Gary Miller

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to prevent HUD from implementing a new rule that will effectively close homeownership opportunity to many American families. In today's housing market, one of the primary barriers to achieving the dream of homeownership is the lack of accumulated wealth and disposable income. Fortunately, some nonprofit organizations have developed programs to provide down payments to qualifying families. Such programs empower individuals and families who lack the necessary funds for down payment and other related costs, but can afford the monthly mortgage payment to become homeowners. These down payment assistance programs have proven successful in expanding ownership opportunity to low- and moderate-income families. In the past, HUD has permitted the use of these programs in conjunction with FHA-insured loans. Recently, however, HUD issued a proposed rule that would effectively eliminate seller-funded down payment assistance programs. I am very concerned about the impact of this proposed rule on homeownership in this country. Rather than going too far, I believe we should develop reasonable and fair criteria by which these programs can continue to operate while also protecting the FHA insurance fund. If there are legitimate problems that have been identified by HUD, then let's work together to fix the problems. The amendment I offer today with Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee Chairman Waters and Mr. Al Green of Texas would prohibit funds from being used to implement this proposed rule. It would give Congress time to work with HUD to preserve down payment assistance programs while imposing strong regulations and oversight. This amendment will would allow us to put the control in place that will weed out the bad actors, while still allowing those who help millions become homeowners to continue their good work. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to preserve homeownership opportunities for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I respect my good friend's argument on behalf of Treasury and HUD; however, I want to remind my colleagues that it has been just a few years ago that Treasury and HUD came to us and asked us to implement the American Dream Down Payment Assistance Act, which means the Federal Government will give individuals the down payment and closing cost money necessary to be able to own a home that otherwise they would never be able to own a home where they can make the payment. The argument made to us is the private sector is doing it. We can implement upon what the private sector is doing, and with the government's participation, we can put even more people into homes. Now, if we have a problem as some say with appraisals that are not being factual enough, then let's implement the same underwriting criteria that FHA will use on zero downpayment and FHA uses on the American Dream Downpayment Act. If you can come up with a reasonable appraisal to give Federal dollars to somebody to buy a home, why can you not come up with the same criteria for a reasonable appraisal to help the private sector put people into homes? Mr. Green made a very good point. We put a million people into homes with the Downpayment Assistance Program provided by the private sector, and the argument made in committee was 15 percent of these loans that were made are troubled. Now, that does not mean that 15 percent are being foreclosed upon. That means 15 percent might have missed a payment at one point in time or had some other problem at some other point in time. But on the other side, you have 850,000 people, families who own a home today, who built up equity they would not have otherwise have had renting a home and now have a home that had it not been for the private sector would have been renting an apartment or be in section 8 or in government housing. If that 15 percent relates to 4 or 5 percent in foreclosures, and if that 4 or 5 percent has something to do with underwriting standards being used that do not meet the criteria they should meet, or if appraisals are being implemented that do not meet the criteria they should meet, let's get together as a Congress first in committee, let's deal with the problems and rewrite the law and bring it before this House and debate it, and let's make sure that the bad apples and those that my friend said are practicing scam practices are eliminated. But to think that we are going to eliminate the possibility in the next 4 or 5 years for a million families to own a home, or have them come to the Federal Government and ask for a downpayment when they could also go to the private sector and ask for a downpayment, it seems some way disingenuous and unrealistic for us to do that. If there is a problem, let's fix it. If FHA can offer a zero downpayment loan under given underwriting criteria, and we use the same underwriting criteria for a downpayment assistance loan and the person owes $200,000 with zero downpayment and $194,000 with the downpayment assistance, they are better off with the program.