Gary Miller

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 4973, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act, before us today. The National Flood Insurance Program is a valuable tool in addressing the losses incurred throughout this country due to floods. It assures that businesses and families have access to affordable flood insurance that would not be available on the open market. Prior to the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act in 1968, insurance companies generally did not offer coverage for flood disaster because of the high risk involved. Today more than 20,000 communities participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. More than 90 insurance companies sell and service flood service insurance. There are more than four million policies covering the total of $800 billion. The National Flood Insurance Program provides Federal flood insurance for properties located in flood-prone areas where the community has voluntarily agreed to institute floodplain management and land use control measures that minimize the risk of flooding and mitigate potential flood damage. The program is intended to provide a more cost- efficient alternative to costly Federal disaster assistance by encouraging communities to take preventive measures to reduce flood losses and providing affordable flood insurance that would not otherwise be commercially available. Last year's hurricane season resulted in significant strains on the NFIP. The claims resulting from the losses from these catastrophic hurricanes is unprecedented in the history of the program. Since the NFIP's inception in 1968, the program paid out $15 billion in claims. In contrast, claims for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone are expected to exceed $25 billion. This far surpasses claims paid by the entire history of the NFIP. In the past, when losses exceeded premiums, the NFIP had been allowed to borrow from the U.S. Treasury to repay claims. Such loans have traditionally been paid back rather quickly with interest. The bill before us today increases the amount that FEMA may borrow from the U.S. Treasury to $25 billion to cover the expenses incurred by the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, during the last year's hurricane season. As CBO has stated, the funds borrowed from Treasury so far exceed the program's income from premiums and fees they will likely never be repaid. As such, this bill proposes a number of reforms to the program to ensure that it is actuarially sound in the future. When we debated this in committee, some individuals made proposals; and for the best of reasons, they said we should look at a 100-year traditional floodplain, and anybody within a 100-year traditional floodplain should be required to pay for insurance. The problem that many of us have who represent districts who have mitigated 100-year floodplains is that all of our people who are not at risk would be required to basically boost the program by increased premiums by them participating in it also. And when Federal dollars, State, and local have been spent to mitigate 100-year floodplains, many of us thought that that was unreasonable. In fact, the 100-year floodplain would have impacted a large portion of L.A. County that I represent. Anything near the L.A. River would have been included, and most of Orange County would also because the Prado Dam mitigates that. There was another proposal made with the best of heart and the best of concern for the people of this country. That said, let's look at a historical 500-year floodplain. The problem we had with that is there is no evidence available and then there is no information available either that we can dictate and determine how much a 500-year floodplain might be. If we had taken a 500-year historical floodplain, it would have included all of L.A., most of L.A. County, and most of Orange County and any other city in this country that is next to a river or near the coast. I offered an amendment and it was supported by the committee that said let's do a GAO study to determine if we need to expand the program, how it should be done, how it should be implemented. I think it is a reasonable approach, rather than us just making a knee-jerk reaction to a severe problem. And it is a problem we have to address. I am not saying we don't. But to tax people who are not impacted or not at risk of flood to boost the program, I think, is unreasonable. It would have impacted many of our districts that don't live in areas of high risk. And I do understand the need that we need to protect those who are within the program. We need to make the program actuarially sound. And I am pleased with the language in this bill that is included here, and it expands the coverage of the program. And I urge my colleagues to reject any amendment that would further expand it without GAO studies.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of fiscal responsibility. As stewards of the taxpayers' hard-earned money, we have the obligation to ensure it is spent wisely, sensibly, and where it is needed the most. I want to commend Speaker Hastert and Leader Boehner for working hard to improve the fiscal responsibility of Congress. True Spending Reform However, if we are to truly rein in spending and restore fiscal sanity, we must do more than address the aftermath of a flawed process. Rather than waiting to restore fiscal responsibility after we pass legislation, we must work to ensure we remain committed to it as we draft legislation. Instead of cutting spending at the end of the budgetary process, we must start the process with an eye on fiscal discipline. True reform means leaving future generations a Federal budget that makes sense--a budget that expends only as much as it takes in. We must make a commitment to our children and grandchildren by improving the complete budgetary process. We Must Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment To reform this flawed process, we must consider and pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. H.J. Res. 58, which I cosponsored, is the most important tool in bringing fiscal responsibility back to America. This amendment would force Congress to spend only as much as it receives. It would also require the President to join us in this commitment by making him submit a balanced budget to Congress. As we work today to cut wasteful spending at the end of the process, I believe we must also commit ourselves to complete fiscal responsibility in the entire budgetary process. As we vote today on the Legislative Line Item Veto Act, I ask my colleagues to remember that true fiscal responsibility requires a commitment to discipline the whole way through the process--it requires the Balanced Budget Amendment.