Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. The gentleman is correct. The definition of a single common bond credit union does not preclude subgroups, but all such subgroups must have the same common bond of occupation or association.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce).

Mr. LEACH. That is correct. Let me just add one thought, that I want to thank the gentleman personally for his leadership on this issue. He played a very extraordinary role.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, in the past fortnight, the Banking Committee has held two hearings on the regulation of over-the-counter markets in derivative and hybrid instruments. Bankers and businessmen, farmers and fund managers use these esoteric financial products, whose value derives from an underlying asset like a government bond or the income stream from a loan, to mitigate risk from changes in commodity prices or interest rates. Few Americans have ever come into contact with one of these instruments, but every American with a pension fund or money in a bank has been affected by them. I scheduled the hearings in response to an unusual circumstance: three of the four government agencies which have responsibility for overseeing the derivatives market place--the Federal Reserve Board, the Treasury Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission--have come to the conclusion that the other principal regulator, the Commodity Future Trading Commission, has embarked on a regulatory path at odds with the U.S. national interest. The Fed's, Treasury's and the SEC's concerns about a rogue regulator were touched off by a long and detailed request for public comment on OTC derivatives trading practices issued in May by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. OTC derivatives have some characteristics of futures--like futures, they are used to manage risk--but the Congress has never defined them as such and, in 1992, directed the CFTC to exempt them from the Commodity Exchange Act, which the CFTC administers. Although the CFTC stated in its release that its questionnaire was merely a fact-finding exercise, to everyone else it had the potential of radically changing the existing laws and regulations with the unsettling prospect that existing contracts could be invalidated. To the market place, the CFTC inquiry had all the tell- tale signs of precipitating a regulatory regime that would cause a market currently dominated by American firms and under American law to go off shore. The current laws and regulations that govern the trading on our futures exchanges and over-the-counter markets are a tissue of ambiguities and exceptions--a veritable elysian field for lawyers. It is not an exaggeration to say a unilateral CFTC change in the definition of a swap, which was clearly contemplated in its public comment request, could invalidate thousands of similar contracts held by banks and other financial institutions and businesses here and abroad, worth billions of dollars. Such a stroke would jolt the world's financial system and force our financial institutions to take this innovative and profitable business to a foreign location, whether it be London, Tokyo or the Caribbean. For better or worse, the word ``paradigm'' has in recent years become one of Washington's most fashionable expressions. At the risk of contributing to its overuse, it would appear that the interagency dispute that has been revealed is reflective of two separate but overlapping paradigms, one stemming from perspectives grounded in a career in law, the other from careers rooted in finance and economics. Chairman Born's paradigm, which involves a legalistic reading of the Commodity Exchange Act, has certain merit in the abstract. But in the real world of trading, a world shaped by history and legislative intent, world not frozen in footnotes, the economic paradigm should be considered the dominant one. Indeed, the extraordinarily original analysis Chairman Greenspan provided the Banking Committee last week amounts to an essay that should be required reading for every college economics student. The Greenspan paradigm will not be found in any legal tome because it captures a dynamic and fast-evolving situation, whereas the legalistic Born paradigm, by its very nature, must look backward for precedent. In brief, Chairman Greenspan argued that, as currently implemented, the Commodity Exchange Act was not an appropriate framework for professional trading of financial futures. The CEA, he noted, was enacted in 1936 primarily to curb price manipulation in grain markets and its objectives haven't changed since then. As a consequence, we are applying today crop-futures regulation to instruments for which it is wholly inappropriate. The Greenspan view is that the financial derivatives markets are encumbered with a regulatory structure devised for a wholly different economic process, a structure that impedes the efficiency of the market system and slows down improvement in living standards. This is rich food for thought for Congress. The interagency regulatory Donnybrook is unseemly, generating market tension and uncertainty. It shows that our system may need a fix. If a single regulator can roil markets with an institutionally self-serving and whimsical reading of the law, it is time to have a good look not only at the statutes but at who enforces them. The ``who'' and the ``what'' of regulation in this area must be revisited, with an understanding that it is more important for regulation to be adapted to markets than for markets to be hamstrung by regulation. A balance involving legal certitude, especially of contracts, must be established. This balance must be flexible enough to accommodate innovation, but also legally firm when it comes to issues like fraud. Chairman Born's July 24 letter to Chairman Smith in which she states ``the Commodity Futures Trading Commission . . . will not propose or issue'' OTC derivative regulations until the Congress convenes in January 1999 momentarily muted the crisis. But, in effect, her offer isn't much of a concession. It is far short of the agreement Chairman Smith believed he had reached--and so said in a press release: ``the CFTC will not pursue regulation of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives until Congress has the opportunity to act during CFTC reauthorization in 1999.'' It is my view that it would be preferable to resolve this dispute without legislation