Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) that pork sometimes gives this Congress a bad name, but turtles never. But on a more serious note, this coin does have implications for outreach education. More profoundly, the duty of the Smithsonian is to reach out to all sectors of America, and this wondrous collection of artifacts is so large that it would be very thoughtful if some of it could be shared in more distant parts of the country. I think that the gentleman has pointed out one very appropriate place that hopefully some of this could be shared, both in terms of education, as well as in broader cultural ways as well. Certainly, from my perspective, what the gentleman is describing is a very common sense, thoughtful initiative.

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. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the coin authorized by this act will commemorate the opening of a museum that is long overdue, the Smithsonian's new National Museum of the American Indian, under construction just a few blocks away, between the Air and Space Museum and the Capitol Building. The museum will hold as remarkable a collection of items from this country's and this hemisphere's past as exists. It will be the last museum the Smithsonian, the world's largest museum complex, will build on the National Mall and the third physical installation of a truly stunning personal collection of Native American artifacts now donated to the Smithsonian. The five floors of the museum will be the storehouse of a vast collection of Native American artifacts, items from Canada and Central and South America, as well as the United States, many of which were collected by a New York tycoon named George Gustav Heye. Mr. Heye, in nearly half a century of voracious collecting ending with his death in 1957, amassed nearly 800,000 individual Native American items and another 86,000 photographic images. The items span nearly 10,000 years. Mr. Speaker, the museum was established by an act of Congress in 1989 with the goal of advancing the study of Native Americans, including language, literature, history, art, anthropology and life and of collecting, preserving and exhibiting Native American objects of artistic, historic, literary, anthropological and scientific interests. Ground for the museum was broken a year ago, and the building is scheduled to open 2 years from now. The $110 million museum on 4 acres will be faced with Kasota limestone from Minnesota, applied to evoke cliffs, and will include a large copper dome designed to capture the light of the winter and the summer solstices. While the Congress appropriated two-thirds of the costs for the museum and while the museum has received major grants to cover construction, Native Americans are also contributing to its financing. Gannett News reported in March that a Native American woman who ran a fried bread stand sent a few dollars, and 400 students at the Native American Magnet School in Buffalo, New York, ran a can-collecting drive and sent in several hundred dollars. The museum already has two locations, the George Gustav Heye Center in lower Manhattan opened in 1994, exhibiting a number of items from Mr. Heye's collection and a large cultural resources center in Suitland, Maryland, opened 2 years ago. In the latter, in addition to a library and conservation center, the collection can be stored, studied and used by Native American scholars. Mr. Speaker, it is anticipated that this new National Museum of the American Indian will draw 5 million to 7 million visitors a year. The coin authorized in this legislation will be magnificent, a silver representation of one of the most-collected and best-loved coins in American history. The design is a replica of the so-called buffalo nickel. Collectors tell me that the design, depicting on its face an Indian Head and on its reverse the West's greatest beast, is so treasured that this commemorative coin is likely to be extremely popular with the numismatic community as well as with that part of the American public interested in American history. Mr. Speaker, the legislation which authorizes the minting of up to 500,000 1-dollar silver coins, was introduced by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), whose leadership on cultural issues of this nature is so impressive. In the Senate, similar legislation was introduced by Ben Nighthorse Campbell; and it is important to note that Senator Campbell, among his many other talents, is a well-known silversmith and his fine artistic eye has identified the buffalo nickel designed as an appropriate one to be struck this time in silver in contrast with the bass metal of the original coin. Mr. Speaker, the original buffalo nickel was struck from 1913 to 1938 and is the third of the four designs the mint used to make nickels in the history of this country. Impetus for the coin grew out of Theodore Roosevelt's observations that the country's coinage had hither to be less than heroic and not even very good art, and a conversation he had over dinner in 1905 with the noted sculptor Augustus Saint-Gaudens. In fact, though Roosevelt had left office by the time the design was chosen, Treasury Secretary Franklin MacVeagh, a Roosevelt appointee, pursued the effort vigorously and in 1911 chose a former Saint-Gaudens assistant, James Earle Fraser, to design the new nickel. Fraser is probably best known for his large End of the Trail sculpture of Native Americans, but also sculpted some figures for the United States Supreme Court building. Until that point, Native Americans portrayed on U.S. coinage had primarily been engraved from Caucasian models wearing headdresses but letters Fraser wrote in 1931 indicated he used Native Americans as models. The model for the bison, or buffalo, is the notorious black diamond, a somewhat cantankerous inhabitant of a New York City zoo, whose coat was unusually dark, even for a buffalo, and who weighed more than 1,500 pounds in his prime. Roughly 1.2 billion buffalo nickels were struck at three United States Mints during the life of the coin, a reflection of the size of the country and the economy at that point. By comparison, more than 1.2 billion copies are struck of each State coin in the 50 State Quarter program enacted by Congress last year. Mr. Speaker, there will be no net costs to the taxpayer from this legislation. All production and design costs will be covered before any surcharges are paid out. Surcharges from the coin's sale will then go to supplement the museum's endowment and educational outreach programs. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 H.R. 3834, the bill just passed.

