Brad Miller

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. The arguments on the other side remain the same that they have been: ``Oh, this will narrow choices for consumers,'' like they are really protecting the rights of consumers to pick mortgages like that. Like borrowers came into brokers or mortgage companies and said, ``You know, can you get me an adjustable rate loan that goes up after 2 or 3 years and the monthly payment goes up 30 to 40 percent, with a prepayment penalty so it's harder for me to get out and have to pay something to get out, with an initial rate that's probably only about prime in the first place? And because I'm paying more at a higher interest rate than I qualify for, how about paying some extra money to the broker?'' Mr. Chairman, no one asked for these loans. They were duped into taking these loans. Ned Gramlich, a member of the Federal Reserve Board's Board of Governors said that, ``For all its work, subprime lending actually made sense and helped people get loans, but the practices were indefensible.'' He asked the rhetorical question, ``Why is it that the most complicated loans, the most complex loan terms, end up in loans to the most unsophisticated borrowers?'' He said the question answers itself: They were duped into taking these mortgages. This bill will keep that from happening again. It should never have happened before. This will keep it from happening again. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, like Mr. Castle, I am one of the co-Chairs of the House Community College Caucus. And I am also pleased to join today in honoring our Nation's community colleges. Community colleges provide an affordable close-to-home education to between 11 and 12 million Americans every year. Community colleges create opportunities for Americans that they just otherwise would not have available to them. GEDs: for those students who do not complete high school in the regular time, in my State at least, the great, great majority of students who go back to get a GED go back to community colleges to get it. Sometimes the training is done on campus; sometimes it is done at work sites. But the great majority of students who do get their GED-- which is an absolute requirement to having any prospect of getting highly skilled, well-paid jobs, they get that training through GEDs. A great many students spend their first 2 years in college at community colleges before going on to baccalaureate degree-granting institutions. Community colleges train for jobs in a way that really makes jobs available to students. They are important for employers, and they are important for workers. No employer is going to move into a city, is going to expand operations or begin new operations in a community that does not offer the kind of job training that a community college offers. All manner of job skills are taught at community colleges and really do the bulk of the Nation's work in providing training for those skills: health care professionals, nurses, phlebotomists, x-ray technicians, on and on. The bulk of those students--in North Carolina, at least, and I suspect in much of the Nation--are at community colleges. Building trades: all of the skills in building trades are taught at community colleges. Law enforcement, fire fighting, other first responders go to community colleges for the skills they need. And in North Carolina, at least, where we are blessed with one of the first and best community college systems, there are programs, curricula in communities that are precisely tailored to specific needs of that community. Let me give just a couple of examples. In the county I live in, Wake County, North Carolina, which includes Raleigh, the eastern end of the county, the towns of Zebulon, Knightdale and Wendell, is an area that includes--along with counties just east of there--a cluster of 30 or 40 employers that use extrusion technology for various reasons. Extrusion is pulling on plastics like taffy to shape it. And Wake Technical Community College established a campus in that part of the county specifically to train skills used in the extrusion industries. In Alamance County, which for 100 years has been dominated by the textile industry, but the textile industry has taken one hit after another, a small company has grown up now, LabCorp, to become the Nation's second largest medical testing firm. Samples are sent from all over the country to be tested at LabCorp in Burlington, Alamance County. One of the leading programs or curricula at the Alamance Community College is a biotech program. And they have a standing understanding, agreement with LabCorp, that LabCorp will hire everybody who comes out of that program who wants to work for LabCorp. The list goes on and on. Community colleges really are where our workers are going to need to go to improve their job skills to make sure that our Nation remains the most productive nation on Earth. And if we are going to have the most prosperous economy in the world, we need to have the most productive workers in the world, and community colleges are making that happen.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague David Price to speak in favor, to take the pro side of this debate. I am a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I spoke a moment ago about the importance of community colleges in creating opportunities for people who otherwise would not have them. That is emphatically true for me and, for the University of North Carolina, the role it has played in my life. I could not be a Member of this body if it were not for the opportunities that the University of North Carolina, my State university, created for me and creates for thousands of middle class kids from North Carolina, kids from the middle class, people who are from families that are struggling to get into the middle class. I do trust my friend and colleague of longstanding from North Carolina, David Price, also a graduate of the University of North Carolina. I know that he also has been a professor at a nearby institution of lesser reputation, so I wanted to make sure there was someone here with absolutely unmixed loyalties who could speak in favor