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a modest amendment to ensure HUD can continue to work the redevelopment of brownfield sites to local communities. I would like to commend Chairman Knollenberg. I am on the Financial Services Committee and Transportation Committee, and he has worked very hard and responsibly to fund the Nation's housing and transportation needs during this very, very tight budget year. I am pleased that the bill boosts highway spending, supports aviation, addresses America's critical housing needs, supports national antidrug efforts. This amendment today basically keeps the BEDI program going, which redevelops brownfields through the HUD administration. The estimate is 450,000 vacant sites lay idle throughout this country. They are underused industrial sites as a result of environmental contamination caused by chemical compounds and other hazardous substances. The basic year's budget transfers all the funding to EPA. EPA has a completely different objective than HUD does through the BEDI Program. BEDI grants are basically used for economic development. We passed out a bill I offered last year, H.R. 280, that is in the Senate today to restructure the BEDI Program, making a simpler program more usable to local communities. Currently, to get a BEDI grant you have to apply for a section 108 loan, then in repayment you have to guarantee your CDBG funds and pledge those to repay that loan. Some communities don't receive CDBG funds directly, so they could not apply for section 108. And the other communities who can, don't want to readily pledge those CDBG funds because many community organizations and efforts are undertaken with the utilization of these funds. These brownfield sites threaten our groundwater. They cost local communities jobs and revenues. It is estimated if we could clean these 450,000 brownfield sites up, it would generate an additional 550,000 jobs throughout this country and $2.4 billion in new tax revenues for its cities and towns. The communities I represent and communities throughout this country want this program. The problem they have had is it has been a complex program in the past. I thank Chairman Knollenberg. Last year you accepted an amendment of mine which kept this program going. And the understanding I had was we need to do legislation to modify the program in order to make it more accessible to communities. We have done that. It passed out of this floor on unanimous consent. It is in the Senate currently. And we hope to have that addressed in the Senate and made into law so we can keep this viable program going. Eddie Bernice Johnson has been a true partner working with me on this, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, as a homebuilder for over 35 years, I rise today in support of the Stormwater Enforcement and Permitting Act of 2006, a bill introduced by Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Duncan to streamline the Clean Water Act stormwater permitting process for residential construction sites. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) costly, excessive, and inconsistent stormwater regulations need to be reformed to ensure affordable homes can be constructed without burdensome regulations that do little to protect the environment. More effective environmental protection will come from simple, straightforward rules that encourage compliance. Stormwater is different from the industrial pollutants that are the focus of EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Rainfall events that generate stormwater runoff on residential construction sites cannot be controlled in the same way a manufacturing plant can control the flow of its industrial processes. The inflexible requirements imposed by the EPA do not acknowledge these differences. A more consistent and sensible enforcement approach would better protect our water resources without increasing housing costs. I believe stormwater regulations must be reasonable, which is why I am an original cosponsor of the Stormwater Enforcement and Permitting Act of 2006. This bill creates an outreach program to ensure all homebuilders know of EPA's regulations, gives builders an opportunity to correct benign stormwater permit deficiencies that do not result in environmental damage, and clarifies, codifies, and streamlines EPA's stormwater regulations for residential construction sites. At a time when housing prices have hit record highs, burdensome regulations are pushing up the costs of housing, squeezing working families out of the market. I look forward to working with my colleagues to move this bill forward to streamline EPA's stormwater regulations to ensure all Americans can realize the dream of homeownership.