Gary Miller

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and Mr. Bachus for yielding me this time. I know this has been an issue that they have been working on for years, the same as I have. For the last 3 years, this has been a focus for us dealing with this issue that has been impacting and in many ways very beneficial to the housing market. I commend Chairman Frank and Secretary Paulson for their hard work to strike an agreement so we can move this important reform legislation forward. We must provide for a strong regulator for the GSEs so that investors and the markets are assured that these companies are sound and that their investments in America's housing markets are safe. This bill recognizes that strong regulation provides a means to achieve our ultimate goal of expanding supply of affordable mortgage credit throughout this Nation. The goal in the process we have taken today is to preserve the mission while strengthening the authority of the regulator. We have been working on this issue for a number of years. Through this lengthy legislative process, I have asked my colleagues to be mindful that as we addressed deficiencies in GSE supervision, we must not lose sight of Congress's original intent that chartered the GSEs. The mission of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is to provide stability and on ongoing assistance to the secondary market for residential mortgages, and to promote access to mortgage credit and homeownership throughout the United States. The bill before us today builds upon the bill that passed the House under the leadership of former Chairman Oxley in 2005. That bill passed by an overwhelming vote of 331-90. As I was looking back at the Record at that point in time, it surprised me that based on the comments made by the administration at that time, they are saying that the bill today creates a stronger regulator than the one we passed in 2005. And I was surprised to read that the bill before us today, the administration, unlike the bill passed in 2005, which Treasury opposed then because it failed to provide a strong regulator that could protect the safety and soundness of the housing financial system, today the bill they say ``provides for a fully empowered, independent world-class regulator that can deal with any safety and soundness issue that might arise.'' I had no idea back at that time they opposed it; but I knew they supported it today. The affordable housing fund, I vote repeatedly to strike that. I have never supported it. I didn't support it when Chairman Oxley put it in the original bill. I know many Members on my side oppose this. However, I continue to share the view of former Chairman Oxley that a stronger, more effective regulator of the housing GSEs is absolutely critical and outweighs our philosophical opposition to the fund. I voted for that bill then, and I am going to vote for this bill tonight. This legislation provides for a strong regulator for the GSEs so that investors and the markets are assured that those companies are sound and an investment in the American housing markets are safe. Improved regulation will provide a means to achieve our ultimate goal of expanding the supply of affordable mortgage credit across this country. GSEs have been at the forefront of creating affordable housing opportunities for families, and we must ensure that they are successful in the future. This bill does something that I am very supportive of, and I worked on for 3 or 4 years now. It deals with conforming loan limits in high- cost areas. If you happen to live in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam or the Virgin Islands, you can get a loan for 150 percent of conforming today. But if you live in a high-cost area of California or other parts of this country, you cannot. If you look at the benefit on the marketplace today, especially in California, we are having severe problems in the jumbo market area where the foreclosures and defaults are excessive, and I believe if the conforming marketplace were there today, we would have less problem than we are seeing today. The foreclosure rates are out of control. If you look at the jumbo market in California, the problem we're facing is that only 18.1 percent of the jumbo loans that are made are fixed, 30-year loans; compared to conforming marketplace, 82 percent are fixed 30-year loans. In the jumbo marketplace, 34.9 percent of the jumbo loans are interest- only ARMs. I thank you.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite word. I rise in support of this amendment. The GSE regulator should have authority to limit the size and growth of a GSE portfolio, but specifically addressing safety and soundness are mission concerns with respect to the institution. This was clearly the intent of the language that was introduced within the bill, and this merely clarifies the language in this amendment. This is a clarifying amendment, not a weakening of the regulator, and that needs to be clearly understood. The amendment mitigates concerns that the regulator could establish an overly broad scope in viewing possible risk to the portfolio. The goal of this bill is to create a strong regulator. This bill creates that. But such an overly broad view could lead to unnecessary limits on the enterprise's portfolio activity to the detriment of the housing financing system. The amendment would simply add three words, those are ``to the enterprise,'' to Factor 6 of section 115, so the language would read ``any potential risks posed to the enterprise by the nature of the portfolio holding.'' Systemic risk can be considered by the regulator, it just must be in the context of safety and soundness and the mission of a GSE. The problems we are having in the housing market today are basically in the subprime and the jumbo market. The reason is because about 18.1 percent of those loans are fixed-rate, 30-year loans. If you look at the conforming marketplace, 82 percent is a fixed-rate, 30-year loan. The problem in the marketplace is not GSEs in the conforming. The problem is in the subprime and jumbo. So you don't want a regulator to look at the problem in the marketplace and say let's limit the portfolio of a GSE, and restrict the only sector of the marketplace that is not having a high amount of defaults and foreclosures, to the detriment of the marketplace. If you go back to the 1980s and the 1990s when this country was in a major housing recession, if you went to a lender, it was almost impossible to get a loan if you did not comply with the conforming requirements. They would not make you a loan to build a house. And if you wanted to buy a house, it had to be based on the underwriting criteria of the conforming marketplace. Thereby, the lender could take and sell that loan off to the conforming market, which are the GSEs. Lenders at that point in time were facing foreclosures and default rates and having to set aside reserves to deal with it. They did not have the assets to go make loans and hold those loans in their portfolios, because they were limited based on the defaults they currently had. But they would make loans that met the criteria of the GSEs and the conforming marketplaces. Thereby you could go get loans. This amendment takes no authority out of the regulator's hands to address systemic risk related to safety and soundness or mission of the enterprise. But that is what we need to understand. If the enterprises' portfolio are properly regulated from the standpoint of safety and soundness, the issue of systemic risk becomes moot. Therefore, a broader scope of regulation of portfolios is overreaching and unnecessary in addressing this safety and soundness. The House previously rejected systemic risk in an amendment in the 2005 bill by a vote of 73 to 346. At that point in the bill, in the 109th Congress, we wanted to make sure that systemic risk only applied within the GSEs, not something outside, and it was clearly defeated. We did the right thing. The amendment is consistent with the agreement and with the statements by the Treasury and OFHEO and the portfolio provisions. The language is not intended in any way to weaken the agreement with the Treasury. Rather, it is an attempt to clarify the language in the bill to better reflect that agreement. