Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise on behalf of Ranking Member Spencer Bachus, the minority in opposition, strong opposition, to H.R. 5510.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The American people have rightly demanded an end to the bailouts, but this outgoing Democratic majority just can't seem to let go. Just this past October, Secretary Geithner put out a lengthy report proclaiming the expiration of TARP, but it seems that the $700 billion bailout isn't quite dead yet.

Just a week away from Christmas Eve, the Democratic majority is today attempting to bring the bailout back to life for the sole purpose of showering taxpayer money on community groups that provide legal assistance. The premises of reopening TARP for this purpose is troubling enough, but perhaps even worse is that we are bypassing any form of regular order to consider this this morning.

We first received the text of this language, which is substantially different from the introduced version, at 9 a.m. this morning. No hearings were held on this legislation. No subcommittee or full committee markup. No CBO score has been produced. We have yet to receive any feedback whatsoever from the Department of Housing and Urban Development or from the President.

We have heard that there's a letter of support, but simply the letter we've received from the Treasury is one outlining why they can't do it. In fact, there's been newspaper articles about how Secretary Geithner has blocked this from occurring. In fact, the General Counsel recently wrote that the proposed legal aid services are not necessary to the implementation or effectiveness of the hardest hit fund because Congress has provided other specific appropriations that funded the same type of legal aid processes or services proposed by the State and Federal; that legal aid services are not necessary or essential to the implementation of a loan modification program. The case has not been made that there are inadequate resources for legal assistance.

The American people expect better.

The legislation before us today could conceivably result in billions of taxpayer dollars being pumped into community groups similar to the now defunct ACORN. That was not the purpose of the hardest-hit housing market's program nor was it contemplated by the original emergency TARP bailout. Even Treasury Secretary Geithner agrees with that point. TARP was designed to return all unspent funds directly to the taxpayer so that legislative efforts like today's wouldn't be possible. In theory, this legislation could prevent more than $7 billion from being returned to the taxpayers.

Our goal should be to return as much taxpayer money to the taxpayer, not to invent new ways to make sure that we spend it. TARP was not designed to be a perpetual slush fund.

The drafters of the 2008 TARP clearly understood how tempting it would be to have a $700 billion pot of money lying around, so they installed a firm expiration date for the program. That hasn't stopped this majority from attempting to use the emergency stabilization money for other purposes; but today's poorly crafted, non-vetted, redundant, duplicative, and perhaps unnecessary bailout is particularly egregious due to the process they followed.

I urge my colleagues to reject this suspension, and if additional legal assistance moneys are required, go through regular order to prove it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts pointing out my good soldiering here, but there are certain things that I do know are facts, and that is: Taxpayers are already paying for legal services for the impoverished. It's the Legal Services Corporation. And the appropriation for this year, at least as it currently is listed, is $440 million.

Perhaps what we're saying here is using the TARP fund as the vehicle and keeping TARP alive is the wrong process here. Perhaps this isn't a TARP or financial services issue. The right way is an appropriation issue.

If the majority is upset that there is not enough money going to legal services for the poor, whether it's for foreclosures or other legal issues, the right path would be addressing the Appropriations Committee and asking for additional funds within an already existing process.

Committee staff is not aware of whether or not Geithner has now said he is in favor of this bill. We don't know of any conversations, but we have no doubt to disagree with the gentleman from Massachusetts' statement that he has had conversations. We've heard about a letter, but we only have one dated September 13.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

No, and I said I don't doubt your word. I said that.

What we have here is a September 13 letter, but we've also heard that there is another letter, or maybe we are talking about the same letter.

And reclaiming my time, that's the reason for our opposition here.

The Treasury Department--it wasn't Republicans. It was their own administration and the Cabinet Member, Mr. Geithner, that said TARP doesn't have the powers to be a legal aid fund, so it takes them to have to change this.

I kind of heard both things here, that if the administration was agreeing to this or saying that this was the right thing for TARP or that they had the powers, why was this bill even necessary? But let's say TARP was necessary, or this bill is necessary, because, as Geithner said in the September 13 letter, they don't have the power. So now, 2 years after the fact, they want to change TARP to become a legal aid fund.

I was part of the group that held out our votes because we wanted to make sure that this wasn't going to be a fund that was going to be continuously used, that every dollar that was going to be spent had the opportunity to be recouped so that the taxpayers at the end would not be out any dollars. This changes the whole philosophy of TARP for many people that voted for it.

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, September 13, 2010.

