bill also requires compliance with federal wage rate requirements under the 

Davis-Bacon Act as a condition of eligibility for the tax credit and expensing allowance provided by the bill. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation is predicting a doubling of freight volumes 

moving across our nation by 2035, and a growing body of government and academic 

research shows that if the U.S. economy wants to grow at its current level, freight 

transportation must increase3 its capacity. Freight rail plays an important role in 

reducing highway congestion. Railroads can move one ton of freight 436 miles on 

a single gallon of fuel. One train can take 280 trucks of the road—the equivalent 

of 1,100 autos—reducing congestion and pollution while saving energy. 

Based on data from a study by the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, for each 1 percent of long-haul freight moved by rail instead of by truck, fuel savings would be around 110 million gallons per year and 

annual greenhouse gas emissions would fall by around 1.2 million tons. 

We know that President Obama is all for increased infrastructure investment. We 

know from the last Subcommittee Hearing that there will be a significant economic 

effect on the transportation network, and the economy as a whole, unless there are 

significant increases in freight infrastructure investment, especially investment targeted at bottlenecks. 

In addition, we need to reduce the percentage of greenhouse gases. Because railroads are, on average, three or more times more fuel efficient than trucks, and because greenhouse gas emissions are directly related to fuel consumption, every tonmile of freight that moves by rail instead of truck reduces greenhouse gas emissions 

by two-thirds or more—without negatively impacting our economy. 

I feel strongly that freight rail represents our nation’s best opportunity to mitigate 

congestion on our highways and remain competitive in the global market, as well 

as conserve fuel, reduce harmful emissions, and lessen the costs of highway maintenance. Add the fact that the railroad industry is committed, and prepared to begin 

construction immediately, putting thousands to work within weeks, positively affecting the amount of domestic and international trade capacity within months. 

An investment in a rail infrastructure tax credit would be a measure we could 

all be very proud of. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
f 

36 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Meek. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, is recognized for 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Chairman Neal, Ranking Member 

Tiberi, and the Members of the Committee. I thank you for giving 

me the opportunity to testify before you today. 

It is no secret that one of the biggest challenges in this Congress 

will be to find necessary revenue streams to pay for investments 

in our country to fix the problems we are having in transportation 

today. Throughout the country, Americans are well aware that our 

transportation infrastructure is directly linked to our nation’s economic competitiveness. We know this because our constituents certainly have told us so, not only verbally but with their pocketbooks. 

Back in my own congressional district in California, a super majority of the constituents have voted on more than one occasion to 

raise local sales tax revenue and dedicate that revenue to transportation projects. 

Additionally, local governments have imposed transportation 

mitigation fees on development of new homes and commercial businesses. In short, our local communities have been pursuing a wide 

range of innovate revenue streams to address transportation challenges that exist now and will certainly worsen in the future. 

Given the broad consensus that existing federal revenue channels are inadequate to match the transportation needs, I believe 

this committee should pursue a wide range of revenue streams. 

Today, I would like to focus my comments on the potential benefits of a freight fee, which is by no means a silver bullet but can 

certainly provide significant benefits in addressing our nation’s 

goods movement challenges. 

My congressional district is more than 50 miles from the Port of 

Los Angeles in Long Beach. Yet, my constituents see and feel the 

impact of trade and the goods movement it brings every single day. 

Freight moving to and from our ports and highways, along our rail 

lines and at the various places where our roads, rail lines and 

warehouses intersect results in overwhelming congestion. 

In addition, the growing interaction between commuters and 

freight affects them both in equally negative manner. As many of 

you know all too well, the challenge posed by movement of goods 

is not exclusive to southern California. Gateway communities all 

over the nation are experiencing decreased burdens of infrastructure surrounding air, land and sea ports. 

In a proactive attempt to address the freight challenges introduced along with my colleague Jesse Jackson, Jr., the ‘‘Our Nation’s Trade Infrastructure Mobility and Efficiency Act,’’ or recently 

called the ON TIME Act, the bill H.R. 947, which was introduced 

February 20th of this year, will fund the construction of high priority transportation projects, which would alleviate congestion in 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
37 

our nation’s trade gateway corridors through a dedicated tradebased funding stream. 

Let me explain exactly what the ON TIME Act would do. The bill 

directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to designate key 

trade transportation corridors or National Trade Gateway Corridors extending out from every official land, sea and airport entry 

in the United States, of which there are 350 in the United States. 

Project eligibility under the ON TIME Act would be limited to 

transportation projects located within designated National Trade 

Gateway Corridors. Furthermore, the legislation limits funding to 

surface transportation projects as highway improvements, truck 

climbing lanes, truck bypasses, great separations and interchanges 

on key freight routes. Publicly-owned intermodal freight transfer 

facilities’ improvements for the transportation link, which is out of 

port facilities also would qualify as eligible projects within the 

boundaries of a port terminal. 

The bill grants the project selection authority not to the United 

States Department of Transportation or Congress. To ensure all interested parties have an opportunity to engage in the project selection process, the legislation requires states to seek input from local 

governments, transportation agencies, port authorities, regional 

planning authorities, as well as public and private stakeholders. 

The ON TIME Act also requires each state to establish a process 

for rating proposed projects in accordance with the purposes of the 

legislation. 

The ON TIME Act derives its trade-based dedicated funding 

stream through the establishment of a capped nominal ad valorem 

fee on all goods entering or existing through the official ports of 

entry. The ad valorem fee will be based equal to .75 percent of the 

stated value of the shipment, with a cap of maximum fee of $500, 

whichever is less. 

The money generated by the establishment of the fee will be deposited in the National Trade Gateway Corridor fund, which the 

ON TIME Act establishes as a separate trust fund account with the 

United States Treasury. 

The fee established in the ON TIME Act is designed to ensure 

that it would be paid by the beneficial cargo owner rather than the 

transportation service providers, such as the ship, trucking or railroad companies. Additionally, the fee is designed to be collected 

and administered by existing Federal Government agencies 

through the use of existing forums and processes to the fullest extent possible not creating additional bureaucracy. 

The bill apportions the funds collected by the newly established 

fee to the transportation improvement projects within the National 

Trade Gateway Corridor in which it is collected. Therefore, all 

funds generated from the application of the fee on goods imported 

or exported at the Port of Charleston, for example, would be apportioned to the transportation projects within the National Trade 

Gateway Corridor designated for the Port of Charleston. 

While I remain strongly committed to a number of core principles 

contained in this bill, such as ensuring that the collected funds are 

spent where and how they are intended and preventing the creation of any new bureaucracies, I would welcome the insight and 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
38 

expertise of all of you on how to help fix our nation’s freight infrastructure. 

I am confident we can all work together to create a solution to 

ease the congestion bogging down the freight and the communities 

in these gateway communities. And I certainly thank you and look 

forward if you have any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 14 here 63001.014.eps
39 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. 

The gentle lady from Florida, Ms. Brown, is recognized to testify. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 15 here 63001.015.eps
40 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CORRINE BROWN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the committee today concerning 

the serious need for increasing freight rail capacity in this country. 

I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his strong leadership in support of transportation issues. And I also want to publicly thank Mr. 

Oberstar and DeFazio and Mr. Mica for their work and dedication 

to develop a surface transportation reauthorization bill. I refer to 

Mr. Oberstar as the ‘‘transportation guru,’’ and I think a lot of people in this room would agree with that. 

The need for additional rail capacity: Congestion has become a 

major problem across all modes of surface transportation. Current 

trends and studies all suggest a growing congestion problem on our 

freight rail network. Since deregulation in 1980, Class 1 freight 

ton-miles have increased 93 percent, while miles of track have decreased by 40 percent. 

The Department of Transportation estimates that the demand for 

freight rail transportation will increase by 88 percent by 2035. A 

study conducted by the Cambridge Institute found that the cost of 

improvement needed to accomplish rail demand in 2035 is estimated at $148 billion in 2007 dollars. 

Short line rails are dealing with the same capacity and financial 

problems facing the Class 1 rails. Private and government studies 

indicate that it will cost $13 billion to bring the national short line 

system up to the necessary level of efficiency. 

Environmental friendly: You cannot find a greener transportation mode than rail. In 2007, freight railroads moved a ton of 

freight an average of 436 miles per gallon of diesel fuel more than 

three times as far as you could move it on the highways. A single 

intermodal train can take 280 trucks off the highway, reducing congestion and improving greenhouse gas emissions. 

Short lines are also environmental friendly. They use approximately 184 million gallons of fuel to move 10.6 miles car loads of 

freight annually while trucks require 540 million gallons to move 

the same freight. 

My strong support for a tax credit: My subcommittee has held 

numerous hearings on the subject of rail capacity and how to deal 

with the expected growth, and we have a very strong support for 

a rail tax credit. In fact, the financial segment has expressed a 

strong willingness to invest in rail if the rail tax credit was enacted 

into law. 

Short line tax credits: An extension of the short line tax credit 

is a no brainer. It is a system that works, and it will help to improve the ailing infrastructure provisions. 

The legislation, H.R. 1789, which a Transportation Committee 

member introduced, one, to show that we support it, but also to express the need for tax credits. Last week, the Department of Transportation had solicitation for high-speed rail in a city, a passenger 

rail. The response was $102 billion. Well, we cannot just come up 

with those dollars from the Federal Government. We have got to 

figure out a way of how we can bring in our partners. 

Just last Friday, I took the train up from Washington to New 

York. And of course we were on the Amtrak system, but what we 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
41 

saw was that we need to fix our bridges, we need to fix our tunnels. 

And the tax credit would be one way to bring in our partners. 

With that, I am hoping that we would include a tax credit in any 

bill that moves. We have a dire need to fund our infrastructure 

transportation system. And we know for every dollar, every billion 

dollars that we invest in transportation, it generates 44,000 jobs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to 

speak to the committee. And one of the things that I have learned 

since I have been in Congress, you can get things done if you do 

not mind who gets the credit. So I am just hoping that you all will 

move the tax credit and the short line. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:] 

Prepared Statement of The Honorable Corrine Brown 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to your committee today concerning the serious need for increased freight rail capacity in our 

country. I also want to thank Chairmen Oberstar and DeFazio for all their hard 

work and dedication in developing the surface transportation reauthorization bill. 

I refer to Mr. Oberstar as the ‘‘transportation guru’’ and I think a lot of the people 

here would agree with me. 

Congestion has become a major problem across all modes of surface transportation. Current trends and studies all suggest a growing congestion problem on our 

passenger and freight rail network. Since deregulation in 1980, Class 1 freight tonmiles have increased 93%, while miles of track have decreased 40%. Passenger 

trains are also seeing increased ridership, with demand expected to grow. Amtrak 

ridership is at its highest levels since their operations began in 1971, and we will 

soon implement High Speed Rail on corridors throughout the United States. 

The Department of Transportation estimates that the demand for rail freight 

transportation will increase 88 percent by 2035. At the request of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, the railroad association 

commissioned an assessment of the capacity of the nation’s rail system to accommodate the estimated increase in rail freight traffic. The National Rail Freight Infrastructure Capacity and Investment Study, conducted by Cambridge Systematics, 

Inc., found the costs of improvements needed to accommodate rail freight demand 

in 2035 is estimated at $148 billion (in 2007 dollars). The Class I railroads anticipate that they will be able to generate approximately $96 billion of their $135 billion share through increased earnings from revenue growth, higher volumes, and 

productivity improvements, while continuing to renew existing infrastructure and 

equipment. This would leave a balance for the Class I freight railroads of $39 billion 

or about $1.5 billion per year. 

Short Line railroads are dealing with the same capacity and financing problems 

facing the class I railroads. Private and government studies indicate it will cost $13 

billion to bring the national short line system up to the necessary level of efficiency. 

There are many reasons why we should look to freight rail as part of the solution 

to our transportation challenges. Moving more freight by rail brings with it enormous environmental advantages. In 2007, freight railroads moved a ton of freight 

an average of 436 miles per gallon of diesel fuel, more than three times as far as 

it could move on a highway. Freight trains also help reduce greenhouse gases. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, freight trains are cleaner 

than trucks, emitting only a third as many greenhouse gases to move the same volume equivalent distances. And freight rail also helps reduce highway congestion. A 

single intermodal train can take 280 trucks off the highways. 

Short lines are also environmentally friendly. They use approximately 184 million 

gallons of fuel to move 10.6 million carloads of freight annually, while trucks require 

540 million gallons to move the same freight. Short lines keep 30 million truckloads 

a year off the highway, saving $1.3 billion per year in highway damage costs. 

The problem is that railroads don’t have enough capacity to handle the expected 

freight traffic increase. Unless that capacity is increased, more and more freight will 

have to move onto the nation’s already congested and strained highways. 

A 2007 study indicated that $148 billion should be invested to expand the capacity 

of the freight rail network by 2035 in order to keep up with demand. Railroads are 

already investing heavily to maintain, upgrade and expand their networks—more 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
42 

than $9 billion in capital improvements last year. That same study indicated that 

the freight railroads could raise about 70 percent of the expansion funds themselves. 

But that leaves a gap of about $1.4 billion annually between what the railroads 

themselves can invest and what is needed. 

One way to help bridge the gap is through a modest program of tax incentives. 

Several pieces of legislation have been proposed in this Congress that provides tax 

credits for rail projects that add capacity to the nation’s rail network, and I strongly 

support those efforts. 

I introduced legislation, H.R. 1789 with Transportation Committee Ranking Member Mica that would combine both the Class 1 and short line railroad tax credits 

and includes fair wage provisions. We introduced this legislation to express the support of the transportation committee for these valuable and necessary tax incentives. 

The incentive could be utilized not just by railroads but also by others who invest 

in those projects, such as a shipper who builds a spur to a plant or a trucking company that invests in an intermodal terminal. 

The short line tax credit provision extends the current incentive for short line railroads to invest in track rehabilitation by providing a tax credit of 50 cents for every 

dollar the railroad spends on track improvements. 

If that money is invested, highway congestion, stress on bridges and transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions can all be reduced while existing passenger 

rail capacity for High Speed Rail, Amtrak and local commuter trains can be retained. 

As we begin to reauthorize the next surface transportation bill, it is critical that 

the need for additional rail capacity for both freight and passenger rail be addressed. The future of ground transportation is on our rails, whether it is taking 

freight off congested highways or moving people on high speed rail corridors. 

There is no one solution that will solve rail congestion. However, providing tax 

incentives to the Class 1 and short line railroads would allow the government and 

the private sector to work together to increase and improve both freight and passenger rail capacity. 

With that, I would again thank the subcommittee for allowing me to testify at 

today’s hearing and would encourage the committee to include these rail capacity 

tax credits in the financing title of the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 

2009 (STAA). 

f 

Chairman NEAL. That, by the way, is no small matter as you 

know, Ms. Brown. I thank the gentle lady for her testimony. 

The gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means 

Committee, is recognized. 

Mr. Brady. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN BRADY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me tell you 

this is an impressive looking dais, and I like seeing it from this 

angle. I think it is important for you to hold this hearing. I appreciate you and Ranking Member Tiberi doing this. Ways and Means 

is charged with designing the financing structure to support America’s transportation goals, and we ought to be aggressively engaged 

in doing this. 

I am a veteran of three highway reauthorization bills. This year, 

instead of submitting earmarks, I submitted four key reforms. I did 

that because we looked at just the local projects in our district that 

totaled $4 billion, and realized that acquiring $10 million of earmarks will not move our district toward mobility or for hurricane 

corridors or anything we really need. 

I wanted to quickly touch on those four reforms. The first one is 

the vision. I think we need to call for a new national mobility summit, bring together the best and brightest state, local and federal 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
43 

transportation experts to formulate a new 21st century vision. And 

leaders would deliver that vision to Congress by October 1st of next 

year. I think we all agree that having a new strategic vision for 

transportation ought to include a comprehensive view, rail, barge, 

ship traffic, aviation, highways and transit, that integration is the 

way mobility works at the community level. It needs to start, the 

vision for America needs to start that way as well. I think our vision has been adrift since the completion substantially of the interstate system. Let’s come up with a new one. 

The second reform is accelerating projects and saving money. 

Congress and the White House, we ought to work together to accelerate mobility projects, make more efficient use of federal transportation dollars by streamlining the burdensome regulatory progress. 

We are wasting money and losing time. We learned from the I–35 

bridge in Minneapolis that we can streamline these processes and 

still maintain a safe, environmentally friendly transportation system. 

The third reform is that highway taxes should be spent on highways. We have to do more to ensure that the federal fuel taxes are 

not diverted to other non-transportation projects, such as in the 

past snowmobile trails, daycare centers and museums. It is unfair 

to taxpayers. It shortchanges our transportation goals and undercuts confidence in our system. We ought to require that a minimum 

of 95 percent of federal fuel taxes be spent directly on highways, 

bridges, transit research and the Smart technologies to improve 

mobility. 

Finally, how do we finance it? Now, I think the way we do it, and 

the fourth reform I suggest is to sunset the Highway Trust Fund 

in two and a half years. Let’s force Congress to work through a new 

financing mechanism for the infrastructure in America. Too often 

we kick the can down the road, and we have done that unfortunately on both sides of the aisle. I think we ought to put the pressure on ourselves to develop a reliable and adequate financing 

stream to fund a new integrated transportation system. We ought 

to explore the traditional financing sources, but we also ought to 

look at a new infrastructure tax credit, modeled on Congressman 

Meek’s legislation dealing with the Railroad Investment Tax Credit, drawing new private capital to help improve our ports and our 

barge traffic, our local roadway projects and our rail spurs and 

other investment. I think that could be a key way to bring more 

dollars to the problem. And I think, again, the Rail Investment Tax 

Credit is so critical because our challenge in the future is not cars, 

it is cargo. 

The freight rail on our highways is going to be the real problem 

America has to face, and I think being able to move some of that 

freight onto our rail and barge and other areas is key. 

Mr. Chairman, private activity bonds were created in the last reauthorization bill, capped at $15 billion. We ought to look at how 

that tool is working and can it be improved. 

And, finally, let’s fix what is wrong with the current highway 

funding system. Let’s focus on a new vision. Let’s find the funds 

to invest in the infrastructure. I think too often we jump to step 

three without doing the first two. 

Again, Chairman, thanks for having us today. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
44 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brady follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 16 here 63001.016.eps
45 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 63001.017.eps
46 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 18 here 63001.018.eps
47 

f 

Chairman NEAL. I thank the gentleman. 

And, Mr. Moran, the gentleman from Kansas, is recognized to 

offer testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JERRY MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS 

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate 

you and Mr. Tiberi allowing me this opportunity. I want to speak 

to part of what my chairman, Ms. Brown, spoke about earlier, the 

Railroad Short Line Rehabilitation Tax Credit. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 19 here 63001.019.eps
48 

The tax credit was originally enacted for a 3 year period beginning in the year 2005 and was extended again by Congress in 2008. 

That tax credit now expires at the end of this year, and the gentleman from North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, and I have sponsored 

H.R. 1132 to extend this credit for an additional 3 years. 

The importance of the short line railroad industry is in who and 

where they serve. America’s 500 short lines operate nearly 50,000 

miles of track or almost a third of the national railroad network. 

For large areas of the country, and particularly for rural areas like 

Mr. Pomeroy’s and mine, short lines are the only connection to the 

national railroad network. For the small businesses and farmers in 

those areas, the short line’s ability to take a 25 car train 75 miles 

to the nearest Class 1 railroad interchange is just as important as 

the Class 1’s ability to attach that block of traffic to the 100 car 

train moving it across the country. 

My Kansas grain farmers cannot make the journey to the export 

markets in the Gulf without Class 1 railroad service, but they cannot even start the journey without the short line service. And short 

lines do not just serve rural areas. Indeed, every member of this 

subcommittee but one has one or more short lines operating in 

their congressional districts. 

The majority of short lines are created by entrepreneurs who 

purchase the marginal or money-losing lines of Class 1 railroads. 

Much of the track would have otherwise been abandoned and most 

of it could not justify much of an investment by the previous owners. To smaller, local businesses, short lines have been very successful in turning these into profitable lines on a profit and loss 

basis, but they serve such small customers that do not ship much 

volume, so it is difficult for them to fund the enormous cost related 

to deferred maintenance. 

Today, short lines reinvest on an average of 30 percent of their 

annual gross revenues in repairing and upgrading their infrastructure. Even with that, government and private studies indicate that 

unmet infrastructure needs on all U.S. short lines run some place 

between $10 and $13 billion. 

The Short Line Tax Credit provides 50 cents for every dollar the 

railroad invests in track rehabilitation up to a credit cap equal to 

$3,500 per mile of track owned by the company. It has leveraged 

hundreds of millions of dollars of private investment in vulnerable 

railroad infrastructure. The National Railroad Tie Association estimates that the credit has allowed the short lines to purchase and 

install 750,000 ties a year over and above their normal purchases. 

Let me give you a couple of important reasons for extending the 

Short Line Tax Credit. First, the primary beneficiaries of the tax 

credit are not the short lines, they are the railroad shippers. They 

are their customers. When the short line railroad upgrades track, 

those shippers receive faster, safer and more competitively priced 

services. Most important, they can utilize the newer, heavier long 

load railroad cars that are becoming the standard for Class 1 carriers. The heavier cars require a much stronger track structure. 

And if the short line track is not upgraded to handle them, the 

shippers must send product by truck to the nearest Class 1 railroad. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
49 

Attached to my statement is a sampling of testimonials from 

shippers that speak to the benefits. And I hope that members will 

take the time to briefly take a look. 

Also, in today’s recession, short line rehabilitation creates jobs 

and does it immediately. Most short lines do not have the in-house 

manpower to undertake rehabilitation projects and must hire contractors and laborers to do the work. Short lines are constantly installing new rail, ties and ballasts, the amount limited only by 

funding availability. If extra work becomes available tomorrow, the 

work gang that is currently installing ties and rail between milepost A and milepost B will be hired to keep going to milepost C 

because virtually all short line capital investment is made on existing company-owned rights away, there is no regulatory or environmental delay. There is an immediate benefit. 

When the tax credit was originally introduced, it attracted 268 

cosponsors, a widely supported piece of legislation. As of today, 

there are 120 cosponsors to Mr. Pomeroy’s bill, H.R. 1132, and we 

are collecting more each and everyday. I hope you will include this 

measure in whatever legislation is available as a vehicle before this 

tax credit expires at the end of the year. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:] 

Prepared Statement of The Honorable Jerry Moran 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Kansas 

Chairman Neal, Ranking Member Tiberi, and Members of the Subcommittee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the short line railroad rehabilitation tax credit. The tax credit was originally enacted for a 3 year period beginning 

in 2005 and extended for two more years in 2008. The credit expires at the end of 

this year and Congressman Pomeroy and I have sponsored H.R. 1132 to extend the 

credit for an additional 3 years. 