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I believe this amendment is consistent with our intention for the portfolio provisions. Treasury Under Secretary Robert Steel confirmed this in his testimony to the committee on March 15 in an exchange with Chairman Frank, when Chairman Frank noticed that the current language ``could go beyond the safety and soundness mission.'' Chairman Frank suggested to Secretary Steel that the language should be improved to ensure that the provisions would not be used beyond the scope, and Steel agreed at that point in time. Similarly, OFHEO Director Lockhart testified, ``My reading of the systemic risk is it's part of a regulator's job; it's part of safety and soundness.'' Further, in a letter following the hearing, Lockhart wrote, ``We did agree that systemic risk outside of safety and soundness should not be a part of the regulator's approach.'' What they are saying in our bill is that this needs to be clarified. This language does that. It is harmful to the housing markets to reduce GSE portfolios when it is absolutely unnecessary. We have to look at history and this GSE market has been very good. This amendment has been supported by the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, the National Association of Federal Credit Unions and the Independent Community Bankers of America. This is a good amendment, and I request an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I thank Mr. Hensarling for withdrawing the amendment, but I think it's only fair to place on the Record the other side of the argument. To assume there's only seven areas that benefit from this is a wrong assumption. If you look at the current law, Guam, the Virgin Islands, Alaska and Hawaii all benefit from 150 percent of the amount conforming allows in the rest of this country. All we are saying in our high-cost area is saying aren't we as good as Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. I have been working on this thing for 3 years, I asked that this be put in the bill. I didn't say let's do it like Alaska, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Hawaii. Let's not make it statewide. Let's go specifically to a region. You could have a situation where Brea, in Orange County, could qualify for $625,000; yet Pomona, within 8 miles, might only need $400,000. But it's easy to extract something from a bill that has no impact on you at all. For example, the Dallas region that the gentleman represents, the median home price is $146,400. Yet, you can borrow $417,000 through a GSE, three times the amount of the median. Yet, in Maxine Waters' district, which is four times the median, which is no fault of any of ours, it just happens to be $565,000, she can only borrow $418,000. In my part of Orange County, it's $695,000. I can only borrow $418,600. So we are saying if it is fair for other parts of the country, why isn't it far for all of the country. Now had the gentleman had introduced an amendment that said, well, we think we should have fairness throughout the country, and let's limit it to the median as my amendment did, in this bill that got enacted in the bill so far, that says you can have it conforming, but it cannot exceed median. Well, the gentleman, I am sure, would have a very difficult time going home and telling his people that now they can only borrow $146,400 from Freddie and Fannie because that is the median we are willing to apply to the rest of our districts. Now the argument was made in the past that while the people in these high-cost areas make more money, the median income in Dallas, Texas is $65,500; the median income L.A. County is $61,300. They make $400,000 or more a year in his district, that has a median income, median home price of $146,000. Yet in Maxine's and part of my area of L.A. county, people have to pay $565,000 for a median income home, and yet they make $4,000 less. So, yes, in many cases it's easy to present something to a body and make a very good statement that you are concerned about the quality of a GSE. But let me state, based on the requirements and the restrictions placed upon the GSEs, these loans are very safe. Amendment No. 33 Offered by 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 strike the requirement that high-cost area loans be securitized. And what we have done in this bill is we have said that, in these high-cost areas, to eliminate concerns by many, we are willing to say that the GSE must securitize those loans in high-cost areas; so, therefore, they cannot keep those loans. Those loans have to be transferred to the bond market. And there is no concern nor could there ever be any risk to the GSE, because those loans are not being kept by the GSE. Now, understand clearly that when a loan is made in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Virgin Islands, they are not securitized, and it has not proven to be a risk or a problem so far at all. And if you look at the problems in the real estate market today, they are not in the conforming market at all; they are not even in the high-cost areas that complies with. They are in areas that are not available, such as the jumbo loan market in California and other areas. I am going to withdraw this amendment, but I am making a statement that it is not fair that we try to provide fairness throughout this country, and yet in doing that we are creating a situation that is less fair to those high-cost areas than it is to the rest of the Nation. It is only fair that borrowers in high-cost areas should be able to get a loan through a GSE, that that loan be kept by a GSE, thereby reducing the cost to the person getting the loan. And the statement that there is only a statement of $25, in a high-cost area this saves a buyer $175 a month in payment or a loan through a GSE.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. And I think there is more reason to eliminate securitization than there ever was to place it there in the first place. But, irrespective of that, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Juanita Millender-McDonald. She was my colleague and, more importantly, she was my friend. Juanita and I served together in the California State Assembly and later in Congress. Each week we shared a flight back and forth from Southern California and we grew to be very good friends. In Congress, we partnered on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to address the unique and pressing transportation needs of Southern California. We joined together to bring a national focus to the importance of Southern California's goods movement, highway financing, and transit needs. As conferees for the SAFETEA-LU Act, together we worked hard to bring historic levels of Federal transportation funding back to the Southern California region. I am saddened by the loss of a great public servant and colleague that fought for the needs of her constituents and the Southern California region with grace, dedication, and honor. I am also saddened by the loss of a dear personal friend. Juanita was a kind and gentle soul who was called home far too soon. Her wisdom and leadership in Congress will be sorely missed. I join my colleagues in praying that she is in a better place and that her family is able to find peace in knowing the tremendous contributions she made to her State and Nation during her years of public service.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act of 2007. As the sponsor of this legislation in previous sessions of Congress, I thank my colleagues in the majority and members of the Ways and Means Committee for recognizing the value of this important issue. Congress must continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion, building on momentum from last year's cosponsorship by 220 members, to abolish this tax. I am proud to join with my colleagues today to introduce the Telephone Excise Tax Repeal Act in the 110th Congress, which will eliminate the three percent tax on all telecommunications services. The federal excise tax on telecommunications services was used to pay for the Spanish-American War in 1898. This tax was intended to tap only the wealthiest 1,400 telephone owners. However, with more telephones than people in the United States today, this excise tax represents the polar opposite of a luxury tax, and merely serves to raise prices for consumers. Telephone tax revenues once used to pay for the Spanish-American War are deposited in the General Fund. Unlike the gas tax, which directs revenues to the Highway Trust Fund, no specific account exists to redirect money collected from the telephone ``luxury'' tax. Other items subject to a ``luxury'' tax include airplane tickets, beer and liquor, firearms and cigarettes. Obviously, a telephone is a necessity, and thus does not fit with this list of ``luxury'' items. Last year, the U.S. Treasury Department conceded the legal dispute over the federal excise tax on long-distance telephone service. After 11 consecutive courtroom losses by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury Secretary John Snow announced that collection of the three percent excise tax on long-distance and bundled services would end on July 31, 2006. In fact, the IRS is issuing refunds of tax on long- distance service for the past 3 years. This year, taxpayers may apply for refunds on their 2006 tax forms. The Treasury's action is a step in the right direction, and it is finally time for Congress to put an end to this hidden tax on local telecommunication services. The telephone tax burdens our communication abilities and is destructive to technological innovation. It must be repealed immediately. I urge my colleagues to build upon the successes we have had in the past and to help American taxpayers win the war on their wallets once and for all.