Joe Knollenberg

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I, too, oppose the amendment. I agree that we need to do something with the problems that are out there. We have to strike a balance between our neighborhoods and our close-in airports. And I know that Mr. Garrett spoke about 1,500 people showing up for a hearing and/or town hall hearing, some kind. That's a lot of people, so there is a lot of grief and upset out there. But the traffic delays of the New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania airports, as has been pointed out by Mr. Oberstar, are the worst in history, and I think it's less than 50 percent of the flights were on time. The FAA does need to act. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, Mr. Mica from Florida, a member of the T&I Committee.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

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

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which would overturn HUD's urgent attempt to halt these scam practices by the so-called nonprofits that operate under the veil of helping people get mortgages. Under the guidance of the Inspector General, and in coordination with the Treasury Department, HUD is moving to crack down on so-called nonprofits that offer to pay the down payment so that families can purchase a home. This amendment would overturn that effort and cost the taxpayers some millions of dollars in defaulted loans. While there may be honest nonprofits, and I am sure there are, that genuinely want to help increase homeownership, this program does have many problems. First, the default rate for mortgages in which the down payment is paid for by nonprofits is three times the national average. That is the default rate. This has cost millions and is a source of instability to the fund, and, according to HUD, is a major reason that the FHA fund is rapidly heading to a deficit situation. Second, there is no free lunch. The mortgages are simply turned upside down with the down payment added to the price of the home. They are not free to the homeowner. Further, expensive fees are often added to the costs of the mortgage by nonprofits. The Treasury Department is moving quickly to revoke the nonprofit status of many of these organizations, but HUD needs to act now and needs to get this rule out as final. I oppose any attempt to delay the rule and oppose this amendment. I think that if the Federal Government is so concerned about how a program is operating that it feels compelled to draft a regulation, I think we should carefully review the situation before we rush to overturn that effort. Frankly, we have not done that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I, frankly, am not in favor, and I must oppose this amendment because I think any superhighway between Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, and there are no funds in this bill for this mythical private road, I just don't believe that this superhighway is something that we should get into. And furthermore, this amendment puts a stop on several transportation-related initiatives between my State, which is Michigan, my city and Canada. For example, we've been working for years to improve the crossing at the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor. That's the busiest, it isn't the second busiest, it's the busiest U.S.-Canadian crossing in our country. This amendment would stop years of work and cooperative efforts that we've been working on. And another example of a cooperative effort under this partnership is aviation. I've got to tell you that there are three international airports in my area, all of which fly into Canada. DOT and Canada are working together to ensure that travel between the two countries is smooth, free and safe. I would say, free of any burdensome barriers. This amendment would put all of the U.S.-Canada transportation initiatives to an end. That would be detrimental to the Nation. I think the amendment is one that is a broad brush. It tries to actually focus on one thing, but it is too broad. In fact, it contains some elements that bring about a real problem. I think that they can do much better if they ever redrafted this. But here is the story. There is no superhighway in this bill. There is not. But there are good initiatives in this bill, ongoing initiatives, that are vital to our country. Mr. Chairman, I recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

