Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, in 1998 the last time the Congress authorized the public housing and section 8 programs, they established this policy that tenants of public housing should undertake two responsibilities: number one, they should do some community service. The act requires that individuals in public housing do 8 hours of public service each month. There are numerous exemptions from their requirements for those that cannot do even the most minimal amount of service. The act also requires tenants to be part of the self-sufficiency program, a program designed to help tenants get jobs, keep jobs, and move off and out of public housing so other people may benefit. My own view is that this was a sound policy then, and it is a sound policy now. Neither appears to be a huge burden and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has not indicated any large-scale problems with the provision that would need this type of action. This is clearly an amendment that should be taken to the authorizers, and they are, by the way, right now reviewing all public housing assistance programs. So until Congress changes the policy, I believe that the policy should remain in force. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to first yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I do.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I will take just a few moments to rise in opposition to this amendment which attempts to use the appropriations process to control the content of information about our economy, which I think is a wrong thing to do. I believe the committee is about learning facts, not ignoring them or being denied them. Moreover, the proposed amendment does not change the 2005 economic report of the President which discusses the average cost of developing and introducing a new prescription drug, as has been mentioned, a new drug to the market at $800 million or more. I have been informed that the administration strongly objects to the proposed Brown amendment. Preventing any discussion on the factors that contribute to pharmaceutical pricing or in fact any other topic that might be controversial would compromise the credibility of the future economic reports of the President. So I join my colleagues in opposing the Brown amendment and urge that it be defeated.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very simple amendment. It would simply partially restore funds to HUD's Working Capital Fund that were cut by an amendment adopted yesterday. This amendment has been cleared with the minority, and I urge its adoption. If I were to just briefly talk about it, this is not just a random pot of money. The Working Capital Fund pays the cost of all computers and phones at HUD, which is a huge expenditure. So, briefly, that is the essence of it.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Briefly, we have had, what is it, over the last 15 hours, some interesting conversations about money, and we have drawn money from a number of sources and, frankly, not too many sources, and some of that does create pain. In the case of this particular situation, these moneys are needed now. So I very much appreciate the gentleman's agreeing with me that this money should go to that particular source. So I am content to accept his approval and move forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order, and I would like to respond in this fashion. I raise a point of order against the amendment. The amendment proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by law and, therefore, is in violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI. Although the original account funding for FAA operations is unauthorized, it was permitted to remain in the bill pursuant to the provisions of the rule that provided for the consideration of this bill. When an authorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general appropriations bill, an amendment merely changing that amount is in order; but the rules of the House apply a ``merely perfecting standard'' to the items permitted to remain and do not allow the insertion of a new paragraph, not part of the original text permitted to remain, to increase a figure permitted to remain. The amendment cannot be construed as merely perfecting and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair rule the amendment out of order.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me say this about the amendment. What the amendment would do, it would shut down E-travel, just shut it down. The E-travel system saves money, saves taxpayers money and is easier to navigate for travel. The answer to the question that she has does not involve shutting down E- travel. I would simply urge a no vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. That rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This amendment requires a new determination, and I insist on the point of order.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 3058, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

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