Hon. Mary Jo Kilroy,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Kilroy: I am writing in response to

your recent inquiries about the Housing Finance Agency

Innovation Fund for the Hardest-Hit Housing Markets (the

``HFA Hardest-Hit Fund''). As you know, we designed the Fund

to support new and innovative foreclosure prevention efforts

in states--such as Ohio--that have been hardest hit by

housing price declines and high unemployment rates. I share

your strong commitment to maximizing the impact of the HFA

Hardest-Hit Fund and to helping responsible Americans keep

their homes.

I also understand your interest in whether the HFA Hardest-

Hit Fund can support legal aid services proposed by state

HFAs. It is critically important that struggling American

families receive accurate and helpful advice about how to

take advantage of the Administration's housing relief

efforts. Accordingly, I asked George Madison, the General

Counsel of the Treasury Department, to review the issue

closely. Mr. Madison has concluded that legal aid services

cannot be funded through programs such as the HFA Hardest-Hit

Fund that are authorized under the Emergency Economic

Stabilization Act of 2008 (``EESA''). I have enclosed a

detailed memorandum that analyzes the legal issues and

statutory limitations.

Thank you for your attention to these critical issues.

Although we cannot use EESA funds to support legal aid

services, we are fully committed to working with you to

ensure that the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund successfully provides

targeted aid to struggling homeowners and encourages

innovative solutions to the housing downturn.

Sincerely,

Timothy F. Geithner,

Secretary of the Treasury.

Enclosure.

Department of the Treasury,

Washington, DC, September 10, 2010.

Memorandum for Secretary Geithner

FROM: George W. Madison, General Counsel

SUBJECT: Funding of Legal Aid Services in connection with

the Housing Finance Agency Innovation Fund for the Hardest

Hit Housing Markets

This memorandum addresses whether the Department of the

Treasury (``Treasury'') can support certain proposed legal

aid services using Troubled Asset Relief Program (``TARP'')

funds in connection with the Housing Finance Agency

Innovation Fund for the Hardest Hit Housing Markets (``FIFA

Hardest-Hit Fund'').

We understand that you intend to share this memorandum with

Members of Congress.

I. Summary Conclusion.

For the reasons discussed below, we have concluded that

legal aid services cannot be funded through programs such as

the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund that are funded under the Emergency

Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (``EESA''). Legal aid

services are not specifically authorized under EESA. In

addition, the proposed legal aid services are not necessary

and incidental, as a matter of law, to the implementation or

effectiveness of the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund, because: (1)

Congress has provided other specific appropriations that fund

the same type of legal aid services proposed by the state

Housing Finance Agencies (``HFAs''); and (2) legal aid

services are not necessary or essential to the implementation

of a loan modification program.

II. Factual Background.

Treasury has provided funding under EESA for the HFA

Hardest-Hit Fund for measures developed by state HFAs to help

homeowners in the states that have been hardest hit by the

housing downturn. Treasury has designated the HFA Hardest-Hit

Fund specifically for implementation in eighteen states, as

well as the District of Columbia. Each applicable state HFA

(or an eligible entity on its behalf) has developed a range

of programs tailored to the needs of its individual state and

has submitted funding requests to Treasury. Proposal

submission guidelines instruct the eligible state HFAs that

the proposed programs must ``meet the requirements of EESA.''

Staff members from several eligible HFAs have expressed an

interest in funding certain types of counseling and/or legal

aid services. Accordingly, they requested Treasury's views on

the funding of these types of services. In response, we

communicated--through a law firm engaged by Treasury to

assist it with the implementation of the HFA Hardest-Hit

Fund--our conclusion that certain limited counseling services

are eligible for funding under EESA, but that the proposed

legal aid services are not eligible. This memorandum

describes Treasury's legal position in further detail.

III. Legal Analysis.

As a general matter, government funds may be used only for

their intended purpose. EESA does not expressly authorize

payments for legal aid services. Section 101 of EESA

authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase

``troubled assets from any financial institution.'' And

109(a) authorizes the Secretary to use ``loan guarantees and

credit enhancements to facilitate loan modifications to

prevent avoidable foreclosures.'' Consistent with this

authority, Treasury has specified that FIFA Hardest-Hit Fund

proposals must facilitate loan modifications using credit

enhancements in the form of payments to loan servicers,

investors, and borrowers.

EESA does not cite, much less authorize, spending for legal

aid services. However, appropriations law does not require

that all government expenditures must be specifically or

expressly identified by Congress. It is well-settled that

when Congress makes an appropriation for an expressly-stated

purpose, it also authorizes by implication expenditures that

are ``necessary or incident to'' the implementation of the

expressly stated purpose.

The Comptroller General of the United States has held that

three factors must be considered when determining whether a

federal government expense is necessary or incidental--as a

matter of law--to the implementation of the object of an

appropriation (in this case, the implementation of a mortgage

modification program under EESA). All three factors must be

satisfied.

