Floor Statements

I thank the floor manager, Judge Hastings, for his kindness.

And I only rise to thank Dr. Foxx for her appreciation and pointing out to me one thing that we have added now to the manager's amendment, and that is the requirement of studies by the Government Accountability Office and other agencies, including the Office of Comptroller of Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. She appreciated that in the Rules Committee, I'm sure she does now, and I thank her for that important contribution.

And I would yield to her.

Absolutely.

She is giving me further instructions, so I'll see what I can do between now and the time we introduce the manager's amendment.

Mr. Chair, Title I of H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, is based in part on H.R. 200, legislation approved by the Judiciary Committee last month to give families whose home mortgage is in distress a better opportunity to come to terms with their lender on workable payment terms--more realistically based on current market interest rates and current home market values.

Because the provisions in title I of this bill differ in a number of respects from H.R. 200 as reported, and differ further with the adoption of the manager's amendment, I am inserting in the Record a section-by-section analysis of this bill, as a further supplement to the legislative history in the floor debate today and last week, and in the hearings and committee report for H.R. 200.

H.R. 1106, the ``Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009,''

Section-by-Section Explanation (as Amended by the Revised Manager's

Amendment)

Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents. Subsection (a)

sets forth the short title of this Act as the ``Helping

Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.'' Subsection (b)

consists of the table of contents.

Title I--Prevention of Mortgage Foreclosures

Subtitle A--Modification of residential mortgages

Section 100. Bankruptcy Code section 101 defines various

terms. Section 100 amends this provision to add a definition

of ``qualified loan modification,'' which is defined as a

loan modification agreement made in accordance with the

guidelines of the Obama Administration's Homeowner

Affordability and Stability Plan, as implemented on March 4,

2009 with respect to a loan secured by a senior security

interest in the debtor's principal residence. To qualify as

such, the agreement must reduce the debtor's mortgage payment

(including principal and interest) and payments for various

other specified expenses (i.e., real estate taxes, hazard

insurance, mortgage insurance premium, homeowners'

association dues, ground rent, and special assessments) to a

percentage of the debtor's income in accordance with such

guidelines. The payment may not include any period of

negative amortization and it must fully amortize the

outstanding mortgage principal. In addition, the agreement

must not require the debtor to pay any fees or charges to

obtain the modification. And, the agreement must permit the

debtor to continue to make these payments notwithstanding the

debtor having filed a bankruptcy case as if he or she had not

filed for such relief.

Section 101. Eligibility for Relief. Bankruptcy Code

section 109(e) sets forth secured and unsecured debt limits

to establish a debtor's eligibility for relief under chapter

13. Section 101 of the Act amends this provision to provide

that the computation of debts does not include the secured or

unsecured portions of debts secured by the debtor's principal

residence, under certain circumstances. The exception applies

if the value of the debtor's principal residence as of the

date of the order for relief under chapter 13 is less than

the applicable maximum amount of the secured debt limit

specified in section 109(e). Alternatively, the exception

applies if the debtor's principal residence was sold in

foreclosure or the debtor surrendered such residence to the

creditor and the value of such residence as of the date of

the order for relief under chapter 13 is less than the

secured debt limit specified in section 109(e). This

amendment is not intended to create personal liability on a

debt if there would not otherwise be personal liability on

such debt.

In addition, section 101 amends Bankruptcy Code section

109(h) to waive the mandatory requirement that a debtor

receive credit counseling prior to filing for bankruptcy

relief, under certain circumstances. The waiver applies in a

chapter 13 case where the debtor submits to the court a

certification that the debtor has received notice that the

holder of a claim secured by the debtor's principal residence

may commence (or has commenced) a foreclosure proceeding

against such residence.

Section 102. Prohibiting Claims Arising from Violations of

the Truth in Lending Act. Under the Truth in Lending Act, a

mortgagor has a right of rescission with respect to a

mortgage secured by his or her residence, under certain

circumstances. Bankruptcy Code section 502(b) enumerates

various claims of creditors that are not entitled to payment

in a bankruptcy case, subject to certain exceptions. Section

102 amends Bankruptcy Code section 502(b) to provide that a

claim for a loan secured by a security interest in the

debtor's principal residence is not entitled to payment in a

bankruptcy case to the extent that such claim is subject to a

remedy for rescission under the Truth in Lending Act,

notwithstanding the prior entry of a foreclosure judgment. In

addition, section 102 specifies that nothing in this

provision may be construed to modify, impair, or supersede

any other right of the debtor.

Section 103. Authority to Modify Certain Mortgages. Under

Bankruptcy Code section 1322(b)(2), a chapter 13 plan may not

modify the terms of a mortgage secured solely by real

property that is the debtor's principal residence. Section

103 amends Bankruptcy Code section 1322(b) to create a

limited exception to this prohibition. The exception only

applies to a mortgage that: (1) originated before the

effective date of this provision; and (2) is the subject of a

notice that a foreclosure may be (or has been) commenced with

respect to such mortgage.