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, occasionally we have an opportunity to come to the floor to celebrate something. Lesli McCollum Gooch has been my legislative director for over 3 years. She began her service on Capitol Hill in the fall of 1999 as a Congressional Fellow for Marge Roukema of New Jersey. At the conclusion of the fellowship, Lesli served as Representative Roukema's legislative director until the congresswoman retired at the end of the 107th Congress. Lesli has been working on her Ph.D. for 10 years. She began working as a Graduate Fellow at Carl Albert Congressional Research and Study Center at the University of Oklahoma. In 1998, Lesli joined the University of Oklahoma's Institute of Public Affairs. She received a Master's in political science from the University of Oklahoma in 1999. Leslie defended her dissertation on April 10, 2006, and graduated with her Doctorate of Philosophy degree on May 12, 2006. Mr. Speaker, I will not call her ``Doctor,'' but do as I do, call her ``Fudd'' when you see her.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Absolutely. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would do nothing to impact anybody else's district. The cities delineated within the amendment are clearly under my purview, and they all have issued letters requesting to be removed; so I would be happy to work with the gentleman.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In 2003, I was approached by the chairman of the Resources Committee, Richard Pombo, and he was asked to put language in a bill that would authorize the National Park Service, San Gabriel Valley Watershed and Mountain 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 for National Park Service designation. And when he approached me, it was because I am from the region, and we looked at the maps. His staff determined that this had no impact on my district. I agreed, when I reviewed the language, that it had no impact on my district. However, since then the National Park Service has been conducting public hearings in my district. The cities that they have been conducted in have stated very clearly, the cities I mentioned in my amendment to be removed, that they do not want to be part of the study. My city is clearly not in San Gabriel Mountains nor is it north of Santa Fe Springs. It is clearly far to the east of Santa Fe Springs. My cities have no affiliation with the National Park Service nor do they believe they should be part of the National Park Service. My reason for not objecting to this when the language was presented to me was I was assured by Chairman Pombo that this would not impact my district. In fact, the chairman wholeheartedly supports my language in this amendment that is asking that no funds made available by this act may be obligated or expended to conduct the survey in the cities listed within my amendment. We worked with the National Park Service. We have tried to get them to eliminate our cities. In fact, Chairman Lewis today even called them and asked them once again to delete these cities from that study. They said they believed they had congressional authorization, although the committee chairman believes that is not the case. And what we are saying is I have no problem with what any other Member of Congress wants to do within their district. In fact, when this was proposed to me I supported what they wanted to do because it is their district. Introduction This amendment is simple. It only affects the communities within my district who do not want to be the subject of a Federal National Park Service study. My amendment would exclude cities within my congressional district (and one neighboring city) from a study being conducted by the National Park Service (NPS): ``the San Gabriel River Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study.'' National Park Service Study Has Gone Beyond Congressional Intent In 2003, Congress authorized the National Park Service San Gabriel 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 for National Park Service designation. Let me be clear--My district is not in the San Gabriel Mountains, nor does it contain a tributary, and it is not north of Santa Fe Springs. It is east of the area that was 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. I strongly believe that the inclusion of cities in my district in the NPS study went beyond the scope of the congressional authorization. My cities do not want their land to be added to the National Park System We have reached out to the NPS on numerous occasions asking them to remove these cities from the study--they have refused. I rise today to ask that you support my efforts to ensure these cities are not forced to be included in a study they did not seek. This amendment does not affect any other cities in the study 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 this 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. Conclusion The cities in the 42nd Congressional District, which I represent, have worked hard to address the challenges associated with the 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 falsely conveys the perception that this authority might be curtailed in the future. The results of this study could ultimately be used to compromise the ability of local governments to decide what is best for their communities. Land management responsibility 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 this rapidly growing region. I urge my colleagues to support my efforts to protect the communities that I represent. A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote against spending Federal dollars where they are not welcomed.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Yes. I would ask that my amendment be adopted, but I would be happy to work with you.