[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E605-E607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    BUILDING EFFICIENT SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND EQUITY ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. JOHN R. THUNE

                            of south dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 1, 1998

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2400) to 
     authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
     programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes:

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the bill before us 
today, H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation Equity 
Act of 1998. This measure probably will have a more profound impact on 
my State of South Dakota than any other measure this body may consider 
this year.
  The State of South Dakota has 7,803 miles of roads on the State 
highway system which span over a 77,000 square mile area in the State. 
As one of the largest States in geography, we have tremendous needs to 
maintain our network of highways, bridges, and transit connections. 
While other modes of transportation play an important role in moving 
goods and people from one point to another, automobile and truck 
transportation are the most predominant forms used for personal and 
commercial purposes.
  I thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, Surface 
Transportation Subcommittee Chairman Petri, and Subcommittee Ranking 
Member Rahall for all of their assistance on South Dakota specific 
concerns. With their help, I was able to include an amendment to 
Section 107 that would allow federal bridge funds to be used on a de-
icer agent being developed by the South Dakota Department of 
Transportation (SDDOT) in conjunction with the South Dakota School of 
Mines and Technology and private industry. The de-icer compound, known 
as sodium acetate-formate, is a cost-effective, environmentally sound 
way to keep bridges clear of dangerous icing conditions without the 
corrosive side-effects of other compounds. The Committee also saw fit 
to honor my request to reduce paperwork and staff hours in conducting 
statewide planning by making a conforming amendment to Section 125.
  The Committee also saw fit to honor my request to designate 
Interstate 29 as a High Priority Trade Corridor from Kansas City, MO, 
to the Canadian border. Since the implantation of the North American 
Free Trade Agreement in 1993, traffic has increased tremendously on I 
29. From 1993 to 1997, car and truck traffic in South Dakota has 
increased by 46 percent on I 29 from the Iowa boarder to the North 
Dakota border. Without question, the State of South Dakota and its 
neighbors served by I 29 should be eligible for programs contained in 
Section 115 of this bill. I am certain South Dakota will find 
innovative ways to make commercial transportation on I 29 more 
efficient and more effective.
  I also appreciate the recognition the Committee gave in the report 
accompanying this bill to the bridge over the Missouri River in 
Yankton, SD. The existing Meridian Bridge is approaching 75 years in 
age and is in desperate need of replacement. The committee

[[Page E606]]

