Gary Miller

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, I did not introduce an amendment because I introduced the bill. I think that bill speaks for itself. But I am glad that my good friend admitted that this was not meant to mitigate the foreclosure process for people going through. I am glad you admitted that, because that is not what your amendment says. It says that: such entities should contact such Members of Congress directly for assistance in mitigating foreclosed properties. You can't mitigate a foreclosure when you don't help anybody with the foreclosure. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. My friend has said that we need to determine the approximate number of foreclosed and abandoned properties that will be purchased or rehabilitated because of termination of NSP. That is impossible. We have no idea how many times the money will be recycled, because the $6 billion that is out there could be recycled over and over and over. We don't know. We don't know how much money is going to be given away to somebody who bought the house, how much is going to be taken back in the sale. So that is an unknown quantity. But my good friend did say that 72,000 units were impacted by NSP 1. So, America, for $6 billion you impacted 72,000 units. How do you feel about that? Now, I am not sure what we did to impact them, but we impacted them. We sure spent a lot of your money impacting them. Now, at the same time, we are asking HUD to do a study. That is like the fox guarding the hen house. I am really sorry. Because when I asked Mercedes Marquez of HUD at our committee hearing to discuss where the money went, she finally said, The money is going to homeowners and to American citizens. And they strongly support the program and they are strongly encouraging the President to veto this bill, should it get to him. So let's just have the very organization do a study on a program that they said they support and love and, if we are successful in getting the bill passed, would encourage the administration to veto it. That is the biggest conflict of interest I have ever had presented to me to vote on, but it is an easy conflict of interest that I say is a conflict of interest. I would strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, I know my good friend Mrs. Maloney has the best of intentions in putting this amendment forward, but you are talking about the number of homes in each State that have been vacant 90 days or more and could ultimately receive funding under the NSP. Well, the homes are not eligible to receive funding. Entities are eligible to receive funding. Then those entities, whether they be government or private sector, can go buy those homes. The problem is they can buy any home they want to. The only restriction on the program is that you can only earn up to 120 percent of the median income in an area to qualify to buy the house, but it does not restrict the price of the home being bought by the agency or the nonprofit. They can buy virtually any home they want to, and that is one of the flaws in the bill. For example, if you have any home that has been vacant 90 days or more, well, I have a partner of mine and myself, we had four homes for sale in the last year that were on the market more than 90 days. The houses were in perfect condition, but yet they remained on the market for over 90 days. So based on this encouragement, one of these groups, whether it be a city, a county, a private entity that is not affiliated with government, could have bought those houses and resold the houses for far less than they paid for them. That is the flaw with this program here. We are saying that what this wants us to do here is congressional findings to the bill listing all 50 States and the District of Columbia in separate subparagraphs and the number of homes in each State that have been vacant 90 days or more and could be eligible to receive funding in NSP. What you mean is any home vacant for over 90 days would have to be listed, because there is not a dollar amount in the bill saying how much you can pay for a house. There is only a dollar amount saying how much a person can earn to buy the house. For example, if you live in Hawaii, you can make up to $73,825.20 a year and qualify to buy a home. In California, you can earn $68,416.80 a year and qualify to buy a home. It might be an $800,000 home, but you can still qualify, if they sell it to you cheap enough. In Virginia, you could earn $74,382 and buy a home; in New Jersey, $78,367; in Massachusetts, $72,384; in Utah, $75,044; in Alaska, $76,786; in Colorado, $73,131; and in New Hampshire, $79,411. So the concept of this program is just helping people at the lower rungs who are really struggling. I am not saying people aren't struggling in these income brackets. That is not what I mean. But I don't want the American people to have the perception we are just trying to pick up deals and sell them to the lowest of income levels.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, I was in the building industry from my early twenties, and the most excitement you could ever see on a person's face was when they bought a home and they were moving into that home and they thought about raising their family. I would love a country that every person in this country has the ability and the opportunity at some point in their life to buy a home. But, in some fashion, lenders have put people in positions to put them in homes that they could not afford, and those homes, in many cases the individuals lost those homes through foreclosures. And those people, who were well-intentioned, moved into homes that they could not afford because the lender perhaps did not describe it exactly or they thought the way the economy is going, in 3 or 4 or 5 years the house is going to be worth 40 percent more than I paid and I am going to make a lot of money. The problem is the market went the other way, as it did in 1974- 1975, 1981-1983, 1990-1996, and recently in 2007 to current the market slid. And then we're saying we're going to go out and we're going to ask to do a survey and we're going to list any home throughout the United States in separate paragraphs that have been vacant for 90 days or more that could be eligible. Well, all of them would be eligible.