Statement of
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
CIVIL ENGINEERS
for the
Oversight Hearing on
Innovative Financing Techniques
For Wastewater
Infrastructure Improvements
before the
Subcommittee On
Fisheries, Wildlife, And Water
Committee on Environment
and Public Works
U.S. Senate
October 31, 2001
Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee:
The American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) appreciates the opportunity to present this
statement to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water for its
consideration during the oversight hearing on innovative financing techniques
for wastewater infrastructure improvements.
ASCE was
founded in 1852 and is the countrys oldest national civil engineering
organization. It represents more than
125,000 civil engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia
who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
engineering. ASCE is a 501(c)(3)
non-profit educational and professional society.
I.
Infrastructure Problems
The American
people value a strong working public infrastructure. Unfortunately, in many
cases what they see are crumbling wastewater and drinking-water facilities and
(sometimes) contaminated water supplies.
In March of
this year ASCE released its 2001 Report Card for Americas
Infrastructure. That
assessment showed the nations infrastructure to be in alarmingly bad
shape. The cumulative grade, covering 12 infrastructure categories, including
drinking-water and wastewater treatment plants, was a D.
We attribute
such a dismal grade to explosive growth in population that is outpacing the
rate and impact of current investment and maintenance efforts and to the
growing obsolescence of our nation's aging water infrastructure generally.
ASCE estimates
that the United States needs to invest a staggering $1.3 trillion over the next
five years just to meet current infrastructure demands. Virtually all federal spending on water
systems, highways, and other aspects of the infrastructure is subject to annual
congressional appropriations, and these appropriations have not come close to
meeting funding needs in recent years.
Infrastructure,
by its very nature, is a long-term investment.
The current federal budget process is structured for short-term
investment. This creates major problems
in the planning, design and construction processes for long-term investments.
Generally,
we believe that a federal capital budget could create the mechanism to help
reduce the constant conflict between short-term and long-term needs. Without long-term financial assurance, the
ability of the federal, state and local governments to do effective
infrastructure investment planning is constrained severely.
ASCE
supports the establishment of a federal multi-year capital budget for all
public works infrastructure construction and major rehabilitation, similar to
those used by state and local governments.
The capital budget must be separated from non-capital federal
expenditures.
Moreover,
ASCE supports the creation of a "Clean Water Trust Fund" that would
support clean water, drinking-water and nonpoint-source-related infrastructure
projects throughout the country.
Congress should reauthorize the Clean Water Act to provide adequate
funding based on construction needs and compliance schedules
We
turn now to the matter of innovative financing methods for all infrastructure
improvements generally, including wastewater treatment plants and their related
facilities.
II.
A Unique Solution: H.R. 1564
Representative
Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Representative Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) have
developed what we believe to be a unique funding solution to the nations
infrastructure crisis. They have
proposed legislation that would make money available from the Federal Reserve
Board to invest in state and local infrastructure.
Let us describe
the Kucinich-LaTourette plan briefly.
The bill, H.R.
1564, Rebuilding Americas Infrastructure Act of 2001, would fund
capital projects undertaken by state and local governments. It would use existing funds to create a
stable, long-term source. This is how
it would work:
! The Federal Reserve System holds a large
amount of Treasury securities in order to add liquidity to the monetary
system. The KucinichBLaTourette
bill would transfer a portion of those securities to a new bank, the Federal
Bank for Infrastructure Modernization, the FBIM.
! The FBIM would act as a subsidiary bank,
using the transferred funds to issue loans.
Since the mortgages would be integrated by the central banks
Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the Federal Reserve would be better able
to maintain economic stability. More
importantly, no congressional appropriations would be necessary.
! The bill would authorize FBIM loans to
any state or local government, any Native American tribe, or any regional or
multistate organization to fund certain types of capital infrastructure
projects dealing with transportation, education, water, or hazardous waste.
! The FBIM would be authorized to offer
approximately $50 billion annually in loans over a period of 10 years. Thus, $500 billion would be lent out during
the initial authorization of the FBIM.
The Federal
Reserves FOMC would direct the issuance of the loan amounts each year
so as to integrate the FBIMs operations with its own. The FOMC would be able to vary the $50
billion dispersal if it decided that the economy needed a boost.
This money
would have a greater effect on the economy than a lowering of interest rates,
which does no more than create an incentive to invest. Loans from the FBIM would represent actual
investments and thus would have a direct effect on the economy. The FOMC would need to maintain some control
over these funds so that it could vary the amounts available each year in
response to economic conditions.
By providing
zero-cost loans to states to fund infrastructure projects, the
Kucinich-LaTourette bill would help slash the cost of infrastructure projects
in half, making them much more affordable.
States would
also be able to make decisions about which projects would be eligible for
funding under the bill. At least 20
percent of the total amount of loans would have to be invested in schools.
Loan
allocations would also be based on population.
Additionally, the loans would have to be paid back in 10 to 30 years,
and each loan would bear an administrative fee of 0.25 percent.
All
infrastructure projects financed under the new law would first have to be
approved by a state certifying officer or, in the case of a regional project,
by an officer from each of the states involved before the FBIM could clear a
loan. In the case of Native American
tribes, the Secretary of the Interior would have to give her approval.
Finally, it
should be noted that the funds made available through the FBIM would not
be subject to the annual congressional budget and appropriations
processes. The money would be paid out
directly to the qualified agencies from the Federal Reserve, thereby having no
consequences for federal budget surpluses or deficits.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our
statement. Thank you again for your
courtesy in hearing our proposals. If
the Committee has any questions, please contact Michael Charles of our Washington
Office at (202) 789-2200.
# # #