report appropriately notes that the bridge should be replaced and that 
the Secretary of the Department of Transportation should make funds 
available from the Discretionary Bridge Replacement Fund for this 
purpose.
  I especially appreciate the committee's recognition of Congressional 
Priority Projects I submitted for consideration. These all are 
important to the State of South Dakota and will help address important 
safety, congestion, and economic development needs. All of the projects 
were selected from a list submitted by the SDDOT. I also took the 
initiative to conduct a series of town hall meetings across the State 
of South Dakota last August to discuss these priority projects as well 
as to solicit the views of South Dakotans on our surface transportation 
priorities.
  Through the information provided from these sources, I was able to 
submit to the Committee a strong slate of projects that deserve funding 
through this process. Among those projects are two of the three legs of 
the Eastern Dakota Expressway (EDE). The EDE is a combined vision of 
former Senator Francis Case and the late Governor George S. Mickelson. 
These two South Dakota leaders saw the value of connecting our major 
population centers to Interstate 90 and Interstate 29 via four-lane 
highways. The funds made available through this bill would be enough 
for 80 percent of the cost of the project. The remaining 20 percent 
would represent the standard and appropriate State and local cost share 
to convert South Dakota Highway 37 between Huron and Mitchell from a 
two-lane to a four-lane and to convert US Highway 83 between Pierre/
Fort Pierre and Interstate 90 to a four-lane. My hope would be to 
complete this vision of Case and Mickelson by connecting Aberdeen to 
Interstate 29 by a four-lane highway. Unfortunately, it appears that 
important and necessary segment will have to be addressed at another 
point in time. All the same, I am committed to continue to work for 
that segment as I work to forward the entire EDE initiative.
  The Chairman also should be commended for his tenacity on an issue 
important not only to South Dakotans, but to so many across the nation.
  For too long, Washington has ignored its own rules when it comes to 
fiscal matters. And one of the most blatant abuses has been the way 
Washington has misused revenues generated by the motor fuels tax. Last 
year, Chairman Shuster and other supporters of honesty in budgeting 
gained a victory by shifting 4.3 cents of the motor fuels tax from 
general government expenditures to the Highway Trust Fund.
  However, as the Chairman has pointed out, the addition of these 
revenues would cause the Trust Fund balances to skyrocket. If those 
dollars are going to be paid in by American highway users, then those 
consumers should have the assurance that those funds are being put to 
their intended purpose. The level of funding in H.R. 2400 would do just 
that.
  Late January estimates from the Congressional Budget Office indicated 
that the Highway Trust Fund would have reached a cash balance of $81 
billion by the year 2002. Those are dollars paid at the pump by users 
who expect a return investment in highways, bridges, and transit. 
Unless the bill before us is enacted, those dollars will end up in a 
federal black hole.
  Most importantly, this feat can be accomplished within the context of 
a balanced unified budget. Title X of the bill mandates that the 
additional funding in this bill be offset by mandatory and 
discretionary spending reductions. This means Congress would stay 
within the confines of the budget agreement met last year and stay on 
the path of a balanced federal budget. While there will be critics of 
whatever offsets may be reached, it will be important to remember a 
simple fact. That fact is Washington has been siphoning off gas tax 
dollars for miscellaneous Washington spending. No matter the merits of 
those other spending priorities, we should not continue to deceive the 
public by taking what they pay at the pump and using it to feed 
Washington. Those are dollars that should be used for highways and 
bridges in my State of South Dakota and in the other 49 States of the 
Union.
  I also would like to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for the 
bill's funding ratio between highways and mass transit. Of the House 
and Senate bills, the House bill clearly takes a more appropriate 
approach to funding these two needs. Of the $217 billion in the House 
bill, $181 billion would fund highway initiatives and $36 billion would 
be available to mass transit. The Senate version on the other hand 
would place only $171 billion in highways and $41 billion in transit. 
The House funding split, in my view, represents a more responsible 
approach for the State of South Dakota and the nation.
  The total funding levels contemplated in this measure indeed would 
have an important impact on the nation's and South Dakota's 
transportation priorities. Under this bill, South Dakota's annual 
average allocation would total approximately $144 million a year. Under 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), South 
Dakota received approximately $119 million a year, representing an 
annual increase of $25 million. Further, the level in H.R. 2400 would 
boost funding by more than $40 million annually over the House bill 
back in 1991.
  Without the funding levels Chairman Shuster has advocated, South 
Dakota would not be able to realize these increases. At the same time, 
I would be remiss if I did not express my concern over the formula 
share given to my State in this bill. As it stands, South Dakota's 
percentage of formula programs would reduce from 0.67 percent to 0.52 
percent. Such a reduction simply is not acceptable to our State of 
South Dakota. The Chairman and many of my colleagues already are 
familiar with my sentiments about the formula. They fully realize how I 
feel and how my State feels about such a reduction in our share. At the 
same time, I fully appreciate the composition of the House would lend 
itself to a formula that reflects the desires of more populated areas. 
I also realize that historically, the Senate has produced formulas that 
more closely reflect my preference and the preference of my State. In 
fact, at this point in 1991, the House formula gave South Dakota a 0.52 
percent share while the Senate produced a share of 0.77 percent. This 
difference is almost identical to that produced this year by our two 
Houses of Congress. I am hopeful, therefore, that the final product 
will yield a share that improves upon that crafted under ISTEA.
  The Chairman has been very patient and very understanding in an 
effort I mounted with several other members from similarly impacted 
Western States. I along with Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Skeen of New 
Mexico, Mr. Ensign of Nevada, Mr. Gibbons of Nevada, Mr. Crapo of 
Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth of Idaho, Mr. Hill of Montana, Mr. Pomeroy of 
North Dakota, Mrs. Cubin of Wyoming, Mr. Redmond of New Mexico, and the 
late Mr. Schiff of New Mexico, all worked for this provision to be 
included in H.R. 2400.

