Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Banking and Financial Services to file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am rising in support of this resolution, although I do it with great reluctance, because it is always difficult not to give the benefit of the doubt to the executive in foreign policy. But 7 weeks ago, I voted against authorizing U.S. intervention in Yugoslavia because I could discern no national interest in taking sides in a civil war, no approach that would lead to a diminution of violence, and no credible exit strategy. I would like to stress, above all, one thing. Historical analogies are extremely difficult to derive. I personally believe there are a whole lot that apply in the Balkans, but many of them are contradictory. One that the majority side in support of the war falls back on is the Holocaust. I believe that there are Holocaustal analogies. But I also believe that Milosevic is a sui generis war criminal, one for whom Holocaustal acts are not unknown, but one where leadership is more analogous to, say, a Ho Chi Minh or possibly even a Pol Pot than to a Hitler. I raise this because if we exclusively make Hitlerite analogies, we have no choice whatsoever than to follow a kind strategy that could lead in and of itself to greater losses of life to innocents than a negotiated settlement. With each decision, it appears that this administration and NATO are moving into a circumstance where the problems are more difficult, not less; more likely to lead to outrageously violent results. Now is the time to stress negotiations, the time to recognize that we are not likely to have a great victory. Senator Aiken once suggested in Vietnam in the late 1960s that we should declare victory and get out. That prescription does not fit the Balkans, but I would urge that we put in place a process of negotiations, and with that process recognize we have a greater chance for a successful resolution than any other possibility. Little is more difficult than to apply perspective to the events of the day. The Administration's Kosovo policy is open to question from two contrasting perspectives: should we militarily engage the government of Yugoslavia and, if so, what form should this engagement take? The first question involves fundamental Constitutional issues on war powers and the role of Congress in legitimizing military action and enhancing the participation of the American people in decisions related to war and peace. The second involves the unchallenged role of the President as commander-in-chief and doctrines of warfare. Seven weeks ago, I voted against authorizing U.S. intervention in Yugoslavia because I could discern no national interest in taking sides in a civil war in the Balkans, no approach that would lead to a diminution of violence and no credible exit strategy. The Administration, through its acts and statements, has broken with the military doctrine of the last several Administrations, particularly the Reaganite reliance on peace-time military preparedness and the Bush espousal of the Powell Doctrine, which calls for the establishment and enunciation of clear objectives with the use of overwhelming force to achieve these objectives. In this context, I recently reviewed a 1984 speech of the former Secretary of Defense, Casper Weinberger. Weinberger suggested that six major tests should be applied when we are weighing the use of U.S. combat forces abroad: (1) First, the United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies. . . . (2) Second, if we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. . . . (3) Third, if we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. And we should know precisely how our forces can accomplish those clearly defined objectives. And we should have and send the forces needed to do just that. As Clausewitz wrote, ``No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war, and how he intends to conduct it.'' . . . (4) Fourth, the relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed--their size, composition and disposition--must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. Conditions and objectives invariably change during the course of a conflict. When they do change, then so must our combat requirements. We must continuously keep as a beacon light before us the basic questions: ``Is this conflict in our national interest? '' ``Does our national interest require us to fight, to use force of arms? '' If the answers are ``Yes'', then we must win. If the answers are ``No'', then we should not be in combat. (5) Fifth, before the U.S. commits combat forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress. . . . (6) Finally, the commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort. Americans are obligated to assess whether U.S. policy in Kosovo today meet the above tests. In terms of implementation the Grenada intervention--as minor an issue as it may have been--and the Gulf War, which involved far greater geo-economic stakes than the Kosovo conflict, stand in stark contrast with the new Clinton military doctrine, which can be described as: (1) Reliance on aircraft and missiles to rain destruction from thousands of feet and in some cases hundreds of miles in such far-flung parts of the globe as East Africa, Afghanistan and now Serbia. From an American perspective this use of air power is star-wars like, but from the perspective of targeted populations such as in Belgrade the effect bears more resemblance to the bombings of World War II. (2) The declared renunciation of the use of ground troops amounts to the articulation that the United States intends to engage in Kosovo with one hand tied behind its back. (3) The determination that murderous potentates should be held in check through the destruction of significant civilian as well as military targets, including electric utilities, water systems, political headquarters, TV stations and residencies of heads of states. (4) The use of a defensive alliance for intervention in a civil war. (5) Placing the prestige and might of the United States on the line through the commitment of air power while multi-lateralizing the decision-making and control in the NATO structure, which functions by consensus. The lessons of history have been widely invoked both to justify and to decry our military intervention in Kosovo. Unfortunately history does not provide easy answers, either with regard to the meaning of contemporary events or to what actions should be taken in response to them. For instance, in the wake of World War I historians and political scientists rightly concluded the European system had been too inflexible in 1914. A misapplication of this lesson, however, led a generation later to Munich. Too much rigidity precipitated the First World War; too little backbone encouraged Hitler's aggression in the Second. World War II involved a conflagration between nation states; it also involved a conflagration within--the Holocaust--and challenged civilized society not to allow a replication of such inhumanity to man. The background of both World Wars bears on American decision-making today. Clearly, the onslaught against the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo that Milosevic has unleashed has Holocaust parallels. On the other hand, the ethnic cleansing the Serbs have undertaken also has analogs with what Croats, Bosnians and, to a much lesser extent, Kosovars have attempted in the region. Milosevic's barbarity would appear to lie somewhere between Ho Chi Minh's assault on South Vietnamese Catholics and Pol Pot's attempt to exterminate intellectuals. The problem with equating Milosevic exclusively with Hitler, instead of recognizing him as a sui generis war criminal, is that it makes a negotiated settlement morally untenable and renders it impossible for the U.S. to consider anything less than unconditional victory. This is particularly dangerous when it is self-evident that a negotiated settlement is preferable to all sides over a protracted conflict. Hence, it is key to understand that at this point Kosovo is more a civil war with holocaustal elements than vice-versa. But if the war continues, a complicating factor for maintaining NATO unity in the face of Serbian atrocities will in all likelihood be the West's ability to stomach Kosovar counter-measures and the implications of ratcheting up air power. The line between a terrorist and a nationalist freedom fighter is narrow, as is the line between using force to stand up to atrocity and applying force in such a way that greater violence is precipitated. Yet another lesson of history regards the effectiveness of air power and strategic bombing. As John Kenneth Galbraith, who led a team that assessed the impact of allied air power in World War II, has noted, bombing in coordination with the use of