Lee Terry

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. Objection. The gentleman from New York is not speaking to the point of order.

Mr. TERRY. Objection. The gentleman from New York is not speaking to the point of order.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

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

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TERRY. If you yield, it will solve the question.

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

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY

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

Mr. TERRY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. TERRY. 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.

Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. TERRY. 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.

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

Mr. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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. TERRY

Mr. TERRY. 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).