THESE ARE THE MINUTES OF NAFTA FROM ACTIVITY 1991- 1998
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDING..

FYI THIS REPORT IS FROM March 16, 1998

YOU KNOW .......ALL THE ROADS,RAILS,SCHOOLS,RECREATION PARKS,TRAINS,TOLL ROADS,DOCKS,AIRPORTS,WATER& WASTE,ENERGY,WALK-WAYS,BICYCLE TRAILS,BARK PARKS ETC GOING ON IN 50 STATES TO MAKE US LOOK LIKE EUROPE...

5,264 PROJECTS SO FAR.....IMAGINE HOW MANY EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSES WE WILL SEE....THIS IS ALL OVER AMERICA, FOR NAFTA, INTERNATIONAL TRUCKERS, THE MERGER OF MEXICO, USA & CANADA.
SINCE THEY ARE CHANGING CANADA'S BORDERS AND PUTTING ONE IN NY..FOR THE INTERNATIONAL ENTRANCE TO THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

http://www.spp.gov/report_to_leaders/index.asp?dName=report_to_leaders

Preclearance Site.
We have identified the site for the second Canada-U.S. land preclearance pilot: at the Thousand Islands Bridge, all Canadian border operations would be re-located from Lansdowne, Ontario to Alexandria Bay, New York.

Minutes of the 17th Steering Committe Meeting on Fuel Tax Compliance - March 1998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/min98mar.htm

S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Minutes of the Seventeenth Steering Committee Meeting

Joint Federal/State Motor Fuel Tax Compliance Project

March 16, 1998, Washington, D.C.

(April 23, 199

Ms. Sherri Alston, Chief of the Transportation Studies Division, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), welcomed everyone to the 17th meeting of the Joint Federal/State Motor Fuel Tax Compliance Project Steering Committee. Following introductions by all participants, Ms. Alston introduced the first speaker. The corrected list of attendees is provided as Attachment 1.

Item 1--North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Status of Implementation

Ms. Maria Lameiro, from the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of International Transportation and Trade in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, provided an update on NAFTA.

1. Briefly, the status of consultations is as follows:

_ we are still negotiating with Mexico

_ although we have made progress, we have not reached agreement as to when the border will open, and

_ we intend to honor our NAFTA obligations, including allowing safe Mexican carriers to operate in the United States (U.S.), which is why we want to resolve our remaining differences with Mexico as soon as possible.

2. To put this in context, the NAFTA sets a timetable for lifting restrictions on the operations of Mexican motor carriers in the U.S..

3. There are four important dates in the land transportation schedule of liberalization -- three of these dates have already passed and one is two years in the future.

_ In January 1994, we implemented the first step in the NAFTA timetable by removing restrictions so that Mexican carriers could operate charter and tour bus services between Mexico and the U.S..

_ In December 1995, two other NAFTA milestones were to have occurred: (a) The U.S. and Mexico were to have allowed access to each other's border States for the delivery and backhaul of cargo; and (b) The U.S. was to have permitted Mexican nationals to own and control companies established in the U.S. to transport international cargo.

_ In January 1997, the U.S. and Mexico were supposed to lift all restrictions on regular-route cross-border bus services.

_ In January 2000, both countries are scheduled to remove all barriers to cross-border trucking.

4. On December 18, 1995, the U.S. announced a delay in implementing the provision that would have allowed Mexican trucking in the four border States. That had the effect of also delaying the investment provision. Subsequently, it was decided that the regular-route passenger services provision would also be put on hold.

5. Since 1996, we have been conducting safety talks with Mexico in the Land Transportation Standards Subcommittee (LTSS), which was created by NAFTA to try to make more compatible the three countries' safety standards.

6. At the same time, but in separate sessions, we have been negotiating with Mexico to resolve certain commercial concerns. Originally, there were three issues that needed to be addressed:
(a) increased use of 53-foot trailers in Mexico;
(b) U.S. companies' investment in Mexican carriers; and
(c) Mexico's regulation of express delivery services. Only the last issue is still outstanding.

The NAFTA obligates Mexico to extend national treatment to U.S. express delivery companies that operate in Mexico. Mexico does not currently allow U.S. companies to use the same size trucks that Mexican express delivery companies are permitted to use. At a meeting on March 4 in San Antonio, Mexican officials informed us that new express delivery services regulations will be issued in April.

7. Our goal is to conclude an agreement on a time frame for implementing the NAFTA truck and bus access and investment provisions together with resolution of Mexican regulation of express delivery services.

8. Since the key to minimizing safety risk is to ensure that Mexican inspectors check northbound trucks before they reach the border, we are helping Mexico establish a system to assess carrier safety.

9. This is what has been accomplished in the safety area (some activities have taken place trilaterally, others bilaterally, and others are just unilateral U.S. actions):

_ trained Mexican inspectors;

_ helped Mexico establish U.S.-compatible databases for exchanging information on companies, vehicles, and drivers;

_ agreed to develop a safety certification assessment process;

_ placed more federal inspectors at the border to conduct inspections within the U.S. Customs import lots at all the major commercial crossings; and,

_ increased funding through the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) to the border States for inspections and other safety-related activities.