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Correctional Officer Manuel Gonzalez. Officer Gonzalez served for sixteen years as a correctional officer, dedicating his life to protecting the rights of the public and safeguarding our communities from criminal activity. Manuel was born in East Los Angeles, California in 1961. He attended Rio Hondo College and subsequently enlisted in the United States Army in 1982. In the Army, he started his law enforcement career, serving in the United States and overseas in Germany. In 1987, he married Silvia Ortiz. Together, they settled down to raise a family. He joined the California Department of Corrections in 1988, and was assigned to the California Institution for Men in Chino in 1996. On January 10, 2005, Manuel was killed in the line of duty while working his shift in the reception center of the institution. He was stabbed to death by an inmate known to be gang affiliated, who was already serving 75 years-to-life for the attempted murder of a peace officer. Correctional officers who risk their lives to protect our safety should be commemorated today. This week, Officer Gonzalez's name is being added to the Correction Officer's Memorial Wall. The wall is dedicated to the Correctional Officers, Employees, Jailors, and Deputies who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, communities, and to their families. Officer Gonzalez may be lost, but he is not forgotten. His unmatched love for his family, sense of humor, and dedication to his professional career are qualities we will never forget. Today, my thoughts are not only with his family, but the families of all correctional officers who have died in line of duty. Please join me in honoring Officer Gonzalez, his family, and all those who have given their lives in noble service to their community.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am going to support the rule, and I am going to support this bill. But there are a lot of things that are not included in this bill that I believe we, as Members of Congress of the United States of America, should include in this bill, representing the citizens of the United States of America. There has been a lot of talk about unfunded mandates in this bill. Let us talk about the unfunded mandates in the States of our country that are educating illegals, that are providing health care, the judicial system incarcerating them, how much is that costing the economy? I have been in the construction industry for over 35 years, and I remember in the 1970s through the late 1980s, a man could go out, a woman could go out in the construction industry and make a good living, could buy a house, raise a family. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, especially during the recessions in the 1990s, that changed. You had labor coming into this country that some say are just going to work on farms until they get a call from their cousin who works on a construction site, or it might be a drilling company or a manufacturing plant, and says, You can make more money over here than you can over there. And I have watched the jobs in our construction industry be lost to American citizens because wages were cut so much that they had to do something else. Now you tell the guys who used to be able to work in this country, who do not want to go to work with a tie and a suit on, that their job went to someone else who is willing to undercut their labor costs, and they are not paid what they should be, why that has happened to them, why they can no longer afford to own a home, why they can no longer afford to have a family and send them to college. The wrath of the business people in this country was discussed. I am worried about the wrath of the citizens I represent who have lost their jobs. The number one issue I hear about in California every week is illegal immigration, why can you not do something about it? Eleven million people impacting our highways and freeways, congesting southern California roadways, is that acceptable to the guy sitting on the road spending 2 hours trying to get to work? No, it is not acceptable. There were some amendments that I offered that my good friend, the chairman, was unable to put in the bill, and I respect that. There are reasons for that. Congressman Deal had a great amendment that said, on ``anchor babies,'' if they come here illegally and have a baby, that baby should not be a citizen of this country. I agree with that 100 percent. There are countries who advertise to have people come here on vacation, and they provide a house, the medical, the care for their child, to have their baby here so they can become a citizen of this country; then they fly back to their country and the kid has dual citizenship. Is that right? No, it is not right. It is wrong. And the people coming from Mexico and other countries are good people. Do not get me wrong. They are here just to better their life. I am not arguing that a bit. That is not the issue here. The issue is what responsibility do we have to the people of the United States of America, what responsibility we have to the workers of the United States of America who have lost their jobs or, instead of being paid $22 an hour are now having to work for $11 an hour? Tell that to that carpenter. I go to job sites in this country, and the guys are pouring concrete, they are framing, and nobody on the job site, except the foreman, speaks English. Now, you tell that to the carpenter who lost his job or had his wage cut in half. You tell that to the electrician or the plumber or the framer or the roofer who have had their wages cut in half and lost many benefits because somebody is willing to come here to better themselves, and, God bless them, I am not arguing that, but they took their job. Tell that to those people. And I am going to say once again not everybody wants to get up in the morning and put a suit and tie on to go to work. They want to get up and work with their hands. They are proud of what they did. They look at their work during the day, and when they go home, they can say, I accomplished something. We need to do more than we are doing here, but at least we are making a step in the right direction.