of this resolution. The men's basketball team this year was an exceptional group of athletes. The starting five, Tyler Hansbrough, Deon Thompson, Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington, Danny Green, others coming off the bench, Bobby Frasor, Ed Davis, Tyler Zeller, others, was an extraordinary group of athletes. There was no doubt that they would be at the Final Four in the mix for the title throughout the season. Mr. Price has already mentioned the frequency with which my university has won the national championship, but it bears repeating: 1957, 1982, 1993, 2005, and 2009 the University of North Carolina has won the championship. But beyond just that accomplishment, that athletic accomplishment, we have done it with a basketball program that we can be proud of. Our academic standards have remained high. Our graduation rate for our basketball players, for our athletes is exceptionally high. Dean Smith, a revered figure in college athletics, in addition to being the coach of the men's basketball team for many years, in the 1960s when it was not such an easy thing to do, led with one of the leaders of the fight for racial justice in North Carolina, something that I think all North Carolina graduates can be proud of. I am proud that we have those banners hanging in the rafters that I mentioned, 1957, 1992, 1993, 2005, and 2009, but I'm even more proud of knowing that we will never have to take those banners down. We will never hear from the NCAA that we have violated the rules so flagrantly that we have to give our banners back. I am proud of this year's team. I'm proud of our men's basketball program. I'm proud of my university. And I urge all Members to vote for this resolution.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, about 35 million Americans just pay their monthly payment, the minimum monthly payment on their credit card every year. And some of the opponents of this bill may have very little sympathy for families that are deep in debt. But as our economy has produced billionaires who have done nothing of any conspicuous value to society, there are millions of American families that are working very hard and struggling to get by, and it is very tempting when they're doing triage with their bills and they know they can't pay everything, for their eye to skip down to the minimum monthly payment and just pay that. This bill makes sure they know what the consequences of that are. This amendment makes sure. It informs them of what kind of debt they're going to be in, how much it's going to cost them in interest, how long they're going to be in debt, how deep the hole will be, and what it is going to take to get out. I applaud Mr. Price for his efforts. And I urge all Members to vote for this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Chairman, Mr. Ryan said earlier that this vote is ``all about freedom,'' and I agree. Almost 70 years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt stood in this chamber to report on the State of the Union. He called for a world founded on four essential freedoms: freedom of expression; freedom of religion; freedom of fear; and freedom from want. He explained that freedom from want means securing a healthy, peacetime life for all of our people. In that same address, President Roosevelt called for ending the special privileges for the few, a wider and constantly rising standard of living, and widening the opportunities for adequate medical care. By those measures, tens of millions of Americans are less free now than their parents were, and they worry that their children will be less free still. This Republican budget drastically reduces, even more than they have been reduced in recent years, the taxes on the richest Americans, including those whose heedless greed created the economic crisis that we now face. That, our colleagues in the minority proclaim, is what freedom means. Their budget again cheats education, health care, energy. The majority budget invests in education, health care, in energy, investments that are long overdue. The majority budget creates opportunities and provides a liberating hope for middle-class families that they can climb out of desperate debt and enjoy a widening prosperity. Vote for freedom from want. Vote for the majority budget. Vote against this Republican budget.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this has been a pretty remarkable debate. We've heard we're now going down a dangerous road, and we'll begin the modification or altering contracts in court. Mr. Chairman, that is what bankruptcy does. That is the rule of law. We do enforce contracts. Except when people get hopelessly in debt, we allow them to draw a line to pay what they can, and then to get a fresh start in life. That's what bankruptcy does. In fact, home mortgages is the only kind of debt that can't be modified, and it is not because that was brought down on stone tablets from Mount Sinai. That exception is just a special-interest give which we see around here all the time. In 1978, the mortgage industry got that exception as a special-interest provision. We've heard that this will result in arbitrary modifications. No. There are more than a million bankruptcy cases a year. We have a pretty good idea what bankruptcy judges are going to do. They're going to do the same thing with this kind of interest that they do with every other, including family farms, and this is exactly like the treatment of family farms. We've heard it will help speculators. No. Speculators already can be helped. Investors already can modify their mortgage in bankruptcy. It is only people who live in their homes who can't get relief. We've heard it will help people who bought too much house. No. If you can't afford a 100-percent mortgage at higher than the prime rate, it doesn't help you. The most infuriating argument is that the opposition is really not about helping the banking industry and the securities industry. It's all about helping the little people that's going to increase interest rates on the little people. Mr. Chairman, I have been hearing that the whole time I have been in Congress. It's never been about helping the banks get rich, according to the banks. It's always been about helping the little people. No matter how crooked their business practices may seem on their face, it's always something they need to do to help the little people. Here's a reality. Two years ago, just a couple years ago, 40 percent of all corporate profits were for the financial services' sector, 40 percent. That's after all of their salaries and their bonuses and their $50 million corporate jets and their golf tournaments and everything else.