and, accordingly, I chaired two informal meetings with the regulators to attempt to reach an non-legislated solution. But given the impasse, I introduced H.R. 4062, which provides a standstill on new regulation until the CFTC reauthorization is done. Work on this bill has been temporarily suspended to give everyone time for another effort at compromise. But if the Agricultural Committees don't address the issue, the bill remains on the table for consideration yet this year. Meanwhile, I am asking the Secretary of the Treasury, in his capacity of chairman of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, to undertake a study of our regulations and regulators. The industry, academic experts, and other interested parties, including users of derivative products, should be given a prominent voice in the study. The Treasury Secretary should provide the Group's findings and suggestions to the appropriate committees in the House and Senate by February 1, 1999, so that the Congress can get an early start on rebuilding our market supervision system. Nothing less than the primacy of the U.S. financial industry in the world is at stake--along with the safety and soundness of our banks and protection of their customers.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, for the next generation and perhaps century the most important bilateral relationship in the world is likely to be the one between China and the United States. In this context, the Congress would be well-advised to extend normal trade relations (what used to be known as most-favored-nation or MFN) with China. Maintaining open trade relations will be the linchpin of a relationship that will have profound importance to the future of peace and prosperity not just in Asia, but for the world. From a historical perspective free trade is a natural extension of the open door policy that hallmarked American involvement in China at the end of the 19th century. Breaching or revoking normal trade relations would effectively drive a stake through the heart of our economic ties with China and place in jeopardy the future possibility of greater Chinese democracy, as well as our relationship with one-fifth of the world's population. President Clinton correctly emphasized continuity with a bipartisan American tradition of engagement during his recent trip to China, but it appears trade may have taken a back seat to politics. In this regard, it must be stressed that although our economic ties to China have grown rapidly in recent years, so too has the size of our trade deficit. It is up some 20% in the first quarter of this year, and may reach a record $60 billion in 1998. It is time American leaders make the fundamental point that normal trade relations are all about reciprocity. A billion dollar a week trade deficit is politically and economically unacceptable. The best way for countries to have good sustainable political relations is to have reciprocal open markets, and the best way to achieve reciprocity in trade is to get politics out of economics and economics into the market. Balanced and mutually beneficial trade could be a cornerstone of good Sino-American relations, just as unbalanced trade contains the smoldering prospect of social rupture. Hence little is more in the U.S. interest than to promote reform and liberalization of China's economic, trade, and investment regimes and to bind China to the rules of international commerce. With regard to the latter issue, the obvious deserves repetition: common rules of trade are in the vested interest of all countries which want to be part of the modern world. Those nations which want privileged status to protect their own industries, usually on grounds of the old infant industries argumentation, generally hurt themselves. Financial services is a classic example. While China has become dramatically more integrated into the international financial system over the last decade and a half, it has only taken modest steps to open up its banking, insurance, and financial service industries to foreign competition. Yet China and its economy would be far better off to welcome U.S. and other foreign financial institutions and their panoply of low-cost commercial and investment banking products. With this in mind, no fully satisfactory outcome to our trade difficulties can be achieved until Beijing agrees to a commercially viable package of terms for jointing the World Trade Organization. A commercially viable agreement must address U.S. concerns for opening China's market to U.S. agricultural and industrial goods. Likewise, U.S. service industries--particularly banking and insurance--deserve access to the Chinese market. Once this agreement is achieved, Congress should not hesitate to grant China permanent normal trade relations. Failure to do so would leave the U.S. unable to apply WTO rules and obligations to China, including mechanisms for dispute resolution. At the heart of the annual Congressional debate over normal trade with China lies the issue of economic sanctions. All Americans support common-sense efforts to advance the cause of human rights in China, and elsewhere around the world. The question is one of means, not ends, whether self-righteous indignation advances or undercuts a just cause. Although arguments can be marshalled in support of trade revocation, at this time they are clearly uncompelling. Indeed, for this Congress to revoke normal trade relations with China as a means to assert legislative displeasure with Beijing on one or any number of social issues would be so counterproductive as to be tantamount to an irrational act. Members of Congress and many Americans are frequently vexed by what they perceive to be the slow pace of political change in China. But here it must be stressed that the only political system that fits economic free enterprise is political free expression reflected in governmental institutions of, by, and for the people. Advancing freely associated economic ties with the West has only one political side effect: it builds bridges to democracy. Quixotic attempts to isolate China economically run a far greater risk of assuring oppression than advancing democracy. Chinese society is changing far more rapidly than most Americans realize. The late Deng Xiaoping underscored the new Chinese pragmatism with his cat and mice metaphor, and by promoting ``socialism with Chinese characteristics.'' That pragmatism has led to unprecedented social and economic change