Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to posthumously honor the extraordinary talents and accomplishments of the legendary percussionist/vibraphonist Mr. Lewis ``Luigi'' Waites.

Luigi was born July 10, 1927, in Omaha, Nebraska. He began playing drums at age 12 and soon after began playing local nightclubs around Omaha. While Luigi served in the U.S. Army at Camp Lee, Virginia, he met jazz drummer Elvin Jones, who gave him further drum instruction.

Over his long career, Luigi shared the stage with jazz legends such as Ella Fitzgerald, Dizzy Gillespie, Lionel Hampton, and Sarah Vaughan. He was a tireless musician; appearing weekly at a local tavern, Mr. Toad's, since 1975. In addition, he helped organize performances for the Omaha Summer Arts Festival.

Beyond his acclaim as a musician, Luigi was known for his generosity, openness and selflessness on-stage and off. As a teacher and mentor to fellow musicians, he encouraged individuals to explore their creativity and expanded their skills as evidenced by The Contemporaries, a youth drill team and drum corps he organized.

Waites' accolades include being named the Nebraska Art Council's artist of the year for 2006. In the same year, he received a lifetime achievement award at the Omaha Entertainment and Arts Award ceremony. He was inducted into the Omaha Black Music Hall of Fame in 2005. After thousands of performances through several decades, Luigi died peacefully on Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at the age of 82. A family man, he was the father of 6 children, 8 grandchildren, and 13 great- grandchildren at the time of his passing.

As we celebrate Black History month, we recognize the immense contributions African Americans have made to this country--from innovations in science and technology to accomplishments in the arts and culture that have benefited us all. Luigi's legacy as an artist and teacher deserves our thanks and applause.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise during Black History Month to remember the important contributions African Americans have made to our nation and to honor

the extraordinary people who continue to help shape my community of Omaha and our great nation. Today, I would like to pay special tribute to Gene R. Haynes, one of the thousands of successful and talented African Americans in the Second Congressional District of Nebraska.

Gene Haynes grew up poor and in segregated schools in the South. His three older brothers moved to Omaha for packing-house work to help put him through college. After college, Mr. Haynes followed his family to Omaha and along with his wife, Annie Haynes, began teaching in 1967.

He went on to become the principal of Omaha North High Magnet School and an inspirational leader in the community. He is known for being a hands on and motivational educator who has contributed greatly to the school's development Dedicated to preparing students for their role in a highly technological and global society, he oversaw the complete renovation of the building's infrastructure and the addition of 30,000 square feet of facilities focusing on technology, mathematics, science and engineering.

During his time at North, Haynes has been part of a number of creative programs designed to empower students, engage parents and bring the business community into the school.

In addition to his loyal service to his students, Gene Haynes is active in several local, state, and national organizations. He has been an integral part of The North Omaha Project Impact, Urban League of Nebraska, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the Pacesetter Scholarship Committee.

I am proud to recognize and honor this highly-esteemed and dedicated educator for nearly a half century of service to the Omaha community.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment because I believe in a free and open Internet.

It was December 21, less than 2 months ago, that the Internet lost its freedom when the FCC, on its own, initiated an order, a rule, to start regulating the Internet.

Now, who believes that by regulating it you are creating freedom?

When the system was unregulated and when the FCC couldn't micromanage the Internet was during the time when innovation and investment occurred on the Internet and in the cyberworld. That's when we got the eBays, the Hulus, the Apple TVs, and all of the great applications that we use today. So, when I go back to my district and look my constituents in the eye, I can honestly say I am the one fighting to keep the Internet free and open.

There are three points that we need to discuss here today: First of all, the regulation of the Internet by the FCC is not a congressional initiative. It was three votes on the FCC while Congress was away. Now they think they've got the power, but that's under dispute. There is already a lawsuit telling them they don't have that authority. I don't believe they have the authority. It was an incredible stretch by the FCC to take a sentence out of section 706 of the Telecom Act of 1996 that actually used a phrase about data and that the FCC can't put up barriers. Somehow they assume, now that they have power from that phrase, they can start implementing and putting in barriers.

