Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my fellow Members to oppose the previous question, and I welcome my colleague from Nebraska. It has been a lonely exercise for me the last few years, and I am glad to have someone else join me on the floor and make this request, because I do think having some transparency and having accountability and having an up-or-down vote on the COLA makes a lot of sense.

These are difficult times in our Nation. We are fighting terrorism on so many fronts, our economy faces some challenges, and our future budget deficits continues to be projected in the future at great levels.

So I don't think this is the right time for Members of Congress to be allowing a pay raise to go through without even an up-or-down vote. We need to show the American people we are willing to make some sacrifices. We need to budget and live within our means and make careful spending decisions based on our most pressing priorities.

So, Mr. Speaker, let us send a signal to the American people that we recognize there is a struggle today for some in today's economy. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to block the automatic cost-of-living adjustment to Members of Congress. Regardless of how Members feel about this issue, they should all be willing to make their position public and on the record. A ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote up or down on the COLA.

If the previous question is defeated, I also would intend to offer an amendment to the rule, and my amendment would block the fiscal year 2008 automatic cost-of-living pay raise for Members of Congress. Because this amendment requires a waiver, the only way to get to this issue is to defeat the previous question. So therefore I urge Members to vote no on the previous question.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy is currently managing 206 ongoing projects and, unfortunately, the agency has a long record of inadequate management and oversight of contracts. DOE's failure to hold contractors accountable led the GAO to designate DOE contract administration and project management as a high-risk area for waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement way back in 1990. Although DOE has made some oversight improvements in the intervening years, GAO noted in reports completed this year, 17 years after the 1990 report, that major problems exist in contracting management at the agency.

One quick example: On a project started in 2004 to demonstrate an alternative waste treatment technology at DOE's Hanford site, DOE officials decided to accelerate the project's schedule. As a result, the project was initiated without using key project management tools, such as an independent review of the cost and schedule baseline. After the project experienced significant schedule and technical problems and the estimated cost more than tripled to about $230 million, DOE began requiring that the project be managed consistent with its project management requirements.

Furthermore, on four additional projects, estimated to cost over $100 million each, cost and schedule information was not being reported into DOE's project tracking system, resulting in less senior management oversight.

My amendment would simply require DOE's Inspector General to conduct a root-cause analysis to fully understand the causes of its contract and management problems, as has been recommended by the GAO.

I encourage everyone to support this amendment as a necessary first step in order to better address the contract management challenges faced by the DOE.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

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

I thank Chairman Frank for his good work. I have great respect for Chairman Frank, and I have great respect for my colleague Mr. Gillmor. On this particular issue, I respectfully have a different point of view, but I do understand the time and effort that has gone into looking at this issue.

I think it is important to note that when we look at legislation, we often are trying to solve problems and achieve progress. That is what Congress does, and my concern here is this is legislation that is a solution in search of the problem.

We already have a number of banks that have been chartered with commercial parents, and we have a track record of regulation of this type of institution that is a stellar track record. Quite frankly, I think the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the FDIC, and the State of Utah, which regulates these particular banks, has a great track record. So I fear that we have moved down a path where we said, ``Oh, gee, these things could happen; therefore, let's stop this industry from moving in the direction that it has been moving.''

I think it is important for us to show concern and make sure we don't go down a path that could have negative implications, but in this case where we have already had a number of banks chartered and a track record that is so solid and none of these potential problems have manifested themselves, I question whether Congress should be moving in this direction.

As this debate has moved along, we have also said, well, what about the auto companies? Maybe we should carve out an exemption for them. What about the ones that already exist? Like Target already has one. We need to cut out an exemption for them.

As you start to slice and dice this industry and allow certain exemptions here and there, that calls into question the basic premise of if there really is a problem to have commercial ownership of this industry.

I will close with just one other point of fact. I noted in the hearing before the Financial Services Committee a couple weeks ago a comment by one of the witnesses was made that I have heard periodically throughout this debate. They said: My gosh, what if Enron and WorldCom had one of these? Where would we be then?