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. This amendment simply gives lenders one last chance to make a voluntary modification. That is undoubtedly better for a borrower to get a voluntary modification rather than having to go through bankruptcy. I support this amendment.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it is remarkable after all that has happened in the American economy to still hear the talking points of the banking industry and the securities industry repeated verbatim without criticism, simply parroted. That the banking industry is really all about helping folks, that's what caused the problem; that they were trying too hard to help people; that they loaned, perhaps not wisely but too well. The reality is, this is not going to affect the availability of credit. We've got plenty to judge that by. There have been rafts of economic studies by real economists in peer review journals that show that when you compare lending practices in one place and another at the same time with different laws, there is very little, if any, difference. Now, the minority has tried to tap into the American anger at banks by calling this a bailout. The reason that the banking industry is so virulently opposed to this, this is the only proposal to deal with the foreclosure problem that does not give them tax money. We aren't begging them, we aren't bribing them to do the right thing; we will make them do the right thing. They will modify mortgages in the way they should have, voluntarily, involuntarily in bankruptcy court if they don't do it voluntarily. Mr. Gohmert suggests this is somehow going to be wild, arbitrary, the Wild West, no one knows what a bankruptcy court will do, what a bankruptcy judge will do. Mr. Chairman, there have been thousands of bankruptcy cases. The law is very clear. The procedures are very clear. The judges do this all the time. Everyone involved in bankruptcy knows exactly what will happen, and it will be a very predictable, orderly, logical modification of mortgages in bankruptcy so that borrowers will come out with the very mortgage--with the mortgage they should have gotten, if they should have gotten a mortgage at all--and the lender will come out with a mortgage they should have made in the first place. Do something the banks won't like to solve this problem and pass this bill.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, this bill is a very bitter pill for me. I probably have become the leading critic in Congress of the mortgage lending industry, including the financial institutions that bought predatory mortgages knowing full well the consequences of those mortgages for middle class homeowners. The industry has not always taken my criticism with good humor. The industry hated the legislation that I introduced more than five years ago to prohibit predatory mortgage lending practices. And the industry really, really hated the legislation that I introduced last year to let bankruptcy courts modify predatory mortgages. But I do think we are in a worsening financial crisis that will affect ordinary Americans, not just financial institutions. The economy will slow dramatically if every business and every American family has to operate on cash. If credit is not readily available and affordable, middle class American families will have a hard time buying a new car, with disastrous results for the Americans who depend on the automobile industry for their livelihood. The story is the same in industry after industry. This bill is a dramatic improvement on what the Bush Administration presented Congress not quite a week ago. There is now real transparency, and vastly improved accountability and oversight. The bill takes pains to shift the ultimate cost to the industry that made the mess, not innocent taxpayers. I regret that this bill does not do more for families with houses that they can afford, but abusive mortgages that they can't. Millions of families will lose their homes to foreclosure, and foreclosures are pulling down home values for millions of other families. I will push hard for bankruptcy reform early next year. I wish the limitations on the compensation of top executives were tougher, another issue we need to come back to. I wish there were real reforms in consumer lending practices that cheat middle class families with deceptive penalties and fees, and trap struggling families in a cycle of debt. And I know that no matter what Congress does, we are all in for several tough months, and maybe longer. Many financial institutions are carrying assets on their books for far more than the assets are really worth. Banks won't trust each other enough to lend freely until insolvent institutions collapse, and taxpayers will foot much of the bill to pick up the pieces. I reluctantly voted for this bill today, but I'm not finished with the fight against the heedless greed that is responsible for so much grief for so many Americans.