Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2989) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. Because of the reorganization of the Committee on Appropriations, this is an entirely new arrangement for the form in which these agencies are presented to the House. In this bill, many of the historical programs that were part of the Transportation Department and the Treasury Department were merged with the new Department of Homeland Security, and then the remaining programs have now been combined in this legislative package with the appropriations for agencies such as the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the White House, the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget and other critical agencies which are, at times, dissimilar in their functions, however.

As a result, in putting together this bill we have made budget trade- offs that previously were not made by this particular subcommittee. We have merged Members of Congress and committee staff from two former subcommittees, and accomplishing the production of a $90 billion bill only a few months into that task has been a Herculean task. Fortunately, we have been blessed with good people, good Members, such as the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), Mr. Etheridge and other staff that I will recognize later for their role in this bill.

But I believe we have produced a good product for the House. We have had a lot of learning, many hearings, and the members of the subcommittee have shown enormous dedication to produce this bill. I believe this is a very good and solid bill. In most respects, it matches the budget request and the priorities of the President, and makes some significant improvements along the way.

In particular, I am pleased that by exercising great discipline in a number of areas, we are able to do more than the President anticipated for investing in the Nation's highways. The budget, unfortunately, due to downward movement in the Highway Trust Fund revenue, proposed an 8 percent reduction in funding for Federal aid to highways. Thanks to the discipline we have exercised in other areas, this bill instead provides a 7 percent increase. So it is $4.5 billion more than the President's request expected we would be able to

do, and some $2.2 billion more than Federal aid to highways during the current fiscal year.

That money is excellent and significant news for America's economy, because each $1 billion of highway investment creates some 40,000 jobs. So compared to the current year's funding, this bill will add another 88,000 jobs across the country in highway construction alone. Compared to what we expected we would be able to produce this year, this bill will add some 200,000 jobs across the country.

That is good news also for the millions of motorists that are stuck in traffic congestion. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, America has unprecedented and worsening levels of highway congestion. In urban areas, the largest urban areas that have 3 million people or more, 40 percent of the travel every day is under congested conditions. It costs the economy billions of dollars with lost productivity because of workers that are stuck in traffic. The backlog of highway and bridge deficiencies continues to rise. There is now over $325 billion, according to the Federal Highway Administration, and some $400 billion, according to other Department of Transportation sources, in unaddressed highway construction needs in the United States of America.

We have to get America to work and move goods to market, and this bill seeks to do that. No other form of transportation offers the flexibility and the ability to move large numbers that our road network offers. Well over 90 percent of the vehicle miles traveled in the United States today take place on the highway. That is the way we move, that is the way that goods get to market, it is the way emergency vehicles and public safety vehicles are able to move.

We have to address the critical problem of highway infrastructure to get America moving again. This bill seeks to do that in a very significant way, but without any increases in taxes or in revenue.

While the needs go up, Mr. Chairman, our ability to respond to them has been threatened by the tightness of the budget. There has been a dramatic decline in highway gasoline tax revenues. Gas tax receipts put into the highway account of the trust funds went down almost $6 billion between 1999 and 2002. We do not expect them to return to the 1999 level until the year 2008. That is why the tough decisions that we have made and the priorities we have set in this bill are so important to work on that backlog in a time of limited resources.

At the same time, there are increasing pressures on the general fund due to Homeland Security and national defense priorities. We are trying to be fiscally responsible and use this money more wisely and set tough priorities among many competing demands. We will hear many Members talk about things that they wish we had the money to do. It would be nice, but we do not have the luxury of doing things that we could in times of rising revenues.

While increasing funds for highway investment, we had to hold down other increases. For the Department of the Treasury, the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, we, by necessity, have provided cost-of-living increases and other mandatory expenses that are about 4 to 5 percent increases for those agencies, but the Executive Office of the President and others have only a 1 percent increase. We are exercising the fiscal restraint which is necessary.

I do want to express special appreciation, of course, to everyone that has made it possible in making these tough decisions. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) I have singled out previously. He has been tough, but fair, in presenting his priorities. His input and advice have been invaluable, and our work is the better for his contribution.

I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), for his fair and generous allotment to our subcommittee.

Let me make sure that I also address a couple of areas that I know will be part of the debate on this bill. Let us look at Amtrak.

The bill includes $900 million for Amtrak. Some will say that is not enough. Well, that is because Amtrak says they wanted twice as much. But, keep in mind, Amtrak is not a Federal agency. They are in a special status, a special private situation. They can ask for whatever they want, but their requests have not gone through the same budget and vetting process as has been the case with the other agencies that have requested money.

Amtrak's request did not go through the Office of Management and Budget. It was not balanced against other transportation priorities. It was a request of what they said they want. Their desires are transmitted directly to the Congress. But the administration does not support the large request that came from Amtrak, and neither do I.

As the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta, stated in a letter that he wrote to me recently, and I quote the Secretary, ``The problems at Amtrak simply will not go away with a more liberal application of dollars.''

We are at a defining moment in the Amtrak history, where we can go down the road of binding them to reform and making tough decisions on where it makes sense for Amtrak to operate and where it does not, or we can just throw money at the problem, money that we do not have and that will move millions more people if that money is applied elsewhere.

We should understand that of all the rail passengers in the country, only 5 percent or less are moved by Amtrak. Most of them are moved by commuter rail systems, not by Amtrak. Amtrak is not synonymous with the railroads of America. Amtrak is not synonymous with rail passenger service.

Reform legislation is pending before the Congress with Amtrak, but it has not been acted on by the authorizing committees. Until that happens, I believe it would be folly to provide huge increases for this railroad that has not kept up its commitments, that has not been honest with the American people.

We should not be swayed by their claims that they would go out of business unless they receive another $1.8 billion. They have tried to make that case by adopting poison-pill policies saying, oh, we have all these hundreds of millions of dollars in severance pay that we have agreed to to make it a poison pill, to keep people from making the serious decisions that need to be made for Amtrak.