The importance of the short line railroad industry is in who and where they serve. 

America’s 500 short lines operate nearly 50,000 miles of track, or almost a third of 

the national railroad network. For large areas of the country and particularly for 

rural states short lines are the only connection to the national railroad network. For 

the small businesses and farmers in those areas, the short line’s ability to take a 

25-car train 75 miles to the nearest Class I railroad interchange is just as important 

as the Class I’s ability to attach that block of traffic to a 100-car train moving across 

the country. My Kansas grain farmers cannot make the journey to export markets 

in the Gulf without Class I railroad service. But they can’t start the journey without 

short line service. 

And short lines do not serve rural areas exclusively. Indeed all but one Member 

of this subcommittee has one or more short lines operating in his or her district. 

The majority of short lines are created by entrepreneurs who purchase the marginal or money losing lines of the Class I railroads. Much of this track would otherwise be abandoned and most of it could not justify much investment by the previous 

owners. As smaller, local businesses, short lines have been very successful in turning these into profitable lines on a P&L (Profit and loss) basis. But they serve small 

customers that do not ship in volumes large enough to fund the enormous cost of 

eliminating this deferred maintenance. Today, short lines reinvest on average nearly 

30 percent of their annual gross revenues in repairing and upgrading their infrastructure. Even with that, government and private studies indicate that the unmet 

infrastructure needs on all U.S. short lines run between $10 and $13 billion. 

The short line tax credit provides 50 cents for every dollar the railroad invests 

in track rehabilitation up to a credit cap equal to $3,500/mile of track owned by the 

company. 

It has leveraged hundreds of millions of dollars of private investment in vulnerable railroad infrastructure. The National Railroad Tie Association estimates that 

the credit has allowed short lines to purchase and install 750,000 ties/year over and 

above their normal annual purchases. 

Let me give you a couple of important reasons for extending the short line tax 

credit. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
50 

First, the primary beneficiaries of the credit are railroad shippers. When their 

short line railroad upgrades track they receive faster, safer and more competitively 

priced service. Most important, they can utilize the newer heavier load railroad cars 

that are becoming the standard for the Class I industry. These heavier cars require 

a much stronger track structure and if the short line track is not upgraded to handle them, the shipper must sent his product by truck to the nearest Class I railroad. 

Attached to my statement is a sampling of shipper testimonials that speak to these 

benefits and I hope Members can take the time to briefly review those statements. 

Also, in today’s recession, short line rehabilitation creates jobs and does so immediately. Most short lines do not have the in-house manpower to undertake rehabilitation projects and must hire contractors and laborers to do the work. Short lines 

are constantly installing new rail,ties and ballast, the amount limited only by funding availability. If extra work becomes available tomorrow, the work gang that is 

currently installing ties and rail between milepost A and B would be hired to keep 

going to milepost C. Because virtually all short line capital investment is made on 

existing company owned right-of-way there is no regulatory or environmental delay. 

When the tax credit was originally introduced it attracted 268 co-sponsors. As of 

today we have 120 co-sponsors on H.R. 1132 and are collecting more each day. I 

hope you will include this measure in whatever legislative vehicle is available before 

the credit expires this December. 

f 

Chairman NEAL. I thank the gentleman. I believe there are no 

questions of this panel, but we are going to recognize now Mr. 

Blumenauer and then Mr. Pomeroy for statements. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I deeply 

appreciate your leadership in convening yet another one of these 

hearings that are so important for our committee. This, as you 

know, has long been an interest of mine. As I listened to our colleague, Mr. Brady, I agreed with the points that he brought forward, but I do feel that we already have the vision that he is talking about. This has been created, and we are going to hear from 

witnesses again today, that will talk about the vision for the transportation system. We have heard from Mr. Oberstar and Mr. 

DeFazio about what their weaving into it. I think there is an 

emerging consensus about the vision for transportation. 

And I could not agree more about the notion of having more 

value in the system. But, again, here there is no need to delay to 

understand how to get more value out of each dollar. 

Our former colleague, Secretary LaHood, and I spent two days in 

Portland earlier this month where people were brimming with 

ideas about how to squeeze more out of each dollar, streamline the 

process, and we will hear more about that today. 

It does require at the end of the day more money. And I appreciate what our friends are saying about the rail tax credit. I cosponsored it before, I will cosponsor it again. I think they are right 

on. I think the potential of a freight fee ought to be explored. 

And Mr. Calvert mentioned what local communities are doing. 

And as I have been working on this issue around the country, I am 

struck that local communities are far beyond Congress. They are 

stepping up, they are raising property taxes, they are raising sales 

taxes, even in difficult times, to move forward. 

And we do not have to repeal the gas tax to create a crisis for 

Congress to act. We have had testimony, Mr. Chairman, and again 

I appreciate your doing this, where people are talking about the 

crisis right now. We do not have enough money to even fund our 

current inadequate transportation system. And, as Mr. Mica pointed, we are in a downward cycle in terms of what is going to happen 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
51 

with greater fuel efficiency, electric cars, hybrids, the Highway 

Trust Fund is in a death spiral. 

I think it is very clear what we should be doing, and I think our 

witnesses today have given us good advice. We ought to adjust the 

transportation funding sources for inflation. We ought to look at 

new sources. I am pleased that I was able to get into our cap and 

trade legislation before it left the House, something that is going 

to be in the neighborhood of $40 billion that will be used to green 

the transportation infrastructure. 

But I would call particular attention, Mr. Chairman, to legislation that I am dropping today that would extend the demonstration 

project for Vehicle Miles Traveled, a user fee that is much more effective than the gas tax. When the gas tax was originally enacted, 

it was a very good approximation for road use. It no longer is a 

good approximation for road use, and it is becoming more and more 

inaccurate over time. 

You are going to hear from one of the witnesses today about an 

experiment we have done in Oregon where people have voluntarily 

decided they will pay at the pump based on miles traveled, not gallons used. And you will hear that it has been successful. We have 

got the technology. People, when they understand it, feel comfortable with it. 

And it has the potential of dramatically expanding what we can 

do not just to raise revenue in a more equitable fashion, by people 

who really use the system, it can be used for truckers, it can be 

used for motorists. We can add into this more benefits for users of 

highways that can streamline their process in terms of not just 

how they pay for it but parking, tolling, actually some things that 

could affect how they get access to the roadways. I have legislation 

that would extend the pilot project to every state in the union so 

people will feel comfortable with it. 

They will understand how it works, will benefit from it because 

every single expert witness that we will hear from acknowledges 

that unless we fix the system, the wheels fall off, as Mr. Mica says. 

We have to have something akin to a real user fee. And, finally, 

that is going to get the support we need for the additional revenue. 

President Eisenhower and President Reagan understood a user 

fee made sense, and they supported actually increasing those user 

fees, like the gas tax. I think it will give us a broad base of support 

to move forward. I appreciate the courtesy in making some brief 

comments, and look forward to working with the committee on following through with this. 

Chairman NEAL. We thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, is recognized. 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. 

I want to first of all commend my name sake, Congressman 

Blumenauer, the Earl part, he is really one of the visionaries in 

Congress, not just on this committee but in Congress, on infrastructure. And I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you are 

holding this hearing and you have held other hearings, giving us 

an opportunity across the committee to begin to catch up a little 

bit on the learning curve given the difficult decisions that are in 

front of us. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
52 

I want to speak not on grand vision but really on a very specific 

point, and that is the need for continuing the Section 45G Railroad 

Track Maintenance Tax Credit for short line railroads. I commend 

Jerry Moran, it has been my pleasure to work with him from the 

time we initially passed this tax credit, because our areas represent 

vast areas producing bulk commodities and yet we have had the 

main Class 1 railroads basically diminishing their service areas, 

identifying central track and leaving others, in ways that do not 

comprehensively serve the market needs of the agriculture districts 

we represent. 

Well, I note that while the short lines are particularly important 

to areas like Congressman Moran’s and mine, they are also playing 

a role in metropolitan and more heavily developed areas, including 

the chairman’s district, the ranking member’s district, and are really found throughout the representation of Congress. 

A couple of problems: The assets acquired really require some investment. We are all familiar with the notion of hand-me-down 

clothes. Well, they have got hand-me-down track, and it takes some 

investment to bring it up and that is especially true in light of the 

second feature these days. They are often having to run unit trains, 

which have much heavier trains than the track was initially designed for. So not only do they have dated infrastructure, they have 

got to bring that infrastructure up to what 21st century transportation needs are, and that is a tremendous investment. 

These are pretty small scale economic entities. Without the capital wherewithal to really make the investment. So, we have found 

that a tax credit has worked very well. My friend, the Chair, has 

noted the role of the tax credit in leveraging infrastructure investment. We have got we think at least two to one leverage, for the 

tax credit we get an equal amount of private capital. In Congressman Moran’s district, there is some representation that the dollar 

of tax credit has leveraged $7 of private capital. That is a pretty 

efficient way to address what is an undeniable infrastructure need 

relative to short line railroad. 

I have a statement, Mr. Chairman, I ask that would be included 

in the record. Again, I commend Congressman Moran for his leadership in this area. I so appreciate the work of Chair Brown on 

helping us along on this one, and look forward to the work of this 

subcommittee, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
53 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 63001.079.eps
54 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 63001.080.eps
55 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Without objection, your statement will be included in the record. 

And if Mr. Meek would like to talk about his beautiful initiative. 

Mr. MEEK. No, everything is beautiful. I am from Florida. But 

let me just say, Mr. Chairman, in response to my colleague Mr. 

Blumenauer, who I have a great deal of respect for. In my 14 years 

of public service, I can count on one hand the people I have served 

with that have a true legislative mind focused on solutions. When 

I was in the Florida Legislature, there was a member, and Chairwoman Brown may remember this person, his name is Alzo Redick, 

serving out of Orlando. We had a great debate on the floor. He 

stood up and said to all of the members, ‘‘Listen, people did not 

elect us to describe the problem but to be able to find solutions to 

the problem.’’ 

I want to thank you for identifying the green initiatives, and cosponsoring the legislation. But, the freight rail companies have put 

forth 17 percent of all revenues towards rail infrastructure and 

they are required through federal legislation to deal with the safety 

crossing, and that creates jobs. That is the reason why I am supporting this bill strongly because I want to create jobs not only in 

Florida but also in the Midwest. And you know, Mr. Chairman, the 

train leaves the station and Midwest and rural communities and 

coal land and all of those areas are left behind. 

Our discussion here today is very fruitful. I think it is important 

to note that the policy that has been put forth by the committee 

of substance, from the Transportation Committee, it all goes toward incentivizing those U.S. companies, U.S. jobs and creating 

those jobs in this recession. And in some parts of America, whether 

urban or rural, there is a depression because no one is providing 

these jobs. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 81 here 63001.081.eps
56 

So, Mr. Chairman, you know that we will continue to discuss 

this. I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you very much. I want to thank the 

panelists. And if there are no questions, we will let them move 

along. And we will call up our third panel. 

First, let me welcome back to the subcommittee Roy Kienitz, the 

undersecretary of policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Next, I am pleased to welcome Mr. Peter Picknelly, the president 

of Peter Pan Bus Lines in Springfield, a continuing generation of 

successful businesspeople and also most benevolent to many causes 

in and around the Springfield area and a great employer in our region. And he is here on behalf of Peter Pan Bus Lines, a member 

of the American Bus Association board of directors, and also I 

think he has brought his daughter to Washington to do a great 

tour afterwards. And we are delighted that he is here as well. 

We would also like to recognize Mr. Robert Darbelnet, the president and CEO of the American Automobile Association, or AAA, as 

it is well known. We also want to welcome Mr. Wick Moorman, the 

president and CEO of Norfolk Southern Corporation, testifying on 

behalf of the American Railroad Association. 

And, finally, we will hear from Ms. Barbara Windsor, the president and CEO of Hahn Transportation in New Market, Maryland, 

who is testifying on behalf of the American Trucking Association. 

Let me recognize Mr. Kienitz for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROY KIENITZ, UNDERSECRETARY OF POLICY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. KIENITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see the 

members again to discuss this important topic. Thanks for having 

us again. I will try to be mercifully brief. Our approach to this 

issue I think is to begin with first principles, which is what are the 

objectives that we want the system for transportation investment 

to achieve, and the ones that the Secretary has been articulating 

I think are reasonably clear. We want to enhance the economic 

competitiveness of the country, create the safest transportation system we can have, deal with the environmental impacts and create 

an environmentally sustainable system, and really invest in community livability as much as possible. Those are sort of the four 

main points that we see as the organizing principles. 

The reauthorization is really an opportunity to re-examine the 

structure on the revenue side and on the spending side, with the 

principal question being: Are we collecting revenues and spending 

revenues in a way which has the greatest effect in enhancing our 

ability to achieve those goals? 

We have a system now whereby the costs that occur to consumers are largely not frankly on the tax side. The federal gasoline 

tax of 18.4 cents is of course on a worldwide basis not particularly 

high, but there are very high costs which occur to families on their 

private expenditure side, car ownership, car insurance and other 

things. So one of the things we want to look at is not just the ability of investments made with government funds to deal with system issues but also their ability to deal with family issues, access 

to jobs, family expenditures, things like that. So we want to be able 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
57 

to look at the question of how we are managing costs in the aggregate, not just on the government side of the balance sheet but also 

on the family and business side of the balance sheet. 

You want a system obviously that is in a state of good repair. 

That is something that Mr. Oberstar has emphasized and that is 

an emphasis with which I think it is impossible to disagree. There 

is a long way to go there. I know that many of the state DATs have 

put increasing emphasis in the last decade into really trying to put 

their money into state repair programs, and that has shown some 

benefit over time, but I think we all recognize that a lot more effort 

needs to be made there. 

And, finally, a third point also emphasized by Mr. Oberstar and 

the members of his committee, is the performance of the system. 

Congestion is obviously an indicator of that but there are many 

other performance indicators that we want to look at, and that is 

community quality of life, environmental outcomes as well. 

So, the principles that we would apply to looking for or examining any proposal for financing a system is, one, is it adequate to 

meet a level of need that the country has, just in terms of sheer 

size. That is an obvious question. Second, and this is something 

that has already been alluded to, is the system sustainable over 

time? I have certainly been in this business for 20 some years now, 

and I remember every year people come and say, ‘‘Well, everyone 

is about to drive electric cars, and there will not be any more gas 

tax,’’ and for about 19 of the last 21 years, that has not been true, 

and now all of a sudden actually it is starting to be true. So the 

long-predicted flattening out of revenues from the gas tax is actually now occurring. The recession is obviously a big piece of that 

in the recent run up in gas prices. But underlying that, you have 

a long-term flattening out in the ability of that tax to generate critical revenues and that is obviously a real issue. 

Third, the funding system that we adopt, should contribute to 

the idea of intermodalism or multi-modalism or flexibility. I am 

very encouraged by the level of support that we saw in the previous 

panel for freight transportation financing systems, be it container 

fees or other types of things. I think those get at very important 

sets of problems, but one of the difficulties we have in this transportation financing and funding system is the degree to which both 

the revenue and the expenditures are sliced up into little pieces. 

We have transit funds. And we have highway funds. And we have 

bridge funds. And we have rail funds. And we have air quality 

funds. And we have environmental funds. 

And each of those separate little pieces constrains the ability of 

the people who are trying to manage that system on a day to day 

basis to actually address the high priority needs, and that balancing act becomes harder. So even though that might be an effective way to generate revenue to do some important projects, I think 

stepping back, our goal would be a system in which whatever revenue is collected is more broadly available so that the folks in New 

York City are going to spend it frankly in a dramatically different 

way than the rural areas. So that is the sort of flexibility we think 

will be most effective. 

A fourth principle is the system we have now started out, as Mr. 

Oberstar mentioned as being really about a set of national needs 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
58 

and slowly over the years has turned into a program which does 

not focus very much on national needs and responds to a lot of local 

and regional desires. And that is not inappropriate, but I think we 

have gotten to the point where we do not really have an articulated 

set of national goals, and we do not have a program that is built 

around trying to achieve those goals. The financing system should 

hopefully, in our view, come back to that. 

And, finally, whatever amount of money is raised through the 

system, it is going to be a limited amount of money. Given that, 

we need to do the best we can to make sure we are designing and 

selecting really the best projects out there. The state of the art, certainly on the maintenance side, has improved the technical systems 

that the states mostly use to design and select state of good repair 

projects have become very good. I think there is still a lot more 

learning to be done when we are talking about big capacity enhancement investments, be it on high-speed rail or highways or 

freight projects. That is going to be an area of focus for us. 

Obviously, many suggestions have been made by the two financing commissions and by various members of this body and folks 

around the country about how to generate revenues for the system, 

and in particular how to generate revenues that are well above the 

revenues generated now. We obviously are looking at those. We are 

aware of a lot of them. I do not come to you today with a proposal 

or a particular area of support. I think the view of the Administration has been that that is a tough nut to crack and may take some 

time to do it well. And for that reason, we are supporting an extension of the program at the current funding level. But, obviously, we 

will be happy to work with this committee and all the Members of 

the House on these issues as we go forward. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kienitz follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
59 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 20 here 63001.020.eps
60 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 63001.021.eps
61 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 22 here 63001.022.eps
62 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 63001.023.eps
63 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Kienitz. 

Now, we would like to recognize Mr. Picknelly. And, again by 

way of introduction, he owns the second largest bus line in America. 

Mr. Picknelly. 

STATEMENT OF PETER A. PICKNELLY, PRESIDENT, PETER 

PAN BUS LINES, SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. PICKNELLY. Chairman Neal, Ranking Member Tiberi, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before you 

on behalf of Peter Pan Bus Lines to discuss the uniquely beneficial 

role that inner city buses play in providing service on our nation’s 

highways. 

Peter Pan Bus Lines is one of the largest privately owned bus 

companies in the United States, providing inner city bus service to 

over 100 communities throughout the Northeast. Inner city buses 

are a vital part of our nation’s transportation system. According to 

the American Bus Association, we carry more than 700 million passengers per year, roughly the same number as commercial airlines. 

More people ride inner city buses in two weeks than take Amtrak 

in a year. 

Inner city buses are the greenest mode of transportation, emitting less CO2 per passenger mile than any other mode of passenger 

transportation. Inner city buses are the most energy-efficient transportation mode, getting more passenger miles per gallon than any 

other form of transportation. 

Inner city buses are a major factor in reducing congestion. Imagine what Washington, D.C. traffic would be like if the more than 

6 million tourists that now travel to D.C. by motor coach every year 

came in their own cars instead. 

Inner city buses serve rural America. Over 2,000 communities 

are served by inner city buses, far more than are served by the airlines and Amtrak combined. 

Inner city buses provide affordable transportation for those who 

truly need it. Sixty percent of Peter Pan customers have household 

incomes under $35,000. Eighteen percent have income of under 

$10,000. 

Inner city buses are operated by small businesspeople, each owning an average of eight motor coaches. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 63001.024.eps
64 

Inner city buses operate with far less federal subsidies than any 

other mode of passenger transportation. According to the Nathan 

Report, in the decade ending in 2005, public transit received 55 

percent of all federal subsidies. Airlines received 37 percent, Amtrak 8.2 percent, and inner city buses received only three-tenths of 

one percent. 

The small amount of inner city bus subsidy is primarily the partial exemption from the federal fuel tax. I strongly believe that it 

is in the public’s interest for this exemption to continue. The exemption is critically important to our industry. Its annual cost is 

relatively small, approximately $34 million in 2005 dollars. The exemption was first enacted in the 1970s in response to the energy 

crisis and is still necessary today. The exemption should remain so 

that inner city buses can continue to provide congestion reduction, 

service to small towns, affordable transportation and preservation 

of small business. And, most importantly, we need it. We simply 

cannot pass the increased cost on to our customers with their limited incomes. 

Last year, in the height of the fuel crisis, we attempted to raise 

some of our fares between $2 and $4, the result was a mass exodus 

of passengers, and we had to rollback the increases. 

We are also facing costs of ever-increasing federal mandates. 

These include chair lifts on every bus, more expensive EPA-mandated engines, new safety requirements, while at the same time we 

are confronted with new federally-subsidized rail competition on 

many of our New England routes. 

If affordable inner city bus transportation is to survive, we and 

our customers need the existing fuel tax exemption to continue. If 

the federal fuel tax is to be increased, we must preserve the current 70 percent exemption. 

Thank you for giving me this time to testify. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Picknelly follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
65 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 63001.025.eps
66 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 63001.026.eps
67 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 27 here 63001.027.eps
68 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 28 here 63001.028.eps
69 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 63001.029.eps
70 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Picknelly. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 63001.030.eps
71 

Mr. Darbelnet is recognized to testify. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. DARBELNET, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION (AAA), HEATHROW, FLORIDA 

Mr. DARBELNET. Thank you very much, Chairman Neal, Ranking Member Tiberi, and Members of the Subcommittee. On behalf 

of our 51 million AAA members, I would like to commend you for 

holding this hearing on a topic which for far too long has been 

shoved aside. 

I doubt if you have very many opportunities to have some of your 

taxpayers appearing before you and advocating that their burden 

be increased, but that is the essence of my message to you this 

morning. And let me briefly explain why and under what conditions we would be supportive of an increase in the gas tax. 

As to why we are taking this position, first, the nation’s transportation infrastructure is in dire need of an upgrade. This has 

been well-documented. You acknowledged it in your opening comments. I will not expand upon that. 

Second, even if what we have in terms of infrastructure was in 

good condition, it still is falling short of our growing needs as a nation. And, as a result, taxpayers across the country are paying the 

price in the form of endless hours in congestion, motorists dying in 

crashes that could be avoided if we were doing a better job of maintaining our roads, and seeing the nation fall behind in terms of its 

competitiveness from a global perspective. 

As to the third reason why we are taking this position, and this 

may be something that has not received a lot of visibility or attention, as motorists over the last few years, we have been enjoying 

the effect of a decrease in the actual tax we are paying for the use 

of our roads. When you set the tax at 18.4 cents in 1993, we understood what the burden was. But over the intervening period, during 

which no adjustment has been made to the level of the tax, in today’s dollar, that burden has actually declined by about 6 cents. 