First, the expenditure must be ``reasonably related to the

purposes for which the appropriation was made.'' Second, the

expenditure ``must not be prohibited by law.'' And third, the

expenditure ``must not fall specifically within the scope of

some other category of appropriations''--in other words, the

expenditures are only authorized if they have not been

provided for more specifically by some other appropriation or

statutory funding scheme. The last requirement applies even

if the more appropriate funding source is exhausted and

therefore unavailable. If a federal agency funds an activity

under a broad appropriation, despite the fact that the

activity been specifically funded by another appropriation,

the agency would violate the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C.

Sec. 1341).''

In our view, the expenditure of EESA funds for legal aid

services under the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund is prohibited,

because it does not satisfy the third factor of the

Comptroller General's test. Congress has otherwise

appropriated federal funds for the same types of legal aid

services proposed by the state HFAs. This conclusion, by

itself, is dispositive and means the proposals cannot be

funded under the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund.

In addition, we have concerns about whether the HFA

proposals satisfy the first factor of the Comptroller

General's test. Although the precise legal standard governing

this factor is unclear, numerous opinions require a close

nexus to a specific statutory purpose--i.e., that

expenditures be ``necessary'' or ``essential.'' We recognize

that typical legal aid services, such as those proposed by

the various state HFAs, are reasonably related to foreclosure

prevention efforts generally. However, we do not believe they

are necessary or essential to loan modification programs

under the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund.

A. Legal Aid Services Fall Specifically within the Scope of

Another Appropriation.

The third factor of the Comptroller General's test

prohibits the payment of any expenses if another

appropriation ``makes more specific provision for such

expenditures. In this case, the question is whether the legal

aid services proposed by the state HFAs fall within the scope

of other existing appropriations.

The answer is yes. Congress has specifically provided funds

for legal aid services through annual appropriations to the

Legal Services Corporation (the ``LSC''). The LSC uses

appropriated funds to make grants to non-profit legal aid

programs, which in turn offer legal services to low-income

individuals and families. Those services include helping

``homeowners prevent foreclosures or renegotiate their

loans.''

Moreover, Congress recently authorized legal aid

specifically related to foreclosure prevention efforts. On

July 21, 2010, the President signed into law the Dodd-Frank

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No.

111-517 (2010) (the ``Dodd-Frank Act''):

Section 1498 of the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes HUD to

establish and administer a program that funds foreclosure

legal assistance to low- and moderate-income homeowners and

tenants related to home ownership preservation, home

foreclosure prevention, and tenancy associated with home

foreclosure;

Section 1498(d)(1) requires that the legal assistance only

be provided to ``homeowners of owner-occupied homes with

mortgages in default, in danger of default, or subject to or

at risk of foreclosure;'' and

Section 1498(f) appropriates to the Secretary of HUD $70

million for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 ($35 million each

year) for these legal aid grants.

In short, Congress already has funded legal aid services

through existing appropriations and statutory funding

schemes. Accordingly, we believe that providing additional

funding for legal aid services under the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund

would be contrary to opinions of the Comptroller General and

it might violate the Anti-Deficiency Act.

B. Legal Aid Services May Not Constitute a ``Necessary

Expense.''

The first factor of the Comptroller General's test requires

that necessary and incidental expenses must be ``reasonably

related to the purposes for which the appropriation was

made.'' As previously noted, we are not relying upon this

analysis, because the HFAs' legal aid proposals clearly do

not satisfy the third factor of the Comptroller General's

test. Nonetheless, various Members of Congress and other

interested parties have raised questions related to this

issue. Therefore, we have considered it and concluded that

the legal standard may not be satisfied.

Despite a ``vast number of decisions over the decades,''

the Comptroller General has not applied the first prong of

its test in a clear and consistent manner.'' Instead, the

Comptroller General has used a variety of different

formulations when discussing the standard. ``If one lesson

emerges, it is that the concept is a relative one.''

Nonetheless, in numerous opinions, the Comptroller General

has required a close nexus between a specific express

statutory purpose and any proposed expenditures--ie., the

expenditures must be ``necessary'' or ``essential.''

In this case, legal aid services may be reasonably related

to foreclosure prevention efforts generally; however, they

are not necessary or essential to running a loan modification

program. Typically, legal aid lawyers who represent

struggling homeowners perform a variety of functions, other

than just negotiating mortgage modifications. For example,

legal aid lawyers represent borrowers in arbitration

proceedings against their lenders; file injunctions and

bankruptcy petitions to prevent foreclosure sales; and, when

foreclosure sales occur, file exceptions proceedings in state

court.