Even they admit that most of their request is not needed for next year's operating bills. They want taxpayer money for their long-term capital investments because they have handled their system so poorly they find it difficult to attract private dollars. We should not accept their ``sky is falling, Chicken Little'' arguments. This bill is more than fair to Amtrak and would be sufficient, more than sufficient, to meet the really important parts of their operating needs.

Let me also address what will be another part of the debate on this bill, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Highway Transportation Enhancements Program. Several Members expressed concern about the program and, because of that, the approach that was taken by the full Committee on Appropriations is to say that transportation enhancements are a program that States are permitted to spend money on with their allocation of Federal highway dollars, but we will no longer force them to spend money on bike paths or pedestrian paths if they have higher priorities for their bridges that are unsafe, as thousands of bridges are, or their roads that are unsafe, as thousands of miles of roads are, or their congestion problems.

This is a decision affecting some $600 million a year, Mr. Chairman. I trust the States to make their decision. Is it of greater importance to the people in their State and in their community to move a small number of people, to make a pedestrian path available or to move a large number of people and enhance their workforce and economic development and productivity by relieving congestion where they find it? I trust States to make that decision.

The bill permits them to offer an amendment I know will be offered to try to say no, they must spend 10 percent of their surface transportation dollars which comes from highway users, which comes from gasoline taxes; but they must spend it on things that do not help move the traffic and

do not help do the work and the business of America. The Transportation Enhancement Program funds transportation museums, for example, at the expense of the thousands of unsafe bridges that each of us have a portion of in our district.

So I look forward to what I hope will be a fair and honest and elucidating debate on that particular topic. And it will be of interest, Mr. Chairman, to know how many Members who tell me sometimes, oh, I need money for a highway project in my district, but if they vote today to say no it is more important to me to take money out of my highways and put into things that do not relieve the congestion and meet the transportation needs of the countries, then I will understand what their true priorities are. We need to make those important decisions.

There is one final area of the bill that I want to make clear because I have talked mostly about transportation. The Department of Treasury is in this bill. It provides critical contributions to the war on terrorism. It is more than just the agency that houses the Internal Revenue Service. For example, the bill provides several million dollars above the President's request for stronger involvement on the Treasury Department and international affairs, including technical advisors for rebuilding the currency bank and financial systems in Iraq. The Treasury Department has a crucial role, which we fund under this bill, to stop the money trafficking that is funding terrorist activity around the globe. It includes $2.3 million more for the new office of terrorist financing and financial crimes, another $5.3 million for the IRS for counterterrorism activities, and 21, almost 22, million dollars for the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is responsible for freezing the assets of terrorist organizations, and some $57 million for the financial crimes enforcement network.

All of these are important elements of the war on terrorism. We fund each of them at or above the administration's request in our bill.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill is fair and it is balanced. It provides for the major needs for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury and the other independent agencies, such as the GSA, all within the tight constraints of our budget. We have developed the bill in consultation with the minority and with each of the staffs involved. I support the bill wholeheartedly, and I ask for the support of each Member.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on the matter with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor). I am very much aware of the need to fund the Richmond Federal courthouse. I am concerned, of course, about the funding needs for all of the Nation's courthouses.

As the gentleman is aware, due to budget limitations, we have not provided funding for any new courthouse construction in this bill, but I would like to be helpful to him and to his constituents, and I am looking for the necessary funds to finance courthouse construction projects, including the Richmond Federal courthouse. I understand the importance of it to the Federal Judiciary and that it is a critical element of the revitalization of downtown Richmond.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and his support for his State and its needs, but financial resources, as the gentleman knows, are indeed tight.

The committee, hopefully, may consider additional appropriations for this project in the conference committee should additional funds be made available to us at this time because I know of the great growth in his State and the significance of this project. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to my attention and will continue to work with him on it.

I thank the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time remains on either side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full committee, for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the passion of the gentleman who just spoke and everyone else, but, of course, we have followed the normal protocol. This is what is considered in this House an open rule to give people the opportunity to bring up issues. But as the Chairman and everyone else in this body knows, just because a bill is on the floor, it does not mean that every topic can be offered on that bill. We have to break our work into pieces. And some of the issues the gentleman is talking about should properly be raised on other pieces of legislation, not this one.

The Committee on Rules and its leadership has provided a very good, very solid, open rule that provides Members the opportunity to make fair comments and make fair amendments upon the proper topics of this bill. And I would certainly hope that the gentleman would work with the committees of proper jurisdiction for the changes that he wants to make. But I do very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the efforts of the Committee on Rules in helping us to make the progress and helping to make sure that we have a controlled and proper debate on the issues that are the proper subject of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, just by way of brief closing, I indicated that I wanted to express appreciation for the members of our staff that have worked so diligently to bring this legislation to the floor: the chief clerk of our subcommittee, Rich Efford, and the other clerks on the committee, Cheryle Tucker, Kurt Dodd, Leigha Shaw, Walter Hearne, Ben Nicholson, and from my office Kurt Conrad.

I do not want their efforts to go unnoted and unappreciated, and I wanted to make sure that they appear in the Record next to the work product that they have worked so diligently on. We could not accomplish these things without them.

This is a good bill. I ask every Member of the House to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we would concede the point of order as extended as the Chair has stated to the entire paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, to the extent that it applies to the entire paragraph, namely, from line 1 on page 12 through line 2 on page 13, to that extent, applying to that entirety, we would concede the point of order, but only to that extent.

Mr. Chairman, we would concede this point of order.

Mr. Chairman, although the effect of the amendment, unfortunately, is to add $137 million which we do not have in the budget authority to the underlying bill, thereby complicating the efforts to ultimately achieve a successful conference with the Senate, nevertheless, we must concede that the point of order is correct.