Furthermore, we are all buying more fuel-efficient vehicles. For example, if the car I was driving in the year 2000, 9 years ago, was 

getting 18 miles per gallon, and if today I am driving a vehicle that 

gets 23 miles per gallon, I am actually paying 27 percent less in 

terms of the tax for every mile I travel on our highway or highways. If you combine the effect of inflation and those more fuel-efficient vehicles, we are actually paying as motorists about half of 

what we were paying when you set the rate. 

All right, let’s turn to the conditions under which an increase in 

the gas tax would be something that we would support and encourage our members to support. First, we need a major reform in the 

manner in which we decide what is going to be spent and where 

it is going to be spent. The motorist, the taxpayer, does not want 

business as usual. We want accountability. We want to be able to 

see the benefits that result from our tax dollars being spent on the 

transportation infrastructure. And it is possible to demonstrate 

that but not under the current approach. 

Second, we need a national vision for transportation in this country. And I am sorry to tell you that we do not have one. That is 

not to say that the Department of Transportation and the people 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
72 

who work there do not do a lot of things that are very beneficial 

to transportation in this country, but if you turn to DOT and you 

looked for an overall vision for the nation’s transportation infrastructure, you cannot find it. If it is there, it is very well guarded. 

And, third, if we are going to support such an increase, it is 

going to have to be in a form that is fair to all of the users of the 

transportation networks. Motorists are certainly willing to pay 

their fair share but there are other users of the infrastructure, and 

we believe that they need to make their proportionate contribution 

to the overall effort. 

We recognize that you are faced with a rather difficult and perhaps unpleasant task because you are asked to consider the possibility of raising the burden of taxpayers, particularly at a time 

when everyone is looking for additional ways to reduce rather than 

increase what they spend. But if you consider the dire circumstances of the nation in terms of the transportation infrastructure, if you recognize that over time you will not be deriving more 

funds from the current taxing techniques that are in place, and if 

we consider the importance of maintaining a national network that 

allows us to be competitive in the global economy, I think you will 

recognize that you have no choice but to consider the adjustment 

that has been recommended by now two commissions and a host 

of other organizations, all in favor of an increase in the gasoline 

tax. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Darbelnet follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
73 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 63001.031.eps
74 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 63001.032.eps
75 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 63001.033.eps
76 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 63001.034.eps
77 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 63001.035.eps
78 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Moorman is recognized to testify. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 63001.036.eps
79 

STATEMENT OF C. WICK MOORMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, 

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 

Mr. MOORMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my thanks to 

you and the subcommittee for this opportunity to appear today on 

behalf of both Norfolk Southern Corporation and the Association of 

American Railroads to discuss why the freight railroad infrastructure tax incentives that you have heard about make sense for 

America. America needs more transportation and it needs it now. 

The Department of Transportation projects that freight demand 

will almost double by the year 2035, and today’s transportation 

network is simply not up to it. Railroads are the most affordable 

and environmentally responsible way to meet this demand, and 

that is why tax incentives for rail capacity expansion will be good 

public policy. 

Many people do not realize that the railroads own their infrastructure and pay property taxes on it that benefit the localities in 

which we operate. Railroads also reinvest substantial sums in the 

network, a record $10.2 billion in capital improvements last year 

alone. It is also worth mentioning that railroads pay nearly all of 

the costs for their infrastructure. And since 1980, we have spent 

more than 40 percent of our total revenues, $440 billion, to maintain, improve and expand our networks. 

Even in today’s tough times for business, freight railroads continue to make major investments in their systems, and this year, 

in fact, will be the third highest capital expansion program that the 

freight rails have had in their history. 

Our company, Norfolk Southern, for example, just this month an- nounced plans to spend more than $300 million on new intermodal 

terminals in Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Tennessee. They will 

support local economic development, as well as our Crescent Corridor Rail Initiative, which you can see illustrated behind me, and 

every major railroad in the United States and Canada has similar 

projects on the boards. 

Yet, as much as we are investing right now, it is not enough. One recent study found that $148 billion in investment in freight rail 

capacity expansion is required over the next 25 years just for the 

railroads to maintain their current market share. Now, of that 

$148 billion, the railroads themselves can generate about $96 billion, leaving a $52 billion gap. And unless a way is found to eliminate this shortfall, it is estimated that up to one third of the key 

rail corridors in this nation will become congested, leading to decreased service levels and serious national transportation problems. As significant as the $52 billion shortfall seems, the number is 

actually probably significantly higher for several reasons. The first 

is that the study was predicated just on the railroads maintaining 

their market share and not diverting additional traffic from the 

highway. Second, the study does not account for any additional capacity for increased passenger service in some of the nation’s 

freight-owned rail corridors. Third, the study was written before 

the congressionally-mandated requirement of the installation of 

positive train control, with its estimated $6 to $8 billion price tag. 

And, finally, the study’s estimate of $96 billion in railroad investment did not account for the current uncertainties in the railroad’s 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
80 

ongoing coal-related revenues when climate change legislation is 

enacted. 

The bottom line is that there is a significant funding challenge 

in front of us, and tax incentives to expand freight rail capacity are 

a sensible way to help bridge this gap. The cost of these incentives 

would be about $300 million a year, but they would generate about 

a billion in economic stimulus. They would create some 20,000 jobs 

and yield other enormous public benefits, which you have already 

heard about today in terms of fuel reduction, fuel efficiency, reduction in CO2 and other emissions, reduced highway congestion and 

increased safety. 

Now, the Crescent Corridor, which I mentioned before, the board 

behind me shows what it could mean for Virginia alone in terms 

of these benefits. Our state partners, like Virginia, are increasingly 

aware of all of these benefits and Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania has taken a leadership role in mobilizing the nation’s governors to promote freight rail transportation. 

I would urge this committee to join the states in a federal partnership by moving the Freight Railroad Investment Tax Credit bill, 

which I will now call a ‘‘beautiful, beautiful’’ piece of legislation. 

You will hear me say that a lot. The legislation was introduced by 

Representatives Meek and Cantor. It will help this country’s worldleading freight railroads meet the challenges of the projected 70 

percent growth in freight traffic over the next 25 years in our nation. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moorman follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
81 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 63001.037.eps
82 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 63001.038.eps
83 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 63001.039.eps
84 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 63001.040.eps
85 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 63001.041.eps
86 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 63001.042.eps
87 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 63001.043.eps
88 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 63001.044.eps
89 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 63001.045.eps
90 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 63001.046.eps
91 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 63001.047.eps
92 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 63001.048.eps
93 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Ms. Windsor is recognized to testify. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 63001.049.eps
94 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA J. WINDSOR, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HAHN TRANSPORTATION, NEW 

MARKET, MARYLAND 

Ms. WINDSOR. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on 

the long-term financing options of the Highway Trust Fund. My 

name is Barbara Windsor. I am president and CEO of Hahn Transportation of New Market, Maryland. We are a tank truck company 

that moves petroleum products and cement throughout the mid-Atlantic region. 

Today, I appear before you representing not just my company but 

also the American Trucking Association where I currently serve as 

a second vice chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, before I begin my formal testimony, I would like 

to express the gratitude of the trucking industry, both the company 

owners, but more importantly our drivers, for your past efforts to 

provide tax relief for the driver meal deductions. It has meant a 

great deal to the industry, and we would like to thank you. 

The decisions Congress makes about how to finance the next 

highway bill will have dramatic impact on our industry and the 

U.S. economy. Over 80 percent of all cargo, as measured by value, 

moves by truck. And America’s commercial truckers contribute 40 

percent of all taxes paid into the Highway Trust Fund. 

As all of you are painfully aware, there are no easy answers on 

how we will finance our highway program. ATA believes the best 

way to fund the next highway bill remains the fuel tax. Gasoline 

and diesel fuel taxes remain a stable source of revenue for at least 

the next 15 to 20 years. 

The fuel tax has many attributes: It is very inexpensive to administer, it is well accepted by the public, it is difficult to evade, 

it is tied directly to the highway use, and, unlike tolls, is collected 

by all miles driven, thereby maximizing revenue collections. ATA’s 

members will support increasing the tax on diesel fuel provided the 

revenues go to improving the ability to move our nation’s freight. 

ATA has requested that there be established a dedicated freight 

program to address one of our most critical transportation needs, 

and that is congestion relief. Reform of the current program coupled with a vision for the future must occur in order to justify additional revenues. In short, ATA members are willing to pay for a 

value received. 

ATA agrees that the private financing of highway infrastructure 

will play a role in addressing transportation needs for new roads. 

However, we are very concerned about attempts by some states to 

carve out the most important segments of the existing interstate 

system for long-term leases to the highest bidder. The trucking industry opposes the imposition of tolls on existing lanes of the interstate highway system other than the conversion of the HOV lanes 

into the HOT lanes. 

Mileage-based taxes are receiving considerable attention as a 

long-term alternative to a fuel tax. ATA has reservations about 

such fees. Vehicle Miles Traveled, or the VMT taxes, would pose 

significantly more problems with respect to tax evasion. Today, fuel 

taxes are paid at the rack by around 1,300 facilities owned by approximately 300 companies. Auditing by the Internal Revenue 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
95 

Service, while still a challenge, is manageable. A vehicle-based tax 

would cause the number of taxpayers to explode, essentially, every 

licensed driver and registered vehicle. A VMT tax also would involve very significant investments in vehicle and road-side or service station-based infrastructure. ATA supports the user pay concept 

and strongly believes a multi-modal funding mechanism should be 

established for multi-modal project eligibility. 

Lading taxes, container taxes, custom fees and other freight-related charges have been mentioned as ways to generate new revenue without directly taxing highway users. However, a close review of the various proposals reveals significant legal and administrative barriers. 

We join with the organizations in calling for the immediate establishment within the U.S. DOT of a technical working group to 

explore the various options and recommend to Congress a feasible 

user fee. We also believe that the existing tax refunds and exemptions should be carefully reviewed by this committee as part of the 

reauthorization process. 

Today, these special carve-outs for off-road use, government 

fleets and others are estimated to cost the Highway Trust Fund $1 

billion annually. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude now my testimony with 

a comment regarding the relationship between the infrastructure 

needs and the recently House-passed climate and energy legislation. As we have discussed, the Highway Trust Fund is funded in 

large measure by the federal tax on gasoline and diesel. While we 

support that, these taxes are nonetheless a cost of doing business. 

However, the climate and energy legislation is likely to significantly increase the cost of fuel. This increase could very well jeopardize the ability of the trucking industry to both fund much needed infrastructure needs and absorb these additional costs to fuel 

brought about through the climate and energy legislation. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

answering any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Windsor follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
96 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 63001.050.eps
97 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 63001.051.eps
98 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 63001.052.eps
99 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 63001.053.eps
100 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 63001.054.eps
101 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 63001.055.eps
102 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 63001.056.eps
103 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 63001.057.eps
104 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 63001.058.eps
105 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 63001.059.eps
106 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 63001.060.eps
107 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 63001.061.eps
108 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Ms. Windsor, for your testimony. 

Mr. Picknelly, you testified about the partial exemption from the 

federal fuel tax that buses are currently eligible for. What is the 

history of that exemption and is it still relevant? 

Mr. PICKNELLY. The history is it was enacted in the 1970s during the fuel crisis of that decade, and it was designed to encourage 

bus rider-ship. It was recognized then, as it still is today, that the 

bus is the most fuel-efficient way of moving people. So it enabled 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 63001.062.eps
109 

the bus operators to increase service at lower fares, encouraging 

people to take the motor coach versus their own car. I think it is 

even more relevant today, Congressman, because we have such a 

dependency on foreign oil, and we have global warming, for all of 

which the bus is a solution. If more people were to take the bus, 

we would be using much less foreign oil. A bus can take 55 people 

from Washington to New York City on less than 30 gallons of fuel. 

And it is the greenest mode of transportation out there, so I think 

today it is even more relevant than it was in the 1970’s. 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you. And, Mr. Darbelnet, you testified 

that AAA has opposed congestion pricing when no reasonable substitute has existed as an alternative route, but do you support 

priced roads as an alternative to congestion pricing. Can you give 

us an example of a priced road and explain why it is better than 

congestion pricing? 

Mr. DARBELNET. Well, thank you. We are accepting of the fact 

that pricing access to roads is a reasonable way of dealing not only 

with our need to fund the nation’s infrastructure but also to affect 

behavior. What we are very concerned about are situations where 

there is no alternative but to take a road for which there is an additional charge. So to the extent that we use road pricing or tolling 

on new capacity or on parallel capacity, we aslo believe that there 

should always be a free alternative. 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you. And I am going to relinquish the 

chair to Mr. Thompson, only because Speaker Pelosi has requested 

that I be in her office for a meeting on the Medicare reimbursement geographic disparity issue. And coming from Massachusetts, 

you should know that is a pretty big issue. And I hope I am on the 

same side of it that she is. 

Mr. Thompson. Mr. Tiberi is recognized to inquire. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will miss you. Ms. 

Windsor, you testified at the end of your testimony that the increase with respect to the issue of the House-passed version of cap 

and trade, and I quote, ‘‘This increase could very well jeopardize 

the ability of the trucking industry to both fund much-needed infrastructure needs and absorb these added costs to fuel brought 

about through the climate and energy legislation.’’ Could you elaborate because what you did not talk about was as a trucking company owner and operator, what sort of impact the legislation and 

what you have supported, and that is a gas tax increase, the two 

of them combined or just the cap and trade legislation would have 

on jobs in the trucking industry? 

Ms. WINDSOR. Yes, we have had reservation concerning the cap 

and trade. We have spoken to some people, and we have been advised by one field distributor that it could increase our diesel fuel 

as much as 70 to 90 cents per gallon. With a fleet average of 6.2 

miles per gallon, that would be an extraordinarily heavy increase 

to us on a day to day basis. 

As we saw last year, when diesel fuel was $4 per gallon, many 

small companies were put out of business because they could not 

absorb those exorbitant fees, that on top of the diesel fuel that we 

already pay, the taxes. 

Mr. TIBERI. What does the average member have in terms of 

employees, in the trucking association, what is the average? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
110 

Ms. WINDSOR. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. TIBERI. The average member of your association, how many 

employees do they have, do you know? 

Ms. WINDSOR. Well, the majority of our trucking companies are 

20 trucks or less. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. 

Ms. WINDSOR. And, of course, we have the large companies 

also, that would be thousands and thousands. 

Mr. TIBERI. But the majority are small—— 

Ms. WINDSOR. Small. 

Mr. TIBERI. Operators? 

Ms. WINDSOR. Small operators. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Moorman, I want to just comment, 

thank you for your investment in central Ohio, Rickenbacker and 

Columbus. 

Mr. MOORMAN. It is a great place for us. 

Mr. TIBERI. And I have seen firsthand the investments that you 

are making and appreciate that. Mr. Kienitz, before you got here, 

I don’t know if you heard Mr. Oberstar’s testimony with respect to 

the shortfall of $3 billion, and I have read the Administration believes it is anywhere between $5 and $7 billion. Where do you believe that disparity is, and do you believe the $3 billion would cover 

the shortfall or is it in your opinion $5 to $7? Mr. KIENITZ. Thank you, sir. The $5 to $7 number was something we released probably two months ago now, and these are all 

sort of projections based on what we think tax revenues will be and 

what we think payments out will be. We have been obviously tracking that. And I had a long meeting with our budget folks the day 

before yesterday to try to nail down this exact question. I think Mr. 

Oberstar referred to our current projection. What we do is we report projections of balances of once a week in the Trust Fund from 

here out until October. And so the lowest negative number on that 

sheet is $1.9 billion. I think he correctly stated that. I think he also 

correctly referred to the fact that the mid-year budget adjustment 

that happens every August is coming up. The last several of these 

have been downward adjustments for the Highway Trust Fund, 

and so past history would indicate that we could expect potentially 

more of that. And so you are in the two’s and something there. 

The only thing is the way that the cash management works in 

the Trust Fund is that we get payments twice a month from the 

Treasury Department, and we get bills submitted everyday by 

states. And so this question of what the weekly snapshot number 

is depends entirely—— 

Mr. TIBERI. So you think the $3 billion would cover it? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I do not think the $3 billion would cover it. 

Mr. TIBERI. Do you think it would need $5, $6, $7? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I think our view is still at a minimum $5 is the 

number that is safe. 

Mr. TIBERI. You heard Mr. Mica talk about this Vehicle Miles 

Traveled tax. What is the Administration’s position today on that? 

Mr. KIENITZ. At this point, it is not something we are supportive of at this moment. 

Mr. TIBERI. But you could be? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I certainly would not want to speculate on that. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
111 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. How about Mr. DeFazio’s tax that he 

talked—— 

Mr. KIENITZ. This is the tax on futures trades. I had an exchange with him at a hearing that he chaired last week on this 

point. We have our economic team looking at that. I think one of 

the issues they are examining is how would the presence of such 

a tax change the behavior of folks in that industry. In particular, 

whether it push those trades offshore where they are not subject 

to taxation by the United States. 

Mr. TIBERI. How about the taxing of barrels of crude and imported refined gasoline? 

Mr. KIENITZ. Not something that we are supporting right now 

that I know of. 

Mr. TIBERI. How about indexing the gas tax that he talked 

about? 

Mr. KIENITZ. Neither that. 

Mr. TIBERI. Not supporting that at this point in time? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I do not think so, no. 

Mr. TIBERI. Maybe later? 

Mr. KIENITZ. Once again, I would leave that for later. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THOMPSON. [Presiding.] Thank you. Mr. Secretary, while 

you are on the tax hot seat here. 

Mr. KIENITZ. Yes, sir? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Can you tell me why you would believe that 

the Administration would not be supportive of the miles traveled 

tax? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I think our view right now is that this summer 

is the middle of one of the deepest recessions that has been seen 

in this country certainly since I have been in this business, and 

maybe in 40 or 50 years, and so now is not the time to do that or 

seriously consider that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. So that would be your answer to any of the 

means by which to increase revenue? 

Mr. KIENITZ. That would be my principal answer. 

Mr. THOMPSON. On the miles traveled specifically,—— 

Mr. KIENITZ. Correct. 

Mr. Thompson [continuing]. is there a reason that you would put 

that in the good policy category or the bad policy category? 

Mr. KIENITZ. Personally, I see the attraction of it given the declining yield we get out from traditional gasoline taxes. To the degree that I have discussed with people who are more expert than 

I about what the actual implementation of this would be, there 

would be a multi-year process of taking the technologies that exist, 

that have been tested in Oregon and a couple of other places, figuring out how to scale them, creating back office systems, there is 

a lot of work that would go on in doing that. So even if we decided 

today full speed ahead, I am not sure that within the next four or 

5 years, you are actually able to transition the system over to 

something that is so different. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay, thank you. Ms. Windsor, on the Vehicle 

Miles Traveled, do you have any insight as to whether or not you 

think that would be a fair way to go? 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
112 

Ms. WINDSOR. We understand that with the passenger cars, it 

is something that has been tested and has had some pilot programs. We know that with the alternative fuels, that gasoline taxes 

will erode through the years. Diesel, however, will not because 

there are no alternative fuels for our diesel trucks at this point. So 

without a pilot program or further study, we feel like that we are 

not supporting the vehicles miles tax. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Darbelnet, on your testimony, you outlined some principles that you thought we needed to adhere to, one 

of which it needed to be fair to all users. Do you have a comment 

on the Vehicle Miles Traveled, do you think that would be something that would be fair to all users? 

Mr. DARBELNET. Well, I think it is worthy of consideration, 

and we are pleased to see the pilots that have been occurring. 

There are obviously some concerns, some of them relate to privacy. 

Some of them were mentioned earlier today, and they relate to our 

ability to ensure that we are actually collecting everything that we 

should, and that we are not exposing ourselves to greater fraud. 

But as a concept, the VMT tax is not that far away from what we 

currently have. The gas tax is in essence a tax we pay on the basis 

of what you assume will be the number of gallons it takes to drive 

100 miles. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Back to the fairness issue, do you see any 

problems with rural drivers versus suburban or urban drivers? 

People in the district where I live, they do not have, for instance, 

public transportation available to them. The miles that they have 

to drive to get to and from work, just because of the remoteness 

of the area, are far greater. There are a whole bunch of reasons 

why miles driven would calculate up a lot quicker than something 

else. 

Mr. DARBELNET. Well, it might calculate up more quickly than 

something else, but it is not that different from the gas tax that 

we currently have, and that people in rural environments today, 

with no alternative but to drive their own vehicle, are buying more 

gas than people in urban settings where they can decide to take 

transit or the bus or their bike. So I do not think there is a great 

deal of inequity between the VMT and the current gas tax provided 

we address some of the other issues. Where I think we would have 

difficulty selling the VMT to the motoring public would be if certain categories, and I understand the point made by the trucking 

industry relative to diesel and so on, but if we found ourselves in 

a situation where motorists are paying on the basis of miles traveled and other important segments of the users are not, then I 

think we would have difficulty explaining why it is fair. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I just did a real quick calculation to drive from 

one end of my district to the other. And right now under the current situation, I would pay a few dollars, a little over $4 in gasoline 

taxes. If we did it by miles traveled, it would be over $20, about 

a 380 percent increase. 

Mr. DARBELNET. Well, that would appear unfair, but I assume 

it is a function of what rate would be establishes for the miles traveled tax. And if the rate was lower, it could equate to what you are 

currently paying. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
113 

I would like to make one other point about VMT, and it is that 

it removes, and this is not the reason not to consider it, but it removes one of the incentives which exist today for people to buy 

more fuel-efficient vehicles. It does not completely remove it but it 

mitigates it to some extent because as a taxpayer if I realize that 

when I am buying fuel, I am paying not only for the fuel but also 

for taxes. If those taxes are removed, the price of fuel hopefully 

would decline and the interest I might have in buying a more fuelefficient and environmentally-friendly vehicle could be somewhat 

mitigated as a result. And we need to consider that as we consider—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Could be reduced, there is no incentive to purchase a more fuel-efficient vehicle. 

Mr. DARBELNET. It could reduce the incentive to do so. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Heller. 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Windsor, I am just 

looking at my notes here, and I am trying to figure out if you are 

here on behalf of the ATA or as the CEO of Hahn Transportation? 

Ms. WINDSOR. Actually, both. I am a trucker and, yes, I am 

representing ATA. 

Mr. HELLER. Did I understand correctly that the ATA does endorse a gasoline tax increase? 