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this effort to make the most meaningful changes to our immigration enforcement in a decade. This legislation is long overdue. Illegal immigration is spinning out of control, and we must act now to enact a tough and unified policy to effectively curb the influx of illegal aliens entering our Nation. My district is in southern California. This region bears the brunt of our Nation's failed immigration policies. California has the highest number of illegal immigrants residing in its borders. In fact, nearly 32 percent of the total number of illegal immigrants in the United States are in California. The tide of illegal immigration increases Californian's tax burden, while weakening its legal, education and welfare system. I am an original cosponsor of this bill because it lays a solid foundation to enhance our border security and enforce our current immigration laws. This is desperately needed. We must end policies that encourage illegal immigration. I am disappointed that some of the other creative solutions that Members offered to address our failed immigration policies are not included under this Rule. I firmly believe these are important ideas that should be considered by Congress as we work to enforce and bolster our Nation's immigration policies. For example, Representative Nathan Deal's amendment to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrants was not made in order. Providing automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is an incentive for illegal immigration and we must close this loophole. Three amendments that I offered, but were not made in order under this Rule, would have discouraged illegal crossings by eliminating incentives and providing tough interior enforcement. Allowing all counties to be reimbursed for detaining and transferring illegal aliens: One amendment I submitted would allow all counties to be promptly reimbursed for the costs associated with assisting Federal immigration officials. Immigration affects all counties in the United States, not just those within 25 miles of the southern border. All counties absorb the costs of detaining, housing, and transporting illegal aliens. Prohibiting illegal aliens from obtaining mortgages: Another amendment I submitted would require lenders to verify that mortgage credit applicants are U.S. citizens or legally present in the U.S. Allowing individuals who are here illegally to participate in the homebuying process only incentivizes illegal immigration. White picket fences shouldn't go to those who break down our fences to get in. Outlawing birth tours: The last amendment I submitted would prohibit any alien from entering the United States with the intention of giving birth. It is truly disturbing that an entire industry has built up around the U.S. system of birthright citizenship. Each year, thousands of near-term pregnant women come to the United States from countries across the world for the sole purpose of giving birth so their newborns can become U.S. citizens. We cannot continue to allow illegal immigrants to make a mockery of our nation's hospitality and our laws. Conclusion: It is imperative that we close the loopholes that encourage citizens to infiltrate our porous borders. If the war on terrorism is to be ultimately successful, it is more important than ever that we take the necessary steps to tighten security at our borders and provide law enforcement agencies the tools they need to identify those individuals who enter or remain in the United States illegally. I am pleased this bill is before us today so we can begin to address those failed policies, which we have ignored for too long. As we move forward, we must reject all proposals that contain any and all forms of amnesty. Rewarding lawbreakers will only weaken any proposal aimed at strengthening the system. There should be no new guestworker program until we better enforce current immigration laws. History has shown that enforcement provisions are ignored and underfunded while guestworker and amnesty provisions are always implemented. The American people need to see that the current laws against illegal immigration are being enforced before any guestworker program can be considered. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 280, The Brownfields Redevelopment Enhancement Act. I would like to thank Committee Chairman Oxley, Subcommittee Chairman Ney, and Ranking Member Frank for their leadership and assistance in ensuring this important legislation be considered by the full House prior to adjournment. community redevelopment Brownfields are abandoned, idle, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. It is estimated that there are over 500,000 Brownfield sites across the country. Brownfields represent more than just unproductive eyesores blighting individual communities. They threaten our groundwater supply, cost our local communities jobs and revenue, and contribute to urban sprawl. Brownfield sites hold tremendous potential for community revitalization. Many of these sites are strategically located in or around key areas of communities. Redevelopment of these sites is both a challenge and an opportunity and returning them to productive use can serve as a catalyst for local economic recovery. hud's involvement in brownfields redevelopment The largest obstacle cities face when redeveloping Brownfield sites is the lack of capital needed to carry out essential early-stage activities. Because private financiers are often unwilling or unable to provide the funding to take a site through the full redevelopment cycle, local municipalities and local leaders find themselves confronted with the complex task of redevelopment. The Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) grant program was designed to help cities overcome this challenge. The BEDI program helps communities to convert abandoned or underutilized sites into useful developments, thereby increasing the area's tax base and creating new job opportunities where none existed. The BEDI program gives cities the opportunity to minimize urban sprawl and preserve existing green space by working with local developers and builders to utilize previously developed properties. The program gives local communities a valuable tool to address blight, create new jobs, and expand their tax