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Frank, what specifically has been said throughout this debate, as if we're trying to help people at the lower rungs, which I have no problem with, but I'm saying that there was not a restriction on the amount that could be paid for the house and there was not a requirement of how much it should be sold for. I ask for a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Some of the arguments that the gentlelady made are heart-wrenching. You hate to think about homeless people. Veterans are suffering in this country, there's no doubt about it. Veterans are coming back. Some of them have problems from being on the front in combat. In our church every week, our pastor talks about that, and we pray for these veterans. You feel sorry for them. But we talk about elderly; we talk about veterans; we talk about children; we talk about homeless. Nothing in this bill prioritizes them in any fashion. There are groups that could be helped as a consequence of it, and I understand that, but nothing prioritizes. I'm going to accept the gentlelady's amendment because I have no problem with trying to determine the economic impact of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. I think there's been a huge impact on the economy because we've given away, to date, $6 billion of taxpayers' money on this program. And I think we could have done a much better job at investing that money in another fashion that wouldn't have put the taxpayers at risk and perhaps created jobs in doing that. But I met with the NAHB, National Association of Home Builders, to talk about all the people in the industry out of work. I've talked to BIA, talking about all the Building Industry Association members out of work, and they're trying to put them to work. This bill does not help them. We talk about a giveaway to banks. In TARP 1, we lent money to banks, yes, and they paid it back with interest. Freddie and Fannie, yes, we're lending money to Freddie and Fannie. They're paying 10 percent interest on the money. So to create this straw man out there of the bank giveaway and Wall Street and Freddie and Fannie is fallacious. Freddie and Fannie are paying 10 percent interest on the money. We did not just, the people who voted for the first half of TARP, vote to give banks money and forget it, go home. It was to stop a major run on the banks and to stop this economy from plummeting. And Bernanke and Paulson and the administration, everybody on both sides of the aisle agreed it had to be done. And the money was paid back, and we made money on it. Shock. This money was given away and we will not be getting it back. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I would be happy to yield to the gentlelady. I was not meaning to be rude or forget about you.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Chair, I reclaim my time. I was going to allow for adequate time on that, but it was not a giveaway. It was a loan. You're comparing $350 billion in the first half that was lent to lenders to stabilize the economy versus $700 billion that was a giveaway. It's my time, Madam Chair.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. That was a very nice picture of a storefront. It was not a picture of a home. Now, why would you impose a terrible program on rural America that you don't want on urban America? You have to say we have given away $6 billion of taxpayer monies and it will never come back to the Federal Government. We are saying let's preserve the last billion dollars. There is a huge lack of accountability in this program. The inspector general of HUD has already identified multiple misuses of NSP money at the State level. The GAO has questioned the information system that places HUD at risk using the tracking system. How many of you want to use your money to buy this house that Chairman Bachus has pointed out? Nobody. But, taxpayers, guess what? We are using your money. The biggest problem with this program is unfair allocation. Now, rural America, you probably got ripped off in this whole process like everybody else did because, let's see, where did the money go? In the NSP 1, we spent $4 billion. In the NSP 2, $1.93 billion. We are saying the last billion dollars, let's at least save that for the taxpayers and use it for some beneficial purpose. Where did the money go? Let's see if it was fairly distributed. Let's look at my area. L.A. County got $26.3 million. San Bernardino County, one of the hardest hit, got $33.2 million. Orange County got $4.3 million. San Diego County, $5.1 million. A total of $68.9 million on hard-hit counties. Now, let's see. What did nongovernment agency groups get out there that are incorporated? Neighborhood Lending Partners, Incorporated got $50 million; the Community Builders, Incorporated got $78.6 million; Los Angeles Neighborhood Housing Service, Incorporated got $60 million; Neighborhood Lending Partners of West Florida, Incorporated got $50 million; and Chicanos por la Causa, Inc. got $137 million. Now, all of my counties got $68.9 million; the Community Builders got $78.6 million; Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million. Is that considered nonequitable qualification? It is nonequitable, period. It does not make sense. And we say $1.3 billion went to nongovernment agencies. Now, somebody said I was racist because I said Chicanos por la Causa got $137 million. They got 10 percent of all the funds given to nongovernment agencies. If it was Germans for Affordable Housing that got $137 million, I would oppose it just like I oppose this one. Now, taxpayers understand, clearly, it did not prevent one foreclosure in this entire country. Not one person got to keep their home because we spent $6 billion. In fact, imagine the family who owned the home. Maybe the ma or pa got in trouble with their job. They couldn't quite make the payments. For the last 3 years, they have been unable to repair the plumbing. They couldn't replace the oven that wasn't working. A couple windows were broken out. The house needed painting. And they had to sit there and let their house go back to the lender, to