ground troops has generally proved effective, but strategic bombing of cities often causes populaces to rally to domestic leadership, no matter how malevolent. Here it must be noted that air power is different from what it was earlier in the century. Our arsenal now includes nuclear weapons of enormous destructive power as well as so-called smart bombs and missiles that can strike with surgical accuracy, which greatly enhances our ability to limit danger to our armed forces and collateral damage to civilian areas. The development of smart weapons, however, may have caused political leaders to be too tempted to use them without recognizing that the use of force anywhere at any time has ramifications which are not easily predictable and which not infrequently are counter-productive. For instance, our goal in using force against Milosevic may be to undermine his political support, but it would appear that, to date, we have ensconced his political strength while weakening the democracy movement, which was profoundly pro-American in Serbia and damaging the lives and livelihoods of ordinary Serbs. Much of the world is not enamored of America's ability to rain destruction from afar. We simply have no idea how deep and how long the effects of our air strikes and the targets we have chosen will last. What we do know is that Serbs point to a 14th century defeat as a rallying cry for their actions today. What we do know is that the Armenians believe that in 1919 they suffered the first holocaust of the century and Turkish embassies to this day are susceptible to terrorist attacks because of the atrocities of the now defunct Ottoman Empire. In the background of the predicament we are in is failed diplomacy. Where Theodore Roosevelt invoked a doctrine of ``speak softly, but carry a big stick,'' this Administration has propounded a policy of threatening vigorously while refusing to make timely military deployments that might have averted conflict. We have been backed into using air power, not out of considerations of national interest but to ensure that the credibility of U.S. political leadership was kept in tact. We told Milosevic we would use it if he did not agree to our preferred negotiating plan and he in effect called our hand. In the background was a peace agreement which had the doubtful support of one side and no support from the more powerful party. While the Rambouillet accord might have met standards of American sensibility, it clearly proved untenable for the activist parties in the region. This fact should give pause to NATO, America in particular. In this regard I have become increasingly Frostian in my geopolitics. Good fences sometimes make good, or at least better, neighbors. It would appear that, despite the multi-heritage example of Sarajevo, the people of the Balkans will have to learn to live apart without war before they can live together in peace. A century and three-quarters ago, an American President, James Monroe, asserted a doctrine that carries his name which established that the United States would object to further European colonization in this hemisphere and give succor to independence movements in Latin America. Implicit in the Monroe Doctrine was the assumption, growing from the concerns of our first President, George Washington, a military man, that the United States should not become entangled in the quarrels of Europe. With the exception of two World Wars in this century and a commitment made in the context of the Cold War of a defensive alliance, historical U.S. foreign policy has been governed by the precept that we would give umbrella protection to independence movements in the Americas but refrain from military intervention in the internal affairs of nation states on the continent. Our country was formed by dissidents and opportunity seekers reacting to the repression and civil wars in Europe. It now appears that our fore fathers better understood the Balkans and like European problems than the State Department does today. At this point we are being asked to support NATO action for the sake of the viability and credibility of the alliance, rather than for the purposes for which the alliance was formed. We appear to be putting the alliance ahead of our objectives and allowing our mutual strategy to test the alliance itself, which it is doing. One poll has found that 95 percent of Greeks object to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and there are significant percentages, albeit smaller, opposed in every country of the alliance, including the United States. A decade or so ago, I participated in a forum at the Library of Congress with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger at which I asked him about an observation he made in one of his autobiographical works. Kissinger had written that between the 1968 election and the inauguration, he had sat down with President-elect Nixon and the two of them had decided to get the United States out of Vietnam. I asked why they had not just gone ahead and done that immediately upon taking office and Kissinger responded, ``Congressman, we meant we would get out with honor.'' Asked if that meant further escalation of troop numbers and bombing, Kissinger responded, ``Absolutely.'' It is my sense that NATO is in a similar position today with regard to Belgrade. For the honor of NATO, it appears that we are about to escalate the war. The question is whether we are not better off seeking the earliest possible settlement. History is a source of lessons and perspectives, but issues of the moment must also be approached in a manner which calculates their future implications. NATO's strategic rationale appears to have broken down on the issue of numbers. There are 19 states versus one with that one being much smaller than most of the 19. But another way of looking at this strategic conundrum is that 19 countries are allied against the forces of nationalism and sub-nationalism in a part of the world where historical and ethnic tensions provide little basis for compromise. Nationalism led to dramatic changes in the world's map in the 19th century and has been repeatedly underestimated as a force in the 20th century. The question is will NATO, despite its might, find itself in the same position in the Balkans as the United States did in Vietnam and as the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan? Returning to history, the first great chronicle of the Western World relates to a land mass adjoining the Balkans, ancient Greece. Thucydides wrote that early in the Peloponnesian Wars which pitted the quasi-democratic and enormously uplifting culture of ancient Athens against the more militaristic Sparta, the Athenian Assembly voted to send a naval fleet to conquer the neutral island of Melos. Several days later the decision was reconsidered and a faster ship was sent to overtake the fleet and call off the invasion. Later in the war, however, the Athenian Assembly again decided to invade Melos and sent out a force which killed all the men and enslaved the women on the island. Thucydides' chronicles were intended to show how the world's most civilized city-state at the time had lost its way, and indeed from that point on Athens never again recovered its prior status. An aspect of the bombing today is what targets are left in Serbia after so much damage has already been inflicted. Clearly at this point, the Serbs have lost virtually everything except the war, while the West has won nothing, particularly a peace. A case can be made that whatever mistakes have been made to date, it is morally questionable to stand by and do nothing and an even greater mistake to pull the rug out from under the executive branch. The reason I cannot support America's continuing military role is that each of the choices for NATO in the future gets more untenable. There is the prospect of sending in troops with losses potentially equivalent to or greater than Vietnam. There is also the prospect of ratcheting up the air war. One can always strike again at military sites, but it appears that on the civilian side, Yugoslavia has already been bombed back to the 18th century. Military historians counsel two principles when devising strategic doctrine: put on the shoes of opponents and do not back them hopelessly into a corner. In the case of Kosovo, we clearly have not put on the shoes of the Serbs and we have done everything to back Milosevic into a corner. We have made a martyr out of a murderer and allowed a war criminal to stand up to NATO, which includes Serbia's ancient enemy, Turkey. Milosevic's martyrdom increases with each degree of the suffering of his people. Every society has an historian or philosopher who points out that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Despite the good intentions of the West, our policies appear to be