Mr. Chairman, although the effect of this point of order would be to remove the distribution formula and leave us in limbo, which we hope to ultimately correct, nevertheless, we must concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, we unfortunately must concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I feel the need to speak a little bit in greater length because of the consequences of this point of order.

This point of order would strike the final two provisos in section 218 but leave intact the remainder of that section. Those provisos that would be stricken would ensure that the loan refinancing of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority are subsumed, that is, contained within the

Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act and thereby would limit the overall expense of this refinancing to $80 million.

The effect of the amendment is to increase, again, the cost of our bill by upwards of $160 to $170 million in budget authority and a similar number in outlays.

The reason the committee included section 118 as written is to ensure that the refinancing of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority can be funded through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program and that the cost of that refinancing to the Federal Government will not exceed $80 million.

If the point of order is sustained, the refinancing costs will no longer be limited and it cannot be paid for from the TIFIA program. The effect of the elimination of these provisos may cause the Congressional Budget Office to increase their scoring of the bill by the $160 to $170 million. That would put the bill well over our 302(b) allocation.

We have already had another point of order that pushed us above that allocation. We cannot afford this change. The effect of sustaining the point of order could be to make it impossible to do this refinancing that is crucial in the Alameda corridor. So I would ask the gentleman to consider the serious financial effect of his point of order and consider withdrawing the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.

Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the point of order is correctly applied against the entire paragraph, namely, the text from page 31, lines 14 through lines 21 to its entirety and not just to a portion thereof, to that extent and only that extent we would concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order against this section.

Mr. Chairman, despite the negative consequences, we believe we must concede this point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple and straightforward amendment. It lowers the amount for the Federal Aviation Administration's operating budget that would be coming from the Aviation Trust Fund, changing the amount that comes from the Aviation Trust Fund from $6 billion to $4.043 billion. The remainder, however, would remain appropriated, but from general revenue.

The amended figure is the amount that would be allowed under the current aviation authorization if it were

to be extended until fiscal year 2004. The amount originally under the bill, the $6 billion, was the amount proposed by the administration in the President's budget.

The effect is that the funding in the bill for this purpose will remain the same. It will remain $6 billion of overall funding. It is just that the source will be slightly over $4 billion from the Aviation Trust Fund and slightly under $2 billion in general revenue fund.

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had raised an objection to the higher Aviation Trust Fund figure. They had suggested a potential point of order might lie against it as an unauthorized appropriation. So we worked this out with the authorizers, and I know of no objection to it.

This does not add funding to the bill. This does not take funding from the bill. It only changes the mix of general fund and trust fund dollars used to finance the FAA.

I ask for adoption of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the comments of each of the gentlemen. As I believe everyone is aware, originally my mark as chairman included funds for this purpose when it came out of the subcommittee. Unfortunately, when other extremely large demands were imposed upon the bill, including demand for Amtrak and other things, this and many other worthwhile things had to be dropped out of the bill in full committee in that process. Nevertheless, the underlying equities, I think, are very much as the gentleman has stated.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.

As I was mentioning, this and many other meritorious things, unfortunately, had to be dropped out in full committee not because they lacked merit but simply because of the funding restrictions.

As I have certainly told the gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman from Virginia, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, I remain committed to addressing this. I believe the equities are there. Frankly, I believe the government is open to an inverse condemnation litigation that would cost us even more. So it is something I do hope we can accomplish in the conference process with the Senate.

I stated that previously, and originally had that intent and put that in my original chairman's mark. So while I remain committed to that objective, it is just that we had to balance this with the overall figures in the ultimate House-Senate conference. But I most definitely am committed to working with my colleagues towards the same goal.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we understand more correctly what we are talking about here. We are talking about money that comes from the fuel taxes. When we drive a car or we drive a truck, we pay a fuel tax. Where does that money go? Right now, for every $6 in fuel taxes paid, $1 never even goes back to highways because it goes to mass transit funding.

That is one of the reasons that we have a $400 billion backlog in road needs in this country. That is one of the reasons we have tens of thousands of unsafe bridges. It is one of the reasons we have tens of thousands of miles of roads that need improvement, that need to be safer, that need wider shoulders or better dividing. It is one of the reasons we lose billions of dollars each year in productivity because we do not necessarily pick our priorities right.

It is not a question of whether it is nice and whether people say, yes, we would like to have a program to build more bike trails and pedestrian ways, and what has not been mentioned is that this money also goes for things like transportation museums and so forth. Of course people want that money. But if we ask them what is more important to them, is it more important to have the enhancements or to take care of the basics, this bill says that rather than having to take 10 percent, as the current standard requires, 10 percent of the surface transportation dollars and put them into the transportation enhancements, the pedestrian ways, the bike ways, the museums, they must, they must do it right now, we say let them have a choice. Let them work on improving safety first, if they say that is the highest priority. For goodness sake, put the money where the priority is the highest. Not just because people say, sure, I like this program, but is it the most important thing in a Nation with a $400 billion backlog because the highway trust fund has been decreasing.

Every year this program is taking $600 million paid for by drivers and putting it into everything but roads through this transportation enhancement program.

Let the States have a choice. Let them decide for themselves where their priorities are highest. I ask Members, they come to me and they say they need funding for a road. If Members vote that they do not think roads are their highest priority, do not ask for money for roads if Members want to divert that money.

This provision is about options, letting people make priority decisions. We should not try to dictate to the States from Washington, D.C. that they cannot spend the money that drivers pay to relieve the congestion drivers are experiencing, and they have to spend it on other things. We should not be doing that.

We have spent billions of dollars already that our roads needed that were mandated for these things. It is time to give communities a choice, not a commandment. That is what the amendment is about. The bill gives them a choice. The amendment says States do not have a say, they must take the money paid by drivers and put it into things that do not move as many people and do not move the goods and do not relieve the congestion and do not improve safety. They are definitely nice things to have, but when we have limited money, we have to make tough decisions. We are tying to make the tough decisions.