Ms. WINDSOR. Yes, we do. 

Mr. HELLER. Is that a decision made by the board of directors 

or your actual members? 

Ms. WINDSOR. The executive committee has endorsed it because 

we believe it is a user fee, yes. 

Mr. HELLER. Is there a report, I do not know if it would come 

out monthly or quarter, of the amount of diesel that is used in this 

country? Someone said a report was coming out recently, I had not 

heard of diesel report or volume of diesel use in this country, are 

you aware of any report? 

Ms. WINDSOR. I am not aware, but I imagine there could be a 

report. 

Mr. HELLER. Would you anticipate that there would be an increased volume in diesel used in this country in the last 6 months 

or a decrease? 

Ms. WINDSOR. In the past 6 months, with the new diesel that 

we have, it burns frankly much cleaner but we have lost some of 

our miles per gallon. It is very clean burning. 

Mr. HELLER. Okay, so in your capacity, in your private capacity 

as a trucker, you would say you have increased the actual volume—— 

Ms. WINDSOR. Yes, yes. 

Mr. Heller [continuing]. because of the—— 

Ms. WINDSOR. Because of the—diesel, the cleaning burning diesels. 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you. Mr. Kienitz, according to Mr. Tiberi’s 

questioning, it is hard to get you on a gasoline tax where the Administration is today, where they would be if the economy would 

turn around. I am not sure where you are on VMT either, and I 

am not trying to push you out in one direction or another but has 

the Administration taken any positions on some of the proposals 

that Chairman DeFazio discussed today? He had three proposals, 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
114 

one is indexing the gas tax and using the money to repay new 

bonds, taxing barrels of crude and imported and refined gasoline, 

and imposing a tax on transactions in oil futures and options. Do 

you guys have any positions on any of those? 

Mr. KIENITZ. We are not supporting any new revenue for the 

trust fund from a new tax source right now. And so I guess those 

three would fall under that. We are certainly examining in particular the futures trading proposal because it is a complicated 

thing to try to figure out what the actual effect would be, but we 

have not endorsed any revenue. 

Mr. HELLER. Okay, one more question, Mr. Chairman. The new 

transportation bill has a new allocation process. It was at one time 

82 percent of the current funding went to highways, 18 percent 

went to transit. Under the new reauthorization, the proposal is 70 

percent for highways, 20 percent for transit and 10 percent for 

high-speed rail. Has the Administration taken a position on that? 

Mr. KIENITZ. I am not sure which proposal are you referring to 

that has that? 

Mr. HELLER. I am referring to the 700-page—— 

Mr. KIENITZ. Oh, the committee draft? 

Mr. HELLER. Yes. 

Mr. KIENITZ. From the T&I committee. We have been having 

discussions with Mr. Oberstar and with his staff about the specifics 

of that bill, both its broad outlines and the specifics. We have not 

taken a particular position on it, either the pieces of it or the total 

thing, but obviously it is a major proposal, and we are hoping to 

work with them on it. 

Mr. HELLER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was intrigued, 

Mr. Darbelnet, you talked about how when you combine the 

changes in the mileage, the efficiency, with the loss of purchasing 

power, the average motorist today is paying about half of what 

they were 20 or 30 years ago, or I guess it was back in 1993, when 

the gas tax and diesel was last adjusted. I am curious, Ms. Windsor, how does that balance work today for the trucking industry? 

Have you seen efficiencies in utilization that would make your proportionate cost be that much less? 

Ms. WINDSOR. Well, the price of diesel back in the 1990s was 

considerably less than gasoline, and that was the disparity between 

18 cents and the 24 cents we pay on diesel. Now, diesel is more 

expensive than gasoline. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I guess the question that I would love to 

explore with both the trucking industry and AAA is the equity because what is clear is that, as we go forward, there will be less 

being supplied by motorists per each mile driven. I want to know 

how that works with the trucking industry. I have been talking to 

people who have been talking about super-efficient trucks that are 

on the horizon, but I want to be able to understand what that balance is because it appears to me that the efficiency for plug-in hybrids, the alternatives, are much greater for the motoring public, 

so that more and more of the burden is going to fall on the trucking 

industry unless we do something like Vehicle Miles Traveled. So if 

you would help us understand what that disparity is? And I would 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
115 

respectfully request that we have both the AAA and the truckers 

help refine that. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciated your line of inquiry about Vehicle 

Miles Traveled, and I would just note for the record that that is 

entirely dependent on what the rate is. The pilot project in Oregon 

has been calculated based on just replacing the current miles per 

gallon. So that it was not designed to increase or reduce revenues, 

it was just designed to replicate it and test the hardware, test people’s reaction to it, and I want to identify with what our witnesses 

are saying. That is why the legislation that I have introduced 

would extend the pilot project to every state in the union, so that 

people in rural, urban, big states, and small states can find out 

how it works and help us refine it because it is going to take—I 

agree with Mr. Kienitz, it will take four or five or 6 years to actually implement. Actually, the trucking industry could implement it 

much faster because so many trucks have already the monitoring 

equipment, but we could not do it system-wide. So I am strongly 

urging that we go forward with a plan to be able for people to test 

it, to calm their concerns that big brother is watching, although 

anybody with a cell phone or a Blackberry has that already, I find 

certain irony in people raising that while walking around with a 

chip that can be monitored, but being able to really test it and 

being able to make sure that we have a user fee in the future that 

helps us balance it. 

And I would just note for the record, one of the things that could 

happen is including an adjustment for the road utilization, which 

we cannot do today with the gas tax, and that there is not actually 

the same demand with somebody with a small car in rural Montana going over that road as opposed to somebody with a larger rig 

that is in an area where there is more congestion and more problems. So, unlike what we do now, where they are paying more, we 

would have an opportunity to adjust it to attune to the circumstances. 

And I will just conclude, Mr. Chairman, I know we have got 

votes coming forward, but I really have appreciated the testimony 

that has been broad-gauged, that talks about the need of investing 

in the infrastructure, people raising legitimate questions about balance and fairness and equity that really do need to be resolved, 

and looking at the mechanisms that we have got moving forward, 

so we do not end up penalizing rail or freight movement or auto 

motorists, as we move forward because the stakes are very high. 

And I deeply appreciate this opportunity and the witnesses presentation. 

I am going to apologize in advance, we have been summoned to 

the Speaker’s office, and so I do not know that I will be able to return for the next panel, I will if it is humanly possible. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Because you may not be back, Mr. 

Blumenauer, let me just add I appreciate your openness to looking 

at the disparity between urban and rural. There are a lot of different factors, not only miles traveled but in rural districts, districts such as mine, there are often things you cannot do with a 

fuel-efficient automobile. It is very, very difficult to haul a gondola 

full of grapes to the winery with a Prius, and stock trailers and 

things like that, hauling logs to the mill, it is a tough deal. And 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
116 

there are some issues there that we would have to look closely at 

to make sure that everybody is treated equally and, as the gentleman from AAA pointed out, that fairness has to be an important 

part of whatever we do. So I appreciate your comments. 

I want to thank the panelists for being here. I want to apologize 

to the next panel for the wait that you are going to have to put 

up with. We have, as was mentioned, a series of votes, so it has 

been concluded that we will recess the panel until after the last 

vote, and then we will come back and resume our work. So, panel 

number three, thank you. Panel number four, you have got a little 

bit of time to make your way up and settle in. So thank you very 

much. The committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman NEAL. Let me reconvene the subcommittee. I want to 

thank our last panel for their patience, and I want to now call up 

our really last panel. First, let me welcome Allen Biehler, secretary 

of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, testifying on 

behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

Next, we will hear from Mr. James Whitty, manager of the Office 

of Innovative Partnerships & Alternative Funding at the Oregon 

Department of Transportation. We would like to welcome Janet 

Kavinoky, director of Transportation Infrastructure at the U.S. 

Chamber of Commerce and Executive Director of Americans for 

Transportation Mobility Coalition. Next, we will hear testimony 

from Mr. Edward Wytkind, president of the Transportation Trades 

Department at the AFL–CIO. And, finally, we will welcome a very 

patient Don Weaver, vice president of the Weaver-Bailey Contractors in El Paso, Arkansas and chair of the Associated General Contractors of America. 

Secretary Biehler, you are recognized to offer your statement. 

STATEMENT OF ALLEN D. BIEHLER, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, HARRISBURG, 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. BIEHLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for inviting us to give comments. 

The concerns of the state Departments of Transportation are 

pretty basic and pretty obvious, as your opening remarks earlier 

this morning, and that is two things: One is the immediate threat 

of the Highway Trust Fund insolvency, and then finally the need 

to enact a well-funded longer range service transportation authorization bill. 

I think it is also clear that we would agree that transportation 

is a critical engine of the American economy, and it sustains goodpaying American jobs. 

SAFTEA–LU, when it was enacted back in 2005, we had hoped 

was going to have sufficient revenues to sustain us. We have talked 

and heard testimony this morning about how unfortunately that is 

not the case, that the revenue income is not meeting the expenses 

that are being incurred by the states. At least, the most recent 

number we had heard was that the immediate shortfall was in the 

neighborhood of $7.5 billion, and that that needs to be transferred 

into the Trust Fund simply to cover Fiscal 2009 commitments. If 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
117 

the Trust Fund becomes insolvent, significant problems occur for 

the states. The states will be saddled with the problem of what to 

do next and try to guess if and when the problem will be solved. 

And it is a real Russian roulette issue for us, but we would start 

taking the only responsible actions that we know how to take, 

which is frankly to start suspending ongoing construction contracts, 

as well as either delaying or simply putting off issuing new contracts. Ironically, it comes at a time when Congress saw fit to enact 

a stimulus bill, which has really helped all of us ramp up, and so 

far we have been successful at meeting all of the congressional 

benchmark numbers and are moving very quickly to bolster our 

construction work, and it would be right at that time when we 

would then be facing some interesting constraints in the program. 

If, in fact, we do not deal with 2009 and that problem continues 

into the next fiscal year, Fiscal 2010, not only will we need an additional $7.5 billion for 2009, but the projection is that we will need 

an additional $10 billion for 2010. If we do not do that, the 2010 

program is projected to drop to $5.7 billion, which is 86 percent less 

than projected. And so you can imagine the angst that it gives us. 

I can tell you that in the case of Pennsylvania, just to use as an 

example, we would have to reduce our current calendar 2009 construction program by 70 percent. So it is a number that is 

daunting. And my colleagues around the country would face the 

same problems, we just cannot get there. Hopefully, we will agree 

that we have just got to avoid that. 

As we look forward to a tougher issue, which is the 6 year reauthorization bill, we note that obviously the last time user fees were 

increased was back in 1993. And despite, again, hoping that our 

revenue was going to keep pace with our expenses, that is not the 

case. And so we face what we think are the right issues and tough 

issues of looking to user fees again as a way to address the future 

6 year needs, and coming to grips with that is difficult. However, 

we think it is critical. In my long written testimony, AASHTO has 

identified a very long menu of options to choose from. We certainly 

note, and I know one of the speakers, in fact to my left and to your 

right, will be addressing the issue of VMT. AASHTO has looked at 

VMT, and looks at it as one of the new methods that we think is 

very promising to deal with the tough issues of finding funds to basically deal with the Trust Fund. 

So let me just say in conclusion that both the federal highway 

as well as the transit programs face the long-term revenue shortfalls. In addition to pilot testing VMT, which could take years, we 

need to look at that mechanism, as well as perhaps a menu of 

other options. And, as we have noted, both national commissions, 

both the Policy Commission and Revenue Commission concluded 

that we really do need in fact to take a substantial step forward 

and increase revenues, and we think user fees are the primary 

source that we should look for. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Biehler follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
118 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 82 here 63001.082.eps
119 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 83 here 63001.083.eps
120 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 63001.084.eps
121 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Whitty. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 63001.085.eps
122 

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. WHITTY, MANAGER, OFFICE OF INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS & ALTERNATIVE FUNDING, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. WHITTY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on 

behalf of the Oregon Department of Transportation, I appreciate 

the opportunity to present our findings on the nation’s first test of 

a mileage fee collection system designed to replace the gas tax as 

our nation’s primary road-funding mechanism. 

Oregon’s mileage fee efforts began 8 years ago with a state legislative directive to design a new road revenue system. On the 90th 

birthday of the gas tax, pioneered in fact by Oregon, this formerly 

reliable source of revenue now faces serious challenges funding our 

road system, primarily because of increasing fleet fuel efficiency. 

Moreover, the gas tax cannot remain the major source of transportation funding if national policy seeks to reduce oil consumption in 

the transportation sector. 

A mileage fee is based on use of the roadways and can be designed and collected in many ways, from the labor intensive paper 

and pencil method to hands-free electronic reporting. Each viable 

method should receive due consideration. 

The nature of the ultimate mileage fee system, however, will depend upon tax policy set by policymakers. In the pilot test, ODOT 

installed mileage county transponders in 300 cars of volunteer motorists. The transponder receives satellite signals to electronicallydefined geographic zones for counting miles. A computer within the 

car records the total number of miles driven within each zone. The 

transponder is passive, not like a navigation unit, and therefore is 

unable to track vehicle movements nor store a travel history. When 

a motorist pulls up to the gasoline pump for refueling, the system 

reads the mileage data from the transponder wirelessly in a way 

similar to an electronic toll system. It then connects to a central 

computer to calculate the mileage fee. And at the pump, the system 

deducts the gas tax from the fuel price and then adds the mileage 

fee to the customer’s bill. The motorist does only one new thing, the 

motorist pays the mileage fee in lieu of the gas tax, and the transaction occurs as quickly as a credit card transaction. 

The test was successful. The system was easy to administer, inexpensive to operate and simple for the motorist. Following the 

pilot, 91 percent of the volunteer motorists surveyed said they 

would be willing to continue to keep the mileage counting equipment in their car if the system were extended to every gasoline station statewide. 

The mileage fee seems a worthy alternative to the gas tax but 

a few questions remain. One key issue is the rate structure. Oregon 

tested a flat rate of 1.2 cents per mile that corresponds with our 

state gas tax, but the mileage fee can be tailored to meet policy objectives in addition to raising revenue. Having a higher rate for 

driving during periods of congestion is one possibility. Another is 

a graduated rate structure designed to encourage motorists to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. A third possibility would be a 

higher rate for driving in urban areas and a lower rate in rural 

areas. 

Policymakers have tremendous flexibility to create mileage fee 

rate structures. The system in Oregon used computers after all. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
123 

The mileage fee has the potential to generate at least as much revenue as the gas tax and more depending upon the rate structure 

and fee level set. The mileage fee can ensure that revenue levels 

do not decline as fleet fuel efficiency improves. 

The mileage fee needs further development for adoption. Our 

proposal to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for 

developmental programs is attached to my written testimony. 

Oregon wants to undertake a new pilot project, this time based 

on an open technology platform, founded on open standards and 

protocols, like the Internet, so the motorist chooses the transponders’ capability and desired levels of privacy protection and additional products and services. This may lead to greater public acceptance, a shorter adoption time line, coverage of all types of vehicles, and the ability to evolve as technology does. 

After years of speaking on this topic around the nation and engaging real citizens, I believe that appropriate policymaking and 

careful system design can resolve all perceived shortcomings. Technology will do what policy requires it to do. A mileage fee system 

designed to follow public policy set by Congress should be able to 

find a sweet spot of public acceptance. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present our 

findings. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitty follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
124 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 63001.063.eps
125 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 63001.064.eps
126 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 63001.065.eps
127 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 63001.066.eps
128 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 63001.067.eps
129 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 63001.068.eps
130 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 63001.069.eps
131 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 63001.070.eps
132 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you. 

Ms. Kavinoky. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 63001.071.eps
133 

STATEMENT OF JANET KAVINOKY, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE CONGRESSIONAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS FOR TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY COALITION, UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking 

Member, for the opportunity to testify. On behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and our Americans for Transportation Mobility 

Coalition, I am here to ask you to develop a user fee-based funding 

and financing approach that would enable SAFTEA–LU reauthorization to move forward without delay. 

Infrastructure is unlike many problems where you can wait until 

the last minute and write a big check. Capital construction projects 

require foresight, years of careful planning and predictable funding. 

Two commissions and many other studies have arrived at identical conclusions. At today’s level, the revenue sources for the Highway Trust Fund are insufficient to maintain federal programs at 

current services, much less to begin to address significant investment needs. 

Both commissions also reaffirmed that for this reauthorization 

cycle, raising enough revenue to maintain current services and to 

address needs comes down to one thing: increasing user fees. The 

user fee system has been in place since 1956 when Congress dedicated the excise tax on gasoline to pay for construction of the interstate highway system. There is no alternative to the federal funding needed. There is no free lunch and there is no creative option 

that is going to fill the gaping hole that has emerged. We will either pay for these investments or accept a significantly reduced 

federal program. 

Essentially, as the Chamber sees it, you have three options: to 

cut back programs to fit available funding levels and ship federal 

responsibilities to states and local communities; to pay for additional transportation investment with non-transportation-related 

tax increases or deficit spending, which discontinues the user pays 

basis of federal transportation policy; or to increase user fees to address the well-documented needs for today and tomorrow, which 

will support job creation in the short term and provide lasting investments for the long term. 

The simplest, most straightforward and effective way to generate 

enough user fee revenue for federal transportation programs is 

through increasing federal gasoline and diesel taxes. This fact has 

been substantiated and endorsed by a broad spectrum of organizations, including the Chamber. The Chamber will offer our full support of a user fee increase if Congress can develop legislation that 

realistically achieves a refined federal role, oriented around national interests, significant program reform, emphasizing performance management and accountability; improvement in the integrity 

of user fees by limiting earmarks and non-transportation spending; 

and the establishment of a roadmap for a sustainable revenue 

model. 

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee proposal is a good start towards achieving these objectives. However, 

one additional condition of the Chamber support of user fees is 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
134 

lacking in the T&I proposal: opening new opportunities for private 

investment must be part of this legislation. 

In addition to increasing user fees, Congress must provide incentives for states and local communities to exercise a full range of financing options to leverage federal, state and local resources, and 

to access private capital. Public/private partnerships are not a substitute for federal revenues, but they do give states and communities the option to tap the estimated $180 billion in private sector 

capital available for infrastructure investment. This can be done 

while fully protecting the public interest. And the Chamber would 

like to work with Congress to make the necessary changes to the 

T&I proposal that will open up these new opportunities. 

In conclusion, Chairman Neal, Ranking Member Tiberi and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this hearing. I 

hope you will consider the business community’s strong interest in 

repairing, rebuilding and revitalizing the nation’s transportation 

infrastructure as you develop the revenue plan for SAFTEA–LU. 

America’s transportation infrastructure cannot fall victim to the 

practice of doing what is easy over doing what is right. And it is 

not going to be easy to repair our roads, fix our bridges, and return 

our avenues of commerce to global competitiveness, but our economy cannot afford to ignore it any longer. 

And so what remains is a matter of political will. This debate, 

and particularly the revenue considerations it entails, will never be 

convenient. There will never be a good time to talk about how to 

pay for transportation, but the Chamber respectfully requests that 

you move swiftly to develop the revenue for SAFTEA–LU. Now is 

the time to act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I will be 

pleased to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kavinoky follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
135 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 63001.095.eps
136 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 63001.096.eps
137 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 63001.097.eps
138 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 63001.098.eps
139 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 63001.099.eps
140 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 63001.100.eps
141 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 63001.101.eps
142 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 63001.102.eps
143 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 63001.103.eps
144 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 63001.104.eps
145 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 63001.105.eps
146 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 63001.106.eps
147 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 63001.107.eps
148 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 63001.108.eps
149 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 63001.109.eps
150 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 63001.110.eps
151 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 63001.111.eps
152 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 63001.112.eps
153 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 63001.113.eps
154 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 63001.114.eps
155 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 63001.115.eps
156 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 63001.116.eps
157 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 63001.117.eps
158 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 63001.118.eps
159 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Wytkind. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 63001.119.eps
160 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD WYTKIND, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL–CIO, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WYTKIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting the 

Transportation Trades Department, and its 32 affiliated unions, to 

present our views on the needs of our nation’s surface transportation system. 

I am pleased to hear the comments from many analysts today 

over the course of a very long hearing. And I am pleased to be here 

with major segments of the business community making the case 

for more investment in our nation’s infrastructure. 

We cannot wait another 18 months for reauthorization of this 

program, as some would have us do. Americans suffering in this recession cannot wait until 2011 for more good jobs. Our transportation system and infrastructure are plunging into a state of severe 

disrepair and cannot wait 18 months or longer for new investments. And our national economy, reeling from too many years of 

inaction and neglect on this important issue, cannot wait a year 

and a half, or as many argue, 2 to 3 years for Congress to work 

its will on this critical legislation. 

Why the urgency? Well, let’s look at mass transit nationwide. 

The systems are hemorrhaging, from Boston to St. Louis, Cleveland 

to Portland, Oregon, Atlanta, Miami, statewide in California and 

virtually every major urban, suburban and rural area in the country. Service and job cuts are mounting, and there is no relief in 

sight. 

Transit is a growth industry. We are witnessing that growth and 

yet, as state and local budgets decline in this very difficult economy, massive budget crises are forcing reductions in investment in 

infrastructure, reductions in service, and, unfortunately, the layoff 

of many employees. It is no better in transportation construction 

nationwide, where the national jobless rate is approaching 20 percent, even worse in many states. 

History shows that transportation infrastructure bills are engines of job creation. The economic recovery bill, which dedicated 

$48 billion to infrastructure in transportation, was a great first 

step but was only a down payment on the massive investments and 

the job creation that is so badly needed in this difficult economy. 

Look at the snapshot of our infrastructure today. The average 

commuter rail passenger coach is 24 years old. Sixty-two percent 

are being used beyond their replacement age. Fifty-nine percent of 

transit buses need to be replaced within 6 years. More than 20 percent of city roads did not pass the basic test for pavement and ride 

quality. And 26 percent of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient. 

Poor roadway conditions are a number one contributing cause of 

motor vehicle crash severity, which costs our government, the 

American taxpayer, and our healthcare system $12 billion annually. And if we kick this can down the road, as unfortunately some 

would have us do, that can is going to land in a pothole, and we 

are going to have a problem dealing with the immense needs of our 

nation’s transportation system. 

If you look at our passenger and freight rail needs, which the 

House T&I Committee bill tries to address, they also have massive 

infrastructure needs. Both freight rail and passenger railroad 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
161 

needs are tremendous and are not going to be addressed without 

a very serious surface transportation bill. 