watch some entity, a nonprofit or government agency, buy that home, fix it up, and sell it to somebody else. How would you feel when nobody came to your aid when you were losing your home, but yet your tax dollars were used to buy that home to give it to somebody else? Now, understand clearly, the argument they have made is look at all the money we gave to bail out the banks. Well, I got an update from Treasury today. Ninety-nine percent of the money that we lent to banks has been paid back. And, guess what? We made $20 billion on it. But we gave $7 billion away to this program. So, yes, we made 20, and we ended up with a net 13, by lending the money that you say bailed out the banks. It was a loan. This program does nothing but say we are going to send you a check, and you never send us a dime back. And the sweet part is you can pay any amount of money you want for the house. It is almost impossible to violate the terms of this deal, because there are no conditions. You can pay $800,000 for a house and sell it for $50. The requirement is whatever you pay for the house, plus whatever you pay to rehabilitate the house, you have to sell it for less. And it doesn't say who you have to sell it to. A nonprofit, I am not saying they would, could have a cousin who wanted to buy the house that they paid $180,000 for and they could sell it legitimately for $20,000, and, guess what? You have not violated the terms of NSP 1, 2 or 3, and you have not broken the law. And when you sell the house, if you sell it, you can take the money and recycle it again. You could even take this money and do a private venture with a private group, splitting profits, and, falling under the conditions of how you buy the house and sell the house, money gets split. There are very few restrictions in this bill. This is a terrible bill. I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of Dr. Tim Burlingame, a great American who faithfully and tirelessly served the community and inspired thousands of young people to better themselves through the word of God. From 1980 to 1984, I had the pleasure of working with Dr. Burlingame as a member of the Board of Directors of Sonrise Christian School. Dr. Burlingame dutifully worked to ensure his students received the finest academic and religious education from preschool to eighth grade. In August 2010, Dr. Burlingame retired from Sonrise Christian School as head administrator, a position he held for 35 years. Dr. Burlingame generously gave his time to many educational causes. He served as a board member for the Western Christian School and the Association of Christian Schools International where he also acted as commissioner. He was a leader whose impact was undoubtedly felt well beyond the San Gabriel Valley communities to which he was so devoted. Dr. Burlingame was an exceptional community volunteer. He was an active member of the Rotary Club, the Covina Planning Commission and a Director for the Covina Chamber of Commerce where he served a term as President. On October 28, 2010, Dr. Burlingame left our mortal world and returned home to God. Dr. Burlingame was a devoted Christian, loving husband, father, grandfather and valued community leader. I am proud of his many accomplishments and contributions. He has made a lasting mark on my life and countless others. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that this Congress join me in honoring the memory of Dr. Tim Burlingame, a truly great American.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. This side hasn't forgotten what went on. We haven't forgotten about Madoff. But the problem is that some people have forgotten that, in 1998, a whistleblower first went to the SEC on Madoff and they did nothing--nothing. Repeatedly, individuals went to the SEC on Madoff and they did nothing. Now, we can pass all the new regulations through Dodd-Frank we want to pass. Madoff went to jail because he was a criminal. He violated the law. And you don't need 20 laws in place to punish a person for one act. We did it. Dodd-Frank goes far beyond that. It is 243 new regulations in the pipeline; 243 is scary. Now, the SEC has failed in many ways. I know many of my friends on this side of the aisle heard me talk about mark to market principles for 4 years with the SEC. Now, mark to market means when the lender makes a loan, they have to mark the value on their books of what the product is worth at current market value. For example, if 5 years ago a piece of property is worth $20 million, they lent $15 million, today it's worth only $12 million, well, the SEC says we should lend no more than $8 million. Now the loan comes up for renewal and the loan is performing, meaning the individual who owns the property is current on his payments. What the lender is required to do based on SEC requirements, because Federal regulators have no control over that because SEC sets the requirements, they can either set a $7 million set-aside because the loan is overvalued based on the books, or they can say to the individual, You owe us $7 million to reinstate the loan. In this economy, most people don't have the $7 million. Had we modified mark to market standards and looked at loans on realistic fortune principles in the future, most of these lenders today would be in business and many people would not have lost their loans and their product that they had under that loan. We have done nothing through the SEC. In fact, the first time I asked the SEC Chairwoman in the hearing, and the question was 4 minutes long regarding mark to market principles, she looked at me and she said, I'll get back to you on that, Congressman. Nothing to date has happened. So to look at the SEC and say they are saints, they are doing their job and they are protecting the citizenry and the individuals out there, I can't say that. I would like to see these individuals held accountable for what they did not do. In 1998, had they moved with Madoff and done what they should have done, or in 2000 or 2002, a lot of investors would have more money than they have today, but they did not. Just as our Nation is trying to recover, it seems like the Obama administration is doing nothing but making it harder for American businesses.

