Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the gentlewoman that I will do everything I can to work with her to make sure that we do address this issue. So I thank the gentlewoman for bringing it up.

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

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me respond and give a little history about Hope VI. I have been on the committee for 11 years, and I have seen this item come into view, and I have seen some of the experiences it has gone through. First of all, we know Hope VI has had a difficult and varied history as a 10-year demonstration program. It has worked well in some cases, but in many more, it has not. The program has been unsuccessful in fulfilling its mission over the last 10 years and has been extremely difficult to implement. Consider the following: At the end of last month there remains $2.8 billion in appropriated funds that have been awarded to public housing agencies that has not as yet been spent. Number two, Hope VI has failed to meet its mission. In the beginning, the idea was to demolish the 100,000 worst units. To date, over 133,000 of the worst units have been demolished, but only half of those were the result of Hope VI grants. The rest have been done by PHAs with their own money or with other Federal funds provided elsewhere in this bill. Third, there are ample new funds available to continue the program until it is either fixed or dropped. No 2006 funds are necessary. I was one of the most supportive of this program when it first came on the scene, but I have grown tired over the years of seeing the subsidized failure that took place here. The fourth item I would mention is that there would be a great disruption to the GSA programs if the amendment were adopted. The amendment proposes to seriously delay and reduce funding from seven important buildings that have been in the planning stage for many months. I mention the security at the U.S. mission to the U.N., an FBI building in Houston, three courthouses in Missouri, Texas and New Mexico, and two border stations in Texas. These are critical projects that are scheduled for construction awards, and we plan to use them in 2005. These funds are not excess funds; far from it. They were added by GSA because of material, price increases, namely steel and concrete. Without the increases, these projects face real and significant funding shortfalls. Last year, the committee had to reprogram funding five separate times from other projects because of materials' price increases on projects. I know that there are places in the country that people can point to where they see this program working. But there are not as many as I would like, and for the reason I have already stated, I think this pretty much covers my position and what I feel would be the wrong move. As much as I know your hearts are strongly for this, I feel we cannot go there. We have been there, and it does not work. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) for working with me on CDBG and for his efforts to help fund this program. Restoring the funds for CDBG was our highest priority after funding assistance for the neediest families in our society. Funding for CDBG remains one of our highest priorities, and I will do everything to return the program as close to the 2005 enacted level as possible. That was my intent during the development of this bill, and it remains my intent as we continue to final passage of this appropriation act for 2006.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to thank everyone that participated in this opening inning or two of activity. We have a long way to go. But I do think, with the work of the staff on both sides, who I think have done extraordinarily well to shape this product into what it is, I am very, very happy with where we are in terms of the kind of bill. I know there is going to be more debate, and we look forward to that.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be limited to 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself as opponent, and that this limitation also apply to any amendments thereto, except one pro forma amendment each by the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on TTHUD.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the vice chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I make a point order against the amendment because it increases an appropriation from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund over the amount authorized from that fund and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 194, line 7, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 3058, pursuant to House Resolution 342, the amendment that I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and considered as the original text for purpose of further amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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