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 and that I may include extraneous material on H.R. 5193.

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in any regard, I will say to the gentleman that the scenario that he has laid out of possible problems is a credibly unfortunate scenario that could occur, and it is the intent of the Chair to be as vigilant as possible to ensure that it does not occur.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman, I concur in everything the gentleman has just said, and it is one of the reasons I am so strongly supportive of getting H.R. 1776 made into public law.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5193, the FHA Downpayment Simplification Extension Act of 2000 would extend existing statutory provisions in the National Housing Act that provides for the manner and method of calculating downpayments by new homeowners closing on mortgage loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration. This simplification is merely a technical change that rewrites and clarifies downpayment requirements that, over time, have been amended in such a manner that are now unclear and difficult to understand. A simplified or streamlined method would provide savings to homebuyers and a calculation method uniformly understood by the mortgage industry and consumers. This calculation method would reduce from a three-tiered approach to a two-tiered approach. Its effect would also decrease the amount of downpayments necessary. For example, this streamlined approach will save borrowers of a typical $150,000 home loan approximately $1,000 to $2,000 at closing. In the 105th Congress this body passed similar legislation. Originally, the legislation was extended through a demonstration project to Hawaii and Alaska. In last year's VA-HUD appropriations act, this body extended the legislation to the rest of the country. The current legislation will expire September 30. This bill's extension through October 30 accomplishes two goals. First, the extension will allow this committee more time to complete its work and pass the comprehensive housing conference report on H.R. 1776, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000. H.R. 1776 overwhelmingly passed the House on April 6 by a 417 to 8 vote and includes permanent authorization to simplify the manner of FHA downpayment calculations. Secondly, and more important, this extension will eliminate any confusion that now exists in the mortgage finance market for the next few weeks where some borrowers would face uncertain downpayments requirements at closing. Let me close by stressing that the extension of a technical change to the law reflects sound policy and allows creditworthy families greater homeownership opportunities. I would also like particularly to express my appreciation for the work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for their leadership in this area. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting for the Record a letter received in support of this legislation by the National Association of Home Builders. National Association of Home Builders, Washington, DC, September 18, 2000. Dear Representative: On behalf of the 200,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders, I am writing to express our support for H.R. 5193, the ``FHA Downpayment Simplification Extension Act,'' which is scheduled to come before the full House of Representatives tomorrow under suspension of the rules. The bill provides a fifteen-day extension of the Federal Housing Authority's (FHA) downpayment simplification. We very much appreciate your consideration of our views. NAHB is very supportive of FHA's downpayment simplification process. It has been hugely successful in enabling more low- income households to purchase their first home. Given such successes, we support Congress' action to provide a short- term extension until a more appropriate venue--namely through the authorization process--may be utilized and further, that at that time, the downpayment simplification be made permanent. The simplification is a technical change that rewrites and clarifies downpayment requirements, that over time had been amended in such a manner that makes them unclear and difficult to understand. A simplified or streamlined method provides savings to the homebuyer and a calculation method uniformly understood by the mortgage industry and consumers. This calculation method is reduced from a three-tiered approach to a two-tiered approach. Its effect decreases the amount of downpayments necessary where the borrower is otherwise creditworthy. Finally, as you may be aware, the issue of extending the FHA downpayment simplification is addressed in H.R. 1776, the ``American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act,'' which passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 6, 2000 by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote of 417 to 8. Considering the strong support of this housing proposal within the House of Representatives, we continue to urge the Senate to consider H.R. 1776 and either bring it to the floor for a vote, or move to a formal conference with S. 1452, the Senate's manufactured housing legislation as soon as possible. Thank you for the opportunity to express our views on this important housing issue. We appreciate your continued support for the home building industry and look forward to working with you during the remaining days of the 106th Congress, and into the 107th Congress, as we seek to provide safe, affordable housing for all Americans. Sincerely, William P. Killmer. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (5193) to amend the National Housing Act to temporarily extend the applicability of the downpayment simplification provisions for the FHA single family housing mortgage insurance program, as amended.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3834, the Homeowners Financing Protection Act, would allow borrowers under the Rural Housing Service (RHS) single- family program to refinance their mortgages to take advantage of lower interest rates with new RHS-guaranteed loans. Under the current law, RHS borrowers, under the direct or guarantee program, are precluded from refinancing their existing loan with a new RHS-guarantee loan. This anomaly affects low- and very-low-income families who originally qualified for RHS direct mortgage loans. While the direct loans were meant to provide temporary credit in some circumstances, borrowers were unable to successfully apply for mortgage credit without a government guarantee even though their financial condition had modestly improved. H.R. 3834 would remove the statutory prohibition from refinancing direct single-family housing loans using the guaranteed program. According to the General Accounting Office, as of May 31, 2000, approximately 9,100 RHS loans exist with an interest rate of 13 percent or higher; 65,000 loans exist with an interest rate of at least 9\1/2\ percent. It is clear that these borrowers would benefit from refinancing using the guaranteed program by lower interest rates and, therefore, lower monthly payments. At the same time, the Federal Government would maximize its resources by providing a more cost-efficient mechanism to ensure homeownership for those sectors of our community that are unable to obtain private- sector financing and insurance. In conclusion, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), who is chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and particularly the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for their work in this area. CBO has advised the committee that the bill is budget neutral. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter from the Housing Assistance Council: Housing Assistance Council, Washington, DC, August 18, 2000. Representative Rick Lazio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Attn: Joe Ventrone & Clinton Jones Re: Title V Rural Housing Dear Chairman Lazio: The Housing Assistance Council (HAC) writes you to support a proposal by Rep. Robert E. Andrews to amend Section 502(g) to permit refinancing of certain Rural Housing Service (RHS) direct loans with guarantees under Section 502(h) in Title V in the Housing Act of 1949. Currently, there is no refinancing authority for the 502 loan guarantees. Rep. Andrews' request is supported by a General Accounting Office report, ``Shift to Guaranteed Program Can Benefit Borrowers and Reduce Government Exposure'' (GAO/RCED/ ALMD-95/63). We are informed that a change could possibly be moved on the suspension calendar. HAC earlier responded favorably to the GAO report in a letter to Associate Administer Czerwinski. We believe that the issue is one that should be addressed by Congress and can be done with very little budget impact. The adversely affected families now have higher incomes and can afford payments at current market rates, but are trapped in a situation not foreseen when the legislation was enacted, and which is beyond their control. It is difficult to justify interest payments to the government at rates up to 13 percent when private market rates are so much lower. The affected families had low incomes when RHS helped them attain home ownership. The very program which once helped them now causes them to make excessive mortgage payments. It is our opinion that mitigating this problem is the right thing for the government to do and that the issue is not partisan in nature. We urge you to include a corrective amendment in legislation you may be developing which includes, or can include, Title V rural housing additions or changes. Sincerely, Moises Loza, Executive Director. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3834) to amend the rural housing loan guarantee program under section 502(h) of the Housing Act of 1949 to provide loan guarantees for loans made to refinance existing mortgage loans guaranteed under such section, as amended.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). I would again stress what an extraordinary role he has played in this House on housing matters. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), who has spent so much of his time in this Congress on the housing issues. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3519) to provide for negotiations for the creation of a trust fund to be administered by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the International Development Association to combat the AIDS epidemic, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, also that of her predecessor whom she mentioned, Mr. Dellums; staff, as well as, frankly, Mrs. Fogleman on our staff and Mr. McCormick on our staff and the Senate leadership and staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that has worked so closely with us. By perspective, let me just very briefly say that nothing is more difficult than to provide some sort of perspective to issues of the day, but if we look at the 14th century, 20 million people died of the bubonic plague, and it would be hard to conclude that that was not the most important incident of the century. Today we have almost reached that figure with AIDS. Within a decade we may be at a multiple of that figure. It is anything but inconceivable not to conclude that exterminating this deadly disease is not the most important issue of our age. This approach that we have adopted is seminal. It is a part of the picture of dealing with AIDS, not the whole picture but a very significant part and with the combination of reduction in debt burdens of the developing world stands as the most significant effort the United States Congress has ever taken for the developing world and one of the most significant efforts the United States Congress has ever taken towards disease control and prevention. This is an extraordinary, symbolic measure, one that we are going to have to build upon but a firm and thoughtful step in the right direction. Let me thank the gentlewoman again for her help and leadership in this cause.