in China. Indeed, despite continued political repression, China may be changing more rapidly than any other country in the world. Not only is it looking outward to trade and establishing a market-oriented internal economy, but in terms of private discussion there is much more freedom of expression than existed two decades ago. Privately, one can now criticize the Government without repercussion; it is public criticism that remains shackled. This latter circumstance is indefensible, but the looseness of controls on the former is not without significance. Nor are recent decisions allowing elections at local levels. Nonetheless, China's social and economic transformation can't proceed in the long run without effecting significant political change. At some point Beijing's new leaders must recognize the incompatibility of free enterprise and an authoritarian political system, and must recognize as well that instability can be unleashed in society when governments fail to provide safeguards for individual rights and fail to erect political institutions adaptable to change and accountable to the people. Wheather the 21st century is peaceful and whether it is prosperous will most of all depend on whether the world's most populous country can live with itself and become open to the world in a fair and respectful manner. How the United States, its allies, and the international system responds to the complexities and challenges of modern China is also one of the central foreign policy challenges of our time. Revocation of MFN would not be responsive to the challenge. It would not effectively address our legitimate concerns on human rights, nonproliferation, Taiwan, or trade. On the contrary, it would constitute a supremely counter-productive act. The United States would be far better to develop a bipartisan and bi- institutional approach that maintains an open door to China and with it a constructive relationship that will be the key to peace, stability, and prosperity in the 21st century than to annually threaten this political brinksmanship. I urge the defeat of this self-defeating legislation.

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, fair enough. If I could proceed on my own time, let me point out that in a broad macroeconomic way, this Congress, in less than 3\1/2\ years, has moved from a fiscal deficit to a fiscal surplus, something absolutely disbelieved by the American public, disbelieved or doubted, I think, by many in this body, including some in the party who helped to achieve this. At this point we have three options. One of those options is to put forth a tax cut, because we are in a surplus circumstance. This is a credible option. Another option is to keep the status quo and continue to pay back some of the enormous debts that have been built up over the last several decades. This. also, is a credible option. The third option is to increase spending because we are in a surplus situation. That is an option that this side of the aisle thinks is less credible. And so, I would suggest to my colleagues, as we move forth in all areas of Federal spending, we are going to have to be very careful to restrain the budget. In this regard, we are talking this afternoon about housing. One of the great reasons that there is more private home ownership in America is that there are more jobs because of a growing economy and there is lower cost to finance because of a more restrained fiscal and monetary policy. This side of the aisle is very, very concerned that we do not upset this mix of fiscal and monetary policy that has turned around our economy. So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would just like to stress that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is entirely correct that we still have a problem of affordable housing in this country especially for lower income levels of America. We have just passed a housing bill that is largely the framework, in a budget sense, of what the administration has suggested, although spending is not as high as the gentleman from Massachusetts would like. But we have tried to work with the administration in a responsible way. In fact, we have authorized higher dollars for spending on senior housing and for housing for people with disabilities than proposed by the administration. We are proud both of the spending and the tax restraints that have been put into place and we are proud of the principle undergirding this piece of legislation. I would urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it is odd to be in an argument about an issue which we both support. But I would simply say it took a burden off the American people and that was a very appropriate thing to do.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing let me just stress first that there are 170 cosponsors of this bill. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. And, secondly, I am pleased that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has offered his support. I believe he has raised a series of thoughtful perspectives that do deserve review. Let me just stress, this bill underscores that mortgage deductions are key to housing and should be protected. Most of us on this side of the aisle would like to see the Tax Code simplified and the riddance of hundreds of thousands of deductions that currently are in the Tax Code, whether in the context of a flat tax or the maintenance of a progressive tax. But the majority on this side of the aisle, I believe, also insists that whatever happens to the Tax Code, that key deductions like mortgage interest deductions, like charitable giving, for instance for churches, be maintained. Yes, the gentleman has correctly noted that there can be a role for regulation, just as there is a role for taxes in American society. But too much regulation, just as too much taxation, can be counterproductive and constrain economic growth. The gentleman has pointed out quite correctly that this House last week passed a bill on private mortgage insurance. He joined us and we are proud of passage of that legislation. In one sense one can argue that it is a governmental intrusion in the markets. In another sense, however, it should be stressed that what we did in that legislation is take the effect of cost of regulation off of the American consumer at such a point in time that a given percentage of the mortgage deduction had been paid.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, who is principally responsible for this legislation, and in fact its architect.