In addition, the debtor must certify pursuant to new

section 1322(h) that he or she contacted--not less than 30

days before filing for bankruptcy relief--the mortgagee (or

the entity collecting payments on behalf of such mortgagee)

regarding modification of the mortgage. The debtor must also

certify that he or she provided the mortgagee (or the entity

collecting payments on behalf of such mortgagee) a written

statement of the debtor's current income, expenses, and debt

in a format that substantially conforms with the schedules

required under Bankruptcy Code section 521 or with such other

form as promulgated by the Judicial Conference of the United

States. Further, the certification must include a statement

that the debtor considered any qualified loan modification

offered to the debtor by the mortgagee (or the entity

collecting payments on behalf of such holder). This

requirement does not apply if the foreclosure sale is

scheduled to occur within 30 days of the date on which the

debtor files for bankruptcy relief. If the chapter 13 case is

pending at the time new section 1322(h) becomes effective,

then the

debtor must certify that he or she attempted to contact the

mortgagee (or the entity collecting payments on behalf of

such mortgagee) regarding modification of the mortgage before

either: (1) filing a plan under Bankruptcy Code section 1321

that contains a modification pursuant to new section

1322(b)(11); or (2) modifying a plan under Bankruptcy Code

section 1323 or section 1329 to contain a modification

pursuant to new section 1322(b)(11).

Under new section 1322(b)(11), the debtor may propose a

plan modifying the rights of the mortgagee (and the rights of

the holder of any claim secured by a subordinate security

interest in such residence) in several respects. It is

important to note that the intent of new section

1322(b)(11) is permissive. Accordingly, a chapter 13 may

propose a plan that proposes any or all types of

modification authorized under section 1322(b)(11).

First, the plan may provide for payment of the amount of

the allowed secured claim as determined under section

506(a)(1). In making such determination, the court, pursuant

to new section 1322(i), must use the fair market value of the

property as of when the value is determined. If the issue of

value is contested, the court must determine such value in

accordance with the appraisal rules used by the Federal

Housing Administration.

Second, the plan may prohibit, reduce, or delay any

adjustable interest rate applicable on and after the date of

the filing of the plan.

Third, it may extend the repayment period of the mortgage

for a period that is not longer than the longer of 40 years

(reduced by the period for which the mortgage has been

outstanding) or the remaining term of the mortgage beginning

on the date of the order for relief under chapter 13.

Fourth, the plan may provide for the payment of interest at

a fixed annual rate equal to the currently applicable average

prime offer rate as of the date of the order for relief under

chapter 13, as determined pursuant to certain specified

criteria. The rate must correspond to the repayment term

determined under new section 1322(b)(11)(C)(i) as published

by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council in

its table entitled, ``Average Prime Offer Rates--Fixed.'' In

addition, the rate must include a reasonable premium for

risk.

Fifth, the plan, pursuant to new section 1322(b)(11)(D),

may provide for payments of such modified mortgage directly

to the holder of the claim or, at the discretion of the

court, through the chapter 13 trustee during the term of the

plan. The reference in new section 1322(b)(11)(D) to ``holder

of the claim'' is intended to include a servicer of such

mortgage for such holder. It is anticipated that the court,

in exercising its discretion with respect to allowing the

debtor to make payments directly to the mortgagee or by

requiring payments to be made through the chapter 13 trustee,

will take into consideration the debtor's ability to pay the

trustee's fees on payments disbursed through the trustee.

New section 1322(g) provides that a claim may be reduced

under new section 1322(b)(11)(A) only on the condition that

the debtor agrees to pay the mortgagee a stated portion of

the net proceeds of sale should the home be sold before the

completion of all payments under the chapter 13 plan or

before the debtor receives a discharge under section 1328(b).

The debtor must pay these proceeds to the mortgagee within 15

days of when the debtor receives the net sales proceeds. If

the residence is sold in the first year following the

effective date of the chapter 13 plan, the mortgagee is to

receive 90 percent of the difference between the sales price

and the amount of the claim as originally determined under

section 1322(b)(11) (plus costs of sale and improvements),

but not to exceed the unpaid amount of the allowed secured

claim determined as if such claim had not been reduced under

new section 1322(b)(11)(A). If the residence is sold in

the second year following the effective date of the

chapter 13 plan, then the applicable percentage is 70

percent. If the residence is sold in the third year

following the effective date of the chapter 13 plan, then

the applicable percentage is 50 percent. If the residence

is sold in the fourth year following the effective date of

the chapter 13 plan, then the applicable percentage is 30

percent. If the residence is sold in the fifth year

following the effective date of the chapter 13 plan, then

the applicable percentage is ten percent. It is the intent

of this provision that if the unsecured portion of the

mortgagee's claim is partially paid under this provision

it should be reconsidered under 502(j) and reduced

accordingly.

Section 104. Combating Excessive Fees. Section 104 amends

Bankruptcy Code section 1322(c) to provide that the debtor,

the debtor's property, and property of the bankruptcy estate

are not liable for a fee, cost, or charge that is incurred

while the chapter 13 case is pending and that arises from a

claim for debt secured by the debtor's principal residence,

unless the holder of the claim complies with certain

requirements. It is the intent of this provision that its

reference to a fee, cost, or charge includes an increase in

any applicable rate of interest for such claim. It also

applies to a change in escrow account payments.

To ensure such fee, cost, or charge is allowed, the

claimant must comply with certain requirements. First, the

claimant must file with the court and serve on the chapter 13

trustee, the debtor, and the debtor's attorney an annual

notice of such fee, cost, or charge (or on a more frequent

basis as the court determines) before the earlier of one year

of when such fee, cost, or charge was incurred or 60 days

before the case is closed.

Second, the fee, cost, or charge must be lawful under

applicable nonbankruptcy law, reasonable, and provided for in

the applicable security agreement.

Third, the value of the debtor's principal residence must

be greater than the amount of such claim, including such fee,

cost or charge.

