[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17286-17292]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JOHNSON:
  S. 1379. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 
coins in commemoration of veterans who became disabled for life while 
serving in the Armed Forces of the United States; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the American 
Veterans Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2003. This bill 
will authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a commemorative 
coin honoring the millions of veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces who 
were disabled while serving our country. Revenues from the surcharge on 
the coin would go to the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation to 
help cover the costs of building the American Veterans Disabled for 
Life Memorial in Washington, DC.
  The three-acre site for the Memorial is located on Washington Avenue 
at 2nd Street, SW., across from the U.S. Botanic Gardens, and in full 
view of the U.S. Capitol Building. Federal legislation for the 
Memorial, Public Law 106-348, was signed into law by President Bill 
Clinton on October 24, 2000. Sponsors included Senator John McCain, 
Senator Max Cleland, Congressman Sam Johnson, and Congressman Jack 
Murtha. The National Capital Planning Commission unanimously approved 
the Capitol Hill location on October 10, 2001.
  The mission of the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation is to 
commemorate the selfless and continuing sacrifice of America's 2.3 
million living disabled veterans, ensuring they will always be 
remembered; to provide all Americans with a place to express their 
appreciation for the men and women who came home from war bearing the 
scars of our great Nation's defense, and to serve as an eternal 
reminder of disabled veterans' honor, service, and sacrifice.

[[Page 17287]]

  Recent events have brought about a renewed reverence and respect for 
the men and women who gave so much in service of our Nation. This 
legislation would help bring national attention to America's disabled 
veterans, and would serve as a fitting tribute to their sacrifice.
  The Disabled Veterans LIFE Memorial Foundation was co-founded in 1996 
by the Lois Pope Life Foundation and the Disabled American Veterans. 
Lois Pope, one of America's leading philanthropists, is the founder and 
President of the Lois Pope Leaders in Furthering Education Foundation. 
In addition to supporting veterans programs, this organization provides 
awards for medical research, scholarships, and summer camp programs. 
Formed in 1920, the Disabled American Veterans is a nonprofit 
organization representing America's disabled veterans, their families, 
and survivors.
  The drive to build the Memorial, which is scheduled for completion 
within the next several years, is well under way, but has a long way to 
go. Prominent national figures including Retired Army General H. Norman 
Schwarzkopf, Poet Laureate Dr. Maya Angelou, and New York Giants star 
defensive end Michael Strahan are lending their support to this effort.
  We have an obligation to assure that men and women who each day 
endure the cost of freedom are never forgotten. The American Veterans 
Disabled for Life Commemorative Coin Act of 2003 will honor these 
veterans and help fund the American Veterans Disabled for Life 
Memorial. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting 
America's disabled veterans with this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1379

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American Veterans Disabled 
     for Life Commemorative Coin Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the armed forces of the United States have answered the 
     call and served with distinction around the world - from 
     hitting the beaches in World War II in the Pacific and 
     Europe, to the cold and difficult terrain in Korea, the 
     steamy jungles of Vietnam, and the desert sands of the Middle 
     East;
       (2) all Americans should commemorate those who come home 
     having survived the ordeal of war, and solemnly honor those 
     who made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives for 
     their country;
       (3) all Americans should honor the millions of living 
     disabled veterans who carry the scars of war every day, and 
     who have made enormous personal sacrifices defending the 
     principles of our democracy;
       (4) in 2000, Congress authorized the construction of the 
     American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial;
       (5) the United States should pay tribute to the Nation's 
     living disabled veterans by minting and issuing a 
     commemorative silver dollar coin; and
       (6) the surcharge proceeds from the sale of a commemorative 
     coin would raise valuable funding for the construction of the 
     American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial.

     SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.

       (a) $1 Silver Coins.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     (hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall mint and issue not more than 500,000 $1 coins in 
     commemoration of disabled American veterans, each of which 
     shall--
       (1) weigh 26.73 grams;
       (2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
       (3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
       (b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be 
     legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of 
     title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act 
     shall be considered to be numismatic items.

     SEC. 4. SOURCES OF BULLION.

       The Secretary shall obtain silver for minting coins under 
     this Act only from stockpiles established under the Strategic 
     and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act.

     SEC. 5. DESIGN OF COINS.

       (a) Design Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be emblematic of the design selected by the 
     Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation for the American 
     Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial.
       (2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted 
     under this Act, there shall be--
       (A) a designation of the value of the coin;
       (B) an inscription of the year ``2006''; and
       (C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We 
     Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus 
     Unum''.
       (b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this 
     Act shall be--
       (1) selected by the Secretary, after consultation with the 
     Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation and the 
     Commission of Fine Arts; and
       (2) reviewed by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.

     SEC. 6. ISSUANCE OF COINS.

