Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 97 recognizing the Garden Club of America's 91st annual meeting this week here in Washington, D.C.

The Garden Club of America, founded in 1913, is a recognized national leader in the fields of horticulture, conservation, education, and civic improvement with 195 member clubs in 40 States and the District of Columbia.

Each year the Club holds its annual meeting in a different host city. This year 12 Garden Clubs in the District of Columbia and the State of Maryland are hosting the meeting, which occurs in Washington, D.C., only once every 20 years.

In our Nation's Capital, the Garden Club of America was instrumental in the founding of the National Arboretum, the development of the Archives of American Gardens at the Smithsonian Institution, and the creation and installation of the Butterfly Habitat Garden which now graces the Mall at the National Museum of Natural History.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senate Concurrent Resolution 97 to recognize the many contributions this organization has made in communities across our country and to send our best wishes on the occasion of the Garden Club of America's 91st annual meeting in Washington, D.C., April 24 through the 27.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3550, pursuant to House Resolution 593, it shall be in order to consider, prior to any other amendment, the amendment that I have placed at the desk as though printed as an amendment printed in part B of House Report 108-456, to be debatable for not to exceed 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled between myself and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is any objection to this technical amendment. It has been reviewed by people on both sides.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. It is offered by a very valued and hard-working member of our committee. We have been working with the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle on the FAST proposal. Elements of it are contained in the bill before us. But the amendment as drafted would be disruptive to a number of aspects of the legislation that is currently on the books.

There is a three-State pilot program that would be repealed by the amendment, and there are also several new tolling proposals that are in this legislation that would be repealed by the proposal. We are not opposed to working with the Member and trying to perfect what is in the legislation as it goes forward, but as things stand at this point we oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to concur in the commendation that our chairman extended to the working staff on both sides of the aisle, and to say to my colleagues that this is a work in progress.

This is an important milestone, but this is not the end of the process by any means. We will be working on this and voting on it over the coming months, and then we will be back under the terms of this bill in about 18 months to readdress the needs of our Nation in the transportation area.

So this is not a one-time snapshot that is set. This is a work in progress; and I hope that, as we continue with this work in progress, we will work together to meet the transportation needs of our country, which are enormous.

Mr. Chairman, I would first like to salute the chairman of our committee for bringing us to this day and to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the staff on both the majority and minority of the committee. It has been a lot of work and a long road, and we still have far to go, but this is an important milestone in the passage of our Nation's transportation policy for the next 6 years.

This legislation will have an impact on each of our constituents literally every day as they go about their daily lives, whether it is driving kids to school, hopping on a train as part of a daily commute or picking up a gallon

of milk that has been brought over the road on a truck.

We on the committee had hoped to be discussing a somewhat different bill today. TEA LU, as introduced at $375 billion, is the right thing to do. It was fashioned to start to address the needs as identified by our own United States Department of Transportation. Anything less will not maintain and improve our transportation system. Nonetheless, this bill at $275 billion is a step toward meeting the needs we as a Nation have with a reduced amount of resources and is the best that we can achieve at the current time, given the situation that we find ourselves in.

This bill provides increases each year in funding for the core highway formula programs for the States so that every State will see an increase in its funding. It includes important programs for safety, infrastructure safety on the road, work safety, motor carrier safety and behavioral safety programs to address drunk driving, occupational protection programs and other hazards.

There are many provisions that facilitate the movement of freight, an important element to interstate commerce and a primary Federal interest in transportation. It will allow us to meet the needs of emerging trade corridors in this post-interstate construction era and other projects that have regional or national benefits that overwhelm the capabilities of any one State.

We retain funding for transit at the 80/20 split and include programs that will help States meet the mobility needs of both urban and rural communities and improve opportunities for the elderly and for the disabled.

It is forward looking in providing for a robust research program and innovative payments in bridges, recycled materials, freight movements and environmental programs. We prepare for the future in beginning to tackle the problem of identifying new financing mechanisms to replace the gas tax as a source of revenue for the Highway Trust Fund in the future and consider the future of the interstate system.

Are there concerns about funding formulas or other policy issues? Of course. In a bill of this size it is inevitable. We face the same questions literally every time that the House considers a reauthorization bill.