Some are trying to use the crisis in the Highway Trust Fund as 

a reason to delay a multi-year bill. The fact is that we must do 

both. We must pass the Highway Trust Fund before the August recess, and we must complete the authorization bill in this Congress. 

The nation cannot wait for action on either of these priorities. 

We know that these are serious times with several critical issues 

demanding leadership. Last night, we heard the President make 

the case for healthcare reform, achieving energy independence is 

also a critical issue, and of course the deep recession weighs on the 

minds of Americans. These are issues our members care about as 

well, and they understand their importance and they face them everyday. But the transportation investment gap is also a critical 

issue. If we do not make a significant commitment to transportation now, when will we be able to do it? Without such a commitment we will cause irreparable harm to our economy for years to 

come. 

We live in a time in Washington where there are other big issues 

that Members of Congress are debating and trying to solve, but if 

we do not act now, we are worried that the dilapidated state of our 

transportation system will continue to choke the U.S. economy. 

We must pay for America’s massive transportation infrastructure 

needs with dollars, not fairy dust or more hyperbole about the need 

to invest in America and its transportation system. There are two 

choices: raise revenues or fail to meet this country’s real needs. If 

we fail, we also miss the opportunity to put people to work while 

the economy continues to bleed jobs. We heard from Mr. DeFazio 

about taxing oil securities and we think this is a serious proposal 

that ought to be considered because it does two things: it goes after 

unsavory oil speculation and goes a long way to fill the gap in our 

ailing surface transportation system. 

The VMT issue is a very important one. We are going to join in 

that debate. Other than dealing with some very basic driver privacy issues, we think it is a very viable proposal that ought to be 

looked at, and we look forward to working with you on that. 

Lastly, I would just conclude, the gas user fee is really what we 

need to be looking at. The transportation labor movement has endorsed an increase in the user fee tax because we think it is the 

only way to deal with this huge investment gap, and we are hopeful that in the coming months the Congress will work its will and 

adopt such a measure. 

Thank you for having us. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wytkind follows:] 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
162 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 63001.072.eps
163 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 63001.073.eps
164 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 63001.074.eps
165 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 63001.075.eps
166 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 63001.076.eps
167 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 63001.077.eps
168 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you. 

Mr. Weaver is recognized for testimony. 

STATEMENT OF DON WEAVER, VICE PRESIDENT, WEAVER–BAILEY CONTRACTORS, EL PASO, ARKANSAS, AND CHAIR OF 

THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WEAVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, thank 

you all for letting us come today on behalf of the AGC, the AssociVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:22 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 063001 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\63001.XXX GPO1 PsN: 63001

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 63001.078.eps
169 

ated General Contractors, which is the oldest transportation division in the United States. We represent people that build highways, bridges, transit systems and railways. And I think it is kind 

of neat that the contractors get to come last. We are the ones out 

there building the things and putting the people to work, so we appreciate the opportunity. 

We believe the transportation challenges facing the United 

States are significant and must be addressed in a prompt and reasonable manner. Increased investment is vital and all options 

should be considered. As you heard today, our immediate concern 

is the SAFTEA–LU shortfall of $3 to $8 billion, we are not sure, 

we have heard all over the road over that. But failure to do that 

will render us having to give our employees possibly IOUs for paychecks. It is going to be hard for our folks to take those to the grocery store and buy groceries. So anything you all can do to help 

bridge that gap before the end of this fiscal year, we greatly appreciate and our employees appreciate. 

Congress must also take action to ensure program continuity. 

The construction industry makes decisions about investment in 

new equipment and retaining and training our workforce based on 

long-term goals and needs. Without the knowledge that a continuous and growing market is on the horizon, contractors will not be 

able to make investments necessary to train new people and buy 

new equipment. This hurts Caterpillar, John Deere and everybody 

across the row. Efficiency and productivity increases when we can 

project a steady workplace in the future. Enactment of a 6 year 

program ensures continuity and therefore must be a priority. 

As part of the reauthorization, as you all well know, the Trust 

Fund is ultimate paygo. Highway users pay fees that reflect their 

usage of the system. The short fall we face in the immediate future 

is only a symptom of long-term problems facing the Trust Fund, as 

you all have heard today. Revenue has not kept pace with funding 

commitments and transportation needs. And as the economic conditions have worsened, revenue has continued to plummet. Significant increases in the cost of fuel, more fuel-efficient vehicles and 

alternatively-fueled vehicles are all impacting the revenue that 

comes from the motor vehicles tax. In addition, construction cost 

inflation has added to the Trust Fund woes, causing the buying 

power of the federal motor fuels tax to be reduced by nearly 85 percent since the last increase in 1993. 

AGC believes that the traditional motor fuels tax is the most efficient mechanism for increasing revenue for surface transportation 

in the short term and should be adjusted regularly to account for 

inflation and growing investment needs. AGC recommends that 

Congress shore up this successful funding method until a better 

system can be found and put in place. We recommend raising the 

federal gas tax by 18 cents to address the effects of construction 

cost inflation that will restore the buying power to the 1993 levels. 

In order to keep pace with growing transportation costs, inflation 

and construction material prices and reduced income, regular increases in the cents per gallon tax will also be necessary. However, 

since increasing the motor fuels tax is not always politically feasible, AGC proposes establishing a Federal Highway User Rate 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
170 

Commission to determine annually the federal motor fuels tax rate 

to avoid the instability in the annual amount of revenue collected. 

AGC also suggests there should be a direct link between imported products and freight movement. Use of a Custom fee revenue will create this linkage. AGC recommends that 5 percent of 

current Custom port fees be addressed to the Highway Trust Fund 

to help address transportation freight infrastructure. 

Increasing the gasoline tax by 18 cents per gallon with an additional 5 percent of Custom fees dedicated to the Highway Trust 

Fund will generate an additional $37.7 billion per year. This increase will allow the U.S. to invest in our highway and transportation systems at a level that will significantly close the funding 

gap that AASHTO identified in their released bottom line report. 

Creation of Highway User Commission to regularly adjust the user 

rate will keep us from falling behind in investment needs in the 

future and take a lot of heat off Congress for increasing taxes. 

AGC believes financing methods such as bonding, public/private 

partnerships and tolling should also be used, along with the VMT 

studies. The two national bipartisan commissions established by 

SAFTEA, after examining everything, still came back to the motor 

fuels user fee tax as the most viable option we have currently. We 

hope that you all would make the necessary tough choices to support this so that we can keep working and keep improving our 

highways and having good employees that are able to get out there 

and feed their families. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weaver follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Don Weaver, Vice President, Weaver-Bailey 

Contractors, El Paso, Arkansas, and Chair of the Associated 

General Contractors of America 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. and Members of the Committee thank you for the opportunity 

to present testimony on long term financing options for the Highway Trust Fund. 

I am Don Weaver, Weaver-Bailey Contractors, El Paso, Arkansas representing the 

Associated General Contractors of America. This year I am serving as the Chair of 

AGC’s Highway and Transportation Division. AGC is the oldest construction association in the country representing contractors that build all forms of infrastructure, 

including: highways, bridges, transit systems, railways, airport terminals and runways, water and wastewater treatment facilities, underground utilities, public buildings, multi-family housing, office buildings, military facilities, water resource 

projects, energy production and conservation, and the many other structures that 

are the backbone of the U.S. economy and provide and ensure U.S. Citizens’ quality 

of life. AGC represents more than 33,000 firms, including 7,500 of America’s leading 

general contractors, and over 12,500 specialty-contracting firms. Over 13,000 service 

providers and suppliers are associated with AGC through a nationwide network of 

chapters. 

Surface transportation in the United States is at a crossroads. Since the enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) in August 2005, the interstate highway system 

celebrated its 50th anniversary. It was a celebration of the world’s biggest public 

works program responsible for providing unprecedented mobility and economic opportunities for Americans. This legacy is our duty to maintain, as it is also our duty 

to meet the mobility demands of the 21st Century to compete in the global marketplace and provide the best quality of life possible for all citizens. Our charge is 

crowded and crumbling; our country is growing and demanding. The challenges are 

great: resources are scarcer; energy costs are climbing; construction costs are escalating; and the public’s confidence in its policy makers to address these issues is diminishing. This is what we confront at this crossroads. 

AGC believes the transportation challenges facing the United States are significant and must be addressed in a prompt and responsible manner. This includes a 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
171 

long term authorization, a sustainable user fee funded trust fund and a focus on 

truly national transportation imperatives. All levels of government, including the 

Federal Government, must renew their commitment to the nation’s transportation 

system. To this end, increased investment is vital and all options should be considered. 

Immediate Highway Trust Fund Shortfall 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) and others have found that 

the Highway Trust Fund will fall below the minimum cash level to make daily payments before SAFETEA–LU expires on September 30, 2009. The Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) has already notified states that it will begin slowing down 

reimbursements to state Departments of Transportation by mid-August if additional 

revenue is not provided. With the financial crisis hitting the states particularly 

badly (most states, including Arkansas, are constitutionally required to have balanced budgets and they are thus scrambling to make cuts), the states are already 

out on a financial limb. Action is needed immediately to fix this problem. To do otherwise would leave the states with the need to float millions of dollars and incur 

substantial borrowing costs to meet their contractual obligations or slow down payments to contractors for work completed. The most recent government estimates 

predict a shortfall of $7–8 billion in the Highway Account in fiscal year 2009. AGC 

commends the Committee for its leadership last year to avoid a similar funding 

shortfall and urges you to act hastily to enact a legislative fix to avoid the payment 

slow down later this summer. 

Long Term Authorization 

Because of the current state of trust fund finances, Congress must take steps to 

create certainty in program continuity. The construction industry makes decisions 

about investments in new equipment and in retaining and training a workforce 

based on its best projection about where the market will be over the long term. 

Without the knowledge that a continuous and growing market is on the horizon, 

contractors will not make the investments necessary to carry out this program’s objectives. This is particularly true for small businesses, which typically have less operating capital to invest, thus are more risk-adverse with their capital. This trait 

is also magnified by the economic conditions, which make risk reduction a company’s top priority. This hurts the program as much as it does the industry. Efficiency and productivity increases when contractors can project a steady future market in which to work. This helps lower costs, and allows for a better constructed 

project because new equipment and improved technology improves the final project. 

For these reasons, enactment of a 6-year surface transportation authorization bill 

that ensures program continuity must be a priority. 

Recovery Act 

Continuing the momentum of the Recovery Act investment in infrastructure is 

particularly important. Construction spending was less than 25% of the total spending in the ARRA, but provides some of the best investment opportunities for job creation and economic growth. AGC studied the economic impact of infrastructure investment on job creation. AGC’s analysis, in partnership with George Mason University, showed that investment in nonresidential construction adds significantly to 

jobs, personal income, and GDP far beyond the hiring that takes place in the construction industry itself. AGC found that $1 billion in nonresidential construction 

spending would add about $3.4 billion to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), about $1.1 

billion to personal earnings and create or sustain 28,500 jobs. The Recovery Act is 

already going a long way towards creating or saving jobs. But, national construction 

unemployment is still at 17.4 percent (not seasonally adjusted), compared with the 

total private unemployment rate of 9.7 percent. We are in a critical, vulnerable 

stage in economic recovery, maintaining program continuity is key to ‘‘staying the 

course’’ set by the Recovery Act. Shoring up the highway trust fund and ensuring 

a sustainable user fee funded trust fund long term is the best way to keep workers 

in construction careers. 

Highway Trust Fund 

The Highway Trust Fund is the ultimate ‘‘Pay-Go’’ program. Highway users pay 

fees that reflect their usage of the system. These fees are credited to the Highway 

Trust Fund which is then used to support expansion and improvement to the federal-aid highway system. This mechanism was successful in providing the funds 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
172 

necessary to build the interstate highway system and to continue to expand and 

maintain it in recent years. The Highway Trust Fund has also supported the construction and upkeep of other transportation projects, including mass transit. 

However, the shortfall that we face in the immediate future is only the symptom 

of the long-range problems facing the trust fund. Revenue has not kept pace with 

funding commitments and transportation needs, and in the past few years, as economic conditions have worsened, revenue has continued to plummet as purchases 

of heavy trucks has declined and vehicle miles traveled have diminished. Significant 

increases in the cost of fuel, more fuel efficient vehicles, and alternatively fueled vehicles are all impacted the amount of revenue that comes from the motor fuels tax. 

In addition to the revenue shortfall, inflation has added to the Highway Trust 

Fund’s woes causing the buying power of the federal motor fuels tax to be reduced 

by nearly eighty-five percent since the user fee was last increased in 1993. The 

chart below illustrates the change in Producer Price Index (PPI) for highway construction inputs compared to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) since October 1993 

(the month in which the last fuel tax increase took effect). The highway construction 

PPI is a weighted average of the prices of all materials used in highway construction, including diesel fuel and other inputs consumed by contractors. Both lines are 

set equal to 100 in October 1993 to show the cumulative change in prices. The lines 

remained very close together until the beginning of 2004, when a series of extreme 

price increases began for major highway inputs: steel, diesel fuel, asphalt and even 

concrete. The cumulative change through June 2009 in the highway PPI was 85%, 

compared to 48% for the CPI. In other words, an 85% increase in highway trust 

fund taxes would have been required to maintain the purchasing power that those 

taxes represented in October 2003. 

Motor Fuels Tax 

AGC believes that the time has now come for Congress to realize that there is 

no easy solution for addressing our transportation investment deficit. The level of 

investment provided by the Highway Trust Fund should be increased to address 

mounting needs. An increase in revenue is necessary just to keep up with inflation 

additional funding is also needed to address the backlog of transportation investment needs. Numerous authoritative reports have come to the conclusion that, for 

the foreseeable future, the federal motor fuels tax is the best method for funding 

transportation infrastructure investment and that the motor fuels tax needs to be 

increased. The 2006 Transportation Research Board (TRB) study, ‘‘The Fuel Tax 

and Alternatives for Transportation Funding,’’ concluded that fuel taxes will continue to be the most viable source of support for the Highway Trust Fund ‘‘for at 

least the next 15 years.’’ 

SAFETEA–LU established two national commissions to look at the future of the 

federal transportation programs and to make recommendations on paying for these 

needs into the future. Both Commissions were appointed with bi-partisan membership and included transportation experts and individuals representing businesses 

and other users of the system. 

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission 

called for a national vision to ‘‘Create and sustain the pre-eminent transportation 

system in the world,’’ and recommended a variety of reforms to improve the delivery 

of a transportation system that supports U.S. economic growth. To accomplish this, 

the Commission concluded that the United States needs to invest at least $225 billion annually from all sources for the next 50 years to provide a transportation system that ensures strong economic growth. Currently, all levels of government combined are spending less than 40 percent of that amount. To support this initiative, 

the Commission recommended that the federal motor fuel tax be increased 5 to 8 

cents per gallon per year over the next 5 years, after which it should be indexed 

to inflation. This conclusion was reached after an exhaustive examination of all potential funding sources. The commission concluded that the motor fuels tax provides: low administrative and compliance costs; ability to generate substantial 

amounts of revenue; relative stability and predictability; and ease of implementation. 

SAFETEA–LU’s second commission, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, consisted of an entirely different group of individuals from diverse backgrounds, including: economics, finance, industry, law, and 

public policy. The Commission came to the conclusion that the current federal surface transportation funding structure that relies primarily on taxes imposed on petroleum-derived vehicle fuels is not sustainable in the long term and is likely to 

erode more quickly than previously thought. However, the Commission also concluded that as a nation, we cannot afford to wait for a new revenue system to be 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
173 

put in place to start addressing the fundamental investment challenge. After reviewing a wide array of options, the Commission concluded that increasing and indexing existing mechanisms is the most effective way to raise the revenue needed 

to meet existing needs. The Commission recommended an immediate increase in the 

federal gasoline tax of 10 cents, a 15 cent increase in the federal diesel tax, and 

commensurate increases in all special fuels taxes, and indexing these rates to inflation. 

The federal excise on gasoline is currently 18.4 cents per gallon. Reflecting the 

political difficulty of raising taxes, it has been raised only five times since 1956 and 

it has not been raised in a transportation reauthorization since 1982 when President Reagan signed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act 

AGC Recommendations 

Highway user fees in the form of motor fuel taxes have been the primary source 

of funding for construction, maintenance, and rebuilding of our nation’s road system 

at the state and federal level for the past 80 years. The Highway Trust Fund has 

been a model for efficient transportation investment that enjoys significant public 

support. Eventually the method for charging the user fee will need to be changed 

but for the successor to SAFETEA–LU the existing funding system should be maintained and enhanced. 

AGC recommends that Congress shore up this successful funding method until a 

better system can realistically be put in place. We also recommend raising the federal gasoline tax by 18 cents to address the effects of inflation since the fee was 

last increased. 

In order to keep pace with growing transportation costs, inflation in construction 

material prices and reduced income, regular increases in the cents per gallon tax 

will also be necessary. However, increasing the motor fuels tax is not always politically feasible. To take this decision out of the political arena, AGC proposes establishing a federal Highway User Rate Commission to determine biennially the federal 

motor fuels tax rate to avoid the instability in the annual amount of revenue collected. The Commission would annually index the motor fuels tax to inflation, preferably to the Producer Price Index for construction inputs. The Commission’s decision would be final unless overturned by a ‘‘Super’’ majority of Congress. 

In the long term, Congress should consider changing the user fee collection model 

to a Vehicle Miles (VMT) tax. A VMT tax would be charged to all vehicles using 

transportation infrastructure that is eligible for federal funds. Mileage could be electronically recorded and collected at the gas pump when vehicles are fueled or 

through a monthly invoice. 

Tolling/Public Private Partnerships (PPP) 

Together, tolls and private capital contribute about 4.5 percent annually to the 

total revenue pool currently available for U.S. highway program investments. Much 

of this revenue is used for debt service. While there is potential to expand the application of tolling in the U.S. and to attract even more private capital to highway investments, objective research suggests these methods alone cannot realistically be 

anticipated to raise the amount of revenue necessary to close substantially the existing highway capital investment gap. As such, while they should be promoted and 

encouraged, they should not be overemphasized as solutions to meeting future funding needs. 

States should be granted the option to use tolls on all existing and future interstate and National Highway System (NHS) routes. Should a state choose to toll existing or future routes built with federal revenue, its federal apportionment should 

be adjusted to reflect only non-tolled lane miles in the state. 

In addition, states should be granted authority to partner with the private sector 

to improve and operate interstate and NHS routes. It is also imperative that revenues realized by public entities through the sale of concessions be reinvested only 

in transportation infrastructure programs. 

Bonding/National Infrastructure Bank 

A new bonding vehicle should be created to allow the Federal Government to borrow funds for an immediate boost in federal infrastructure investment, such as the 

‘‘Build America Bonds’’ proposal put forth by Senators Ron Wyden (D–OR) and John 

Thune (R–SD). Build America Bonds were authorized in the Recovery Act and have 

been successfully received by public agencies and investors. Bonding, however, can 

only be a supplement to the motor fuels tax, excise taxes, and other existing payas-you-go funding sources. This infusion of additional funds from bonds will provide 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
174 

a revenue source to help states catch up with some of their huge backlog of needs 

that have resulted for past underinvestment. These funds will also be important in 

helping states build mega-projects that are vitally needed but can absorb all of a 

state’s funding for many years and, therefore, undermine efforts to address other 

transportation needs. The creation of a National Infrastructure Bank could also 

serve this purpose and supplement infrastructure investment at all levels of government. 

However, there is a real concern that extensive borrowing of funds now is mortgaging our transportation future. It is important that bonding remain a limited portion of total transportation funding mix. It is also important to create a dedicated 

funding source to create the revenue stream to pay the interest on the bonds and 

ultimately repay the principle. 

Customs Fees 

A portion of U.S. Customs revenue should be dedicated to paying bond interest 

or to intermodal or trade corridor routes. Since freight movement is an important 

national objective, and since the needs here are so great, it is important that an 

additional funding source directly related to international commerce be created. 

There should be a direct link between imported products and freight movement. Use 

of custom fee revenue will create this linkage. AGC recommends that 5 percent of 

current customs port access fees be directed to the Highway Trust Fund. 

Conclusion 

The United States has been under investing in our transportation systems for far 

too long and the impact is now being felt in every state and in most towns. With 

the interstate system beyond capacity and design life, this underinvestment is costing U.S. businesses and individual’s time and money. 

Providing continued support for traditional funding mechanisms and finding new 

financing options is necessary to address this dire situation. Again, AGC believes 

the traditional motor fuels tax is the most efficient mechanism for increasing revenue for surface transportation in the short-term and should be adjusted regularly 

to account for inflation and growing investment needs. Increasing the gasoline tax 

by 18 cents per gallon with an additional 5 percent of customs fees dedicated to the 

Highway Trust Fund will generate an additional $37.7 billion per year in revenue. 

This increase in revenue will allow the U.S. to invest in our highway and transit 

systems at a level that will significantly close the funding gap that the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) identify in 

their recently released ‘‘Bottom Line’’ report. Creation of a Highway User Rate Commission to regularly adjust the user rate level will keep us from falling behind on 

investment needs in the future. In addition, AGC believes financing methods such 

as bonding, Public Private Partnerships, and tolling should be used to supplement 

Highway Trust Fund financing. 

AGC encourages the Committee to consider all options as it looks to providing 

Congress with the background to make the tough choices that will be necessary. 

Thank you for allowing AGC to testify at today’s hearing. 

f 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you. Ms. Kavinoky, the Chamber has 

been an early and consistent advocate for increasing the gas tax, 

and I think that the first time that we met was at the Jefferson 

Building at the Library of Congress. I was pleased with the courage that you demonstrated personally and the Chamber’s willingness to step forward. As you have heard today, there is some disagreement here, however, at least at this time. Is there strong support within your membership on increasing the gas tax, and have 

you tested that support at various levels of involvement for a gas 

tax increase? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the position that the 

Chamber has taken was voted on by our entire board of directors 

last November. It represents a broad array of business interests in 

different industries and both large and small businesses. I am sure 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
175 

you would find some within our ranks who would disagree, but 

that is what happens when you have an organization of three million. 

We have been around the country talking to Chambers of Commerce, everywhere, from California to Georgia, I think. Business 

recognizes that if we do not keep investing in our transportation 

systems, both highways and public transit, their productivity is 

going to suffer and their costs are going to go up. 