       (a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be 
     issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
       (b) Mint Facility.--Only 1 facility of the United States 
     Mint may be used to strike any particular quality of the 
     coins minted under this Act.
       (c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins 
     under this Act only during the calendar year beginning on 
     January 1, 2006.

     SEC. 7. SALE OF COINS.

       (a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be 
     sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
       (1) the face value of the coins;
       (2) the surcharge provided in subsection (d) with respect 
     to such coins; and
       (3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including 
     labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses, 
     marketing, and shipping).
       (b) Surcharges.--All sales of coins issued under this Act 
     shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.
       (c) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the 
     coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
       (d) Prepaid Orders.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders 
     for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of 
     such coins.
       (2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders 
     under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.

     SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF SURCHARGES.

       (a) In General.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31, 
     United States Code, all surcharges received by the Secretary 
     from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be paid to 
     the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation for the 
     purpose of establishing an endowment to support the 
     construction of American Veterans' Disabled for Life Memorial 
     in Washington, D.C.
       (b) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall have the right to examine such books, records, 
     documents, and other data of the Disabled Veterans' LIFE 
     Memorial Foundation as may be related to the expenditures of 
     amounts paid under subsection (a).

     SEC. 9. FINANCIAL ASSURANCES.

       (a) No Net Cost to the Government.--The Secretary shall 
     take such actions as may be necessary to ensure that minting 
     and issuing coins under this Act will not result in any net 
     cost to the United States Government.
       (b) Payment for Coins.--A coin shall not be issued under 
     this Act unless the Secretary has received--
       (1) full payment for the coin;
       (2) security satisfactory to the Secretary to indemnify the 
     United States for full payment; or
       (3) a guarantee of full payment satisfactory to the 
     Secretary from a depository institution whose deposits are 
     insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the 
     National Credit Union Administration Board.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Allen, Mr. Crapo, Mr. 
        Hagel, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Enzi, Mr. 
        Thomas, and Mr. Fitzgerald):
  S. 1380. A bill to distribute universal service support equitably 
throughout rural America, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I rise in support of fairness for 
rural America and introduce the Rural Universal Service Equity Act of 
2003.
  Universal service is a decades old Federal program intended to keep 
telephone service available and affordable across America. The Federal 
Universal Service Program has been a tremendous success. America's 
telephone network is the envy of the world. However, the program faces 
challenges, and it is imperfect.
  The Rural Universal Service Equity Act addresses an inequity in the 
way Universal Service support is distributed to rural customers served 
by larger phone companies. Under the program, only eight States receive 
funding. Three of those States receive more than 80 percent of the 
funds and one

[[Page 17288]]

State receives more than half of all dollars available under the 
program.
  Yet many of the most rural States in America--the very States the 
program was intended to assist--receive no funding at all. North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Iowa, Utah, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, 
Nebraska and other rural States receive no funding under this program.
  My State of Oregon is an example of the unfairness of the program. 
Oregon has an average of 36 residents per square mile, according to 
U.S. Census Bureau data. Oregon has many rural and remote areas but 
does not receive any funding under this program for larger carriers. 
However, States with between 60 and 101 residents per square mile or 
more than twice the density of Oregon--receive 90 percent of the 
funding.
  How could this happen? When the FCC created this program in 1999, it 
determined which States would be eligible for funding by comparing the 
average cost of providing telephone service per line in each State to a 
benchmark tied to the national average cost per line. If a State's 
average cost of service per line exceeded the benchmark, that State 
would be eligible for funding. If the average cost was below the 
national benchmark, it would not be eligible.
  This method is skewed, in part, because telephone service in a 
metropolitan area is less expensive to provide than service in a rural 
area. Customers in cities are closer to one another, and the same 
facilities can serve more people at a lower cost.
  As a consequence, if you are served by a larger carrier and you live 
in a State with a city--no matter how rural an area, or no matter how 
far from the city you live--your State probably receives no support.
  This problem is exacerbated because the FCC formula also doesn't 
fully account for the actual cost of providing service in rural areas 
with natural obstacles such as mountains, lakes and rivers.
  In short, the formula is flawed, and the result is unfair to millions 
in rural America: Three States that are not among the 15 least 
populated States--receive more than 80 percent of the fund.
  The Rural Universal Service Equity Act of 2003 would make this 
program fair. The Act directs the FCC to replace the current state-wide 
average formula with a new formula that distributes funds to telephone 
company wire centers with the highest cost.
  Wire centers are the telephone facilities where all of the telephone 
lines in a given area converge. And because funds would be directed to 
high-cost wire centers, as opposed to States with the highest average 
costs, rural residents would no longer be penalized if they lived in a 
State with a city hundreds of miles away.
  The Act also: directs the FCC to develop rules to implement a program 
that is equitable among States; delegates to the FCC the determination 
of what an appropriate benchmark for what a high cost wire center 
should be; directs the FCC to not increase the size of the current 
program for high cost carriers; ensures a minimum level of support for 
States that currently receive funding under the program; and requires 
GAO to study and report back to Congress on the need for comprehensive 
universal service reform.
  Finally, I am concerned that the Universal Service Program has 
challenges beyond the inequities of the program for larger carriers. I 
look forward to participating in the broader debate on how to reform 
the Universal Service Program and ensure its long term viability and 
effectiveness. This bill will help further that debate.
  However, broadly reforming the Universal Service Program is complex 
and divisive. It may take years. And I do not believe the inequities of 
the program for larger carriers should be allowed to continue while 
Congress grapples with the broader issues. Millions of rural Americans 
are being disserved, and we can solve this one problem today.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and support the Rural Universal 
Service Equity Act of 2003. I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1380