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures Act, which will, as the two speakers already have said, authorize two programs that are critical to the future of America's historic preservation efforts. I want to thank Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young of the Natural Resources Committee, as well as Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, for their work in shepherding this legislation, as well as the historic preservation community for their support for this bill. The Save America's Treasures Program was started as part of the White House Millennium Council chaired by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. The program has provided much-needed bricks and mortar support and has succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, funding America's most threatened cultural treasures for almost 10 years. The current administration, under the leadership of First Lady Laura Bush, created the Preserve America Program to support community preservation efforts by providing funding for heritage tourism and preservation planning. The two programs serve different purposes, and together, they provide a comprehensive approach to preservation and community revitalization. Mr. Mike Turner and I announced the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures Act in the Sewall-Belmont House, just a couple of blocks from here. The Sewall-Belmont House was designated a national historic landmark for its significance in American history. It was the headquarters for the National Woman's Party, led by Alice Paul, and their movement to secure women the right to vote. Despite that obvious historical significance, it was not long ago that the Sewall-Belmont House was threatened by a leaking roof and by significant other structural damage. The Sewall-Belmont House was the first building to receive funding as a Save America's Treasures project. In my own district, Save America's Treasures funding has helped preserve the F.W. Woolworth Building in downtown Greensboro. Mr. Speaker, as you know well, on February 1, 1960, four African American students from North Carolina A&T University sat down at the ``white only'' lunch counter and refused to move until they were treated the same as the white customers. Within 2 months, the sit-ins at Woolworth's inspired similar demonstrations throughout the South involving thousands of protesters. The sit-in at the Woolworth's lunch counter was the moment when the civil rights struggle in this country became a mass movement. The Woolworth Building and its lunch counter are sacred grounds of the civil rights movement and must be preserved for future generations. The Preserve America Program has designated more than 500 neighborhoods, cities, and towns throughout the United States as Preserve America Communities and has awarded grants since 2006. Earlier this year, the Department of the Interior made its first round of 2008 grants of $2.9 million to 43 projects in 25 States. This September they will award an additional $4.3 million in grants. The projects support heritage tourism, the commercial revitalization of neglected downtowns, and the reuse of historic properties. Mr. Speaker, America's historic places remind us of who we are. They remind us of our history. We cannot cheat our children of that connection with their past, that understanding of who they are. The Preserve America Program, through its grant opportunities and community designations, ensures that important communities and neighborhoods will survive for future generations. Historic preservation helps revitalize cities, towns, and rural areas nationwide where dramatic population shifts, outdated planning, and the loss of manufacturing jobs have made market-driven reinvestment impossible without some assistance. Rehabilitation of vacant and underused historic structures can attract new investment in growing communities. Whether it is preserving main streets of downtowns, or reusing historic properties as affordable housing, preservation makes history come alive in communities throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is now considering these two successful programs. Through passing this bill and authorizing these programs, Congress can affirm our commitment to saving our natural heritage, our historic heritage, and revitalizing our communities. Once again, I ask my colleagues for their support for the Preserve America and Save America's Treasures Act.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I want to applaud Mr. Turner for bucking his party in introducing a bill on something other than gas prices. I have frequently worked with Mr. Turner on historic preservation issues. It has never been difficult to work across partisan lines. But rising to support this bill is somewhat more difficult for me. Mr. Turner described Dayton, Ohio, as the birthplace of aviation in his remarks a minute ago. Mr. Speaker, that is stretching the truth a bit. But after sitting on the floor for about an hour and hearing our energy problems blamed on environmentalists, not the fact that ExxonMobil made $40 billion in profits in the fourth quarter of 2007, it seems like a fairly minor stretching of the truth. As every school child in America knows, with the exception of school children in Dayton, Ohio, the first powered flight was in Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in December, 1903, or at least it was the first photographed, the first documented powered flight. There is still some dispute about where the actual first powered flight was. But the photograph of the Wright brothers plane above the dunes, just a few feet above the dunes at Kitty Hawk, was probably the most important photograph in history to that point, and remains one of the most famous photographs in all of history. That photograph, Mr. Speaker, was taken by a North Carolinian. After that first flight, which lasted just 12 seconds, and even with the soft sands of Kitty Hawk to land in, the landing almost destroyed or badly damaged the balsa wood plane. Progress was very rapid. Within just a decade, the airplane proved to be a very effective weapon of war in the First World War, and in another decade, just another decade after that, Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic alone. Mr. Turner is correct, flight has been an important transformational invention in human history. We are now a connected world, largely because of flight. The Wright brothers and Dayton, Ohio, did have a role in that, Mr. Speaker. So I do rise to support adding Hawthorn Hill, the Wright family home, and the Wright Airplane Factory to the national park in Dayton, Ohio highly. I do this, taking the lead of my party's nominee for President, who has urged that we put aside all the old animosities, that we reach across all divisions of society. In that spirit, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of