In order to make progress in providing what some are calling for in terms of equity and donor State issues, you need more funds. Unfortunately, we do not have that today. But as we move through conference and in the future, we want to try to address those needs, if given the resources to do so.

It is important to note, too, that the spending in this bill is paid for by the revenues coming into the Highway Trust Fund. We retain the guarantees that we fought so hard for in TEA 21 and maintain the trust with the traveling public that the gas taxes they pay will actually be spent on transportation improvements.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask support for the bill so we can provide jobs, protect our citizens' safety and maintain and improve our economic standing in a fast-changing world.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from east Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I can state for the majority that we will work with the gentleman and with the minority leader on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana knows that this Member, at least, has met on a number of occasions both here in Washington and down in New Orleans and other places in Louisiana with groups who are supporting this high-priority project. It is an important project. But there are a lot of important projects in our country. Our committee is trying to come up with the resources to meet a variety of needs.

I would urge the gentleman to work with the committee and the process, rather than attempting to single out his particular project in this way, because it is not going to work politically here in the House, given all the other regions and their concerns.

But what the gentleman is saying is important. He does have an important project, and we are eager to work with the gentleman to try to come up with the resources necessary to help move it forward.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentleman did misdraft the original amendment. We are still going to oppose the amendment as redrafted on the merits, but extend him the courtesy of correcting his drafting error.

If the gentleman will yield, I would be very happy to do so.

That is something that we are eager to work with the gentleman on. This is important not only in Illinois, it is important in Wisconsin, in Minnesota, and in a number of other States.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 150th Anniversary of the first meeting of the Republican Party in the town of Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854. On that momentous day, a group of 54 concerned citizens gathered in the Little White Schoolhouse to protest the extension of slavery into the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. Led by Alvan Bovay, this group of citizens dissolved the local Whig and Free Soil parties and officially declared themselves ``Republicans.'' For this reason, the Little White Schoolhouse has long been known as the Birthplace of the Republican Party.

Since its inception, the Republican Party has stood for Liberty and Equality for all--making the Little White Schoolhouse a symbol of civic responsibility to the residents of Ripon and the nation. On May 30, 1974, the Department of the Interior formally recognized the historical importance of the first meeting of the Republican Party by designating the Little White Schoolhouse as a National Historic Landmark. The structure is significant, according to the National Park Service, because ``a meeting in this simple, one story clapboard and frame schoolhouse on March 20, 1854 and another in Jackson, Michigan on July 6'' led to the formation of the Republican Party. To this day it attracts visitors from around the world.

In order to commemorate the 150th Anniversary of the founding of the Republican Party, the town of Ripon is holding a celebration entitled, ``From Schoolhouse to White House; A Celebration of Active Citizenship'' that will promote the importance of civic involvement. This celebration will also honor the leadership that 54 citizens of Ripon displayed on March 20, 1854, in proclaiming themselves Republicans under the banner of Liberty and Equality. The event on March 20, 2004, caps off a two month series of events that have been held in Ripon, including a conference on the accomplishments of Wisconsin women and mock elections held in the Ripon schools to focus attention on this most basic form of active citizenship.

Therefore, I want to once again recognize the 150th Anniversary of the first meeting of the Republican Party at the Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill H.R. 3783, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004.

Although a lot of work has been done on the reauthorization bill, there are challenges remaining, including identifying the needed resources to support funding levels over the next 6 years and addressing the concerns of donor States who want to get a better return on their contribution to the Highway Trust Fund.

This short-term extension is a must-pass bill and so, frankly, is the six-year reauthorization at some point. This is not, as some try to characterize it, pork. This is needed investment in our Nation's productive infrastructure.

If we fail to invest in our Nation's productive infrastructure, we will become less competitive as an economy, we will have a less productive economy, higher prices in the stores, less safe driving on our highways. It is estimated that one out of three deaths on our highways, some 40,000 a year, could be prevented if we had well- maintained, well-designed, modern transportation infrastructure.

This is an investment which, if we fail to make, we are going to pay anyway. The fact is we are not going to save any money by underinvesting in our transportation infrastructure as a country. We will pay in terms of blowing gas out of people's tailpipes, in terms of delay, in terms of inefficiencies in our economy or we can invest and have something to show for it: a first-rate transportation system linking our country together, making us competitive as an economy.