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this resolution condemning the President's proposal for achieving success in Iraq and overall victory in the global war on terror. We are not formulating policy today. We are not offering the President an alternative. All this resolution is saying is that we do not support our Commander in Chief, and all it is doing is emboldening the terrorist enemies we are facing today. I am the first to welcome an open discussion about our involvement in Iraq. But, without the opportunity to consider an alternative, this is not open discussion. Why isn't this an open discussion? Because although the majority party has the authority to govern, they have no plan to lead. For over a year, the majority party criticized the President for not making changes in his strategy in Iraq. Well, the President has made changes, and the majority party still is not satisfied. We can all agree that our progress has not been as swift and decisive as we once hoped. We all recognize that the war in Iraq has carried on longer than we wanted and consumed more resources than we expected. However, we all knew from the beginning that it would not be easy, that the war against terror would not be a quick fight. But when the going gets tough, it does not mean that we should give in and come home. As we cannot and must not turn back, we need a fresh approach to move forward. The President, along with his generals on the ground, have proposed a way forward. He has put forth a strategy to suppress the sectarian violence in Iraq and allow democratic reforms to take hold and economic institutions to flourish. His plan is the only plan that provides for a way forward in Iraq. For us in Congress, it is not our job to become involved in tactical decisions that will lead to success in our mission. It is our responsibility to help shape the parameters of the mission and to conduct oversight on our progress in achieving the mission. Republicans in Congress have proposed setting verifiable benchmarks with which we may measure our progress in Iraq. Such benchmarks will help us hold the Iraqi regime responsible for the progress made towards democracy, stability and peace in the country. We should be discussing our responsibility as oversight today, but we are not. We are left with debate on an empty and nonbinding resolution. I am a proud cosponsor of Congressman Sam Johnson's bill to ensure that funding is not cut off or restricted for members of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must support every effort in our fight against terrorists. If the majority allowed us an opportunity, I would have gladly supported a vote on that bill to reaffirm that the House will not abandon our Armed Forces under any circumstance. Whether the majority would like to acknowledge it or not, the fight we are engaged in against terrorists in Iraq is not a new fight. It has been waged for a decade. We have faced terrorists in Beirut, we have faced terrorists in Saudi Arabia, and we have faced terrorists here on our own soil on September 11, 2001. We have learned it is absolutely essential to confront terrorists abroad before they attack us at home. Despite what some of you may say, our withdrawal will not end the terrorist threat. After all, it is they who have declared Iraq to be the central front in the struggle. We cannot withdraw. We cannot send our troops and other allies the message that we will quit when the going gets tough. Instead, we must move forward with the operations in Iraq, with the Iraqi people, to ensure that peace and stability take hold. We must change our strategy as the situation in the field dictates. To do otherwise would be foolish. But by maintaining our commitment in Iraq, we preserve the prospects of peace. By withdrawing, we surrender our chances of permanent stability in the Middle East. This resolution in so many words says that we cannot be successful, and we are bound to fail. I refuse to agree. I refuse to undercut the brave work of our troops by questioning their abilities and refuse to allow terrorists to flourish and our enemies be emboldened and thereby let you, the American people, down. Our brave men and women risk their lives to provide peace and security here at home, and we are all proud to know such patriots. These young men and women, full of promise, voluntarily defend our Nation wherever they are called. It reminds me of a young man in my district, and I presented him with his Eagle Scout awards when he was 17 years old. It was in 2003. A little less than 2 years later than that, in 2004, I attended the funeral for Lance Corporal Abraham Simpson, who made the ultimate sacrifice in Fallujah. He was just 19 years old. When I went to the parents of Abraham and presented a flag that was flown over our great Nation after the funeral, it was honestly one of the most moving experiences I have had, not only in my congressional career but of my life. When I looked at Abraham's father in his car, I couldn't talk. All I could say to him was, ``I voted to send him there.'' Abraham's dad looked me square in the eye, with as serious a look as he could get, and he said, ``Congressman, it was the right vote.'' Like so many families across our country, the Simpson family has made a great sacrifice for our Nation. This resolution, however, says that the world, that the men and women like Lance Corporal Simpson, gave their lives for, was worthless, that America cannot be successful in the pursuit of which they nobly sacrificed themselves. I believe that we can. I know that if we stand firm in our principles and remain true to our convictions, we can succeed. For that reason, I am going to vote ``no'' on this resolution. I rise today in opposition to this resolution condemning the President's proposal for achieving success in Iraq and overall victory in the Global War on Terror. Flawed Process I know I join many of my colleagues in lamenting the process by which we are considering this resolution. We are not formulating policy; we are not offering the President an alternative. All this resolution is saying is that we do not support our Commander in Chief and all it is doing is emboldening our terrorist enemies. While the valiant men and women of our Armed Forces are fighting for freedom abroad, the majority party has cut off democracy here in the House of Representatives so that we may consider a partisan resolution. I am the first to welcome an open discussion about our involvement in Iraq, but without the opportunity to consider alternatives, this is not an open discussion. And why is there no open discussion? Because although the majority party has the authority to govern, they have no plan to lead. For over a year, the majority party criticized the President for not making changes to his strategy in Iraq. Well, the President has made changes, and the majority party is still not satisfied. Today, the majority party still opposes the President's strategy, but they have not offered any alternatives. They continue to criticize--destructively and not constructively. Winning the War in Iraq We can all agree that our progress has not been as swift or as decisive as we once hoped. We all recognize that the war in Iraq has carried on longer than we wanted and consumed more resources than we first thought. However, we all knew from the beginning that it would not be easy-- that the war against terror is not something that would be a quick fight, but that it would take years. As history has taught us, war is not an easy prospect and sometimes does not go according to plan. But when the going gets tough, this does not mean that we should give in and come home. That is not the American way--that is not how America honors its commitments and carries out its obligations. And it is not how America pays respect to those who have fallen in its service. As we cannot--and must not--turn back, we need a fresh approach to move forward. The President, along with his generals on the ground, has proposed a way forward. He has put forth a strategy to suppress the sectarian violence in Iraq to allow democratic reforms to take hold and economic institutions to flourish. His plan is the only plan that provides for a way forward in Iraq. While the majority party proposes to stand still and do nothing, the President's plan aims to allow American forces to stand down as the Iraqi people stand up. For us in Congress, it is not our job to become involved in the tactical decisions that will lead to success in our mission. It is our responsibility to help shape the parameters of our mission and to conduct oversight on our progress in achieving the mission. Republicans in Congress have proposed setting verifiable benchmarks with which we may measure our progress in Iraq. These strategic benchmarks, concerning the transfer of military operations to Iraqi-led units, the development of democratic institutions and the rule of law in Iraq, and increased regional cooperation and stabilization, are important in moving forward in Iraq. Such benchmarks will help us hold the Iraqi regime responsible for the progress made toward democracy, stability, and peace in their country. There is, however, no attempt at oversight in this resolution. Once again, all the majority party is doing is complaining without providing an alternative. We should be discussing our responsibility at oversight today. But we are not. We are left with debate on this empty and nonbinding resolution. Troop Support and Funding No matter what, we must support funding for our troops that are serving in harm's way--with no ifs, ands, or buts. I am a proud cosponsor of Congressman Sam Johnson's bill to ensure funding is not cut off or restricted for members of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. We must support every effort in our fight against terrorists. If the majority allowed us the opportunity, I would have gladly supported a vote on this bill to reaffirm to our troops, our constituents, and our enemies that the House will not abandon our Armed Forces--under any