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), our distinguished colleague. (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), my distinguished colleague. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to the gentleman. As the gentleman knows, there is a lot of controversy within the country and some differences of judgment within the party on the flat tax, but it is my belief that the majority of Republicans strongly support maintaining the mortgage interest deduction, even if there is a movement towards a flat or a flatter tax.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly note that this bill is brought to us by the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, who has devoted a great deal of time and effort to not only this bill, but other housing legislation. I apologize that the gentleman has been detained intransit, but I wanted to reference the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) because of his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf). (Mr. METCALF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, this, I believe, is a non-controversial bill. It underscores principles critical to the American family--the desirability of achieving the dream of home ownership for as many Americans as conceivably possible. On this front, there is some good news, and also some challenging circumstances. The good news is that home ownership is going up in America, almost 1 percent in the last 4 years, until today it reaches approximately 66 percent of the American public. The principal reason for this relates to lower interest rates caused by restrained monetary policy and the movement from a deficit to a surplus fiscal policy. It also relates to aspects of tax policy, the importance of quasi- governmental institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that have served as extraordinarily helpful intermediaries in housing finance, and to certain housing programs of the Federal Government itself. But what this bill, and it is a small bill, does is simply underscore what are the great principles of American housing, and underscore it in such a way as to make it clear that this Congress is not going to be backed down from those principles, particularly the principle that relates to the interest deduction for home ownership mortgage loans. Mr. Speaker, recognizing that this is an exceptionally modest bill, but also one that relates to a subject very important to the heart of the American people, I would urge its adoption at this time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 208) expressing the sense of the Congress regarding access to affordable housing and expansion of homeownership opportunities.

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 the concurrent resolution.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, the Exchange Stabilization Fund has been an essential tool for the management of international monetary policy for over 60 years, having served as every Administration's chief weapon in defending the dollar. The ESF is the U.S. Government's only instrument providing the means for a rapid and flexible response to international financial disruption which can impact adversely on the U.S. economy. The ESF provides a powerful and flexible means for the Secretary of the Treasury to support our obligations in the IMF, especially those concerning orderly exchange arrangements and a stable system of exchange rates. Any attempt to cripple the ability of the U.S. to use the ESF to respond to fast-moving financial crises, as this amendment does, would pose a very serious threat to the U.S. economy and our ability to maintain a strong and stable dollar--with all of the benefits that affords us. Consequently, this amendment is strongly opposed by the Department of the Treasury as well as the Federal Reserve. According to Secretary Rubin, by severely restricting the use of the ESF, this amendment constitutes an unacceptable limitation on the executive branch's ability to protect critical U.S. interests. The Secretary would be forced to recommend a Presidential veto if the final bill contains these restrictions. Likewise, Fed Chairman Greenspan has testified that ``it is important to have mechanisms, such as the Treasury Department's Exchange Stabilization Fund, that permit the U.S. in exceptional circumstances to provide temporary bilateral financial support, often on short notice, under appropriate conditions and on occasion in cooperation with other countries.'' For over 60 years, the ESF has been a vital American tool, used most often by the last three Administration's, for defending the dollar, curbing destructive currency fluctuations, and protecting essential U.S. economic and security interests. Counterproductive restrictions on the ESF could lead to severe foreign exchange market instability--and hence, dollar volatility--that would harm American businesses, raise U.S. interest rates, and weaken our economic prospects. Such volatility could also threaten the dollar's ability to serve as the world's reserve currency--a source of tremendous advantage for the United States. Direct market intervention is one way the ESF has been used to curb exchange market volatility. The use of ESF resources to stabilize foreign currencies has played just as essential a role in accomplishing U.S. economic objectives. The ESF has been used more than 50 times in the past 60 years to stabilize currencies in key U.S. export markets--such as Great Britain in the 1960s--to anchor reforms in transitional countries--such as Poland in 1989--and to protect against the effects of short-term instability or currency crises, such as Mexico in 1995. Every single one of these extensions of support through the ESF has been promptly repaid. No U.S. money has ever been lost in accomplishing these critical objectives through the ESF. In fact, by utilizing an innovative investment banking approach, the U.S. actually made over $500 million in interest on ESF loans to Mexico. This amendment would prohibit the U.S. from keeping its commitment to our allies in South Korea to provide backstop financial assistance, if necessary. It would greatly restrict the ability of the U.S. to provide emergency liquidity to assist any future transition to a post-Castro Cuba. Similarly, it would prevent the U.S. from coming to the financial assistance of Taiwan (not an IMF member), if