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

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

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

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill before us, H.R. 3074, the fiscal year 2008 Transportation, Housing, and Related Agencies funding bill is, as the chairman noted, a balanced bill and a bill that I can support. I am not going to repeat the funding proposals described by the gentleman from Massachusetts, but I will say that the vast majority of the legislation and the principles behind the funding levels are very similar to prior year House-passed bills for housing and transportation. Crafting this bill is not for the faint of heart. There is no easy formula when you consider the authorizations and expectations of both the housing and the transportation communities. Neither group is shy about vocalizing what it wants, and both communities have needs and issues that need attention. Some of these needs are intertwined, however, and we do have different approaches for the solution. The chairman proposes that these issues need to be handled at a Federal level and has even included funds for a commission between DOT and HUD to coordinate housing and transportation policies. I am of the school that the Federal Government needs to be aware of these issues and provide guidance on these issues, but we need to recognize that housing and transportation decisions are local decisions made by cities and metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs. I don't think any of our districts would appreciate the Federal Government's telling our cities where a bus should run or where housing should be located. The majority of these funds in this bill, from highways and transit to Section 8 and the Community Development Block Grant program, even flows to the States and localities without a lot of specific input from the Federal Government on how these funds are spent. I want to thank the chairman for his wise and steadfast decision to keep new authorizing matters off this bill. There are a number of ideas in both housing and transportation being considered in the various committees of jurisdiction in both houses of Congress, and I agree that we need those committees to do their work and present to the Congress what might be the best proposal. I will work with the chairman and oppose any authorizing amendments to this bill. In transportation, I thank the chairman for keeping the Amtrak pro- reform language in the bill. I am optimistic that with continued oversight from the committee, the IG and the GAO, we can find a sensible operating scheme for Amtrak. In highways, I know SAFETEA-LU and the budget resolution support the inclusion of the highway RABA funds. I don't know of any State that could not use more highway funding; however, as we have discussed in numerous hearings, the highway trust fund is speeding towards bankruptcy, and the mid-season review shows that receipts are down even further than originally anticipated. For the first time ever, the number of vehicle miles traveled declined. Eventually the rubber will hit the road, and this committee does not have jurisdiction over the income and expenditures of the highway trust fund, nor does this committee have the general funds to make up for any shortfall in the trust fund. I do have some concerns about the size of the highway trust fund rescission. I will not deny that in the past we have used the rescission to ensure that programs in this bill are funded at an acceptable level; however, we did not propose a rescission of this magnitude so early in the game. I am hopeful that as we move through the conference, this number will go down. In housing, I support the chairman's decision to bring the programs up at least to last year's level where the budget request proposed to make cuts, especially in CDBG, assisted housing, and housing for the elderly and disabled. I am most appreciative of the chairman's decision to keep the Section 8 program a budget-based program in fiscal year 2008. I firmly believe that we need to see some continuity in the programs after the change is mandated in the fiscal year 2007 CR before we can evaluate what direction the program should go in the future. In Section 8, the bill proposes adding 4,000 new vouchers, as I think the chairman referenced, of which 1,000 are directed by law to homeless veterans. The remainder of the new vouchers are for nonelderly disabled people, the so-called ``Frelinghuysen vouchers,'' as we used to call them thanks to Mr. Frelinghuysen's work on behalf of this community. We are supportive of the increase, but we cautiously remind the Congress that the cost increase each year to maintain the vouchers is substantial. The program baseline increases by $30 million each year into the future. This is not an increase to sneeze at. Again, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend Mr. Olver, and his staff for their willingness to work with us to address my concerns and the concerns of many on my side of the aisle. He and his staff have been very fair and accommodating, holding true to a process that has been in place for years as he has crafted this bill. While we may agree to disagree on some specific policies, we agree on this introduced bill. I appreciate very much his decision to leave authorizing issues with the authorizers, and the directives and funding levels in this proposal are ones that I can support. I also thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their continued hard work during this past year. I know this has been a tough year on them, but I think their hard work is demonstrated in this decent and, I think, very thoughtful bill. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Mica amendment. I understand that there is a lot of meat to what you just discussed, Mr. Chairman, but I think the real problem is, if you look at the AASHTO letter, the acronym for the State group, they recognize this as something that should be done. We need to maintain the rescission to meet the funding requirements of the bill. I do support giving States the greatest flexibility to meet that rescission. I yield to the gentleman from Florida for his closing comments.