circumstances. Unfortunately, Republican voices were shut out of this process and we are left to consider this empty and non-binding resolution. Consequences of Withdrawal All we heard on this floor for the last year was talk about bipartisanship and cooperation. The talk was about the need to be more bipartisan. Boy, we sure do have short memories. Despite the partisan atmosphere here in the House, the fact is that we have to be successful in Iraq because the consequences of our withdrawal would be disastrous. Whether the majority would like to acknowledge it or not, the fight we are engaged in against terrorists in Iraq is not a new fight--it has been waged for decades. We have faced terrorists in Beirut. We have faced terrorists in Saudi Arabia. And we have faced terrorists on our own soil--on September 11, 2001. We have learned that it is absolutely essential to confront terrorists abroad before they may attack us at home. If we withdraw from Iraq, we give our terrorist enemies--and they are our enemies--a safe haven from which to plan their attacks against us and our allies. Despite what some of you may say, our withdrawal will not end the terrorist threat. After all, it is they who have declared Iraq to be the central front in this struggle. If we withdraw, it will only encourage the terrorists. They will not rest until their agenda of violence and hatred is advanced worldwide. We cannot withdraw. We cannot send our troops and our allies the message that we will quit when the going gets tough. Instead, we must move forward with operations in Iraq--with the Iraqi people--to ensure that peace and stability take hold. We must change our strategy as the situation in the field dictates. To do otherwise would be foolish. But by maintaining our commitment to Iraq, we preserve the prospects of peace. By withdrawing, we surrender our chances for permanent stability in the Middle East. Conclusion The United States has a long and proud history of championing liberty. As a Civil War history enthusiast, I am reminded of the parallels between this generation's fight against terrorism and the Civil War. Both wars brought new and grave challenges to our people and our way of life. Both struggles were fraught with opposition in the press and in Congress. But imagine what would have happened to our nation if President Lincoln did not continue the fight to preserve our union. Just as Lincoln fought against all odds and in the face of grave danger to ensure freedom for all people and to preserve democracy, our troops are doing the same today. Just as Lincoln was successful by standing firm in his commitment to liberty and democracy, I strongly believe that we can--and will--be successful in Iraq if we are to ensure our freedom for the future. This resolution, in so many words, says that we cannot be successful--that we are bound to fail. I refuse to agree. I refuse to undercut the bravel work of our troops by questioning their abilities. I refuse to abandon our Iraqi allies when they need us the most. And I refuse to allow terrorism to flourish and our enemies to be emboldened and thereby let you, the American people, down. Instead, we must go forward. We must continue to support our troops and their important work in Iraq. We must tell them loudly and clearly that the American people stand with them as they fight to bring liberty and security to Iraq. Most importantly, we must honor our troops and the memory of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom by rejecting this empty resolution. These brave men and women risk their lives to provide peace and security here at home and we are all proud to know such patriots. As members of Congress, we all understand the responsibility we have when our nation calls our best and brightest to serve in harm's way. These young men and women, full of promise, voluntarily defend our nation wherever they are called. One such brave young man from my district was Marine Lance Corporal Abraham Simpson from Chino, California. In early 2003, I presented Abraham with his Eagle Scout award to recognize his achievement of the Boy Scouts' highest rank. A little less than two years later, in November 2004, Lance Corporal Simpson made the ultimate sacrifice during the Battle of Fallujah. He was just 19 years old. When I presented his parents with a flag flown over the Capitol of this great Nation, it was one of the most moving moments not only of my congressional career, but of my life. All I could say to Abraham's father was, ``I voted to send him there.'' He looked me square in the eyes and he said, ``Congressman, it was the right vote.'' To honor his cousin's sacrifice, Marine Sergeant Jonathan Simpson, who had originally joined the Marines as a flight navigator, asked to be transferred so he could fight on the front lines. Jonathan Simpson was killed during combat operations in Iraq in October 2006. Abraham and Jonathan Simpson, true American heroes, gave their lives in service to this Nation, and for that--and for all of our fallen heroes--I will always be humbled and grateful. Like so many other families across our country, the Simpson family has made a great sacrifice for our Nation, our ideals, and our freedom. This resolution, however, says to the world that men and women like Lance Corporal Simpson and Sergeant Simpson gave their lives for naught--that America cannot be successful in the pursuit for which they nobly sacrificed. I believe we can. I know if we stand firm in our principles and remain true to our convictions we can succeed. For this reason, I wholeheartedly oppose this empty resolution and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was not able to vote on H.R. 4, the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007 because I had to travel back to California due to a death in the family. I would like the record to reflect that had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' on H.R. 4 and ``aye'' on the Motion to Commit. H.R. 4 will not, as some claim, save Medicare beneficiaries money on their prescription drugs. All that this ill-conceived bill will do is to restrict beneficiary access to necessary drugs, stifle medical advancements, and limit the pharmacies that seniors can utilize. In the last year, seniors have been able to enjoy outpatient prescription drug coverage under Medicare for the first time in the program's history. Every Medicare-eligible senior now has access to a voluntary, affordable prescription drug benefit, with extra help available for low income seniors. Consumers in my state of California can choose from over fifty national, state and regional plans, which cover brand name and generic drugs. The hallmark of this program is choice. Under the current system, covered seniors can continue to visit their neighborhood pharmacies and have access to the medications that have been prescribed to them by their doctors. Recent data indicates that the current system of incorporating private sector principles into the prescription drug plan is working to control costs, while providing prescription drug coverage to millions of seniors who did not have it previously. Independent estimates for the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit for Fiscal Year 2008 show that net costs are thirty percent less than were originally predicted when the benefit was created four years ago. In addition, based on strong, competitive bids by health care plans for 2007, average monthly premiums will be approximately $22 for beneficiaries, a drop from last year's average premium and well below initial premium estimates. The bottom line is that consumer choice is working. There are currently many different drug plans available to seniors. These plans compete with each other and negotiate prices with the pharmaceutical companies. As we have seen, this competition has resulted in lower costs for the program than originally expected. Such cost savings have been achieved while preserving the ability of seniors to obtain the drugs their doctor has prescribed from a local pharmacist of choice. The misguided proposal before us today to put the government in charge of negotiating prescription drug prices does not serve the interests of seniors. Government controls will lead to restrictive formularies, denying seniors coverage for the drugs their doctors prescribe. While seniors will have fewer prescriptions to choose from, they will not realize savings from this reduction in prescription options. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) affirmed that government negotiation will only yield savings if access to medicines is restricted. H.R. 4 will limit seniors' choice of plans and access to necessary treatments; what's more, it will stifle innovation. In examining ways to control the costs of prescription drugs, we must not forget that innovations by pharmaceutical companies lead to the development of newer and better treatments. Price controls create barriers to pharmaceutical innovation that can hurt patients and slow the potential for innovative therapy discovery. Some estimates find that almost 200 new drugs would go undiscovered over the next two decades as an indirect result of federal price negotiations. We all want to ensure our seniors can get the prescriptions they need at the lowest cost. The debate before us today is about who we think is most effective in negotiating with the drug companies to achieve this low cost. We do not need to speculate on the answer to this question. The current program of senior choice and market competition has already lowered costs by forty percent in one year. In contrast, the CBO has said that the proposal to move toward socialized medicine will not save seniors any money unless access to needed medications is limited. I cannot support limiting access and choice for the 66,000 Medicare Part D beneficiaries in my district and as such strongly oppose H.R. 4.