Today, we worry a lot in America about the growing economic competition we face from across the Pacific in China. Let me tell you what China is doing. They are taking a leaf out of our book. Back 60 years ago, Dwight Eisenhower, who knew something about war and about competitiveness and about our country, he stood back, put a cap as best he could on defense spending and pulled the lid full speed ahead on investing in our productive domestic transportation infrastructure. We built the interstate highway system.

What did the Soviet Union do? No roads to speak of. They relied on their railroads. Forty years later, who had the better investment strategy? We had something to save for. We were more competitive as a country, and they collapsed.

What is happening today in the world? We are talking and debating about whether we are going to maintain our commitment to a first-rate infrastructure, grow it to accommodate growth in our economy, grow it to accommodate on the public sector side the tremendous investment the private sector has made in communication and computer technology, to manage data, which at the end of the day squeeze inventory out of the system, go to just-in-time delivery, wonderful things that make us much more productive. But if the goods cannot be moved efficiently, none of that pays off the way it otherwise can.

What is China planning to do today? They are planning over the next 15 years to replicate our interstate transportation system, four-lane highways linking that continent. They are planning on doing in 15 years what it took us 60 years to do. If we fail to meet this challenge, where will we be? What will we have to show for all this supposed savings that we make as a country by underinvesting in our infrastructure? We will leave our children and our grandchildren disarmed in the face of that challenge.

So I ask my colleagues to put aside the rhetoric, recognize that there are different kinds of spending in this world. Everyone says their spending is investment. This is real investment. You have got something to show for it. We will leave a legacy to our children and our grandchildren that we can be proud of and that they can benefit from. This is must-pass legislation, and we are going to have to pay for it if we are going to want to get something for it.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of the continuing resolution before us today. It is vitally important that this bill be passed by both the House and the Senate and delivered to the President before February 29. Our economy cannot withstand the shutdown of the national surface transportation programs, and it cannot withstand a kind of gnawing away and erosion of our commitment in this area otherwise, either. If we do that, we will regret it in years to come.

Madam Chairman, I applaud the vision of the Chairman of the Subcommittee and the Ranking Minority Member in recommending additional helicopter assets to be deployed on the West Coast for drug interdiction and port security. Currently, there are eight leased, armed helicopters based in Jacksonville, FL, which make up the entire Coast Guard Airborne Use of Force capability. Pre 9-11, this Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron (or HITRON) was used solely for drug interdiction, primarily in the Caribbean. Occasionally, some or all of the fleet was sent to the West Coast since about 50 percent of the drug interdiction has occurred in the eastern Pacific. Post 9-11, insofar as possible, these same eight armed helicopters have also assumed port and inland waterway security duties.

Lakes Michigan and Superior form part of the Wisconsin border. Currently the air stations at Travers City, Michigan, and Detroit monitor the Great Lakes from Niagara Falls through Lake Superior. They are already stretched very thinly. To meet increased terrorist threats wherever they occur, the Coast Guard must rob Peter to pay Paul. The humanitarian aspect of the Coast Guard's mission is a constant, so it is imperative that they obtain more assets--ships, fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft.

Since their introduction into the Coast Guard Inventory many years ago, the role of helicopters has expanded. They had primarily been used for search and rescue missions at sea until the introduction of the lighter, armed Sting Rays. Beginning with the introduction of the Sting Rays in 2000, they have deployed as a cutter-based aircraft to pursue, intercept and disable ``go-fast'' boats engaged in drug running. To date, they have intercepted over 30 Tons of illegal drugs valued at more than $2.1 billion. There are just not enough of them to go around!

The Coast Guard motto is Semper Paratus--Always Prepared. As stated on their web site, they are The Shield of Freedom; The Defender of the Homeland; The Port in the Storm and The Enforcer of the Sea. They are indeed all those things and always have been. However, since 9-11, all those things have taken on added significance. To accomplish these missions, they need more assets to meet the increased burden.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for this resolution which recognizes the 100th Anniversary of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I know first hand the valuable role that the Association and all its many member companies play in building infrastructure around the country. This has a very direct impact on our quality of life and helps to maintain our transportation network that is so vital to our economic prosperity.

First founded as the National Quarry Owners Association one hundred years ago, the Association now represents about 800 members across North America. The Association devotes energy and resources to encouraging the professional development of its members, promoting safe workplaces, and conducting research to improve the quality and longevity of asphalt and concrete products.