counterproductive. Ratcheting up the war could well signify a ratcheting-down of the moral high ground of NATO. The prerequisite of policy must always be good intentions, but good intentions are insufficient grounds for action. Policy must match intentions with practical capacities to carry out defined objectives. Just War doctrines, after all, require that responses be proportional and effective. The only alternatives to a bombs only policy are the introduction of ground troops or the isolation of Serbia, the reliance on a humanitarian response to a humanitarian crisis. In either case the legal and moral imperative to indict Serb leadership for war crimes is overwhelming. In the late 1960s Senator Aiken suggested we simply declare victory and get out of Vietnam. This prescription does not fit today's dilemma in the Balkans, but our first obligation should be to put in place a process of negotiations with the understanding that an imperfectly negotiated settlement may be the closest thing to victory that is likely to be possible without the loss of an incalculable number of innocents. Escalating the war, on the other hand, puts U.S. interests at risk, in the Balkans and in other parts of the world. The earlier we reconsider the better. The vote on this resolution and the others we will take today are necessitated by law. That law, the War Powers Resolution, may be unconstitutional and today's votes may serve as a basis for the courts to rule to this effect. Nonetheless, the War Powers Resolution is at this moment the law of the land. Ironically, we are finding, compliance may be more difficult for the legislative than, as has generally been perceived, for the executive branch because it forces congressional accountability for or against executive actions. More importantly, the timing as well as the fact of consideration of these resolutions is awkward for the national interest because legislative decision-making is required by dates certain--i.e., within a prescribed period from the time troops are deployed in hostile circumstances. The public interest may not be well served by such a review of executive action in such a timeframe, but it would be less well served if Congress avoided its legal and constitutional responsibilities. Hence, what in effect is a legislative/executive confrontation is legally, at this time, unavoidable, and as an individual Member of Congress I have no option except to take a stand. This stand is one of dissent to what I consider to be a foreign policy that lacks intellectual rigor and misserves the national interest.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I thank my dear colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, last week the House of Representatives considered several resolutions on the Balkans. This gentleman voted to oppose intervention. Last night, I explained my concerns relating to the lack of the end game as well as the lack of relevance in my judgment of use of air power in a part of the world which has heavily engaged for much of this century in guerilla warfare. This resolution is poignantly appropriate because it respects and reflects respect for our troops. But it should be understood by this body that the difficulties that our troops are in are much greater today and will be much greater tomorrow than they were yesterday, not simply because engagement is active today but we are changing the nature of our involvement. This is a bench mark change. We have moved from a peacekeeping role to a peace-enforcing role. That means we have moved from the role of being part of a NATO force acting as a police function to part of a NATO force choosing sides in certain civil war types of setting. This means that our troops will now become more targets than simply intermediaries. Therefore, it is extraordinarily important that all of us recognize that there is reason to reflect great respect for those troops that are being put in harm's way. But to the degree that foreign policy should be considered morality in action, we should also be clear to recognize that means have to be part of the goals. To the great credit of the President, the goals of the United States in this intervention are quite admirable. The question that remains, however, is whether the means to achieve those goals will escalate the conflict or cause diminution of circumstance. Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying that I think this evening it is very important that this Congress move forth with this kind of resolution, and I strongly endorse it. But I also think that it be very important that we recognize that a change in policy has occurred of stellar significance and that it is our obligation to continue to review and appraise policies as they develop and to commit ourselves to doing the best we can to advance approaches that deescalate rather than escalate conflict in the Balkans.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issue of presidential decision-making related to Kosovo. Sometimes the challenge of leadership is to recognize that restraint at the outset is a better policy than entanglement at the end. The Balkans are a caldron of conflict based on a history of internecine violence of which we on this side of the Atlantic have little understanding or capacity to ameliorate. Policy in such a circumstance should be designed to avoid being caught up in destructive dissensions which are beyond our ken and beyond our control. There may be a humanitarian case for intervening on the ground in Kosovo as part of a small NATO peacekeeping operation. But this case disintegrates if we unleash air power against one of the sides. In the wake of air strikes, we will be barred forever from a claim to the kind of neutral status required of a peacekeeping participant. More importantly, it is strategic folly to assume civil wars can be calmed by unleashing violence from 30,000 feet. Teddy Roosevelt once admonished ``to speak softly but carry a big stick.'' At risk to the public interest, this President has taken a different tack. He has raised the rhetoric, threatening one side that air strikes will occur if it does not capitulate, and allowed a war criminal, Slobadan Milosovic, to force his hand. Now, in part because White House threats are either not being taken seriously or are viewed as potentially counterproductive, Milosovic has put the President in a position of advocating air strikes in order to keep his word, even though their effect may be more anarchistic than constraint. The world will little note nor long remember what most Presidents say most of the time. But people from every corner of the earth are taking stock of what appears to be a too-ready trigger hand on cruise missiles and air power. A question worth pondering is whether use of such power in East Africa and Afghanistan, for instance, precipitates or diminishes efforts by destabilizing powers to build weapons of mass destruction and missile delivery systems for themselves. Meanwhile, the case for unleashing a military strike in order to make a meaningful threat meaningful should be reconsidered. It is time to disengage pride and review circumstance. It is time to stop being a bully in the use of the bully pulpit.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Rule XI clause 2(a)(2) of the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 106th Congress, I am requesting that the new Rules of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, which were adopted on January 20, 1999, be printed in their entirety in the Congressional Record for today. Rules of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, One Hundred Sixth Congress, as Adopted on January 20, 1999 rule i--general provisions 1. (a) The rules of the House are the rules of the Committee and subcommittees so far as applicable, except that a motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed copies are available, each shall be privileged in the Committee and subcommittees and shall be decided without debate. A proposed investigative or oversight report shall be considered as read if it has been available to the Members of the Committee for at least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when the House is in session on such day). (b) Each subcommittee of the Committee is a part of the Committee, and is subject to the authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so far as applicable. 2. The Committee shall submit to the House, not later than January 2 of each odd-numbered year, a report on the activities of the Committee under Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House during the Congress ending at noon on January 3 of such year. 3. The Committee's rules shall be published in the Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the Congress convenes in each odd-numbered year. rule ii--powers and duties 1. The powers and duties of the Committee are all those such as are enumerated or contained in the Rules of the House and the rulings and precedents of the House or the Committee. 