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1851, the Section 8 Voucher Reform Act. This is something we have been working on for years, and I am pleased we have it to this point today. I commend Chairman Frank. Barney, you have been great to work with on these issues. When we express concerns, he is always willing to look at policy rather than politics. We have arrived at a bill we can all look at and say, there are things we might change, but overall, we all agree it is a good bill. I would like to commend Ranking Member Bachus for all of his help and assistance. Chairman Waters, it has been fun working with you on this issue, as well as Ranking Member Biggert. Working together in a bipartisan manner, we have produced a bill that will help the section 8 program better serve families and communities across the country. Over the years, Congress has grappled with the skyrocketing cost of the section 8 program, which is growing so rapidly that HUD's other programs are suffering as a result. It is not feasible for the Federal Government to continue increasing funds for a program without enacting meaningful reforms. In the 109th Congress, I introduced legislation to improve the delivery of housing assistance to families in need by providing flexibility to local public housing authorities, PHAs, and holding them accountable for results. The goal of my legislation was to ensure that PHAs would serve as many families as possible within their budget. While the bill before us today does not go as far as my proposal in injecting flexibility to PHAs in their administration of the entire section 8 program, H.R. 1851 does make a number of improvements to the section 8 program to reform the simplified regulations for local housing agencies. I appreciate Chairman Frank's willingness to work with me to allow for PHA innovation on a scale he is more comfortable with. While the bill before us does not apply flexibility to the entire program, I am pleased it at least allows a permanency and expansion of the Moving To Work program, renamed in this bill as the Housing Innovation Program, HIP. The Moving to Work Program has allowed a small group of PHAs to create locally based housing programs outside of HUD's one-size-fits- all regulations. The program has enabled PHAs to create jobs for residents, add affordable housing stock and help families build savings. Currently, over 24 of the more than 3,000 PHAs nationwide are participating in the Moving to Work program. H.R. 1851 provides access to more agencies nationwide seeking MTW status. Through the new HIP program, we will be able to take away ``best practices'' to apply to the entire section 8 program in the future. I am confident that the innovation that will be produced through the flexibility provided in the HIP will demonstrate ways to truly reform section 8 so we can serve more families efficiently and help move them to self-sufficiency. The manager's amendment, which will be debated later this evening, includes language I crafted to provide PHAs with the flexibility to establish rent structures as they see best to address the needs of their communities. The language gives PHAs the flexibility to select from a menu of tenant rent policies, including flat rent, rents based on income ranges, rents based on percentage of income, or other innovative rent policies. HUD and many PHAs agree that the current Federal approach to tenant rent contribution is a regressive system that penalizes residents by charging higher rents for those who gain employment and income. If a section 8 recipient's salary increases, so does their rent. This creates a disincentive for work. Our goal should be to provide a helping hand to those who need it but also ensure that they are on a path to self-sufficiency. Rather than providing incentives for work, the current section 8 program provides incentives for people to lie about their income or to reject opportunities to increase their income since they would be forced to pay more rent. I don't think this is a message we should be sending in this program. We should be instilling responsibility and desire to achieve in our housing assistance policy, not encouraging dishonesty and creating disincentives for success. I am pleased the chairman has worked with me on language to allow PHAs the option of setting rents in innovative ways to help families achieve self-sufficiency. The reality is that we face a situation of growing waiting lists for section 8 vouchers without the resources to serve everyone. The answer is not to merely throw more money into an existing regressive system in a department where there are other pressing needs that need to be met. We need to move current section 8 recipients to self-sufficiency by allowing PHAs to be innovative with the money they do have, to be efficient and help as many people in need move through the program as possible. While this bill does not go as far as I think we need it to go in terms of allowing flexibility, I believe it is a step in the right direction and will make needed improvements to the section 8 program. I look forward to the debate on the amendments tonight as I believe we can continue to improve the legislation as we move forward. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). There seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of HUD. Mr. Frank, this bill includes a revision and expansion of the Moving to Work Program, MTW, renamed the Housing Innovation Program, HIP. Under the program authority of HIP, the Secretary may designate up to 60 public housing agencies to fully participate in the program, and an additional 20 public housing agencies may participate in the program under what is called the HIP-Lite provisions. Under the current MTW program, authorization has been granted for 32 public housing authorities to participate in the program. However, HUD narrowly defined the legislative authority under which they could solicit new applications. HUD decided that once PHAs leave the program, no new agencies can be selected to fill their vacancy. The result is, out of 32 authorized, only 24 agencies are currently in the program. I would like to confirm that the intent of this bill is to allow HUD to solicit new applications in order to maintain the program at its fully authorized level and to give PHAs the opportunity to fill any vacancies. I would like to confirm that you agree that the secretary of HUD should promptly solicit new applications from PHAs interested in participating in the HIP program whenever the number of agencies is less than the total authorized level, and that would be 60 under this bill; is that correct, sir?

