Freeing Alternatives for Speedy Transportation (FAST) Act

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, 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.