10. The DOT will soon issue proposed regulations to assess the safety fitness of Mexican carriers and monitor their compliance with U.S. requirements.

12. As a result of a meeting between Secretary Slater and Mexico's Secretary of Transportation on January 30, DOT's assistant secretary for international affairs and Mexico's under secretary of transportation will be meeting sometime in April. In preparation for that meeting, U.S. and Mexican technical staff will meet in Mexico by the end of March. The two Secretaries are scheduled to meet again in early May during the Binational Commission meeting in Washington, D.C.

Item 2--Surface Transportation Reauthorization, Continuation Options for Fuel Tax Evasion Funding

After thanking Ms. Lameiro for the very helpful NAFTA update, Ms. Lameiro introduced Mr. Stephen Baluch, Program Manager for the FHWA Fuel Tax Compliance Program, for the latest information on the surface transportation reauthorization legislation and what it means to the highway use tax evasion program. Mr. Baluch began with a discussion of the partial fiscal year (FY) 1998 funding approved last fall, and then discussed the tax evasion program language in the House and Senate versions of the transportation legislation.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Extension

Congress enacted an extension of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 which provided $2.5 for fuel tax evasion projects in FY 1998. Attachment 2 is a copy of ISTEA Section 1040 as amended. The FHWA opted to make a selective distribution to States that have or would soon expend the remaining funds from FY 1997 and prior years. FHWA Notice 4510.387, approved by the FHWA Administrator December 22, 1997, provided the full annual allocation to about half the States, while the remaining States (with balances of approximately 2of funds unbilled) appeared to have sufficient funds to continue their activities until additional FY 1998 funds become available later in 1998. Attachment 3 shows the amounts allocated by State. All but one or two States have amended their project agreements with FHWA for these funds. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is receiving $1 million, or half the normal annual allocation, from FHWA for tax compliance project activities.

Interim FY 1998 funds follow the same administrative procedures as projects funded under ISTEA. When additional FY 1998 funds become available, the States that did not receive funds as part of the initial allocation will be the first to receive funds in the second distribution. The IRS will also receive the balance of their normal annual allocation. These funds, if provided under new legislation and not an extension, will follow the administrative procedures established in the new law. This means that funds provided by new legislation will most likely require entering into a new project agreement.

Surface Transportation Reauthorization Proposals

Attachment 4 is a summary of the tax evasion project provisions of three versions of possible reauthorization legislation, followed by a copy of the language from each version. All three versions would continue funding for tax evasion projects at $5per year for 6 years, so there is a very high probability of at least continuation at current funding levels.

The administration's bill, known as the National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act (NEXTEA), which for the most part was a level-funded continuation of the ISTEA legislation, sought only the continuation of the tax evasion program for six years at $5 million each fiscal year and would eliminate annual reporting requirements to Congress.

Both the House and Senate versions would provide additional funding for the tax compliance effort. Section 122 of the House bill (H.R.) 2400, known as Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act (BESTEA), authorizes an additional $5per year beginning in FY 1999 that could be used for an "Automated Fuel Reporting System." Section 1109 of the Senate bill S. 1173, known as ISTEA-II, would authorize additional funding for an "Excise Fuel Reporting System" to be developed under terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FHWA and IRS which provides that "the system shall be available for use by appropriate State and Federal revenue, tax, or law enforcement authorities, subject to section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code."
Funding of $8 million is authorized for development of the system, and $2 million per year for six fiscal years is authorized for operation and maintenance of the system.
In addition, S. 1173 (floor action for which was completed on March 13, 199 was amended to include another provision favorable for the tax compliance effort.
This was Amendment No. 1957, introduced by Senator Hutchison (R.-TX), which reads as follows:

"In addition to funds allocated under this section, a State may, at its discretion, expend up to one- fourth of one percent of its annual federal-aid apportionments under 104(b)(3) on initiatives to halt the evasion of payment of motor fuel taxes."

The effect of this section is to allow the State transportation agencies to use a portion of the funds allocated under the Surface Transportation Program (STP) for projects, in addition to the normal $50,000 or $100,000 annual tax compliance program allocation, for projects to fight motor fuel tax evasion.
Based on estimated funding levels of some $8 billion for STP, this could provide up to $20 million annually to States for fuel tax compliance projects.

It appears that the regular Federal share of 80 percent would apply to these funds. State funds would have to pay the remaining 20 percent share.

There is an important distinction between the funding authorizations for the automated fuel reporting system in the House and Senate bills. H.R. 2400 provides contract authority for the additional funds, that is, the funds are available to FHWA to enter agreements as soon as the fiscal year begins for which the funds are authorized.

S. 1173 provides only budget authority for the additional funds, that is, funds must first be included in an annual appropriations act before they are available to enter contractual agreements.

With Senate action completed last week, attention now turns to the House where consideration of the transportation bill is expected in April.

DON'T let your senators and representatives say they don't know anything....if they have been in office since 1991 TO NOW...they know and voted...

and in 2005/2006 the Federal Highway funds were again voted for and passed.

the increase in fuel taxes,tolls added on roads,sale/lease of roads/bridges,state constitution changes and dot funds all have to do with this RE-BUILD/RE-VITIALIZE/RE-DEVELOPEMENT-URBAN RE-NEWAL OF AMERICA
[/b]