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Universal Service 
     Equity Act of 2003''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Federal Communications Commission's high cost 
     program for certain carriers provides no Federal support to 
     42 States.
       (2) Federal universal service support should be calculated 
     and targeted to small geographic regions within a State to 
     provide greater assistance to the rural consumers most in 
     need of support.
       (3) Local telephone competition and emerging technologies 
     are threatening the viability of Federal universal service 
     support.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To begin consideration of universal service reform.
       (2) To spread the benefits of the existing Federal high 
     cost support mechanism more equitably across the nation.

     SEC. 3. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON NEED TO REFORM HIGH 
                   COST SUPPORT MECHANISM.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the need to reform the high cost support mechanism 
     for rural, insular, and high cost areas. As part of the 
     report, the Comptroller General shall provide an overview and 
     discuss whether--
       (1) existing Federal and State high cost support mechanisms 
     ensure rate comparability between urban and rural areas;
       (2) the Federal Communications Commission and the States 
     have taken the necessary steps to remove implicit support;
       (3) the existing high cost support mechanism has affected 
     the development of local competition in urban and rural 
     areas; and
       (4) amendments to section 254 of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 254) are necessary to preserve and advance 
     universal service.

     SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY FOR UNIVERSAL SERVICE SUPPORT FOR HIGH 
                   COST AREAS.

       Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     254) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(m) Universal Service Support for High Cost Areas.--
       ``(1) Calculating support.--In calculating Federal 
     universal service support for eligible telecommunications 
     carriers that serve rural, insular, and high cost areas, the 
     Commission shall, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), revise 
     the Commission's support mechanism for high cost areas to 
     provide support to each wire center in which the incumbent 
     local exchange carrier's average cost per line for such wire 
     center exceeds the national average cost per line by such 
     amount as the Commission determines appropriate for the 
     purpose of ensuring the equitable distribution of universal 
     service support throughout the United States.
       ``(2) Hold harmless support.--In implementing this 
     subsection, the Commission shall ensure that no State 
     receives less Federal support calculated under paragraph (1) 
     than the State would have received, up to 10 percent of the 
     total support distributed, under the Commission's support 
     mechanism for high cost areas as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection.
       ``(3) Limitation on total support to be provided.--The 
     total amount of support for all States, as calculated under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), shall be equivalent to the total 
     support calculated under the Commission's support mechanism 
     for high cost areas as in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this subsection.
       ``(4) Construction of limitation.--The limitation in 
     paragraph (3) shall not be construed to preclude fluctuations 
     in support on the basis of changes in the data used to make 
     such calculations.
       ``(5) Implementation.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, the Commission 
     shall complete the actions (including prescribing or amending 
     regulations) necessary to implement the requirements of this 
     subsection.
       ``(6) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     `Commission's support mechanism for high cost areas' means 
     sections 54.309 and 54.311 of the Commission's regulations 
     (47 CFR 54.309, 54.311), and regulations referred to in such 
     sections.''.

     SEC. 5. NO EFFECT ON RURAL TELEPHONE COMPANIES.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the 
     support provided to an eligible telecommunications carrier 
     under section 214(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 214(e)) that is a rural telephone company (as defined 
     in section 3 of such Act (47 U.S.C. 153)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Smith, Mr.

