Ernest Istook: “I very much appreciate the frustration of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and certainly I have a high level of…”

“I very much appreciate the frustration of the gentleman from Wisconsin, and certainly I have a high level of frustration, and many people do, because of the things that on parliamentary procedures were stricken on points of order, because we have so many programs that have not been reauthorized. However, there is a much better way to fix the problem, and that is to finish the process, pass the bill, move it to conference where we are then able to bring a conference report back before this House that is not subject to these points of order. Were we to do what the gentleman from Wisconsin seeks, we would only repeat the exercise in frustration. He wants us to take the bill back to committee, reinsert the things that were taken out on points of order and, while we are at it, put more money in them. Then, if we brought the bill back to the floor, guess what? Those same points of order are here on the floor. We go through the exercise again. Secondly, we have an additional point of order because the gentleman's request, I believe, would push us above the 302(b) allocation which is our share of the budget allocation, and there would be an additional point of order against the bill. We would only repeat the frustration. What is worse than being frustrated once? Being frustrated twice. That is what the motion to recommit would accomplish, but opposing the motion to recommit and passing the bill moves it into conference. That is where the problem can and will be fixed.”