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Chairman, the thing that I have a problem with is we seem to be, and I know the gentleman is well-intentioned in terms of what he's doing, but we're losing more and more vouchers, and this is one way we're going to lose a substantial amount. If you reduce it by 330 million in tenant-based vouchers, you would have an adversive impact, a significant impact on the number of families that would receive assistance in 2008. So I must rise in opposition to this amendment. The program today is administered based on the number of vouchers that are under lease. Currently, 13 percent of the 2 million vouchers authorized turn over each year. This means that about 240,000 vouchers are relinquished each year and provided to new families or individuals. The amendment, if adopted, would mean that about 47,000 vouchers could not be renewed upon turnover nationwide. And after years of trying to increase the use of vouchers so more families could receive assistance, this amendment would greatly undermine that effort. While it is true that in 2007 the appropriations bill provided significantly more funding than was called for or was needed, reducing next year's funding level will offset the overage provided in 2007. Instead, 2007 funds should be recaptured and used by the Congress. So therefore, I must stand in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, as we consider the rule for H.R. 3074, that's the bill, of course, that makes the appropriations for the Department of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, crafting the underlying bill before us has not been easy. While there are both certain funding and policy issues in the bill that I have concerns with, this bill represents a reasonable approach at funding our highways, transit systems, airports and housing programs. The chairman from Massachusetts and I have worked together to resolve our differences as best possible. While we don't agree on everything, this bill is something, I believe, I can support. Under this bill, highway programs will receive $40.2 billion. This meets the level guaranteed in the highway authorization bill called SAFETEA-LU, as required under House Rules. Now, this is the next and most important line I am going to present this evening. For those that don't fully grasp the significance of this, if the bill does not meet the authorization levels, the bill can be struck on a point of order. Further amendments that ultimately underfund the authorization levels will sink the bill. One specific area I would like to highlight is the $75 million for FTA's Clean Fuels Grant program, a $26 million increase above fiscal year 2007. Promoting clean fuel bus technology such as hybrid buses can be an important aspect to reducing our carbon footprint, and I thank the chairman for working with me to include this additional funding. I also want to point out that all specific projects included in the report were requested and certified by Members. This open rule will provide Members with the opportunity to offer amendments that would strike some projects. I would just say that both the majority and the minority reviewed all requests closely and required certifications from requesting Members. These projects are important for local communities. I am sure, if there is a mayor city council member, or county administrator who doesn't want these funds to improve their communities, I haven't met them; and I thank again the chairman for making that inclusion. I would conclude by saying that I look forward to the debate on the underlying bill.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to provide some perspective on the effect H.R. 1851 will have on discretionary spending and on the appropriations process. If we're not careful, we will be opening the door to a huge new spending at uncontrollable rates. The section 8 voucher program has proved widely successful and popular. But there is also wide consensus that we must provide reform to the program, which I agree with. We all want the program to be effective, provide assistance to those truly in need and be fiscally responsible for American taxpayers. First, I want to point out, there are positive reforms in H.R. 1851. The bill increases the number of PHAs allowed to participate in the Moving to Work Program. This program, renamed in the bill as the Housing Innovation Program, gives PHAs flexibility to design and test methods that achieve efficiency, reduce costs and promote self-sufficiency. The bill also enhances HUD's Family Self-Sufficiency Act program which works to give low-income families the skills and experience needed to become economically independent. I do, however, have major concerns with the provisions in H.R. 1851 that abandons the budget-based funding methodology. Going back to the flawed unit-based methodology like this bill proposes is a recipe for budgetary disaster. A unit-based system lacks incentives for PHAs to maximize assistance to needy families within a fixed budget. A unit-based formula system that includes costs incurred as well as units put under lease simply tells PHAs to lease at whatever cost they want, even if it is more than the market rate and the market price for the same unit. We already know what that can mean. We have experience with a unit-based approach and have seen what it means. In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Appropriations Committee shifted to a unit-based funding to spur leasing, and the result was skyrocketing per unit cost and total funding requirements that increased by 40 percent, from $9 billion to $13 billion, in 2 years. In 2005, a budget-based system was reinstituted. We, as appropriators, can simply not afford to see a similar increase in the future. Today, in total, the section 8 program has grown to consume 60 percent of HUD's budget. Going back to a unit-based program will only increase that percentage. Simply put, as the Housing Voucher Program takes up more of HUD's budget, there will be less we will have for other housing programs. As the former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for HUD, and as the current chairman will attest, the growing Housing Voucher Program is forcing Congress to choose between section 8 vouchers and other important HUD priorities. That includes programs that support first-time ownership, home ownership, homeless facilities, and care and housing for the elderly and the disabled. And then there is this Community Development Block Grant, which I believe virtually every Member supports because they hear from their mayor, the city council and from the county administrators on how the program makes their community better. If we're not careful, these programs will face deep cuts in future years just to accommodate the section 8 increases. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a work in progress. It has been improved in committee, and I believe amendments before us today can improve it further. I am hopeful that as the bill works its way through into the legislative process, we can improve it even more.