[[Page 17289]]

        Breaux, Mr. Miller, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Collins, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Shelby,  and Mr. Craig):
  S. 1381. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
certain provisions relating to the treatment of forestry activities; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reforestation 
Tax Act of 2003, and I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln, 
Smith, Breaux, Miller, Chambliss, Pryor, Collins, Landrieu, Shelby and 
Craig.
  The U.S. forest products industry is essential to the health of the 
U.S. economy. It employs approximately 1.5 million people, supports an 
annual payroll of $40.8 billion, and ranks among the top ten 
manufacturing employers in 46 States. This includes the State of Maine 
where 89.2 percent of the land is forested. Without fair tax laws, 
future growth in the industry will occur overseas and more and more 
landowners will be forced to sell their land for some other higher 
economic value such as development. The loss of a health and strong 
forest products industry will have a long-term negative impact on both 
the economy and the environment.
  The legislation I am introducing today partially restores the balance 
between corporate and private landowners in terms of capital gains tax 
treatment by reducing the capital gains paid on timber for individuals 
and corporations. The bill is also intended to encourage the 
reforestation of timberland, whether it has been harvested or 
previously cleared for other uses, such as agriculture.
  Trees take a long time to grow, anywhere from 15 years to, more 
typically in Maine, 40 to 50 years. During these years, the grower 
faces huge risks from fire, pests, weather and inflation, all of which 
are uninsurable. This legislation helps to mitigate these risks by 
providing a sliding scale reduction in the amount of taxable gain based 
on the number of years the asset is held.
  Specifically, the bill would change the way that capital gains are 
calculated for timber by taking the amount of the gain and subtracting 
three percent for each year the timber was held. The reduction would be 
capped at 50 percent bringing the effective capital gains tax rate to 
7.5 percent for most non-corporate holdings and 17.5 percent for 
corporations.
  Since 1944, the tax code has treated timber as a capital asset, 
making it eligible for the capital gains tax rate rather than the 
ordinary income tax rate. This recognized the long-term risk and 
inflationary gain in timber. Tax bill enacted in 1997 and in 2003 
lowered the capital gains rate for individuals, but not for 
corporations. As a result, individuals face a maximum capital gains 
rate of 15 percent, while corporations face a maximum rate of 35 
percent for the identical asset.
  As this difference in rates implies, non-corporate timberland owners 
receive far more favorable capital gains tax treatment than corporate 
owners. In addition, pension funds and other tax-exempt entities are 
also investing in timberland, which only further highlights the 
disparity that companies face.
  Secondly, reforestation expenses are currently taxed at a higher rate 
in the U.S. than in any other major competitor country. The U.S. 
domestic forest products industry is already struggling to survive 
intense competition from the Southern Hemisphere where labor and fiber 
costs are extremely low, and recent investments from wealthier nations 
who have built state of the art pulp and papermaking facilities. While 
there is little Congress can do to change labor and fiber costs, 
Congress does have the ability to level the playing field when it comes 
to taxation.
  This legislation encourages both individuals and companies to engage 
in increased reforestation by allowing all growers of timber to deduct 
all reforestation expenses in the year such costs are incurred. 
Currently, only the first $10,000 of reforestation expenses is eligible 
for a ten percent tax credit and can be amortized over seven years.
  Eligible reforestation expenses are the initial expenses to establish 
a new stand of trees, such as site preparation, the cost of the 
seedlings, the labor costs required to plant the seedlings and to care 
for the trees in the first few years, as well as the cost of equipment 
used in reforestation.
  The planning of trees should be encouraged rather than discouraged by 
our tax system as trees provide a tremendous benefit to the 
environment, preventing soil erosion, cleansing streams and waterways, 
providing habitat for numerous species, and absorbing carbon dioxide 
from the atmosphere.
  Tax incentives for planting on private lands will also decrease 
pressure to obtain timber from ecologically sensitive public lands, 
allowing these public lands to be protected.
  Finally, the bill would notify the passive loss rules for small, 
closely-held landowners to allow them to deduct normal operating 
expenses pertaining to management of their timber lands.
  I ask my colleagues for their support for private landowners and for 
the U.S. forest products industry that is so important to the health of 
the our economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 1384. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to provide 
State and local authorities a means by which to eliminate congestion on 
the Interstate System; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, as the month of August nears and the 
remaining summer days dwindle, many Americans are turning their 
attention to the highway as they plan family vacations and road trips, 
setting their sights on destinations that may be close to home or 
several States away. As they plot their travel plans, they must take 
into account several road-related factors, including, what route to 
take, which highway to use and how long it will take to get to their. 
Road safety, highway quality and congestion will undoubtedly be major 
considerations that will enter this equation.
  In addition to personal mobility, roads also serve as the backbone of 
the national economy. Our economic success depends on a sound 
transportation system that efficiently carries goods to and from the 
marketplace. We must work diligently throughout the upcoming highway 
re-authorization to provide a policy framework that facilitates access 
to both markets for goods and places for people.
  It is for these reasons, among others, that I rise today to introduce 
the Freeing Alternatives to Speedy Transportation Act, or for short, 
the FAST Act--legislation that will ease and alleviate traffic 
congestion, increase highway capacity, decrease pollution and improve 
the quality of life for millions of Americans. The legislation has 
already been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman 
Kennedy of Minnesota. His bi-partisan version of the bill has gained 
strong support and momentum, and I thank him for his leadership on 
transportation matters.
  It is easy to say how important our roads are to our success. But the 
question that has everyone stumped is how to pay for it all. We must 
look to creative policies that place the State in the drivers seat 
toward ending the transportation funding dilemma--policies that 
capitalize on user choice and private financing. The FAST Act provides 
just that--flexibility and innovation to move forward with important 
Interstate highway expansion projects--projects that would not be 
possible with out the FAST Act--to ease congestion and alleviate the 
strain on our roads.
  The FAST Act removes the obstacles that prevent States from 
collecting user fees on Interstate highway expansion projects. It 
allows a State to create an authority that collects user fees to 
finance expansion lanes on Interstates, while building in several 
protective measures that boost consumer confidence and protection. The 
fees are collected only on the expansion land--the existing lanes 
remain open and free of charge. Fees can be used only for the 
construction of the FAST lane and accompanying structures--the money 
cannot be diverted to other accounts or projects. It allows the State 
to collect,

