Gary Miller

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, my friend, Mr. Luetkemeyer.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to add extraneous material to the bill.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Today we are considering H.R. 2072, the Securing American Jobs Through Exports Act, a bill which will reauthorize the Export-Import Bank. This legislation is the product of bipartisan discussions surrounding a common theme: maintaining and creating jobs in the United States. The key to our economic recovery is jobs, without a doubt. In order to expand and hire new workers, American companies must have the ability to compete in a global economy. To create jobs, American companies need to be competitive with foreign companies that have access to credit in their countries. While the U.S. is a leading voice in the effort to eliminate market- distorting export subsidies, the Ex-Im Bank has helped to ensure that there's a level playing field for American companies when they compete with foreign competitors who are basically supported by aggressive credit agencies. Ex-Im responds to market distortion by leveling the playing field. Ex-Im loans and guarantees are often countervailing measures to compete against other foreign credit agencies. Some Members have concerns about this program. This bill directs the Treasury Department to initiate and pursue negotiations with other countries to substantially reduce their subsidized export financing programs and other forms of export subsidies. The problem we face is the option of allowing China to dominate the export market. This bill ensures that U.S. companies, large and small, can compete and win against foreign competitors like China and, as a result, create U.S. jobs without putting U.S. taxpayers at risk. During the reauthorization process, we have made taxpayer protection our top priority. This bill includes strong language to ensure that surpluses that the Ex-Im Bank returns to the Treasury are continued today and in the future. We want the bank to be a continually self- financing entity. The bill increases accountability and risk management requirements for the bank, as well as provides for an audit of bank transactions to monitor the effectiveness and adequacy of the bank's due diligence practice and lending policies. The bill ensures that the bank stays true to its purpose as a lender of last resort and does not compete against private sector commercial banks. The bill includes language to make sure default rates stay low. Ex-Im loans and loan guarantees present very low risks because they are backed by collateral of the real goods for which a buyer has already been found and prices have been agreed upon. The current default rate at the bank is less than 2 percent, much lower than commercial banks. Even with the bank's track record of extremely low defaults, the bill includes language to ensure that default rates stay below 2 percent, and includes corrective action requirements if the rate ever goes above that level. The bank does not put taxpayers at risk now. Our goal in this bill is to ensure that the bank does not put taxpayers at risk in the future either. The bill also includes a new transparency provision for large transactions and gives the public the opportunity to comment on such transactions. The provision seeks to ensure the bank has information it needs to confirm it is not supporting transactions used to support products that could be used to compete with American companies. This provision was crafted in a way that does not impact U.S. companies' ability to sell their products and services to global customers. Proprietary information, confidential information, and trade secrets are absolutely protected in this provision. In addition, while many of the large projects supported by the bank are known to the market, I want to emphasize that the bank, at its sole discretion, has the authority to determine the information disclosed to ensure that the competitiveness of American companies is not compromised by information provided by the Federal Register notice. The legislation also provides information included in the technology improvements, a review of the bank's domestic content policy, and improvements to the access of textile industries to bank operations. This is absolutely necessary in this country. These provisions will ensure that our American companies can utilize bank products to compete globally. This is not a subsidy and is no cost to the taxpayers. That needs to be emphasized. The way Ex-Im Bank allows U.S. companies to compete globally is an example of how our government can facilitate job growth without contributing to the national debt. Far from being a handout to corporations, Ex-Im Bank is self- financing, it turns a profit for the American taxpayer, and it helps create jobs here at home. Since 2005, the bank has forwarded more than $3.4 billion in profits to the Treasury above all costs and loss reserves, including $400 million in 2011 alone. The legislation before us today ensures that Ex- Im Bank will continue to turn a profit for American taxpayers. Some will say that Ex-Im only benefits large corporations. However, small businesses account for 87 percent of Ex-Im's transactions. These small business transactions do not include the tens of thousands of small- and medium-sized businesses that supply goods to these large corporations. Dave Ickert, vice president of Air Tractor of Olney, Texas, a small business engaged in the manufacturing and sale of agriculture and firefighting planes, said at one point in our hearing: Ex-Im has contributed to the growth of Air Tractor and helped both create and maintain jobs in Olney, Texas. Ex-Im's support has allowed us to sell aircraft to customers who without that support would not have purchased our product. This is a direct contribution to our growth. Air Tractor has 270 employees in a town that has a population of 3,000. Over 10 percent of the population who are adults work for this company in this town. It's the largest employer in Olney. Since 1994, when they did the first Ex-Im transaction, their export sales have increased from 10 percent of what they produced to 56 percent. With 56 percent export sales in 2010, there are over 100 employees at Air Tractor in Olney, Texas, that owe their jobs and have their jobs due to use of Ex-Im bank. Mr. Ickert said: As I have described it before, Olney is three red lights and a Dairy Queen; and the significance of this is that if we can create jobs on Main Street Olney through small business exporting, it can be done in small businesses from California to New York. If we can do it in Olney, Texas, we can do it all over this country. Once again, I would like to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for coming together to put American jobs before politics. Together, we have crafted a strong bill to ensure the bank is able to continue to support U.S. companies as they compete globally and, as a result, create American jobs. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), a staunch advocate for textile exports in this country.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Dold.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. We have the right to close, I believe. I would be happy to reserve so the gentlelady could close.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2072) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her inquiry. The bill requires that the Federal Register notice include the identities of the obligor, principal supplier, and guarantor. In addition, the notice is to include a description of the item being financed. However, that description must be constructed in a way as to not disclose proprietary or confidential information or information that would violate or otherwise requires disclosure of a trade secret as defined by the Trade Secrets Act, or information that would jeopardize jobs in the U.S. by supplying information which competitors could use to compete with companies in the U.S.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her inquiry. The bill requires that the public be given not less than 25 days for the submission of comments prior to the board's consideration of the proposed transaction. Upon the conclusion of those 25 days, the bank should expeditiously prepare materials submitted in public comments for consideration by the board. Transactions in excess of $100 million are currently subject to review by the Congress for 25 days a session, which can be longer than 25 calendar days, as our intent is that the board proceed with consideration of a pending application as soon as legally and practically possible.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What's interesting about the debate is, if the Senate bill is good, you're going to appoint conferees, argue for the Senate side--you don't have to introduce a bill here in the House--and expect us to accept it when we haven't read it, we haven't debated it. It came to the floor without any discussion on our side. So when we go to conference, if you like the Senate provisions, if you like a 2-year bill when we're going to fight for a 5-year bill, you're welcome to ask for that. But there are some things in the Senate bill that really bother me. You had the Senate side say and guarantee there were no earmarks in this bill. Well, if you look at what Senator Reid has done, in the 2005 SAFETEA LU, the House put out a $45 million request for a project that was considered a legal earmark at that point in time. What Mr. Reid has done is he has reappropriated that project to a $45 million project near the Las Vegas airport. Now, it's nice that the Senate wants to make promises, but actions speak a lot louder than words. And when the actions of the bill state clearly that $45 million of House money authorized in 2005 is being transferred to a project in Las Vegas in a bill--and it's 2012-- something inappropriate about that promise seems to occur. I really appreciate the chairman putting language in our original bill on environmental streamlining. I think he did a great job on this. But when I wrote the bill, the language was very clear on what we were trying to do. In 2005, authored language in TEA LU said if a State has an environmental process that meets or exceeds Federal environmental law, they don't have to go through a duplicative process, and it allowed five States the opportunity to participate in that. But one State took advantage of that: the State of California. To this date, it's saving 17 months on process time--just application--and it's saving 30 months on delivery time. What we tried to do in the House bill was the same thing. We're saying: Allow environmental reciprocity. But we want to go beyond that. We want to say not only should States be allowed to do that, but allow local municipalities and counties to do the same thing. They can save 17 months on process, 30 months on delivery. Today, time equals dollars. Plus, if you can create the projects today, we're going to move the economy forward in a positive direction and create some jobs. But there's other things we need to do. Receiving grants: Current law says that if a State or municipality applies for a Federal grant, they can't start the project until the grant money is received by the municipality or the agency. What we've done is say that once you have been approved for the grant, if you want to start the project, now start the project and you can reimburse yourself when the grant funds come in. You might save 12 months alone waiting for a grant to come in from the Federal Government; whereby, you can start today using local agency funds or State funds and get your money back when this money comes in from the grant project. We need to establish some certainty on when you can start a project. The problem we have is, when applications are made to the Federal Government for a process for approval, it goes through an uncertain time process where they can delay and delay and delay. We've said, thanks to the chairman, that there's a date certain. Now the Federal Government has to respond by a date and has to approve it by a date.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Chairman Mica did a great job putting the language into the bill, because it says you have to know when you can do something based on the Federal process and it sets a deadline for the Federal bureaucrats to get their job done. Now, it seems like local governments and State governments are rapidly wanting to do things and the Federal Government drags its heels, requiring them to delay until they get final approval. We're saying, no, let's set a date for the Federal bureaucracy to approve a project--and I know you agree with this issue on your side--to let the construction projects go forward and make sure bureaucrats do their job. I approve what Chairman Mica is willing to do and wants to do here.