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I thank you. So HUD understands, if it does drop to 50, it should be moved up promptly to 60, and I look forward to the hearing.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. The intent of this amendment is to allow for hardship cases like that. A single mother who has young children would be a hardship.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. We tried to allow the Housing Authority----

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. On page 2, hardship exemption, number 3. It allows the housing authority to create exemptions for families in a hardship. And that would be one of the exemptions.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield the balance of time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I think, Mr. Frank, you know my heart, and you and I have worked on a lot of stuff. I think Mr. Chabot and I would be willing to accept a 50-percent exemption for single mothers with multiple children who have a hardship, who are unable to move in the sector. So we are willing to cooperate. We are not trying to throw mothers with children out of the home.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, we dinosaurs have to speak in the language we are accustomed to. And with that, this dinosaur yields back the balance of his time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have been working on housing issues for several years. I think we do have a very good job in this House coming to an agreement. Moving to the Senate, for some reason, things just don't happen as they should on that side of the Capitol. But we have got tremendous housing shortages in this country that we have to deal with. We have to work on HOPE VI program to be more innovative to allow the private sector to get involved. We need to be able to take and move people through the system for public housing section 8 vouchers. But the area we are really hurting in in this country is the move-up marketplace for people coming out of section 8, coming out of public housing and to be able to move into a house that's affordable. We all have problems in many of our districts where our children go away to college; we know people who, when their kids come back, they can't afford to live in the communities in which they were raised. We know many people who may be a school teacher, a police officer, a fireman, who drive 2 hours back and forth to work because they can't afford to live within the community in which they work. That should be a focus of Congress. We not only have to deal with the HOPE VI program, we have to deal with the public housing program, the section 8. We have to look at streamlining the system where builders and developers in this country can bring affordable housing on line and make it available for people who are moving out of government assistance into homes of their home. The Moving To Work program, I think, is going to work very well. It allows people to retain some earnings, to build up the savings to be able to afford to move into a home for the first time. We have a lot of nonprofits in this country that provide down-payment assistance, programs who help people that can afford a payment but don't have the cash on hand within which to be able to put down and pay the closing costs to move into a home. We have got to look at the overall industry and say, how can we be innovative? How can we be creative? And how can we help people to help themselves? Now, I am a conservative. I don't believe in government programs going on forever. But I think people come to a point in their life where they need a helping hand. We need to look at ways to help them go on their open to become self- sufficient. That's what I hope we do in Congress, not only look at reforming the government programs we have here today to make them more innovative, make them work for people. In L.A. County, there is a 10- year wait for people to go on vouchers or public housing. That has to change. People wait for 10 years who are just as needy or more needy sometimes than people who are receiving assistance. But we have no way of moving those people out of government programs into their own homes. That's what we need to look at, streamlining, removing the red tape, fast tracking, have some nexus between the cost that's assessed against the project and the actual cost of that project. I want to commend Barney Frank. Over the years, he and I have worked on more legislation on housing I think than any two Members from the Republican and Democrat side together that try to create programs that work for people. Tonight's bill might not be everything they want. I know it's not everything that Maxine Waters and Barney Frank wants, but it was an agreement between the two of us in a bipartisan fashion, Republicans and Democrats, to come and fashion a bill that would work. I think this bill has some innovation. It makes some changes, and I think it moves us in a better direction. Are we where we should be completely? No, but we are moving in a good direction. I look forward to cooperation from both sides.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I want to thank you for including my language on reform in the manager's amendment. This I believe goes a long way to create innovation in helping people gain self-sufficiency. The main reason I want to speak today is because many on my side have a real problem with the requirement that language be translated into a language that anybody who might come to a HUD assistance program might require to speak, and your bill goes a long way. I have consistently supported every effort to repeal President Clinton's executive order which requires any recipient of Federal funds to provide translations into any language an individual requesting service may speak; but recently, HUD has issued a requirement that says that any housing authority or PHA must provide this translation to individuals who come before them. This is the Federal Government creating a mandate and requiring the private sector to pay the bill. And what you are doing I wholeheartedly support. You are saying that if the Federal Government wants to require a mandate, then they should pay the bill. It has been estimated that one of these translations can cost a section 8 individual or group or housing authority up to $10,000 for each language they want to translate the documents into, and what you are doing is absolutely correct. If we are not going to change the law, then let's not have an unfunded mandate placed on the private sector that the private sector has to pay for when HUD and the Federal Government wants to mandate it. And what you are saying is: HUD, if you want to mandate it, you pick up the bill. And I think that is very important that we do this, and I want to stand up saying I wholeheartedly support it. I do not support the mandate, period, that Clinton imposed, but we are stuck with it. It is an executive order. And what you are saying is the private sector should not be suffering the burden of an unfunded mandate if the Federal Government wants to mandate it. So I want to clarify for my side that what we are doing here is saying we are relieving an unfunded mandate on the private sector and placing the burden on the Federal Government, who should be responsible. And if we want to change the law, let's change the law. But until we change the law, the private sector should not suffer the burden of financing something the Federal Government is imposing on them. I wholeheartedly support the manager's amendment, and I thank you for working with me on rent reform and other things.