a talented high school choir in my district, Enloe High Sclool Chorus of Raleigh, NC, which was chosen to perform at New York City's world- renowned Carnegie Hall on March 10, 2008. The Enloe High School Chorus was selected out of dozens of high school choruses from across the country to perform in this concert. The event featured 200 students from four States, and was the capstone of Carnegie Hall's yearlong National High School Choral Festival. The concert was conducted by Dr. Craig Jessop, esteemed Music Director of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, who has been working with the choirs and their conductors throughout the year. I am thrilled that these Enloe High School students have been given such a remarkable opportunity to showcase their talent. Led by Ann Johnson-Huff, the Enloe High School Singers is made up of the Chamber Choir and the Advanced Women's Ensemble, two of the five choirs of the William G. Enloe High School Choral Department. The Chamber Choir and the Advanced Women's Ensemble study a wide array of repertoire and perform at numerous local and national events throughout the school year. Past tours included performances at the Olympics in Barcelona, the Vatican, Carnegie Hall, the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, and St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York. In 2006, the Chamber Choir and Advanced Women's Ensemble were chosen to perform for a special event at the North Carolina Music Educators' Association Conference. Both ensembles also represented the State of North Carolina at the Founding of Jamestown Settlement Celebration in May of 2007, featuring guest speakers Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and President George W. Bush. I am privileged to have in my district one of the four schools in the Nation chosen for the Carnegie Hall National High School Choral Festival. I commend these students and their leaders for their accomplishment.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Greensboro's Bicentennial Celebration. Since 1808, the citizens of Greensboro have been pioneers in manufacturing, education, and civil rights for North Carolina and our Nation. Greensboro has been and remains a leader in economic and cultural development within North Carolina. Greensboro became the ``Gate City'' at the turn of the last century, as North Carolina's rail trade and manufacturing center. Greensboro soon became a leader in North Carolina's textile industry. Henry Humphreys opened the state's first steam-powered cotton mill, and by the 1940s, Greensboro businesses were flourishing. Rayon weaving from Burlington Industries, denim from Cone Mills, and overalls from Blue Bell became some of the biggest manufacturers in the world for their products. In the late 1980s, the Piedmont Triad International Airport reestablished Greensboro's place as a travel and transportation hub for North Carolina. Greensboro has always been at the forefront of education in North Carolina. Greensboro College, the first state-chartered college for women, opened its doors in 1833. In 1837, Quakers founded the first co- educational school in the state: Greensboro's ''New Garden Boarding School,'' known today as Guilford College. Greensboro Technical Community College has provided training and education since 1958. What began as Women's College and is now The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, a historically black land grant institution, are state leaders in university research, development, and art. With such a strong concentration of academia, Greensboro has naturally developed a thriving cultural scene, particularly renowned for theater, music, and film. The last few decades have seen an expanded public library system, a children's museum, the Greensboro Coliseum Complex, and work in historic preservation. Greensboro has played a pivotal role in the struggle for racial equality. Greensboro was a stop for the Underground Railroad, as citizens both black and white helped slaves escape to the North. In 1873, Greensboro founded the Bennett College for Women to provide education to newly emancipated slaves. On February 1, 1960, four North Carolina A & T students sat down at the Woolworth's white-only lunch counter. Ezell Blair, Jr., now Jibreel Khazan, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, and David Richmond remained seated until the store closed, and returned the next day. The ``Greensboro Four'' inspired similar civil rights protests all over the South. The sit-in protest in Greensboro was the moment the civil rights struggle became a movement. Later, Greensboro's peaceful public school integration was a model for other communities all over the Nation. Today, Greensboro celebrates a diverse population, with citizens from Southeast Asian, Eastern European, Latin American, and African communities. Honoring the tradition begun with the Underground Railroad, Greensboro welcomes refugees from conflicts around the world in Sudan, Myanmar, Liberia, and on and on. I am proud to honor the Bicentennial Celebrations of the City of Greensboro. And honored to represent its people in the United States Congress.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the City of Greensboro's Bicentennial Celebration. Since 1808, the citizens of Greensboro have been pioneers in manufacturing, education and civil rights for North Carolina, for the South and for the Nation. Greensboro has been and remains a leader in economic and cultural development within North Carolina. Greensboro became the ``Gate City'' at the turn of the last century as North Carolina's rail trade and manufacturing center. Greensboro soon became a leader in North Carolina's textile industry. Henry Humphreys opened the State's first steam-powered cotton mill, and by the 1940s, Greensboro businesses were flourishing. Rayon weaving from Burlington Industries, denim from Cone Mills, and overalls from Blue Bell dominated world markets for their products. In the late 1980s, the Piedmont Triad International Airport again established Greensboro's place as a regional travel and transportation hub. Greensboro's always been at the forefront of education