Congress Shouldn’t Ask Mississippi Taxpayers to Foot the Bill

Sen. Tyler McCaughn

Every time Congress passes another massive spending bill, there is a question that ought to be asked before anything else: Who is going to pay for it? That question matters in Mississippi because transportation is not an abstract policy issue for us. Our farmers need good roads to get crops to market, our loggers need them to move timber from the woods to the mill, and our manufacturers depend on them to move products. Our ports, small businesses, and families all rely on safe and reliable infrastructure. But none of that changes a basic fact: somebody has to pay the bill.

As Congress works on the next surface transportation bill, Mississippi needs a strong voice making sure Washington does not make promises today and simply send taxpayers the bill tomorrow. Senator Roger Wicker is in an important position to provide that voice. The House proposal would authorize roughly $580 billion over five years at a time when the Highway Trust Fund already spends more money than it takes in. Congress has repeatedly filled that gap with general fund dollars and additional borrowing. Mississippi families, farmers, and small businesses don’t get to operate that way, and the State of Mississippi has to balance its budget every year. Washington should be held to the same standard.

I am not suggesting that we stop investing in roads and bridges. Quite the opposite. A reliable highway system is essential for commerce. But there is a difference between investing and simply spending. If Congress makes new transportation commitments, it ought to identify how those commitments will be paid for. A five-year highway bill is not fiscally responsible if billions of dollars ultimately have to be borrowed to make the numbers work.

Spending is not the only concern. The House bill would create a pilot program allowing participating states to permit six-axle trucks weighing up to 91,000 pounds on Interstate highways. The general federal limit is 80,000 pounds, although federal law contains specific exceptions. Supporters argue that a sixth axle better distributes the additional weight and allows freight to be moved more efficiently. That argument deserves to be heard, but before we make a broader change in federal truck-weight policy, we ought to know the consequences and not guess them.

I also want to be clear about what this argument is and what it is not. This is not an argument against trucks, trucking, or the farmers and loggers who are essential to Mississippi’s economy. Congress has recognized the unique needs of Mississippi agriculture and forestry by authorizing our state, through a special permit, to allow certain agricultural vehicles weighing up to 88,000 pounds on our Interstate highways. That authority applies to covered vehicles transporting unprocessed agricultural crops or raw and unfinished forest products.

I support that policy because it addresses a specific Mississippi need. A farmer does not get to choose where his crop grows based on the closest four-lane highway, and a logger cannot move a stand of timber closer to the mill before it is harvested. These commodities must move from where they are grown or harvested to the next point in the supply chain. The 88,000-pound provision recognizes that reality and provides a targeted exception for industries fundamental to Mississippi’s economy.

But there is an important difference between that targeted exception and a broader policy allowing 91,000-pound trucks to carry general freight. Mississippi’s provision is limited by the commodities being hauled, requires a special permit, and addresses a specific agricultural and forestry need. Supporting that exception does not mean we should automatically support increasing truck weights for entirely different types of freight.

Those are not contradictory positions. They reflect a basic principle of good government: an exception based on a demonstrated need should not automatically become the justification for a broader rule.

The question before Congress is not whether a truck should ever operate above the general 80,000-pound federal limit. We already recognize circumstances where an exception is justified. The question is whether sufficient evidence exists to go further. What does the additional weight mean for our bridges and pavement over decades of use? What are the safety consequences? Will states face additional enforcement and maintenance costs? Most importantly, who pays if heavier trucks cause additional wear?

Those questions should be answered before we expand the policy, not afterward. Yet the House pilot would allow heavier trucks onto Interstate highways while states collect accident and performance data. In other words, our roads and bridges become part of the experiment, and taxpayers potentially become responsible for its cost. Good public policy should start with the facts and then make the decision, not make the decision first and ask taxpayers to absorb the consequences if the assumptions are wrong.

Senator Wicker has dealt with a similar issue before. In 2015, he helped lead a bipartisan effort against a federal mandate requiring states to allow longer double-trailer trucks. The Senate rejected that proposal after the U.S. Department of Transportation concluded there was not enough evidence to determine its safety impacts. The principle was straightforward: if the evidence is not there, don’t make the change. That was the right approach then, and it is the right approach now.

There is also a question of fairness. Taxpayers build, maintain, repair, and eventually replace our public highways. When a particular commercial use creates additional wear, we should know whether the taxes and fees generated by that activity cover the costs it creates. If they do not, the taxpayer pays the difference. Freight railroads, by comparison, largely maintain their own infrastructure through private investment. If federal policy shifts freight from privately maintained rail infrastructure onto taxpayer-funded highways, Congress should account for the true cost rather than putting government’s thumb on the scale and leaving taxpayers with the bill.

The Senate has an opportunity to take a better approach. Congress should invest in America’s infrastructure while demanding fiscal responsibility, respecting the role of the states, and requiring credible evidence before making significant changes to national truck-weight policy. Mississippi’s targeted 88,000-pound agricultural and forestry exception demonstrates that we can accommodate a legitimate state need without making heavier trucks the rule for general freight.

Mississippi needs good roads and strong bridges, and we need trucks moving timber, agricultural products, manufactured goods, and freight that keeps our economy moving. This debate should never be framed as being for or against trucking. The question is whether transportation policy will be based on facts or assumptions and whether those who benefit from a policy pay its true costs or pass them along to taxpayers.

The families I represent understand a simple principle: you don’t spend money you don’t have, and you don’t make a major decision without knowing what it is going to cost. Washington could stand to learn the same lesson.

Tyler McCaughn serves in the Mississippi State Senate