Chairman NEAL. Would you have a number that you would like 

to peg this to? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. A number in terms of the overall increase? 

Chairman NEAL. A nickel, a dime? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. From what we understand, it is going to take 

at least 10 cents just to maintain current services. And we know 

there are more resources that are needed. I think given the array 

of numbers we have heard today and differences of opinion between 

Congress and the Administration, if I could humbly suggest it 

would be an excellent question to ask the Congressional Budget Office, to ask exactly what it would take—— 

Chairman NEAL. We are not on good terms these days. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. KAVINOKY. I am sorry. All right, then we will do some 

number crunching. Tom Donahue has said publicly several times, 

we know we think about 10 cents for current services, and then we 

would phase in some additional increases. 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you. Secretary Biehler, we have heard 

some grim news today about the shortfall of revenue. Can you tell 

us how the states are preparing for this potential loss of support 

for ongoing construction projects? 

Mr. BIEHLER. Well, first, we are praying. And then after we do 

that, seriously, obviously we are waiting, we are hoping that the 

short-term problem is solved, and we are waiting to see if Congress 

takes action. If Congress does not take action, we will start taking 

a series of actions. And then very honestly, as I mentioned in my 

comments, it will become a guessing game for us because the 

guessing game is will we have a short-term solution, meaning one 

to simply deal with federal fiscal 2009, or will we have solution 

that goes farther? And we will then have to take action commensurate with that kind of a time frame. 

In the short term, a number of our states are living very close 

to hand to mouth, which means we will start having to curtail our 

construction contracts, contracts that are already in place, which 

then you get into ridiculous situations where you start paying penalty fees to contractors, you demobilize, you spend money on things 

that just do not lead to good infrastructure investment. 

If it continues into next year, the situation is calamitous. We will 

have to shut down our systems. Potentially, if we do not plug the 

hole, there will be 86 percent less federal money for our systems. 

In Pennsylvania, of all of our programs, of our typical base program, about 50 percent of our program is financed with state funds 

and the other 50 percent federal. This particular year because we 

ramped up for stimulus, as I mentioned, in Pennsylvania, we would 

have to take our program next year and reduce it by 70 percent, 

our construction program. I am not sure what the numbers will be 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
176 

statewide or nationwide. We can get that kind of information pretty quickly if that is useful to the committee, but the bottom line 

is we will have severe cuts throughout our whole industry. 

Chairman NEAL. Mr. Wytkind, you testified that public/private 

partnerships are not appropriate for most transportation projects. 

Where do you believe that the best work and what federal guidelines would be needed for their success? 

Mr. WYTKIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I 

grudgingly became a blogger on transportation issues recently, and 

I said in a blog about this issue that public/private partnerships obviously play a viable role in the transportation industry. The private sector has always played an important role in the transportation industry. The private sector employs many of our members. 

The real issue is whether public/private partnerships end up becoming a distraction from the underlying challenge we have, which 

is to fund a huge under investment problem in our surface transportation program. 

And if you are going to go forward with public/private partnerships, I think the most important thing would be to make sure that 

the public interest is protected, that the impacts on employees on 

the ground are adequately dealt with so that these kinds of initiatives do not allow basically the wholesale displacement of workers 

that are currently performing important functions, whether they be 

public sector employees or other types of workers. We need to do 

the kind of analysis to make sure that we are not pursuing a public/private partnership simply because of ideological reasons but because it actually will solve a transportation challenge, will hopefully make a lot of people gainfully employed, and will serve the 

people in those communities better than the current system that is 

currently in place. I think that is the debate that probably has not 

been adequately held in some of these local debates over PPPs. 

Chairman NEAL. Mr. Whitty, you have offered some pretty interesting alternatives for the current reliance on the gas tax or fuel 

taxes. And your suggestion of an implementation of a mileage fee 

really could be a decade away. What do you suggest that we do in 

the interim, and what is the status of the Oregon pilot project, and 

is it feasible to become permanent for the nation at this particular 

time? 

Mr. WHITTY. Mr. Chairman, the time from now until adoption 

of a viable mileage fee is really dependent largely on political will 

and process. The technology probably could be implemented in four 

or 5 years nationally. So it is a matter of figuring out the system 

you want to design, and the policies around it, and then starting 

that process. 

There are ways to implementation a little quicker than what we 

have outlined. And there is a NCHRP paper coming out, I think 

in the fall, that will outline some of those quicker ways. But still 

we are limited by political will. That is what really stops us from 

getting this done fairly quickly. 

The Oregon pilot stopped actually was only a year test. We wanted to prove concept, and it was not intended to go further. But we 

have a second pilot that we think will resolve some of the issues 

from first pilot, that we have designed and for which we are looking for funding. When I talk about an ‘‘open system,’’ this second 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
177 

pilot will test that. This open system is something that will have 

a greater capacity for expansion and growth with changes in technology and have a better chance for public acceptance. So we are 

going to enter phase two as soon as we can. 

Chairman NEAL. Mr. Tiberi is recognized to inquire. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for coming to testify. Mr. Wytkind, would your organization support an effort to move—oh, he is back. I am going to ask it anyway. Would 

you support a proposal, it is going to be tougher for you to answer 

now, to move bike trails, walking trails, beautification projects, 

sidewalks out of the Trust Fund and into the general revenue fund 

to free up more dollars for other transportation projects? 

Mr. WYTKIND. I think I would answer that question the same 

way regardless of who is in the hearing room. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. 

Mr. WYTKIND. My view is that the decisions that Congress 

made a very long time ago, I would have to go back into the previous authorizations to find out the exact date of inception, those 

kinds of initiatives are always going to be a part of the highway 

transit reauthorization. I fully expect, knowing the leadership of 

the committee on the House side, and the level of support that 

those initiatives have, that they will remain a viable part of this 

program. We would not take a position to try to remove them. It 

is not something that any of our member unions have ever sought 

or have taken a formal position on. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Weaver, the vehicle mileage tax, I 

think you were here when you heard that discussed, has your organization taken a position on that? 

Mr. WEAVER. We think it is going to be a viable future option. 

We do not know that this next 6 year bill, that there is any way 

to get it in there, but we think with the mileage going up on the 

cars, and I am in a rural state, we have to drive a long way to get 

places, the rate of it will have to be—I do not know if it will be 

balanced out between rural and urban. 

Mr. TIBERI. Right. How about the proposals from Mr. DeFazio, 

were you here for those? 

Mr. WEAVER. Yes. 

Mr. TIBERI. Has your organization taken a position on those? 

Mr. WEAVER. We do not have a position personally on the oil 

speculative trade. I can just see that going to London, in New York 

you can trade oil on multiple—personally, I think we would be 

shooting ourselves in the foot because I think it would just be traded overseas, and we would not get any money out of it. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. Ms. Kavinoky, you mentioned the gas 

tax issue, and we talked about the CBO. Our staff has done a preliminary review of how much it would cost in terms of a gas tax 

increase if the Majority put in the Trust Fund the $50 billion for 

high-speed rail and the figure comes to 33 cents, a 33 cent increase. 

Would the Chamber support something that high or how high 

would you be willing to go? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. First of all, I do not believe that the Chamber 

would support putting high-speed rail in the Highway Trust Fund. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
178 

Ms. KAVINOKY. I will tell you it is not something we have had 

a specific discussion about but knowing our members, I suspect 

that would be problematic. 

Mr. TIBERI. Okay. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. I would have to discuss with our chief economist how he saw the economy absorbing increases in gasoline and 

diesel taxes. I think we would balance all of that though against 

the danger of continuing to have the cost from congestion, safety 

and environmental costs that it might offset. 

Mr. TIBERI. How about the two other proposals, the DeFazio 

proposals and the Mica proposal or the Mica thought on a VMT? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. We would oppose Mr. DeFazio’s oil speculation 

and tax on barrels of oil. As far as VMT is concerned, we have said 

we want to see a ground work laid for a future system. I think a 

lot of the questions about that system come from not knowing some 

of the good answers, and so we support an aggressive pilot program 

to expand or to look at that. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Whitty, on that note, on the VMT, 

have you had any experience on issues of privacy being—concerns 

with privacy being expressed to you and how have you dealt with 

that? 

Mr. WHITTY. Perhaps more than anyone else, I think I have. 

Concern about privacy largely comes from a lack of understanding, 

although I do not begrudge the legitimacy of the issue whatsoever. 

For the Oregon pilot, we used a passive device that could pick up 

satellite signals. This passive device did not have any signal going 

out from it so that anybody could follow it around, there was no 

way for this device to allow vehicle monitoring—it was unlike a 

navigation unit in that respect. And then we eliminated the GPS 

map of a navigation unit so there is no way to identify specific 

roadways. All the device did was count miles within coordinates 

that were predefined. So the privacy issue seems to be something 

where there is a suspicion rather than actual complaint about the 

system used in the Oregon pilot. But still, concern about privacy 

should be something that if you are designing a new pilot program 

for the nation, you have got to take that into consideration. 

I think that if the motorists can choose the device from a number 

of options, its capability, its level of privacy protection, that we 

may be able to get public acceptance because choosing a device 

means you choose its capability. And we did not do that in the first 

pilot. We said ‘‘You have got to take this device or nothing,’’ and 

I think a choice could get us to public acceptance on the technology. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can I ask one final question of Mr. Biehler? 

Chairman NEAL. You sure can. 

Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Biehler, I am from Ohio. I drive into Pennsylvania, and your roads are great, by the way, at least the ones I 

drive. You are a donor state like Ohio. Any concerns that we are 

not addressing in a T&I bill, the donor/donee state issue for states 

like ours, when we are asking our constituents to maybe pay more 

and continue to get less? 

Mr. BIEHLER. It is going to be a struggle certainly. As part of 

an organization, a nationwide organization, our members have that 

same concern. I think we need to set up a structure that would deVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:22 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 063001 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\63001.XXX GPO1 PsN: 63001

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
179 

cide what the structure is that is going to properly fund whatever 

it is we agree to over the next 6 years. And then we will certainly 

face the donor/donee issue. I am hoping that when we get into 

things like performance measures and so on, that some of that discussion gets wrapped into those kind of questions, what do we 

want to do, are we going to do special initiatives for special corridors? Are there nationwide goals that we need to achieve? And 

then you can perhaps make sense out of the donor/donee issue. It 

is a tough issue for all of us, but the bottom line I would certainly 

advocate for additional money no matter whether you were a donee 

or donor. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional time. 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Tiberi. Mr. Blumenauer is recognized to inquire. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I did not 

mean to come back and inhibit the cross-section from my friend 

from Ohio, but I must say that I do think Mr. Wytkind’s analysis 

of the leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, notwithstanding that it is very unlikely that there will be 

any change, I would be prepared to argue that it would be not a 

very good idea. We have a rather spectacular story that we can tell 

about cycling in our community that has actually increased dramatically the use of cycling to the point where it is making a demonstrable impact on some of our congested corridors, 8 percent 

mode split, and it all costs less than one mile of freeway. Those 

projects are very labor intensive when you are talking about things 

like bike paths and completing street networks, it will put a lot 

more people to work than just throwing down a freeway mile, and 

they make the system work better. But just dealing with the notion 

that the number one cyclist in Congress chairs the committee and 

his subcommittee chair is the only former bike mechanic in Congress, I suspect that that framework is probably going to stay 

there. 

I do want to explore just a moment though this notion about 

donor/donee, which hung us up to a large measure in the last cycle. 

If we do not adequately fund the program, then we will be fighting 

over table scraps. Is it not true, Mr. Biehler, that the ebb and flow 

of transportation funding in some not insignificant measure is a result of where there are major projects that may be in a community 

at any given time, and that these can change over time? 

Mr. BIEHLER. Absolutely, sure. Again, I will relate it to the 

Pennsylvania experience. But absolutely, we have gone through 

quite a change in our approach to our business. But you are absolutely right. We may have huge projects, then those get completed, 

and then we are back to dealing with maintaining our system or 

in our case, because of the lack of dollars, we have severely cut the 

amount of money we are spending on any kind of capacity improvements, from 20 percent 4 years ago to 5 percent today. And only 

because we have got such a horrible backlog of preservation needs, 

not because we do not want to make rifle strike investments in capacity. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. And I do appreciate that the four of our 

witnesses that are representing major transportation stakeholders 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
180 

have all developed policy frameworks that talk about the big picture, that if we have a national plan that is right-sized, that is 

meeting transportation needs, then these over time are going to 

even out if we are thinking comprehensively and doing the job 

right. And it would be a mistake to take a snapshot for a year or 

even 6 years when we are talking about infrastructure that is 

going to serve our country for a half century. 

One of the concerns though that I have is that there are dramatic inequities between—and often these occur within states—between metropolitan areas. You talk about donor/donee, the much 

greater disparities are not so much between states as they are between metropolitan areas. Metropolitan Dallas, where Texas kind 

of hung us up last time, Dallas got 78 cents on the dollar. There 

are huge metropolitan areas that are generators of jobs and where 

lots of work could be done who are systematically short-changed. 

Do any of our witnesses on the panel have any thoughts about having some guaranteed resources that go back to the areas where 

most of the congestion, most of the jobs, most of the economic opportunities are? 

Mr. BIEHLER. Perhaps I can start that conversation. In Pennsylvania, as we update our 4 year transportation improvement program, we deal with all of our MPOs. Pennsylvania has also over 

time filled in all of the gaps of rural areas. We now have either 

rural planning organizations or metropolitan planning organizations in every one of our 67 counties. And what we do, what we 

have done, Mr. Blumenauer, is we have met with that group and 

reached a consensus on how to divide the pie because what we do 

is we throw our state capital dollars into the pie along with the federal dollars and basically distribute the whole slug of dollars. And 

we have sat down, we have said, ‘‘All right, what are the right factors to use?’’ It is pretty tough sledding to try to get a consensus 

in a group, but we have been successful. We have now done it, and 

each time we have to take the TAP, we go and revisit that. And 

so we have talked about what is the population of the area, what 

is the VMT in the area, what is the mileage of roads, what is the 

status of your bridge system, and on and on and on. I am not sure 

it is perfect, but for us it was a way to deal with that very troubling issue, are we putting the fair shares in the right place? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, 

but I would invite any of our witnesses that have some thoughts 

about making sure that in the reauthorization and the funding, 

that we guarantee that there is some intra-state equity so that we 

do not have ‘‘hot spots’’ or problems with the flow of the federal dollars, maybe some who have not quite done the job that Pennsylvania has. 

And I would, Mr. Chairman, just thank my friend, Mr. Whitty, 

for being here, for being an extraordinarily valuable resource as we 

think about how we deal with funding in the future and look forward to finding ways to answer the questions people have about an 

equitable, thoughtful, effective way of being able to provide finance 

as we go forward. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. I want to thank 

our panelists today for their testimony. I thought it was very helpVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:22 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 063001 PO 00000 Frm 00184 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\63001.XXX GPO1 PsN: 63001

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
181 

ful on this important topic. You may receive some written followup questions from members, and I hope you will respond promptly 

so that they may be included in the record. 

If there are no further comments, then this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

Statement of Kurt J. Nagle, President and CEO 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the hearing record. 

The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and its member seaports appreciate the time and attention that the House Ways And Means Subcommittee on 

Select Revenue Measures is giving to this important issue. Surface transportation 

authorization is a critical issue which cannot move forward without the due diligence of this committee. 

As part of AAPA’s guiding principles for surface transportation authorization, our 

members believe that a combination of funding mechanisms will be necessary to address freight mobility needs in the United States. When developing our list of acceptable funding mechanisms for AAPA’s policy position, we focused on ensuring 

that the chosen mechanisms will not disadvantage U.S. exports nor hinder ports in 

their ability to remain competitive. 

Supported funding mechanisms include: 

• A share of revenue from customs duties devoted to funding freight mobility 

infrastructure improvements • An increase in the gas tax and a future indexing mechanism as recommended 

by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission with a percentage of the new proceeds dedicated to funding freight mobility infrastructure improvements • An increase in the diesel tax, and a future indexing mechanism with a majority of the new proceeds dedicated to freight mobility infrastructure improvements • A portion of any carbon tax or climate change program revenues be made eligible for investments made by freight transportation to reduce its carbon footprint • Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) where each sector pays in proportion to the 

benefits they derive from the capacity generated by the infrastructure 

AAPA applauds Congressman Oberstar’s proposed ‘‘Surface Transportation Act of 

2009’’ as it addresses goods movement challenges in ways that will help alleviate 

freight congestion on America’s roads, rails and waterways. While surface transportation authorization is complex and challenging, it is vital that we keep the momentum and focus of Capitol Hill on this important issue. Our current system falls woefully short in supporting current freight transportation demand, and delaying these 

long-overdue investments will put our country’s goods movement network further in 

jeopardy while eroding our ability to optimally engage the global marketplace. Moving this process forward as quickly as possible is a national priority that should not 

be postponed. 

The Role of Port Authorities and the Importance of Seaports 

Founded in 1912, AAPA is an alliance of the leading public ports in the Western 

Hemisphere. Our testimony today reflects the views of our U.S. members, which are 

state and local public agencies located along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf coasts, 

the Great Lakes, and in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. 

Port authorities develop, manage and promote the flow of waterborne commerce 

and also act as catalysts for economic growth in their state, county or city. Public 

ports own, develop and maintain terminal facilities, some of which are leased to private terminal operators. Ports play a crucial role in our national defense. In addition, U.S. ports handle 99% of this nation’s overseas cargo by volume. 

America’s seaports are a critical link for access to the global marketplace. In 2007, 

U.S. seaports and marine cargo operations generated nearly $3.2 trillion of total economic activity and $212.4 billion of total federal, state and local taxes. U.S. seaports 

handle more than 2 billion tons of domestic, import and export cargo annually, including food, clothing, medicine, fuel, and building materials, as well as consumer 

electronics and toys. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
182 

On average, each of our 50 states relies on 13 to 15 ports to handle its imports and exports, which total more than $1.3 billion worth of goods moving in and out 

of U.S. ports every day. The volume of cargo shipped by water is expected to dramatically increase by 2020 and the number of passengers traveling through our seaports will continue to grow. To meet these demands, the American Association of 

Port Authorities and its members are committed to keeping seaports navigable, secure and sustainable. 

Surface Transportation Legislation 

This year’s surface transportation authorization legislation presents an unprecedented challenge and opportunity for America. Our transportation infrastructure investment needs are vast while the traditional sources for funding our system become less sustainable every day. Our freight goods movement system is no exception. The total cost of congestion to the economy, the environment, and the quality 

of life of all Americans is incalculable. 

Seaports are the gateways that facilitate American economic prosperity. Ports are 

doing their share to ensure that U.S. farmers, manufacturers, businesses and retailers have the transportation infrastructure that they need for global market 

connectivity and competitiveness by investing more than $2 billion annually in capital improvement projects on their terminals. Despite these massive investments by 

ports, inadequate infrastructure connecting ports to land-side transportation networks and water-side ocean shipping lanes often creates bottlenecks in and around 

seaports resulting in congestion, productivity losses, and a global economic disadvantage for America. 

Public port authorities are dependent on the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure for the landside movement of goods and military cargo and the facilitation 

of cruise passengers. Faced with an inevitable long term projected growth in international trade, a robust cruise industry and the needs of the U.S. military, public 

port authorities will become increasingly dependent on the nation’s surface transportation infrastructure and policies that help facilitate the movement of people and 

goods to and through U.S. ports and harbors. 

It is essential that Congress recognize the importance of addressing goods movement and port access in its deliberations regarding surface transportation authorization legislation. To this end, the American Association of Port Authorities submits 

the following principles representing the collective view of U.S. public port authorities. We feel that these principles reflect a prudent way forward toward addressing 

freight mobility infrastructure needs in the United States. 

Additionally, attached to this testimony is the joint platform of the Freight Stakeholders Coalition, which AAPA co-chairs, which calls for a national freight program 

and stronger federal role. The platform represents the joint recommendations of 17 

major shippers and public and private transportation providers working together to 

support policies to promote freight mobility in the United States. 

National Freight Program 

It is critical that Congress place an emphasis on alleviating freight congestion and 

provide a mechanism for future investments by implementing a national freight program as part of the surface transportation authorization legislation. AAPA supports 

the creation of a national freight program that includes funding for projects and corridors of national and regional economic significance. Project awards should be 

based on cost/benefit analysis which considers externalities (including environmental impact) and encompasses all modes. Existing identified and newly proposed 

corridors should be eligible for funding through this program. 

AAPA supports the American Association of State & Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommended State Freight Transportation Program and National 

Freight Corridors Investment Fund with the stipulation that port authorities are a 

key part in the planning process in both the federal and state level programs. Port 

Authorities should be eligible to apply directly for project funds through these programs. 

Funding for Intermodal Freight Connectors 

Funding for intermodal freight connectors (highway, maritime, rail) is vital to port 

efficiency and cargo mobility. On the landside, the shortcomings of ‘‘first mile’’ connectors to the National Highway System (NHS) and main-line rail networks have 

not been adequately addressed in the traditional planning and funding processes of 

states and local planning organizations. Ports are areas where roads and rail converge, often at the same grade, causing congestion and delays as trucks wait for 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
183 

freight trains to clear intersections. Delays and idling trucks then exacerbate negative air quality impacts on the surrounding communities. Many of these roads are 

in disrepair, have inadequate turning radii, and are generally not fit for the volume 

of freight traffic they must endure. For these reasons, connector roads and highway 

access infrastructure around ports are often the weak link in the goods movement 

network and must be addressed through programs specifically directed at these 

issues. Expertise in freight planning at the state/metropolitan planning organization 

(MPO) level is the key to the success of these programs at the execution level. AAPA 

calls for dedicated freight offices with coordinators, programs, and funds that support what is devolved down from the federal level. 

Investments in Freight Rail 

Investments in freight rail will make the system safer and more efficient, improve 

environmental sustainability and encourage competitive rail access to seaports. The 

federal surface transportation program should provide tax credit incentives for main 

line and short line railroads to invest in port access. Legislation should also include 

a grant program with a cost-share (federal/railroad) for projects with both public 

and private benefits. In addition, the national freight program should define freight 

corridors of national significance that are eligible for rail investment. In order to 

execute these investments effectively, an increased expertise in state departments 

of transportation and MPOs on rail access issues is imperative. 

Development of Marine Highways 

The improvement and new development of marine highways will alleviate highway congestion and improve environmental sustainability. A number of steps will 

be required to effectively catalyze the development of a system of marine highways. 