If the holder fails to give the required notice, such

failure is deemed to be a waiver of any claim for such fees,

costs, or charges for all purposes. Any attempt to collect

such fees, costs, or charges constitutes a violation of the

Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction under section

524(a)(2) and the automatic stay under section 362(a),

whichever is applicable.

Section 104 further provides that a chapter 13 plan may

waive any prepayment penalty on a claim secured by the

debtor's principal residence.

Section 105. Confirmation of Plan. Bankruptcy Code section

1325 sets forth the criteria for confirmation of a chapter 13

plan. Section 105 amends section 1325(a)(5) (which specifies

the mandatory treatment that an allowed secured claim

provided for under the plan must receive) to provide an

exception for a claim modified under new section 1322(b)(11).

The amendment also clarifies that payments under a plan that

includes a modification of a claim under new section

1322(b)(11) must be in equal monthly amounts pursuant to

section 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I).

In addition, section 105 specifies certain protections for

a creditor whose rights are modified under new section

1322(b)(11). As a condition of confirmation, new section

1325(a)(10) requires a plan to provide that the creditor must

retain its lien until the later of when: (1) the holder's

allowed secured claim (as modified) is paid; (2) the debtor

completes all payments under the chapter 13 plan; or (3) if

applicable, the debtor receives a discharge under section

1328(b).

Section 105 also provides standards for confirming a

chapter 13 plan that modifies a claim pursuant to new section

1322(b)(11). First, the debtor cannot have been convicted of

obtaining by actual fraud the extension, renewal, or

refinancing of credit that gives rise to such modified claim.

Second, the modification must be in good faith. Lack of good

faith exists if the debtor has no need for relief under this

provision because the debtor can pay all of his or her debts

and any future payment increases on such debts without

difficulty for the foreseeable future, including the positive

amortization of mortgage debt. In determining whether a

modification under section 1322(b)(11) that reduces the

principal amount of the loan is made in good faith, the court

must consider whether the holder of the claim (or the entity

collecting payments on behalf of such holder) has offered the

debtor a qualified loan modification that would enable the

debtor to pay such debts and such loan without reducing the

principal amount of the mortgage.

Section 105 further amends section 1325 to add a new

provision. New section 1325(d) authorizes the court, on

request of the debtor or the mortgage holder, to confirm a

plan proposing to reduce the interest rate lower than that

specified in new section 1322(b)(11)(C)(ii), provided: (1)

the modification does not reduce the mortgage principal; (2)

the total mortgage payment is reduced through interest rate

reduction to the percentage of the debtor's income that is

the standard for a modification in accordance with the Obama

Administration's Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan,

as implemented on March 4, 2009; (3) the court determines

that the debtor can afford such modification in light of the

debtor's financial situation, after allowance of expense

amounts that would be permitted for a debtor subject to

section 1325(b)(3), regardless of whether the debtor is

otherwise subject to such paragraph, and taking into account

additional debts and fees that are to be paid in chapter 13

and thereafter; and (4) the debtor is able to prevent

foreclosure and pay a fully amortizing 30-year loan at such

reduced interest rate without such reduction in principal. If

the mortgage holder accepts a debtor's proposed modification

under this provision, the plan's treatment is deemed to

satisfy the requirements of section 1325(a)(5)(A) and the

proposal should not be rejected by the court.

Section 106. Discharge. Bankruptcy Code section 1328 sets

forth the requirements by which a chapter 13 debtor may

obtain a discharge and the scope of such discharge. Section

106 amends section 1328(a) to clarify that the unpaid portion

of an allowed secured claim modified under new section

1322(b)(11) is not discharged. This provision is not intended

to create a claim for a deficiency where such a claim would

not otherwise exist.

Section 107. Standing Trustee Fees. Section 108(a) amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 586(e)(1)(B)(i) to provide that a chapter 13 trustee may receive a commission set by the Attorney General of no more than four percent on payments made under a chapter 13 plan and disbursed by the chapter 13 trustee to a creditor whose claim was modified under Bankruptcy Code section 1322(b)(11), unless the bankruptcy court waives such fees based on a determination that the debtor has income less

than 150 percent of the official poverty line applicable to the size of the debtor's family and payment of such fees would render the debtor's plan infeasible.

With respect to districts not under the United States trustee system, section 108(b) makes a conforming revision to section 302(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986.

Section 108. Effective Date; Application of Amendments. Section 108(a) provides that this measure and the amendments made by it, except as provided in subsection (b), take effect on the Act's date of enactment.

Section 108(b)(1) provides, except as provided in paragraph (2), that the amendments made by this measure apply to cases commenced under title 11 of the United States Code before, on, or after the Act's date of enactment.

Section 108(b)(2) specifies that paragraph (1) does not apply with respect to cases that are closed under the Bankruptcy Code as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

Section 109. GAO Study. Section 109 requires the Government Accountability Office to complete a study and to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees within two years from the enactment of this Act a report. The report must contain the results of the study of: (1) the number of debtors who filed cases under chapter 13, during the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act for the purpose of restructuring their principal residence mortgages; (2) the number of mortgages restructured under this Act that subsequently resulted in default and foreclosure; (3) a comparison between the effectiveness of mortgages restructured under programs outside of bankruptcy, such as Hope Now and Hope for Homeowners, and mortgages restructured under this Act; (4) the number of appeals in cases where mortgages were restructured under this Act; (5) the number of such appeals where the bankruptcy court's decision was overturned; and (6) the number of bankruptcy judges disciplined as a result of actions taken to restructure mortgages under this Act. In addition, the report must include a recommendation as to whether such amendments should be amended to include a sunset clause.

