Gary Miller

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Gerald William Beard, a small business pioneer who helped shape the history and economy of San Bernardino County, California. In 1973, San Bernardino County wasn't much more than tumbleweeds, sleepy farm towns and seemly endless, desolate highways that connected Los Angeles to the rest of the country. To the causal observer at the time, much of this vast track of arid land could be considered inhospitable and worthless. But Mr. Beard saw something different when he arrived. He understood the economic potential San Bernardino County had to offer as the gateway to Southern California and the Pacific Ocean. He knew this inexpensive land--nestled along the snow covered caps of the San Bernardino Mountains--was a great opportunity for countless families to realize the American dream of homeownership. So in 1973, Mr. Beard founded Gerald W. Beard Realty, Incorporated and with it pinned his own hopes and dreams on changing this forgotten, barren land into the economic powerhouse and success it is today. Because of Mr. Beard's hard work and true American entrepreneurial spirit, thousands of homeowners and business owners have benefited. And this once mostly desert land has given way to a vibrant community and a place millions call home. As Mr. Beard enters the sunset of his life with his loving wife, Cherrell, at his side and reflects on his enormous accomplishments, his legacy continues with his children, Bradley, Scott G., Scott C., Kimberly and Michael, and the countless people he has helped. Madam Speaker, I ask that we all stand to recognize the service, passion and dedication of a great American--Gerald William Beard--and wish him many more years of health and happiness.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5875, but am disappointed the bill does not contain critical spending for the overwhelmed district courts along our Nation's Southwest border. During the last several years, stepped up enforcement and prosecution efforts in Southwest border jurisdictions have resulted in a significant increase in the number of drug, immigration, and weapons cases being filed in courts along the border. Consequently, the current workload experienced by the five district courts along the Southwest border is staggering. When combined, border districts handled nearly 75 percent of criminal immigration cases in the Nation's 94 districts in fiscal year 2009 and almost 40 percent of all the Nation's federal criminal case filings. Here's a brief snapshot of the district court in Arizona: Last year in the Tucson division of the district court for Arizona, felony cases and defendants increased by more than 65 percent from the previous year. Ninety percent of those cases were drug and immigration related. In addition, there were 300,000 apprehensions during the first six months of 2009, and 1.2 million pounds of marijuana were seized. Although the court facility is sized to handle no more than 120 detainees a day, at one point the Tucson court processed 323 detainees in a single day. It is clear that the Judiciary's resources must continue to keep pace with these workload increases. As written, the Border Security Emergency Supplemental provides a total of $701 million for border security. Spending in the bill includes critical funding for border patrol agents, Department of Justice programs, Customs and Border Protection, among other items. While this spending is needed to secure our border and protect our communities from the escalating drug-related violence, it must be coupled with adequate resources to the Judiciary in order to keep pace with the anticipated growth in workload. As it stands now, the district courts along the Southwest border are already overwhelmed and understaffed. In June, the Judicial Conference of the United States wrote to the Office of Management and Budget Director, Peter Orszag, requesting $40 million for the Judiciary. To ensure the federal government's stepped- up border security plan is full-circle, several of my colleagues and I have urged Congressional Appropriators to make these funds available to the Judiciary. Unfortunately, the $40 million requested for the Judiciary is not included in this emergency spending bill. Without these resources, a bottleneck in the judicial system will occur because the courts will lack the resources necessary to process the additional criminal cases brought by the Department of Justice. As Congress continues to debate a comprehensive border security strategy, we must consider the Judiciary. It would be a shame to spend so much money on border security and then fail to provide the Judiciary the resources necessary to ensure justice is met along the border.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Overall, this legislation provides necessary war funding and essential support for our Nation's military--without arbitrary benchmarks or timetables that would tie the hands of our military commanders--and much needed assistance for several other emergency needs. For the men and women in uniform fighting in the defense of freedom, this troop funding bill is long overdue. Although the President had requested emergency funding in February, House Democrats have finally brought a clean version of the Supplemental Appropriations bill after multiple and convoluted attempts to attach expensive and controversial items on the legislation. Approving this clean supplemental quickly and getting it to our military leaders is a top priority. Inaction would force our commanders to begin making compromising budget decisions that could negatively affect our military readiness. It would also signal to our enemies a lack of resolve that could undermine our mission in several very dangerous areas of the world. In addition to providing our troops with this necessary funding, the bill also contains $162 million to support the victims of the Gulf oil spill. Although I own stock in Transocean, I did not place the funding for the oil spill in the legislation and do not consider it a conflict of interest to vote for this bill. All in all, this funding represents less than .3 percent of the entire funding contained in the bill.