I worry that these new rules and regulations controlling the Internet will stifle investment in innovation in the long run. Let's look at what this order does that will affect investment.

On the investment side, the power that the FCC has sought to regulate

says that, in the cyberworld, there can't be discrimination. Who wants discrimination unless you find out that it's maybe a business model? For example, as a typical business model, you pay for what you use. If you're at 1 megabit, that may be $14; 7 megabits of speed is a higher price; 20 or 30 megabits is going to even be a higher price. The issue is that some people now say that that is unreasonable discrimination.

In fact, I have an email newsletter from a friend of mine who runs a software company that can stop viruses. I am a client--or soon won't be. But listen to this. This is their interpretation of the FCC's net neutrality, ``What Net Neutrality Means for You.''

Here is what it says: ``Deregulation,'' which is what we are being accused of doing, which is regulating the Internet, ``could mean higher Internet access prices as ISPs institute tiered models that offer speedier downloads to higher-paying customers.''

That is the current business model. You will pay for what you use. If the business model is struck down by the FCC, you won't have the investment. You won't have an expansion of the Internet.

I think it will stifle innovation. Frankly, the creator, the Godfather, the grandfather of the Internet, Dr. David Farber, agrees with this position. He has co-written an article that basically says, if you put regulators in charge of the Internet instead of engineers, it will reduce innovation. It makes sense, because now, if you're a big enough company--like a Google or an eBay--you just hire lawyers and lobbyists to go and lobby the FCC instead of hiring engineers to innovate.

[From the Trend Micro Consumer Newsletter, February 2011]

What Net Neutrality Means for You

Net neutrality has been in the news for some years now, but

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just released

some important new rules on the topic. ``Net neutrality''

refers to the principle that Internet service providers and

the government shouldn't restrict content or service levels

for different users. In other words, supporters of net

neutrality think that ISPs shouldn't favor one user over

another when it comes to Internet access.

Net neutrality opponents argue that intentional content

blocking and performance degradation is more of a theoretical

problem than a real one. They also argue that less

regulation, not more, is what's required to create greater

competition among ISPs and better service levels for

everyone.

For consumers, deregulation of the Internet could mean

higher Internet access prices as ISPs institute tiered models

that offer speedier downloads to higher-paying customers.

Some people also worry that allowing businesses to choose

what content or sites they'll offer to whom will result in

the commoditization of a formerly free and open environment,

akin to the evolution of television from an essentially free

service to a highly fragmented and fairly expensive one.

The FCC's new rules appear to favor net neutrality

proponents. They require ISPs to be more transparent about

network performance and management; they prevent fixed (as

opposed to wireless) service providers from blocking content

(for example, sites owned by their competition), and they

don't allow ISPs to discriminate against specific

applications (such as Netflix, BitTorrent, or Hulu). In other

words, you can expect things to pretty much remain as they

have been--for now, anyway.

Will the gentleman yield?

If you yield, it will solve the question.

Yield to me, please. Give me a little bit of respect.

I spoke one time, which is right now. I don't know who you're confusing me with or why you're standing up right now.

Mr. Speaker, I embrace this opportunity to repeal this trillion-dollar tragedy. That's the cost of it over 6 years; yet in order to make their numbers work so they can come here and argue that this is deficit neutral, they only have benefits for 6 years. It's full of gimmicks like that. The reality is that it's raising taxes to the amount of $569 billion. That is a job killer. And it hurts senior health care by taking $523 billion out of Medicare over the next 10 years and puts bureaucrats in charge of your health care. That's wrong. That's a tragedy.

What we will do right is in the next phase. Starting very soon in our committee, we will begin an open process, not the one that was used where a bill was written in the Speaker's office and then driven to the House floor with no amendments allowed. We will do this right. We will have the people involved. This whole body will be involved. Even the other side of the party is going to be involved in our committee, which we weren't allowed before. So we will do this right and do it right for the American citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with my colleague Jeff Fortenberry's thoughts.