Section 110. Report to Congress. Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Government Accountability Office, in consultation with the Federal Housing Administration, must submit to Congress a report containing: (1) a comprehensive review of the effects of the Act's amendments on bankruptcy courts; (2) a survey of whether the types of homeowners eligible for the program should be limited; and (3) a recommendation on whether such amendments should remain in

effect.

Title III--Mortgage Fraud

Section 301. Short Title. Section 301 sets forth the short

title of title III as the Nationwide Mortgage Fraud Task

Force Act of 2009.

Section 302. Nationwide Mortgage Fraud Task Force.

Subsection (a) establishes a nationwide mortgage fraud task

force within the Justice Department to address mortgage fraud

in the United States. Subsection (b) mandates that the

Attorney General must provide the task force with appropriate

staff, administrative support, and other resources necessary

so that the task force can carry out its duties. Subsection

(c) requires the Attorney General to appoint one staff member

to be the executive director of the task force who, in turn,

will ensure that the task force carries out its duties.

Subsection (d) requires the task force to establish, oversee,

and direct branches in each of the ten states determined by

the Attorney General to have the highest concentration of

mortgage fraud. Subsection (e) requires the task force to

coordinate with federal, state and local law enforcement to

establish mortgage fraud initiatives; provide training; and

collect and disseminate data. Subsection (f), among other

matters, authorizes the task force to establish a toll-free

hotline for reporting mortgage fraud; provide the public with

access to information and resources with respect to mortgage

fraud; establish a data base; and make legislative proposals.

Subsection (g), for purposes of this provision, defines

mortgage fraud as a material misstatement, misrepresentation

or omission relating to the property or potential mortgage

relied on by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase, or

insure a loan.

Title IV--Foreclosure Moratorium Provisions

Section 401. Sense of the Congress on Foreclosures.

Subsection (a) expresses a sense of the Congress that

mortgage holders, institutions, and mortgage servicers should

not initiate a foreclosure proceeding or sale until the

foreclosure mitigation provisions, such as Hope for

Homeowners Program and the President's Homeowner

Affordability and Stability Plan, have been implemented and

determined to be operational by the Secretary of the Treasury

and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Subsection (b) states that the foreclosure moratorium should

apply only for first mortgages secured by the owner's

principal dwelling. Subsection (c) provides that if a

mortgage holder, institution, or mortgage servicer (to which

subsection (a) applies) reaches a loan modification agreement

with a homeowner under the auspices of the Federal Housing

Administration before any plan referred to in such subsection

takes effect, subsection (a) shall cease to apply to such

institution as of the effective date of the loan modification

agreement. Subsection (d) states that any homeowner for whose

benefit any foreclosure proceeding or sale is barred under

subsection (a) from being instituted, continued or

consummated with respect to any homeowner mortgage should not

destroy, damage, or impair such property, allow it to

deteriorate, or commit waste on the property. Subsection (e)

provides that any homeowner for whose benefit any foreclosure

proceeding is barred under subsection (a) from being

instituted, continued, or consummated with respect to any

homeowner mortgage should respond to reasonable inquiries

from a creditor or servicer during the period during which

such foreclosure proceeding or sale is barred.

Madam Speaker, today we are pleased to introduce the Patent Reform Act of 2009. The Patent Reform Act of 2009

is bipartisan and largely, bicameral legislation intended to tackle a number of problems in our patent system. The bill reflects the substantial progress made last Congress in both the House and Senate. Indeed, the text of the Patent Reform Act is in many ways a composite of the bill that passed the House and the bill that was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last Congress.

This bill is a starting point for further discussion and in the matter of inequitable conduct reform, I will be looking to my friend from Utah, Orrin Hatch for his insights on that issue. It is my intention to work closely with him to craft language on inequitable conduct that can be incorporated into the bill at a later time.

I am proud to stand today with my colleagues, Representatives Lamar Smith, Howard Berman, Robert Goodlatte, and Sheila Jackson Lee to introduce this legislation that is directed toward encouraging innovation now and long into the 21st century. I particularly thank two of my cosponsors, Howard Berman and Lamar Smith, for their hard work and dedication to this endeavor through the years which has provided a common-sense framework of reforms upon which to build.

This piece of legislation is among the most important things that we will work on as our Nation's economic future is dependent on our ability to innovate and efficiently and effectively protect the products of that innovation. I look forward to working with all interested parties in perfecting the Patent Reform Act in the coming months.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1106.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Members of the House, this very important legislation would limit an anomaly in the Bankruptcy Code which prohibits judicial modifications of principal residences, even though every other class of asset, from second homes to yachts, airplanes, investment properties, family farm, hotels, and even office buildings, is eligible for such treatment. I believe that this proposal represents a critical step that we can take to not only protect hardworking and honest Americans struggling to keep their homes in the midst of a once in a lifetime economic calamity, but to limit the downward cycle of foreclosures that are now damaging our neighborhoods, while, at the same time, protecting financial intermediaries and ensuring that judicial modification is considered only after every reasonable effort has been taken to achieve voluntary modification outside of the bankruptcy.

Mr. Chairman, on that note, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want my friend on the other side to know that the majority whip of the Senate did not make that statement. It is inaccurate.

I now yield to the distinguished gentlelady from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to merely apprise my dear friend from California and distinguished member of the Judiciary that Mark Zandi, the GOP adviser to John McCain, said, ``The total cost of foreclosures to lenders is much greater than that associated with a chapter 13 bankruptcy.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 more seconds.

There is no reason to believe that the cost of mortgage credit across all mortgage loan products should rise. That's a Republican economist.