And my answer is: Based on the track record of this industry, I would like to think that, while those parent companies had their financial difficulties, the subsidiary bank would have been fine. We have examples right now where the parent company, like Conseco, went into bankruptcy, and their industrial loan company based in Utah was shielded from all those financial problems and, quite frankly, sold at a premium.

So that shows that the style of regulation, which is different, it is a different style of regulation called ``bottom up'' or ``bank centric'' regulation, it shows that type of regulation has worked, it has protected against transgressions, and I think that track record is something we need to keep in mind.

So as this issue percolates along, it is clear this bill is going to pass the House today. I suspect the Senate may have a different type of bill as well. And as this issue perks along, I just encourage everyone to keep an open mind about looking at the actual track record, understanding the magnitude of the potential problems, but also keeping in mind that more choices for consumers, greater efficiency for our economy, those are good things, too, and they ought to be balanced in this overall debate.

Again, I really thank the chairman for giving me some time when I am speaking out. Quite frankly, I am going to vote against the bill, but I appreciate him giving me time to speak today.

Again, I respect all my colleagues that worked on this, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on the adjusted loan bank issue in the future.

Madam Speaker, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense have been proposing the development of a new nuclear warhead under the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, and they are also proposing an ambitious nuclear weapons complex modernization proposal called Complex 2030. And the bill we are going to be voting on today provides funding for those activities.

This is a multibillion dollar agenda, and it's being proposed, in my opinion, in a policy vacuum without any administration statement on the national security environment that the future nuclear deterrent is designed to address.

The lack of any definitive analysis or strategic assessment defining the agenda of future nuclear stockpiles makes it impossible for Congress to weigh the relative merits of investing the billions of taxpayer dollars in new nuclear weapon production activities when the United States is facing the other challenge of having too large a stockpile as a legacy from the Cold War.

Now, the argument for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program started out with a concern that was most frequently expressed, at least was about, the expected lifetimes of the plutonium pits, which are the nuclear core of our existing nuclear weapons. At the time, their projected life span was 45-60 years, and with some of our arsenal having entered the force in the 1970s and 1980s, there would be a cause for concern.

However, just a few months ago, we received a new study performed by the independent JASON panel, a highly respected body often consulted on technical issues. That study, using data compiled by the nuclear weapons labs, shows that all the plutonium pits in our existing weapons have life spans of at least 85 years, and most are good for 100 years or more. The labs themselves agree with the studies. So, it seems there isn't a threat to the reliability of our current nuclear warheads.

So I think we need to be careful. This bill, while funding was reduced somewhat on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, I think we need to be careful about going down a path that we may not need to go down.

In conclusion, we should be careful not to hurry down a path when the reliable plutonium pit is no longer an issue. Should we be in a hurry to go down a path when the history of the Department of Energy includes a long list of cancelled and over-budget projects that were started before the objective was thoroughly thought through and understood? We should not make that mistake with the Nation's nuclear weapons complex or the decisions to begin building new nuclear weapons.

Mr. Chairman, as part of this group of en bloc amendments, it includes an amendment I have offered. It has to do with the uranium tailings pile on the banks of the Colorado River in Moab, Utah.

Now, that may sound like an interesting issue to have in a Defense authorization bill. It is not the first time it has been in a Defense authorization bill. The last time we dealt with this was when Congress was in session in the year 2000, and at that time Congress directed the Department urging them to move this uranium tailings pile.

Make no mistake. This is right on the banks of a major river, and the environmental impact statement that looked at this pile indicated that it is a near certainty that at some point, if it is not moved, it is going to be flushed into the river. And there are 25 million users living downstream of this site.