2. For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under Rules X and XI of the Rules of the House, the Committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized-- (a) to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings; except as provided in Rule XI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House; (b) To conduct such investigations and studies as it may consider necessary or appropriate, and (subject to the adoption of expense resolutions as required by clause 6 of Rule X of the Rules of the House) to incur expenses (including travel expenses) in connection therewith. The ranking minority Member of the full Committee or the relevant subcommittee shall be notified in advance at such times as any Committee funds are expended for investigations and studies involving international travel; and (c) To require, by subpoena or otherwise (subject to clause 3(a)), the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents, in whatever form, as it deems necessary. The Chairperson of the Committee, or any Member designated by the Chairperson, may administer oaths to any witness. Subpoenas 3. (a) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee or a subcommittee under clause 2(c) in the conduct of any investigation or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the Members voting, a majority being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under clause 2(c) may be delegated to the Chairperson of the Committee pursuant to such limitations as the Committee may prescribe. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the Chairperson of the Committee or by any Member designated by the Committee. (b) Compliance with any subpoena issued by the Committee under clause 2(c) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House. Rview of continuing programs 4. The Committee shall, in its consideration of all bills and joint resolutions of a public character within its jurisdiction, insure that appropriations for continuing programs and activities of the Federal government and the District of Columbia government will be made annually to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the nature, requirements, and objectives of the programs and activities involved. For the purposes of this paragraph, a government agency includes the organizational units of government listed in clause 3(d)(3)(A) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House. 5. The Committee shall review, from time to time, each continuing program within its jurisdiction for which appropriations are not made annually in order to ascertain whether such program could be modified so that appropriations therefore would be made annually. Budget Act reports 6. The Committee shall, on or before February 25 of each year, submit to the Committee on the Budget-- (a) the Committee's views and estimates with respect to all matters to be set forth in the concurrent resolution on the budget for the ensuing fiscal year which are within its jurisdiction or functions; and (b) an estimate of the total amounts of new budget authority, and budget outlays resulting therefrom, to be provided or authorized in all bills and resolutions within the Committee's jurisdiction which it intends to be effective during that fiscal year. 7. As soon as practicable after a concurrent resolution on the budget for any fiscal year is agreed to, the Committee (after consulting with the appropriate Committee or Committees of the Senate) shall subdivided any allocations made to it in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on such resolution, and promptly report such subdivisions to the House, in the manner provided by section 302 or section 602 (in the case of fiscal years 1991 through 1995) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 8. Whenever the Committee is directed in a concurrent resolution on the budget to determine and recommend changes in laws, bills, or resolutions under the reconciliation process it shall promptly make such determination and recommendations, and report a reconciliation bill or resolution (or both) to the House or submit such recommendations to the Committee on the Budget in accordance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Oversight report 9. Not later than February 15 of the first session of a Congress, the Committee shall meet in open session, with a quorum present, to adopt its oversight plans for that Congress for submission to the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on Government Reform, in accordance with the provisions of clause 2(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House. The Chairperson shall consult with the ranking minority Member on the formulation of the oversight plan, and the Committee may not meet to adopt the plan unless a copy of the plan has been provided to all Members not less than two days in advance of the Committee meeting. rule iii--meetings Regular meetings 1. Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held on the first Tuesday of each month while the Congress is in session, and the Chairperson shall provide to each Member of the Committee, as far in advance of the day of the regular meeting as the circumstances make practicable, a written notice to that effect. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, when the Chairperson believes that the Committee will not be considering any bill or resolution before the full Committee and that there is no other timely business to be transacted at a regular meeting, then no Committee meeting shall be held on that day. In such instances, the Chairperson shall not issue the notice of the regular meeting to the Members and the failure to receive such notice shall be treated by the Members as a cancellation of the regular meeting. Additional and special meetings 2. (a) The Chairperson may call and convene, as the Chairperson considers necessary, additional meetings of the Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such purpose pursuant to that call of the chair. (b) No bill or joint resolution shall be considered by the Committee unless (i) such measure has been made available to all Members at least two calendar days (three calendar days when the bill or joint resolution has not been ordered reported by the subcommittee of jurisdiction) prior to the meeting, accompanied by a section-by-section analysis of such measure; and (ii) the Chairperson has notified Members of the time and place of the meeting at least two calendar days (three calendar days when the bill or joint resolution has not been ordered reported by the subcommittee of jurisdiction) before the commencement of the meeting. The provisions of this paragraph may be suspended by the Committee by a two-thirds vote or by the Chairperson, with the concurrence of the ranking minority Member of the full Committee. 3. If at least three Members of the Committee desire that a special meeting of the Committee be called by the Chairperson, those Members may file in the offices of the Committee their written request to the Chairperson for that special meeting. Such request shall specify the measure or matter to be considered. Immediately upon the filing of the request, the clerk of the Committee shall notify the Chairperson of the filing of the request. If, within three calendar days after the filing of the request, the Chairperson does not call the requested special meeting, to be held within seven calendar days after the filing of the request, a majority of the Members of the Committee may file in the offices of the Committee their written notice that a special meeting of the Committee will be held specifying the date and hour thereof, and the measure or matter to be considered at that special meeting. The Committee shall meet on that date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of the notice, the clerk of the Committee shall notify all Members of the Committee that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its date and hour and the measure or matter to be considered; and only the measure or matter specified in that notice may be considered at that special meeting. Open meetings 4. (a) Each meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, of the Committee or each subcommittee thereof, shall be open to the public including to radio, television and still photography coverage, except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House; provided, however, that no person other than Members of the Committee and such congressional staff and such departmental representatives as they may authorize shall be present at any business or markup session which has been closed