Ernest Istook

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the point of order, if I understand it correctly, is made against a portion, rather than an entirety, of the paragraph. I believe the House rules require the point of order must lie against the entire paragraph and not just a portion thereof. I believe the point of order is incorrectly offered accordingly.

Mr. ISTOOK. If the gentleman's point of order lies against the entire paragraph, I concede the point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order lie against the entire paragraph, that it be expanded against the entire paragraph.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, with it expanded to include the entire paragraph, I must concede the point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of clarity, the Chair has ruled to strike the entire paragraph?

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. First, I believe the point of order would properly lie against the entire paragraph. However, in this case, and I want to make sure this is agreeable with my counterpart, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I intend to offer an amendment after the sustaining of the point of order to insert the language, ``of which $4.972 billion shall be derived from the airport and airway trust fund,'' effectively reinserting the stricken provision but changing the dollar figure from $6.2 billion to $4.972, which I believe satisfies the parliamentary requirements.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I will not ask that the point of order be expanded.

Mr. ISTOOK. I do.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this simply changes the figure that comes from the airport trust fund to satisfy the point of order that was raised without doing further damage to this section of the bill. I ask that it be adopted.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be expanded to lie against the entire paragraph.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for raising this important issue. I welcome the opportunity to set record straight. As you know, the fiscal year 2005 House Transportation Appropriations bill provides the FAA with an additional $9 million for additional hiring and training of air traffic controllers. This $9 million is above the amount already budgeted by the FAA. Our report does not specify how much has to go for salaries and how much for training, but we can safely assume the majority will go for salaries. Probably no more than $2 million to $4 million more of those funds would be for the actual training. The base budget for the FAA includes $47.5 million for controller training. Our bill allows that money to be used at the discretion of the FAA at the CTI programs, at the FAA Academy or elsewhere. Contrary to inaccurate press report, this report language does not affect the role of CTI programs as a vital source of air traffic control candidates for the FAA. The language only directs that the portion of the extra $9 million that is used for training is to be used at the FAA Academy. But that leaves the overwhelming majority of training funds that are in the base budget, $47.5 million, at the discretion of the FAA, which can include the CTI programs at the same level as currently. This report language does not affect the role that CTI programs play in the training process of the FAA. There is nothing in this bill that prevents CTI programs such as the one in the gentleman's district at the University of North Dakota from continuing in the same level and scope as they do currently.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do want to speak against the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). This particular language has been carried in this bill, I understand, for several years. The airport is actually in the district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who I understand is in the hospital currently, but he strongly desires the provision to remain in the bill and not be stricken. I am also advised that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), another of the Louisiana Members whose district adjoins the airport, strongly supports keeping this provision in the bill. Members should have the right, Mr. Chairman, to protect their district. The runway would not, as I understand it, be in the district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), though I understand his concern for his State and for the overall community. I do ask, however, that the amendment be opposed, that it remain in the bill, and that we respect the wishes of the Members who are most closely involved and fully informed on this problem.

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. ISTOOK. I understand that. I appreciate the gentleman. I do not want to be incorrect on any of these things. It is obviously a project that affects a multiplicity of districts, the way the boundaries are configured. I do ask that the language remain in the bill.

Mr. ISTOOK

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

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist the point of order be expanded to lie against the entire paragraph; and as so expanded, I would concede the point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be expanded to lie against the entire paragraph; and as so expanded, I would concede the point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, of course the effect of the point of order raised is to take the money that was in the bill, $900 million, the amount requested by the administration for Amtrak, and to remove it. I regret that the people who are staunch proponents of Amtrak want to continue it the way that it is running now. The administration opposes any more than $900 million for Amtrak without reforming it. Amtrak has not been authorized since December of 2002 when the prior authorization bill expired. I think it is important that we recognize why it has not been reauthorized. Until a couple of years ago, Amtrak was still telling us, oh, they are about to start making a profit and not to need Federal subsidies anymore. After operating for 30 years, Amtrak has received over $40 billion in Federal subsidies. It still only provides one-half of 1 percent of all inner city transportation. Half of it is in the Northeast Corridor. In the last 5 years, the subsidies by taxpayers through the appropriations process have gone up 71 percent. In the same time, Amtrak's ridership is only up 11 percent. It is a huge gap. It continues to operate with substantial losses. Why? Because we do not apply business principles. We do not apply proper principles to it. Amtrak is only, I think, about 5 percent of all the rail passenger service in the country. Most of the rail passenger service is commuter rail. Amtrak functions in many areas actually as commuter rail and the subsidies are astounding. If Amtrak is operating to provide commuter rail passenger service, why is all the subsidy dumped on the Federal taxpayer? Where are the States? Where are the cities? The administration wants to create partnerships with them to have participation of the people who benefit from Amtrak and who want a subsidized rail service which is limited to certain parts of the country. Those parts of the country need to be the ones that come to the table and say we want this and therefore we are willing to pay for part of it. Amtrak passengers in some cases on some routes receive hundreds of dollars per passenger in taxpayer subsidies. There are plenty of examples where it is cheaper to hire a private limousine and driver to pick up somebody at their door in one city and transport them to another city to the door of their destination; it is cheaper to hire them a limo and a driver and give them personal service than to have them ride Amtrak in some situations. We are not taking a realistic look at this. We should not be bemoaning the fact that Amtrak is not being given more taxpayers' money. If you want subsidized rail travel, you need to get your mayors, you need to get your Governors, you need to get your local communities and officials willing to pay for some of the costs of what operates for many of them as a commuter rail service. If you take the train, as I have done, between Washington and New York City, so often you will find when it leaves Washington it does not have that many people on it. When it gets to Baltimore it still does not have that many people on it. Only when you get to the outskirts of New York City do you start picking up a lot of passengers because it is a commuter rail to them. Why are we not talking to the communities about saying, you have a role in Amtrak if you want it. Do not tell us it is all a Federal responsibility. I know that the people feel passionately about it; but we have a failed approach to Amtrak, and it is time that we recognize it. If we want to do something about rail passenger service, we need a lot more realistic model than we have with Amtrak. I support the administration's proposal, which is to say we should not be increasing funding for Amtrak until such time as we have reform legislation that brings local and State people to the table and the private sector as partners in that.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order must be expanded to lie against the entire paragraph and, as so expanded, concede the point of order.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, due to the points of order that have been raised, we have many amounts, of course, that have been stricken from the bill. Some of the amounts would have added money to the bill through the point of order strikings. Some would have subtracted money from the bill. The net of those is this $1.7 billion figure. We need a place to put that. I know it might be nice to put it on the national debt or such, but that would still under parliamentary procedures allow people to offer an amendment to spend it someplace else. We have in the General Services Administration the Federal Building Fund, an unmet backlog of I believe some $7 billion in unmet Federal construction needs. Although it is not my intent to keep this money back when this bill goes to conference, it is my intent essentially to restore and to resolve the parliamentary problems and to restore it to the accounts of which it was taken. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this bill today, I offer this amendment to take this money that has been stricken from the bill and put it in the Federal Building Fund.