Notably, the HFAs' legal aid proposals do not focus on

obtaining modifications under the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund or

under Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program

(``HAMP'' ). Instead, they fall within two general

categories: using EESA funds to pay lawyers to

represent distressed borrowers in state foreclosure

proceedings, or using funds to provide general support to

legal aid programs related to foreclosure prevention.

Given the breadth of the proposals, legal aid services

frequently would result in outcomes other than loan

modifications. Accordingly, they are not--by definition--

necessary or essential to loan modification programs under

the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund. Moreover, even if the HFAs'

proposals were more targeted, most borrowers can obtain

modifications without traditional legal services. That is,

there is no need for representation in court proceedings,

no requirement to file papers or cite legal authorities,

and no need to negotiate contracts (because the

modifications are standardized).

We recognize that some Comptroller General opinions suggest

that expenditures merely need to be ``reasonably related'' or

``contribute materially'' to an authorized statutory purpose.

Here, one could argue that a general statutory purpose of

EESA is to prevent foreclosures and that any expenditures

reasonably related to that purpose are permissible. We

believe that such an interpretation sweeps too broadly. It

would authorize an almost unlimited number and variety of

government expenditure--ie., anything that is reasonably

related to preventing foreclosures. It also would render

meaningless the express provisions in EESA that together

provide authority for the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund: Section 101

authorizes the Secretary to purchase ``troubled assets from

any financial institution,'' and 109(a) authorizes the

Secretary to use ``loan guarantees and credit enhancements to

facilitate loan modifications to prevent avoidable

foreclosures.'' Lastly, such an interpretation would be

contrary to how Treasury has implemented EESA.

C. Certain Limited Intake and Follow-Up Services Are Eligible

for EESA Funding.

Finally, it is instructive to compare the HFAs' legal aid

proposals to the much narrower intake and follow-up services

related to TARP-funded modifications that are provided by

homeowner counseling agencies. We previously have concluded

that these services satisfy the Comptroller General's test

and are eligible for EESA funding.

Most HFAs have submitted proposals to Treasury that include

services narrowly tailored to obtaining modifications under

the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund programs, such as: (i) making

prequalification assessments of eligibility and submitting

the qualified applications to the HFAs; (ii) obtaining

supporting documentation from the borrowers and providing it

to the HFAs; (iii) ensuring that borrowers execute the

necessary documents for HFA Hardest-Hit Fund programs; (iv)

conducting post-closing meetings with borrowers receiving

assistance to ensure that they are complying with the HFA

Hardest-Hit Fund programs; and/or (v) verifying the steps

that the borrower has taken to find a job.

In contrast to legal aid, these particular services do not

fall within the scope of other existing appropriations.

Moreover, they are ``necessary'' and ``essential'' to running

a mortgage modification program, within the meaning of the

Comptroller General opinions. The HFAs have represented that

in the absence of intake and follow-up services, both the

number of applicants and the number of approved participants

will be materially smaller. These services are necessary for

many borrowers to participate in the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund

programs, and it will be very difficult for many of these

programs to run effectively without such services. In

addition, intake and follow-up services are directly related

to the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund programs. They will neither be

available to nor assist applicants to other, non-TARP funded

programs.

IV. Conclusion.

We recognize that legal aid services--such as representing

a borrower in court to avoid a foreclosure, or advising a

borrower about his or her legal rights--may be helpful to

preventing foreclosures. However, EESA does not expressly

authorize payments for such services, and Congress has

provided other federal funds for the same types of services

proposed by the HFAs. Moreover, unlike the specific

counseling services that HFAs have proposed, legal aid

services are not necessary or essential to the implementation

of the particular HFA Hardest-Hit Fund programs, within the

meaning of the Comptroller General opinions. For all these

reasons, Treasury has determined that legal aid services are

not eligible for EESA funding from the HFA Hardest-Hit Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We were referring to the gentlelady from Ohio's statement on the floor that she has a letter saying that they support this. We have not seen a letter that says that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) who was actually a sponsor of the bill.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The point here is there's an appropriate vehicle and this isn't it. We already have taxpayers paying into legal services. Perhaps there should have been more money in there, but we didn't go through an appropriations process for this area this year. That was the majority's decision here. We can have this argument and debate, but that's the proper course here. And it needs to go through regular service. This is not.

Enough is enough. My friend from Ohio is right, enough is enough. Let's let TARP die. We want it gone. It served its purpose. Let's not keep it alive. Let's use the appropriate ways to do this, which is Legal Services Corporation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I salute the ``good soldier'' attitude of my friend from Nebraska. In the absence of any member on the Financial Services Committee, he agreed to stand up and read what was written. He has no way of knowing how silly it is. Nobody explained to him how inaccurate it was.