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, last week the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit challenging the State of Arizona's recently enacted immigration law. DOJ bases its groundless lawsuit on the supremacy clause, preemption, and the commerce clause. However, DOJ's officials should take note--and maybe even read the bill, for that matter--that the new Arizona law mirrors Federal law, which already requires aliens to register and carry their documents with them. Arizona's law simply states that violating Federal immigration law is now a State crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are, by definition, in violation of Federal immigration law, under the new provisions they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona. This week DOJ officials have stepped up their attack on the Arizona immigration law by stating that they may file another lawsuit if the law leads to racial profiling. Once again, read the bill. Arizona's law expressly prohibits racial profiling four separate times. All in all, DOJ's lawsuit reveals the Obama administration's contempt for immigration law, the people of Arizona, and for the majority of the American people who support Arizona's efforts to reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration. Arizona takes a responsible and constitutional approach to defending the immigration laws.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the retirement of Frank Williams from the Building Industry Association's Baldy View Chapter. Frank dedicated his career at the BIA to helping families achieve the American Dream of home ownership. He led the Baldy View Chapter with distinction, promoting quality communities, facilitating business opportunities for the Association's members, and always working to increase the public's awareness about the importance of home ownership. Frank was appointed Chief Executive Officer of the Building Industry Association Southern California, Inc. Baldy View Chapter in April of 1992. Working from the Association's Rancho Cucamonga offices, he planned, directed, budgeted and coordinated all programs and administrative activities of the Baldy View Region, which includes all of San Bernardino County and all areas east of the 605 in Los Angeles County. Under Frank's leadership, the Baldy View BIA has become a true partner with Congress to help cultivate an environment where more Americans can turn the dream of home ownership into reality. I commend Frank for working with Congress to create the conditions necessary to make home ownership available to more families. Frank Williams is the recipient of the 1998 Fair Housing Award from the Fair Housing Council of San Bernardino County. He was named the National Association of Home Builders ``Gary Komarow Memorial Executive Officer of the Year'' in 1999. While the BIA is losing an exceptional leader, I know our community and our Nation will continue to benefit from Frank's enthusiasm and vision for the cause of housing. Frank has been a tireless community leader and advocate for affordable housing, and he has been instrumental in helping to promote home ownership on the national level. With Frank's dedication, we have been able to raise national awareness about the housing needs of Californians. I am confident his work will continue into the future. Frank is the Founder, Chairman of the Board and President of Housing Action Resource Trust (HART), a non-profit affordable housing provider that has assisted 50,000 families to buy homes. He also serves as a Commissioner to the San Bernardino County Housing Authority and is a fully-accredited Commissioner on the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officers. In addition, he was recently appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to a Joint Land Use Task Force within the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. There are many grateful people who have benefited from Frank's mentorship and vision over the years. On Wednesday, July 7, Frank's colleagues, friends and family are gathering to thank him for his leadership and dedication to the cause of home ownership. Frank Williams has been a champion for increasing home ownership and promoting community development. I am very proud to congratulate him on his retirement and I commend him for his dedication to furthering housing opportunities for Californians and all Americans.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill. This country is going through a period of great economic distress; and ultimately, this bill would only serve to heighten uncertainty in the marketplace, restrict access to credit, and place more and more undue burdens on the backs of American small businesses. This bill eliminates consumer options in housing markets. This bill includes language that alters ways consumers choose to pay their mortgage origination fees. Currently, consumers have the choice to pay origination fees up front, partially finance costs through the rate, or some combination of the two. This bill eliminates the consumer's ability to partially pay up front and partially finance costs through the rate, ultimately leading to higher costs and fewer options available to home buyers. This bill favors the Federal Government over the private market. This bill places several new onerous restrictions on private community banks and then explicitly exempts the Federal Government from these same restrictions. The effect of