Mr. GARY MILLER of California

Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Thank you for giving me the time, Mr. Gallegly. I know you are honored to represent the library and are personal friends with the family, and that speaks volumes for your character. I rise today to honor the remembrance of the most beloved figure and inspiring man I know of in politics, the late Ronald Reagan. I think many Members of Congress and politicians speak volumes for the man when they stand before a crowd and say, ``I'm a Reagan Republican.'' When you can leave a legacy like that behind, because not many people say they're a Miller Republican or a Gallegly Republican, but a Reagan Republican, speaks volumes for who the man was. As we commemorate Ronald Reagan's centennial birthday, I am honored to have the opportunity to reflect on his many accomplishments as a leader and a person. As President, Ronald Reagan believed in the American Dream. And when he talked about the American Dream, he always had this huge smile on his face because he believed in the American Dream. His wisdom and leadership in promoting freedom, prosperity, and compassionate respect for all individuals guided our great Nation during times of both tranquility and turmoil. President Reagan's strong belief in a limited government and fiscal responsibility should serve as a model for us today. As President, he refused to deviate from his principles and strong belief in the power of the free market. His success in reducing taxes and government spending led to a period of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. In the area of foreign policy, Ronald Reagan's support for a strong national defense strengthened America's standing in the world. His belief that America should serve as a beacon for democracy and freedom was unrelenting. The Reagan administration's tough stance against communist regimes and the negotiation of treaties with Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev culminated in the symbolic end of the Cold War and the liberation of millions across the globe. As we reflect on the life and legacy left by President Reagan, his resounding words of resolve bring hope to our Nation through these times of trial and tribulation. It is my hope that President Reagan's vision for our Nation will long be remembered and revered. I am honored to represent this man in California and say he is a hero.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat health care law contains a number of provisions that will cripple our economy and stifle job creation. With the unemployment rate above 9 percent, the last thing we should do is implement policies that will hinder the ability of employers to expand their businesses and create jobs. Unfortunately, ObamaCare does just that by punishing employers who do not or cannot provide government-approved health insurance to employees. Businesses of every size are already struggling with the strain of rising health care costs. By imposing higher costs on employers, this onerous mandate will lead to lower wages and fewer workers. In fact, a study by the National Federation of Independent Business estimates the employer mandate will destroy 1.6 million jobs with more than half of those job losses coming from small businesses--the nation's primary source for new jobs. To get our economy back on track, it is vital that we repeal ObamaCare immediately, and enact commonsense policies that will lower health costs for families and small businesses and protect jobs.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, tonight, I rise to honor my good friend from Minnesota, Chairman Jim Oberstar. Over the years we have developed a strong friendship as we have worked together on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Chairman Oberstar leaves the House of Representatives as a legend in his own right. He has helped create decades of transportation policy which not only leaves behind a legacy here in the Capitol, but also around the Nation. Chairman Oberstar is a great man that will continue to influence transportation policy in the future through his knowledge of the past. His presence on the Committee will truly be missed, but his influence will continue on through the decades. Over the years, Chairman Oberstar has demonstrated his pragmatic approach to policy. He has always been willing to listen to both sides of an argument before carefully proceeding forward with a position. I, along with others, always knew where Chairman Oberstar stood on an issue and he was always willing to take the time to respectfully explain the reasoning behind his position. I have always admired his ability to find common ground and subsequently move forward in the name of sound policy. While I will miss my good friend from Minnesota, he will continue to be a leader in the world of transportation and water policy. My friend, I wish you the best as you embark on this next adventure in your life.