For example, he says this has not gone through regular order. It is, in fact, exactly the same legislative language that was debated, amended and adopted in the House Financial Services Committee and then in conference during financial reform. It is exactly that.

There is language in here that the gentlewoman from Ohio sensibly agreed to that makes it clear that organizations that have been convicted of criminal abuses can't be here, that only genuine legal services organizations can get this money and that there can be no class actions. It was carefully done. It's not the gentleman's fault. He wasn't there. I wish the people who had been there had told him that.

This is the legislative language taken from a bill that went through the full legislative procedure and passed the House. In fact, there was a change because we told the gentlewoman from Ohio, who has been very diligent in this regard, that we thought it was best precisely to avoid that kind of argument and to take the language that had already been adopted in the committee, in the conference and on the floor of the House.

Secondly, we are told it's going to cost extra money. No, it will not. In fact, it could save money. In the language that the House passed and the conference committee passed, we authorized $35 million for exactly this purpose.

What the gentlewoman from Ohio is proposing is that we take money that has already been voted under the TARP and use it for that. The gentleman has been asked to characterize it as a ``slush fund.'' Hardheartedness has rarely come so close to the Christmas season. This slush fund is to go to working Americans who bought homes and who are facing foreclosure. Frankly, we were reasonably certain of this when we passed this earlier this year, but we now know there have been serious legal problems with the foreclosures. Some of them are merely paperwork. Others we have seen are documented abuses.

You are a homeowner in trouble. You have the legal teams coming at you from the lenders, from the servicers and others. You cannot yourself afford a lawyer. You're having trouble meeting your mortgage payment.

What we say is, We will give you access to a lawyer--not in the offensive way. There is no class action here. There is no legal suit that can be brought against the lenders. There maybe should be.

This says, I'm being foreclosed. I don't think I should be foreclosed. They made a mistake. I paid that mortgage; or I got a modification. Somebody forgot it.

All we're asking is, Can we take some money that has already been voted and let that person have a lawyer to go to court--a legal services lawyer, vetted by the local bar association--to defend him?

To the Republican Party, that's a slush fund. I am appalled. I am appalled at the insensitivity and at the cruelty.

By the way, I voted for the TARP money, along with Mr. Boehner, the incoming Speaker. They did it at the

request of President Bush. As for the bailouts they keep flailing about, every single bailout that exists in America today was initiated by President George Bush, every single one--AIG, the TARP, the automobiles. It was George Bush who did it, and George Bush, after the election conveniently, said that it was the TARP that saved the economy from the consequences, I think, of mistakes that had been made during his Presidency. So that's the bailout they are talking about.

What we are saying is this:

We put an end to any new money. Given existing money, given the clear documentation that there have been abuses and errors and even, in some cases, fraud in the foreclosure process--although, in some cases, they were just paperwork errors--this is for beleaguered homeowners who are trying to save their homes, who are trying to keep themselves and their families from being kicked out the of their homes in case there was a mistake at legal assistance. If everything is in order, the lawyers can't save them.

What we are saying is, given what has been documented, let's take some of the money that has already been voted in the TARP--that's right. It has no CBO score--and put it there.

Secretary Geithner told me personally that he supports this. I'm sorry the letter isn't here yet, but I think Members will accept the fact that I'm telling the truth when I tell you that I spoke to the Secretary and showed him what we were doing, and he supports it. The language has gone through the full legislative process. It is language taken from the bill.

I hope we will pass this and also have the $35 million. This is for the hardest-hit States, the States that have had the worst impact. The $35 million could then be used for the other States. But again, a slush fund? It's a slush fund that can't go to ACORN. I know ACORN is a real focus for them.

It, of course, validates the old saying: Great obsessions from tiny acorns grow.

So every time we try to help any poor people with legal assistance so they are not faced with the unfair situation of being outgunned by an array of lawyers and they don't have any lawyers themselves to defend them, ACORN gets it. ACORN can't get this money on a number of grounds. There can't be class action suits.

If there is a homeowner who is convinced that he or she is being unfairly foreclosed upon and could document errors, should that person be denied legal assistance from money already voted at the request of George Bush and with the support of Mitch McConnell and with the support of the incoming Speaker and with the support of the incoming majority leader? Should they not be able to use it?

I wish this weren't partisan. People tell me, Why are things partisan?

I wish things weren't partisan. I wish I could eat more and not gain weight. I wish a lot of things.

We are here on a partisan situation because what ought to be obvious is that money already appropriated, knowing as we do that there have been abuses in the foreclosure process, ought to be available to appoint genuine lawyers to defend people. By the way, do you know legal services lawyers? They're among the most dedicated people you'll find. These people could be making far more money in private practice, but they're there to help out.