[[Page 17290]]

as part of the fee, a maintenance reserve for that lane, and guarantees 
that the fee will be removed once the project is paid off. In other 
words, the fee pays for the project, ends, and the FAST lane then 
becomes available to everyone free of the fee. While I realize this 
bill is but one avenue in bridging our highway policy needs, the 
options it opens through user-choice and dedicated funding will promote 
sound State planning and decision making.
  The FAST Act has the support of the Colorado Department of 
Transportation, think tanks, State governments and many others who hope 
to find new ways to expend highways. Tom Norton, Executive Director of 
the Colorado Department of Transportation, wrote in support of the FAST 
Act, ``With nationwide transportation needs continually increasing, 
Federal Government, as well as the States, must seek new funding 
sources to keep up with this demand. This needed legislation provides 
States the ability to explore a new source in order to fund highway 
expansion.'' In addition to the backing the legislation has received 
from the Colorado Department of Transportation, both the Minnesota and 
Washington DOTs support the bill as well.
  Earlier this week, the Joint Economic Committee released a white 
paper, noting ``roads are deteriorating while congestion worsens every 
year.'' The paper highlights the FAST Act as a new funding mechanism 
for highways, noting that many economists believe that the new 
authorization bill should grant the states more flexibility in raising 
money for funding transportation projects. It concludes by stating that 
the FAST Act is a modest measure that can help bridge the financing 
chasm.
  Numerous organizations and associations across the country have 
either endorsed the FAST Act or have strong and positive interest in 
the legislation. These groups include: Americans for Tax Reform, 
American Highway Users Alliance, Associated General Contractors of 
America, National Taxpayers Union, Association for Commuter 
Transportation, and the American Association of State and Highway 
Transportation Officials.
  As the population of the United States continues to surge and miles 
traveled by automobiles increase every year, transportation planners 
must find new and innovative ways to expand highway congestion. With 
today's budget crisis, this task becomes even more formidable as States 
look for new ways to stretch every dollar. The FAST Act give States one 
more tool in their battle against congestion. It creates a new source 
of revenue through user choice. It give them flexibility in managing 
construction and maintenance, encourages public-private partnerships 
and speeds traffic through a series of electronic gateways instead of 
creating logjams at toll booths. It is one more tool in the toolbox of 
innovative finance options that will lead to a more efficient, safer 
highway system.
  I ask unanimous consent that supporting documents and the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                State of Colorado,


                                 Department of Transportation,

                                       Denver, CO, April 25, 2003.
     Hon. Wayne Allard,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Allard: We are writing in support of ``Fast 
     Act'' H.R. 1767, the fast fees legislation introduced in the 
     House earlier this month by Representatives Mark Kennedy and 
     Adam Smith. We understand that you are considering sponsoring 
     this legislation in the Senate and support your interest in 
     this legislation.
       This proposed bill is consistent with legislation that was 
     enacted last year by the Colorado State Legislature. Our 
     state law allowed us to create the Colorado Tolling 
     Enterprise, which enables the state to collect fees for new 
     capacity on state highways. H.R. 1767 would expand our 
     opportunity to create new capacity on interstate highways as 
     well. The philosophy of H.R. 1767 is consistent with our 
     state law in creating new ways of increasing highway 
     capacity.
       With nationwide transportation needs continually 
     increasing, federal government, as well as the states must 
     seek new funding sources to keep up with these demands. This 
     needed legislation provides states the ability to explore a 
     new source in order to fund highway projects.
       As you work to reauthorize TEA-21, we encourage you to 
     support legislation that provides greater flexibility to the 
     states as we all seek to improve our highways and meet the 
     needs of a growing state.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Norton,
       Executive Director, CDOT.
     Margaret ``Peggy'' Catlin,
       Executive Director, Colorado Tolling Enterprise.
                                  ____