base. bedi is distinct from other federal brownfield programs There is a clear and critical role for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to play in communities' efforts to redevelop Brownfield sites. Unlike Brownfields programs in other agencies, BEDI funds are targeted for use, with a particular emphasis upon redevelopment. Further, HUD emphasizes that resources are to be used on projects and activities that will provide near-term results and demonstrable economic benefits, such as job creation and increases in the local tax base. Funds are used as the stimulus for local governments and private sector parties to commence redevelopment or continue phased redevelopment efforts on Brownfield sites. Brownfields funds under other federal agencies, such as the EPA, are more focused on environmental clean-up. HUD does not encourage applications whose scope is limited only to site acquisition and/or remediation (i.e., land banking), where there is no immediately planned redevelopment. problem with current structure of bedi program While HUD's BEDI program is an important tool for communities to redevelop Brownfield sites, in its current form the grant is difficult, if not impossible, for local communities to utilize. If a local community wishes to pursue Brownfields redevelopment funds from HUD, they must first apply for a Section 108 loan. In order to secure this loan, they are required to put up a portion of their Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money as collateral. The requirement that communities must obtain a Section 108 loan guarantee before they are awarded a BEDI grant has stymied the effectiveness of the BEDI program because it: Makes it virtually impossible for small cities to access BEDI resources since they do not get their own CDBG entitlement grants from which to meet the required Section 108 collateral pledge. Serves as a disincentive for small and mid-sized cities. Discourages small projects. Has proven difficult for many cities and counties to meet because of debt caps and concern that the addition of more Section 108 debt would jeopardize basic CDBG programs and services. Without the Section 108 loan guarantee, cities are effectively locked out of the BEDI grant.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and memory of Dennis B. Underwood, an esteemed Western water expert and chief executive officer and general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Mr. Underwood passed away November 2 at his home in Alta Loma, California. In commemorating the life of Dennis Underwood, I would like to highlight some of the notable contributions of his career as a humble public servant of this great nation. With a career that spanned nearly four decades, Mr. Underwood took part in water resource development and management at both the state and federal levels. Perhaps his biggest contribution to California's water supply was during his role as the Metropolitan Water District's vice president of Colorado River resources, which he was instrumental in the development of a plan that would bring the state's water use in compliance within its legal apportionment of usage from the Colorado River. Additionally, Mr. Underwood played a central role in negotiating one of the nation's largest habitat conservation programs covering 27 species along approximately 450 miles of the lower Colorado River. During his brief tenure as CEO and general manager of the Metropolitan Water District, Mr. Underwood launched initiatives that sought to further enhance relationships with public agencies as well as seeking new partners to preserve California's water future. Dennis Underwood's desire to serve his country expanded beyond public service as he honorably served in the military during the Vietnam War as a captain with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Underwood won the admiration of his colleagues through his respectful interaction and clear sense of leadership; qualities which he carried with him later in life. Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring the life of Dennis B. Underwood and recognizing the lasting contributions and accomplishments that highlighted his career in water resource development and management.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, I rise to offer a modest amendment to ensure the Federal Government continues to work with local communities to promote and encourage brownfield redevelopment in America. The bill has a list of exemptions that recognizes eminent domain is sometimes used for legitimate purposes. These exemptions in H.R. 4128 are not sufficient to address brownfield sites. While the bill is an important step to protect private property rights, it could have the unintended consequence of inhibiting redevelopment of brownfield sites. My amendment corrects the oversight by adding brownfield redevelopment as specifically defined in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act of 2001. Owners of brownfield sites are frequently unwilling to sell them for fear of cleanup and cost of contamination they find. Eminent domain can often help break through legal and procedural barriers to the sale of the land. To address this, local governments can take advantage of the liability protection in CERCLA for acquiring potentially contaminated sites ``through the exercise of eminent domain authority by purchaser or condemnation.'' Without using eminent domain as provided for in CERCLA, a local government would be held strictly liable for all costs and cleanup of polluted land as the owner and operator of the site. I want to stress strongly that brownfield sites are not residential properties. They are abandoned, idle, or underused industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Let us make sure the cities have the tools they need to clean up brownfield sites. It is a reasonable amendment, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote. I rise today to offer a modest