The subcommittee -- part of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee -- held the field hearing Monday on "Addressing Surface Transportation Needs in Rural America" at City Hall in Sioux Falls, SD. The hearing was chaired by Sen. John Thune, R-SD and the subcommittee's ranking minority member.

"I want to stress that federal investment in South Dakota's highways is in the national interest," Bergquist told the subcommittee. "It is imperative that legislation reauthorizing the federal highway program continues to provide significant investments in highways in and across rural states, allowing us to continue to meet the demands being placed on our highway network, including from interstate travel."

Federal-aid highways in South Dakota, not just those on the National Highway System, provide many benefits, he said. Among other things, they:

1. Serve as a bridge for truck and personal traffic between other states, advancing interstate commerce and mobility
2. Support agricultural exports and serve the nation's ethanol production and energy industries, which are located largely in rural areas
3. Are a lifeline for remotely located and economically challenged citizens, such as those living on tribal reservations
4. Enable people and freight to traverse the vast tracts of sparsely populated land that are a major characteristic of the western United States
5. Provide access to scenic wonders and facilitate tourism

Regarding rural transit service, Bergquist said federal investment helps ensure personal mobility, especially for senior citizens and people with disabilities, connecting them to necessary services. Federal public transit programs must continue to include funding for rural states, he said, and not focus entirely on large metropolitan areas.

Bergquist expressed support for AASHTO's surface transportation authorization recommendations of $375 billion in federal highway program funding and $93 billion in federal transit funding for the six-year period from 2010 to 2015. These levels would represent significant increases over the roughly $290 billion in federal funds provided for highway, transit, and safety programs in the 2004 to 2009 period. He also stressed rural states must receive at least their current overall share of federal formula and other program funding, and emphasized that 90 percent of federal highway program funds should be distributed by formula.

Bergquist stressed five other key points in his testimony related to rural states' needs in a surface transportation authorization measure:

1. Don't put new restrictions on the use of federal funds
2. Transportation-related climate-change provisions, such as increasing walking and bicycling, might not make sense in rural states
3. Do not agree to increased regulation through national performance measures, targets, and plan approvals -- national performance measures should be general in nature and each state should be allowed to establish its own specific measures and targets
4. Highway safety provisions should provide flexibility to states
5. Do not agree to increased regulation that would significantly restrict state flexibility in project design and selection

Written testimony submitted for this hearing from Bergquist and other witnesses is available at on the subcommittee's website.