The school in my district, Millard South, endured the ultimate tragedy when a student, who was suspended, returned with a gun. He walked into the assistant principal's office and shot her. Ms. Kaspar later died.

My profound sorrow of this incident--the ultimate parents' nightmare. My kids attend that school district; so we were getting the call about the lockdown. I don't think there is anything more disturbing to a parent anywhere than when the veil of safety of a school has been pierced by such violence.

The principal, who was also shot, is going to survive. He is also a neighbor of ours, and so I am glad that he will be fine.

I ask this floor and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join the Omaha community in expressing the depth of our sorrows. I ask for your prayers for not only the students of that school but for all of the teachers, for the family of the assistant principal who died, and for the principal who is fighting for his life right now. I appreciate everyone's concern.

The gentleman from Jacksonville, Florida, knows the hip- hop station. I am impressed.

But this is grassroots radio. We have had pirate radio. Now we are going to have legitimate grassroots radio. This is empowering to those that have little or no voice in their communities. This is why the gentleman from Pittsburgh and I have worked so diligently over the last 8-10 years. Actually it goes back almost 12 years, when we helped get the MITRE Study, so we could know based on science whether or not there would be interference or not. And when that study, a thorough study, came back and said there would be no interference, Mike and I began the process of making sure that we could allow on the third adjacency communities to have a licensed FM station.

That is what low power is about, communities. It is not going to blast from Omaha to Lincoln. It probably won't even go from East Omaha to midtown in Omaha or in Pittsburgh. But the reality is it will serve the community.

Just in my district alone, in the Omaha metropolitan area, since beginning this process we have had dozens of community groups contact us about when they will be able to apply for a low power FM station. This includes the Chicano Awareness Center. This includes Catholic Charities. This includes Salem Baptist Church, which is located in the heart of the most impoverished area of my district, one of the most impoverished, unfortunately for the Omaha area, and one of the most impoverished areas in the United States and in the African American community. One of their issues is that they don't have a particular voice for the African American or North Omaha community. So this is why it is empowering. They finally have the opportunity now to have a radio voice with which to communicate community issues.

Today Mike says this is low power to the people. It is the essence of grassroots radio. This is a day to celebrate for all of our community groups, because they will now be empowered once the Senate takes this up, since all of the objections have been dealt with in the appropriate manner. So this is truly a day for them to celebrate.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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, too, rise in favor of H.R. 2941, otherwise known as Johanna's Law reauthorization. It would reauthorize Johanna's Law, which was first passed by Congress at the end of the 2006 session and directed the Health and Human Services Department to carry out a national campaign to increase awareness of gynecological cancer.

In 2006, 76,515 women were told that they had gynecological cancer and 27,848 died from that cancer. H.R. 2941 would authorize the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to continue the nationwide campaign which is entitled ``Inside Knowledge: Get the Facts About Gynecologic Cancer.'' The campaign is designed to increase the awareness and knowledge of health care providers and women with respect to gynecological cancers.

Cancer screenings are effective when they can detect the disease early. It is widely known that the earlier the disease is caught, the greater chance a person has to survive it. However, in the group of gynecological cancers, only cervical cancer has a screening test that can detect the cancer in its earliest stages. It is therefore important that both individual women and their physicians remain aware of the disease and recognize signals that could lead to an earlier detection of the disease. That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support Johanna's Law.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize James Wright for his 10 years of public service in my district staff. Throughout his career in our office, James has consistently demonstrated a genuine willingness to help others and improve our community. He has undertaken a number of projects in my district, such as a program to teach financial literacy to young adults, a ``5 percent home ownership'' initiative under the section 8 housing program, and an ``entrepreneurship'' program to create a critical mass in a struggling urban setting. He has also taken on a leadership role in an Omaha small business initiative in North Omaha.

All of these actions were directed at providing quality assistance to the people of Omaha. His positive attitude, dedication, and optimistic outlook are commendable attributes, and we're certainly appreciative of his outlook.