I hope that every Member that thinks they have roads that are important in their community will remember whether they voted to say our communities should be able to address those needs, or Washington is dictating and saying they have no say in the matter, States are compelled to take 10 percent of their surface transportation dollars and take them away from the people who paid at the pump for roads.

And do not tell me we need to adjust fuel taxes upward if we are not using the money rightly that we get right now. If we are not using the money for the intended purpose, if we are not honoring a trust fund principle and using user fees properly, for goodness sake, do not be asking to raise the fuel tax. There is some money paid by recreational people. We have $50 million in an off-road fund already to pay for trails. We have millions more in other provisions in this bill to pay for rails-to-trails, to pay for pedestrian ways, to pay for bikeways. We have some of those projects in this bill. There are some with merit; but we should not be dictating to the States what they do with the money their taxpayers pay, and it is coming back to them with a mandate to divert it. I ask for the defeat of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Lo BIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment.

Mr. Lo BIONDO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank the chairman very much. The Tech Center engages in matters of

aviation safety and security that impact the entire system.

Mr. Chairman, I had a second amendment that I had planned to offer today which I will not be offering. This second amendment would have restored funding for research and development. I have had conversations with the chairman about this. I know that there are tremendous pressures from the Aviation Trust Fund downturn as far as how these dollars would be distributed, but I would like to ask the chairman to please do everything he can in conference. This affects the Oklahoma Technical Center as well as the one in Pomona, New Jersey. These are dollars which would go to aviation safety and security.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman will work to help restore those dollars in conference.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we will certainly work together in conference to do everything that it is possible to do within the funds available.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, first, of course, the amendment is not germane to the bill. It relates to the Secretary of Homeland Security, which is not within the jurisdiction of this legislation.

Further, the amendment proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states in pertinent part that an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This amendment gives affirmative direction, in effect, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Preferential Motion Offered By Mr. Obey

Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) for working so hard to get this bill to the floor. I think it has been a more difficult task than many of us believe, but I also want to take a moment to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work on this bill.

On the majority side, I want to recognize our clerk, Rich Efford, and Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, Kurt Dodd, Walter Hearne and Bill Nicholson.

On the minority side, I particularly want to thank Mike Malone and Beverly Pheto from the committee staff and Bob Letteney and Rob Gatehouse from my personal staff.

I want to pay a special recognition and thanks to my legislative director, Bob Letteney, who has been a member of my staff since 1997. He has handled transportation appropriations issues on my personal staff for the last several years, but Bob is one of a handful of Federal employees selected this year as a Mike Mansfield fellow, and that unique program named for the former Senate majority leader and Ambassador to Japan places Federal workers in targeted Japanese Government agencies where an exchange of knowledge would be beneficial to both countries. It is an honor to be chosen for a Mansfield fellowship, and the program directors could not have selected a better candidate than Bob Letteney. So I thank Bob for his years of hard work in my office, and I wish him the best of luck in Japan and beyond.

Mr. Chairman, as I said, this has been a long road to get this bill to the floor, and I appreciate the chairman working with us to make substantial changes to the original subcommittee mark. Among other things, during full committee, money was added back for rural communities that rely on essential air service programs.

In full committee we also increased funding for new starts transit projects and added some money, though not nearly enough, to the Amtrak program.

The bill also obligates over $33 billion, of course this is a major nut of funding in this appropriations bill, for the Nation's highway program, and that is the largest, obviously, piece in this whole legislation. Each billion will create some 45,000 new jobs. Yet we still have a long way to go to get what I would consider a balanced Transportation Treasury bill.

The bill cripples the enhancement program by eliminating the minimum authorized guarantee for enhancements that has been in effect for the 12 years of the ISTEA and TEA-21 authorizations that were established by overwhelming votes of this Congress.

Enhancements include bike trails, pedestrian walkways, and money for historic preservation. They are vital components of the transportation system and enhance the fabric of our local communities. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit and Pipelines of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), along with me and a large bipartisan group of Members, will have an amendment to preserve that enhancement program.

The bill only provides $900 million for Amtrak, pushing them to the brink of a shutdown, despite the fact that 220 Members of this body sent a letter to the Committee on Appropriations supporting Amtrak's request for $1.8 billion. I also will offer an amendment to restore funding for Amtrak.

Transit programs are still woefully underfunded. The New Starts transit account is still $300 million below the President's request for the New Starts program.

Job access and reverse commute grants are cut by $64 million from last year's enacted bill. These funds help low-income families in rural and urban areas get rides to work, school and health care appointments.

For the FAA, funds are not provided as requested by the President to begin hiring additional air traffic controllers in advance of an imminent wave of retirements.

And on the Treasury side of the bill, $100 million is included to implement an earned income tax credit precertification program that would subject four million working poor to additional burdens each year and drive many of them away from the program which former President Ronald Reagan called our most effective program to reduce poverty.

This bill also contains no funding for Federal courthouse construction at a time when we already face a significant backlog of construction and renovation needs, and this will certainly make the situation worse.

On the floor today and in conference, I hope we will be able to rectify some of these problems and have strong bipartisan support for the end product of those deliberations.

I want to pay special recognition and thanks to my Legislative Director, Bob Letteney, who has been a member of my Washington staff since 1997.

Bob started with me as a Staff Assistant and worked his way all the way up to Legislative Director. He has handled transportation appropriations issues on my personal staff for the last several years.

Bob is one of a handful of federal employees selected this year as a Mike Mansfield fellow.

This unique program, named for the former Senate Majority Leader and Ambassador to Japan, places federal workers in targeted Japanese government agencies where an exchange of knowledge would be beneficial to both countries. The federal workers selected as fellows study Japanese language and cultural intensively for the first year of a two- year program, and after that are placed in a Tokyo agency appropriate for their background and professional interests.

It's an honor to be chosen for a Mansfield fellowship, and the program directors couldn't have selected a better candidate than Bob Letteney. I understand Bob wants to be placed in a rail transportation agency, and this is clearly a critical area for the U.S. over the next decade.

