Joseph Knollenberg: “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…”

“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.”