Thune Statement on Passage of Bipartisan DRIVE Act
“Passing a bipartisan, multi-year highway bill will provide South Dakota with much-needed, long-term certainty to make important investments in infrastructure projects, leading to job creation and sustained economic growth in communities across the state.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, issued the following statement on the Senate’s bipartisan passage of the multi-year Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy (DRIVE) Act, which contains several Thune-led provisions that were included as part of the Commerce Committee-approved titles of the bill:
“Passing a bipartisan, multi-year highway bill will provide South Dakota with much-needed, long-term certainty to make important investments in infrastructure projects, leading to job creation and sustained economic growth in communities across the state,” said Thune. “I am proud that several key Commerce Committee-approved reforms to enhance safety, provide regulatory relief, streamline grant programs, and improve the accountability and efficiency of oversight efforts were included in this bill. Specifically, these reforms will help cut unnecessary red tape and provide relief to our agriculture transporters and custom harvesters in South Dakota.
“There is still more to be done, and I look forward to working with the House of Representatives as it completes its work in the months ahead.”
On July 15, the Commerce Committee, under Thune’s leadership, passed the Comprehensive Transportation and Consumer Protection Act, which was combined with legislation from other Senate committees that have jurisdiction over transportation issues to form this year’s highway bill. In addition to the regulatory relief for agriculture transporters and custom harvesters, the DRIVE Act creates new grant eligibility for states like South Dakota that provide 24/7 sobriety programs.
###
Three of six years paid for? Ex-IM Bank? What is the difference if the Democrats were in control of the Senate? Or are they?