  The amendment would have recognized the unique challenges states with 
low population densities and large geographic areas face as they 
attempt to meet highway needs. The amendment would have acknowledged 
this need I and others felt was missing from H.R. 2400 by creating an 
allocated program for low-density states. Each of the qualifying States 
experience share reductions in H.R. 2400. The funds for this program 
would have been offset through other allocated programs--not 
apportioned programs, thereby not impacting the apportionment of other 
States--and would have been distributed based upon National Highway 
System (NHS) miles and vehicle miles traveled on the NHS. The amendment 
therefore fairly based distribution on needs in terms of highway miles 
and highway use.
  While the amendment would not have fully corrected the apportionment 
shortfall, it would have helped to cushion the fall. In the opinion of 
Mr. Shuster, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Rahall, the amendment 
resembled too much of an attempt at a State-specific redistribution. In 
working with the Committee leadership, we chose not to offer the 
amendment.
  In light of the improbability to gain approval of the Western States 
Amendment, I feel compelled to explain my dissatisfaction over the 
formula given to South Dakota and other similarly impacted Western 
States. South Dakota has a backlog of over $500 million in maintenance 
and construction on its highways and bridges and 42 percent of our 678 
mile Interstate highway system is in fair or poor condition.
  Still, I am encouraged by so much the Chairman has accomplished 
through this measure, including the victory of dedicating motor fuel 
taxes to their intended purpose. I also appreciate him resisting 
imposing penalties on States for failing to adopt certain laws. No 
matter the value of policy objectives, the Federal Government should 
not blackmail States into adopting environmental, safety, or other 
laws. Washington has learned from previous efforts that such 
contingencies only breed ill-will between the Federal Government and 
State and local leaders. This bill instead uses incentives to achieve 
real results.
  Likewise, the Chairman should be congratulated for including the text 
of H.R. 4, the Truth in Budgeting Act, as Title VII of this bill. This 
provision, of which I am an original cosponsor, would help ensure that 
we remain honest to the American public in how Washington uses their 
gas tax dollars.
  I also want to voice my support for the ethanol tax incentives. A 
provision included in Senate bill, S. 1173, extending the tax 
incentives for ethanol production should be made a part of the 
conference report. Value-added opportunities are of tremendous 
importance to my entire State of South Dakota--not just the agriculture 
community. In South Dakota, the industry adds $61 million to the 
States's economy annually. From 1996 to 2002, the ethanol industry is 
expected to pump $51 billion into

[[Page E607]]

the U.S. economy. That means jobs in small towns and rural areas. 
Without the assurance that this incentive is in place, it would be 
extremely difficult for producers and investors to plan for the future. 
Ethanol has value beyond just the agriculture economy, it also has 
important environmental benefits that Congress should continue to 
encourage.
  I recently hand-delivered 850 letters from my constituents to Speaker 
Gingrich asking him to continue his support of the ethanol tax 
incentives. I am pleased the Speaker expressed his strong support for 
these incentives and consequently expect that support to carry through 
the conference process on this bill.
  Finally, I would like to commend the Chairman and the rest of the 
House leadership, including Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Armey, 
for heeding the call of the rank and file to schedule consideration of 
this bill prior to the upcoming district work period. For a time, it 
appeared Congress would have attempted to go home without considering 
this measure. As my colleagues know, however, the current extension of 
ISTEA is set to expire on April 30. Seeing this deadline on the 
horizon, I joined Mrs. Emerson of Missouri and Mr. Pease of Indiana in 
circulating a letter among our colleagues pledging our intention to 
vote against adjournment later today if H.R. 2400 has not been 
considered. Over 100 signatures were gathered in a matter of just a few 
hours. The issue has both national and local support. Letting yet 
another deadline pass on federal highway programs would have been more 
than the South Dakota Department of Transportation, the contractors of 
South Dakota, and most importantly, the motorists of my State could 
bear. Hopefully, such an occurrence will be avoided with today's 
action.
  In light of these factors, I intend to vote in favor of passage as I 
did in subcommittee and full committee consideration. Again, I thank 
Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Petri, 
and Subcommittee Ranking Member Rahall for their hard work and 
dedication to bringing truth and honesty to our federal surface 
transportation programs.

                          ____________________