Now, this mill tailings site was part of our military efforts in the 1950s and 1960s when it came to our nuclear weapons efforts, and quite frankly, while Congress has voiced in the past on this very bill 7 years ago that it should be moved, the Department of Energy has exhibited tremendous inaction. They have not provided information for why there has been a delay. They have completed a longstanding environmental impact statement that resulted in a record of a decision saying they wanted to move it. In that, they said it could be done in 7 to 10 years.

And yet, the Secretary of Energy said just this year it's not going to be until 2028 when this moves. This is an agency that has consistently underperformed, underpromised, has not answered questions about the progress of this project, and that's why I offer this amendment today, so that once again Congress can make its will known, as it has done in the past, in indicating that this pile ought to be moved.

I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Skelton, for his cooperation on this issue.

Well, I thank my colleague from Arkansas for conducting this Special Order tonight. That list, that article that you just were referring to is not a one-time deal. I think we all have a sense after over 4 years of the Iraqi operation having taken place, I think we have all heard stories, and those news articles seem to come out more and more often where money has been spent and we haven't gotten result in terms of rebuilding the infrastructure. That is a cause of concern and that is one of the motivations behind the Blue Dogs coming together with legislation in this Congress called the Operation Iraqi Freedom Cost Accountability Act.

The Blue Dogs have come up with this bill which has been given the number H. Res. 97, and I want to take a brief moment to walk through what this legislation does.

Now, quite frankly, before we go through the specifics, I should say it puts forth tangible and commonsense proposals to ensure future transparency and the accountability in the funding of Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is a first step. There is more we probably need to do, but this is an important first step to make sure that resources are getting to our troops in the field in a reasonable manner.

There are four crucial points in this legislation demanding for fiscal accountability in Iraq.

First, it calls for transparency on how Iraq war funds are spent.

Second, it calls for the creation of a Truman Commission to investigate the awarding of contracts.

And, third, it calls for the need to fund the Iraqi war through the normal appropriations process and not through emergency supplemental appropriations processes.

Fourth, it calls for using American resources to improve the Iraqi assumption of internal policing operations.

Now, the resolution also calls for the Iraqi Government and its people to progress towards full responsibility for internal policing of the country because ultimately that is where we need to go.

Now recently, and I know other speakers have mentioned this, a significant accomplishment took place in terms of the Blue Dogs working with the Armed Services Committee to include key provisions of the Blue Dog accountability legislation in the Department of Defense authorization bill that we are going to be voting on here in the House of Representatives later on this week.

In doing so, I think it's an important first step toward ensuring greater fiscal transparency in the funding of the war in Iraq.

The American people deserve to know that their tax dollars are being spent wisely and that our troops have the resources they need to succeed. The Blue Dogs are committed to passing legislation that accomplishes that goal.

Now, members of the Blue Dog Coalition also believe strongly that funding requests should come through the normal appropriations process, as I said, rather than through these multiple emergency supplemental requests. Let's make it part of our overall budget so we can plan accordingly.

I think that again with the Defense authorization bill coming up this week and with key components of the Blue Dog legislation included in that bill, I think that's a significant step forward for this country. I am proud that the Blue Dogs were able to play an important role in moving this legislation forward.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge support for H.R. 1157, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. What finer tribute to our wives and mothers could we pay during this week before Mother's Day than to join as cosponsors of this important bill.

This legislation would invest in the research we need to discover the potential links between breast cancer and environmental factors. It is research that could someday lead to a cure.

Over 1,000 Utahns will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year; of those, 200 will probably die from the disease. Even though Utah has a lower incidence rate compared to other States, it's tragic that a woman in our country has a 1 in 7 chance of developing invasive breast cancer during her lifetime. That is a much greater risk than in 1975, when it was 1 in 11. We know that breast cancer remains the second-leading cause of cancer death among women. I am committed--as I know you are-- to finding answers to the questions about possible links between this life-threatening disease and environmental factors.

We know we are making progress against breast cancer, but we don't yet know enough about what causes it, or how to prevent it.

Let's make this 2007 Mother's Day the time we step up our investment into the critical search for answers. A bipartisan group of 144 of our colleagues has already cosponsored H.R. 1157. I urge everyone to join that group.