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to Title IV of H. Res. 6, adopting the rules of the 110th Congress. This title purports to uphold a commitment to fiscal responsibility, but in actuality it includes a mechanism by which the new majority may increase taxes for hardworking Americans. Ultimately, this title could facilitate tax increases while preventing tax relief measures for millions of Americans. Instead, the House should reaffirm our commitment to fiscal responsibility by passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution so that Congress does not spend more than it takes in. To be clear, I do support an important provision contained in Title IV--namely, the provision concerning the long-overdue reform for congressional earmarks. I have long supported measures to bring transparency and accountability to the earmarking process to ensure that the American people know their money is not being squandered. In fact, I proudly supported H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act, as well as H. Res. 1000, both of which passed last year to amend the rules of the House to address earmark reform. These two measures were the first steps in ending the abuse of earmarks by a few members and increasing fiscal trust in Congress. I fully support the continuation of these efforts to crack down on earmark misuse and improve the financial transparency of our budget. Regrettably, the important earmark reform provision of this title was coupled with a measure that could potentially increase taxes for all Americans. This provision, known as pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, seems like a beneficial tool to fiscal responsibility on its face. PAYGO budgetary rules require new mandatory spending be offset by either other equal reductions in mandatory spending or by revenue increases. However, with plans for new direct spending programs and budgetary rules that do not accurately score the effect of tax reductions on future economic growth, PAYGO is really a policy of ``tax and spend as you go.'' For this reason, I must reluctantly oppose this title. Instead, I will support the motion to commit, which will ensure Americans are not squeezed in their pocketbooks by requiring a three-fifths vote to pass any congressional tax hike. The three-fifths requirement was an important reform of the Contract with America, instituted in 1995 to protect Americans from unfair tax increases. By failing to guarantee this requirement, millions of American families and small businesses could be threatened by money grabs from greedy tax writers. This is not right. Over the past several years, our economy has seen levels of unprecedented growth as a result of the 2003 tax cuts. Today, with over seven million payroll jobs created and the Dow Jones Industrial Average at record highs, it would be irresponsible to jeopardize the economic progress we have made. In addition, I call for the House of Representatives to consider H.J. Res. 1, which proposes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I have joined over 100 of my fiscally responsible and forward-thinking colleagues in cosponsoring this bill, which is a real solution to deficit spending. For the first time ever, this amendment would put it in our Constitution--in the very fabric of our democracy--that taxpayers' money belongs to them and that Congress has the obligation of spending it carefully and responsibly. I wholeheartedly support this vital amendment and I sincerely hope this House will uphold our commitment to our constituents by considering and passing H.J. Res. 1. Again, I cannot support Title IV of H. Res. 6 because it allows for a needless increase of the financial burden on all American families. Instead, I support the motion to commit and the Balanced Budget Amendment as real steps forward in reducing the tax burden on American families and committing ourselves to true fiscal responsibility. Our obligation to hardworking taxpayers deserve no less.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Anthony L'Esperance, a fellow Southern Californian. Mr. L'Esperance has lived a long and distinguished life. During World War II, he honorably served as a Lieutenant Commander in the Merchant Marines. His duty and commitment to this great nation have helped build the pillars of hope, peace and freedom that so many in the world still look up to. Mr. L'Esperance was also featured in the pages of Life magazine for his work as a master magician and is credited for inventing a precise slide-calendar that incorporates the days lost due to the switch from Julian to Gregorian calendars. But his greatest accomplishment and passion in life is his family. For more than 62 years, Mr. L'Esperance has been married to his wife Mary. They have been blessed with a son, Paul, a daughter-in-law, Jan, and granddaughter, Morgan. Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that this 110th Congress join me in saluting Mr. L'Esperance for his service to our country and community.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5503) to amend the National Housing Act to increase the mortgage amount limits applicable to FHA mortgage insurance for multifamily housing located in high-cost areas.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This legislation is critical to increasing the availability of affordable rental housing in this country. I would like to thank my good friend Barney Frank. He has worked with me to introduce this important bill. And I really want to thank the Financial Services Committee chairman, Mike Oxley. He has worked diligently through this process to get the process completed in committee so that the bill could be heard tonight. When it comes to high-cost markets where land and construction costs are significantly higher than other areas of the country, there is no question that the FHA multifamily mortgage insurance limits are not keeping pace. The slowdown in affordable rental housing production has resulted in a significant gap between the demand and supply of affordable rental housing. This is a problem we have come together to solve tonight. Through its numerous multifamily housing programs, HUD is a primary partner in the development of affordable rental housing. FHA provides mortgage insurance to HUD-approved lenders to facilitate the construction, substantial rehabilitation, purchase, and refinancing of multifamily housing projects and health care facilities. Mortgage insurance covers a lender if a borrower defaults on the insured loan. The FHA multifamily program is particularly important in serving the housing needs of low- and moderate-income families. In our most expensive cities, it is very difficult for these families to find affordable rental housing in the communities where they work. Today, many public servants throughout this country, police officers, firefighters, and teachers, are not able to live in the communities in which they serve. Some commute an hour or more to get to work every day. What happens if there is a natural disaster? How will the first responders get to those in need in time if they live an hour or more away from where they work? If Congress does not act to promote the development of affordable rental units, the housing situation in high-cost areas will continue to worsen and the housing needs for those who serve our communities and keep them safe will continue to be overlooked. Developers are simply unable to provide affordable housing units in high-cost areas because the current statutory limits for FHA mortgage insurance are unrealistically low. While Congress increased the limits of 2003, construction costs have accelerated to such heights in high-cost areas that the limits need to be increased again in order to allow affordable, low- and moderate-income rental units to be built in places like California and New York and cities such as Boston. While FHA multifamily loan limits were increased in 2003, there were only a total of six FHA-insured multifamily loans for new construction or substantial rehabilitation approved in California in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 because of the loan limit. For the same time frame in the State of New York, only eight multifamily projects were approved by FHA. In Massachusetts only five projects were approved, and in New Jersey not a single new construction or rehabilitation project was approved through FHA. This bill establishes a mechanism for addressing the need for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of rental units in extremely high-cost areas throughout this country. Under this bill, the multifamily loan limits in high-cost areas would increase to 170 percent above the base limit. The Secretary of HUD would have the discretion to increase the limits to 215 percent on a case-by-case or project-by-project basis. It