Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will. As the gentleman knows, there is money in the bill here, I believe $100 million, directed toward that effort, but we will be glad to work with him to see that we can do a better job for more.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points. Mr. Chairman, with regard to this amendment, this $300 million reduction is a cut in budget authority currently available to the FAA. Just a few minutes ago, or now probably a half-hour ago, the CBO reaffirmed to the staff that this bill will result in savings. Apparently others have raised technical points over the last days as to what CBO has considered but CBO does not find these agreements convincing. Certainly this amendment is less painful, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) than cuts to the Coast Guard drug interdiction, which both sides want; the FAA, and other programs. This is precisely the responsible action to take. Let me just say one other thing that I just thought of when I was listening to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn). I think this is all going to work out. I did not support the amendments that the gentleman offered to the agriculture bill, but I think I would be less than honest if I did not say that the gentleman has been courageous and has come here to propose and to argue for his point of view. Everyone ought to have the ability to come here and make their case. He has made his case I think in a fair, fair way. I did not vote that way. But I think this process has come together. I think he has actually been helpful on this bill. I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been very, very faithful in trying to keep to the numbers. I think it will come together with the other side of the aisle whereby we can pass these appropriation bills, spending as little as possible, with integrity and faithfulness to the American people, recognizing the difference in views that we may have. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) is committed to doing that just as the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) is. It takes a lot of courage to kind of do what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has done. Although I have not, and he knows that I have not, agreed, there is a great quote, and I do not have it with me, but I use it in speeches that I give. It was a quote by Bobby Kennedy that he gave in South Africa to a group of students in 1966. It is a profound speech that moves me every time that I read it, where he talks about moral courage and timidity and to brave the censure of your colleagues. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has done that. Again, I feel an obligation to say I did not vote for those amendments, but one has to respect that, and one has to admire that. I respect the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) in what he is doing. I hope that we can work together to pass bills in a way in which we all can be proud.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We interceded against it.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think we did several years ago, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) can better explain, as the gentleman is here.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey which would restrict funding for the Amtrak Reform Council to $450,000, or the level enacted in fiscal year 1999. The bill before my colleagues contains an appropriation for the ARC of $750,000 which is what the administration asked for, well below the $1.3 million that the ARC requested for fiscal year 2000. We have taken them down dramatically to the level requested by the administration. Secondly, this was part of the Amtrak authorization bill. We want to do everything we can to see that Amtrak makes it. For those of us who voted for the ARC in the authorization bill, we need to give them the ability to do their work. If we don't, it would be a mistake. I have a letter from Mr. Carmichael, Chairman of the Amtrak Reform Council. He says: ``Cutting ARC's funding to $450,000 would damage ARC severely. Specifically, the cut would mean eliminating our valuable program of field hearings that are providing important insights into the problems of Amtrak and rail passenger service throughout the Nation, and laying off at least two of our small staff of six''--they only have a staff of six--``just at the time when we will be preparing our first annual report under the Congressional mandate.'' The Congress created the panel. I think to wound the panel at this time would be a mistake. In 1998 Amtrak lost $930 million. Amtrak's high speed program, the most important element in Amtrak's program to improve its financial performance to meet the goals of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, is now falling behind schedule, and now for Congress to try to save $300,000, which is the amount that Amtrak loses in about an 8-hour period, by underfunding the organization as it is trying to bring fiscal sanity and some semblance of making this organization run appropriately would really be shortsighted. It would be self-defeating for those who really want Amtrak to survive, to make it, as the members of this committee and most Members of the Congress want. It would be a mistake. So I have great respect, and sometimes we just say those things, but I am not just saying it for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), but I really think this would actually hurt Amtrak. Since Congress in its wisdom set up the ARC to help Amtrak stay alive, we should not take their ability away. So, therefore, I urge the defeat of the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I have no objection to the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The language included in the omnibus bill is permanent law.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has spoken to me about this. Everything is very tight. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and I can work together and see. But we will certainly take a very, very close look at it, I promise.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. I am going to concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman, but this is the provision that deletes the non-Federal match for the section 130 grade crossing program. In 1998, the unobligated national balance totaled $148 million and now may be as high as $220 million. Many States have difficulty expanding the section 130 funds and, as a result, some States have a few years of unobligated balances that could be used to eliminate grade crossings. For example, the State of Wisconsin has $13 million in unobligated balances. The State of Oregon has $6,888,000 in unobligated balances. If we were to delete the non-Federal match, it would permit States to reduce those unobligated balances and eliminate a greater number of grade crossing hazards than previously planned and, therefore, improving safety for the American family. Mr. Chairman, maybe this is an area the authorizers could look at, because I think it would enable States to move that money quickly and, I think, bring about safety. Each year there are 3,500 collisions at grade crossings with nearly 1,500 injuries and 500 deaths. The tragic accident we heard of earlier, that we worked with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) on, certainly demonstrates that more needs to be done to upgrade safety at grade crossings. With that, hopefully, this can be looked at in some way, because I think it would be good in helping to save lives. Mr. Chairman, I do concede the point of order.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on that, if I may.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve a point of order in deference to the gentleman, and then I will make the point of order after the gentleman has an opportunity to explain.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against the amendment because the author seeks to amend a paragraph that has already been read under the 5-minute rule. The House Rules and Manual clearly state in Section 872 that: ``When a paragraph or section has been passed it is not in order to return thereto.'' This amendment comes too late, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair, but in deference to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), Mr. Chairman, I ask that he be given several minutes to explain his amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the staff tells me that it was not. That was in opposition to the State of New York in defense to the gentleman from the district.

Frank Wolf

Speeches

Manage analytics