Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong opposition to the language amendment overturning a HUD regulation concerning the number of units that are placed under lease. The provision would allow the PHA to essentially create more vouchers for the program than the 2 million vouchers that exist currently. Today the program and the cost of the program is based on the number of units under lease. If public housing or project-based section 8 units are being demolished, the additional vouchers provided are only for the units actually occupied prior to demolition. The department budgets each year for the number of occupied units it expects to convert from public housing units to vouchers. Units that are not occupied now are not provided a voucher, since the program only provides a subsidy for those families that are currently receiving a subsidy in public housing. To provide PHAs with the authority to create vouchers where there are no tenants to protect is simply a back-door way of creating new vouchers for the program. This cost is not budgeted for in this bill and would be significant. Approximately 38,000 units in public housing and project-based section 8 are assumed to be demolished in 2007. Of this number, 21,000 are occupied and eligible for a voucher. The cost of these tenant protection vouchers would be $149 million. That is provided for in this bill. If vouchers were made available to those 17,000 units not occupied, as well as those already budgeted for, the costs will skyrocket in 2007 by an additional $122 million and increase every year thereafter. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I understand that you must have a speaker that wishes to speak at this moment?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that one thing I don't quite understand about what is taking place here, but I want to get to the bottom of it. Having to provide a subsidy for empty units, and that is what you are doing, with a budget that only assumes least unit cost or least unit risks being unable to assist real families, this will, I think, unfairly, shift section 8 dollars to certain regions of the country for what are now vacant units. And this would be to the detriment of the distribution of those funds. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, this creates an entitlement for vacant units. These funds are for tenant protection, not unit protection. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, let me try to clarify a few things. First, there are no safety or security impacts associated with the proposed rule on foreign investment. In fact, this rule does not change the statutory requirements that limit foreign investment in the U.S. airlines. For example, U.S. airlines will still be U.S. airlines. U.S. citizens must be in actual control of the airline. U.S. citizens must own 75 percent of the voting stock. U.S. citizens must comprise two-thirds of board membership. The proposed rule explicitly walls off any foreign investment proposal that would affect safety, security or defense in any way, including any impact of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, or CRAF program. No foreign investors will have a say when it comes to safety, security or national defense. In addition, any control afforded to a foreign investor, such as marketing or product quality, can be revoked at any time. Further, in response to concerns raised within the last several months, DOT met with General Schwartz, Commander of USTRANSCOM and Robert Jamison, Deputy Administrator of TSA, to double check, I should say to triple check that these agencies have absolutely no safety or security concerns regarding the proposed rule. They did not. The rule itself will strengthen the airline industry in the U.S. The industry will be able to attract additional capital to improve their financial position. Some have indicated that the rule will result in fewer jobs. This makes no sense at all. Strong U.S. airlines result in a stronger aviation community that is ready, willing and able to hire more people, more pilots, more flight attendants, more mechanics. Further, any open skies agreement between the U.S. and the European Union is predicated on this more modern investment rule. The rule, coupled with a U.S.-EU open skies agreement, will preserve and create new U.S. jobs and expand markets. It will increase the number of international flights operated by U.S. carriers and increase the number of foreign travelers to the U.S. It will also increase service to small and medium cities. This is because international markets must be supported by the robust feed traffic from the non-hub markets. I am for a strong competitive industry that creates new American jobs, ensures better service, and is a boon for the economy, all without weakening security. I urge a ``no'' on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I now yield the remaining time in my allotment to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just want to cover a couple of points. This protectionist amendment is an enormous step backward for the U.S. airline industry. It denies U.S. airlines the ability to compete with the European carriers on a level playing field. It stops the Department of Transportation from modernizing rules governing investment in U.S. airlines. The DOT rule does not relax congressionally set limits on foreign investment in the U.S. airlines. U.S. citizens must still control, as I mentioned, 75 percent of U.S. airlines voting stock and comprise 66 percent of their board of directors. The DOT rule safeguards U.S. airline security and safety. It strictly prohibits any foreign influence over security, safety, or the civil reserve air fleet, or CRAF, program. The DOT rule will create new U.S. jobs and improve service to small- and medium-sized communities. Further delay and opposition to the DOT rule is a blatant attempt to kill U.S./EU. open skies. Eight months is enough time for review. At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for any comments he might wish to make.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this rule just came in today, and I think everybody is aware of this. The administration understands that an amendment may be offered today to prohibit the use of funds to implement a final rule regarding the foreign investment in U.S. airlines. The proposed rule would facilitate a landmark agreement with the EU that would provide significant benefits to consumers as well as the domestic passenger and cargo airline industry. The administration has worked with Congress to address these concerns with the final rule and recently extended the final comment period by an additional 60 days. The administration, as you must know, strongly opposes any amendment that would prevent the Department of Transportation from finalizing its rule. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I am very willing to accept the amendment. I think it is a good amendment.

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. My understanding is that the gentlewoman is willing to withdraw the amendment, presuming I will work with you?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If you withdraw the amendment, I am prepared to work with you any way that I can, but the amendment would have to be withdrawn, so I am just asking for a guarantee that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Well, it states it in reverse, and that is my question. I thank you for the layout of the information here. You certainly raise an important issue, and I pledge to explore the issue with you further.

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

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. The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment imposes additional duties. I ask now for a ruling from the Chair. I think that would be the appropriate step.

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 appropriations bill. Therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it is changing existing law. The amendment proposes to state a legislative position. And so I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.012