I now yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts, William Delahunt, himself a distinguished member of the Attorney General's office in Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I recognize for 2 minutes the subcommittee Chair of Immigration, the head of the Ethics Committee, and a great leader in the Congress, Zoe Lofgren.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, Linda Sanchez.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how many speakers my friend on the other side has remaining?

Mr. Chairman, it gives me pleasure to yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from North Carolina, Brad Miller.

Mr. speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1105, The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. This important legislation stands as a marker stone on the path to a sustainable and just economic future. With its passage today, we leave behind the bloated budgets of the past, under which the fiscally fortunate and the manufacturers of unnecessary Cold War weapons disproportionately benefited. With this bill we refocus our priorities with key investments in education, energy, health, and housing. At the same time, we also set the stage for future budgets, in which this Congress and our new President will recommit to pursuing policy priorities that will remake our nation as a society that values an environmentally sustainable economy, social justice, and opportunity for all.

The most critical and wise series of investments made in this bill are in the area of improving access to health care. As this recession deepens, Americans nationwide are losing their healthcare due to no fault of their own. In the 31 days between December 2008 and January 2009, an average of 14,000 people per day lost their health care insurance. This legislation will help mitigate this drop in health security by providing $2.2 billion to community health clinics, $496 million will be appropriated for vaccinations for children, and an added $15 million above FY 2008 funding will be added to train nurses.

Mr. Speaker, this new Congress understands that we must invest in human capital--our children--if we hope to sustain the economic recovery we are embarking upon. H.R. 1105 will ensure that 900,000 children have access to high quality preschool services by appropriating $15 billion for Title I grants to low-income children. The bill will also make college more affordable by expanding Pell grants to $4,360 per year.

Working in concert with the President's foreclosure mitigation program and my cram-down bankruptcy reform, H.R. 1105 will also offer solutions to our housing crisis. It will provide an additional 1.3 million low-income families Section 8 vouchers. Moreover, $765 million will be appropriated to buy, rehabilitate and build housing for low- income and elderly Americans. Lastly, $3.9 billion is allocated for Community Development Block Grants which will fund vital local activities such as creating affordable housing, supporting anti-poverty programs, and ``right-sizing'' cities like Detroit through vacant housing demolition.

During these tough economic times we must resist the temptation to forget the cataclysmic threat posed by global climate change. This omnibus bill keeps us on the path to planetary stability with a $375 million investment dedicated to promoting solar energy and housing stock weatherization. To better understand the science behind this crisis and keep our research up to date, this bill also includes a

$755 million increase from Fiscal Year 2008 for climate change related scientific research. Lastly, $765 million will be used to develop energy generation and storage such as fusion energy and advanced batteries, so that we can move technology from the test lab to the product floor.

Tomorrow, the President will propose a budget for fiscal year 2010 that will move the debate on many of the policies embodied in this legislation to the next level. Instead of merely covering the serious problems our nation faces with band-aid solutions, we will begin to consider end-game legislation that will eventually lead to a world where health care and global warming no longer threaten our families and our way of life. I stand ready to support these efforts, acknowledging that enacting lasting change will be a momentous task, but also knowing that it is necessary and achievable.

But that is tomorrow. Today we act to lessen the pain of the moment-- to ease the uncertainly that comes with the opening of a paycheck or the arrival of a hospital bill. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill so that we can begin to move this country towards fiscal recovery.

Madam Speaker, Ranking Member Lamar Smith and I are introducing a bill to codify into positive law as title 41, United States Code, certain general and permanent laws related to public contracts. This bill was prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, as part of its functions under 2 U.S.C. Sec. 285(b).

This bill is substantially identical to H.R. 4779, which the Committee on the Judiciary approved in last Congress, updated to incorporate a few enactments that took place after the earlier bill was prepared, and to incorporate a few technical clarifications suggested by interested parties.

This bill is not intended to make any substantive changes in the law. As is typical with the codification process, a number of non- substantive revisions are made, including the reorganization of sections into a more coherent overall structure, but these changes are not intended to have any substantive effect.

As the bill was already subject to extensive agency and public review in the last Congress, as well as in the Congress preceding, the Committee plans to report it to the House promptly and to seek its consideration on the floor as soon as practicable.

The bill, along with a detailed section-by-section explanation of the bill, can be found on the Law Revision Counsel website at http:// uscode.house.gov/cod. Interested parties are invited to submit comments to Ken Paretzky, Senior Counsel, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of Representatives, H2-304 Ford House Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20515-6711, (202) 226-9061, as well as to the Committee.

Madam Speaker, on February 23, 2009, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present for the following votes:

On the passage of H.R. 911. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On the passage of H.R. 44. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

On the passage of H.R. 601. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, today I have introduced, along with my Judiciary Committee colleagues Rick Boucher of Virginia, Jim Jordan of Ohio, and James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation is a consumer-minded effort to prevent States from enacting taxes that may be designed to advantage one form of video transmission over another. This legislation preserves a level playing field between competitors while protecting State revenue prerogatives.

This legislation accomplishes three goals:

First, consumers will benefit from lower prices, because States will impose only fair and nondiscriminatory video transmission taxes, on all providers.

Second, competition will strengthen in the paid television programming industry, because this legislation will ensure that no provider will be unfairly favored by discriminatory tax policies.

Third, States will continue to have the ability to raise revenue, because this legislation does not hinder their ability to do so, as long as they do so in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner.