these new restrictions is that consumers will be steered toward the government when seeking financing options and encouraging a greater takeover of the economy by the Federal Government. This bill once again breaks our promise to the American people that excess TARP funds would go to pay down the debt and deficit. When this body enacted TARP in an effort to stave off a total economic collapse, we promised that any return the Federal Government made from the taxpayers' investment into the financial sector of this economy would go directly to paying down the deficit and the national debt, currently over $13 trillion. Instead, this bill breaks that promise by taking remaining TARP funds and using them to pay for the Federal takeover of the economy. What we should do instead, we need to get the Federal Government out of the way so that small businesses can begin to innovate and expand. We need to provide a regulatory framework that provides community banks and small businesses the ability to make their own financial decisions. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to break our promise to the American people. The future of this great Nation and that of its sons and daughters depends on the actions we take here today. And I can only conclude that this legislation will prolong this recession and lead us further down the road of high deficit and greater debt. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. CAO).

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on another temporary short-term extension of the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, which expired more than 3 weeks ago on May 31, 2010. This is the third time this year that the flood insurance program has expired, causing disruption in the housing market in cases where individuals are trying to purchase a home located in a floodplain which requires them to buy flood insurance to close on a federally backed mortgage. It is unfortunate that the fate of the National Flood Insurance Program has to be authorized on a temporary basis because of other unrelated issues. The result has created uncertainty and instability in the market at a time when this country can least afford it. Immediate action is needed to support homeowners and small businesses owners who depend on flood insurance for an important measure of financial security, especially during the June to November storm season. This bill provides for a temporary extension through the end of the current fiscal year, September 30, 2010. The bill would also make the reauthorization retroactive to May 31, 2010, and offset the cost by reducing the NFIP's borrowing authority by $50 million from $20.775 billion to $20.725 billion. As a result, according to consultations with CBO, this bill would have no net impact on the Federal budget. Congress also needs to move forward this year with serious long-term reforms of the flood insurance program. The NFIP carries a debt of more than $18 billion and continues to subsidize premium rates of nearly 25 percent of all insured properties. The program cannot continue on this path with a built-in shortfall. On April 27, 2010, the Financial Services Committee reported this bill, the Flood Insurance Reform Priority Act, to reauthorize and reform the NFIP for 5 years. This bill includes several important provisions that represent a good first step toward repairing the financial soundness of the NFIP, but more reforms are urgently needed. I support the extension of the NFIP program and encourage my colleagues to vote for it today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Candice Miller.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my time. It is very unfortunate that the fate of the National Flood Insurance Program has to be authorized on a temporary basis because of unrelated issues. What the marketplace needs today is certainty and stability, and we should do whatever we can to create that. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today I rise in support of House Resolution 1434, recognizing the significance of homeownership in America. Every year, this body comes together to designate June as National Homeownership Month. To continue this long record of recognition, H.R. 1434 provides congressional recognition of National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States. Owning a home is a fundamental part of the American Dream and is the largest personal investment most families will ever make. For millions of families across this country, a home is more than just the symbol of the American Dream. It's the backbone of the American way of life. Moreover, in addition to providing financial benefits to individuals, homeownership helps strengthen communities. Since homeowners are investing not only in themselves, but in the community, they have a greater stake in the success of their local schools, civic organizations, and churches. For the past several years, this country has experienced significant upheaval in the United States housing market. The turmoil being experienced by homeowners has been devastating and swift moving, and Americans are looking to their leaders in government to end the terrible housing situation without placing an additional burden on the taxpayers. My home State of California, in particular, has been heavily impacted by the mortgage crisis, with thousands of families losing their homes. Thirty-four percent of homeowners in my State currently have negative equity in their home. It is crucial that the body recognize the impact of the problems facing the housing market so it can take steps to ensure that equity and liquidity return to the marketplace. Despite all that is occurring in the current housing market, we need to remember that home ownership has historically been the single largest creator of wealth for most Americans. As