is important to point out that there is no private sector alternative to this program. The market served by FHA multifamily insurance does not overlap the competitive private interests. The FHA multifamily mortgage insurance program has worked with private sector partners to expand the supply of rental housing for over 65 years. This public/private partnership has leveraged more than $100 billion of private sector investment to provide rental housing for working families and elderly throughout this country. In addition, the FHA program and this increase pays for itself. In fact, the program actually has a positive budgetary impact. That means this project actually makes money for the Federal Government. For example, according to CBO, in 2002 FHA insured about $5 billion in loans for multifamily projects. The budgetary impact of these guarantees was accorded as discretionary savings of about $20 million. That means that the Federal Government made $20 million just by insuring these loans. CBO estimates that this bill would bring in $15 million in 2007 and $75 million between the 2007-2011 period. That means in those years alone, the Federal Government will make $75 million just by working on these programs. Further, let me point out that if we do not pass legislation to promote the availability of affordable rental housing, our waiting lists for public housing will continue to grow. Despite drastic funding increases in section 8, waiting lists continue to grow across this Nation. In some cities, such as those in Southern California, families who sign up on a waiting list today will not receive an apartment for another 10 years. This bill is a step in the direction of reducing dependency on government programs by providing a move-up market for affordable rental units. In closing, it is important to note that we are not giving grants. We are not doing something that is going to lose money for any congressional district, because this bill does not take away money from low-cost areas. This bill, basically with the FHA mortgage insurance program, provides a critically needed financing source for affordable rental housing. It is important that this program be usable in areas that are experiencing a severe shortage of affordable units and rising development costs. I want to conclude by saying this is not a giveaway program. This is a program that is an assistance to the private sector and a program that actually makes money for the private sector and through the government. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time. Madam Speaker, I want to once again thank my good friend, Barney Frank. He worked with me in introducing this legislation. We worked it through the system. It is before us today. I would also like to thank a very good chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mike Oxley. He had a vision when he took over the committee. He worked diligently to accomplish that vision. I wish him the best in his retirement. I know we are going to miss him next year when the committee starts again.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 994. This week, all Americans pause and remember the heroes of September 11, 2001. We honor their sacrifices, recall their courage, and pay tribute to their legacy. On that day five years ago, the strength of our nation was challenged and our resolve tested. The gallant actions of our fellow Americans showcased the resilience of our spirit and reinforced our ideals of life, liberty, and democracy. The United States today is a nation far different than it was five years ago. We have come to recognize the dangers that hate and terrorism impose upon peaceful and freedom-loving people worldwide. We are better informed of terrorist threats and better organized to deter these dangers. Most importantly, we have learned that the Global War on Terror, this great struggle of our time, is a fight best waged on foreign soil, out of the reach of American streets, American neighborhoods, and American families. As we pay tribute to the memory of September 11, 2001, Congress will take up several measures to ensure that our homeland is secure. These measures are designed to combat a new enemy that hides from sight, attacks the weak and unprotected, and uses innocent civilians as human shields. To prevent future terrorist attacks, we are working to disrupt terrorist activities internationally and domestically, including stopping terrorist networks and their financing schemes and securing our borders and critical infrastructure. September 11, 2001 was a watershed moment in American history, when the defenders of freedom and democracy began the long struggle against fear and tyranny. Five years later, we pause as a nation to honor the memory of those who lost their lives that day and all those who have since made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of liberty. In addition, we honor the brave actions of all of our servicemembers during the War on Terror. Day in and day out, our military forces are making significant progress in weeding out violence and extremism, promoting peace, and training domestic security forces. Their actions have safeguarded life, liberty, and democracy for all Americans and prevented fear and violence from taking hold in America.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Ney and Mike Oxley for their help in this area. That is an issue that Barney Frank and I have worked on for quite a few years. We started out with a GSE, government sponsored enterprise, which is Fannie and Freddie, trying to reform that concept in high-cost areas. We found out that many people in high-cost areas, such as Mr. Frank's district and my district in California and Maxine Waters' district, because of the rising costs of houses, people could not qualify for conforming loan limits. We had to raise the conforming rates in the high-cost areas, and the same problem once we completed that was realized in FHA. Barney and I took this on a few years ago, trying to take a system that has been up and running for 70 years and conform that system to today's marketplace. It has basically become so antiquated that many people in high-cost areas could not qualify for an FHA loan. In fact, I would talk to brokers and lenders in my district that have not been able to process an FHA loan in years because the system is so structured and the costs have gone up so high in housing marketplaces, that you have taken a situation where first-time and low-income buyers could not qualify; or if they had to go to a conventional loan because of the high loan-to-value ratios, they couldn't get those loans. And because of the payment-to-income ratios, they couldn't qualify for conventional. That is why FHA is an extremely viable option for these people. When I say ``these people,'' I am talking about the people who work in our districts: teachers, nurses, firemen, policemen. They live in areas that they often travel in California an hour and a half to 2 hours just to get to work because they cannot afford to buy a home within the city within which they work. Their reasons might be lack of downpayment or other reasons that in the past have been figured to qualify for a conventional loan. That is why if we can bring FHA up to today's standards, we can provide loans for these individuals who need to buy housing where they work, who can make the payment, and they can qualify for an FHA loan if we raise it in high-cost areas. A situation many of my conservative friends, and I am extremely conservative on the Republican side, we had the argument over is this a government program that is taxing people and basically providing a subsidy for somebody else, and it is really not. The people who qualify for FHA and get the FHA loans pay for the insurance. As a matter of fact, it makes a profit for the Federal Government. Some people say, well, we need to raise the amount of premiums and the percentage based on what they are borrowing, and some still believe that is appropriate. If it is proven that the system is not breaking even, which it is today, then let's look at it; but there is no reason to raise premiums on a loan that we are basically trying to expand for more people the opportunity to qualify for. Limiting the FHA's complicated downpayment calculation and traditional cash investment requirement is provided in this loan. It was a very cumbersome process. It was complicated. It did not need to be that way, and providing FHA the flexibility to set insurance premiums commensurate with the risk of the loan is in this bill, and that is most appropriate. They are basically saying that we are going to base the premium on how risky the loan is we are making to the individual, rather than coming up with some matrix that just says we are going to raise premiums overall for no proven reason. This says, let's look at the risk based on the individual, and let's base the premium on that. It is a reasonable approach. It takes FHA and brings it up to the level it should be today. It takes a system that worked 70 years ago, worked 20 years ago, but today it does not because of the inflation in housing, the costs have gone so high, that FHA loans are so low, you could basically not provide that opportunity to people who really needed it. I want to thank Maxine Waters who has been very helpful in this. We have had a lot of fun working together. There