Harbor Maintenance Tax exemptions for certain U.S. port-to-port cargo must be enacted by Congress. Federal funding support for establishing short sea shipping services and incentives for shippers using ‘‘greener’’ modes of transportation would serve 

as public and private sector economic incentives to help jump-start marine highways. Establishing a new program similar to the ferry boat discretionary program 

and encouraging more utilization of current federal programs such as Congestion 

Mitigation and the Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program’’ to fund projects for 

short sea shipping services, would also have a catalyzing effect. Marine highway development could also benefit from a reassessment of federal shipbuilding programs 

with a focus on how they could support marine highway development. An understanding and expertise at the state/MPO level on marine highway alternatives and 

benefits is a necessary component in effectively executing programs and projects in 

this area. 

Program Reform 

With regard to program reform, AAPA supports a performance-based approach 

which consolidates the existing 108 surface transportation programs into 10 programs (one of which should focus on freight transportation) as recommended by the 

National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and 

AASHTO. AAPA also supports establishment of a multi-modal freight office that reports to the Office of the Secretary at the United States Department of Transportation. 

AAPA supports improving project delivery by addressing environment review inefficiencies and National Environmental Policy (NEPA) redundancies that cause 

project delays and cost overruns, including delegating NEPA responsibilities to appropriate state agencies. 

Freight Trust Fund 

AAPA believes that if a freight trust fund is created under this surface transportation authorization, it should be fully spent on freight transportation and not used 

for deficit reduction. Appropriate projects that are freight-related should still be eligible to compete for other federal funding sources. 

While AAPA does not endorse a port cargo fee for freight movement, if Congress 

decides to adopt such a fee to pay for freight projects, it must be levied equitably 

over all types of cargo including imports and exports and should be structured as 

noted below. AAPA is strongly opposed to a fee based solely on containerized cargo, 

because it is inherently inequitable. Containers are only one type of conveyance that 

utilize transportation infrastructure. Containerized cargo only represents a small 

segment of transportation infrastructure users, even in the freight realm. By sinVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:22 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 063001 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\63001.XXX GPO1 PsN: 63001

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
184 

gling out this conveyance for a tax, a disproportionate burden is placed on certain 

commodity types and shippers. Non-containerized cargoes, many of which cause 

more wear and tear on infrastructure due to heavier weights and larger wheelbases, 

would not be required to pay their fair share under this scenario. For these reasons, 

AAPA believes that a tax solely based on containerized cargo is not equitable. 

If a broader port cargo fee is adopted by Congress, the structure of the fee should 

reflect the following recommendations: 

• for port authority cargo, all revenues collected should be returned to the port 

authority where the fee was collected to be used for projects directly benefiting freight mobility; 

• be levied equitably over all types of cargo, including both imports and exports; 

• assessed at all international ports of entry (air, land and sea); 

• provide ports the discretion to ‘‘opt-out’’ from the fee program, and 

• The fee should not negatively affect the nation’s bulk or break bulk export 

products (e.g., grain, coal, paper products), making these commodities uncompetitive in international markets. 

Conclusion 

Ensuring congestion-free port access and adequate capacity is critical to maintaining America’s status as a luminary in the global economy. AAPA applauds the work 

of this committee towards finding the right mix of mechanisms to fund and finance 

the surface transportation programs in this authorization bill. Seaports have many 

immediate needs that can be addressed through a timely passage of surface transportation authorization. In addition to the obvious long-term global competitiveness 

benefits, funded projects will create jobs and have a positive economic effect in the 

immediate term as America navigates its way back to prosperity. Thank you for the 

opportunity to include this testimony as part of the written record of this hearing. 

FREIGHT STAKEHOLDERS COALITION 

2009 Surface Transportation Reauthorization Platform 

The Freight Stakeholders Coalition represents shippers and public and private 

transportation providers working together to support policies to promote freight mobility in the United States. The Coalition believes that the next surface transportation authorization bill must maintain a strong federal role and provide for the creation of a national freight program. 

We are unified in our conviction that substantial investment in the nation’s 

freight transportation system must be given a high priority in the next authorization. Without such investment, the performance of all modes of goods movement will 

continue to deteriorate and our country will pay a high price in terms of domestic 

prosperity and international competitiveness. 

The Federal Government must continue to play a strong and focused role in shaping the future of our nation’s surface transportation policy. The Federal Government 

should lead in furthering America’s competitive advantage by developing projects of 

regional and national significance which reduce congestion, enhance goods movement, improve the environment, and create and maintain jobs. In addition, freight 

mobility should be a key factor in any performance standards established by Congress or the Department of Transportation. 

We are committed to working together, with the Congress, the Administration 

and other important interests, to develop the public-private consensus necessary to 

develop a freight transportation policy and program that will meet the needs of the 

nation. The Freight Stakeholders Coalition has agreed to the following principles for 

the upcoming surface transportation authorization legislation: 

1. Mandate the development of a National Multimodal Freight Strategic 

Plan. The next surface transportation authorization should mandate the development of a National Multimodal Freight Strategic Plan. The development of this plan 

should be led by the U.S. Department of Transportation, in partnership with state 

DOTs, cities, counties, MPOS and regional planning organizations, ports, freight 

shippers, freight carriers, and other stakeholders. 

2. Provide dedicated funds for freight mobility/goods movement. The legislation should provide dedicated funds for freight mobility/goods movement. Dedicated funds should be provided to support capital investment in critical freight 

transportation infrastructure to produce major public benefits including higher productivity, enhanced global competitiveness and a higher standard of living for our 

nation. High priority should be given to investment in efficient goods movement on 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
185 

the most significant freight corridors, including investment in intermodal connectors 

into freight terminals and projects that support national and regional connectivity. 

3. Authorize a state-administered freight transportation program. Congress should authorize a state-administered freight transportation program as a 

new core element of the federal highway program apportioned to states. 

4. If a new freight trust fund is created, it should be firewalled, with the 

funds fully spent on projects that facilitate freight transportation and not 

used for any other purpose. Priority should be given to nationally and regionally 

significant infrastructure, with funds distributed through a competitive grant process using objective, merit-based criteria. Appropriate projects that are freight-related should still be eligible to compete for other federal funding sources. 

5. Establish a multi-modal freight office within the Office of the Secretary. Freight mobility should be a key priority within USDOT. The Secretary’s 

office should have staff with freight expertise who can focus on nationally and regionally significant infrastructure. 

6. Form a national freight industry advisory group pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide industry input to USDOT, working 

in conjunction with the new multi-modal freight office. The advisory group 

should be funded and staffed, and it should consist of freight transportation providers from all modes as well as shippers and state and local planning organizations. Despite the best efforts of the agency to function as ‘‘One DOT,’’ there is still 

not enough of a focused voice for freight. An Advisory Group would meet the need 

for regular and professional interaction between USDOT and the diverse freight industry, and could help identify critical freight chokepoints in the national freight 

transportation system. 

7. Fund multi-state freight corridor planning organizations. Given that 

goods often move across state lines and involve multiple modes of transportation, 

Congress should fund multi-state, multi-modal planning organizations that will 

make it possible to plan and invest in projects where costs are concentrated in a 

single state but benefits are distributed among multiple states. 

8. Build on the success of existing freight programs. There are numerous 

existing transportation programs that facilitate freight mobility and are demonstrably valuable. A new national freight policy should continue and strengthen these 

core programs or build on their principles and successes to guide freight program 

development if DOT is restructured and/or program areas are consolidated. Examples of these successful core freight programs are the Projects of Regional and National Significance, National Corridor Infrastructure Improvement Program; Freight 

Planning Capacity Building Program; Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, National Cooperative Freight Transportation Research Program; Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program; Private Activity Bonds for Intermodal Facilities; Capital Grants for Rail Line Relocation Projects; Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF); Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, 

Truck Parking Pilot Program, and Rail-Highway Crossings. Funding for discretionary programs should be awarded through a competitive grant process. 

9. Expand freight planning expertise at the state and local levels. Given 

the importance of freight mobility to the national economy, States and MPOs should 

be provided additional funds for expert staff positions dedicated to freight issues 

(commensurate to the volumes of freight moving in and through their areas). All 

states should have a freight plan as a tool for planning investments and for linking 

to the national freight system. 

10. Foster operational and environmental efficiencies in goods movement. 

As in other aspects of transportation, improvements designed to achieve long term 

sustainability in goods movement are desirable to meet both commercial objectives— 

economy and efficiency—and public objectives—energy security and reduced environmental impact. Federal policy should employ positive approaches to enhance 

freight system efficiency and throughput with the goal of reducing energy consumption and green house gas emissions. 

American Association of Port Authorities 

Susan Monteverde 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Leo Penne 

American Trucking Associations 

Darrin Roth 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
186 

Association of American Railroads 

Jennifer Macdonald 

Coalition for America’s Gateways and Trade Corridors 

Leslie Blakey 

Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals 

Rick Blasgen 

Inland Rivers Ports and Terminals Inc. 

Deidre McGowan 

Intermodal Association of North America 

Joni Casey 

National Association of Manufacturers 

Robyn Boerstling 

National Association of Regional Councils 

Fred Abousleman 

National Association of Waterfront Employers 

Paul Bea 

National Industrial Transportation League 

Bruce Carlton 

National Retail Federation 

Jonathan Gold 

Retail Industry Leaders Association 

Kelly Kolb 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Janet F. Kavinoky 

Waterfront Coalition 

Robin Lanier 

World Shipping Council 

Anne Kappel 

f 

Statement of Leif Wathne, P.E. 

Honorable Committee Members, 

The American Concrete Pavement Association, founded in 1964, represents more 

than 450 member companies involved in the construction and maintenance of our 

highway infrastructure—including paving contractors, cement companies, readymixed concrete producers, and suppliers of capital equipment, machines, materials, 

value-added products, and services that are used in the construction of concrete 

pavement. On behalf of this vital American industry, we encourage you to act swiftly to develop a funding source for the multi-year authorization of the surface transportation programs. Such an effort represents a bipartisan opportunity to improve 

transportation infrastructure, increase productivity, and create jobs throughout our 

economy without adding to our national debt. 

Our industry recognizes the importance the surface transportation system has 

played (and continues to play) in making America the great nation it is today—our 

highway infrastructure is the backbone of our economy and our way of life. It is absolutely critical that we reinvest robustly in this transportation system to deliver 

a 21st Century transportation solution that not only strengthens the U.S. economy, 

provides stable and well-paying jobs and enhances the quality of life for all Americans, but also protects our natural environment. 

Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that a failure to authorize a multi-year 

reauthorization bill with robust highway transportation investment at this time, 

will compromise and possibly negate the significant gains made in job-creation and 

economic stimulus by the recently enacted ARRA of 2009. 

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that we already know the answer to the 

most pressing funding questions. Numerous commissions, committees and expert 

panels charged with exploring this issue have all concluded the same thing: The 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
187 

only equitable way to generate adequate funding in the short-to-medium term is to 

increase and index the federal motor fuel user-fee! While no one enjoys the thought 

of increasing fuel user-fees, properly adjusted and administered fuel user fees represent a responsible solution that the driving public understands. It has integrity. 

Further, we plainly cannot afford to endure the pervasive traffic congestion, the 

rampant loss of life on our highways and the reduced competitiveness of American 

business in the global marketplace! Our future quite simply depends on it. 

We encourage the Committee to embrace this opportunity to deliver a responsible 

revenue source for America’s next transportation program! 

f 

Statement of Andrew Maybee, P.E. 

Honorable Committee Members, 

As a State Association executive who is affiliated with national organizational 

members of the Transportation Construction Coalition, I wanted to take this opportunity to encourage you to act quickly to develop much-needed funding sources for 

surface transportation. Our nation’s states are in need of infrastructure funding for 

roads and bridges, and moving forward with a new funding bill, in lieu of an extension of current funding levels, will meet our nation’s needs, provide job growth, and 

serve the citizens of the United States. 

As funding solutions will be the topic of discussion for some time, it is clear that 

the only way to raise adequate funding will be to assess user-based fees and increase the federal motor fuel tax. While no citizen enjoys the thought of higher gas 

taxes, our industry understands that in these difficult economic times, job growth 

is critical. It has been debated, but proven time and time again that funding of infrastructure and road-building projects puts Americans to work! 

Providing critical infrastructure construction and maintenance services for our 

state and national highway system is the key business for our supplier and contractor membership. Without federal funding, it is a certainty that highway construction and maintenance in Tennessee and many other states would grind to a 

halt. This would have a negative impact by resulting in additional job loss, negating 

any positive impact in the highway sector from the ARRA funding. It would additionally put our nation further behind in our long stretch of underfunding our nation’s highways. 

The Concrete Paving Association of TN is made up of cement and concrete industry, concrete highway paving contractors, and industry suppliers. The cement and 

concrete industry provide nearly 60,000 jobs and over $580M in revenue for the 

State of Tennessee. In our state, our industry contributes over $100M in annual 

payroll across multiple sectors of the highway construction industry. Thank you for 

your interest in this issue on infrastructure investment. Our nation’s roads and 

bridges are critically important to the future economic growth and success of our 

country. Our industry, our nation and our citizens are depending on your action. 

For information on how concrete pavements can meet our nation’s road-building 

needs please visit www.pavements4life.org. 

f 

Statement of Gigi B. Sohn, President, Public Knowledge 

Chairman Levin, Ranking member Brady and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit this statement into the record 

in this hearing on behalf of Public Knowledge and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Public Knowledge is an advocacy organization that seeks to ensure that 

copyright and communications policies promote citizens’ access to and participation 

in culture and knowledge. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a member based 

digital rights organization that focuses on defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights. To achieve these goals, the public’s voice should be 

present in the formulation of intellectual property laws and policies both domestically and internationally. We limit this testimony to the intellectual property aspects of trade agreements and the process by which they are negotiated. 

Introduction 

Increasingly, international obligations are influencing U.S. intellectual property 

(IP) law and policies. IP chapters of many international trade agreements adopt unsettled interpretations of U.S. law to the benefit of rights owners and ignore the policy decisions made in our domestic laws, which promote learning and culture by 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
188 

1 ITAC 15 is the tier 3 Industry Trade Advisory Committee that deals with IP issues. 

2GAO, International Trade: Advisory System Should be Updated to Better Serve U.S. Policy 

Needs, GAO–02–876, p. 63 (Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2002),(‘‘GAO Report, 2002’’); ITA 

International Trade Administration, Dept. of Commerce, Become a Trade Advisor, http:// 

www.ita.doc.gov/itac//become_an_advisor/becomeanadvisor.asp. 3With the exception of one public health representative, all of the members of ITAC 15 represent IP holders. 4 U.S. ‘‘Australia Free Trade Agreement,’’ Article 17.4, January 1, 2005, available at: http:// 

www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/australian-fta/final-text. 5 Compare MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993); and Advanced Computer Services of Michigan, Inc. v. MAI Systems Corp., 845 F.Supp. 356, 362–364 

(E.D. Va. 1994) with Cartoon Network LP. v. CSC Holdings, 536 F.3d 121, 127–131 (2d. Cir, 

2008); CoStar Group Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc. 373 F. 3d 544, 551 (4th Cir. 2004). 6Greg Frazier, Motion Picture Association of America, Re: Request For Public Comment on 

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), March 20, 2008, available at: http:// 

www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/acta/mpaa-20080320.pdf; Neil Turkewitz, Recording Indsutry Association of America, Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Request for Public Comment, March 

17, 2008, available at: http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/acta/riaa-20080317.pdf. 

striking a balance between rights of owners and citizens generally. While U.S. IP 

industries such as the pharmaceutical industry, the motion picture industry, and 

the recording industry have considerable influence in the formulation of these agreements, the American public has very little input in the process. In order to correct 

this imbalance and ensure that IP aspects of trade agreements reflect the interests 

of all Americans, Congress should facilitate greater public interest input into the 

process by which trade agreements are formulated. To this end, Congress should: 

1. Clarify that the ‘‘fair balance’’ requirement of the Federal Administrative 

Committees Act (FACA) requires that ITAC 15 1, or any future IP-related 

ITACs, represent the interests of everyone affected by the IP aspects of trade 

agreements, including non-business interests. 

2. Amend the Trade Act to ensure that the USTR’s power to close meetings and 

documents to the public does not result in all such meetings and documents 

relating to intellectual property negotiations being closed by default. 

These changes would ensure that trade agreements will represent not only the interests of intellectual property owners but also American citizens generally. 

1. Congress should clarify that the ‘‘fair balance’’ requirement of the 

FACA means that tier 3 industry trade advisory committees should represent interests of all affected, including non-business interests. 

The USTR and executive agencies charged with administering industry trade advisory committees (ITACs) currently follow the policy of excluding non-business interests from representation on tier 3 committees.2 As a result, ITAC 15, which deals 

with intellectual property issues, overwhelmingly represents the interests of IP owners.3

Perhaps because of this, intellectual property chapters of many U.S. trade agreements have tended to ignore the interests of the public and assume international 

obligations that are harmful to them. For example, the U.S.-Australia Free Trade 

Agreement (FTA) requires the U.S. and Australia to grant to copyright owners the 

exclusive right ‘‘to authorize or prohibit all reproductions, in any manner or form, 

permanent or temporary (including temporary storage in material form) . . . .’’.4

The U.S. Copyright Act does not extend protection to temporary instances of a work 

that are of a transitory nature, and U.S. courts are divided as to how non-transitory 

reproductions must be to implicate the rights of copyright owners.5 If temporary or 

transitory reproduction were considered a right granted to copyright owners, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), internet based services such as webcasters and online 

music stores, and consumers would all be exposed to liability for copyright infringement during the course of routine activities. 

Like the U.S.-Australia FTA, the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 

(ACTA) raises the specter of eroding consumer rights and subjecting ISPs to unjustified burdens in order to prevent copyright infringement. The USTR has announced 

its intention to negotiate, as part of ACTA, provisions to counter Internet-based infringements of copyrights. In public comments filed with the USTR, content industry groups such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have called for ACTA to contain 

measures that would require ISPs to reveal information of customers accused of 

copyright infringement, suspend Internet accounts of customers accused of repeat 

infringement, and require ISPs to filter their networks for infringement.6 These 

measures rely on ISPs and copyright owners making infringement determinations 

without judicial intervention and thus threaten consumers’ privacy and due process 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
189 

7Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. § 5(b)(2)) (1994). 

8 Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Office of the United States Trade Representative, 1999 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 21689, 20 (W.D.Wash.1999). 9GAO Report, 2002, supra note 2, at 60. 10GAO Report 2002, supra note 2, at 3. 11 Compare Northwest Ecosystem, supra note 8 (finding that the ‘‘fair balance’’ applied to a 

tier 3 committee and ordering appointment of members representing non-business interests) 

with Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health v. Office of the United States Trade Representative, 540 F. 3d 940 (9th Cir. 2008)(holding that the ‘‘fair balance’’ requirement is not justiciable because it is not clearly defined). 12 ITA International Trade Administration, Dept. of Commerce, Become a Trade Advisor, 

http://www.ita.doc.gov/itac//become_an_advisor/becomeanadvisor.asp. 13 2002 GAO Report, supra note 2, at. 63. 14GAO report, 2002, supra note 2, at. 7 (noting that the trade act does not establish any formal relationship among tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 committees and does not authorize the first tier 

to exercise any control over the other two); Id, at. 25 (noting that although the Trade Act and 

FACA do not forbid it, the USTR and the Dept. of Commerce do not routinely consult a crosssection of committees concerned with a particular issue.) 15GAO, International Trade: An Analysis of Free Trade Agreements and Congressional and 

Private Sector Consultations under Trade Promotion Authority, GAO–08–59, p. 55 (Washington, 

D.C.: November 7, 2007)(‘‘GAO Report, 2007’’). 16GAO Report, 2002, supra note 2, at 41. 17 Id. at 28, (noting that many advisory committee chairs complain that written suggestions 

from their committees do not elicit a response. Also noting that predominance of oral advice 

causes problems in tracking and distributing committee advice). 

rights. While representatives of the MPAA and the RIAA, as members of ITAC 15, 

have the ability to influence the design of these provisions, consumers do not. 

In order to ensure balance in the views expressed by ITAC 15, consumer and public interest advocates should be included in its makeup. The law does not explicitly 

exclude public interest perspectives from the committee, and the legislative history 

of the Trade Act and the FACA, both of which govern ITAC 15, actually support 

their inclusion. In enacting FACA, which applies its ‘‘fair balance’’ requirement to 

trade advisory committees,7 Congress intended to end industry domination of advisory committees.8 Similarly, in enacting certain amendments to the Trade Act in 

1979, Congress expressed its intention to broaden the interests represented on tier 

2 and tier 3 committees to include, among others, public interest representation.9

Although Congressional intent is clear, the language of the Trade Act does not 

provide sufficient guidance about how the ‘‘fair balance’’ requirement should be applied. Consequently, as the GAO report noted,10 judicial decisions on this issue do 

not establish conclusively that FACA’s ‘‘fair balance’’ requirement applies to tier 3 

trade advisory committees.11

In the absence of clear direction in the Trade Act, the USTR 12 and the Department of Commerce, which are responsible for administering certain ITACs, contend 

that tier 3 committees ‘‘are not generally open to non-business interests.’’ 13 In order 

to give effect to its intention and to promote public interest, Congress should clarify 

that FACA’s ‘‘fair balance’’ requirement extends to all tier 3 advisory committees. 

Such clarification would facilitate appointment of public interest representatives on 

the tier 3 ITAC that deals with intellectual property issues a euro;’’ ITAC 15. 

Public interest representation at the tier 3 level is essential in addition to public 

interest representation on the tier 1 and tier 2 committees. As the 2002 GAO report 

noted, the tier 1 committee may not have any influence on the tier 2 and tier 3 committees.14 Furthermore, tier 2 committees have been less active than tier 3 committees.15 Also, tier 1 and tier 2 committees are general policy committees that will not 

be able to provide focused public interest perspective on specialized areas such as 

intellectual property. Therefore, a significant public interest presence on ITAC 15 

is essential to ensure that the USTR promotes IP policy that is beneficial to all 

Americans. 

