Shuster defends spending on highway program
WASHINGTON — House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., used his first hearing to head off fellow Republicans who support paring the highway program and sending more money to the states.
Shuster, whose district includes parts of Indiana and Fayette counties, said the interstate highway system Republican President Dwight Eisenhower started in the 1950s “allowed massive economic growth for two generations.”
“An efficient national transportation network allows businesses to lower their costs,” said Shuster, who took charge of the transportation panel in the new Congress that began last month. “It allows American businesses to be competitive in a global marketplace.”
Congress is implementing a two-year plan for building highways, bridges and mass transit, and Shuster has said a top priority for his committee is finding money to pay for more. He may face opposition from some Republicans who oppose higher taxes and say states can build highways more quickly and for less money.
Former Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, co-chairman of Building America's Future, an advocacy group favoring more government funding for transportation, water systems and the electrical grid, said the United States spends about 1.7 percent of its gross domestic product on transportation, compared with 9 percent in China and 4 percent in Canada.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.