amendment to ensure the Federal Government continues to work with local communities to promote and encourage Brownfields redevelopment in America. Protecting Private Property Rights is Important There is no question that the right to own private property is one of the cornerstones of American freedom. Governmental regulatory takings are becoming more and more prevalent in today's society and Congress must do everything possible to ensure that lands acquired by private means are protected. As more and more Americans are working to purchase property and become homeowners, the threat of governmental takings must not overshadow the pursuit of the American dream. The recent United States Supreme Court decision set the precedent that local governments may be afforded wide latitude in seizing property for land-use decisions. I strongly disagree with the implications of this decision. Private property has been the foundation of our society, and I believe it is unwise for government to deprive citizens of this most basic tenet of the American dream. I am pleased that we have a bill before us today to respond to the Supreme Court's ill-advised decision. While the bill is an important step to protect private property rights, it could have the unintended consequence of inhibiting the redevelopment of Brownfields sites. Bill's Exemptions Do Not Cover Brownfields The bill has a list of exemptions that recognize that eminent domain is sometimes used for legitimate purposes. However, Brownfields redevelopment is not part of this list. The current exemptions in H.R. 4128 are not sufficient to address Brownfields sites. Brownfields are not always ``abandoned'' and may not ``impose an immediate threat to health or safety.'' My amendment corrects this oversight by adding Brownfields redevelopment as specifically defined in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. Brownfields Redevelopment is Important Experts estimate that the United States has more than 450,000 vacant or underused industrial sites as a result of environmental contamination caused by chemical compounds and other hazardous substances. These sites are known as Brownfields. Brownfields represent more than just eyesores--they threaten our groundwater supply, cost our local communities jobs and revenue, and contribute to urban sprawl. Returning the nation's Brownfields sites to productive economic development could generate more than 550,000 additional jobs and up to $2.4 billion in new tax revenues for cities and towns. We must not inhibit or stymie the ability of localities to responsibly exercise eminent domain authority for the redevelopment of Brownfield sites. The redevelopment of Brownfield sites has proven to revitalize distressed neighborhoods, while fostering economic growth, creating jobs, increasing local tax revenues, and reducing public service demands. This amendment will ensure that the use of eminent domain to redevelop Brownfield sites will remain available. Brownfields Pose Obstacles to Redevelopment that Sometimes Can Only Be Overcome by Eminent Domain Owners of Brownfield sites are frequently unwilling to sell them for fear of the cleanup costs of any contamination found. Eminent domain can often help break through legal and procedural barriers to the sale of the land. To address this, local governments can take advantage of the liability protections in CERCLA for acquiring potentially contaminated sites ``through the exercise of eminent domain authority by purchase or condemnation.'' Without using eminent domain as provided for in CERCLA, a local government would be held strictly liable for all costs of cleaning up polluted land as an ``owner or operator'' of the site. As a result, local governments would be less likely to redevelop a Brownfield site. By Promoting Brownfields Redevelopment, we are not throwing people out of their homes Brownfields are not Residential Properties. They are abandoned, idle, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Cities will not be able to abuse the Brownfields exception The Brownfields Revitalization Act creates a specific scientific standard for determining whether a former industrial site is a potential Brownfield site. The real problem is that when a property is a Brownfield, it is in legal limbo. It is the ``possibility'' of contamination alone that results in the lack of redevelopment. The land might not be contaminated, but if the owners have reason to believe it might be, it will likely sit, unused. Without the city's ability to exercise eminent domain, many contaminated properties that can be redeveloped would instead continue to impose heavy environmental, financial, and social burdens on communities. Conclusion We must give cities the opportunity to minimize urban sprawl and preserve existing green space by allowing communities to work with local developers and builders to utilize previously developed properties. This amendment preserves the ability of cities to take ownership of Brownfields and work with their development community to design projects that utilize existing infrastructure. Most importantly, it is estimated that up to $2.4 billion in new tax revenues can be generated through Brownfields redevelopment. Let's make sure cities have the tools they need to clean up Brownfields sites. I urge my colleagues to support this crucial amendment to demonstrate that we support Brownfields redevelopment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The gentlewoman from California said a few things that I think I have to address. She said she believed this is included within the bill. It is not. The other thing she said is that the cities should work within the marketplace to acquire these properties. The problem you have with cities doing that is without eminent domain that is provided for in CERCLA, a local government would be held strictly liable for all costs of cleanup of the polluted land as the owner-operator of the site. That is a complete different