James is an outstanding member of the Omaha community. He loves our great city. He contributes to local and national charities and organizations as well as participates in the Omaha Community Playhouse. He's a dynamic individual with a wealth of knowledge. We thank him for his public service.

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

As an original sponsor of this resolution, I rise in support of House Resolution 1600, supporting the critical role of the physician assistant profession and supporting the goals and ideals of National Physician Assistant Week. I would also like to thank Congresswoman Betty McCollum of Minnesota for bringing to our attention the important services physician assistants provide and congratulate her for getting this resolution to the floor.

Physician assistants practice medicine under a physician's supervision. A PA's practice can include diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventive care. On any given day, a PA could prescribe medication, order and interpret x-rays, attend surgery, give advice to patients, and may also have supervisory responsibilities. A PA is supervised by a physician, but at facilities where the physician is present for only a few days each week, the PA may be a patient's principal health care provider. This increases the flexibility of the medical profession and ensures patients have access to quality care.

PAs in every State are required to pass the Physician Assistant National Certifying Examination. In order to take this exam, a candidate must be a graduate of an accredited PA program, which includes classroom, laboratory, and clinical training in several specialty areas. To maintain their certification, PAs must complete many hours of continuing medical education and a recertification examination. PAs are highly educated, highly trained, work extremely hard, and are a vital cog in our Nation's health care system. I hope all will join me in saluting our Nation's PAs for their commitment and dedication, and I urge your support for this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

I would be remiss on a resolution recognizing PAs not to recognize my brother-in-law's brother, Val, Val Valgora. He passed away several years ago. He was a PA back in the seventies. I had never heard of a physician assistant before. Val was instrumental in the State of Nebraska in expanding the use of physician assistants. He worked with the University of Nebraska Medical Center and then on to LSU to help create and expand the educational component for PAs. So, at least in the State of Nebraska, Val Valgora is one of our legendary PAs.

I just wanted to thank him and take this opportunity to recognize his accomplishments for the State of Nebraska.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3036, the National Alzheimer's Project Act. Alzheimer's afflicts millions of Americans and their families and friends. It is a personal tragedy for both patients and everyone who loves them.

I had an opportunity to meet with the families during a support group just recently. I heard their stories about their loved ones slipping away with this form of dementia, and I heard their stories of the pressures and sadness it places on all of the families.

NIH estimates that approximately 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, most of whom are over the age of 60. So there is a good chance that you or a friend of yours has a relative suffering from Alzheimer's.

Alzheimer's disease forces families and friends to watch as loved ones, once independent and vivacious, suffer personality changes, a loss of independence and severe memory loss, such that they view those close to them as strangers. As difficult as it is to watch, it is that much harder on the patients. Those with Alzheimer's face an irreversible process in which they lose many of those things that define them as individuals.

While Alzheimer's can affect people as young as in their 30s, most patients are over 60 years old. As this age group doubles over the next 25 years to around 72 million, the number of people with Alzheimer's will also increase dramatically.

As with other diseases which also affect large numbers of people and which cause profound suffering for patients, families and friends, we want to do whatever we can to eliminate the diseases or to mitigate their impact on people's lives. When Congress reauthorized the NIH in 2006, Congress decided to put the question of which diseases to fund into the hand of experts.

While it makes the most sense to let experts determine the best use of scarce resources for research, Congress still has an important role to play in fighting Alzheimer's and other diseases. Specifically, we must identify laws and regulations that post barriers to developing new treatments and diagnostic tests quickly and safely. Most importantly, Congress must ensure that our government is acting efficiently and effectively.

