[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 14, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H2650-H2651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               WHY STEP 21 AND ISTEA IS GOOD FOR AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, as a Member from a so-called donor State, I 
rise in strong support of the STEP 21 program. This program would 
permit each State to receive a far more equitable return on what is 
paid into the Federal highway trust fund. My State, Tennessee, has 
received only 78 cents for every $1 we have contributed over the last 
few years. This is not fair, and it is not right. With the passage of 
STEP 21, each State will be assured of at least a 95 percent return on 
its contribution to the Federal highway trust fund. Not only will STEP 
21 benefit Tennessee, but it will benefit the entire Nation by 
providing a consistent economic benefit for all States.
  In addition, STEP 21 lets the States decide where they want to spend 
their highway trust fund allocation. Tennesseans do not need Washington 
to

[[Page H2651]]

dictate to them what they need and how to spend it. Every State has 
different needs, and every State is capable of providing for their own 
funding in this way, making the decisions.
  This proposal provides the flexibility, the STEP 21 proposal provides 
the flexibility to tailor transportation solutions to their particular 
circumstances by returning the decision-making to the State and local 
levels. Mayors, county executives, Governors, and other elected 
officials from around the country have endorsed the flexibility of STEP 
21 because they would have the power to determine how transportation 
dollars are spent.
  One area of the present law which needs to be changed is the one 
dealing with the metric system. Last year I introduced H.R. 3617, which 
was a bill to amend the National Highway Designation Act relating to 
metric system highway requirements. Instead of reintroducing this bill, 
I am going to attempt to add the language of this to the current ISTEA 
legislation.
  This language would repeal the mandate that all Federal-aid highway 
design and construction be performed in metric. Under this legislation, 
the choice of whether to use the metric system in design and 
construction of Government projects would be left to the discretion of 
the States, as it should be. My proposal could conceivably save 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  For example, just one medium-sized Tennessee contractor told me that 
it will cost his company alone more than $1 million to convert forms 
and equipment and train his employees to comply with these metric 
mandates. In addition, another company in my State told me that its 
cost of conversion would be a minimum of $3 million.
  When I asked the Congressional Research Service to see if there were 
any estimates on how much this conversion would cost across the Nation 
as a whole, the only answer they could come up with was that it could 
not be determined, but it would be in the billions.
  There are companies in every State which face many millions in 
similar costs if something is not done. Many small- and medium-sized 
businesses and even a few large American companies are being hard hit 
by the metric requirements, all for the convenience of a few extremely 
large multinational companies which do not really need our help.
  Some people say we must convert to the metric system of measurement 
because most of the world has done so. In my opinion, this is simply 
not a good enough reason to cost American taxpayers and consumers 
hundreds of millions of dollars. These requirements do not make our 
roads one bit better. Simply, the benefits of these metric requirements 
do not outweigh their costs.
  Removing this metric mandate will go a long way to help small 
business. We have never been afraid to be a special and unique Nation 
in the past, Mr. Speaker. So to say that we must go metric because most 
other nations have is just not a good reason, either.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support STEP 21. By doing so, 
they will be supporting fairness and equity in our highway funding 
system. I urge their support for STEP 21.
  I would also like to commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] for their leadership on this 
issue. We need the STEP 21 legislation to put fairness and equity back 
into our highway funding system.

                          ____________________