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Santa Margarita Catholic High School Eagles on their 2011 CIF State Bowl Division and 2011 CIF PAC-5 Division Championships. Their 42-37 victory on December 16, 2011, is an achievement that will be remembered forever. Winning a state championship is a remarkable achievement. This championship is a legacy that both Santa Margarita High School and each 2010-2011 Eagle player will always cherish. The Eagles and Coach Harry Welch, along with assistant coaches John Carpenter, Sean Coen, Dave Frazeur, Paul Gomes, Joe Griffith, Wyatt Hart, Rob Hendricks, Mike Johnson, Jay Noonan, Kevin Orton, Brian Pearsall, Adrian Peters, Marty Spalding, Mike Walcott, Butch Ward and Monterio Witherspoon, know that success comes with teamwork and perseverance. The coaches rely upon team managers for expert assistance. Managers Haley Davin, Lauren Haydon, Rachel Imburgia and Sydney Martin were instrumental in the victory. It is an honor to pay tribute to Santa Margarita High School and the entire Eagles football squad. The House of Representatives salutes each of you: Houston Agan, Matt Andersen, Reid Andrew, Ryan Andrew, Nick Begg, Tony Bone, Zach Bonte, Erik Bunte, Justin Cabrera, Josh Canty, Grant Clancy, River Cracraft, Dane Crane, Kendall Czech, Ian Dewert, Frank DiPietro, Sean Donegan, David Dotson, Chris Frost, Ryan Gardner, Sammy Gibbs, Hunter Graham, Grady Higgins, Duncan Hume, Konner Kafentzis, Patrick Kennelly, Jack Kerry, Ryan Kilander, Jonathan LaBonty, Brenden Linzmeier, Cole Luther, Michael Della Maggiore, Austin Maihen, RJ Mazolewski, Joseph McGill, John McGrory, Brady McGuire, Sean McGuire, Alec McNiff, James McQuitty, Andrew Mendonca, Cory Mendoza, Sean Modster, Connor O'Brien, Mack Pierson, Luke Poutre, Taylor Prenevost, Ben Prukop, Blaine Rieger, Drake Schwenke, Riley Sorenson, Will Sorenson, Gian Carlo Spinosi, Johnny Stanton, Luke Stinson, Alex Suchesk, Randal Swain, Kyle Sweet, Max Tuerk, Alex Ury, Ryan Wolpin and Bradley Ydens. Congratulations again to the Santa Margarita High School Eagles.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim my time. On this issue, how long we wait is predicated on how much we are going to spend. And my colleagues on this side of the aisle believe the American people, the taxpayers have given too much of their money away, and they are saying we want it stopped, and we want you to be responsible for this money. If this were our dollars, and we're getting in her purse and my wallet and handing the money out, that's a prerogative we have. That's not what's occurring, other than we are taxpayers too. We've just got our hands in your pocket and your purse and spent your money on a giveaway program. I ask for a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. The facts speak for themselves. When you can say $1.3 billion was given away to nongovernmental agencies--and I have listed the groups, and I have told you how many millions of your dollars were given to these groups that they get to keep--they are not coming back to us right now. These people are going to keep these moneys, and there is a wide array of things they can use them for. This was a bad investment. In fact, it was not an investment. It was a bad giveaway. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my time. As much as I respect my good friend--and she knows--we have worked together on a lot of issues, and I don't believe anything between us has ever been personal in all the years we have known each other. And nothing in this debate is personal. We both are well intended. We both really want to help the American people. And I say that from the heart, and you know that. And I know your efforts are for the right purposes. But good people can disagree in a good way. And on this amendment, I have to respectfully disagree, and I would ask for a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Regular order, Madam Chair.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I think we're comparing things that have nothing to do with the bill before us. So we can talk about Wall Street. We can talk about banks. If anything, this has helped banks because it's taken foreclosed properties that they've had and it's bought them. So we can add all these straw men to the debate that we want to. The thing is, should we give away taxpayer dollars? I say no and I ask for an ``aye'' on the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I enjoyed the comments of my good friend, Mr. Baca, from San Bernardino County. I have some correspondence from San Bernardino County that might interest him. According to the county offices, there is no one at the county that would support current NSP programs, period. The letters of support did not come from San Bernardino County, which is one of the hardest hit in the Nation. In fact, the county might have supported the current NSP, but this is before they fell victim to complete lack of direction from HUD, mixed messages from HUD, and gross misallocation of awards that were released. As it applies to my bill, the county says, ``We believe it is a means for Congress to get its financial house in order, just like the challenges we are facing at the local level.'' Mr. Baca made a very nice written speech, but his own county that he represents does not support the program. And I was disappointed that a group called Chicanos por la Causa was mentioned. Well, let me just talk about the numbers that I have a problem with. This NSP allocation program was meant to be a one-time program. It ended up three times. Now, the allocations applied, the problems I had when you look at a county the size of Los Angeles County, they got $26.3 million; San Bernardino County, Mr. Baca's county, got $33.2 million; Orange County got $4.3 million; and San Diego County got $5.1 million. Now, all of these counties had to apply Davis-Bacon rules and wage standards to rehab these houses, which meant it cost 25 percent more to do it than the private sector could have done it on a competitive bidding nature. Now, my good friend Mr. Baca mentioned one group, as if I had something against Chicanos. The problem I have is that nongovernment agencies, such as Neighborhood Lending Partners, got $50 million--$50 million; the Community Builders, Inc. got $78.6 million; Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. got $60 million; Neighborhood Lending Partners of West Florida, Incorporated got $50 million; Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million. Understand, L.A. County got $26.3 million; San Bernardino County got $33.2 million; Orange County got $4.3 million; San Diego County got $4.5 million. The largest population base in California got less money than Chicanos por la Causa. Does that make anybody in America happy?