We often hear concerns about a lack of coordination between government agencies. The government already devotes substantial resources to Alzheimer's through such things as direct care, research at the NIH, and the activities of the Administration on Aging. However, it is imperative that these agencies coordinate their activities. The National Alzheimer's Project Act would ensure that coordination. If these agencies have a unified mission with a coordinated strategy, we significantly increase the chances of beating this disease.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 3036.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to one of our great advocates for families and individuals with Alzheimer's, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, S. 3199, the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act of 2010, has worthy elements. Certainly we support the efforts of early recognition of hearing loss. As Mr. Pallone said, and Mrs. Capps will reiterate, it is not standard practice, or was not standard practice, to perform early detection for hearing loss on newborns. Usually parents, after about a year, would recognize something isn't right, that maybe speech was delayed, and that's when testing would occur. We have found that early testing has benefits. However, our side of the aisle must recommend a ``no'' vote at this time due to the authorizing of appropriations with the language of ``such sums as necessary.'' This type of open-ended authorization abdicates our duty to budget for programs responsibly.

The bill would reauthorize the newborns and infants hearing loss program. It would enable the Secretary of Health and Human Services to assist in recruitment, retention, education, and training of qualified personnel and health care providers. Unfortunately, in reauthorizing this program, the bill contains no limits on authorization of spending for the program. As my colleagues know, authorizing ``such sums as necessary'' in legislation has contributed to the fiscal crisis our country now faces. Our country had a budget deficit of $1.3 trillion in fiscal year 2010, and some are projecting that our country's budget deficit will reach $1.5 trillion this fiscal year. We cannot continue this fiscal irresponsibility by voting for open-ended authorization amounts. We need to include specific authorization amounts in legislation so we can set priorities, if we are to ever get our fiscal House in order.

Madam Speaker, I recommend a ``no'' vote on this legislation so we can work in a bipartisan manner to include specific reauthorization amounts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman is correct in the sense that it is a reauthorization. It strikes the language of 2002 while leaving the language of ``such sums as may be necessary'' for the fiscal year going forward now, but we still have that open-ended language.

And after hearing from the people for the last couple of years, we have an additional emphasis on making sure that we are tighter in the writing of these bills, unlike what was occurring in the year 2002 when this was passed or in 2009 when it passed from committee. That is our only objection here, the authorization of open-ended, ``such sums as may be necessary.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his efforts in fighting Alzheimer's and working for those families.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I rise today in opposition to S. 3386, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act. This bill would regulate e-commerce, specifically, negative option marketing and third-party billing.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has not held a single hearing or markup on this legislation or any legislation similar in concept. Furthermore, it has been less than 2 weeks since the majority first raised the issue with minority staff and informed us of their intentions to place this bill on the suspension calendar.

We have not held a single stakeholders meeting regarding this legislation, nor have we spoken with the Federal Trade Commission about how they would implement this legislation or if they feel it is necessary. In fact, we had not one single stakeholder call, email, or letter or one single call, email, or letter from the regulator on this issue until Monday. Since then, we have received a number of stakeholder calls voicing concerns with the legislation. However, without holding any hearings or meetings, we can't properly evaluate these concerns.

As has been aptly demonstrated by the majority's health care bill and the CPSIA, the consumer protection bill that we've had to make several changes to, the heavy hand of Federal regulation is prone to producing unforeseen and unacceptable consequences on the Nation's economy.

On its face, this may not be something we'd oppose if we had a record to prove it's necessity and to inform us as to the proper way to address the potential problems that this bill is meant to solve, but we have absolutely no record on this matter; and the House, therefore, cannot responsibly pass this bill to the President's desk to become law.

House Republicans are more than willing to work with our counterparts on the other side of the aisle and with our colleagues in the Senate next Congress to build a record and address if this issue is proven necessary. Based solely on a complete lack of process, not necessarily the merits, but on the process, I urge opposition to this legislation.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to commend Mr. Boucher, the telecom chair. He has been an awesome chair for telecom, in fact, I would have to say in the United States House of Representatives, and I am even going to throw in the Senate. He is by far the most informed and educated on telecom Internet issues. So when Rick Boucher stands up to discuss an issue that affects e-commerce and the Internet, we listen.

It is unfortunate that we are having a debate on this bill on process and not on the merits, because on the merits we are going to listen to Rick Boucher. And I just want to thank him for his service to Congress, his tutelage towards me on telecom issues in Congress. I for one, and I can say all of us on the Energy and Commerce Committee, are going to miss Rick Boucher next term.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

At this time, I will yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee from Texas, Joe Barton.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Diabetes Caucus and a former vice chair and member of a regional board that included Nebraska for the American Diabetes Association before I came to the United States Congress, I rise in support of House Resolution 1690 supporting the observance of American Diabetes Month.