I hope that this Congress will act on the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act. I believe it's an important piece of the puzzle as we continue the fight to defeat this potential threat to the health and well-being of mothers everywhere.

Madam Chairman, I would like to compliment my friend, Chairman Wu. He has been a tireless advocate for America's manufacturers and businesses and this bill will be a great benefit to our Nation's workforce. I appreciate working with the Chairman to include language in H.R. 1868 for a pilot program that, among other things, better enables the transfer of technology based on the technological needs of manufacturers and available technologies from institutions of higher education, laboratories, and other technology producing entities.

The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Competitive Grant Program described in Section 203(c) of H.R. 1868 is intended to, in addition to traditional manufacturing extension activities, emphasize the need to develop MEP projects that define the technological needs of small-to- medium sized manufacturers and to similarly define the capabilities of new technology and innovations available from institutions of higher education, laboratories, and other technology producing entities. When properly defined and characterized, manufacturers and innovators will have the ability, through computer technology or other means, to match needs with capabilities. I believe that the development and deployment of this matching capability by this Competitive Grant Program will permit access to new and maturing technologies for the 350,000 small- to-medium-sized manufacturers on a broad basis, which has not been possible to date.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise as a supporter of H.R. 1332, the underlying bill, and I would particularly like to thank the sponsor of the bill, Representative Melissa Bean, as well as the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee, Ms. Velazquez, and the ranking member, Mr. Chabot, for all their hard work in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor today.

Now, the 7(a) program is SBA's largest primary business loan program and provides loan guarantees to thousands of small businesses that are unable to obtain financing through the traditional lending market. That is why I am pleased that section 105 of the underlying bill will establish the Increased Veteran Participation Program to help increase 7(a) loans to military veterans, which declined by over $170 million between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006.

Section 103 of the bill, which permanently establishes the Community Express Program, will also provide much needed loans to veterans.

As 14 percent of small businesses in America are owned by veterans, we should do all we can to support those who have served our country. However, we should not leave out the men and women who continue to serve our country honorably every day in the military reserves. Small business ownership is extremely challenging, especially for members of the Reserve component of the Armed Forces who must carefully balance their civilian careers with their duty to serve our Nation.

My amendment would simply include members of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces as eligible to receive loans under the Community Express Program in section 103 of the bill and as eligible to participate in the Increased Veteran Participation Program in section 105.

Since 9/11, I think we all know we have relied on members of the Reserve more and more to participate in serving our country, and this increased role should be recognized and supported.

I urge colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield to the Chair of the full committee, Ms. Velazquez.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I just explained in the discussion on my previous amendment, SBA's 7(a) loan program helps thousands of entrepreneurs start new businesses, create jobs and grow the economy here in the United States. Unfortunately, many segments of the American population are still unable to obtain necessary capital to successfully become entrepreneurs. Now to help remedy this inequity, the SBA created the Community Express Program to reach out to segments of the small business community that have difficulty accessing capital from traditional lending markets. These businesses are typically owned by women, veterans and socially or economically disadvantaged individuals who are underrepresented as business owners and who need smaller business loans accompanied by technical assistance.

Members of Indian tribes especially lack sufficient access to capital for starting new businesses. Of minority-owned businesses, only 6.6 percent were owned by American Indians, the least percentage of any minority group surveyed. And of U.S. nonfarm businesses, less than 1 percent are owned by American Indians.

I represent many Native American tribes in my district, and I know the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well if only scarce capital can be attained for new businesses.

My amendment would simply include members of qualified Indian tribes as eligible to receive loans under the Community Express Program in section 103 of the underlying bill. This minor revision will provide loans to a currently underserved population and help participating lenders better determine who is actually eligible to receive loans under the Community Express Program.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the Chair of the full committee, Ms. Velazquez.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I do want to commend Chairman Waxman and the Oversight and Government Reform committee for all the work that they have done this week.