In order to be effective, public interest representatives should not be relegated to 

a small minority whose views are ignored by the committee.16 While the USTR cannot be expected to adopt the views of public interest representatives and has discretion in appointing members of tier 3 committees, Congress should seek to avoid extreme imbalances in committee composition by providing adequate direction to the 

USTR. Further, there would be greater accountability within ITAC–15 discussions 

if the USTR adopted the practice of responding to all written suggestions, as well 

as requiring that more written consultations occur within the consultation process.17

Public interest participation would not cause many of the harms that detractors 

claim it would. For instance, many industry representatives on tier 3 committees 

claim that non-business representation would prevent Members of the Committees 

from providing candid advice for fear that non-business representatives would reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:22 Jul 08, 2011 Jkt 063001 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\WAYS\OUT\63001.XXX GPO1 PsN: 63001

ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
190 

18GAO Report, 2002, supra note 2, at. 43; Hearing on the Trade Advisory Committee System, 

Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 111th Congress, 

(June 21, 2009) (Testimony of Brian T. Petty, Chairman, ITAC 2). 19 Hearing on the Trade Advisory Committee System, Before the Subcommittee on Trade of the 

House Committee on Ways and Means, 111th Congress, (June 21, 2009) (Testimony of Timothy 

Hoelter, Vice President, Government Affairs, Harley-Davidson Motor Company). 20See 19 U.S.C.A. § 2155 (2006). 

lease sensitive information to the public.18 This argument either overlooks the fact 

that all members of tier 3 committees are bound to keep committee information secret, or suggests that the advisory committee process should be based on an assumption that non-business representatives are somehow less trustworthy than 

their commercial counterparts. Industry representatives also claim that too many 

differences of opinions within a committee would prevent the committee from providing clear advice to the USTR.19 While clarity is essential, it is not necessarily 

compromised by presentation of nuanced views that account for interests of all concerned, including the public. 

2. The Trade Act should clarify that the USTR’s discretion to close documents to the public should not result in a default rule of secrecy. 

IP aspects of some trade agreements, including the ongoing ACTA negotiations, 

are shrouded in excessive secrecy. Members of the public have no access to information concerning the need for the agreement, how it would benefit or harm them, and 

the specific proposals that are under negotiation. Although the USTR has made 

available to the public a summary of the ACTA negotiations, this summary does not 

shed any light on the actual nature of the agreement. Furthermore, it undermines 

the credibility of USTR’s stated intention to seek greater public input. 

The USTR has offered several justifications for this excessive secrecy. First, the 

agency claims that secrecy is an accepted policy in trade agreements. Second, it 

claims that secrecy allows exchange of views in confidence and facilitates the negotiation and compromise that is necessary to reach agreement on complex issues. 

Neither of these reasons justify excluding the public from discussion of issues that 

could have harmful consequences for them. 

That secrecy is accepted policy does not, in itself, mean that it is also in the public 

interest. Further, it is not the policy in many multilateral intellectual property negotiations. For instance, the U.S. negotiated the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO 

Performances and Phonograms Treaty in the open. While secrecy may permit ease 

of negotiation, it does not necessarily facilitate the best outcome. While revealing 

certain information, such as U.S. negotiating positions before they are tabled before 

the negotiating partner, may in certain situations be counterproductive, the same 

concern does not extend to all information. 

Intellectual property issues do not fit neatly within trade agreements. Yet chapters on intellectual property have been part of trade agreements since the GATT negotiations. The justifications for secrecy that may apply to traditional trade aspects 

such as tariffs do not apply to intellectual property issues. Opacity in formulating 

IP aspects of trade agreements can only harm the interests of consumers. 

The USTR should release information such as meeting dates, times and agendas; 

industry studies or other presentations made available to the USTR urging adoption 

of certain provisions in agreements; and draft negotiating texts after they are tabled 

before negotiating partners. These examples are not exhaustive and merely suggest 

certain steps towards greater transparency. Release of such information would allow 

the USTR to benefit from the expertise of members of the public. Further, it would 

be in accordance with provisions of the Trade Act that require the USTR to seek 

input from members of the public.20 Ultimately it would lead to adoption of negotiating positions that reflect the interests of all Americans. 

Lifting the veil of secrecy over IP aspects of trade agreements will become increasingly important if, as the parties to this testimony expect, the IP industries abandon 

multilateral IP forums like WIPO for agreements such as ACTA. While we believe 

that the proper forum for an agreement like ACTA is WIPO or a similar multilateral forum, if ACTA is to proceed as a trade agreement, it should be subject to the 

kind of transparency and public input that would attach to a multilateral IP treaty. 

Conclusion 

We urge Congress to implement the recommendations made above. 

Thank you for giving Public Knowledge an opportunity to submit this testimony. 

We remain at your disposal to answer any questions. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
191 

SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET 

Contact information of witnesses: 

Gigi B. Sohn, President, Public Knowledge 

Gwen Hinze, International Policy Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation 

f 

Statement of the National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP) 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. and Members of the Subcommittee, 

We are pleased to have the opportunity to submit this statement of the Bipartisan 

Policy Center’s National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP). As the co-chairs of 

NTPP, we recently completed a 2-year effort with a wide range of business, academic and civic leaders, calling for U.S. transportation policy to be more performance driven, more directly linked to a set of clearly articulated goals, and more accountable for results. Our principle message to this committee is that achieving critical national goals will require not only a comprehensive consolidation and restructuring of current programs based on clear performance metrics, but also a fundamental new approach to funding. Our report -Performance Driven: A New Vision for 

U.S. Transportation Policy concludes that revenue issues in the upcoming legislation to extend and reform the nation’s surface transportation system will involve 

more than just identifying revenue sources to fund programs. Financing mechanisms play a central role in the performance and outcomes of our nation’s transportation system. The NTPP report calls for the adoption of better national user-based 

financing mechanisms, echoing the conclusions and recommendations of a number 

of reports, studies, and Commissions. The evidence is clear that the extent to which 

system costs are transparent to system users has direct effects on both performance 

of the system and the level of investment required. 

This statement highlights two important elements of our NTPP report germane 

to you as the revenue raising committee: 

(1) Recommended funding principles 

(2) Immediate actions on funding mechanisms 

A recurring theme of both elements is that revenue needs to be linked to system 

performance, and thus solutions should favor direct, user-based fees. While we did 

not make recommendations for specific revenue measures, we identified a number 

of areas where immediate action is needed’’ largely by the revenue-raising committees of Congress. These include moving towards user-pay financing mechanisms, as 

well as research and planning to enable a smooth transition of our nation’s present 

transportation financing system to one that is supported by national user-pay funding mechanisms. 

BACKGROUND: 

For many years the motor vehicle fuel tax provided a stable and growing source 

of funding for federal transportation investments. This federal tax, however, has not 

kept up with growth in road use, construction costs, and system needs. As a result, 

resources available in the Highway Trust Fund are increasingly falling short, which 

in turn has triggered transfers from the general fund. This situation is clearly 

unsustainable. Overall gasoline consumption is down due first to high oil prices earlier this decade and now because of the economic recession. A combination of increased vehicle fuel-economy standards, the introduction of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and mandated expansion of biofuels can be expected continually to reduce oil demand. This is obviously beneficial for many reasons, but it also leads to 

declining receipts from fuel taxes, assuming the level of those taxes is unchanged. 

All of these developments combined expose flaws not only in the stability of the gas 

motor vehicle fuel tax as a funding source, but also in its long-term sustainability. 

The current fuel tax is also inadequate in the sense that it does not charge users 

anything close to the full costs associated with their use of the transportation system. It does not accurately reflect the full environmental, health, energy, security, 

and congestion costs of individual transportation choices. If such costs were accurately priced they would affect users’ decisions about a range of relevant issues, 

from where to live, when to commute, and what type of vehicle to drive. The failure 

to send accurate price signals leads to inefficient levels of consumption if prices are 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
192 

1Sorenson, Paul, et al. ‘‘Moving Los Angeles’’ Short Term Options for Improving Transportation.’’ RAND Corporation. 2008. 2Oregon Department of Transportation. ‘‘Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee 

Pilot Program Final Report.’’ 2007. 3We note that our recommendations in this regard align closely with conclusions reached by 

both the National Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission. 4 ‘‘Using Pricing to Reduce Congestion’’, 2009, http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=9750. 

too low, the result will be excess demand.1 For example, diesel and heavy vehicle 

tax levels that fail to approximate the relative damage and costs imposed by heavy 

commercial vehicles will contribute to deteriorating road conditions by under pricing 

the full costs of their use and thus prompting more truck travel. Oregon’s pilot mileage-based pricing program demonstrated that as drivers became more aware of the 

true costs of using the roads they reduced their travel even when incurring no additional costs.2

Another problem with current funding mechanisms is that they impede the distribution of funds on a mode-neutral basis because most of the revenue is generated 

from road vehicles via fuel taxes and other vehicle fees. This is a problem for metropolitan programs because, despite some funding flexibility, projects are forced into 

either ‘‘highway’’ or ‘‘transit’’ categories even though highway and transit systems 

work best in concert. This is an even more severe constraint for freight projects, 

which are unlikely to be funded absent an unbiased assessment that considers all 

mode choices and gives the ability to partner across modes. 

Present financing mechanisms to support the nation’s highway and transit programs are unsustainable and in need of significant reform. The problem is not just 

a growing funding shortfall resulting from the fact that the current fuel tax and 

other taxes that support the highway and transit trust funds have not been increased or pegged to inflation. Rather, the central flaw of existing financing mechanisms is that they provide a poor signal to users about the costs they impose on 

the system (and the benefits they receive). In other words, how we raise money for 

transportation is itself an extremely important policy decision quite distinct from 

the decision about how much money needs to be raised. Thus, reform of current financing mechanisms should be central to any effort aimed at making effective U.S. 

transportation policy that is more performance-based. 

RECOMMENDED FUNDING PRINCIPLES 

The question of how to raise revenue was not the primary focus of NTPP’s efforts. 

We were primarily concerned with spending it effectively. However, we recognized 

the critical importance of the funding issue because how revenue is raised relates 

directly to system performance. NTPP recommends that future efforts to address the 

need for new transportation revenue-raising mechanisms be guided by the following 

core principles: 3

• Revenue currently collected is insufficient to maintain, much less improve, 

system performance 

• Public revenue collection can enhance the performance of the system when 

users understand and more directly bear the full costs of the infrastructure 

they use 

Allow us to amplify these central principles: 

Revenue is Insufficient to Maintain or Improve Performance 

Adequate and sustainable funding is an essential dimension of putting in place 

a true performance-based transportation system. Obscuring the true costs of maintaining, operating and updating our transportation network is not in the national 

interest.4 As a new national program is defined, the primary roles and responsibilities of different levels of government in maintaining, operating and improving the 

performance of our infrastructure must become more transparent. This will solidify 

the federal role in funding programs that further specific national interests. 

Proposals to increase revenues are frequently opposed as ‘‘double taxation’’ or resisted with complaints that users have ‘‘already paid’’. Bold political leadership is 

needed to bring the reality to light in this area. Federal highway spending (and taxation) per mile travelled has actually fallen by nearly 50 percent since the Highway 

Trust Fund was established in the late 1950s. Moreover, because the fuel tax is not 

indexed to inflation, its purchasing power has declined by 33 percent since it was 

last increased in 1993. As population has grown and trade has expanded, basic infrastructure has deteriorated. At the same time, the lack of transparent user-based 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
193 

5Transportation Research Board. ‘‘Fuel Tax and Alternatives, Special Report 285. 2006. 

www.TRB.org/publ/sr/sr285.pdf. 

financing perpetuates individual and commercial decisions that do not take into account the full public costs imposed by each transportation choice. 

A wide variety of circumstances have combined continually to weaken the link between transportation funding (primarily via the gas tax) and the costs imposed and 

benefits received by system users. The failure to ‘‘price’’ economic, environmental, 

and social externalities of travel has contributed to unsustainable development patterns and a lack of awareness of, or concern for, energy consumption, emissions, and 

congestion impacts. 

Favor Direct, User-Based Fees 

Taxes and fees are currently the two primary means used to raise revenue for federal transportation infrastructure. While the motor vehicle fuel tax generates significant revenues at low administrative cost, its reliability as a proxy for transportation-system use has decreased dramatically. In an age of increasing fuel efficiency, 

growing numbers of hybrid-electric vehicles, and increased use of alternative fuels, 

payment of that tax bears a diminishing relationship to actual use of the system. 

In contrast, where users pay directly for their infrastructure use, they receive more 

timely and accurate signals about the full range of costs they impose and the benefits they receive. Ideally, user fees should capture diverse elements of use including 

miles traveled, time and place of travel, vehicle weight or number of axles, vehicle 

fuel efficiency, contribution to congestion, and emissions.5

Raising federal transportation revenue from a more complete and accurate national system of user fees can advance a range of national interests and benefits 

including: 

• enhancing equity across all users; 

• promoting consistency with energy and environmental goals by ensuring that 

transportation users bear the true cost of energy and environmental impacts; 

• reducing congestion and increasing the reliability of travel times; 

• promoting more accurate user-based signals with respect to investment priorities; and 

• reducing capital needs as users internalize cost impacts and rationalize their 

use of the system. 

A robust user-pay system would free up alternative resources to allow state or 

metropolitan programs investment in modes or specific user groups for which 100 

percent direct user-pay funding is not feasible and to advance specified social and 

environmental goals. The user-pay principle should be at the core of any short-term 

increases in existing taxes and/or fees, as well as in the development and structure 

of any new revenue sources and mechanisms put in place for the long term. 

RECOMMENDATION FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION ON FUNDING MECHANISMS 

While we recognized that our call for a comprehensive restructuring of all federal 

programs will take years to achieve, several critical revenue-related principles could 

and should be applied in the near term. These include the following: 

Set a high bar for any use of general funds for transportation infrastructure 

The first and most obvious reason to set a high bar for any use of general funds 

for transportation infrastructure is that every dollar of additional spending out of 

general funds at this time represents additional borrowing and thus exacerbates the 

already extreme deficit problems and fiscal challenges the nation is now and will 

continue to confront in coming years. Second, even before it is feasible to transition 

fully to a user-pay system, numerous opportunities exist to raise revenue for nearterm transportation needs in ways that make system costs more transparent, send 

more accurate price signals to users, and thus promote more efficient use of the system. Examples are system fees and road tolls. Relying on general funds obscures 

the true cost of the transportation system to users and does nothing to either promote efficient use of the system or to advance critical societal objectives. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
194 

Minimize departures from user financing 

Until new and long-term sustainable revenue mechanisms in the form of userbased fees can be implemented, short-term revenue-enhancing measures are likely 

to be put forward to cover the costs of increased federal support for transportation 

even to maintain levels set in SAFETEA–LU. 

NTPP recommends that any action by Congress to generate additional revenue for 

transportation: 

• advance the user-pay principle 

• be targeted toward rewarding performance on system preservation and expansion projects 

Be transparent in establishing new financing mechanisms 

Issuing new federal bonds or establishing a national infrastructure bank both 

need to be recognized as forms of borrowing. The use of general taxpayer funds 

should be limited to programs which demonstrably generate nationally significant 

and broadly based public benefits. The operations of any new financing entity need 

to be clear, specific, and transparent regarding actual revenue sources and beneficiaries. Such an entity should also apply rigorous quantitative performance metrics 

covering the range of national interests that need to be balanced, and strive to align 

funding sources with the beneficiaries of federal investments. Finally, establishing 

a new financing entity must not be seen as a substitute for moving aggressively toward transportation infrastructure supported to the maximum extent possible by 

well-designed user-based fees. 

Implement a mode-neutral freight fee 

A well-targeted program to address critical freight bottlenecks and improve transport efficiency along critical freight corridors, networks, and connectors is vital. The 

soundest basis for infrastructure investments that improve the performance of the 

entirely private existing freight system is a user-based freight fee. The fee structure 

should reflect the range of the freightnetwork and the burden each mode imposes 

on public infrastructure, as well as the relative fuel efficiency and/or greenhouse gas 

emissions of different modes of freight transport. Revenues from the fee should be 

applied to projects that have clear benefits for freight transport, including transport 

on the privately owned system. 

Charge transportation users the costs of their carbon emissions and recycle those funds into transportation investments 

Effective pricing of transportation-related carbon emissions is needed to complement other transportation-related policies on energy and the environment, such 

as fuel efficiency standards and alternative fuel programs. Further analysis is needed to ensure that the right incentives are in place to motivate users to reduce carbon emissions from transportation. This is particularly urgent given evidence that 

the transportation sector has been one of the fastest growing contributors to overall 

carbon emissions. While a petroleum based tax may not be an adequate proxy for 

road use, it is an appropriate proxy for pricing the externalities associated with carbon emissions and energy security. 

Just as transportation needs to bear an appropriate share of the cost of controlling and reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a national level, an appropriateshare 

of revenues generated through a carbon pricing should go toward transportation infrastructure investment and operations that produce carbon reduction benefits. 

Help states and local governments develop sustainable funding sources 

While NTPP supports a well defined federal focus on nationally significant infrastructure, there is also a national interest in supporting and incentivizing state and 

local governments to develop sustainable funding sources for locally significant infrastructure investments. It is clear that achieving national performance goals for 

the transportation system will require states and local governments to have the 

ability substantially to increase revenues needed for infrastructure investments. 

Accordingly, the Federal Government should help ensure state and local capacity 

to develop sustainable, equitable, and performance-enhancing revenue streams. 

States and localities have a wide range of transportation investment and revenueraising options at their disposal. While the Federal Government should not be in 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
195 

6Government Accountability Office. ‘‘Highway Public-Private Partnerships: More Rigorous UpFront Analysis Could Better Secure Potential Benefits and Protect the Public Interest.’’ Sep. 

2008. GAO–08–1149R. 7Government Accountability Office. ‘‘Highway Finance: States’ Expanding Use of Tolling Illustrates Diverse Challenges and Strategies.’’ June 2006. GAO–06–554. 8 National Surface Transportation Policy Study and Revenue Commission. ‘‘Transportation for 

Tomorrow.’’ 2007. Back up and technical papers: http://transportationfortomorrow.org/ 

final_report/technical_issue_papers.aspx; See in particular papers 5A–06 re container charge; 

5A–15 re PPPs; 5B–03 re financing options for freight and intermodal facilities; 5B–05 re phasing in new fees. 

the business of prescribing specific state and local strategies,6 it can remove impediments and support efforts to use creative financing tools at state and local levels.7

Three concrete steps the Federal Government can take in this regard are: 

Reduce restrictions on road pricing. Performance and environmental goals are 

likely to be most cost-effectively achieved with greater use of variable pricing on 

congested roadways. The Federal Government should removerestrictions to instituting such policies on the nation’s roadways, with appropriate limitations. 

Support efforts by states to implement direct user charges. Direct user-fees, such 

as a mileage-based charge, can improve system performance and represents a critical tool for states and metropolitan areas to supplement or eventually replace traditional revenue sources. Support should be provided to states or groups of states piloting new comprehensive user-based fees. 

Expand TIFIA credit support. With the removal of restrictions on pricing, the 

TIFIA program should be expanded to allow for loans that are paid back with variable pricing tolls on national highways. TIFIA should adopt performance metrics 

proposed in the NTPP report to aid in the assessment of projects. 

Lay the Groundwork for a Sustainable Funding Source 

Transitioning to a performance-based surface transportation system that is 

equipped to address 21st century challenges requires a timely and evidence-based 

transition to a user-pay funding mechanisms. This means research must begin methodically to test, evaluate and resolve various issues that are likely to arise in the 

course of such a transition.8 Concepts must be considered and encouraged that 

would establish a system, which at the earliest possible date, can become the backbone of national revenue collection. 

For instance a funding system that uses in-vehicle, on-board GPS units could 

charge differentially for mileage in high congestion zones or for travel during more 

congested times of day. The system could also apply different fees based on vehicle 

fuel economy and emissions. Such a tailored alignment of fees to distinct costs will 

send proper price signals to users, thereby reducing congestion, emissions, and fuel 

consumption. This is important because, while there is a growing support for a 

‘‘mileage-based’’ system or VMT fee such a fee will only provide accurate cost signals 

if it is adjusted for vehicle fuel economy. Similarly, a mileage-based fee would have 

to account for the fact that not all miles are equal. Mileage-based fees that vary 

based on congestion provide incentives for drivers to shift to off-peak periods, consolidate trips, use less congested routes, use alternative modes, or telecommute. 

They also can be tailored to avoid penalizing rural drivers who travel long distances 

on relatively empty roads. A corollary benefit of increasing the transparency of costs 

is that capital investment decisions will be guided by quantitative signals of increased demand for physical capacity. 

Over a longer time horizon, a vehicle-based revenue system may offer additional 

efficiencies and dramatic new safety benefits if it is integrated with developing proposals for integrating ‘‘smart road-smart car’’ technologies. The platform of on-board 

GPS technology is already being applied to advanced innovations with automatic 

crash prevention. Other applications are being adapted to provide diverse consumer 

services including routing, vehicle optimization, and payment of a range of services 

such as parking, registration and weight, or emissions-related fees. 

Because a vehicle-based fee would likely be collected from individual drivers, however, the implementation of such a system presents numerous transition and operational challenges. For example, efficiently linking a nation-wide user fee system 

with state and local revenue collection, publicly tolled facilities, and private operators, will require that a host of issues be addressed. The most commonly cited concern is the privacy protection of users. These specific challenges will require time 

to work through, which is why the NTPP calls for immediate action to begin laying 

groundwork for a future system. 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING
196 

Concluding Remarks 

This is a period of extraordinary opportunity for revitalizing America’s surface 

transportation system. Existing systems are dated, in many cases strained to or beyond capacity, and increasingly fall short of delivering transportation services at the 

level of quality, performance, and efficiency the American public demands. Current 

funding mechanisms and revenue sources are not sufficient to maintain existing infrastructure, let alone provide the investments needed to expand and modernize our 

transportation systems. Available resources are typically distributed without any 

sense of national priorities. Bold federal leadership and immediate action is needed 

to develop, test, and implement new, more direct and more complete ways of linking 

revenue collection to system use and impacts. 

As the NTPP report outlines and as we have discussed in this testimony, transportation investments should not be funded using general funds, assistance must be 

offered to states and local governments to enable them to establish sustainable 

funding sources for transportation projects, and our nation’s transportation system 

should be funded by user-based fees that are sustainable and tied to system use. 

The way in which transportation revenue is raised and the extent to which system 

costs are transparent have direct effects on both the performance of the system and 

the level of total investment needed. 

Thank you for considering this statement. We welcome future opportunities to 

support the work of House Ways and Means Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, and ask that you draw upon the work of the National Transportation 

Policy Project as you develop legislation that ensures adequate funding of our nation’s transportation infrastructure. 

Æ 


ccoleman on DSK8P6SHH1PROD with HEARING