[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 21, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1002-E1003]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                NATIONAL INTEREST IN RURAL HIGHWAYS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN R. THUNE

                            of south dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 21, 1997

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are aware, Congress is in 
the process of developing legislation to reauthorize highway and 
transit programs. To ensure vital transportation links are maintained 
into the 21st century, we must address rural America's needs as well as 
America's need for a strong rural America.
  The National Interest in Rural Highways Act would ensure rural States 
receive adequate funding. These States need a level of funding that 
ensures a seamless transportation system. The Nation does and must 
continue to benefit from effective transportation in and across rural 
areas. Without good highways across the plains and mountains, people 
and goods cannot move efficiently between the west and the east coasts. 
Yet these States with large land areas and sparse populations cannot 
support these national interest roads without a Federal investment. The 
bill would help meet this goal by establishing a small pool of funds to 
be allocated to States that have a population density of 25 people per 
square mile or fewer and cover a total area of 10,000 square miles or 
more.
  The allocation from this pool of funds would supplement the State's 
regular allocation. The allocation would help meet the special needs of 
States that depend so heavily upon highways. The States that would 
qualify for this program would be Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
  The total fund would constitute a mere 1.25 percent of the authorized 
appropriation of the highway trust fund (excluding the mass transit 
account). The distribution formula would be based upon two factors. 
Half of the total allocation would be distributed to each qualifying 
State based upon the total number of NHS miles in the State. The other 
half of the allocation would be based upon the number of vehicle miles 
traveled on the NHS within the eligible State.
  The need for this legislation is clear. Without good roads in and 
across these States, regional and national movement is stymied.
  And while these States enjoy some of the benefits of mass transit and 
passenger rail service, these are services that largely go unused in 
our area of the country. Quite frankly, the costs too often outweigh 
the benefits. Families, businesses, and industry depend largely upon 
roads and highways for their day-to-day business. As an example, South 
Dakotans annually pay over 30 percent more per capita in motor fuel 
taxes than the national average.
  Highways act as the lifeline between these communities. In the State 
of South Dakota, agriculture and tourism are the top two industries. 
For agriculture, roads and bridges allow

[[Page E1003]]

our farmers and ranchers to conduct their daily operations and help 
them bring their products to markets. For the small businesses--the 
entrepreneurs of my State--highways and roads are absolutely vital to 
keep our out-of-state visitors moving from border to border.
  I grew up in Murdo, a small town on Interstate 90 in western South 
Dakota. Murdo is built upon the agriculture and tourism businesses. 
Growing up, I worked in both industries. Having that four-lane highway 
running past my town played a key role in building these businesses and 
keeping Murdo alive and thriving.
  But this last winter and spring have brutalized our highways. The 
record cold temperatures, excessive snow fall, and subsequently 
flooding have turned miles of roads and bridges into crumbled pavement 
and asphalt. Some of these extra needs can be met through disaster 
relief efforts. However, rebuilding our infrastructure will take much, 
much more. South Dakota already has a highway maintenance backlog of 
over $500 million.
  This bill recognizes the need to tie together the expanses that 
separate people as it gives certain States the tools they need to 
overcome the obstacle of distance. Nationally the highways in these 
States--particularly the National Highway System routes--help improve 
transportation for the entire country.
  I have submitted a chart to be printed in the Record following my 
remarks that outlines which States would qualify under this legislation 
as well as the level of funding for which each State would qualify.
  I thank my colleagues, Representative Young of Alaska, Hill of 
Montana, and Cubin of Wyoming, for joining me as original cosponsors of 
this bill. I hope other Members will join them in their support of this 
legislation.


                                                         NATIONAL INTEREST IN RURAL HIGHWAYS ACT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         VM-3P\1\
                                                   HM-48P\1\  Percent of    NHS lane     total NHS  Percent of    Total NHS       Total      Percent of
                                                   NHS lane    total NHS      miles         VMT      total NHS       VMT      distribution      total
                                                     miles    lane miles  distribution  (millions)      VMT     distribution                distribution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska..........................................       3,508        4.90     5,939,987       1,821        3.78     4,577,675    10,517,662          4.34
Idaho...........................................       6,303        8.81    10,672,674       4,474        9.29    11,246,853    21,919,527          9.05
Montana.........................................      10,357       14.48    17,537,186       4,237        8.79    10,651,076    28,188,262         11.64
Nebraska........................................       7,534       10.53    12,757,088       6,393       13.27    16,070,883    28,827,971         11.90
Nevada..........................................       5,764        8.06     9,760,002       4,932       10.24    12,398,185    22,158,186          9.15
New Mexico......................................       8,932       12.49    15,124,278       8,344       17.32    20,975,355    36,099,633         14.90
North Dakota....................................       7,411       10.36    12,548,816       2,605        5.41     6,548,514    19,097,330          7.88
South Dakota....................................       7,628       10.66    12,916,255       3,263        6.77     8,202,611    21,118,866          8.72
Utah............................................       7,037        9.84    11,915,533       8,909       18.49    22,395,666    34,311,199         14.17
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming.........................................       7,051        9.86    11,939,239       3,200        6.64     8,044,240    19,983,479          8.25
      Total.....................................      71,525         100   121,111,058      48,178         100   121,111,058   242,222,115        100.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Revised Feb. 1995 FHWA Highway Statistics Table.
Total adjustment 242,222,115.




                          ____________________