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding. I appreciate the opportunity to speak this evening. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the importance of this bill and the many issues associated with U.S. foreign policy. As a member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for over 12 years, I commend first the new chairwoman, Mrs. Lowey, as well as the new ranking member, Mr. Wolf, for putting together a good bill with the allocations that they received. But let me be clear. The chairwoman and the ranking member have done a commendable job crafting our foreign assistance policies, and I support most of this bill. However, there are a few provisions that are in strong contrast to my views. First let me highlight the provisions I strongly support. The bill fully funds the administration's request for Israel and Egypt. Ten years ago, the U.S. entered into a proportional agreement with the two countries. This bill marks the last year of this agreement. I am pleased that Congress has met its obligations to these two important allies in the Middle East. The committee has also fully funded the Refugee Resettlement Program in Israel at $40 million. And further, this legislation almost doubles the President's request for Armenia. This funding is absolutely crucial as Armenia is still dealing with an illegal blockade by its neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Armenia's economy has suffered, but U.S. assistance has helped stymie the economic detriment of these blockades. The administration continues to deny Armenia adequate economic support in their request, and I commend the chairwoman again for seeing the importance of our ally, Armenia, and increasing economic funding for the country. Chairwoman Lowey has also continued military parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which sends a strong signal that the United States does not condone Azerbaijan's military threats towards Armenia. Now, there are also a number of provisions and funding levels within this bill that trouble me. First among them is funding for the Millenium Challenge Account. In 2004, Congress authorized a new and innovative program which fundamentally changed the way we view foreign assistance. The MCA provides assistance to developing nations that are pursuing political and economic reforms. Their motto, ``reducing poverty through growth'' speaks to the validity of the program. The MCA specifically awards compacts to countries that have shown improvement in eliminating corruption and investing in people and ruling justly, and fostering enterprise and entrepreneurship. Before entering into a compact, the MCA and the eligible country work together to draft the parameters of the compact. Each compact is different because the needs of individual countries are different. For instance, the MCA and Armenia signed a compact that focuses on rural development and Armenia's agricultural industry. What this program also does is to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not wasted. Eligible countries are held accountable for how the money is spent as well as how their government is performing. I strongly believe that this program is the future of U.S. foreign assistance, where accountability and results are the top priorities. This bill, however, underfunds the MCA by $1.2 billion. While I understand the subcommittee made every effort to accommodate funding given its allocation, funding the MCA at only $1.8 billion for fiscal year 2008 will stop the program in its tracks and slow the process of signing compacts with eligible countries. Last year during the debate on the fiscal year 2007 Foreign Operations bill, the House approved $2 billion for the MCA. Now, a year later, the new majority has cut the MCA below the President's request and below the House-passed level for fiscal year 2007. This is no way to grow a program. Mr. Chairman, during the full committee markup of the bill, the chairwoman expressed her support for the MCA and her willingness to work with me to find more funding for the MCA through the process. I very much appreciate her support and look forward to continuing to work with her on what I believe is a very, very important issue. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, there are provisions within this bill that go against the fundamental value of life. The United States has a long history of supporting nongovernmental organizations and other groups that support abstinence and prevention but do not promote abortion. Current policy is fair and balanced and has worked for years. However, this bill, I believe, goes against the will of the U.S. citizens and allows NGOs that promote abortion to receive U.S. Federal assistance. I understand there are going to be amendments to strike these provisions within this bill, and I intend to support these amendments. And although there are many things I support in this bill, if those amendments fail, I cannot support final passage. I would hope the majority would work with the President and the minority to ensure that core American values are upheld as the bill moves forward.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Peter B. Ajluni of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan on his election to the position of 111th president of the American Osteopathic Association. In 1965, Dr. Peter B. Ajluni graduated from the Chicago College of Osteopathy to become a board certified osteopathic physician. For 35 years, Dr. Ajluni has delivered high quality service to his patients. Currently, Dr. Ajluni is a senior orthopedic surgeon in the Bone and Joint Center at the Regional Medical Center in Mount Clemens, Michigan. He has also served as president of both the Michigan Osteopathic Association and the Michigan Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Furthermore, Dr. Ajluni has served on the American Osteopathic Association Board of Trustees since 1998. As president of the American Osteopathic Association, Dr. Ajluni will lead 59,000 osteopathic physicians to deliver high quality and cost- effective health care in this vital profession. In addition, Dr. Ajluni will help to ensure the osteopathic community is united in their profession and that they receive the highest quality of education and training programs. Dr. Ajluni resides in Michigan's Ninth Congressional district with his wife Judy. They have a daughter and two sons. I am proud to have the Ajluni family as constituents. Madam Speaker, once again, I congratulate Dr. Ajluni on his election as the President of the American Osteopathic Association and for his long dedication to high quality patient care.