someone who has been involved in the industry for over 35 years as a developer, I have seen my fair share of the housing market downturns. From these experiences, I have learned at times of stress it is important to ensure that liquidity continues to flow to the housing market in order to keep the market functioning. Accordingly, the loan limit increases passed by this body are finally providing affordable, safe mortgages for homeowners in the high cost areas who were previously forced to resort to risky loans and impaired their ability to keep their home. Additionally, to bring stability to the housing market and encourage responsible home ownership, I have sponsored legislation to allow homeowners going through foreclosure to stay in their homes and have the option of buying them back in the future. During these economically challenging times, it is more important than ever to provide relief to hardworking Americans. In conclusion, in the first quarter of 2010 the national home ownership rate decreased to 67.1 percent. This is the lowest home ownership rate since the first quarter of 2000. Additionally, in the first-time buyer age group of under 35 years old, the home ownership rate fell to 38.9 percent, which is the lowest level since 1997. Assisting home buyers and homeowners by permanently increasing the loan limits, enabling borrowers in financially distressed homes to stay in their homes, must be a priority for this body. These efforts will help maintain the Nation's home ownership level and speed up the overall recovery of the housing market. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself the balance of my time. As I said, owning a home is a fundamental part of the American Dream, and I have been honored to introduce this resolution, I think, for the past 12 years. It is a fundamental part, but that doesn't mean that everybody necessarily is in a position to own a home at a given time. And that's something people need to strive for in their lives and look for in the future. And if you look at the situation--and my colleague was talking about FHA--FHA, Freddie, and Fannie are providing about 92 percent of all the loans in this country. If it were not for that, people in this country could not buy or sell a home basically because there is not liquidity in the marketplace to deal with it other than the GSEs. But at the same time, we need to understand that underwriting standards for FHA, Freddie, and Fannie need to be very solid, thereby not putting any of the agencies or the taxpayers at risk. I think FHA has done a good job recently increasing their underwriting standards, requiring people to be in a better position to be able to repay their mortgages, and this is essential. The National Association of Realtors is strongly behind this resolution. Although this is a statement that Congress is making, it doesn't require any action, it's a significant statement. It's being made on behalf of the American people who believe they want to own a home, they have a right to own a home, and if they are in a position to do that, we are encouraging that. The Realtors say that 5\1/2\ million taxpayers depend on the NFIP to protect them from flooding. We are going to deal with that in the next bill. They also came and supported the resolution we are putting before us today. So there are two resolutions in a row that are very important to home ownership in this debate today. The one we have before us is the concept that people should have a right to own a home. With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am in strong opposition to this amendment. Over the years, I think in about 2001, I started arguing to raise conforming loan limits in high-cost areas, and it has had a tremendous benefit across this Nation, but it seems like everybody who comes with amendments to oppose that does so when it does not impact their districts. Now, my good friend Mr. Turner--and he is a good friend of mine--if you had introduced an amendment and had said to accept conforming as it should be, if you applied the old principles, it would be $417,000, but that would have had an impact on many counties in your State. So you introduced an amendment which said, well, let's pick an amount of $500,000, which means there is zero impact on the State of Ohio. So $500,000 is a great amount to pull out of the air when it doesn't impact you, personally. In L.A. County, the loan limits are $729,750. In Orange County, the limits are $729,750. These are some of the best-performing loans FHA is making. When you look at GSE and FHA nationwide, they are making over 90 percent of the loans in this country. If they were not there today, people would not be able to sell loans in high-cost areas.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. You would not be able to sell a home in a high-cost area, nor would you be able to buy a home in a high-cost area. Now, if this were in some way impacting the Federal Government or taxpayers, I would absolutely agree with my good friend. I will say again to my good friend, Mr. Turner, that I would agree with this, but this is not impacting taxpayers. It is not impacting FHA. It has some of the best-performing loans. Why should people who live in high-cost areas be basically penalized just because we want to pick a number of $500,000 out of the air, which will have no benefit to anybody anywhere? I absolutely think this is a wrong amendment. I oppose it, and I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. A question for you: there has been a perception created that somehow, by eliminating the high-cost areas, the FHA could insure more loans. Yet that is not real because the FHA can insure all of the loans they want irrespective of the volume of the loans. It does not have any impact on FHA's ability whatsoever. Am I correct on that?

