I want to look at this aspect of it since, in the judgment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey], the Department of Labor's directive does not preclude investment in ETI's, and since the bill of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] does not preclude or prohibit or in any way challenge the investment in ETI's, why is there any need for an amendment?
Questioning the necessity of an amendment regarding investment in ETIs during a discussion on labor directives.
Share
More from Joseph 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If you withdraw the amendment, I am prepared to work with you any way that I can, but the amendment would have to be withdrawn, so I am just asking for a guarantee that the amendment will be withdrawn.
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…
I am happy to respond. I share your concerns. And I thank my colleague for raising this very important issue today. He correctly points out that the bill includes $227 million for HIDTA, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program…
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. The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the…
Other voices in this conversation