So it will be with mixed emotions that I say ``goodbye'' to Bob on his last day in my office next week. A Pittsfield, Massachusetts native and a proud graduate of Pittsfield High School and then the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Bob has been real home-grown success story and an invaluable staffer in my organization. The opportunity presented by the Mansfield fellowship, however, is a great one, and I know Bob will represent our Nation in outstanding fashion.

Bob, thank you for your years of hard work in my office, and I wish you the best of luck in Japan and beyond.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who is a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip and a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers on general debate, and I yield back the balance my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, let me start by commending the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for his leadership in presenting this amendment. I want to point out and remind Members that this amendment has been cosponsored by a bipartisan group from both sides of the aisle, including myself on the Committee on Appropriations, several members from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and several Members who have no connection with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or the Committee on Appropriations. This is truly a bipartisan amendment.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike section 114 to preserve the enhancement program as it has been authorized and in law for the last 12 years.

Make no mistake, a vote against this amendment would cripple the extremely popular enhancement program. The transportation enhancement program created in 1991 in the ISTEA bill was designed to help communities expand transportation choices. Enhancement funds are used to create alternative means of transportation such as bicycle trails and pedestrian walkways which are directly associated with roadways. Enhancements also include the renovation of streetscapes, scenic roads, beautifications, and preservation and investment in the reuse of historic transportation infrastructure that creates both jobs and community amenities.

Congress in both ISTEA and the TEA-21 bill, and now the administration in its transportation reauthorization proposal, determined that a small portion, about 2 percent of our $30-plus billion every year that goes into the highway program, should be used for these kinds of projects. From 1998 to 2003, a total of $4 billion was provided to the States for these enhancements, of which almost $3 billion had been obligated by the middle of this year.

But there is a more telling statistic: From 1971 to 1991, the 20 years before there was an authorized and overwhelmingly voted and agreed to set-aside for enhancements, only $40 million was spent nationwide on bike and pedestrian paths, by far the largest component of the enhancement program. Yet under the authorized ISTEA and TEA-21 legislation, in those 12 years from 1991 until now, over $2.2 billion out of a total of almost $300 billion for highway programs, only that small amount has actually been allocated and directed in this manner for such bike and pedestrian paths. This occurred largely because of the guaranteed funding designated for enhancements over those two authorization bills which, as I point out again, have been voted for, established by the Congress and voted for by overwhelming numbers.

Without the guaranteed authorized set-aside, the program will perish. The fact is Congress has set-asides for many transportation activities. We have them for safety, for interstate maintenance, for bridges and many other areas. These enhancements should be no different.

Enhancements are popular and a needed component of a balanced transportation policy. Hundreds of Members in this body requested money for enhancements, and a good many of those projects are included in this very bill. In fact, the list includes such things as a Hot Springs Bike Trail in Arkansas, Independence Biking Road Access in Kansas, Mountain Bay Trail in Wisconsin, Riverfront Trail in Georgia, the Salk Trail in Illinois, the Toledo Waterfront Redevelopment in Ohio, the Anacostia Riverwalk in the District of Columbia, and the list goes on and on. They include projects that have major social and economic benefits and provide jobs, like the Union Station rehabilitation project in Meridian, Mississippi, funded by enhancements that spurred $10 million of private investment in the Depot District, and the Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development has estimated that the River Heritage Museum, funded by enhancements, will bring in $20 million to the Paducah area over 5 years.

We should continue more than a decade of success and bipartisan support for this very popular enhancement program. If Members support the enhancement program and believe in a balanced transportation bill, they will vote for the Petri amendment that so many other names have been associated with, including my own, and I urge an aye vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am happy to accept the amendment as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending the members of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies for their hard work on this difficult bill. This subcommittee faced many challenges, and with the help of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), they produced a bill for this House to consider today.

I especially want to thank and recognize my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his leadership and his guidance in crafting this bill.

While our colleagues deserve praise for their work to improve this bill, it still has serious problems. I am concerned about the removal of the mandatory setaside for transportation enhancements. Funding for Amtrak is half of what is needed to properly maintain and run this system. This bill will make it harder, not easier, for low-income families to receive the earned income tax credit. And despite pledges made to protect the corporate expatriate language adopted by the full committee, this rule allows this important provision to be removed from the bill without a vote by the House.

Beginning with ISTEA in 1991 and continuing with TEA-21 in 1998, we required that the communities receive the maximum benefit from transportation investments. It is precisely because of mandated 10 percent setaside of surface transportation program funds that the enhancement program has successfully leveraged State matching contributions totalling almost $8.4 billion for 15,000 projects spanning every part of this country. These funds have been used for such worthwhile activities as the development of scenic bikeway and pedestrian facilities, the preservation of abandoned railway corridors, and the protection of historically significant transportation assets.

Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Massachusetts, more than $75 million has been invested in a total of 228 community projects since 1992. Sixty percent of that funding has been invested in devising a network of bikeway and pedestrian trails which is rapidly becoming an important part of our infrastructure. But section 114 of this bill would eliminate the mandatory 10 percent setaside for transportation enhancements that has made the program so widely popular and tremendously successful. Furthermore, it undermines the national transportation policy we reaffirmed in TEA-21 in order to allow States to divert funding from small scale, locally selected projects to massive transportation initiatives that do not have the same broad community support.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) will offer an amendment to strike this section from the bill, preserving the good policy set by ISTEA and TEA-21. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important amendment.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, also badly underfunds our national passenger rail system. Amtrak's management has recently begun to stabilize its finances, improve service, and increase ridership. Their reward for that progress in this bill is to be given one-half, or $900 million, of the $1.8 billion Amtrak needs to simply maintain existing operations. One-half.

Although I am pleased that more than 40 percent of the $900 million provided to Amtrak under this bill is designated by capital expenses along the Northeast Corridor, we all need to take a more national approach to Amtrak's funding. The money provided for Amtrak in this bill is not only grossly insufficient; it is intended to bring Amtrak to the brink of failure. That is wrong.