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I reclaim my time. If it had been Germans for Affordable Housing, I would have opposed it. If it had been Italians for Affordable Housing, I would have opposed it. Had it been Irish Germans for Affordable Housing at $137 million, I would have opposed it. Understand, these are taxpayer dollars from people who lost their houses, people who are behind in their payments, people who are facing foreclosure, and none of this money does one thing to help you. It was not an equitable application based on who got money and how they got it. In fact, a lot of these private groups write off 17 percent off the top for overhead and costs--17 percent. Now, we talked about banks. When we lent banks the money in TARP 1, they paid us interest. We paid money because we got our money back. Freddie and Fannie, the money we allocated to them, we are charging them 10 percent interest and they have to pay us back, and the American public is furious at that. We just gave away $50 million to one private group, gave $78 million to another, $60 million to another, $50 million to another. And as my good friend Joe Baca says, Chicanos por la Causa, the poor group, got $137 million given to you. We are not charging you interest. We gave you the money. Now, are we helping housing this country? No. Housing starts fell 22 percent in February, the lowest levels since 1959. It has done nothing for housing: 11.8 percent fall in single-family, 47 percent fall in multifamily. Tell me one thing this has done. It has not kept one person in their house. Now, let's assume this is supposed to be helping poor people buy houses. You just lost your house. In Hawaii, a person making $73,825 can buy a house through these organizations. A person in California making over $68,000 can buy a house through these organizations. A group in Virginia, $74,000; New Jersey, $78,000; Massachusetts, $72,000; Utah, $75,000; Alaska, $76,000; Colorado, $73,000; New Hampshire, $79,000. So a group, an entity, a State, a county, a city can buy a house. They have to sell it for less than they have in it, and they can sell it to people making more than the person who may have lost the house. Now, how in the world does that do one thing for poor people? It does not do one thing for poor people. Now let's talk about jobs. If we had invested $1 billion in the construction industry to build houses, you would have got $2.8 billion in economic activities.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. If you would have invested $1 billion, you would have generated $2.8 billion in economic activities: $5.5 million in wages, $138 million in income for small businesses, $156 million in corporate profits, $1.98 billion in spending on goods and services from the above three line items. It is huge. So if we are talking about jobs, let's create jobs. Now, they say we have had no alternative to what they did. In 2008, I endorsed a bill and introduced it called the Public-Private Partnership Community Stabilization Act. It took government dollars and invested them with private groups to do the same thing, to buy houses that were foreclosed upon and rehab them in communities. And when the houses were sold, guess what? The money would have been paid back to the Federal Government. We would have probably made a profit. We wouldn't have given a dime away. We would have made money on doing the same thing. Now, the other side talks about abandoned houses. Not a dime of this money can be used for eminent domain, so either the house is for sale or it can't be bought. It can't be foreclosed upon by the government through eminent domain. So to say that some private group could not have bought this house and rehabbed it themselves is ludicrous, because the house has to be for sale. Now, this group can go out and buy the house, demolish it and end up with a vacant lot. They can go out and buy a house, rehab it and sell it for a dollar, 10, any amount they want to sell it for, to anybody they want to sell it to, as long as it is less than they have in it. I had a bill passed out of this House that Mr. Frank cosponsored--he thought it was a good bill--that allowed banks to take foreclosed properties and lease them for 5 years. If you want to get rid of foreclosed properties, allow banks to take the property, rehab it, put it on the marketplace, or lease it out for 5 years. It would have done the same thing, and perhaps banks would not have driven the marketplace down on resales because they were glutted with foreclosures. We could have taken these houses, leased them, and in 5 years when the market turned around, they could have sold them. And guess what. They could have given a lease option to the person losing the house to stay in the house for 5 years and buy it back at the end of 5 years. It would have at least helped foreclosure projects.