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the legislation before us, in particular Title VI, the American Private Investment Companies (APIC) section that the Banking Committee approved in April. These APICs are designed to create new investment in those communities and the people of these communities who are not fully participating in the economic good times most Americans are currently enjoying. Let me say at the outset Chairman Greenspan was before the Banking Committee today to talk about the longest economic expansion in the nation's post-World War II history which has provided jobs for more Americans than ever before. As he noted, the unemployment rate is low; inflation is in check; productivity growth is the highest in 15 years; and not only is the federal budget in balance, but to the astonishment of most, surpluses are forecast for the foreseeable future. Sustained economic growth has occurred in part due to significant private sector productivity increases, in part as a result of a mix of fiscal and monetary policies which, perhaps, for the first time in decades are working in sync, rather than in juxtaposition. One of the stark difficulties in our economy, however, is that the gap between the well-to-do and the less well off is widening. While job opportunities are expanding to the most disadvantaged parts of the population, clearly more can be done so that all Americans have the opportunity to work at fulfilling jobs and to provide for their families. The portion of the legislation before us under the Banking Committee's jurisdiction would spur companies to make equity investments in distressed areas. These companies would be licensed by HUD as for-profit private venture capital firms and provided government guarantees of company debentures, provided the licensee brings at least $25 million in private equity capital and substantially serves low-income distressed neighborhoods and communities. The Administration has testified that APICs, licensed and guaranteed by the Federal government, would provide the type of incentives necessary for developments such as shopping centers and manufacturing facilities that would otherwise not locate in some of our most distressed communities. Before closing, I would also like to briefly mention the FHA Risk Sharing Demonstration Program Proposal that will allow the FHA to risk- share 20 percent of its mortgage loan portfolio on a demonstration level with community development financial institutions. This will help more individuals purchase homes who normally don't qualify for loans because of a high risk credit history. This provision is similar to Section 206 of H.R. 1776, which the House approved earlier this year. In addition, another important provision of this bill allows for transferring substandard, vacant, HUD-held properties into the possession of local governments and community development corporations for homeownership and community revitalization efforts in distressed communities. Ineffective federal housing policies regarding the disposition of federally held properties can negatively impact the economic vitality of neighborhoods. HUD's management of its property disposition program for FHA foreclosed homes has made it difficult for many communities to maintain property values and dedicated homeowners. According to Congressional testimony by HUD's Inspector General, at the end of January 2000, HUD's real estate-owned inventory totaled 47,711 properties, 42 percent of which had been in the inventory 6 months or more, and 17 percent of which had been in the inventory 12 months or more. HUD's foreclosed, vacant and substandard single-family properties are widely perceived as contributing to increased crime, urban blight, and the overall decline of working-class neighborhoods. This bill requires HUD to transfer, to the maximum extent practicable, ownership of eligible properties (HUD-owned substandard multifamily, unoccupied multifamily, or unoccupied single-family properties) to a unit of local government having jurisdiction for the area where the property is located, or to a community development corporation within such jurisdiction, on certain terms and conditions. In cases where single-family property is transferred to a local unit of government, this section requires a $1 purchase program, consistent with current HUD policy. In closing, I would like to note that Representative Lazio, Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, along with Representatives Watts, and Talent and Banking Committee Ranking Member LaFalce, are to be congratulated for their hard work on the legislative package before us. In addition, the leadership of Speaker Hastert has been critical in putting this entire package together. His commitment to work bipartisanly with the President to advance this important legislative package deserves our commendation. I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for yielding me the time, and let me also identify with his dilemma. I think on behalf of the Congress, we all ought to recognize the difficulty the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) has