They're restricted. There can't be class action suits. They can't go to a general organization that does legal work. They have to go to a genuine legal services organization, which are often, in my case, always supervised by the State bar association--and it is a slush fund.

You know, I can understand some differences of opinion, but to demean it this way--to call it a ``slush fund''--to deny ownership of the bailout, which was, of course, a Republican administration policy and to characterize it that way, all we are saying is money already voted could be made available for genuine legal assistance to help people who are facing unfair foreclosures so they can go to court.

The point is that we get this demeaning characterization. You know, we are supposed to be proud of our system of justice. We are not talking about giving anybody a free pass. What we are saying is working people who are facing foreclosure ought to be able to get to court on, not equal terms with the lenders and the large organizations opposing them, but with some bare minimum of representation--and that's a slush fund. That's a political trick.

I am very disappointed. We had real hopes that we could get some agreement on this. Everybody acknowledges that there have been abuses in the foreclosure process. We know there are people who can't afford lawyers. It will not cost the taxpayers any money. This is money that will be used elsewhere. It's a diversion from money that was otherwise going to be used in the TARP. It doesn't reopen the TARP. I hope it will add to the $35 million we hope we can get. It has been vetted through the legislative process. The gentlewoman from Ohio, who has been a great crusader on behalf of people in this situation, accepted our suggestion that she take the language that has already been voted on in the House.

So I am disappointed, but I hope that party discipline will not prevail on the Republican side. People--particularly from those States, Ohio, California, Indiana, and Florida, where they are particularly hard hit, but everybody, because everybody will benefit if we can increase this pool--will say something that's apparently terribly radical to my Republican friends. Let's let members of legal assistance operations, supervised by their bar associations, subject to their supreme courts and the State's supervision, go to court to defend someone facing an array of high-priced legal talent when they know that they are being foreclosed upon illegally and inappropriately.

And that is apparently a terrible thing to the Republican Party. I am, as I say, appalled. I hope that a sense of fairness will somehow prevail and we can pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, the letter is on the way. I state, as a matter of fact, that I personally spoke to Secretary Geithner and he told me, as I explained it, that he supports it.

Does the gentleman doubt my word?

The letter you are talking about is one in which he says he doesn't have the legal authority to do it. This bill gives him the legal authority. There is no conflict. This bill now is a response to that letter. And I repeat that he has said that he is in favor of getting the legal authority to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Well, apparently the gentleman from Nebraska, having denounced those bailouts, now tells us he voted for it. So it's confession time before the House. He apparently voted for the measure that he characterizes as a ``bailout'' that was such an imposition.

Secondly, I have never heard anything more confusing than this discussion of the letters. Yes, the Secretary wrote and said, I don't now have the authority. And we then said, Okay. We will give you the authority.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

I know you haven't seen the letter. I told her that the Secretary told me the letter is coming. The letter is now being cleared by OMB. So we don't have the letter yet--the letter has been written--but I can tell you the Secretary says he wants it.

The gentleman's discussion of the letter is totally confused--and confusing, as a consequence.

Yes, there was a letter saying we don't now have the authority. This gives them the authority, which they welcome. Secondly, this does not extend the TARP at all. This does not extend the TARP in any way. And as to getting repaid, there is legislation that we added to the TARP that requires that at the end of the TARP program, 5 years from the date of it, 2013, the President must submit to us legislation that gives us a way to get it back from the financial services industry.

So, yes, this will be repaid to the taxpayer by the financial services industry. By the way, the TARP is now down to a total of 25. This does not add $1 or 1 day to the TARP, either in its lifetime or in its funding.

The gentleman said, well, there is money in legal services. Yes. The legal services appropriation last year was passed before we understood the extent of the mistake, the fraud, and the abuse in the foreclosure process. That is exactly right. The $400 million in legal services did not anticipate what we have since learned about abuses in the foreclosure process.

Finally, the gentleman said do it through the appropriation. We have done that as well. We have asked for $35 million additional. By the way, this is not extra money. The appropriations would be additional money. But I will look forward to their support when that happens.

Mr. Speaker, I would now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kilroy).

How much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to one of the single most effective fighters against unfair foreclosures on our committee and among the leaders in the Nation, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following letter from

the Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner to Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur:

Department of the Treasury

Washington, DC, December 17, 2010.

Hon. Marcy Kaptur,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Kaptur: I am writing in support of your

proposed legislation, the ``Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure

Act of 2010'', H.R. 5510, as amended for consideration under

suspension of the Rules.