liability that the city would accept through eminent domain. By not having eminent domain through CERCLA, a city then would not want to have a piece of property that was a brownfield because they then are accepting the total liability of the owner. This is going to shut down development in local communities. The problem we have with the bill, there is no immediate threat to health because, as you know, brownfields are usually fenced in. They are sites that are not being used. The owners generally do not want to know if they are contaminated because then they have to accept liability. It is a reasonable amendment. I thank the chairman for accepting it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank have worked very hard to come up with a very good bill. The goal is to make sure we find liquidity in the secondary marketplace so people in this country have a home. The more liquidity we have in the marketplace, the more stability we have in the marketplace, the better it is for the Nation and the overall vibrant housing market. GSEs have been at the forefront of creating affordable housing opportunity throughout our Nation for American families. There is an amendment that is coming up later that guts something we tried to do in this bill, and that is to make sure that GSEs can adequately provide loans in the markets throughout this country. And people who happen to live in certain areas that are considered high-cost areas, such as California; New York; Massachusetts, Mr. Frank's State, currently are not able to acquire Freddie and Fannie loans because the housing market has grown so much and the costs have grown so much that they have exceeded the limits that GSEs can lend in. And it is a shame that if people live in Hawaii, Guam, and places like that, they can still get a Freddie and Fannie loan, yet in California they cannot. And what we have done through this bill, thanks to Chairman Oxley, is provide for those needs and turned out a very good bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. I rise in strong support of H.R. 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. I commend Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their tireless efforts to produce a balanced bill, that ensures that the housing GSEs are adequately regulated without disrupting our nation's strong and vibrant housing markets. Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) have been at the forefront of creating affordable housing opportunities for American families. In my district, for example, Fannie Mae has created employer-assisted housing programs for the City of Brea Police Department to allow police officers to live in the communities they serve. They have helped to finance affordable housing initiatives in Anaheim, California. Across the district, they have been able to offer innovative programs to allow those with blemished credit to afford the dream of homeownership, to help seniors convert the equity in their homes into cash to help them meet their needs, and to help families and individuals with special needs become homeowners. All of this, in partnership with lenders, is intended to meet the ever-growing needs of our communities. As we have addressed deficiencies in GSE supervision, we worked hard to ensure H.R. 1461 does not lose sight of Congress' original goal in chartering GSEs. The mission of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is to provide stability and on-going assistance to the secondary market for residential mortgages, and to promote access to mortgage credit and homeownership in the United States. While we make these regulatory reforms, we are also unwavering in our commitment to help Americans achieve the dream of homeownership. H.R. 1461 seeks to improve regulation of the GSEs while continuing to ensure the accessibility of mortgage funds at the lowest cost. While there is no question that regulatory changes must be made to ensure the safety and soundness of the secondary mortgage market, H.R. 1461 recognizes that strong regulation provides a means to achieve our ultimate goal of expanding the supply of affordable mortgage credit across this nation. For generations, the goal of owning a home has been the bedrock of our economy and a fundamental part of the American Dream. The bill we consider today is about homeownership in this country. Homeownership benefits our communities and national economy. Indeed, it is the key to promoting long-term economic stability for our citizens and nation. That is why this bill is so important. H.R. 1461 provides 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. Loan Limit Language I am especially grateful that the bill includes language that recognizes that housing costs differ widely throughout the country. While GSEs are chartered to operate in every district across the country, their effectiveness in certain areas has been seriously hindered because high housing prices have caused fewer and fewer mortgages to fall within the conforming loan limit. Those who live in high-cost areas of the country should be able to participate in federal efforts to provide affordable housing opportunities. This is a simple issue of fairness. It is unacceptable for the federal government to tell my constituents that federal programs exist to increase homeownership in America, but they cannot qualify simply because of where they happen to live and work. The language in the bill increases loan limits in high cost areas to the median home price of the area, not to exceed the limit for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands (150 percent of national loan limit). This does not impact the portfolios of the GSEs as all loans made in high-cost areas must be securitized. By adjusting conforming loan limits in high-cost areas, we can create nearly 250,000 new homeowners at no cost to taxpayers. I urge my colleagues to support this important provision and reject efforts to remove it during the amendment process.