Once again, the subcommittee has included a provision that gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to arrange for an alternate service provider for commuter rail service should Amtrak cease operations. Mr. Speaker, that is not foresight. It is foreshadowing of a disastrous transportation crisis for this country. By providing Amtrak half of the funding it needs, this appropriations bill makes such an event a self-fulfilling prophesy. Amtrak's management deserves the opportunity to continue the progress it has made, and it deserves the confidence and support of this institution.

More importantly, the American public deserves a first-rate national intercity rail system to complement our aviation and highway systems. I cannot believe we would walk away from the success of the transportation enhancement program or retreat from the recent progress we have made in setting Amtrak on the right course. This appropriations bill, unfortunately, takes us backwards instead of forwards.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress strongly enough that although this is technically an open rule, the opportunity to amend this bill is very limited. The most substantive amendments brought before the Committee on Rules last night required waivers, and as usual the Committee on Rules did not grant any of those waivers.

House rules severely restrict the amendment process on all appropriations bills. Therefore, even though the Committee on Rules granted an open rule, one that technically does not restrict the amendment process, by its nature the amendment process for appropriations bills is still limited. For example, this rule does not make in order a number of important amendments including one offered by the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). That amendment would have provided an additional $500 million above the $900 million currently in the bill for Amtrak.

This would give Amtrak sufficient funding to ensure solvency and to begin to address the long-term capital needs that have been neglected for so long. The amendment offsets the additional Amtrak funding by reducing the tax cut that those earning $1 million or more would receive in 2004 from $88,000 to $88,500 or by only $2,500.

This rule does not protect language currently in H.R. 2989 that would prohibit the Treasury Department from contracting with expatriate corporations, those companies which operate here in the United States but set up shell corporations overseas for the expressed purpose of avoiding their taxes. Amendments to allow both of these worthwhile initiatives were defeated last night by the Committee on Rules Republicans, I am sad to say.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me comment on two amendments regarding U.S. policy towards Cuba. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and myself and several of our colleagues

from the Cuba Working Group will offer a bipartisan amendment to prohibit funds from being used to enforce restrictions on travel by Americans to Cuba. Another bipartisan amendment will be offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) that will eliminate the cap on remittances to Americans from Cuban households.

Each year for the past 3 years these amendments to end the ban on travel have received overwhelming support by the Members of this House. Last year it was approved by a vote of 262 to 167. The amendment to lift the cap on remittances passed by a similar margin. The crackdown on dissidents carried out earlier this year by the Cuban Government demonstrated how completely ineffective U.S. policy over the past 40 years has been in protecting human rights in Cuba. Because of this, many major human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have called on the United States Government to end the restrictions on Americans wanting to travel to Cuba. Most importantly, the amendment affirms the basic right of all Americans to travel freely.

Former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas said, ``Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. It often makes all other rights meaningful.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support for the fourth year in a row the Flake-McGovern amendment on ending the travel ban on the right of Americans to travel to Cuba and support the Delahunt-Flake amendment lifting the cap on remittances to Cuban family members living on the island.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to respond to the gentleman from New York on the issue of Amtrak. The fact of the matter is that Amtrak's management has recently begun to stabilize its finances and improve its service and increase its ridership, and as I mentioned in my opening statement, their reward for their progress in this bill is to be given one-half of what they need to maintain existing operations.

If the gentleman does not want to support Amtrak, he does not want to give Amtrak the money that they need to support their existing operations, then that is his right and he can vote no on such an amendment; but the Committee on Rules last night specifically denied the right of my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) to offer his amendment which would have corrected this shortfall, and I think that is one of the concerns that we have about this rule.

Why this rule truly is not open is because a lot of meaningful amendments to address some very serious issues were denied last night by the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would just close by urging my colleagues to vote no on this rule. The majority says we have an open rule, but as my colleagues have heard in this debate this morning, a number of very important, substantive amendments have not been made in order.

The amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has offered that would address this shortfall in funding for Amtrak was not allowed by the Committee on Rules last night. This is our only opportunity to fix this very, very serious issue. The Amtrak funding in this bill is half of what is necessary to maintain existing services and operations, and it is simply inadequate.

In addition, this rule does not protect language in this bill that would prohibit the Treasury Department from contracting with expatriate corporations. Again, these are these companies which operate here in the United States but set up shell corporations overseas for the express purpose of avoiding their taxes. We are at war. We have a difficult economy. American citizens are being asked to sacrifice,

and yet we are going to protect companies that set up these P.O. boxes in places like Bermuda to avoid paying taxes and to allow them to continue to receive U.S. Government contracts. It is unconscionable that we would try to protect those corporations.

I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding to me, and I want to say that I agree with the gentleman's comments with respect to the Richmond courthouse.

I might add, however, and I think the chairman hopefully shares this view, that the Los Angeles courthouse and others are on the priority list. As the gentleman knows, this committee has followed not a political agenda with respect to the funding of courthouses, but the court's determination of the most-needed facilities, of which Richmond, as the gentleman pointed out, comes very high.

I would hope the gentleman would join in urging the administration and urging the Congress to again start funding courthouses. If we do not, we are going to see the administration of justice put at risk in many of the highest demand areas in the country. So I appreciate the gentleman's comments about Richmond, but it applies as well to many other jurisdictions.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), first of all let me congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) on his taking the responsibilities of ranking member. He is doing an outstanding job in that capacity.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few general comments. I will have some possible amendments, which may be withdrawn, some of which may be pressed. But I want to thank the committee and I want to thank the chairman for pursuing what the Republican majority budget provided for with respect to pay parity. I think that was appropriate and consistent with our past policies. We have a lot of folks who are on the front lines who we will recognize.