The four accountability bills that the House has already considered this week are an important step that Congress should take in order to keep a promise to the American people. A government of the people and by the people should do everything to ensure transparency in Federal Government contracting.

That is why I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1362, the Accountability in Contracting Act. I believe that the public deserves a great level of accountability and transparency in sole source contracting.

Now, over the past several years, there has been a great deal of controversy regarding this type of contract. As a businessman, before I came to Congress and as a supporter of business, I believe that there are, indeed, legitimate reasons for this type of contract to be issued. However, I also believe that we need checkpoints in place at times.

My amendment anticipates a limited set of circumstances that call for additional scrutiny. It would simply provide Congress with prior notice of any sole source contract expected to be awarded to a foreign-owned company that is based in or has majority operations in a country known to sponsor terrorist activity.

The amendment is intended to allow Congress to review and comment on the proposed contract. As someone who has spent his life in the business world before coming to Congress, I think there are important reasons why Congress should be looking at sole source contracting beyond just the business perspective.

My amendment would provide 30 days for the appropriate congressional oversight committees to review this type of contract under the circumstances I have described. Now, this is not an overly long period of time, but it is still a sufficient amount of time for Congress to take a look at major contracts and offer a different perspective, if necessary.

I think it's important that we take a step in the right direction to attempt to address this issue in advance, instead of being put in the position of reacting after the fact, if this circumstance were to present itself.

Now, I would also stress this amendment is about good government and making sure that U.S. tax dollars aren't inadvertently benefiting countries that sponsor or harbor terrorists. My amendment is not about singling out any specific business or any specific country. This is about having the

best possible process and checkpoints in place to provide for transparency in government.

It's clear the public has demanded accountability from Congress and from the Federal Government, which they should demand. This bill is a great vehicle for achieving that goal.

We have an opportunity to shine a bright light on contracting procedures in the underlying bill, and I believe that my amendment provides an added layer of appropriate congressional review in, as I described earlier, a rather limited set of potential circumstances in the future.

Again, I want to commend the committee. I want to commend Chairman Waxman and also Ranking Member Davis for their efforts in this bill, also Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter for his efforts in pursuing this bill as well.

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

Could you repeat the last half of the question?

First of all, I did not, as I said, I am not singling out any particular company at all.

If a company has significant foreign operations in a country, that would be what the legislation is indicating.

That's correct.

Currently they are on that list, that is correct.

That is correct.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for the comments and helping to clarify this matter.

Again, a limited set of circumstances, one I think is appropriate that we try to anticipate in advance so Congress isn't caught unaware. I appreciate the expression of support from the minority side of the aisle.

I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.

One of the great successes for our country's economy, and we all say it here as Members of Congress as we talk about the value of small business, but it is important for us in Congress to look at effecting public policy in a way that assists small business in making success, in being competitive relative to the rest of the world in terms of pursuing job creation.

And I really want to applaud the leadership of our caucus for moving ahead this early in this Congress with the small business tax relief package. I think that is a real important statement. I hope everyone is paying attention to that. It is certainly something that a lot of us in this caucus have advocated for, and I think it is a great step to be taking today.

I also want to acknowledge the fact that this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. I want to thank Chairman Rangel for doing such an excellent job in the Ways and Means Committee in working in this bipartisan fashion to come up with this very well-crafted bill. I think this is a great moment for this Congress to work in a bipartisan way to help our economy move forward. I encourage all of us to vote for this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This afternoon I went to Walter Reed and I visited some injured soldiers. One of them was from my congressional district in the State of Utah; had a number of serious injuries. He has been in intensive care at Walter Reed for about 3 weeks now. His wife was there with him. There were pictures of his 2-year old daughter plastered up all over the wall. His daughter is back in Utah with a set of grandparents.

I wish everyone could have the experience of going and meeting the soldiers and the families. They inspire me, and they also tell me how serious this issue is about putting people in harm's way, because the lives of that family are changed forever based on these severe injuries that this soldier undertook.