Diabetes touches nearly every life in this country. There are an estimated 24 million Americans today afflicted with diabetes, and that number is projected to double in the next 25 years. Diabetes is a group of diseases characterized by high blood glucose. It results when the body does not produce sufficient insulin or is unable to process insulin, a hormone that is needed to convert sugars, starches, and other food into needed energy for daily life.

Type 1 diabetes results from the body's failure to produce insulin, which allows glucose to enter and fuel the cells of the body. The most common form of type 1 diabetes is immune mediated diabetes, in which the body's immune system attacks and destroys the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.

The common name for type 1 diabetes is juvenile diabetes. Even though juvenile diabetes is typically diagnosed during childhood or adolescence, it is a disease individuals must manage their entire lives. Type 2 diabetes, sometimes known as adult onset diabetes, results from the body's inability to make enough or properly use insulin. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form of diabetes, and its prevalence is rising every year. Approximately 57 million Americans are thought to have pre-type 2 diabetes. The complications from both forms of diabetes can be devastating and life altering, ranging from heart disease, stroke, and blindness to kidney disease.

In the case of type 2 diabetes, people can take steps to avoid the onset of the disease and mitigate its effects. Americans must understand that their health and the health of their families are in their hands. Balanced diets and increased physical activity can prevent

the disease and its complications. Those with histories of diabetes in their families must be especially vigilant.

I would like to thank the author of this resolution, the gentlewoman from Denver, the Rocky Mountain State, Ms. DeGette, for her efforts to improve awareness of this disease and supporting all of the education efforts. She is very vigilant on this issue, as I know because we are on the Energy and Commerce Committee together. The issue and why it is so necessary to educate is to highlight the importance of early detection. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlelady from Colorado mentioned the gentleman from Delaware who wanted to be here and speak on this resolution, her cochair, Mike Castle, but he was called back to his home since we don't have any more votes this evening.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the new gentleman to the House of Representatives from the State of New York (Mr. Reed).

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

How many times a night does this scenario play out: You're on your couch and you're watching a nice program. The program has people conversing and it's getting to that pinnacle point in the show and it fades, and the commercial comes on and it's really loud. You reach for your remote and you can't find the remote. Your spouse in the other room, with her impatient voice, says, Turn that down, but you can't find the remote. You say, where is that blankedy-blank remote. Then you look between the cushions and there it is. You hit the mute button, and peace and calm is now restored in the living rooms of thousands of American households.

Several of my colleagues, people in this House, have said that this act isn't needed, but for that living room on that night it was sure helpful to restore calm. The Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation, or CALM Act, is why we are here today. Some say, and especially coming on the heels of the last bill, a Diabetes Awareness Month bill, that maybe there are more important issues to deal with; well, not for that family in that living room on that night.

I do want to point out one thing here in that the industry has recognized that there is an issue with the loudness of the commercials. On November 5, 2009, the Advanced Television Systems Committee, ATSC, announced the approval of an industry standard, the ``ATSC Recommended Practice: Techniques for Establishing and Maintaining Audio Loudness for Digital Television,'' which provides guidance to creators and distributors of TV content focusing on audio measurement, audio monitoring techniques, and methods to control loudness. It's not as easy as we may think to control that, especially when you come off of a calm commercial or a show into a more boisterous commercial.

Now this bill has been amended in the Senate to codify that standard that has been developed by the experts. The industry will move to solve the purported concerns by simply moving to comply with that consensus standard. Furthermore, the act would create a kind of ``safe harbor'' by deeming an operator that installs, utilizes and maintains the appropriate equipment and software in compliance with the act.

Now while many Members may feel that there are more important issues for this Congress to deal with, this is the issue at hand. And as a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee where this went through regular order of subcommittee and committee, we stand in support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.