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, I think you are right. It is cheaper for us to pay for shipping than it is for them to pay for translations. Let's do it one time, ship the documents, and we deal with the problem, unless we want to change the law.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment with my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) to limit the amount of time a section 8 recipient may receive housing assistance. I believe this amendment offers a reasonable approach to a very difficult issue. The intent of this amendment is not to be harsh or uncaring. If you read the amendment, you will see that we provide exemptions for the elderly, for the disabled and for hardship. This amendment is an attempt to inject fairness into this program, where we are faced with the fiscal reality that we do not have the resources to provide unlimited housing assistance to all those who want to participate in the program. This amendment will help those who have been waiting a long time for their turn for the helping hand. When we started working on section 8 reform legislation a couple of years ago, I asked my staff to review all the casework inquiries we had received from constituents about the section 8 program. This review revealed that section 8 recipients weren't contacting me to help them with problems with their housing or HUD regulations; the constituents who had contacted my office were complaining about the fact that they had been on the section 8 waiting list for years and were just as in need as those who are receiving assistance currently. According to HUD, the average length of time families spend on the waiting list for subsidized housing in the United States is more than 2 years. In cities like Los Angeles, the waiting list is approaching 10 years. How can we justify a situation where one person is given unlimited Federal housing assistance, while another who might have greater need is on the waiting list and unable to participate in the program for almost 10 years? The answer is not to allow this program to continue to grow out of control by providing more vouchers. Rather, we must reform the program so that participants can transition into self-sufficiency within a reasonable period of time. The answer is to institute a reasonable time limit for assistance, which would give more families the ability to benefit from our Nation's temporary helping hand. The amendment I offer today is based on the successful reform we made to the welfare program in 1996. Under the amendment, the maximum amount of time during which a family may receive section 8 assistance is 7 years. Time limits would not apply to elderly or disabled families. In addition, there is a hardship exemption for families who need extra time due to circumstances beyond their control. While some might argue that we should increase the number of section 8 vouchers that are available so we can serve all those who are on the waiting list, the practical reality is that we cannot already sustain the growth in the current section 8 program. Our aim should be not to expand the program more but instead reform it to allow it to provide assistance to more people. Even with the section 8 program growing out of control, it is not helping all the people that it could. This amendment is one way to ensure that our Federal limited resources may be used to help all those who need help. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to restrict funding in this bill from being used to conduct the San Gabriel River Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study in certain cities within my Congressional district and one neighboring city. The difference between my amendment and the other amendments, everybody's been trying to strike funding in somebody else's district. I'm saying, don't spend it in my district. This amendment is simple. It only affects communities within my district who do not want to be subject to a Federal National Park Service study. I appreciated Mr. Dicks' support of this amendment last year when the House passed it by voice vote and urge the House continued support of this amendment. In 2003, Congress authorized the National Park Service Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study to survey the San Gabriel River and its tributaries and the San Gabriel Mountains, north of and including the city of Santa Fe Springs to determine if any resources are available to National Park Service designation. Let me be clear. My district is not in the San Gabriel Mountains nor does it contain tributaries, and it is not north of Santa Fe Springs. It is east of this area that is authorized to be studied. I did not oppose the original authorization of this study because, according to my interpretation of the language, my district would not be affected. However, it appears that the NPS has interpreted this language too broadly. I strongly believe that the inclusion of cities in my district in the NPS study went beyond the scope of the Congressional authorization. Several cities have contacted me and the National Park Service in extreme opposition to their inclusion in this special resource study. I have reached out to the NPS on numerous occasions to ask them to remove these cities from the study. They have refused. I come to the floor today to ask that you support efforts to ensure that cities are not forced to be part of a study that was not intended to include them. This amendment does not affect any other city in the study other than those in my district (plus the City of Industry) that have asked to be excluded. If other Members want their cities to continue to be included in the study, then the amendment will not affect them. The bottom line is that I represent these cities, and they have told me they do not want to be included in this study. The cities in the 42nd Congressional District, which I represent, have worked hard to address the challenges associated with rapid pace of growth in our region, including finding innovative solutions to manage future development, alleviate traffic congestion and preserve open space. These cities are in the best position to make decisions regarding land use within their boundaries, and I am opposed to any Federal action that may compromise the local authority in the future. The results of the study could ultimately be used to compromise the ability of local governments to decide what is best for their communities. Land management responsibilities and decision making should be made at the local level where officials have a clear understanding of community needs. Existing land-use management by local municipalities is preferable to Federal involvement in a rapidly growing region. I urge my colleagues to support my efforts to protect the communities that I represent by removing them from this study. A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote for local control and against Federal intervention where it is not welcomed or needed. Once again, I ask my colleagues to support this simple, straightforward amendment to ensure the Federal Government does not reach beyond congressional intent.