in North Carolina. Greensboro College, the first State-chartered college for women opened its doors in 1833. In 1837, Quakers founded the first co-educational school in the State, Greensboro's ``New Garden Boarding School,'' today known as Guilford College, my wife's alma matter. Greensboro Technical Community College has provided training and an adult education since 1958. What began as Women's College, and is now the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and North Carolina Agriculture and Technical College, A & T, is a historical black land grant institution, are leaders in university research, development and art. With such a strong concentration of academic institutions, Greensboro has obviously developed a thriving cultural scene, particularly renowned for theater, for music and film. In the last few decades there's been an expanded public library system, a children's museum, work in historic preservation, including an effort to save the Woolworth's where the sit-in movement began, as well as the Greensboro Coliseum Complex, which is known for the arts, as well as for college basketball. It's frequently the host of the Atlantic Coast Conference's Men's Basketball Tournament. Greensboro has also played an important role for racial equality. Greensboro was a stop on the Underground Railroad, as citizens, both black and white, helped slaves escape to the North. In 1873, Greensboro founded Bennett College for Women to provide education for newly emancipated slaves. On February 1, 1960, four North Carolina A & T students sat down at the Woolworth's white only lunch counter. Ezell Blair, now Jibreel Khazan, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil and David Richmond remained seated until the store was closed, and returned the next day and the next day and the next day, joined each day by more and more who were protesting segregation. The ``Greensboro Four'' or the ``A & T Four'' inspired similar civil rights protests across the South. The sit-in protest that began in Greensboro was the moment the civil rights struggle became a movement. Later, Greensboro's peaceful public school integration was a model for other communities all over the nation. And today, Greensboro celebrates a diverse population, with citizens from Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, as well as Africa. In the tradition of the Underground Railroad, the tradition begun with Greensboro's participation in the Underground Railroad, Greensboro now welcome refugees from conflicts around the world, the Sudan, Liberia, Myanmar and on and on. I am proud to honor the Bicentennial Celebrations of the City of Greensboro, and I'm honored to represent Greensboro in Congress.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my assurance to that of Mr. Frank, as if anyone would need that, but I think that this clarification really does not change the intent of the statute. On its face, going from foreclosure to foreclosure process is redundant. Foreclosure is a process. It is a legal procedure. It is a legal procedure by which real property given as security for the payment of a debt is seized and sold to pay the debt. It is a legal procedure. It is all process. So saying ``foreclosure process'' appears, on its face, to be redundant. However, the concern has been that States would add to the same section of their State ordinances, their State statutes, other provisions that have nothing to do with foreclosure procedures, that have to do something to make other provisions; and yet there would be the argument that all of those now are exempt, immune from any argument of preemption. That is certainly not what we intend, and I lend my assurance to that of Mr. Frank that I will work to make sure that the language that Mr. LaTourette just presented be the language in the final bill.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address specifically the amendment that Mr. LaTourette and I have offered. Mr. Speaker, the worst of the foreclosure crisis is yet to come. Mr. Frank just corrected incorrect factual assertions. Let me correct one as well. Mr. Feeney said a few minutes ago or gave the example of a 3 percent teaser rate. Mr. Speaker, the typical initial rate for the mortgages that are causing this problem was 8\1/2\ percent, which is already well above the conventional prime rate. According to The Wall Street Journal, 55 percent of the people who got those loans qualified for prime loans. Their trust was betrayed. And the typical adjustment after just 2 or 3 years was a 30 to 50 percent higher monthly mortgage payment. Seventy percent had prepayment penalties so people couldn't get out and would have to pay when they got out, when they refinanced out of a loan they could not possibly afford and the lender never intended they would afford because they required they come back and refinance again. It's not surprising that 3 million homeowners with subprime loans are expected to enter foreclosure proceedings in the next couple of years and 2 million of them will likely lose their homes. Another 40 million homeowners will see the value of their homes decline when other homes in their neighborhood are foreclosed, and they will lose $200 billion in their home property values. Credit Suisse now estimates that there is another wave of foreclosures coming after this one as even more exotic, innovative mortgages go into default. Credit Suisse estimates that in the next 5 years 12.7 percent of homeowners with mortgages are expected to lose their homes to foreclosure. Mr. Speaker, when those families lose their home to foreclosure most will fall out of the middle class and into poverty. The policy failures that caused this problem, that led to this crisis, were in Washington, but State and local government are having to deal with the consequences. Property rights, contracts and foreclosure proceedings are all matters of State law, not Federal law. The laws vary from State to State, but every State's foreclosure law includes protections for the borrowers whose homes are being seized and sold to pay the mortgage. State laws have notice requirements. They provide reasonable time for the families who