August 21, 1978
Page 27110
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, a little later in the debate on this pending measure I will make a more extensive statement with respect to the budget implications of the Highway Act.
For the moment, I regret that I find myself in opposition to the amendment of my good friend and colleague from Kentucky, Senator HUDDLESTON, and my colleague, the chairman of my committee, my good friend, Senator RANDOLPH, who, as chairman of the Public Works Committee, is proceeding in very responsible fashion from the point of view of the budget resolution with respect to the pending bill.
But the amendment of my good friend from Kentucky, Senator HUDDLESTON, simply creates budget problems and it is my responsibility as budget chairman to point them out. His proposal would add funding of $100 million per year from the Highway Trust Fund for energy-impacted roads. The bill reported by the Public Works Committee is a fiscally responsible bill as I will say at greater length later. The reported bill is consistent with the budget resolution for fiscal 1979, but there is very little leeway to increase the authorizations. The Senate already approved a $75 million increase for bridges, as was pointed out by Senator RANDOLPH, using up what little room there was. Therefore, Mr. President, I must oppose further add-ons to this bill.
Furthermore, Mr. President, to accept this special program is to create a "wedge" for future increases which it is difficult to estimate. A report from the Appalachian Regional Commission projects needs of $4 billion to $5 billion to rehabilitate and redesign these roads to carry heavy coal trucks. Mr. President, the reason we have the problem of energy-impacted roads is clear — energy traffic involves very heavy loads, often exceeding statutory weight limits as Senator HUDDLESTON has suggested. Hearings earlier this year before the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee showed that in many places coal trucks were consistently in excess of legal weights. Senator BENTSEN's subcommittee also heard testimony on the inadequacy of State weight enforcement.
Mr. President, if it is true as seems the case, that a principal reason for coal road deterioration is inadequate enforcement of truck weight limits, then if we remove from the States the major burden of repairing the damage, would we not also be removing the incentive for them to improve their policing of truck weight limits? Indeed, might not the problems caused by overweight trucks become even more severe if the Federal Government assumes the major cost for repairing the damage caused to local roads?
Before we create a special-purpose highway program, taking user taxes collected from across the country to pay for road improvements unique to a few areas, I think other alternatives should be explored. For example, the committee bill has several provisions which would strengthen enforcement of weight limits, and these provisions properly address the problem at its source. Further, it seems to me also pertinent to recognize that increased extraction of coal generates employment, profits, and State collection of severance taxes, presenting alternative funding sources. In addition, we already have a special program for Appalachian highways for which more than $2 billion has been appropriated from general funds since 1965.
I urge the Senate, therefore, Mr. President, considering the potential magnitude of the program that may be generated by this wedge, and considering the tightness of present budget considerations, to resist adding further authorizations to the highway bill, and to vote against this amendment.