Mr. Chairman, infrastructure needs have been the focus of some attention over the last two decades ever since the 1981 report, America in Ruins, initially focused attention on the issue. And in a February 1988 report to the President and the Congress, the National Council on Public Works Improvements concluded that the quality of America's infrastructure was barely adequate to fulfill current requirements.
While there has been progress in the last decade at the federal, state, and local levels to better manage our public infrastructure, these efforts are undertaken sporadically and more in an "stop gap" fashion while large capital investment and operation and maintenance needs are not being addressed. I recognize that simply devoting more federal resources to infrastructure needs is not the solution. Issues of appropriate federal and state roles, adequate project evaluation, priority setting, and program efficiency and management must be addressed.
I believe that a first step in dealing with the need for a coherent national infrastructure strategy is an assessment of our nation's unmet infrastructure needs. I realize that even the concept of "unmet needs" is difficult to define and that every federal agency will define the term differently. That is why, as Chairman of this Subcommittee last year, I asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to prepare a survey of unmet needs based on information that the agencies have available in the major public infrastructure areas where federal assistance is provided.
Specifically, I asked the GAO to report on the needs estimates of seven federal agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), General Services Administration (GSA), and Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). I requested GAO to focus on water resources (inland and deep draft navigation, flood control, and shore protection), hydropower, water supply, wastewater treatment, airports, highways, mass transit, and public buildings.
In its just-released report, U.S. Infrastructure: Agencies' Approaches to Developing Investment Estimates Vary, the GAO provided a survey of the seven agencies' estimates for infrastructure investment; looked at how the agencies compare in terms of how their estimates are developed and used; and examined the extent to which the agencies' procedures for developing the estimates embody practices of leasing government and private-sector organizations.
Of the seven agencies reviewed by GAO in the report, each estimated billions of dollars in investment needs. The figures ranged from the General Services Administration's (GSA) estimate of $4.58 billion over one to five years to repair public buildings, to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) estimate of $83.4 billion per year over 20 years to improve highways. Independent assessments of our nation's infrastructure needs, such as the one conducted by the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) last year, suggest that trillions of dollars are needed to address this country's drinking and wastewater needs. These are impressive figures.
According to the report I requested from GAO, the agencies' infrastructure needs estimates cannot be easily compared or added up to produce a national estimate of investment needs because of the differences in the methods used, time periods covered, spending sources, and purposes for their use. I would be interested in hearing GAO's thoughts on how a national infrastructure needs survey could be developed.
The GAO also looked at the procedures each agency has in place for developing infrastructure needs estimates and whether they reflected some practices used by leading government and private sector organizations. The GAO further examined the strengths and limitations of each agency's estimate. A number of the limitations identified by GAO suggest that many of the agencies' needs estimates might be understatements of actual needs. I would also like to hear GAO's thoughts on how these agencies estimates could be made more accurate.
Mr. Chairman, Congressional authorizations of projects are a very important first part of the process of developing and maintaining our nation's infrastructure. Equally important is having an adequate level of funding to construct as well as operate and maintain these projects.
It's no secret that this nation has an aging national infrastructure. If we continue to ignore the upkeep, and allow the deterioration of our infrastructure, we risk disruptions in commerce and reduced protection for public safety, health, and the environment. In my view, it is up to Congress to ensure that operation and maintenance funding levels are adequate and efficiently allocated to priority needs.
There are a number of reasons why the we have such great unmet needs. The most significant reason is the decreasing federal investment in infrastructure since the 1980s. For example, GAO reported in February 2000 that infrastructure as a percentage of federal spending has steadily declined since the late 1980s. At the same time, we are asking agencies to do more and more.
For example, last year I conducted a hearing as Chairman of this Subcommittee to examine the Corps's $38 billion backlog. At the hearing, I had a number of charts showing the breakdown by mission area for the Corps' construction appropriation by representative year from the decades of the 60s, 70s, and 90s. The charts clearly showed the mission growth of the Corps into areas such as environmental restoration, remediation of formerly used nuclear sites (FUSRAP), and environmental infrastructure.
At the hearing, I also had another chart that measured our capital investment in water resources infrastructure since the 1930s shown in constant 1999 dollars as measured by the Corps of Engineers Civil Works construction appropriations. The chart showed that there has been a sharp decline from the peak in 1966 of a $5 billion appropriation and appropriations though the 1970s in the $4 billion level to the 1990s where annual Corps construction appropriations have averaged only around $1.6 billion.
I strongly believe that Congress and the Administration need to develop a strategy to address the backlog of unmet needs in this country, and I fully intend to make meeting these unmet needs a priority in the Senate.
For instance, the condition of our nation's water infrastructure has been a long-standing concern of mine. I like to use the example of Mayor Reid of the City of Mansfield, Ohio, who is facing having to raise sewer rates from $30 a month to $100 a month in order to comply with environmental regulations. I have also heard from a number of other Ohio municipalities about their water infrastructure problems at two meetings I held in Ohio on this issue during the last year. Senator Mike Crapo also conducted a field hearing on Ohio's wastewater infrastructure needs on April 30 in Columbus.
Aging water systems and increasing federal requirements are placing a heavy burden on our communities. That is why I have introduced in the 106 and 107th Congresses the Clean Water Infrastructure Financing Act. The bill, S. 252, would reauthorize the highly successful, but undercapitalized, Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program at a level of $3 billion per year for five years. In comparison, Congress currently appropriates $1.35 billion for the program.
I am not advocating increased levels of federal spending as a general matter, rather, spending our federal resources on the right things, and among the right things that are not receiving adequate funding are many of the worthy projects and programs authorized by this committee. So often the attitude in Washington when approaching unmet needs is not to address anything that isn't high profile until there is a crisis. This is not the way to deal with things.
I would be interested to hear if today's witness could possibly shed some light on what they see as the role of the federal government in infrastructure funding. To what extent is investment in our nation's infrastructure a federal responsibility? How should the federal government finance public infrastructure investments? Who else should be involved? What are other non-capital ways to address our unmet needs?
Mr. Chairman, thank you for including the findings of the GAO report I requested on today's agenda for this hearing. I just got the final report on Friday, and I look forward to reading it in greater detail. I would also like to thank the GAO for their hard work on the report, and I look forward to hearing from Mr. Guerrero about the details of report and what conclusions may be drawn from it.
Finally, I look forward to the testimony of today's witnesses who I'm sure will testify to their own respective infrastructure needs.
Thank you.