This legislation incorporates changes adopted by the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law at markup during the last Congress. Those changes include providing grandfather protection to those States that, as of January 1, 2008, had already enacted video programming tax structures that would violate the new requirement. The six States whose tax structures would be protected are Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, and Utah.

This legislation also includes several technical changes to conform the language to certain State tax laws with respect to the methods by which multichannel video programming distribution services are delivered, and clarifies a tax as discriminatory ``if the net tax rate imposed on one means of providing multichannel video service is higher than the net tax rate imposed on another.''

This legislation ensures that States could not selectively reduce the effective tax rate by imposing the same tax rate on services, but then reimbursing certain costs borne by specific providers, as some States have done.

The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2009 will give households that pay for television programming service the assurance that they can choose to receive very similar services, such as from cable or satellite providers, without having to wonder whether subscribing to a particular service will entail paying more in taxes than if they had chosen a different service.

I invite my colleagues to join with me and Representatives Boucher, Jordan, and Sensenbrenner, by cosponsoring the ``State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2009.''

Madam Speaker, today I join my colleagues in both the House and the Senate in introducing the Performance Rights Act of 2009, legislation that takes a first step at ensuring that all radio platforms are treated in a similar manner and that those who perform music are paid for their work. I am joined by Representatives Issa, Berman, Blackburn, Peterson (MN), Hodes, Weiner, Wasserman Schultz, Cohen, Nadler, Sherman, Wexler, Johnson (GA), Schiff, Shadegg, Jackson- Lee, Linda Sanchez, Harman and Waxman.

This narrowly tailored bill amends a glaring inequity in America's copyright law--the provision in Section 114 that exempts over-the-air broadcasters from paying those who perform the music that we listen to on AM and FM radio. The purpose of the bill is to take a necessary step towards platform parity so that any service that plays music pays those who create and own the recordings--just as satellite, cable and internet radio stations currently do.

Fairness mandates that all those in the creative chain--from the artist, musicians and others who bring the recording to life--get compensated for the way they enrich our lives. The U.S. is the only developed country in the world that does not require privately owned over-the-air radio stations to compensate the performers who create the music that broadcasters use to attract the audiences that generate their ad revenues. Because of music, radio is able to profit, and so refusing to compensate those who create the music is unfair and ultimately harmful to everyone--including the broadcasters. Furthermore, the law requires all other platforms in the U.S. (including satellite and Internet radio) to compensate the copyright owner, so broadcast radio should not receive a free pass.

This legislation's narrow scope addresses some of the concerns that have been raised about the bill. First, it repeals the current broadcaster exemption--but it does NOT apply to bars, restaurants and other venues, and it does not expand copyright protection in any other way. Second, it provides an accommodation of protection for small and non-commercial broadcasters by setting a low flat annual fee with no negotiation, litigation or arbitration expenses. As a result, nearly 77 percent of existing broadcasting stations in this country--including college stations and public broadcasters--will pay only a nominal flat fee, rather than having to pay a percentage of their revenues as royalties. Third, the bill does NOT harm or adversely affect the revenues rightfully paid to songwriters and other existing copyright owners. It simply extends copyright protection to artists, musicians and the sound recording labels.

This bill is a starting point, not a final product, and I plan to continue to work with interested parties to ensure that the bill is fair to everyone. I promise to continue working on issues affecting the songwriters, public radio, webcasters, and others who will be critical to the process of moving this bill forward. And as always, I hope the broadcasters will decide to engage on this issue so that we can end up with a mutually agreeable final product.

I hope that with introduction of a companion bill in the Senate, Congress will act quickly to level the playing field between technologies and ensure rightful compensation to performers.

Mr. Chair, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This stimulus package injects targeted, temporary, and responsible investment in our economy and, with a little luck and hard work, will pull our Nation back from the brink of fiscal collapse.

The jobs, training, and investment that will be created with this stimulus will provide true relief to the weary American worker. As much as the other side would like to convince us, building green schools creates jobs; fixing crumbling aqueducts and sewer systems creates jobs; installing energy efficient insulation in public buildings creates jobs; even resodding the National Mall creates jobs. Even better, our Nation will reap the benefits of this investment for years to come; creating many additional jobs in the private sector as we repave roadways and transform dilapidated communities into thriving commerce-rich economic zones.

Thank goodness this Congress and this President have thrown aside the voodoo economic policies of the past 8 years. By voting for this Act, we right American jobs policy by returning to a common-sense principle: promoting work that produces American products and strengthens American communities. Instead of simply cutting taxes for big corporations and promoting policies that shift capital from one bank account to another, this Act will leave behind real tangible benefits for the next generation--a true legacy of achievement.

As we debate this issue here today, Michigan's unemployment rate has risen above 10 percent, local manufacturers are slashing tens of thousands of jobs, and many are signing up for Medicaid and COBRA insurance at unprecedented levels. The jobs created by this stimulus are long-term jobs that provide solid wages to working-class Americans; it is only these types of jobs that will pull Michigan out of its economic malaise.

This stimulus package is a historic solution to a historic problem; it will likely be the biggest piece of legislation ever passed by this body. Faced with such dire economic problems, we have to aim big. Two notable economists, Paul Krugman and Jeffery Sachs have both voiced their support for a large scale stimulus to avoid a ``L shaped'' recovery that would mirror Japan's stagnant growth and labor market of the 1990s. In these gloomy economic times, hesitation and caution are not a viable option. Now is the time to act decisively.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 promotes sorely needed investment in transportation. For example, it provides $30 billion for federal aid to highway and bridge construction, $3 billion to airport improvement projects, and $1.1 billion for Amtrak and intercity passenger rail grants. These projects will offer additional much needed personal and commercial movement options for my constituents.