the Asian financial crisis or renewed tensions across the Taiwan strait caused a run on the New Taiwan dollar. As a trade and exports become more important to the health of the American economy, and as emerging markets play a growing role in our prosperity, it is essential that the U.S. retain the tools necessary to defend the dollar, safeguard stable exchange market conditions, and help deal with crises elsewhere when it is in our interests to do so. In this unstable financial environment, it would be a profound mistake for Congress to leave the U.S. without the ability to use the ESF to respond quickly to a developing economic crisis where American interests are at stake. By passing this amendment Congress will severely hobble the ability of the U.S. to fulfill its responsibilities and exercise leadership in world financial affairs, and at a most inopportune juncture when American economic leadership could not be needed more. Background The Gold Reserve Act of 1934 gives the Secretary of the Treasury exclusive control of ESF operations, subject to the approval of the President, to enable the U.S. to intervene in the foreign exchange market and undertake other monetary transactions consistent with U.S. obligations in the International Monetary Fund. Most ESF transactions are short-term. If any ESF loan or credit exceeds six months, the statute requires that the President provide Congress with a written statement that unique or emergency circumstances exist. In addition, Treasury provides Congress detailed monthly reports on ESF finances and operations, quarterly reports on Treasury and Federal Reserve foreign exchange operations, and an annual audit report on the ESF

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, let me stress at this point that I think, while awkward, this is particularly appropriate to add this bill to this bill. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from New York, who has led the housing movement in the House so ably. But in making this suggestion, let me make some clarification. The distinguished ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from New York, made some critical comments on process during prior debate on the rule, and, to some degree, as chairman of the committee, let me suggest that the gentleman is absolutely correct. The regular order should have been a Committee on Banking and Financial Services conference. For various reasons, this proved difficult to institute. On the other hand, the present situation is not quite the procedural umbrage that is hinted at, in that the bill before us, unlike most authorizing parts of appropriations bills, has passed the House, in fact by a large margin, and a conference can be expected of authorizers in the context of an appropriations conference. What we are thus simply doing is attaching legislation that has previously been agreed to by the House to facilitate movement on that critical subject. In this regard, public housing reform is clearly an important national interest and national objective. Both those of liberal and conservative perspectives have concluded that there are serious problems in our present system that demand resolution. This is precisely what the Committee on Banking and Financial Services has done in a straightforward way in a bill that exceeds, and let me stress, based on the statement of the last Member, exceeds the administration's request in funding levels for housing. Indeed, the bill substantially exceeds the administration's request for senior and disabled housing. To the extent that politics is the art of the possible, the reason we are proceeding in this fashion is simply to use a vehicle that has the greatest chance of achieving consensus and support, both from the other body as well as, hopefully, from the administration. Included in this bill is authorization on an appropriation pushed by the minority, an increase in FHA mortgage insurance limits as advocated by the administration. The Committee on Banking and Financial Services is willing, in the context of public housing reform, to consider this change, even though it represents a modest increase in the governmentalization of credit in the United States. Finally, let me say that it has been represented to this Member that in the background there are the concerns of some that, if adopted, these reforms might be perceived as a success of this Congress, and, therefore, opposed because some would oppose any institutional successes. I have spent the vast majority of my time in Congress in the minority. I never paid heed to those who wanted to subvert good policy for political reasons. I hope in the end the minority in this body and in the administration will make a judgment based on the national interests and not whether it will be perceived as something Congress can take credit for. The fact is, good governance implies that, more often than not, administrations have initiatives that deserve serious consideration by the Congress and, if meritorious, accepted; likewise, that initiatives put forward by the Congress in a divided government deserve serious consideration by the Executive Branch, and, if meritorious, accepted. Finally, let me stress again that if this amendment is adopted it would be the intention of the leadership to designate sub-conferees from the authorizing committee of jurisdictions from both sides of the aisle to resolve outstanding issues of public housing. I am optimistic and hopeful that such can be done in short order and that this Congress will do what is best for the American people and pass permanent public housing reform.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 318) to require automatic cancellation and notice of cancellation rights with respect to private mortgage insurance which is required as a condition for entering into a residential mortgage transaction, to abolish the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendments to the House amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments to the House amendments.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume and simply say, in conclusion, that I would like to stress that, as has been uttered by others, this is extraordinarily important consumer legislation, it is extraordinarily important home ownership legislation, it is common sense, and I would hope this body would adopt it unanimously. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 S. 318, the Senate bill just passed.