Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly the most difficult time for Israel since the 1967 war. It is the most difficult time for the United States in the Middle East since the Gulf War, and perhaps ever. In circumstances like these, one of the great questions is: What are the basics? I think the basics are threefold. One is that we are a bedrock ally of Israel and always will be. The second is that we have to be a committed facilitator for peace. The third is that we have to be respectful of differing views, philosophies, and religions. The problem at the moment and the reason fundamentally behind this resolution is that the third aspect, the respect for differing views, is harder in a circumstance where the most progressive proposal for change was placed on the table, turned back, and no counterproposal was put forth. This spring, we were all hopeful that we would see resolution of these extraordinary issues come in an early time frame, based on the fact that Mr. Barak was clearly placing his political life on the line for progressive change, given the fact that the Palestinians and Mr. Arafat seemed in a mood to compromise, and given the fact that an American President had committed himself to be a peace facilitator. Now the question is, is there any alternative to the peace process? Obviously, there is only one, and that is war. So, while this resolution, I believe, will receive the general support of this body, although with respectful opposition, it is clear that the Congress has to go on very strong record in the context of this resolution of saying that above all, we only want peace, that there is no desire for increased conflict between the Muslim world and the Judeo-Christian traditions, and above all, there is no desire for anything except a fair and reasoned compromise on all sides for the issues of the day, a compromise that can allow people in the region to live in harmony. That is what the Congress desires.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, last year, after nearly two decades of work, the United States Congress passed the Financial Modernization Act to bring our Nation's banking and securities laws in line with the realities of the marketplace. In the few days left for legislation in this Congress, an analogous opportunity presents itself to modernize the Commodity Exchange Act that governs the trading of futures and options. At issue is the question of whether an appropriate regulatory framework can be established to deal not only with certain problems that confront today's risk management markets, but new dilemmas that appear on the horizon. Legislation of this nature involves different committees with different concerns and sometimes competitive jurisdictional interests. From the perspective of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I would like to express my respect for the initial Committee on Agriculture product. That Committee's product, led by the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), reflected a credible way of dealing with a number of concerns that have developed during much of the last decade as derivatives- related products have grown. Nonetheless, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services believes that some modifications to H.R. 4541, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, were in order and in July, a number of clarifying approaches were adopted on a bipartisan manner. The fact is that the CEA, or Commodity Exchange Act, is an awkward legislative vehicle designed in an era in which financial products of a nature now in place were neither in existence nor much contemplated. Indeed, the Commodities Future Trading Commission was fundamentally designed to supervise agriculture and commodities markets, not financial institutions. Because of anachronistic constraints established under the Commodity Exchange Act, legal uncertainty exists for trillions of dollars of existing contractual obligations. This bill resolves this uncertainty for the benefit of customers of many of these products, but it does not fully resolve the legal certainty issue for some kinds of future activities. While I would have wished that more could have been achieved, it should be clear that no additional legal uncertainty is created under this bill and progressive strides have been made on fundamental aspects of the legal certainty issue. Here, I think it particularly appropriate to thank the staffs of the committees of jurisdiction and express my appreciation for the work of professionals at the Fed, Treasury and SEC who have added so much to the legislative process. But, above all, I believe this body owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Ewing whose dedication and hard work have reflected so well on this Congress. While not all of the additions offered by the Banking Committee were adopted, the bill includes a number of provisions added by the Committee. These include a new section that excludes from the CEA nonagricultural swaps if the swap is entered into between persons who are eligible participants and the terms of the swap are individually negotiated and a new section to clarify that nothing in the CEA implies or creates any presumption that a transaction is or is not subject to the CEA or CFTC jurisdiction because it is or is not eligible for an exclusion or exemption provided for under the CEA or by the CFTC. In addition, other amendments have been added to conform this proposal to last year's financial modernization law. With regard to Section 107 of the proposed legislation, this provision excludes transactions done among eligible contract participants, where the material economic terms of the agreement are individually negotiated between the parties thereto. The market for swap agreements has grown exponentially over the past decade, but this growth has been restrained by legal uncertainty in the U.S. stemming from confusion as to whether the Commodity Exchange Act, which was designed to regulate floor-traded fungible contracts, should also apply to the individually tailored swaps. Section 107 makes it clear that swap agreements are not futures contracts. When parties negotiate and enter into a swap agreement under the provisions of Section 107, such a contract will not be subject to the Commodity Exchange Act. Furthermore, this provision makes it clear that such contracts are excluded without regard to whether the parties use a master agreement, confirmation, credit support annex, or other standardized forms to establish the legal, credit, or other terms between them. As long as the eligible parties have the ability to alter the material economic terms of the agreement, the contract is excluded from the Commodity Exchange Act. Finally, included in the bill are provisions written by the Banking Committee concerning the clearing of derivatives by banks and other regulated entities. Some of these provisions amend the Bankruptcy Code and I thank Chairman Hyde for allowing these provisions to move forward. Inserted below is an exchange of letters between the two Committees on this matter. For all the reasons stated above, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation before us. Although not perfect, this proposal is far superior to current law, and I urge its adoption. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary Washington, DC, September 6, 2000. Hon. James A. Leach, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Leach: I am writing in regard to H.R. 4541, the Commodity Futures Modernization and Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act of 2000, which your Committee ordered to be reported on July 27, 2000. It is my understanding that H.R. 4541, as ordered to be reported, contains language in Section 116(d) and in Title 2 of the bill that comes within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over bankruptcy law pursuant to Rule X of the House Rules. It is also my understanding that Section 116(d) makes technical and conforming changes to the Bankruptcy Code with respect to certain multilateral clearing organizations and that the language in Title 2 of the bill is substantively similar to Title X of H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999, which the House passed, as amended, on May 5, 1999. Therefore, in view of this language and in the interest of expeditiously moving H.R. 4541 forward, the Judiciary Committee will agree to waive its right to a sequential referral of this legislation. By agreeing not to exercise its jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee does not waive its jurisdictional interest in this bill or similar legislation. This agreement is based on the understanding that the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction will be protected through the appointment of conferees should H.R. 4541 or a similar bill go to conference. Further, I request that a copy of this letter be included in the Congressional Record as part of the floor debate on this bill. I appreciate your consideration of our interest in this bill and look forward to working with you to secure passage. Sincerely yours, Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking and Financial Services be authorized to file a supplemental report on the bill, H.R. 4541.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Last year, after nearly 2 decades of work, the United States Congress passed the Financial Modernization Act to bring our Nation's banking and securities laws in line with the realities of the marketplace. In the few days left for legislation in this Congress, an analogous opportunity presents itself to modernize the Commodity Exchange Act that governs the trading of futures and options. At issue is the question of whether an appropriate regulatory framework can be established to deal not only with certain problems that confront today's risk management markets, but new dilemmas that appear on the horizon. Legislation of this nature involves different committees with different concerns and sometimes competitive jurisdictional interests. From the perspective of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I would like to express my respect for the initial Committee on Agriculture product. That Committee's product, led by the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ewing), reflected a credible way of dealing with a number of concerns that have developed during much of the last of the decade as derivatives-related products have grown. Nonetheless, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services believes that some modifications to H.R. 4541 were in order; and in July, a number of clarifying approaches were adopted on a bipartisan manner. The fact is that the CEA, or Commodity Exchange Act, is an awkward legislative vehicle designed in an era in which financial products have of a nature now in place were neither in existence nor much contemplated. Indeed, the Commodities Future Trading Commission was fundamentally designed to supervise agriculture and commodities markets, not financial institutions. Because of anachronistic constraints established under the Commodity Exchange Act, legal uncertainty exists for trillions of dollars of existing contractual obligations. This bill resolves this uncertainty for the benefit of customers of many of these products, but it does not fully resolve the certain issue for some kinds of future activities. While I would have wished that more could have been achieved, it should be clear that no additional legal uncertainty is created under the bill and progressive strides have been made on the fundamental aspects of the legal certainty issue. Mr. Speaker, at this point let me just conclude by thanking the staff of the committees of jurisdiction, the staffs frankly of the professional parts of the United States Government, the Treasury, the Fed, the SEC, that have put forth a great deal of effort and input into this legislative vehicle. Most of all, I think it has to be stressed that one Member of this body has contributed significantly to the embellishment of this institution, this legislative vehicle and I personally want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ewing) for everything he has done to bring this forth in such a responsible, decent and credible way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the subcommittee chairman. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5417.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, changing the title of a major piece of legislation may seem like a small step for Congress to take, but it has symbolic meaning to the congressional family. Changing the name Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Act to the McKinney- Vento Act implies putting the names of two of our most esteemed colleagues together, two colleagues who have passed away, the one most recently. Like Mr. McKinney, Bruce Vento devoted his life to the problems of the disadvantaged. He symbolized much as a friend, he symbolized much as a colleague, he symbolized much as a constructive legislator. I think, though, it is important to note that this particular bill was suggested by our good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). I certainly strongly supported him and am appreciative that our leadership concurred. Mr. Speaker, I think at this point I would like to turn to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) to outline the causes and background of this bill and certainly to express my strongest support for his initiative. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for the purpose of controlling the minority's time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just stress a couple of things about the life of Bruce Vento. He was a wonderfully committed legislator who combined compassion with practicality; who had populist concerns, but not a populist hate. The committee that I served with Bruce on, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, has jurisdiction over banks and housing and over the economy, in some ways. It is interesting to me that in Bruce's work, he was not against any individuals or institutions. In fact, he was a liberal Democrat who rather liked banks, especially smaller banks, and especially community banks. He just understood that it was important, if you have a banking system, that that system serves all Americans. So his emphasis as someone in the banking community was never to be against anything, but to be for better ways for banks to serve. That is one reason that he developed such an interest in ensuring that competition was maintained and that investment was maintained in various aspects of our communities. Part of this relates to the American dream. All of us have various feelings about what the American dream is. One is that it includes a home. Well, issues of the homeless concern people that by definition have been deprived aspects of the American dream. We have all come to understand to some degree, and none of us as deeply as we should, that homelessness is not simply an aspect of someone without a structure. It usually involves a whole group of societal problems. Some of them might be psychiatric, some might be elements that relate to addictions, and sometimes disease itself. Mr. Speaker, the problems of the homeless came to the attention of Congress rather late. In fact, it is astonishing how little attention public bodies paid to this problem. But because of Bruce, we started to. About 13 years ago, finally the law was enacted. When that law was enacted, and a number of people had roles in ensuring that it came about, Bruce led the way. Then, as it was about to be enacted, it was revealed that one of our Members, this one on the Republican side, who was a man of some substance but had an ailment, in this case an ailment sometimes identified with the homeless, he got pneumonia related to a social disease called AIDS. This Republican stood up for people that had problems sometimes analogous to his own, sometimes much more serious. Bruce Vento suggested that the bill be named for him; that is, it was Bruce Vento's idea and his argument that this initiative that came largely from the majority party, the then the majority party, the Democratic Party, would be named for a Republican, Stewart McKinney. I think nothing could be more appropriate, as we look at the life of Bruce Vento, a man who had a disease related to a different kind of social problem, one that relates to industrialization, asbestos, that he should have his name associated with the McKinney bill, which was actually from the beginning more a Vento bill. So this became the Vento-McKinney bill. I would also like to comment as someone who, from a more distant perspective, followed the career of Bruce in his advocacy of our national park system. Bruce basically picked up the cudgels of the Udall family and has become the greatest congressional champion of our national park system. Part of this which is interesting to me is not only the issue of parks and their role in society, but parks stand in the American dream not only with the notion of the West and the great body of forest and mountains that is our country, but they are basically second homes available to all Americans, whether those Americans actually earned them or not at a particular moment in time. They are refuges for everybody. In a way, the national park system that Bruce was such a champion of was a home circumstance. So Bruce Vento leaves as his mark on this body not only the notion of standing up for concerns for the homeless, but also for ensuring that all Americans have a second home at any point in time within our national parks. Finally, let me just conclude with a couple of observations of a very personal level. Bruce was a very committed individual with an absolutely infectious laugh. He also had a very sardonic wit, particularly to those he opposed. Sometimes my party was more the beneficiary of the second than the first. But interestingly, in this era in which we talk about nonpartisanship and bipartisanship, Bruce gave a very good name to the word ``partisan.'' Bruce was a partisan Democrat, but he was always with decency and always with humor, always with a sense of perspective. This is one of the things so many of us loved very much about Bruce. Finally, I would like to echo a comment that my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), made about a staff member, because I think it symbolizes a great deal. The congressional family is a wide family and Larry Romans who worked with Bruce was as much an alter ego as anyone could be. On legislation, he certainly played a larger role than most Members of Congress. I think that is something that only Members of Congress truly understand. So our heart goes out to Bruce's family, his three kids, his wife, and also his staff. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking and Financial Services be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 5417) to rename the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act as the ``McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota and his fellow Minnesotans for taking responsibility to introduce this resolution for our friend Bruce. Bruce and I came into Congress together and for 24 years we served on the same committee. Of all the Members I have ever dealt with and known, Bruce combined an almost innate sense of idealism with a can-do practicality and how to apply it to the legislative process. Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote: To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by healthy child, a garden patch or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded. Bruce succeeded in each and every way. He will be much missed.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. He is the one who inspired the design, yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. LEACH. That is newsworthy and an anecdote I did not know. If the gentleman from New York could help me, what political party was Mr. Roosevelt associated with?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I certainly did.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the principal sponsor of this piece of legislation, someone who has worked harder on it than anyone in the Congress and to whom I, as chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, must say I am exceptionally grateful.

Mr. LEACH. Yes, of course I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to thank, again, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. LEACH. Yes, of course. We are certainly in line that the President was a great American.