Joint Economic Committee, (Chairman Robert F. Bennett--Economic Policy 
                        Research, July 7, 2003)


                 New possibilities for Financing Roads

       It is an unfortunate fact of life that our roads are 
     deteriorating while congestion worsens every year. Fixing our 
     roads will not be easy; billions of dollars will be needed to 
     stave off further declines, and there is little appetite in 
     Congress to raise federal taxes on gasoline. The table below 
     shows that current spending proposals for highways and mass 
     transit for the next six years far outstrip the $218 billion 
     spent on roads and mass transit over the previous six years. 
     The overarching question is how will the federal government 
     fund a significant increase in surface transportation 
     expenditures without raising gasoline taxes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Package
                                         size
                                      (billions      Gas tax increase
                                          $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Infrastructure and                    375  Yes, by indexing tax
 Transportation.                                  retroactively to 1993
                                                  and for subsequent
                                                  years to inflation.
Congressional 2004 Budget Resolution        280  No.
Senate Environment and Public Works.        311  ?
Administration......................        247  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Research Service, H. Con. Res. 95.

                  a new funding mechanism for highways

       There are other ways to fund transportation spending 
     increases that should be explored. For instance, many 
     economists believe a new transportation authorization bill 
     should grant the states more flexibility in raising money for 
     funding transportation projects. To that end, Reps. Mark 
     Kennedy (R-MN) and Adam Smith (D-WA) have proposed the 
     Freeing Alternatives for Speedy Transportation (FAST) Act 
     (H.R. 1767). The bill would remove the current prohibition on 
     tolls for federal highways, as well as ensure that states 
     wouldn't be penalized for coming up with innovative ways to 
     fund transportation construction. While toll lanes alone 
     cannot make up the projected shortfall between the various 
     spending proposals and revenues that will be generated by the 
     gas tax, the judicious use of tolls would raise significant 
     revenue.


                 efficient tolls can reduce congestion

       Ideally, the toll charge would vary based on the current 
     congestion level on the road--the more cars on the road, the 
     higher the price of the toll lane. As the toll increases, 
     drivers will change their behavior; when the toll is 
     relatively high people will use car pools, take mass transit, 
     or postpone unnecessary trips. In high-traffic corridors the 
     market can pay the bulk of the cost of constructing and 
     maintaining the road.
       Since roads are not continuously congested, variable tolls 
     reduce traffic and spread it out more evenly over the course 
     of the day. In essence, properly managed fares can reduce the 
     level of lane expansion necessary by maximizing the 
     efficiency of the current infrastructure. The idea of 
     variable pricing for toll lanes is the same principle that 
     dictates lower ticket prices for movie matinees and discounts 
     for ``early bird'' dining specials at restaurants: price 
     differentials over the course of a day can alleviate crowds.
       Regardless of the degree of success, innovative congestion 
     pricing would not come close to alleviating the need for new 
     roads. Most large cities desperately need new and improved 
     highways to deal with the immense increases in traffic that 
     have occurred in recent years.


                    Tollbooths are passe

       When most people think of tolls they associate it with long 
     queues of cars waiting to pay 50 cents to cross a bridge, 
     thereby increasing congestion on roads. In reality, leaps in 
     tolling technology have made cumbersome tollbooths 
     unnecessary. Today, cars can use transponders to 
     electronically pay tolls without stopping the flow of 
     traffic. Transponders are inexpensive and the tolling 
     authority often provides them at no cost to drivers. Drivers 
     can either receive a monthly bill or else pre-pay 
     (anonymously, should they wish) for a certain number of 
     trips.
       Proposals, like the FAST Act, encourage states to take 
     advantage of this innovative technology by allowing them to 
     toll new lanes on the federal interstate provided that they 
     use an electronic tolling system.


                    Tolls are not the same as taxes

       Some politicians resist any legislation that might lead to 
     an expansion of tolled