Aggregates are one of the building blocks of our nation's infrastructure, composing 80 percent of concrete and 90 percent of asphalt. And in terms of building structures, about 400 tons of aggregate is used on the average home. The work of this industry can be seen all around us. And yet, most of us probably take for granted the contributions of this industry as we drive on roads, learn in schools, and even brush our teeth at night with toothpaste--all of which are created by aggregates in one form or another.

On the occasion of its 100th Anniversary, I want to recognize the efforts of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association and the many contributions its members make to our nation every day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Manitowoc, Wisconsin, and Kamogawa, Japan, on the occasion of the 10th Anniversary of the formation of their sister city relationship. On August 3, 1993, Mayor Kevin Crawford and Mayor Toshio Honda signed a Sister City Agreement in order to forge a long-term relationship between the two cities. This anniversary marks a decade of great friendship that has touched the lives of thousands of people in a positive way and has provided years of joy through the bonds that have been created.

Since 1993, Mayor Honda has brought several delegations to Manitowoc and Mayor Crawford has led friendship visits to Kamogawa. Several other groups, including civil servants and student musicians, have also traveled between the two cities. On the 8th Anniversary of the agreement, Kamogawa delegates planted cherry blossom trees at several Manitowoc locations as living symbols of this growing relationship. Manitowoc reciprocated by planting sugar maple trees in Kamogawa.

The sister city relationship has been supported by the many industries in the City of Manitowoc that rely on Japan as a major market for their products. One out of six jobs in Wisconsin exists because of export trade. One of the objectives of the partnership has been to ``internationalize'' the youth of both cities and prepare them to be part of the global community. Through the summer student exchange program, which was initiated in 1995, students from each city spend 20 days with each other in homes in Manitowoc and then Kamogawa learning to appreciate their respective customs and culture.

This year, in honor of their 10th Anniversary, Mayor Crawford again traveled to Kamogawa in early September and Mayor Honda will visit Manitowoc in October.

Today these two cities share one of the most vibrant sister city relationships in the nation. They are to be commended for encouraging and promoting goodwill between the United States and Japan. Therefore, it is fitting that Manitowoc, Wisconsin, and Kamogawa, Japan, receive special recognition and appreciation on the occasion of this most memorable anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, this stopgap measure is needed to give the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and our colleagues on the Senate authorizing committees time to finalize the long-term surface transportation authorization bill.

Though much work has been done on the bill, there are challenges remaining, including identifying the needed resources to support a $375 billion level of funding over 6 years and addressing the concerns of donor States who want to get a better return on their contribution to the Highway Trust Fund.

This short-term extension is a must-pass bill. If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President before the end of the month, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees: The Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Without passage of this extension, new highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to States, transit construction will be halted, and Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulations on the highways and at the borders will end.

The bill before us provides over $17 billion in new funding authority, which reflects 5 months' worth or \5/12\ths of the budget authority and associated outlays in the 2004 budget resolution that Congress passed earlier this year.

Some groups have expressed concern about a provision in H.R. 3087 that allows the temporary transfer of funds among core highway programs to give States flexibility, if needed, in administering their programs under a short-term extension. However, this bill provides that any transfers will be restored when the next highway bill and transit authorization bill is passed.

When this provision was included in the surface transportation extension bill that bridged the gap between ISTEA and TEA-21, nearly half the States did not utilize this authority at all, and every State fully restored all transferred funds. We will monitor this process closely again to ensure that increased flexibility does not lead to funds being used for ineligible purposes, and that funds are not needlessly transferred.

I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3087 today. It is vitally important that this bill be passed by both the House and Senate and delivered to the President before September 30. Our economy cannot withstand the shutdown of the national surface transportation program.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California is correct. Section 3(c) specifically states that the transferability provision applies only during this 5-month period, and any funds used will be restored.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that a letter from the National Association of State Park Directors in support of my amendment to H.R. 2989 regarding the transportation enhancements program (voted on September 4, 2003) be included in the Record.

National Association

of State Park Directors,

September 4, 2003.

Dear Congressman Petri: The National Association of State

Part Directors (NASPD) is the organization that comprises the

leadership of the State Park Systems in all fifty (50)

States. We are writing to support your amendment to strike

section 114 from the 2004 Transportation Appropriations Bill,

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