with dealing with a slight budget and enormous obligations. This is a difficult job. This budget as it is presented to the Congress recognizes a need for debt relief. It also recognizes that we are going to have to respond more forthcomingly with the AIDS challenge. On the other hand, I think most of us recognize that these principles of concern are inadequately attended to because of the budgetary constraints we have, and I personally believe this Congress before we adjourn is going to have to do much, much more. Debt relief is rooted, as the prior speaker, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) mentioned in the religious concept, the word jubilee, which derives from Leviticus, which implies a re-ordering of relationships, and one of the great questions in this jubilee 50-year reassessment, is whether it is worthy of being reassessed in this debt relief context? If my colleagues look at the poorest of the poor countries in the world, many today have more obligations in terms of debt service than they can apply to education or health care. In this circumstance, I think that the religious precept of Jubilee does compelling come into play, and it is no accident that religious leaders from the Pope to Billy Graham to Pat Robertson have endorsed debt relief in this Congress. As far as health care is concerned, this world is confronted with the greatest health crisis in human history. Within a year or 2, more deaths will have occurred because of the AIDS virus than because of the bubonic plague of the 1300s. We have an obligation to respond and respond compassionately. In terms of both debt relief and the AIDS crisis, committees of the Congress have responded in certain ways. We have authorizing legislation that has passed. Now it is the obligation of Congress to move forthcomingly to appropriate funds and, frankly, to give consideration to appropriating beyond the levels that have already been authorized. But I would say at this point in time that, what this debate is all about, is making it clear to all sides that there is not just bipartisan, but American concern for the plight of people in the less developed world and an understanding that that plight cannot be isolated; it can come here to roost very quickly. This happens to be the most compassionate set of initiatives in the history of the United States' Congress for the developing world. Debt relief and support for AIDS eradication and prevention is something we in this Congress simply have to address as the appropriations process continues. Here, it must be stressed, Mr. Chairman, that debt relief and AIDS prevention are intertwined. Intertwined because there is belated but growing recognition that a stronger commitment is needed to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic, but that many poor countries--particularly in hard- hit Sub-Saharan Africa--owe several times more in debt payments than what their governments are spending on basic health and education. I recognize the extraordinary budgetary constraints that Chairman Callahan confronted in trying to fashion an adequate response to both issues and remain hopeful that substantial additional funding for debt relief and for the House-approved World Bank AIDS Trust Fund can be secured as the appropriations process moves forward. Last year debt relief received strong, bipartisan support in Congress, and important strides were made toward achieving debt relief for the world's poorest countries. As Members recall, last November Congress appropriated $123 million to begin canceling the debts that reforming poor countries owe the United States, and agreed that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can use $2.3 billion of its own resources to finance its contribution to debt relief. In this regard, the Banking Committee fully authorized U.S. participation in international debt relief efforts during the first session of the 106th Congress (H.R. 1095, Rept. 106-483). The core of that debt relief bill was included in last year's consolidated appropriations package. The Committee's authorizing language specified a number of conditions that countries must meet in order to receive debt relief. Countries must perform satisfactorily under an economic reform program, promote civil society participation, implement anti-corruption measures and transparent policymaking, adopt strategies for poverty reduction, and strengthen private sector growth, trade, and investment. Consistent with current law, the program excludes from eligibility countries that systematically violate human rights, support terrorism, or have excessive military spending. However, Congress still needs to approve U.S. contributions to help defray the costs of regional development banks, such as the Inter- American Development Bank, to allow them to do their part in the international debt relief effort. Crucially, every dollar of the U.S. contribution will leverage $20 in multilateral debt relief. In addition, Congress also needs to authorize the IMF to fully mobilize the interest earnings on the off-market gold sales that occurred last year, solely to finance debt relief. It is self-evident that debt relief alone cannot solve the problems of hunger and poverty. But when debt relief is coupled with credible economic and social reforms, it can help be a catalyst for economic growth. Sound debt relief programs can help free up resources for poverty reduction, basic human needs, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, child survival and environmental protection. By helping to put countries on the path toward sustainable development, debt relief can also benefit the U.S. economy through expanded trade and investment ties. More broadly, securing full funding for debt relief remains a key legislative priority for a broad spectrum religious leader--from the Pope to Pat Robertson and the Reverend Billy Graham--who have endorsed the call for debt relief. On the AIDS