are losing their homes to find someplace else to live and to move; they limit the costs that they be charged to homeowners; they allow homeowners to cure defaults in some circumstances. Many States limit or prohibit deficiency judgments if the sale of the home is not enough to pay off the debt, and on and on. And several States, not surprisingly, are now considering additional laws to protect borrowers who are losing their homes to foreclosure. Recently, there has been some suggestion, some hint in the press and elsewhere that if State and local governments start getting underfoot, if they start making a nuisance of themselves, the lending industry will argue that some of the especially annoying State laws, State foreclosure proceedings cannot be applied to mortgage holders or mortgage services that are affiliated with national banks or trusts. There is no Federal foreclosure law, but they argue that State foreclosure proceedings could be preempted by Federal laws that govern national banks and trusts. This amendment clarifies that State laws and local ordinances on foreclosure and foreclosed properties are not preempted by Federal law.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. I will not consume much. I do want to applaud the work of the Science and Technology Committee on reauthorizing this program that has been remarkably effective. Fire is remarkably destructive, but we have made great strides under this program. In 1973, there were more than 6,000 Americans who died each year in fires, another hundred thousand were injured. Largely because of this program and the training and other support, we are now about to the point where about 16,000 a year are injured and between 3,000 and 3,500 die each year. That is obviously still too much, but is remarkable progress. And among the most dangerous work that anyone can do is fighting fires. The number of deaths each year among firefighters is a large number, and even more are injured every year. A great many firefighters never complete their term of service before qualifying for retirement because they suffer from disabling injuries. This bill does provide for additional training for fighting fires, particularly where wild areas come into contact or where urban areas and wildland areas meet. It helps training for fires that involve hazardous materials as well as giving advance training in emergency medical services. And it does, as Mr. Wu just pointed out a moment ago, provide for moving towards a voluntary consensus for firefighters' health and safety. This will help reduce that number of firefighters who die each year and who suffer from grievous injuries in doing very courageous work in protecting us and protecting our property.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am not overly concerned by what the courts ultimately decide executive privilege covers. The Bush administration's claim of executive privilege here goes well beyond any privilege ever recognized by any court decision, but the Republic can obviously survive a court decision on the narrow question of the exact extent of executive privilege. But, Madam Speaker, the courts must decide. The President cannot decide by decree. The President cannot announce with absolute, unreviewable authority what information the administration will provide or withhold. The Framers of our Constitution had just fought a war against an autocratic King. It is inconceivable that they intended to create an executive with the powers that the Bush administration now claims and that the minority now supports. For the entire history of our Republic, our courts have recognized that Congress needs information to carry out our constitutional duties, to decide what the laws should be, to decide what to appropriate Federal funds for, and that we cannot rely on information that is voluntarily, cheerfully provided. Congress must have the power to require information, including information that the President does not want to provide, that the President sees as inconvenient or embarrassing. We must inquire into the need for new laws. We must inquire into how existing laws are being administered. And the Supreme Court said half a century ago that Congress' investigative powers are never greater than when inquiring into abuse of authority or corruption by Federal Government agencies. Madam Speaker, the allegations here are very serious. Does the minority think that these are trivial allegations? Prosecutorial decisions cannot be used to reward political friends or punish enemies. Elections have consequences, Madam Speaker; but they should never have these consequences, not in America. Criminal prosecutions guided by political concerns are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. The two resolutions that we are considering will allow the courts to decide these questions of what information Congress can require in the discharge of our constitutional duties. It will allow important constitutional questions to be decided, as they should be decided in a democracy, by the courts.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this legislation may be interpreted to have the unintended consequence of changing the federal regulator governing Farm Credit System lenders, who as mortgage loan originators will be subject to the regulatory controls in this legislation. As H.R. 3915 progresses through Congress, I intend to work with my colleagues to ensure that any regulatory controls resulting from this legislation to Farm Credit System institutions are managed by their current federal regulator, the Farm Credit Administration.