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is exactly the same as the bill that passed this body by a voice vote last year, the FHA Multifamily Loan Limit Adjustment Act. FHA's multifamily mortgage insurance programs enable qualified borrowers to obtain long-term, fixed-rate financing for a variety of multifamily properties that are affordable to low- and moderate-income families. In the most expensive cites, it is very difficult for these workers, particularly those starting out in the workforce, to find affordable rental housing where they work. The FHA multifamily mortgage insurance program can help, but, due to its loan limits, there were only three FHA-insured multifamily loans for high-rise construction or rehabilitation approved in fiscal year 2007 and 2008--understand, just three--and that is a huge problem in this country. The loan limits in high-cost areas are simply too low. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the lack of available loans is creating serious problems concentrated in major cities where high-rise construction is involved. In fact, their data shows that while elevator buildings cost 45 percent more than non-elevator structures, the current limit for these structures are less than 10 percent higher than non-elevator structures. Developers are simply unable to provide affordable housing units in high-cost areas because the current statutory loan limits for FHA mortgage insurance are basically too low. I don't think we have ever seen a housing market that has been as impacted as the one we have faced in recent years. Low-income renters and moderate-income renters in these particular areas are really impacted by the loan limits that we have placed on developers. We need to provide more housing stock, yet do it in a way that does not put taxpayers at risk. And that is what this does. The program makes money for the government, does not lose money for the government. I would absolutely support this amendment and ask all my colleagues to join us. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I agree with what my colleague said. When we passed this bill out last time, it had unanimous support. There is no impact on the Federal Government. We are taking areas that are high-cost, that have basically been discriminated against in the past from being able to participate in either a GSA loan or an FHA loan. This is a good amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the majority's failure to pass a budget resolution this year represents a missed opportunity to provide fiscal discipline that is needed to create new job growth in our economy. Since President Obama was sworn into office, congressional Democrats have increased spending by nearly $1.8 trillion, including the failed stimulus bill and the government takeover of health care. To account for the spending binge, the President and the majority have enacted more than $670 billion in tax increases and pushed our Nation's debt to an unprecedented $14.2 trillion. That's $14.2 trillion. Yet the spending continues. This week the House is scheduled to consider another massive spending bill that will do little to create jobs but will, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, raise the deficit by $133 billion. As spending continues to spiral out of control in Washington, the failure of congressional Democrats to present a fiscally responsible budget demonstrates a complete lack of leadership on the part of the majority.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 1868, a bill originally introduced by Representative Deal of Georgia, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, you cannot have employment without employers. One year after the enactment of the $787 billion stimulus package, unemployment continues to hover near 10 percent, yet congressional Democrats just keep on spending. Against the will of the American people, this Congress has enacted a $2 trillion takeover of our Nation's health care system and pushed the Nation's debt limit to an astounding $14.2 trillion. The burden of this massive spending falls on the shoulders of the American taxpayers. Government-run health care alone raises $569 billion through new taxes, regulations, and costly mandates on individuals, employers, and health care providers. Furthermore, the administration proposes to increase taxes by $2 trillion by allowing the vital cuts that benefit small businesses to expire, increasing tax rates on capital gains and reinstating the dreaded death tax. As the economy struggles to recover, Congress must halt this reckless spending and end its assault on American job creators.