This legislation would permit the funding of legal aid and

other services to struggling homeowners through the Housing

Finance Agency Innovation Fund for the Hardest-Hit Housing

Markets program (``Hardest-Hit Fund''). Under current law,

funds available under the Emergency Economic Stabilization

Act of 2008, which are being used to finance the Hardest-Hit

Fund, cannot be used for legal aid services. If the

legislation is enacted, I believe Treasury would have the

authority to approve proposals for Hardest-Hit Fund monies

that were Previously allocated to states to be used for legal

aid services to homeowners.

I appreciate your ongoing commitment to this critical

issue.

Madam Speaker, I missed the following votes from Friday, December 17 through Wednesday, December 22, 2010. I would have voted ``yes'' on the following votes:

Friday:

H.J. Res. 105--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey--Appropriations) (Voice vote)

1. H. Res. 1377--Honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshio Mineta (Representative Honda--House Administration)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1107--To enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts'' (Representative Conyers--Judiciary)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 628--To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges (Representative Issa-- Judiciary)

4. H. Res. 1733--Recognizing Mark Twain as one of America's most famous literary icons on the 175th anniversary of his birth and the 100th anniversary of his death (Representative Snyder--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. H. Res. 1621--Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the historic founding of Catholic Charities USA (Representative Holt--Oversight and Government Reform)

6. H. Res. 1767--Commending the Wisconsin Badger football team for an outstanding season and 2011 Rose Bowl bid (Representative Baldwin-- Education and Labor)

7. H. Con. Res. 335--Honoring the exceptional achievements of Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and recognizing the monumental contributions he has made to United States national security, humanitarian causes, and peaceful resolutions of international conflict (Representative Lowey--Foreign Affairs)

8. S. 3874--Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act (Senator Boxer-- Energy and Commerce)

9. H.R. 6533--To implement the recommendations of the Federal Communications Commission report to the Congress regarding low-power FM service (Representative Doyle--Energy and Commerce)

10. H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

11. H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act of 2009 (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform)

12. H.R. 5510--Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act of 2010 (Representative Kaptur--Financial Services)

Tuesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5116--America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Representative Gordon--Science and Technology)(228-130)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2142--Government Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Performance Improvement Act (Representative Cuellar--Oversight and Government Reform) (216-139)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2751--FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (Representatives Waxman/Dingell--Energy and Commerce) (215-144)

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3082--Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Obey-- Appropriations) (193-165)

1. S. 3592--A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 100 Commerce Drive in Tyrone, Georgia, as the ``First Lieutenant Robert Wilson Collins Post Office Building'' (Senator Chambliss--Oversight and Government Reform)

2. Senate Amendment to H.R. 81--Shark Conservation Act (Representative Bordallo--Natural Resources)

3. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5809--Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2010 (Representative Inslee--Energy and Commerce)

4. H.R. 6540--To require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess (Representative Inslee--Armed Services)

5. H.R. 6547--To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to require criminal background checks for school employees (Representative George Miller--Education and Labor)

6. S. 118--Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act (Senator Kohl--Financial Services)

7. S. 1481--Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act (Senator Menendez--Financial Services)

8. S. 3243--Anti-Border Corruption Act of 2010 (Senator Pryor/ Representative Shuler--Homeland Security)

9. S. 2925--Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2010 (Senator Wyden--Judiciary)

10. Senate Amendment to H.R. 4748--Northern Border Counternarcotics Strategy Act of 2010 (Representative Owens--Judiciary)

11. Senate Amendment to H.R. 1746--Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2009 (Representative Oberstar--Transportation and Infrastructure)

Wednesday:

Motion to Concur in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 847--James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act (Representative Maloney--Energy and Commerce)(206-60)

Bills Adopted By Unanimous Consent (13):

1. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6523--Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Representative Skelton--Armed Services)

2. S. 3481--Amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Federal responsibility for stormwater pollution (Senator Cardin--Transportation and Infrastructure)

3. House Amendment to S. 372--Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (Senator Akaka--Oversight and Government Reform)

4. H. Res. 1461--Supporting Olympic Day on June 23, 2010, and congratulating Team USA and World Fit participants (Representative Langevin--Oversight and Government Reform)

5. S. 4036--A bill to clarify the National Credit Union Administration authority to make stabilization fund expenditures without borrowing from the Treasury (Senator Dodd--Financial Services)

6. S. Con. Res. 67--A concurrent resolution celebrating 130 years of United States-Romanian diplomatic relations, congratulating the Romanian people on their achievements as a great nation, and reaffirming the deep bonds of trust and values between the United States and Romania, a trusted and most valued ally (Senator Voinovich-- Foreign Affairs)

7. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6560--Removal Clarification Act of 2010 (Representative Hank Johnson--Judiciary)