Additionally, as an ardent supporter of universal health care, I am delighted that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will fund many important programs that will reduce health costs. H.R. 1 will provide $1 billion to renovate community clinics and $600 million to address doctor shortages in urban areas by assisting medical school students with their expenses if they agree to practice in underserved communities as a part of the National Health Service Corps. To further lower health care costs, H.R. 1 will create a Prevention and Wellness Fund, where $3 billion will be allocated to fight preventable chronic diseases. This will include grants to state and local public health departments, immunization programs, and disease prevention initiatives. Moreover, the bill will invest $20 billion to computerize medical records to cut costs, extend COBRA healthcare for the unemployed with a $30.3 billion investment, and will give $8.6 billion to expand Medicaid coverage for the recently unemployed.

H.R. 1 will also help provide quality education to all Americans. As a direct response to the recent cut backs in educational funding and staggering increases in college tuition, the bill will provide $79 billion to states and $41 billion to local school districts through Title I, IDEA, the School Modernization and Repair Program, and the education technology program. Furthermore, $15 billion will be given to states as bonus grants if they can meet key performance measures. Lastly, H.R. 1 increases individual Pell Grant allocations by $500.

H.R. 1 will also help hard working Americans stay in their homes. The bill will create a $5 billion Public Housing Capital Fund that will repair and modernize public housing. $1.5 billion will be given to the rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies in the HOME Investment Partnerships. In addition, $4.2 billion will help communities purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed, vacant properties in order to create more affordable housing and reduce neighborhood blight.

I could go on and on about the many worthy initiatives this bill furthers. In particular, I am heartened that it makes wise investments in preserving our public places, ending hunger, and promoting the deployment of broadband Internet access. Needless to say, it is a comprehensive bill and a vote for it is a vote to revitalize every sector of our economy.

For too long many have believed that the free market can fix America's problem. We have been told that the only thing created by public investment is more bureaucracy and an unwieldy national debt.

Well, I am here to tell you that prudent targeted government investment in the private and public sectors creates something else: jobs. The minority had their chance to promote their version of the economy when they controlled the Congress and the White House. And what have they left us: unchecked spending that resulted in millions of jobs lost, a lower standard of living, and the greatest levels of inequality we have seen since the period of unchecked deregulation that immediately preceded the Great Depression.

The investments championed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt led us out of a period of despair and uncertainty and ushered in the greatest period of sustained growth our Nation has ever experienced. We did it once; we can do it again. H.R. 1 is the blueprint for such a recovery and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Coble, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Wolf to honor Jon W. Dudas, a distinguished public servant who is leaving the helm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (``USPTO'') on January 20, 2009. Jon has served as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO since July 2004. He previously served as acting Under Secretary and Director, and Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Director from 2002 to 2004.

As head of the world's leading intellectual property (``IP'') office, Jon developed and articulated administration positions on patent, copyright, and trademark issues, both domestic and foreign and effectively steered the operations of the USPTO, an organization of approximately 9,000 employees dedicated to providing and maintaining the intellectual property protections that promote innovation and technological advancement.

Under Jon's leadership, the USPTO's university-style examiner training academy, peer review pilot, electronic filing and processing, and accelerated examination programs were developed and implemented. Additionally, the USPTO's hoteling programs for its patent and trademark examiners serve as a gold standard for other Federal agencies and the USPTO continued to be recognized as the leader in Federal Government telework initiatives.

In the critical area of appropriations for the USPTO's vital operations, Jon worked tirelessly with the Congress and the administration to ensure USPTO's full access to all collected fees over the last 4 years, breaking a streak of fee diversion. His assistance and counsel were also greatly valued and appreciated during the House's development of patent reform and other pieces of important IP legislation.

Prior to joining the Bush administration, Jon served 6 years as Counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, and Staff Director and Deputy General Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee. He guided enactment of major patent, trademark, and copyright legislation, including the 1999 American Inventors Protection Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. He was also instrumental in the passage of the 1996 Trademark Anti- Counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act, a law making it more difficult for seized counterfeit merchandise to re-enter the consumer marketplace.

I know that our colleagues and the intellectual property community join Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Coble, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Berman, Mr. Wolf and me in commending Jon for the USPTO's substantive achievements during his tenure.

We are honored to have this opportunity to publicly commend a truly dedicated public servant. We wish Jon all the best in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, today, Iowa State University will host its celebration of the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The Advancing One Community Award given in his name will recognize the laureates' commitment to an inclusive multicultural community and efforts to reduce injustice and inequity. Receiving this award will be Mary de Baca, who has never shied from that struggle.

Mary de Baca coordinates diversity programs for the world-renowned College of Agriculture at Iowa State University. She is the program and financial advisor to the George Washington Carver Internship Program. She is the faculty advisor to the Iowa State University chapter of Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Sciences (MANRRS). She has built that club into a national powerhouse: it has been National MANRRS Chapter of the Year three of the last four years. She has established linkages between Iowa State and historically Black land grant colleges, Hispanic serving institutions, and tribal colleges so that they can share faculty, laboratory equipment, and resources, and bring talented minority students into the academic pipeline. As a result, Iowa State is a leader in training minority graduate students and professors, although Iowa is not often thought of as the most diverse state in the Union.