However, I want to raise some concerns. As the chairman knows, the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, and now the present Bush administration, as I understand it, is for the project, although has not funded it. We have been pursuing the creation of a campus for the Food and Drug Administration which, of course, now has even more challenges dealing with the integrity of the food and drug supply in light of terrorist threats. But we have been trying to construct this campus, which will save the Federal Government money.

The reason it will save the Federal Government money is now the FDA is located around the Washington metropolitan area in 19 different leased facilities, and, of course, they are for the most part very old facilities and they are expensive facilities. GSA tells us it would be cheaper to build at the site that has been agreed to, not in my district, but in the State of Maryland. We have done some of those. There is currently in the plan a project for $48 million. I have reason to believe the Senate might include that.

Mr. Chairman, I am very hopeful that we will be able to include that in the conference report. I am not going to offer an amendment on that in the committee, but I really do believe that it is a very cost- conscious effort to continue this project to completion, because, as I say, it is not a partisan difference. As a matter of fact, the proposal was made, as the gentleman knows, by the Reagan administration and a Republican director of the FDA. But it is one that I think is very important.

In addition, I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we have not included in this legislation not only some of the money that has been talked about in terms of Amtrak and transportation, but in particular the election reform legislation that we passed. It was one of the few pieces of legislation that we passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. The Speaker was very proud of that. On our side of the aisle we were proud of it. The President in signing the bill indicated it was a bipartisan success.

We pledged to fund that effort, and we imposed deadlines on the States to accomplish certain things that were required to ensure access and accuracy of voting in elections. The deadline for the accomplishment of those objectives is 2006.

The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has been extraordinarily helpful and was a critical player in our initial funding. As the chairman knows, the bill would authorize $1.5 billion additional. We are $1 billion behind. There is $500 million in this bill. I appreciate the chairman's including that. I know he has been supportive of this effort.

But I will be working with the administration again. There is going to be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). I will speak on that. I am not sure that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will press that. The problem, of course, is where you take money from to get money for this objective. I think the chairman has a very real problem in that regard.

I am pressing the administration, and I have talked to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) about this, to seek emergency funds from the administration so that this project can be accomplished by the 2006 deadline. I would hope we could work on that.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment will be to transfer $8.2 million from the construction fund for the transportation building which we have cleared cannot be spent this year in 2004. It will be spent in 2006, and we did not want to damage that building because we are very strong supporters of that building, and put $8.26 million for the general aviation airports into the Washington metropolitan area. I would like to speak about it and then have a little discussion with the chairman and then perhaps take some action and we can work on this later.

In the aftermath, Mr. Chairman, of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration issued temporary flight restrictions on the small aircraft of general aviation as part of its efforts to make commercial air travel safer. Unfortunately, while those restrictions were lifted for general aviation in the entire rest of the country, small airports in the Washington metropolitan area have continued to languish under binding restrictions of their operations.

These are private sector. This is not public. These are private sector entrepreneurs, businessmen and -women who have invested their dollars in the operations of these general aviation airports. In fact, the only airports in the country that are closed or severely restricted to incoming and outgoing general aviation are Reagan National Airport and the three D.C. general aviation airports.

I might say that I offer this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and others and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is here. He can speak for himself. As a result, these small airports, specifically College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, Washington Executive, and National, National is not on the brink of financial collapse, obviously, because it is associated with a large public airport. The other three airports, however, are not in that situation. They survive or fail solely on the revenues from their general aviation, and they are in dire straits. These airports have been forced to nearly cease their operations, effectively endangering the livelihood of their employees who have lost income and jobs and airport owners who have lost longtime customers and almost all of their revenue.

There is no doubt that we must stem the tide of economic decline for general aviation. This industry is a proven integral part of the Nation's economy, providing vital service and economic stability to individual families, churches, hospitals, colleges, industry, small businesses and communities.

Aviation transportation in Maryland is a $1.3 billion industry. My amendment is, therefore, very simple. It will reimburse these general aviation airports for the security costs incurred and revenue foregone because of government restriction.

Let me say, I have had discussions with Sean O'Keefe, who is now the administrator of NASA, but who was the deputy administrator of OMB. He believes this is fair. Secretary Mineta testified before our subcommittee that this was their proposal that this be done, and there is legislation pending to accomplish that, but obviously it needs an appropriation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who represents the District of Columbia and National Airport.

I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her work and her cosponsorship of this amendment and her comments.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his comments and would remind my colleagues that we have given billions of dollars to the airlines, these are billion dollar corporations, as a result of 9-11. These three little airports, plus National Airport, are the only private business people so situated in the airline industry who have not received compensation. And they, unlike the airlines per se, are losing their entire investments because of their inability to operate these airlines.

I appreciate the chairman's observations with respect to the equities of the claim here. I also appreciate the observation of the chairman and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that we may be subject to a lawsuit which we would lose because this is in fact an effective taking of their property without due process. None of these folks want to damage the security of this region or the White House or the Capitol. They understand our concern. But we certainly need to compensate them.

In light of the fact the chairman has indicated his willingness to work with us to try to ensure the funding, I believe $8.2 million which we have in here is the approximate amount for National, a larger sum, and then a much smaller sum for the other three; and I believe that the sum from which we have taken it will not in any way adversely affect the Transportation Department's building going forward because of the scheduling of those expenditures; but because the chairman has made that representation, I will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his leadership in this effort as well. He and I have worked very closely on this issue and he has been very focused on National and the other three airports.

It is certainly ironic that we are making efforts, I think appropriate efforts, to fund infrastructure in Iraq; but we cannot compensate business people who were damaged by 9-11 and who are almost driven out of business at a very, as the chairman said, at a relatively nominal sum. So I hope with the chairman's leadership we will be able to do this in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I have 15 points of order to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I make a point of order against the provision found on page 17, lines 6 through 11. This provision would rescind $137 million in unobligated balances of Highway Contract Authority.