8. H. Res. 1779--Honoring the 50th anniversary of the Freedom Riders (Representative John Lewis (GA)--Judiciary)

9. Senate Amendment to H.R. 5901--Real Estate Jobs and Investment Act of 2010 (Representative Joe Crowley--Ways & Means)

10. H. Res. 1783--Technical Correction to H. Res. 1757 (Representative Brady (PA)--House Administration)

11. S. 4058--Helping Heroes Keep Their Homes Act of 2010 (Senator Kerry--Veterans' Affairs)

12. S. 3903--To authorize leases of up to 99 years for lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo (Senator Udall--Natural Resources)

13. Senate Amendment to H.R. 6517--To extend trade adjustment assistance and certain trade preference programs, to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, and for other purposes (Representative Levin-- Ways and Means)

Thank you very much to my dear colleague, Congressman Capuano of Massachusetts, for yielding me this time in support of moving today H.R. 5510, the Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act, which merely allows technical clarification language to existing legislation. No authorization of funding or any expansion of existing funding is included in this bill.

I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their support and for bringing this forth today. In particular, I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Congressman Steve LaTourette for their ongoing efforts on behalf of homeowners facing foreclosure.

Ohio is among those States labeled as the hardest hit in our Nation by the foreclosure and economic crisis, along with 18 other States. These states receive what is called ``hardest hit'' assistance funds.

Ohio, among other States, wants the discretion to use a small amount of its existing funds under existing authorities to support legal advice through not-for-profit legal organizations to individual families facing foreclosure. However, Treasury interpreted that existing law didn't allow that. That is why we are here today--to clarify that, in fact, citizens of our Nation who are single-family homeowners do have the right to proper legal advice in such critical mortgage workout proceedings that affect their equity, that affect their family's home and their future.

Millions of people have faced foreclosure across our Nation. Far too many are losing their homes without proper, necessary legal representation. Many even have no idea that they have legal standing in such property proceedings. At such a critical and emotional moment in a family's life, legal advice can help a family find the outcome that works best for them in a foreclosure proceeding. In today's very complex mortgage proceedings, it becomes daunting for affected homeowners to gain the legal advice necessary to navigate the increasingly complex world of distant banks and courts, which often are much more easily navigated by the mortgagor. And certainly the mortgagee should have similar legal rights as well.

We appreciate the fact that the Treasury is sending a letter of support in furtherance of our efforts. Thus, I introduce this legislation as a legislative fix, H.R. 5510. For those States already receiving hardest hit funds, H.R. 5510 increases the State's ability to serve only single-family owner-occupied units that are facing default, delinquency, foreclosure, deed in lieu, or

short sale by permitting, if the State so chooses, to use hardest hit funds to support legal services offered by not-for-profit legal aid organizations.

In sum, the bill does not require States to use funds to support legal aid or services. So there's no requirement. This language is only permissive. The bill does not permit funds to be used for class action lawsuits. It only applies to single-family owner-occupied units. The bill does not permit any organizations like ACORN or others that are not not-for-profit legal assistance groups to receive funding. Further, the bill does not take money away from any State that is already administering its funds. And the bill actually will help relieve pressure on the States that are not hardest hit as other funding becomes available in related housing programs in the future.

So, let me be clear. There's no new money involved here. This is only giving the hardest hit States a new tool, if they so choose to use it, to fight foreclosures in their States and give proper legal standing to all parties involved. Nothing could be more important than allowing families facing foreclosure to be afforded proper legal assistance to rework their loan where that is possible.

Please support passage of H.R. 5510, the Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, December 14, I requested and received a leave of absence for December 16 and December 17, 2010.

For the information of our colleagues and my constituents, below is how I would have voted on the following votes I missed during this time period.

On rollcall 640, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 841, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 641, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 3860, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 642, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 3447, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 643, Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, H. Res. 1766, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 644, On Agreeing to the Resolution, H. Res. 1766, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 645, On Motion to Suspend the rules and pass S. 987, To protect girls in developing countries through the prevention of child marriage, and for other purposes, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 646, On Agreeing to the Levin Agreement, H.R. 4863, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 647, On Motion to Concur in the Senate Amdt to the House to the Senate Amendment H.R. 4853, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 648, Honoring the accomplishments of Norman Yoshino Mineta, H. Res. 1377, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 649, An act to enact certain laws relating to public contracts as title 41, United States Code, ``Public Contracts'', H.R. 1107, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 650, Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, H.R. 6523, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 651, An act to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges, H.R. 628, I would have voted ``no.''

On rollcall 652, Providing for the sine die adjournment of the second session of the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H. Con. Res. 336, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 653, Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2011, H. Res. 1776, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 654, GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, H.R. 2142, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 655, Aiding Those Facing Foreclosure Act of 2010, H.R. 5510, I would have voted ``yes.''

On rollcall 656, Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, S. 3874, I would have voted ``yes.''