Mary de Baca's commitment to diversity is in the long tradition of the University. This is, after all, the school which admitted George Washington Carver when no other school would allow him to study at all, much less achieve a PhD. This is the school whose football stadium is named after the man who integrated its sports teams in 1923, Jack Trice. Trice followed in Dr. Carver's footsteps. He came to Iowa to study agriculture so he could go South and help the community. But he

never got the chance; he was tragically killed on the football field by the opposing team.

Iowa State also took a chance on one of the few Latinos to receive a Doctorate in the 1950s, her late husband, Robert C. de Baca, who Mary de Baca met when he was a young professor of animal science. She joined him in postings abroad, where she did some of the first home economics studies on the lives of rural Latin American women. With him, she built up a renowned herd of Black Angus cattle on the farm where she still lives. In her own family life, Mary de Baca has done her part to increase the number of minority professionals: she is the proud mother of three children, doctor Monica, businesswoman Suzanna, and civil rights lawyer Luis, who is a valued member of our Judiciary Committee team.

Between college and graduate school, Mary de Baca returned home to Southern Indiana teach high school home economics. As a young teacher, she stubbornly overrode the protests of white parents to ensure that African-Americans could participate in cheerleading, the homecoming court, and other extra-curricular activities. Vernon Jordan described the State at the time in this way: ``Although Indiana is above the Mason-Dixon line, it has a tough history regarding race. For a time it had the largest and most active chapters of the Ku Klux Klan in the country. It was a mess in the 1920s and 1930s. When I was there in the 1950s, it wasn't exactly a racial utopia.'' But one can imagine the young Mary de Baca mentoring those students and helping them reach their potential without fanfare or drama, just as she does today.

As an educator for over 50 years, Mary de Baca has helped to move us toward the more inclusive and equal world for which Dr. King fought. I congratulate her on receiving this honor in his name from her students, her colleagues, and her University.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 73) observing the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and encouraging the people of the United States to observe the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for other purposes.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Members of the House, last Thursday, January 15, marked the 80th birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was born in 1929. On Monday, January 19, the Dr. King Federal holiday was observed. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. John Lewis, for introducing again this bipartisan House Resolution that calls upon all Americans on this occasion ``to advance the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.''

I also acknowledge the many colleagues of the Judiciary Committee on both sides of the aisle that have joined us in supporting this resolution; in particular, the ranking member from Texas, our friend, Mr. Smith.

For over 40 years now, we have commemorated the life and work of the Nation's greatest civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Since 1986, we have recognized Dr. King with a Federal holiday in his honor, a holiday that I and others here have worked so hard to achieve.

Last year, we paid tribute to Dr. King upon the 40th anniversary of his assassination. Today, we once again celebrate Dr. King on the event of his birthday. On these anniversaries, the Congress has called upon the Nation's citizens to practice justice, equality, and peace in all aspects of his life, the very principles that Dr. King stood for.

Today, we make the same request of not just our colleagues, but of our citizens, recognizing that today is very different. We advance Dr. King's legacy by realizing that some of Dr. King's dream has been achieved.

Just yesterday, our Nation witnessed the first African American in history to take the oath of office for President of the United States. Our 44th President, President Obama, is a testament to Dr. King's pursuit and struggle for equality. And in his short life, Dr. King laid the foundation for a society that would guarantee that all men are created equal. It is on the shoulders of Dr. King and Rosa Parks and Andrew Young and Harry Belafonte, all close colleagues of Dr. King, who were in the

forefront of the civil rights movement. And that is why we stand here today, witnesses to history, with our first African American President.

President Obama spoke movingly yesterday when he asked that we mark his inauguration in remembrance of who we are and how far we have traveled; why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across the magnificent Mall; and why a man whose father, less than 60 years ago, might not have been served at a local restaurant, can now stand before you to take the most sacred oath that was given to him yesterday.

In celebrating the great legacy of Dr. King's work, we must recognize that his legacy does not end here. Continuing his mission of justice means bringing an end to racial and economic injustices, like those we have seen in so many aspects of the current financial and fiscal crisis that we are confronted with.

Advancing his mission of equality means eliminating the disparities that exist in so many aspects of our society; health care, housing, education, employment. And so pursuing his mission of peace means bringing an end to the wars that still persist and allowing our Nation to be an example of a peaceful democracy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, who I met before he became a Member of this distinguished body. As a matter of fact, before I became a Member of this distinguished body. I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for such time as he may consume.

How much time is left?

I yield 4 of those 8\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

The point that I would like to make in closing on our side is that one of the most important things that President Obama made to me was something I had never heard a President say before, and that was that he wanted all of the people that voted and that may or may not have supported him to continue to advise him. Normally, Presidents get elected and say, ``Well, I am grateful to my supporters,'' and then remove to inside the Beltway with the Cabinet and the Capitol and the people in the three branches of government, and that's it. He asked for continuing advice. Some said, he did not have to make that statement because he was going to get that anyway, but others have said, ``This is wonderful and this is great.'' And I think it ties in with the people's moment that undergirded the King civil rights legacy; that is, that everybody has a continuing responsibility to perfect this democratic system of constitutional government that we have.

It is so important that we all feel we have a role to play over and above voting, and it is that King-like theory that the President now publicly extols that is so very important. And, I think, we embark here in the second day of this new administration on a new path that encourages citizen participation; I think it brings us all here in government closer together, and I think that it augers well for the challenges that we all face here in the 111th Congress and a new President currently in his second day in office.

And so in this moment of remembering Dr. King and his legacy, celebrate his life and contributions, I am very pleased that this resolution is brought at this highly opportune moment. I thank the author of this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 26, final passage of H.R. 384, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against: