STATEMENT OF THE
HONORABLE JAMES M. INHOFE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
AND PUBLIC WORKS
JANUARY 24, 2002
Thank you Mr.
Chairman. As you have indicated, today
is the first of series of hearings to prepare us for reauthorization of the
Federal Highway Program. I look forward
to working with you and our colleagues to further the progress made in TEA21
for greater flexibility and allowing states to keep more of their gas tax
dollars. As we begin the
reauthorization process, I am anxious to hear from our state and local partners
how we at the federal level can assist them in meeting their unique transportation
needs.
One such need that is
universally felt is mobility. Not only
is it important to increase mobility for personal travel, but we must also
address the critical congestion choke points affecting freight movements. Continue economic growth depends on an
efficient and cost effective transportation system, which includes the movement
of people, goods and services.
The challenge before us
will be to increase capacity without increasing costs by making better use of
existing resources. Nothing better
illustrates this point than the announcement on January 18th that
the President=s budget for FY03 will
report a negative RABA. [Revenue Aligned Budget Authority] As devised, RABA=s
purpose is to protect the principal that every dollar into the Highway Trust
Fund is spent on highway transportation projects as opposed to accumulating
large balances as was the practice prior to TEA21. Up until this point, we have enjoyed a positive RABA which has
meant more spending on transportation infrastructure than estimated by TEA21. Just as RABA provides for windfall it also
means we could have a situation where TEA21 estimates overstate actual revenues
received. It would appear that is the
case for FY2003.
Not surprisingly many
questions have been asked about the calculations used to determine the FY03
RABA number. These are legitimate
questions that need serious examination and thought. Certainly if we can soften the extreme negative effect of RABA
for FY03, I would be supportive as long as we operate with the parameters of
the existing statute and do not use funds outside of the trust fund to offset
the loss. I am certain that several
needed improvements to the RABA will be identified during this process which
will be part of our reauthorization deliberations. My concern is that we proceed carefully and make sure that any
immediate response contemplated to the FY03 negative number does not tie our
hands down the road.
Mr. Chairman I recognized
that in an election year it will tempting to ignore RABA and merely Afix@
the problem through an infusion of cash from general revenue. However, I believe that would be a mistake
because we need to protect the integrity of the Highway Trust Fund which means
we should structure the program around the actual receipts of the fund, be they
negative or positive.
I am anxious to hear from our witnesses representing state and local
interests on how a negative RABA number
will affect your highway program.
Of course I am always pleased to hear from my good friend Norm
Mineta. I doubt there is anyone who
understands the current program better than Secretary Mineta. As one of the principle architects of ISTEA,
he has a clear understanding of not only the policy imbedded in the program,
but also the politics of bringing diverse interests together in a final
bill. In that light, Norm, I want to
give you fair warning that the number one issue for me in ISTEA, i.e.,
increasing donor state returns, will continue to be my number one issue in
reauthorization of TEA21. I suspect we may
have some spirited discussions on how to address this, but I look forward to
working with you on writing a bill that we can all support.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and
I look forward to working with you and Subcommittee Chairman Reid as we begin
the reauthorization process.