With regard to the situation in Iraq, our military personnel have done everything we have asked. We can never thank our troops enough, and we owe them. We have an obligation to them to give them the best opportunity for success.

The problem is that we have never really stood here and talked about a strategy for success. A successful strategy has to be comprehensive. That is what has been needed from the outset of the conflict in Iraq, and it is still needed today as Iraq descends into civil war.

A strategy for success in Iraq requires more than a military strategy. We have the most powerful military in the world, without a doubt. If military might alone could succeed, we would be done by now.

The situation in Iraq has always required a more comprehensive effort. We need a plan for political and diplomatic and economic success.

Now, just a couple of months ago, Congress was actually handed just such a strategy in the report from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The report was put together by some of the greatest statesmen, diplomats and military minds of our generation. This was a bipartisan group led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton. These venerable men and women painstakingly considered all the available options. They talked to military strategists, generals, Iraqis and each and every type of individual who might hold the key to a way forward. They acknowledge that each recommendation of the Iraq Study Group carries its own risk factors. But in the end, this bipartisan group unanimously endorsed a plan to move forward. And in doing so, they rejected the overly simplistic discussion that seemed to dominate the 2006 election season when the primary options that were discussed were either stay the course or cut and run. In fact, the Iraq Study Group report provides reasoned arguments against both of these options.

As for staying the course, the Iraq Study Group states that, and I quote, ``The longer the United States remains in Iraq without progress, the more resentment will grow among Iraqis who

believe they are the subjects of a repressive American occupation. As one U.S. official said to us, `Our leaving would make it worse. The current approach without modification will not make it better.' ''

As for an immediate withdrawal, the Iraq Study Group states that if we left tomorrow we would simply leave an immense power vacuum in Iraq. The results would have devastating effects on the global economy, the region and the Iraqi people themselves. And specifically, the report says that ``a premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions.''

Now, the resolution we are debating right now addresses the proposal to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by just over 20,000. Let's remember that the Iraq Study Group specifically took a hard look at the surge option. In discussing the merits of a surge the Iraq Study Group report said that a surge ``might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However, past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are moved to another area.''

Furthermore, many generals and other military strategists have roundly criticized the surge strategy.

Now, I have long believed that the lack of independent, accurate assessments of our progress has hampered our efforts to secure Iraq and assist in its reconstruction. I strongly believe that the U.S. cannot linger in making the important policy and strategic decisions recommended in the report.

That is why we need to follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report. U.S. forces should be redeployed from combat missions to support functions. Our troops should be supplementing the Iraqi Army. And at the same time, we have to move forward on the economic development front and the political front and the regional diplomacy front.

The resolution we are debating today is very simple. We support our troops and we oppose the surge strategy. I will vote for this resolution.

As I said before, our troops have done everything we have asked of them. Their performance is a source of great admiration and pride for everyone in America. At a minimum, we owe them a new approach and a thoughtful approach to the situation in Iraq and the pursuit of a comprehensive strategy for success.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 94) a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Consumer Protection Week, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution that supports the goals and ideals of National Consumer Protection Week. Starting yesterday, Sunday, February 4, through this Saturday, February 10, National Consumer Protection Week has the purpose of highlighting consumer protection and education efforts around the Nation.

This is a worthy goal that Congress should enthusiastically support. An informed consumer is a powerful consumer. Too often, the average citizen is unaware of the litany of scams being perpetrated at any given time.

Many criminals prey on consumers who have fallen on hard financial times, promising them quick fixes to magically solve all of their economic problems. These scams have real consequences for thousands of Americans, and the effects can be devastating to an individual or to a family.

However, if consumers are well informed and armed with knowledge, they can better navigate the marketplace and avoid these financial pitfalls. National Consumer Protection Week can help in this regard. Sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission, the Better Business Bureau, AARP, the Consumer Federation of America, and many other government and nonprofit organizations, community leaders can access a Web site with an outreach tool kit to help them educate their citizens and spread the word.