to the public. (b) Each hearing conducted by the Committee or each subcommittee thereof shall be open to the public including to radio, television and still photography coverage except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the national security or would compromise sensitive law enforcement information or would violate any law or rule of the House. Notwithstanding the requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of those present (there being in attendance the requisite number required under the Rules of the Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony-- (1) may vote to close the hearing for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the national security or would compromise sensitive law enforcement information or violate clause 6(e) of Rule IV; or (2) may vote to close the hearing, as provided in clause 6 of Rule IV. No Member may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee, unless the House of Representative shall by a majority vote authorize the Committee or a particular subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members by the same procedures designated in this paragraph for closing hearings to the public; provided, however, that the Committee or subcommittee may by the same procedure vote to close on subsequent day of hearings. Broadcasting of committee meetings 5. Any meeting or hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee that is open to the public shall be open to coverage by television, radio, and still photography, subject to the requirements and limitations of clause 4 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House. The coverage of any meeting or hearing of the Committee or any subcommittee thereof by television, radio, or still photography shall be under the direct supervision of the Chairperson of the Committee, the subcommittee Chairperson, or other Member of the Committee presiding at such meeting. The number of television or still cameras shall not be limited to fewer than two representatives from each medium except for legitimate space or safety considerations, in which case pool coverage shall be authorized. Additional provisions 6. Meetings and hearings of the Committee or subcommittee shall be called to order and presided over by the Chairperson or, in the Chairperson's absence, by the Member designated by the Chairperson as the Vice Chairperson of the Committee or subcommittee, or by the ranking majority Member of the Committee or subcommittee present. 7. No person other than a Member of Congress, Committee staff, or a person from a Member's staff when that Member has an amendment under consideration, may stand in or be seated at the rostrum area of the Committee unless the Chairperson determines otherwise. rule iv--hearing procedures 1. The Chairperson, in the case of hearings to be conducted by the Committee, and the appropriate subcommittee Chairperson, in the case of hearings to be conducted by a subcommittee, shall make public announcement of the date, place, and subject matter at least one week before the commencement of that hearing. If the Chairperson, with the concurrence of the ranking minority Member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if the committee or subcommittee so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, the Chairperson shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. The clerk of the Committee shall promptly notify all Members of the Committee; the Daily Digest; Chief Clerk; Official Reporters; and the Committee scheduling service of House Information Systems as soon as possible after such announcement is made. 2. (a) Each witness who is to appear before the Committee or a subcommittee shall file with the clerk of the Committee, at least 24 hours in advance of his or her appearance, 200 copies of the proposed testimony if the appearance is before the Committee, or 100 copies of the proposed testimony if the appearance is before a subcommittee; provided, however, that this requirement may be modified or waived by the Chairperson of the Committee or appropriate subcommittee, after consultation with the ranking minority Member, when the Chairperson determines it to be in the best interest of the Committee or subcommittee, and furthermore, that this requirement shall not be mandatory if a witness is given less than seven days notice of appearance prior to a hearing. (b) The Chairperson may require a witness to limit the oral presentation to a summary of the statement. (c) Each witness in a non-governmental capacity shall include with the written statement of proposed testimony a curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source (by agency and program) of any Federal grant (or subgrant thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during the current fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years by the witness or by an entity represented by the witness. 3. Upon announcement of a hearing, the clerk and staff director shall cause to be prepared a concise summary of the subject matter (including legislative reports and other materials) under consideration which shall be made available immediately to all Members of the Committee. Calling and interrogation of witnesses 4. Whenever any hearing is conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee upon any measure or matter, the minority party Members on the Committee shall be entitled, upon request to the Chairperson by a majority of those minority Members before the completion of such hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing thereon. 5. Except when the Committee adopts a motion pursuant to subdivisions (B) and (C) of clause 2(j)(2) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, Committee Members may question witnesses only when they have been recognized by the Chairperson for that purpose, and only for a 5-minute period until all Members present have had an opportunity to question a witness. The 5-minute period for questioning a witness by any one Member can be extended only with the unanimous consent of all Members present. The questioning of witnesses in both the full and subcommittee hearings shall be initiated by the Chairperson, followed by the ranking minority party member and all other Members alternating between the majority and minority. In recognizing Members to question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairperson shall take into consideration the ratio of the majority to minority Members present and shall establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to disadvantage the Members of the majority. Investigative hearing procedures 6. The following additional rules shall apply to investigative hearings: (a) The Chairperson, at any investigative hearing, shall announce in an opening statement the subject of the investigation. (b) A copy of the Committee rules and Rule XI, clause 2 of the Rules of the House shall be made available to each witness. (c) Witnesses at investigative hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights. (d) The Chairperson may punish breaches of order and decorum, and of professional ethics on the part of counsel, by censure and exclusion from the hearings; and the Committee may cite the offender to the House for contempt. (e) Whenever it is asserted that the evidence or testimony at an investigative hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, (i) such testimony or evidence shall be presented in executive session, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 4(b) of Rule III, if by a majority of those present, there being in attendance the requisite number required under the Rules of the Committee to be present for the purpose of taking testimony, the Committee determines that such evidence or testimony may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person; and (ii) the Committee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if a majority of the Members of the Committee, a majority being present, determine that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. In either case the Committee shall afford such person an opportunity voluntarily to appear as a witness; and receive and dispose of requests from such person to subpoena additional witnesses. (f) Except as provided in paragraph (e), the Chairperson shall receive and the Committee shall dispose of requests to subpoena additional witnesses. (g) No evidence or testimony taken in executive session may be released or used in public session without the consent of the Committee. (h) In the discretion of the Committee, witnesses may submit brief and pertinent sworn statements in writing for inclusion in the record. The Committee is the sole judge of the pertinency of testimony and evidence adduced at its hearing. (i) A witness may obtain a transcript copy of his or her testimony given at a public session, or, if given at an executive session, when authorized by the Committee. rule v--reporting of bills and resolutions 1. (a) It shall be the duty of the Chairperson of the Committee to report or cause to be reported promptly to the House any measure approved by the Committee and to take or cause to be taken necessary steps to bring the matter to a vote. (b) In any event, the report of the Committee on a measure which has been approved by the Committee shall be filed within seven calendar days (exclusive of days on which the House is not in session) after the day on which there has been filed with the clerk of the Committee a written request, signed by a majority of the Members of the Committee, for the reporting of that measure. Upon the filing of any such request, the clerk of the Committee shall transmit immediately to the Chairperson of the Committee notice of the filing of that request. 