[[Page 17291]]

     lanes on the principle that tolls merely represent a new form 
     of taxation. However, it is important to note that tolling is 
     not just another name for a tax. When used on newly built 
     lanes financed by toll revenues, tolls serve as a voluntary 
     access charge for drivers who choose to use a lane that is 
     less congested. In essence, when people use a toll lane they 
     are buying time.
       Dedicated toll lanes function much the same as FedEx and 
     other next-day shipping companies. Someone wishing to send a 
     package via U.S. mail can do so at an inexpensive price, but 
     the delivery will take longer and the ultimate delivery date 
     will be less predictable. However, someone who absolutely 
     needs a package delivered overnight can guarantee an on-time 
     delivery by paying extra and using FedFx.
       Those who worry that states will exploit tolls to fund 
     revenue shortfalls by gouging citizens should be heartened to 
     know that the FAST Act specifically addresses this temptation 
     in its legislation. The FAST Act requires that all revenues 
     raised from tolls be dedicated only to the lanes where the 
     tolls are collected. States are also constrained from 
     charging unreasonably high access charges by the marketplace. 
     Because tolls are added only on new lanes, drivers will 
     always have a choice whether or not to pay the toll. If the 
     toll is set at a price drivers are not willing to pay, the 
     newly added lane will be underutilized, costing the state 
     potential revenue and drawing the ire of its citizens.


                        tolling success stories

       Various permutations of congestion pricing have been in 
     place since Singapore's Area Licensing Scheme was introduced 
     in 1975. With electronic tolling, Singapore managed to reduce 
     the number of single drivers and better utilized its road 
     capacity by distributing trips more evenly throughout the 
     day.
       Domestically, there have been several value pricing 
     projects established under the Value Pricing Pilot program. 
     Perhaps the most successful pilot project is the High 
     Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on Interstate 15 in San Diego. The 
     program allowed two lanes, previously reserved for carpools 
     with at least two passengers, to provide access to all 
     drivers willing to pay a toll to enter the lane. The toll was 
     set at a level so as to ensure that traffic in the lanes 
     traveled near the speed limit.
       The project was immensely successful and led to several 
     dramatic improvements in road performance. The number of 
     people carpooling increased and rates of carpooling 
     violations decreased. Drivers believed that the toll lanes 
     were safer and more reliable. Revenues generated were high 
     enough that an express bus was added to I-15, providing 
     another alternative for commuters. An overwhelming 94 percent 
     of transit riders, 92 percent of carpoolers, and over 70 
     percent of all commuters felt that congestion pricing was a 
     ``fair'' system given that travelers choose to pay the 
     charge. The managed lanes on I-15 have proven so successful 
     that the San Diego Association of Governments plans to expand 
     its value pricing system by replacing the two HOT lanes with 
     four new HOT lanes.
       Most recently, in February 2003 London introduced a 
     congestion-pricing scheme that charges vehicles entering the 
     central city. Though met with intense skepticism by political 
     opponents, the pricing experiment has proven to be even more 
     successful than its designers had anticipated. The average 
     driving speed in London's central city has increased 37 
     percent and the total number of cars entering Central London 
     has decreased by 20 percent.


                           freedom for states

       The FAST Act and similar proposals encouraging greater 
     utilization of toll lanes do not seek to mandate the 
     wholesale use of tolls by states. However, states should have 
     the option to use tolls to finance the reconstruction of new 
     roads and should incur no penalty for doing so. In a federal 
     system of government, states should be encouraged to pursue 
     innovative methods for financing and providing essential 
     services to the citizenry, and this is indeed what the FAST 
     Act would achieve. Given the significant difference between 
     proposed highway spending plans and projected gas tax 
     revenues, the FAST Act is a modest measure that can help 
     bridge the chasm.


                            further reading

       Joint Economic Committee Hearing on Financing Our Nation's 
     Roads--http://jec.senate.gov/hearings/hearings_may06.html.
       Getting Unstuck: Three Big Ideas to Get America Moving 
     Again, by Robert D. Atkinson--http://www.ppionline.org/
documents/Transportation_1202.pdf.
       Privatization Watch--The Surface Transportation Issue--
     http://www.rppi.org/may03pw.pdf.
       JEC publications released in June:
       ``Putting the U.S. Economy in Global Context,'' June 24, 
     2003. Compares economic growth--as measured by GDP--in the 
     U.S. and other major economies.
       ``Prescription Drugs Are Only Reason Why Medicare Needs 
     Reform,'' June 17, 2003. Explains why the program needs 
     market-based reforms to become more financially viable and 
     responsive to patients.
       ``Health Insurance Spending Growth--How Does Medicare 
     Compare?'' June 10, 2003. Compares cost growth rates of 
     Medicare with various other insurers, such as the Federal. 
     Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
       ``Recent Economic Developments: Looking Ahead to Stronger 
     Growth,'' June 3, 2003. Gives an overview of the U.S. 
     economy, including a review of key economic data released in 
     May.
       Other recent JEC publications include:
       ``Medicare Beneficiaries' Links to Drug Coverage.''
       ``A Primer on Deflation.''
       ``Economics of the Debt Limit.''
       ``Dividend Tax Relief and Capped Exclusions.''
       ``How the Top Individual Income Tax Rate Affects Small 
     Businesses.''
                                  ____


                                S. 1384

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Freeing Alternatives for 
     Speedy Transportation Act'' or the ``FAST Act''.