are some issues we don't agree on. This is one we are absolutely in lock-step on. In fact, it is amazing, between Maxine and Barney Frank and Chairman Ney and myself, the issues we have come together on in housing, trying to provide and meet the needs of our communities, and just by changing the rules offering expanded opportunity, we have come a long way to helping people get into a new home, both first-time home buyers and police and firemen who might be in their second or third home, but they just have trouble with the conventional marketplace because it puts them into a jumbo loan when you get up into these areas. Savings to an individual for this type of a loan might be $170 a month. That is tremendous. It provides an opportunity that does not exist today, and it is a very good bill, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It is interesting that individuals are required to take their U.S. citizenship test in English, not in another language, but in English. It is also interesting that we provide an opportunity if they want to take a translator to the polls to help them, they are able to do that also. But in my district, which is basically Orange County, individuals received a letter which is called an outreach letter offering foreign language ballots. These were sent to any individual who had a foreign- sounding name such as Martinez or Chen. The response I received was overwhelming, and it was pure anger that the assumption was made because my name happened to be Chen or Martinez that I was not a U.S. citizen capable of speaking English. Less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of the 1.5 million people in Orange County actually requested non-English ballots, yet they only have to provide five ballots today: English, Spanish, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese. The next Census has predicted that they will have to produce an additional five languages. This is a reasonable amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the American people expect us to stop the flood of illegal immigrants coming to this country. In order to do that we need to secure our borders. We need to crack down on employers that hire illegals and preserve American jobs for Americans. We need to reject all forms of amnesty. Many talk about a guest worker program. I think most reasonable people believe that a guest worker program in the farming industry, perhaps in the gardening and landscape industries, is reasonable. Beyond that we need to look at what the need of America is, not the need of foreign countries and where they want to place their people. We need to absolutely reject again all forms of amnesty. We need to increase enforcement on current immigration laws. Today, currently, business owners can go out and find out if the person they are hiring is eligible to work here or if they are not. We need to think about how we are impacting workers. In 1973 the average manufacturing jobs paid $15.24 an hour. In 2004 it paid $15.26 an hour. An American worker should not expect his pay to be cut because somebody comes to this country illegally and is willing to work for less than he or she should be paid. We need to protect Americans and protect their jobs.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for yielding. I represent the 42nd Congressional District in California, and for those of you who have not been to California, I do not truly believe you understand the concept of illegal immigration. When I hear my colleagues, and individuals I consider friends, they get up before us and say, a guest worker program is needed to fill those jobs that Americans will not do, I guess you have to define what are the jobs we are offering Americans. What wages are they offering Americans to work is probably the best question. The National Journal, in fact, did a study that I know determined in 1973 that the average manufacturing job in nonmanagerial service work paid about $15.24 an hour. At that time, you could get a job in construction, in manufacturing, most businesses. A man or woman could afford to own a home, send their kids to school, live a good, quality life and plan for the future. The problem was that in 2004, those jobs that in 1973 paid $15.24 an hour, paid $15.26 an hour. Talk to the individual who was a carpenter, who was a plumber, who poured concrete, who did masonry, who was honorably employed by a manufacturing company, that was paid good wages, and you saw this dramatic change start to occur during the recession in California of the 1990s. All of the sudden things were tighter. People started hiring individuals here in this country for a much lesser wage than the American citizen was willing to do that job for. A good example, I remember seeing dry-wallers being laid off and an illegal being hired. It is not that illegals are bad people. By and large, they are really good people. They are just trying to come here to better their lives. So it is not a matter of race or discrimination. It is just the fact that can the United States accept all the poor that this world wants to send here? And if we decided to do that, why not accept them from India? Why not accept them from Asia? Why not accept them from anyplace in the world and double, triple, quadruple our population if we are just going to be benevolent and accept people who are poor and want to better their lives? But the problem you have, and this is back to the dry-waller, then you see an illegal hanging dry wall and his wife and kids are going behind him nailing the dry wall off to get the job done quicker so the husband could produce more at a much lesser rate than the American citizen was paid before. Now, how do you explain that to the American who was born here, who was educated here, who perhaps does not want to put a suit and tie on to go to work in the morning, who wants to work with his hands in that job that he is very capable of doing, but cannot afford to do for the reduced rate that an illegal is willing to work for? How do you tell that man he cannot support his family, educate his children and cannot afford a home anymore? In the National Journal, it is not me saying it, it is them saying it, that over 30 years later we are paying 2 cents per hour on average more than we were paying in 1993. I do not think Members of Congress who, as I say, get up and put a suit on in the morning and wear ties understand that people working for a living in this country are those who are most impacted by what we have done. We have to hold employers accountable. For an employer to say, well, I just do not know; well, that is unrealistic, because we have a pilot program today that any employer in this country can go verify whether that individual is a citizen or not. If you are unwilling to do that and you hire questionable employees that you know or you suspect are not here legally, you are violating the laws of this country. The sad thing is, the violation of that law is hurting American workers who would love to have that job. Are there some jobs in this country that I think we maybe need to look at? I think after we enforce the current laws that are on the books, or we pass new laws to stop illegal immigration, then let us look at the jobs that we do need to fill. I do not think there is an argument by many people that the agricultural industry, farmers, are probably going to need some labor. We have needed them historically since World War II, and before we had a program that took care of that. So there are certain industries, whether it be landscaping, gardening, I do not know if we have got to have them for food services, but I think there are certain industries where we are probably going to recognize that we do need some guest worker programs. But to come in with a concept, let us just have a guest worker program for anybody who wants to hire somebody at a wage an American citizen is not willing to work at is an absolutely unreasonable approach to a very real problem that is not getting better daily. We talk about an amnesty program, which is what I consider the Senate bill to be. In 1986, we allowed amnesty, and what did it get us? Nothing. It created more citizens of those who were here illegal, but we did nothing to enforce the law after we allowed amnesty for those that were here illegally. The American citizens, the people I represent, do not believe us anymore, and they do not believe us for good reason. What we told them that we were going to do in 1986 we did not do. I think we need to go pass a law today, a new law that is strict, enforceable and specific on what we are going to allow and not allow. We need to prove to the American people that we are going to send law- breakers back and we are going to hold employers accountable for hiring people that are here illegally. Now, one argument that I hear repeatedly is, well, what are you going to do with all the people that came here illegally? They came here for a job, and if there is no job, they will go back home. The government does not need to provide buses. The government needs to remove the incentives that allow people to live here. There are many. We need to crack down on employers, number one. We need to prohibit access to credit and financial service. We need to prevent illegals from gaining access to food stamps, low-income housing and health care. I cannot go to Mexico and buy