front, the release of the latest UNAIDS report just last month underscores the horrific impact HIV/AIDS is having around the globe, particularly in hard-hit sub-Saharan Africa. The stunning statistics on the rapid advance of this disease, despite what medically-advanced countries know to be effective preventive measures, represents a profound indictment of the international community and the leaders of nations most severely impacted. Experts predict that HIV/ AIDS will soon become the worst epidemic of infectious disease in recorded history, eclipsing both the bubonic plague of the 1300's which killed an estimated 20 million and the influenza epidemic of 1918-19 which killed 18 million. Already, according to the latest UNAIDS data, the death toll from HIV/AIDS stands at 18.8 million, including a heartbreaking 3.8 million children under the age of 15. Around the world, another 34.3 million are living with this disease. Of that total, 24.5 million live in sub- Saharan Africa, a disproportionate 70 percent of the world's victims in a region with just 10 percent of the world's population. Infection rates in some countries are nothing short of shocking: a 35.8 percent infection rate among adults in Botswana and a rate in South Africa of 19.9%. And the disease has left in its wake 13.2 million orphans, the vast majority of them in Africa. What is also alarming is that even international health experts have been wrong about the pace at which this disease would spread. In 1991, the WHO estimated that 9 million would be infected and 5 million dead from AIDS in Africa by 1999. Eight years later, we find that the casualty rates are nearly triple that estimate. In parts of Africa where the epicenter currently resides, as well as South Asia and the Caribbean where the disease is fast moving, AIDS and the precipitating HIV virus have jumped well beyond the population groups considered most at risk in America. Millions of women now have the HIV virus and it is being transferred in the womb to the unborn. Indeed, by virtually any measure, the global HIV/AIDS epidemic may be fairly described as a plague of Biblical proportions. Experts also warn that the HIV/AIDS epidemic is no longer singularly a health issue; it has become a major issue for economic development. Assessments by World Bank officials call HIV/AIDS ``the foremost and fastest-growing threat to development'' in Africa. Yet, as bleak as the global picture is, we know that there are effective HIV/AIDS prevention and education strategies. They are being successfully implemented in many Western developed countries as well as in such countries as Uganda and Senegal in Africa, and in Thailand in Asia. Those prevention and education strategies must be replicated many times over in a vastly greater number of countries. Clearly the United States has a strong national interest in combating the HIV/AIDS crisis abroad as well as at home. Infectious diseases, like HIV/AIDS, know no borders. The number of Americans travelling overseas--often to countries with high risks of infectious diseases-- has doubled in the last ten years, with more than 57 million travelling abroad in 1998. Millions of Americans and their families also struggle with HIV/AIDS and there are few among us who have not directly or indirectly experienced the loss of friends or family to this disease. While it remains the paramount responsibility of national and community leads in each country to exercise strong leadership and commitment in dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis, the United States, other governments, and non-governmental organizations--including private business, religious and humanitarian organizations--must be partners in providing critical resources and medical knowledge. At present, international donors--including the United States-- provide an estimated $350 million a year to address the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa. Yet, experts tell us that over eight times that amount--or roughly $3 billion--is actually needed to do the job. This extraordinary need for resources--and the reality of the budget constraints which limit our bilateral assistance efforts--underscore the urgent need for a change in U.S. strategy to emphasize a much stronger multilateral, ``burden-sharing'' approach to this crisis. It is my hope that as the appropriations process unfolds, additional resources for HIV/AIDS can be found to fund the innovation approach outlined in the World Bank AIDS Marshall Plan Trust Fund, as passed by the House, This proposal offers the U.S. the opportunity to catalyze a much stronger global response to the AIDS epidemic. Implicit in approaches involving Bretton Woods institutions is the possibility of attracting additional contributions from other donors including, as uniquely authorized in H.R. 3519, the private sector. For a modest $100 million contribution from the U.S., it is my hope that we can leverage enough contributions from other donors--governmental and private--to reach a total of $1 billion a year for the trust fund. In conclusion, let me stress that America has a particular obligation to do everything within its power to prevent and, ultimately, eradicate HIV/ADIS, particularly among its most vulnerable victims--children. Mortality may be a part of the human condition, but all of us have an obligation to put an end to conditions that precipitate premature death, particularly at young ages. Clearly, no nation is better positioned than the United States, with its wealth and research capacity, to lead the world in this cause. For the U.S. to fail to lead at this critical juncture in history would be moral dereliction. Out of a sense of self-preservation for mankind itself, if not simply humanitarian concern for those currently affected, this disease must be eradicated, whatever the cost. Before the 106th Congress adjourns, it is my hope that we will have the resolve and courage to meet this challenge.