     SEC. 2. INTERSTATE SYSTEM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 165. FAST fees

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and 
     implement an Interstate System FAST Lanes program under which 
     the Secretary, notwithstanding sections 129 and 301, shall 
     permit a State, or a public or private entity designated by a 
     State, to collect fees to finance the expansion of a highway, 
     for the purpose of reducing traffic congestion, by 
     constructing 1 or more additional lanes (including bridge, 
     support, and other structures necessary for that 
     construction) on the Interstate System.
       ``(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to participate in the 
     program, a State shall submit to the Secretary for approval 
     an application that contains--
       ``(1) an identification of the additional lanes (including 
     any necessary bridge, support, and other structures) to be 
     constructed on the Interstate System under the program;
       ``(2) in the case of 1 or more additional lanes that affect 
     a metropolitan area, an assurance that the metropolitan 
     planning organization established under section 134 for the 
     area has been consulted during the planning process 
     concerning the placement and amount of fees on the additional 
     lanes; and
       ``(3) a facility management plan that includes--
       ``(A) a plan for implementing the imposition of fees on the 
     additional lanes;
       ``(B) a schedule and finance plan for construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the additional lanes using 
     revenues from fees (and, as necessary to supplement those 
     revenues, revenues from other sources); and
       ``(C) a description of the public or private entities that 
     will be responsible for implementation and administration of 
     the program.
       ``(c) Requirements.--The Secretary shall approve the 
     application of a State for participation in the program after 
     the Secretary determines that, in addition to meeting the 
     requirements of subsection (b), the State has entered into an 
     agreement with the Secretary that provides that--
       ``(1) fees collected from motorists using a FAST lane shall 
     be collected only through the use of noncash electronic 
     technology;
       ``(2) all revenues from fees received from operation of 
     FAST lanes shall be used only for--
       ``(A) debt service relating to the investment in FAST 
     lanes;
       ``(B) reasonable return on investment of any private entity 
     financing the project, as determined by the State;
       ``(C) any costs necessary for the improvement, and proper 
     operation and maintenance (including reconstruction, 
     resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation), of FAST lanes 
     and existing lanes, if the improvement--
       ``(i) is necessary to integrate existing lanes with the 
     FAST lanes;
       ``(ii) is necessary for the construction of an interchange 
     (including an on- or off-ramp) from the FAST lane to connect 
     the FAST lane to--

       ``(I) an existing FAST lane;
       ``(II) the Interstate System; or
       ``(III) a highway; and

       ``(iii) is carried out before the date on which fees for 
     use of FAST lanes cease to be collected in accordance with 
     paragraph (6); or
       ``(D) the establishment by the State of a reserve account 
     to be used only for long-term maintenance and operation of 
     the FAST lanes;
       ``(3) fees may be collected only on and for the use of FAST 
     lanes, and may not be collected on or for the use of existing 
     lanes;
       ``(4) use of FAST lanes shall be voluntary;
       ``(5) revenues from fees received from operation of FAST 
     lanes may not be used for any other project (except for 
     establishment of a reserve account described in paragraph 
     (2)(D) or as otherwise provided in this section);
       ``(6) on completion of the project, and on completion of 
     the use of fees to satisfy the requirements for use of 
     revenue described in paragraph (2), no additional fees shall 
     be collected; and

[[Page 17292]]

       ``(7)(A) to ensure compliance with paragraphs (1) through 
     (5), annual audits shall be conducted for each year during 
     which fees are collected on FAST lanes; and
       ``(B) the results of each audit shall be submitted to the 
     Secretary.
       ``(d) Apportionment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Revenues collected from FAST lanes shall 
     not be taken into account in determining the apportionments 
     and allocations that any State or transportation district 
     within a State shall be entitled to receive under or in 
     accordance with this chapter.
       ``(2) No effect on state expenditure of funds.--Nothing in 
     this section affects the expenditure by any State of funds 
     apportioned under this chapter.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--
       (1) The analysis for subchapter I of chapter 1 of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 164 the following:

``165. FAST fees.''.

       (2) Section 301 of title 23, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after ``tunnels,'' the following: ``and except 
     as provided in section 165,''.

     SEC. 3. TOLL FEASIBILITY.

       Section 106 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Toll Feasibility.--The Secretary shall select and 
     conduct a study on a project under this title that is 
     intended to increase capacity, and that has an estimated 
     total cost of at least $50,000,000, to determine whether--
       ``(1) a toll facility for the project is feasible; and
       ``(2) privatizing the construction, operation, and 
     maintenance of the toll facility is financially advisable 
     (while retaining legal and administrative control of the 
     portion of the applicable Interstate route).''.

                          ____________________