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I dearly wish that this bill was the one being described by so many people on the other side of the aisle. That sounds like a really tough bill. And this bill, I hope, will become tougher as we go along. I agree with many over there who said that they support the idea of homeownership and want to make sure that there is a mortgage market that lets people buy homes. Mr. Chairman, the mortgages we are talking about have nothing to do with homeownership. According to the mortgage bankers themselves, who oppose this bill, 72 percent of subprime loans are refinances, not purchase money mortgages. And only about one in 10 subprime loans is to buy a first home. Lehman Brothers says that 30 percent of the subprime loans entered last year will result in final foreclosure, a family being turned out on the streets by a sheriff because their home was sold at a foreclosure auction at the steps of the courthouse. Do the math. One subprime loan in 10 helps people buy a home, a first home, get into homeownership. Thirty percent will result in foreclosure. The loans that we need to get at, we need to prohibit, are costing Americans homeownership, not helping with homeownership. Now, several speakers have said that they think the consumers should make choices, there should be a variety of choices available to consumers. Sometimes they say this bill will shut down market innovation. Well, Americans are for innovation, Mr. Chairman, just as they are for reform. Americans are fundamentally reformers so politicians have figured out to call everything they do a ``reform,'' however obviously contrary to the public interest it is. And now American business has learned to call everything they do an ``innovation,'' regardless of how bad it hurts consumers. I can think of many wonderful innovations. When we think of an innovation, we think of a scientist in a lab coat coming up with new products. Mr. Chairman, I am now the age my father was when he died of a heart attack in 1965. There wasn't a thing we could do to help people with heart disease in 1965. But I am on a cholesterol medicine because I inherited from my father high cholesterol that I hope will allow me to outlive my father. I think that drug is an important innovation, and I am glad we made that innovation. Mr. Chairman, this necktie is an innovation. Ten years ago, you could not buy a silk necktie that was stain resistant. And for those folks like me who tend to miss their mouth from time to time, the cost in new neckties in any given year was hundreds of dollars. But this tie has a nanotechnology process that causes liquids to bead up and roll off rather than soak in and stain. This necktie is an important innovation to me. But what on Earth do we mean when we say that a mortgage is innovative? It means simply that there is no end to the variety of terms, there is a proliferation of indecipherable terms that are not designed to help consumers. Alan Greenspan called them ``exotic loans.'' Others have called them ``toxic loans.'' The innovation is not really about allowing consumers to tailor narrowly the loan they get to their specific circumstances. The late Ned Gramlich, a well-regarded former Federal Reserve Board governor, asked why was it that the riskiest loans were being sold to the least sophisticated consumers. It was a rhetorical question. He knew the answer. He knew those loans were being sold to people to take advantage of them, to separate from middle-class homeowners more and more of the equity in their home, to trap them in a cycle of having to borrow and borrow again, and every time they borrowed, losing more of the equity in their homes. Some of the other speakers have talked about the importance of refinancing out. Mr. Chairman, a mortgage system where people have to borrow money to pay off the mortgage they are in now is not a mortgage system that works.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. So a mortgage originator under this subparagraph, the one we were speaking of a moment ago, will get paid exactly the same in total compensation, including both the compensation paid by the borrower and the compensation paid by the lender, whether the interest rate is 6 or 8 or 10. Is that right?

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. And so any compensation paid by the lender will be backed out dollar for dollar from what the borrower had agreed to pay; is that correct?

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. I would now like to engage in a colloquy with Mr. Frank concerning this. And, Mr. Chairman, both Mr. Frank and I would deeply appreciate a slow gavel on this particular point. Mr. Frank, please direct your attention to the language at the bottom of page 5 of the manager's amendment, clarifying the prohibition against payments to loan originators that vary with the terms of the subprime mortgage, which, as Mr. Murphy of Connecticut has already pointed out, is an important antisteering provision. The abuse that the prohibition addresses is the payment by lenders to originators, most often brokers, known as a yield spread premium. Under widespread practice now, lenders pay brokers an additional percentage point in a yield spread premium for every additional half point in interest on the mortgage above the rate that the borrower qualified for. Although borrowers sign a piece of paper agreeing to the payment by the lender, the broker hands the borrower the paper and tells the borrower what the borrower is signing, and most borrowers never realize that the broker makes more money the more that the borrower pays for the mortgage. I agree with Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, that is a kickback. It is not a legitimate business practice. It needs to change. Mr. Frank, as I understand it, the clarifying language in the new subparagraph does not simply permit what the previous subparagraph forbids, but it is directed to limited circumstances and does not allow any additional total compensation for an originator. Just as a buyer may pay discount points at closing to buy down the interest rate over the life of the loan, subparagraph (B) allows a consumer to pay more in interest over the life of the loan in return for lower costs and fees at closing. Is that correct?

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to correct something I said earlier today. Earlier today I said the Mortgage Bankers Association was opposed to this bill. That is not correct. They do not support the bill. In a letter dated today, they outlined four areas of major concern with the bill, but they did not oppose the bill. They did not support the bill, but they did not oppose it. So what I said earlier today, it was incorrect.