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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. 3642.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3642) to authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Charles M. Schulz in recognition of his lasting artistic contributions to the Nation and the world, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the House gathers today to consider an issue of seminal importance for the national interests of the United States: the case for Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China and China's prospective membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). There can be little doubt that this is the most consequential foreign policy legislation upon which this Congress has been asked to address in the new millennium. Impressively, the vast majority of Members appear united on the principle that it is in the interests of the United States to develop a credible strategy for integrating China into the world economy as a responsible power that accepts international political and trading norms. What is at issue is means, not ends; that is, whether granting PNTR advances U.S. interests and values in modern China. In my judgment, approving PNTR for China is in the enlightened self- interest of the people of the United States and of China. It promotes our economic well-being by opening Chinese markets to American goods and services. It advances our interest in a rules-based international trading system by helping to ``lock-in'' Chinese reforms, economic restructuring, and a commitment to orderly globalization. China's accession to the WTO, in turn, also paves the way for a long-overdue entry by a democratic Taiwan into the global trading body. China's entry into the WTO, coupled with permanent normal trade relations, opens up substantial commercial advantages to the United States. With market-opening commitments in agriculture, banking and financial services, telecommunications and a panoply of other industries, Americans and other exporters will have much greater access to a market that reflects fully one-fifth of the world's population. Credible estimates suggest that the market-opening concessions that would accompany PNTR would boost U.S. exports to China by around $3 billion or close to a 15% increase in current U.S. exports to China. Indeed, the math is on our side. While we frequently have 3 to 5 percent tariffs on Chinese goods coming into our country, they just as frequently have 30 to 50 percent tariffs on American goods shipped to China. This agreement negligibly effects America's tariff structure, but dramatically reduces Chinese levies, down in must instances to the single digit level. The Committee on Banking and Financial Services has jurisdiction over certain macro-economic issues as well as the financial services industry in particular. With regard to commercial products, China maintains unfairly high tariffs, which this PNTR approach is designed to reduce. With regard to financial services, China maintains arbitrary non-tariff barriers, which this PNTR approach is designed to dismantle. Reduction in Chinese tariffs and non-tariff barriers is self-apparently in the U.S. national interest. Not insignificantly, commerce follows finance. If we fail to pass PNTR, China will simply import fewer manufactured goods and farm products from the United States. It will be German, French and Japanese banks which will enter China and, by so doing, facilitate exports from the companies they serve in their own countries. America will remain an import haven, but opportunities for building export jobs here at home will be denied to American workers. Here, I would emphasize a fatal flaw of failing to approve PNTR--it would leave the U.S. unable to apply WTO rules and obligations on the Chinese government, including standards of openness and reciprocity as well as mechanisms for dispute resolution. In other words, American farmers, workers and consumers would be denied the market-opening and rules-based trade benefits that China would otherwise be obligated to embrace, and our European and Japanese competitors would be given extraordinary market advantages in China. 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 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 unsustainable, particularly if China's market is closed to American products or biased in favor of products and services from other countries. 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 competition into the market. Balanced and mutually beneficial trade is a cornerstone of good Sino- American relations. Likewise, 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. For some, the PNTR issue has come to symbolize concerns about globalization and the increased integration of the world economy through trade flows, capital flows, and high-speed information technology. While angst exists in some segments of the American public, as in all publics, about competition and globalization, the historical record affirms that market systems based on free trade and the rule of law lead to higher standards of living than systems based on political isolation or economic autarky. Protectionism is particularly harmful in the credit, securities, and savings industries because the general economy is dependent on each. In the U.S. today approximately one-fourth of banking assets and one-third of commercial loans are made by foreign entities. While some may be startled by these statistics, in general, Americans consider foreign financial competition good for the nation's economy and believe it would be even more so in developing countries such as China, which need to build a financial system that can allocate capital on a market basis. Hence, one of the most beneficial and far-reaching aspects of our bilateral WTO accession agreement is China's commitment to undertake the progressive dismantling of barriers to foreign investment in its financial