Under this provision, each State Department of Transportation would lose funds from the Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program, the National Highway System Program, the Interstate Maintenance Program, and the Bridge Program. This will reduce each State's ability to move funds from one category to another within its obligation limitation and will be particularly harmful given that States may soon need to use their unobligated balances to continue their programs pending enactment of a long term reauthorization of surface transportation programs. The creation and recision of contract authority is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This decision is legislative in nature and in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 110 which begins on page 18 and ends on page 23, line 15. Section 110 specifies the distribution of funds for the Federal-aid Highways Program. I expect that this Congress will extend the existing highway program for a period of time. If we do so, this provision will create confusion and conflict and is unnecessary. This entire section is legislative in nature, in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 111 which begins on page 23, line 16 and ends on page 24, line 12. Section 111 increases the Federal Highway administrative takedown authorized in 23 USC 104(a) from one and one-sixth percent to 1.35 percent. It would also waive existing law. This is legislative in nature, in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the last two provisos of section 118 on page 28, line 19 beginning with ``provided'' and through page 29, line 3.

Section 118 directs the Secretary of Transportation to modify a specific loan agreement and to have the proposed loan modification funded under the Transportation and Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Program. By statute, eligibility for federally guaranteed loans under the TIFIA program is determined by the Secretary of Transportation in accordance with rigorous and selective criteria. It also waives existing law. Waiving existing law is legislative in nature and violates clause 2 of House rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' found on page 31, line 5. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase ``to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)'' on page 31, lines 19 through the word ``account'' on line 21. This section appropriates $47 million from the Highway Trust Fund for the border enforcement program. There is no current authorization of a border enforcement program. This language clearly constitutes an unauthorized appropriation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of section 130 which begins on page 31, line 24. This section authorizes an administrative takedown that exceeds the one-third of 1 percent administrative takedown authorized by section 104(a)(1)(B) of Title 23. It also violates existing law. This increase is legislative in nature in violation of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' found on page 34, line 24. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the two provisos which begin on page 36, line 17 starting with the words ``provided further'' through page 37, line 5. These provisos of section 104 earmark the manner in which certain safety-related grants are to be used by the States. These unauthorized earmarks reduce both the amount of funding available to the States and the States' discretion in the use of these funds. I object to these earmarks on the grounds that they are unauthorized, in violation of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the proviso that begins at the end of line 16 on page 45 through line 23. This proviso purports to transfer $50 million provided by TEA for the clean fuels bus formula grant program to the transit bus discretionary grant program, where it is distributed not by the statutory formula envisioned in TEA but rather by earmarks in report language. It also waives existing law. This proviso is legislative in nature in violation of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' found on page 46, line 25. This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.

I have additional points of order, but they are starting on page 51 which would that be in order at this point?

No. Page 51, line 12 is my next point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and several other Members in offering an amendment that would strike section 114 of the bill.

This provision, as described in the committee report, ``discontinues the mandatory 10 percent set-aside from the surface transportation program for the transportation enhancement program.''

Mr. Chairman, this is wrong on many levels, and the provision should be stricken from the bill. Over the last 12 years, enhancements have become an appreciated and important part of our transportation program. Though individual projects are not costly, enhancements nevertheless pack a big punch in

terms of promoting economic growth and tourism. They fund bike paths that are enjoyed by families on a Saturday morning. They complete street-scape projects that revitalize the neighborhood. They improve our quality of life and have become important to communities across our country. All of them have a transportation-related purpose.

It has been said that we need to give State transportation departments the flexibility to decide how to spend their money. Well, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, which is known by the phrase AASHTO, support the amendment. They have come to value the contributions of this program.

In reference to diversions, I would like to point out that nonhighway recreational users contribute, according to the estimate of the Treasury Department and the Transportation Department, up to $268 million a year in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. I trust that in the last several decades recreational users still have contributed more than they have received since we created this program.

It has been said that we need to eliminate the enhancements program because we are billions short for covering our basic highway and bridge needs. I am glad there is recognition of the need to invest in our transportation systems, but I daresay that eliminating this $600 million program is not the answer to our funding needs. Finally, Members should be aware that the President's reauthorization proposal, which was just recently submitted, continues to dedicate funding for 10 enhancement programs.

While this amendment should pass on the merits of the program alone, I must also say that it is wrong to use the appropriations process to, in essence, rewrite the transportation program and allow funds now dedicated for enhancements to be used for other purposes. This is more appropriately the function of the authorizing committee.

In short, Mr. Chairman, State Departments of Transportation through their organizations support this amendment; counties support the amendment; cities support this amendment; environmental groups support the amendment; AARP supports it; bike, architects, conservation and historic conservation groups support it. Recreation and travel groups support it. Even various health groups and the Paralyzed Veterans of America have expressed support. And the list goes on. It is not a State's rights issue. The States have spoken. They want to retain dedicated funding for transportation enhancements.

Mr. Chairman, let us follow the lead of our President and continue dedicated funding for transportation enhancements by passing this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters in support of the amendment from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the American Association of Retired People; the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors; and the Transportation Enhancements Coalition.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials,

Washington, DC, September 3, 2003.

Dear Congressman: I am writing on behalf of the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) to urge your support for an amendment sponsored by

Congressmen Thomas Petri and John Olver to strike language in

H.R. 2989, the FY 2004 Transportation, Treasury, and

Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, that eliminates

funding specifically dedicated for transportation

enhancements. The Petri-Olver amendment would strike Section

114 from the bill, restoring the Transportation Enhancements

(TE) Program set-aside first established in 1991 in the

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).

The TE Program is one of the most popular of the federal

transportation programs with over 17,000 projects in

communities located in almost every congressional district

across the country. Projects ranging from pedestrian, bike

and trail facilities to historic bridges and rehabilitated

train stations have significantly contributed to the quality

of life in these communities. AASHTO, which represents

transportation agencies in the fifty States, the District of

Columbia and Puerto Rico, supports continuation of this

popular and worthy program.

Sincerely yours,

James C. Codell, III,

President