Now, this Web site is at www.consumer.gov/ncpw. Let me repeat that: www.consumer.gov/ncpw, which is the acronym for National Consumer Protection Week. On this Web site, consumers can access information about how to protect themselves from fraud.

It also gives tips consumers can use to recognize a ripoff when they see one. Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not quickly mention that as a new member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and specifically on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, it is my hope that this 110th Congress will be the National Consumer Protection Congress.

This week in February is National Consumer Protection Week, but we can do so much more in the coming months ahead. By working with Subcommittee Chairman Rush and Ranking Member Stearns, as well as Energy and Commerce Chairman Dingell and Ranking Member Barton, I believe that we can instigate many reforms to empower consumers and improve the lives of everyday Americans.

Our committee is prepared to aggressively examine a whole host of basic consumer protection and pocketbook issues. I look forward to working with my Republican friends in the 110th Congress on this effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to now yield 2 minutes to a fellow member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Towns from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Hinojosa and Mrs. Biggert on this issue; thank them for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I really would like to first thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus for their help in moving ahead with this bill. I am pleased to have worked with the Financial Services Committee on this legislation, and I appreciate leadership's prompt scheduling of this bill today for consideration.

I would also like to thank some of the Financial Services Committee members who have worked with me on this legislation, including Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida who introduced the bill with me. It is a good, bipartisan bill.

There are many members of the committee who have cosponsored the bill, including Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Biggert, members Geoff Davis and Gary Miller.

I want to thank the staff of the Financial Services Committee as well. They have been very helpful in moving this legislation along.

You have heard a description of this. It is quite frankly a rather simple bill. It will temporarily lift the statutory limitation, or cap, on the number of home equity conversion mortgages that the FHA may insure. As you have heard, the current limit right now is at 275,000 HECM mortgages, and it is important we are considering this legislation right now because we are approaching that limit. In fact, as I understand it, right now the portfolio stands at over 260,000 today, and there are many more loans in the pipeline waiting for HUD endorsement for insurance. So this is a timely bill.

My bill would lift the cap in order to prevent FHA lending to shut down this very popular and necessary program, and my bill would suspend the cap through the time covered under the current continuing resolution.

This bill is a good step to take today, but it is just one step. We are going to need to go further. Along with many of my colleagues who are on the floor with me today, I plan to introduce a separate bill that will permanently eliminate the cap.

Now, this program, you have heard the description from both Mr. Scott and Mrs. Biggert, it helps so many seniors who really have a need.

It is such an important program, and it is great that we have an opportunity right now to eliminate what would be an unnecessary impediment to having seniors take advantage of this opportunity.

We should provide stability to this program, and we should avoid any disruption and uncertainty in the marketplace by passing this bill today and moving ahead on the broader legislation in the near future.

So I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 391 and providing seniors with the assurance that they can utilize this important program and not face an arbitrary deadline by hitting the cap. I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4. I think it is important America's seniors have access to the medicines that they need. Quite frankly, that is why I voted for the Medicare Modernization Act when it passed the House in 2003. I believed then, as I do now, that the Medicare Modernization Act would give patients access to medicines. I also believe that the Medicare Modernization Act has made progress. There are more people who have prescription drug coverage as a result of the legislation.

Today, I support H.R. 4, as I believe it is an additional measure that will likely provide more affordable medicines to those who need them. However, I have some concerns I would like to mention for the record.

While it makes sense for efforts to be made toward negotiating better prices, I would hope the House would not interpret today's support of H.R. 4 as support for government price controls. I have long been a supporter of free and open markets. There is no better marketplace for consumers than one in which competition dictates the going rate for products and consumers are free to choose the products they prefer.

I would encourage my colleagues to support free and open markets and oppose future efforts that would involve the government in actually setting price controls, and I encourage support today for H.R. 4.