a house. They will not allow me to. Well, why should somebody come to this country illegally, violating the laws of this country, and be eligible to do something that they will not allow us to do in their own country? Can you imagine going to Mexico and saying, I want a ballot printed in English? I want you to teach my children English in school? I want you to provide free health care at the emergency ward at the hospital for them? And I want you to allow me to stay here when you know I am staying in violation of your laws? If I go to Mexico illegally, they will arrest me, confiscate my assets and deport me immediately. Those who come here from those countries act like we are being abusive when they came from a country where they have not in any way tolerated what we are told we have to tolerate here. Now, it does not amaze me that when we send a bill out of the House to stop this problem, that Mexico and South American countries would oppose it. Well, why would they not oppose it? It does not benefit their interests. Their interests are sending anybody to this country, helping them come to this country, provide information to them to come to this country so they can earn money and send it back to their home country. Well, that is wrong. This is the Congress of the United States of America, and this Congress should protect American citizens first, understanding that in South America and Mexico there are very good people. They are our neighbors; there is no argument about that. But if they want to come here, they should come here the same way I have gone to their country; and that is go there with a visa, go there with a passport, and when I am through, I come home. I cannot just overstay my welcome as long as I deem that I should be there. I have to come home or they will send me home. We welcome them into our country if they want to come on vacation, come to visit their families or come to do what they want to do, but at the given time, you go home and you do not come here illegally to get a job thinking you are going to stay in violation of the laws this country has placed upon the books. Now, we are either a country of laws or we are not a country of laws, and today, we do not enforce the laws of this country at all. This concept we have in the Senate bill of earned citizenship will absolutely bankrupt our social fabric in this country. We cannot spend $50 billion a year, as it is estimated, on those coming to this country who, once they become citizens, are eligible for every program on the social books that we have in this country. We cannot afford it. We should not tolerate it. Go to California and look at the impact on schools. I have talked to teachers who said they are holding this class back because the bulk of the student body in that class do not speak English. Now, yes, it is a benefit to those kids who are here illegally because they are being educated, but it is a tremendous detriment to the children of American citizens who are being held back because the rest of the class cannot speak English to be moved forward. Go to an emergency ward in California. You will wait for hours. People go there that are illegal, cannot speak English, for a sprained ankle, for a headache, for a cold, for basic health care. That is not what an emergency ward is for. And who is paying the bill? The people who use the hospital, who are having to subsidize it because they are losing money treating illegals. We are a compassionate country. There is no doubt about it. If someone is here and they have had an emergency and they need to go to the hospital, they should be treated. You should allow nobody to suffer, nobody to die, but you cannot tolerate 12 to 20 million people coming here with this concept that health care is free, because when they get it they do not have to pay it. Well, you cannot blame them for that. The people you can blame are the people in this room, for not making sure the laws passed by this Congress are enforced in this country. We can no longer tolerate it. Once again, they are good people that are trying to get here, by and large not bad people. But the American citizen cannot afford it. It is our responsibility, first of all, to protect and defend our borders. We are not doing it. And we should be concerned about the future of America and American citizens. Hopefully, when this debate continues and enough good people come here and talk about the impact on this country, we will fix the wrong that has occurred and make sure it does not happen again. Thank you.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I introduced this legislation to elevate the debate and the understanding of the importance of housing in this country. On May 24, 2006 President Bush designated June as National Homeownership Month, as he has done over the past 5 years. To complement this designation, this resolution provides congressional recognition of the National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States. Owning a home is a fundamental part of the American Dream and is the largest personal investment families will ever make. Not only does homeownership provide economic security by building wealth over time, it also strengthens and builds communities. However, creating affordable homeownership opportunities requires the commitment and cooperation of the private, public, nonprofit sector, including the Federal Government and State and local governments. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that the House of Representatives, one, fully supports the goals and ideals of National Homeownership Month; and, two, recognizes the importance of homeownership in building strong communities and families. Today is a day we can come together, set aside any policy differences we might have, and celebrate homeownership in America. For generations, the goal of owning a home has been the bedrock of our economy and a fundamental part of the American Dream. As we have faced the challenges of war and economic uncertainties, the housing markets have helped to keep our economy strong. Nationally, housing generates more than 22 percent of the gross domestic product and accounts for nearly 40 cents of every dollar spent. America's housing markets are the envy of the world. We enjoy the lowest interest rates, the highest homeownership rates of any developed nation. In fact, national homeownership in the United States has reached a record high of 70 percent. Homeownership is the single largest creator of wealth for Americans. It is the largest investment most families will ever make, and a key to promoting long-term economic stability. For this reason we must continue to promote policies that ensure more Americans can achieve the goal of homeownership. Aside from helping millions of Americans achieve their dreams, homeownership also helps to build neighborhoods and strengthen communities. 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. Each home is a critical piece in a successful neighborhood, allowing families to enjoy community events together and share in the lives of their neighbors and friends. As millions of American families have demonstrated, increased homeownership helps to build better communities, and better communities help to build a better America. As responsible legislators, we need 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 just the exact opposite of what we intend them to do, they hinder homeownership. State government and local government do the same thing. What we need to do as legislators is look at these things we have done; and if they are wrong, we need to correct them. And then we need to pass new resolutions and laws that further provide opportunities for people, which in many cases we have done the opposite of. We must also promote fair lending practices to increase housing opportunities for all Americans. And we must ensure that programs Congress passes to encourage homeownership can be enjoyed by all Americans in all communities, including those in high-cost areas. With June designated as National Homeownership Month, there is no better time to address these issues. Now more than ever Congress must 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 among those challenges our country faces in other areas. 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 a strong commitment to homeownership from Members from both sides of the aisle. I want to commend the people in our committee who have worked really hard: Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Barney Frank, also subcommittee Chairman Ney and Maxine Waters. We have come together on many issues. We have put aside personal issues that we might disagree on, and we said, what can we do positively together to create a better environment for housing, understanding that people at all sectors of society need to own a home, and how can we eliminate programs that hinder them from doing that. I am confident due to this teamwork we will have success in years to come and continue to increase homeownership nationwide. National Homeownership Month is a reminder of the importance of housing issues in America. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I encourage all of us, as we go through our practices of trying to pass good and reasonable laws for this country, to look at policies that encourage homeownership rather than discourage homeownership.