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mrs. Joyce Madeline Butler, a 40-year Southern California resident and a beacon of service to her community. Mrs. Butler was born July 22, 1943 right here in Washington, DC. After spending her childhood in DC, Mrs. Butler moved to Hemet, CA. In the late 1960s she met her husband George, and they were married in 1968. When they arrived in Chino Hills, California years later they raised a variety of animals including rabbits, pigs, cows, and chickens. Mrs. Butler joined the Future Farmers of America shortly after cementing her love of animals. In 1995, Mrs. Butler suffered a heart attack and was given a five-way bypass procedure in January of 1996. After her recovery, she continued to serve her family and was actively involved in her community of Chino Hills. In 2002, Mrs. Butler took part in the formation of the Los Serranos Neighborhood Group, and in 2005 founded the Support Our Area Residents, SOAR, a group formed to provide area residents with home repairs and yard maintenance. She was recognized as a Chino Hills Citizen of the Year in 2007, and in her final years volunteered for Friends of the Library and Habitat for Humanity. Mrs. Butler was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2008, and was called home to the Lord on November 9, 2010 at the age of 67 at her home in Chino Hills. She was surrounded by friends and family who maintain she was as comfortable as could be possible. Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that this Congress join me in honoring the life of Mrs. Joyce Butler for her years of selfless service to her community.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1326, a resolution calling on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of American children abducted to Japan. Since 1994, the Office of Children's Issues--commonly referred to as OCI--at the United States State Department had opened 194 cases involving 269 U.S. children abducted to or wrongfully retained in Japan. As of March 25, 2010, OCI had 85 open cases involving over 121 American children abducted to Japan. Of these abducted children, Keisuke Collins, is the son of one of my constituents, Randy Collins. Unfortunately, since the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan between the Allied Powers and the Government of Japan in 1951, the Japanese Government has never issued and enforced a legal decision to return a single abducted child to the United States. In addition, Japan has not agreed to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which has resulted in the continued absence of an immediate remedy that would enable the expedited return of abducted children to their custodial parent in the United States. Sadly, the Government of Japan is the only G-7 country that has not acceded to the Hague Convention. This problem is also compounded by Japan's legal system. Because Japan's existing family law system does not recognize joint custody nor actively enforces parental access agreements for both its own citizens and foreigners, there is little hope for children to have contact with the noncustodial parent in violation of internationally recognized and protected rights. What is worse, the Government of Japan has repeatedly claimed to foreign governments that parental child abduction is not considered a crime in Japan despite the fact that Article 3 of the Japanese Penal Code does indeed make it a crime for a Japanese citizen to abduct a child and move the child across national borders. Although Japan's current Justice Minister said upon her appointment that she is determined to show that Japan ``is very proactive'' in adopting international protocols and conventions that are the ``international standard,'' child abductions to Japan continue to be a very serious and rampant problem. Consequently, is critical for the United States and Japan to work together to prevent future incidents of international parental child abduction to Japan. As such, I call on my colleagues to support House Resolution 1326. This resolution calls on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of American children in Japan. The resolution also calls on Japan to work closely with the United States to return these children to their custodial parent in the United States and to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children. Lastly, House Resolution 1326 calls on Japan to immediately adopt the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction so that these abducted children can be returned to their custodial parent. As an original cosponsor of this resolution, it is of utmost importance to not only me, but to my constituents Randy and Keisuke, that it is passed with the overwhelming support of the House of Representatives. These abducted kids--and their families--cannot wait any longer.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Albert R. Maniscalco, a longtime Southern California resident and friend to many. Mr. Maniscalco was born April 11, 1929 in Detroit, Michigan. He proudly served in the United States Army in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, from 1946-1949. Following his service, Mr. Maniscalco retired from the drywall and construction industry. Although he never married he was regarded as a father figure and grandfather to many families whom he loved as his own. His closest friends and relatives would say that he was the kindest man they had ever known. Mr. Maniscalco was called home to the Lord on August 10, 2010 at the age of 81 in Garden Grove, CA. On September 2nd he was laid to rest at the Riverside National Cemetery with Military Honors. Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that this Congress join me in honoring the life of Mr. Albert Maniscalco for his service to our country and community.