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Just so that we make sure the record is straight, and I appreciate your courtesy and your time and I do understand the situation you're in. When Mr. Pombo made that statement, it was accurate because he came to me and I said, is my district included in this area; and they said, no, it would not be. And based on that understanding I said, well, then, I support what she's doing because if she wants to do it in her district, I have no problem with that. Then after the fact, when the amendment came last year and we agreed to it, Mr. Pombo also said that he did not believe my district should have been in there originally. But I understand your situation. I understand your courtesy, and all I can do is ask for support of my amendment.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this resolution, which expresses the commitment of Congress to fostering increased homeownership opportunities in this country. Earlier this month, President Bush designated June as National Homeownership Month, as he has done for the past 6 years. I introduced H. Res. 477 to complement this designation and to elevate the discussion of housing opportunities in this Nation. This resolution conveys the support of the House for the goals and ideals of National Homeownership Month and reiterates the importance of homeownership in the United States. I would like to thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for bringing this important resolution to the floor today. Importance of Homeownership in America For millions of Americans in communities all across this country, owning a home is a basic part of realizing the American dream. Aside from helping Americans achieve their dreams, homeownership also helps to build neighborhoods and strengthen communities. As millions of families have demonstrated, increased homeownership helps to build better communities, and better communities help to build a better America. Families who own homes have a vital stake in their communities, a stronger interest in the safekeeping of their neighborhoods, and a deeper commitment to the quality of their schools and public services. Today, America's housing markets are the envy of the world. We enjoy the lowest interest rates and the highest homeownership rates of any developed nation. With the national homeownership rate reaching 70 percent, we have had success in promoting housing opportunities. However, we must still do more. We must work to help extend housing opportunities to all Americans who do not currently enjoy the benefits of homeownership. Role of Congress Our job in Congress, as responsible policymakers, must be to ensure that government helps, rather than impedes, homeownership in America. When I came to Congress, I made it my top priority to highlight federal policies that have hindered the availability of housing in this country and to find ways for government to positively impact homeownership in America. While we have done much to help Americans become homeowners, we must do more. We must remove the hurdles and needless regulation that keep homeownership out of the reach of some families in America. And oftentimes in government, we pass policies and laws and regulations that sound really good, and when they are implemented they do the exact opposite of what we intend them to do. Unfortunately, this trend is very apparent in our housing policies. Congressional Policies So far in this Congress, I am pleased that we have continued our important work of promoting responsible homeownership policies for our country. Last month, the House passed the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act to reform Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) that have been at the forefront of creating affordable housing opportunities for American families. A new, credible, independent regulator with appropriate supervisory powers would reaffirm that the GSEs are adequately governed and will continue to provide reasonably-priced funds for housing finance. This bill ensures adequate regulation of GSEs while not adversely affecting the ability of the GSEs to fulfill their housing finance mission. Another important needed reform to improve homeownership opportunities across our country is to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). As the private sector mortgage market has become more efficient, the FHA program's inflexible rules and requirements have left it virtually irrelevant as a financing option. Not only can FHA reform provide a viable alternative for families seeking to purchase a home, but it can also help those facing uncertainty about being able to keep their current home. To make the FHA program a viable mortgage option, we must ensure that the program's products are available across the country and that they meet the needs of borrowers. This includes not only eliminating the geographic barriers to utilization of the program in high cost areas, but also facilitating the purchase of entry-level homes, including condos and manufactured housing. The Committee on Financial Services passed an important FHA reform bill in May and I am optimistic we may consider it on the floor soon. Conclusion With June designated as National Homeownership Month, there is no better time to discuss these issues. Now more than ever Congress must continue to cultivate an environment in which more Americans may turn the dream of homeownership into a reality. I am very pleased today that the President has made it a priority to promote affordable housing and homeownership, even while our Nation faces many other challenges at home and abroad. Along with Secretary Jackson and his team at HUD, the President has taken a leading role in finding new and innovative ways to expand homeownership in all areas of this country. Fortunately, here in Congress, we have leaders from both sides of the aisle who are deeply committed to increasing housing opportunities for more Americans. I want to commend Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, Housing Subcommittee Chairwoman Waters, and Ranking Member Biggert for their work in pursuing policies to address affordable housing in the United States. I look forward to continuing this relationship in the l10th Congress so that we will have success in the months and years to come in increasing homeownership nationwide. In closing, it is clear that increased homeownership fosters stronger communities and a better America. National Homeownership Month is a reminder of the significance of housing issues in America. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and recognize the importance of homeownership in the United States.