STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
STATE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for conducting
this hearing today on the state of our nation’s infrastructure.
I would especially like to welcome Gordon
Proctor, Director of the Ohio Department of Transportation, who is here to
testify on Ohio’s transportation needs, particularly those of the state’s aging
interstate highway system.
Mr. Chairman, as the infrastructure built
in the 19th and 20th Centuries reaches the end of its
useful life, we are now faced with the question of how to fulfill current
requirements and make improvements to our infrastructure that will best serve
our nation in the 21st Century.
While progress has been made at the
federal, state, and local levels to acknowledge and begin to address public
infrastructure needs, major areas are still not being addressed, such as large
capital investments and operations and maintenance. I recognize that simply devoting more federal money to
infrastructure needs is not the solution. Rather, a strategy must be developed to address the full range of short-
and long-term issues, including appropriate federal and state roles, adequate
project evaluation, priority- setting, program efficiency and management.
The first step in developing a coherent
and comprehensive 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 may define the term differently. That is why, as Chairman of this
Subcommittee in 2000, I asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a
survey of unmet needs in the major public infrastructure areas which receive federal
assistance, including highways and mass transit.
Consequently, in July 2001, the GAO released
its report, U.S. Infrastructure: Agencies' Approaches to Developing
Investment Estimates Vary. In the report, the GAO provided a
survey of seven federal agencies' estimates for infrastructure investment. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
for example, estimated that $50.8 billion per year over 20 years would be
needed just to maintain the current
physical condition of the nation’s highways and bridges. In addition, an investment of $83.4 billion
per year over 20 years would be needed to improve
the infrastructure.
The GAO also reported that the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) estimates the average cost to meet the nation’s
mass transit needs is as high as $16 billion per year for 20 years.
I understand FHWA Administrator Mary
Peters and other witnesses this morning will present updated needs estimates
for our highways and transit systems.
In addition, the Appalachian Regional
Commission (ARC) recently completed its Cost to Complete Report for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS), a 3,025 mile system of highways
that is designed to bring economic development to Appalachia. According to the Report, the estimated cost
to complete the ADHS (combined federal and state cost) is $8.5 billion. Thanks to TEA-21, which authorized $2.25
billion for the construction of the ADHS, the remaining federal funds needed
from Congress to complete the ADHS are $4.5 billion, $1.7 billion less than was
needed in 1997. I look forward to
addressing the ADHS’ funding needs in next year’s highway bill.
It is no secret that this nation has an
aging transportation 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 the responsibility of Congress to ensure that funding
levels are adequate and efficiently allocated to our nation’s priority needs.
I strongly believe that Congress and the
Administration need to develop a strategy to address the backlog of unmet infrastructure
needs in this country, and ascertain the federal role in responding to this
backlog.
In 1998 Congress recognized the
importance of our nation’s transportation system through the enactment of the
six-year Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which
increased by nearly 40 percent federal investment in highways and transit.
As Chairman of the National Governors
Association, I was involved in negotiating TEA-21 and lobbied Congress to
ensure that all Highway Trust Fund revenues were spent on transportation. I also fought to even out highway funding
fluctuations and assure a predictable flow of funding to the states. TEA-21 achieved this goal with record,
guaranteed levels of funding. However, more
recently, as evidenced by this year’s negative Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
(RABA) calculation of $4.4 billion, we need to find a better way to smooth out
the effects of fluctuating trust fund receipts for the long-term without adding
to the federal budget deficit.
TEA-21 also dedicated nearly all highway
gas taxes to transportation funding and guarantees that states will receive at
least 90.5 percent of their share of their contribution to the highway account
of the Highway Trust Fund. Under
TEA-21, Ohio received a 23 percent increase in transportation funding.
While TEA-21 has enabled states and
localities to improve the condition of deteriorating and unsafe highways and to
increase capacity and performance, the system is still aging, and in need of
additional investment.
As a member of this Subcommittee – and
its former chairman – I am eager to work on the reauthorization of the
federal-aid highway program. I
understand that groups are talking about funding levels of up to $50 billion a
year, which is supported by the GAO study I mentioned earlier. I tell you now I do not think that is something
we will be able to do unless Congress and/or the states raise the gas tax.
The short- and long-term viability of the
Highway Trust Fund to meet our transportation needs is an issue that will be discussed
in the coming months. In the
short-term, we will have to determine the annual funding level the Highway
Trust Fund can sustain and still meet its obligations. With our country’s finances already in the
red, I do not think we can expect that additional resources outside the Highway
Trust Fund will be available for highway projects. We must plan for the future based on the principle that the
highway program is a fully user-fee based system that pays its own way.
In the long-term, we also have to
recognize that two of Congress’ goals – protecting the environment and
promoting energy efficiency – will inadvertently affect the amount of money
available for transportation projects.
For instance, improvements in fuel efficiency and the use of alternative
fuels, which we should encourage because they are good for the environment,
will decrease revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. If we are to meet our future transportation needs, we will have
to find ways to make up for this lost revenue.
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing. I look forward to
the testimony of today's witnesses.
###