Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the ranking member (Mr. Olver).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's interest on this and other important issues addressed in the appropriations bill, and I would be happy to work with the chairman, Chairman Davis, as this legislation moves on to conference. As the gentleman noted, funds are tight in the current budget climate, and we were unable to provide funding for all the new initiatives proposed this year. But as a Member of Congress and a Federal employee, I understand the importance of modernizing the Federal Government's retirement systems and look forward to working with Chairman Davis as we move forward.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me state that of course I do not condone companies relocating for tax purposes overseas. But I oppose the gentlewoman's amendment because I think it is a bad policy, and I will explain. From a taxation point of view, this language is not necessary. Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversions in the Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The JOBS Act added a new section to the Tax Code which treats U.S. companies that complete a corporate inversion transaction after March 4, 2003 as domestic U.S. corporations for tax purposes. Second, Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversions by enacting a contracting ban which is still in effect today. Given these two congressional actions, I don't see the need to further punish the people who work in the U.S. for these affected companies. Companies registered offshore employ hundreds of thousands of U.S. workers, a fact that I believe is lost in these debates. It is easy for Members to vote for amendments such as these until they realize that constituents in their own districts are employed by these very firms and depend upon these firms for a paycheck. Additionally, I am opposed to the amendment because the U.S. Government enters into billions of dollars' worth of contracts with private sector companies each year. As a proponent of good government, it is essential that competition for these contracts be allowed to go to the company that is the most effective and the most cost efficient. Agencies under the jurisdiction of this act that would be affected include numerous safety agencies related to aviation and transportation, and they would not have access to many of the best products available ranging from security software, thermal imaging devices, handsets and engineer and data services for critical infrastructure. This amendment is not necessary. It makes government contracts less effective by restricting competition, and it hurts U.S. workers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Davis from Virginia.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to my friend, Chairman Davis.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all of the gentleman's amendments be read.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, economic development initiatives, EDI grants, are targeted grants designed to address local economic development needs. As representatives of these communities, it is our responsibility to ensure that these needs when present are addressed. While I appreciate the gentleman's efforts, I cannot help but feel they would be better directed at real earmark reform, including authorizing bills, not the meaningless attack on an individual project. I urge a ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have made my comments pretty clearly. I oppose the amendment. I believe that Mr. Wicker spoke eloquently. I also think that Mr. Olver made it pretty clear that this is not the resolution that we would look for on this particular situation. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, every one of these projects relative to the gentleman's comments, must relate to the eligibility of the CDBG program. Every single one. We don't waive the requirements. In fact, to show how worthwhile we think these projects are, for the very first time this year the committee is imposing a 40 percent match for each of these projects. We think that each EDI is so meritorious that with just a little bit of CDBG seed money, these organizations and cities will be able to leverage other funds for the same goal. They do, and it does work. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. To oppose the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Transportation, Community and System Preservation program is authorized to fund a wide variety of transportation projects that improve the efficiency of the transportation system in the U.S., reduce the impact of transportation on the environment, and other purposes. The purpose of this project, and soon I will yield to Mr. Walsh, in question is to rehabilitate several roads in Monroe County, New York to bring them up to acceptable standards and improve safety. These are eligible activities for the program, as defined in law. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman claims this money should remain apparently in the hands of the bureaucrats downtown, and I would ask him what do bureaucrats know about economic development or constituent needs in Arizona or Detroit or Yucaipa, California? The gentleman from Yucaipa, California, has already spoken eloquently on the needs of the constituents in the City of Yucaipa. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The location of a TRACON has absolutely no effect on controllers' ability to manage aircraft or the capacity or capabilities of any airport. This is because TRACON controllers do not have to have visual contact with aircraft as today's radar technology allows it to see the aircraft. I understand that the gentleman is concerned about the complexity of the airspace in south Florida and the risk of hurricanes and terrorist attack on south Florida. The fact is the busiest airspace in America is in New York, Chicago and Atlanta, served by TRACONs located off the airport site that have been consolidated with other facilities. Although I agree that the airspace in south Florida is complex, the New York airspace, with three major airports located within 10 miles of Manhattan, is far more complex than south Florida. And any one of the three major New York airports serves more traffic than all of the Miami area airports. However, a total of 15 airports in this area receive services from a single TRACON located on Long Island. Consolidation would not affect continuity of operations during a terrorist attack or during a catastrophic hurricane. There are contingency plans in place to respond to such situations. The backup for the Miami, West Palm Beach facilities is a Miami en route control facility. In fact, the colocation of the West Palm Beach TRACON to Miami actually reduces the risk that a storm could disrupt service. This is because the Miami TRACON is built to withstand a Category 5 hurricane, unlike the West Palm Beach TRACON. Just a couple of examples of consolidated TRACONs. A single TRACON on Long Island serves 15 airports, including LaGuardia, Newark and JFK and the most complex airspace in America. The Potomac TRACON serves 10 airports. Five different TRACONs were consolidated in one facility in Warrenton, Virginia. The FAA also operates TRACONs in southern California that include 22 airports and extend from San Diego to LAX, and a northern California TRACON that serves 21 airports. The fact is we do not have TRACONs at every airport and we don't need them at every airport, not with the technology that we have. We do not need all the TRACONs that exist today. FAA's only mission is to ensure safety, and there is absolutely no safety issue associated with consolidating these TRACONs. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield the balance of my time to my friend from Florida (Mr. Mica).