services industry. More broadly, Beijing's commitment to the rules and obligations of a WTO-based framework should help support China's transition to a modern market economy based on the rule of law. As the world's most populous nation, China's successful management of economic and social reform is very much in the interest of the U.S. and the broader global economy. Joining the WTO binds China to a set of rules, which limits the ability of government officials to capriciously change market rules to advance personal or vested interests. This will help Chinese reformers lay the basis for a rule-based economy that is the best hope for controlling pervasive official corruption. In this context, it deserves stressing that government centered, managed trade provides fertile ground for corrupt practices. On the other hand, free trade under the rule of law is an economic framework where social corruption has a more difficult time flourishing. Many Americans, including Members of Congress, are vexed by the human rights record of China and are concerned by the pace of economic and political change in China. On the other hand, experience teaches that the political system that best fits economic free enterprise is reflected in democratic political institutions of, by, and for the people. Advancing freely associated economic ties with the West under the rubric of internationally accepted trade rules has one principal political side effect: it builds bridges to democracy. Quixotic attempts to isolate China economically run the great risk of exacerbating human rights abuses, stunting prospects of establishing democratic institutions, and causing intemperate international actions. 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.'' Twenty years of ad hoc, pragmatic economic reforms have moved China from the chaos of the Cultural Revolution to unprecedented economic development and largely peaceful social change, quadrupling the standard of living and laying the foundation for systemic reforms. Indeed, despite indefensible examples of continued political repression, against groups like the Falun Gong and liberal intellectuals, China may be changing as rapidly as any other country in the world. While a communist style political apparatus remains ensconced at the top of Chinese society, at local government levels, experiments with democratic elections are occurring and at the individual and family levels, free speech has become increasingly the norm. In sharp contrast with the period of Mao's Cultural Revolution there is little question that China has become a far more open society than it was just a generation ago when Deng inaugurated his period of ``opening and reform.'' Nonetheless, China's economic and social system cannot develop to its fullest unless the rule of law and its associated rights-including freedom of speech and of the press, due process for disputes over contractual obligations, and a judiciary that efficiently and fairly adjudicates disputes--are made central tenets of Chinese life. As the development of a modern market economy impacts on politics, Beijing's leaders can be expected to recognize the incompatibility of free enterprise and an authoritarian political system. Instability is simply too easily 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. Lastly, establishing permanent normal trade will help foster a stable, mutually beneficial Sino-American relationship, a bilateral relationship that is of profound importance to the future of peace and prosperity not just in Asia, but for the world. Here, a note about Taiwan is important. It is no accident that people in Taiwan as well as Hong Kong strongly favor America normalizing trade relations with Beijing. The opposite--nonnormal trade--presents too many opportunities for friction in an area desperate for normalcy and stability. 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. Rejecting PNTR would effectively drive a stake through the heart of our economic ties with China and place in grave jeopardy the future of our relationship with one-fifth of the world's population. Whether 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. Failure to approve PNTR would not be responsive to that challenge. It would not effectively address our legitimate concerns on human rights, nonproliferation, relations across the Taiwan straits, or trade. On the contrary, rejection of PNTR would go back on our open door tradition and suggest that China and the United States can not maintain cooperative relations. It would be a vote with destabilizing consequences for the region and beyond. Ironically, in this seminal foreign policy vote, the president's political opposition is willing to share the obligations of governance despite electoral advantage that would accrue in refusing to adopt a bipartisan approach. Republicans are generally prepared to be supportive of the president's initiative because the majority consider PNTR to be key to peace, stability, and prosperity in the 21st century. It would be tragic, and I might say unprecedented in the post World War II era in any Western democracy, if the majority of the administration's own party fails to support its President on what is almost certainly the Executive Branch's most important foreign policy initiative. The irony that should not go unnoticed is that after all the discord between the Executive and Legislative branches over the past several years the President's own party may produce a vote of no-confidence in the President while the Republicans in this instance support his foreign policy judgment. In the strongest possible terms, I urge my colleagues to cast a vote with majority support in both parties in favor of this crucial economic and foreign policy measure. Absent a Democratic as well as Republican stamp of approval, foreign economic policy will be seen at home and abroad as subject to capricious change in Congress if there is a shift in party control.