2. No measure or recommendation shall be reported from the Committee unless the quorum requirement of clause 1(a) of Rule VI is satisfied. Committee reports 3. The report of the Committee on a measure which has been approved by the Committee shall include-- (a) a cover page, which must show that supplemental, minority and additional views (if any), the estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and the recommendations of the Committee on Government Reform (whenever submitted), are included in the report; (b) the amendments adopted by the Committee; (c) a section-by-section analysis of the bill as reported, whenever possible; (d) an explanation of the legislation; if the Chairperson decides one is necessary; (e) with respect to each record vote on a motion to report any measure, and on any amendment offered to the measure, the total number of votes cast for and against, or present not voting and the names of those Members voting for and against, or present not voting; (f) the oversight findings and recommendations required pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House separately set out and clearly identified; (g) the statement required by section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, separately set out and clearly identified, if the measure provides new budget authority, new spending authority described in section 401(c)(2) of such Act, new credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures, except that the estimates with respect to new budget authority shall include, when practicable, a comparison of the total estimated funding level for the program (or programs) to the appropriate levels under current law; (h) the estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of such Act, separately set out and clearly identified, whenever the Director (if timely submitted prior to the filing of the report) has submitted such estimate and comparison to the Committee; (i) a summary of the oversight findings and recommendations made by the Committee on Government Reform under clause 4(c)(2) of Rule X of the Rules of the House separately set out and clearly identified whenever such findings and recommendations have been submitted to the Committee in a timely fashion to allow an opportunity to consider such findings and recommendations during the Committee's deliberations of the measure; (j) for a bill or joint resolution of a public character reported by the Committee, a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution; (k) a statement in accordance with section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act; (l) any supplemental, minority, or additional views, if submitted in accordance with clause 5; (m) the Ramseyer document required under clause 3 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House; and (n) the estimate and comparison of costs incurred in carrying out the bill or resolution, as may be required by clauses 3(d)(2), 3(d)(3), 3(h)(2) and 3(h)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House. 4. The report of the Committee, when filed with the House, shall be accompanied by three copies of the bill or resolution as introduced and one copy of the bill or resolution as amended. 5. If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by the Committee, any Member of the Committee gives notice of intention to file supplemental minority, or additional views, that Member shall be entitled to not less than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in session on such day) in which to file such views, in writing and signed by that Member, with the clerk of the Committee. All such views so filed by one or more Members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be part of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter. When time guaranteed by this subparagraph has expired (or if sooner, when all separate views have been received), the Committee may arrange to file its report with the Clerk not later than one hour after the expiration of such time. No report shall be filed until the Chairperson has notified, with opportunity for discussion, the ranking minority Member of the Committee and the Chairperson of the subcommittee from which the legislation emanated or would have emanated. The report of the Committee upon that measure or matter shall be printed in a single volume which-- (i) shall include all supplemental, minority, or additional views which have been submitted by the time of the filing of the report, and (ii) shall bear upon its cover a recital that any such supplemental, minority, or additional views and any material submitted under paragraphs (h) and (i) of clause 3 are included as part of the report. (b) This clause does not preclude-- (i) the immediate filing or printing of a Committee report unless timely request for the opportunity to file supplemental, minority, or additional views has been made as provided in paragraph (a); or (ii) the filing by the Committee of any supplemental report upon any measure or matter which may be required for the correction of any technical error or omission in a previous report made by the Committee upon that measure or matter. (c) After an adjournment of the last regular session of Congress sine die, an investigative or oversight report approved by the Committee may be filed with the Clerk at any time, provided that if a Member gives notice at the time of approval of intention to file supplemental, minority, or additional views, that Member shall be entitled to not less than seven calendar days in which to submit such views for inclusion with the report. (d) After an adjournment of the last regular session of a Congress sine die, the Chair of the Committee may file at any time with the Clerk the Committee's activity report for that Congress pursuant to clause 1(d)(1) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House without the approval of the Committee, provided that a copy of the report has been available to each Member of the Committee for at least seven calendar days and the report includes any supplemental, minority, or additional views submitted by a Member of the Committee. Hearing prints 6. If hearings have been held on any such measure or matter so reported, the Committee shall make every reasonable effort to have such hearings printed and available for distribution to the Members of the House prior to the consideration of such measure or matter in the House except as otherwise provided in clause 4 of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House. Rule vi--quorums 1. (a) A quorum, for the purpose of reporting any bill or resolution, of authorizing a subpoena, or of closing a meeting or hearing pursuant to clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House (except as provided in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)) shall consist of a majority of the Committee actually present. (b) a quorum, for the purpose of taking any action other than those specified in clause 1(a) shall consist of one- third of the Members of the Committee. (c) A quorum, for the purpose of taking testimony and receiving evidence, shall consist of any two Members of the Committee. Proxies 2. No vote by any Member of the Committee or any of its subcommittees with respect to any measure may be cast by proxy. Rule vii--subcommittee--jurisdiction 1. There shall be in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services the following standing subcommittees: Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity; Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit; Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy; Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises; and Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations; each of which shall have the jurisdiction and related functions assigned to it by this rule. Subcommittee jurisdictions are as follows: Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity (a) The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity extends to and includes: (i) all matters relating to housing (except programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs), including mortgage and loan insurance pursuant to the National Housing Act; rural housing; housing and homeless assistance programs; all activities of the Government National Mortgage Association; private mortgage insurance; housing construction and design and safety standards; housing-related energy conservation; housing research and demonstration programs; financial and technical assistance for nonprofit housing sponsors; housing counseling and technical assistance; regulation of the housing industry (including landlord/tenant relations); real estate lending including regulation of settlement procedures; (ii) matters relating to community development and community and neighborhood planning, training and research; national urban growth policies; urban/rural research and technologies; and regulation of interstate land sales; (iii) all matters relating to all government sponsored insurance programs, including those offering protection against crime, fire, flood (and related land use controls), earthquake and other natural hazards; and (iv) the qualifications for and designation of Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (other than matters relating to tax benefits). Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit (b) The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit extends to and includes: (i) all agencies which directly or indirectly exercise supervisory or regulatory authority in connection with, or provide deposit insurance for, financial institutions, and the establishment of interest rate ceilings on deposits; (ii) all auxiliary matters affecting or arising in connection with the supervisory and regulatory activities of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve System, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the National Credit Union Administration, together with those activities and operations of any other agency or department which relate to both domestic or foreign financial institutions; (iii) with respect to financial institutions and the department and agencies which regulate or supervise them, all activities relating to and arising in connection with the matters of chartering, branching, mergers, acquisitions, consolidations, and conversions; (iv) with respect to financial institutions and the agencies which regulate them, all activities relating to and arising in connection with the sale or underwriting of insurance and other noninsured instruments by financial institutions and their affiliates other than securities; (v) all matters relating to consumer credit, including the provision of consumer credit by insurance companies, and further including those matters in the Consumer Credit Protection Act dealing with truth in lending, extortionate credit transactions, restrictions on garnishments, fair credit reporting and the use of credit information by credit bureaus and credit providers, equal credit opportunity, debt collection practices, and electronic funds transfers; (vi) creditor remedies and debtor defenses, Federal aspects of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, credit and debit cards and the preemption of State usury laws; (vii) all matters relating to consumer access to financial services, including the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the Community Reinvestment Act; (viii) the terms and rules of disclosure of financial services, including the advertisement, promotion and pricing of financial services, and availability of government check cashing services; (ix) issues relating to consumer access to savings accounts and checking accounts in financial institutions, including lifeline banking and other consumer accounts; and (x) all matters relating to the business of insurance, other than government sponsored insurance programs. Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy (c) The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy extends to and includes: (i) all matters relating to all multilateral development lending institutions, including activities of the National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Policies as related thereto, and monetary and financial developments as they relate to the activities and objectives of such institutions; (ii) all matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee relating to international trade, including but not limited to the activities of the Export-Import Bank; (iii) the International Monetary Fund, its permanent and temporary agencies, and all matters related thereto; (iv) international investment policies, both as they relate to United States investments for trade purposes by citizens of the United States and investments made by all foreign entities in the United States; (v) all matters relating to financial aid to all sectors and elements within the economy, all matters relating to economic growth and stabilization, and all defense production matters as contained in the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, and all related matters thereto; (vi) all matters relating to domestic monetary policy and agencies which directly or indirectly affect domestic monetary policy, including the effect of such policy and other financial actions on interest rates, the allocation of credit, and the structure and functioning of domestic and foreign financial institutions; (vii) all matters relating to coins, coinage, currency and medals, including commemorative coins and medals, proof and mint sets and other special coins, the Coinage Act of 1965, gold and silver, including coinage thereof (but not the par value of gold), gold medals, counterfeiting, currency denominations and design, the distribution of coins, and the operations and activities of the Bureau of the Mint and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing; provided, however, that the Subcommittee shall not schedule a hearing on any commemorative medal or commemorative coin legislation unless the legislation is cosponsored by at least two-thirds of the Members of the House and has been recommended by the U.S. Mint's Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee in the case of a commemorative coin. The Subcommittee shall not report a bill or measure authorizing commemorative coins which does not conform with the mintage restrictions under 31 USC 5112. In considering legislation authorizing Congressional gold medals, the subcommittee shall apply the following standards: (A) the recipient shall be a natural person; (B) the recipient shall have performed an achievement that has an impact on American history and culture that is likely to be recognized as a major achievement in the recipient's field long after the achievement; (C) the recipient shall not have received a medal previously for the same or substantially the same achievement; (D) the recipient shall be living or, if deceased, shall have been deceased for not less than five years and not more than 25 years; and (E) the achievements were performed in the recipient's field of endeavor, and represent either a lifetime of continuous superior achievements or a single achievement so significant that the recipient is recognized and acclaimed by others in the same field, as evidenced by the recipient having received the highest honors in the field. Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises (d) The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises extends to and includes: (i) all matters relating to depository institution securities activities, including the activities of any affiliates, except for functional regulation under applicable securities laws not involving safety and soundness; (ii) all matters related to bank capital markets activities; (iii) all matters related to the activities of financial institutions in financial markets involving futures, forwards, options and other types of derivative instruments; (iv) all matters relating to secondary market organizations for home mortgages including the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation; (v) all matters related to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight; and (vi) all matters related to the Federal Housing Finance Board and the supervision and operation of the Federal Home Loan Banks. Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations (e) The Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations shall have the responsibility of reviewing and studying, on a continuing basis: (i) the application, administration, execution, and effectiveness of the laws within the jurisdiction of the Committee, and the organization and operation of the Federal agencies and entities which have responsibility for the administration and execution thereof, in order to determine whether such laws and the programs thereunder are being implemented and carried out in accordance with the intent of the Congress and whether such programs should be continued, curtailed, or eliminated; (ii) any conditions or circumstances which may indicate the necessity or desirability of enacting new or additional legislation within the jurisdiction of the Committee (whether or not any bill or resolution has been introduced with respect thereto), and present any such recommendations as deemed necessary to the appropriate subcommittee(s) of the Committee; (iii) forecasting and future oriented research on matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee, and shall study all reports, documents and data pertinent to the jurisdiction of the Committee and make the necessary recommendations or reports thereon to the appropriate subcommittee(s) of the Committee; and (iv) the impact or probable impact of tax policies affecting subjects within the jurisdiction of the Committee; provided, however, that the operations of the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations shall in no way limit the responsibility of the other subcommittees of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services from carrying out their oversight duties. Subcommittees--Referral of legislation 2. Each bill, resolution, investigation, or other matter which relates to a subject listed under the jurisdiction of any subcommittee named in this rule referred to or initiated by the full Committee shall on a bimonthly basis be referred by the Chairperson to the subcommittees of appropriate jurisdiction or retained at the full Committee for its consideration unless, by majority vote of the Majority Members of the full Committee, the referral or consideration is to be otherwise. Referral under this clause shall not be effective until each subcommittee Chairperson is notified of the Chairperson's referral decision. A bill, resolution, or other matter referred to a subcommittee in accordance with this clause may be recalled therefrom at any time for the Committee's direct consideration or for reference to another subcommittee by a majority vote of the Majority Members of the full Committee, or by the Chairperson (unless provided otherwise by a majority vote of the majority Members of the full Committee). 3. In carrying out this rule with respect to any matter, the Chairperson shall designate a subcommittee of primary jurisdiction; but also may refer the matter to one or more additional subcommittees, for consideration in sequence (subject to appropriate time limitations), either on its initial referral or after the matter has been reported by the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction; or may refer portions of the matter to one or more additional subcommittees (reflecting different subjects and jurisdictions) for the consideration only of designated portions; or may refer the matter to a special ad hoc subcommittee appointed by the Chairperson with the approval of the Committee (with members from the subcommittees having jurisdiction) for the specific purpose of considering that matter and reporting to the Committee thereon; or may make such other provisions as may be considered appropriate. rule viii--subcommittees--powers and duties 1. Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all matters referred to it or under its jurisdiction. Subcommittee Chairpersons shall set dates for hearings and meetings of their respective subcommittees after consultation with the Chairperson and other subcommittee Chairpersons and with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of full Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible. 2. Whenever a subcommittee has ordered a bill, resolution, or other matter to be reported to the Committee, the Chairperson of the subcommittee reporting the bill, resolution, or matter to the full Committee, or any Member authorized by the subcommittee to do so, may report such bill, resolution, or matter to the Committee. It shall be the duty of the Chairperson of the subcommittee to report or cause to be reported promptly such bill, resolution, or matter, and to take steps or cause to be taken the necessary steps to bring such bill, resolution, or matter to a vote. 3. No bill or joint resolution approved by a subcommittee shall be considered by the Committee unless such measure, as approved, has been made available to all Members at least two calendar days prior to the meeting, accompanied by a section- by-section analysis of such measure.--The provisions of this paragraph may be suspended by the Committee by a two- thirds vote or by the Chairperson, with the concurrence of the ranking minority Member of the full Committee. 4. All Committee or subcommittee reports printed pursuant to a legislative study or investigation and not approved by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, shall contain the following disclaimer on the cover of such report: ``This report has not been officially adopted by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services (or pertinent subcommittee thereof) and may not therefore necessarily reflect the views of its Members.'' 5. Bills, resolutions, or other matters favorably reported by a subcommittee shall automatically be placed on the agenda of the Committee as of the time they are reported and shall be considered by the full Committee in the order in which they were reported unless the Chairperson after consultation with the ranking minority Member and appropriate subcommittee Chairperson, otherwise directs; provided, however, that no bill reported by a subcommittee shall be considered by the full Committee unless each Member has been provided with reasonable time prior to the meeting to analyze such bill, together with a comparison with present law and a section-by- section analysis of the proposed change. 6. No bill or joint resolution may be considered by a subcommittee unless such measure has been made available to all Members at least two calendar days prior to the meeting, accompanied by a section-by-section analysis of such measure. The provisions of this paragraph may be waived following consultation with the appropriate ranking minority Member. 7. The Chairperson and ranking minority Member of the Committee shall be ex officio, non-voting members of each subcommittee of the Committee. rule ix--subcommittees--size and ratios 1. To the extent that the number of subcommittees and their party ratios permit, the size of all subcommittees shall be established so that the majority party Members of the Committee have an equal number of subcommittee assignments; provided, however, that a majority Member may waive his or her right to an equal number of subcommittee assignments on the Committee. 2. The following shall be the sizes and ratios for subcommittees: (a) Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity: Total 26--Majority 14, Minority 12. (b) Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit: Total 28--Majority 15, Minority 13. (c) Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy: Total 26--Majority 14, Minority 12. (d) Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Government Sponsored Enterprises: Total 28--Majority 15, Minority 13. (e) Subcommittee on General Oversight and Investigations: Total 10--Majority 6, Minority 4. rule x--budget and staff 1. The Chairperson, in consultation with other Members of the Committee, shall prepare for each Congress a budget providing amounts for staff, necessary travel, investigations and other expenses of the Committee and its subcommittees and shall present same to the Committee. 2. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), the professional and investigative staff of the Committee shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the Chairperson and shall work under the general supervision and direction of the Chairperson. (b) All professional and investigative staff provided to the minority party Members of the Committee shall be appointed, and may be removed, by the ranking minority Member of the Committee and shall work under the general supervision and direction of such Member. 3. (a) From funds made available for the appointment of staff, the Chairperson of the Committee shall, pursuant to clause 6(d) of Rule X of the Rules of the House ensure that sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the Committee, and, after consultation with the ranking minority Member of the Committee, that the minority party of the Committee is treated fairly in the appointment of such staff. (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), the Chairperson shall fix the compensation of all professional and investigative staff of the Committee. (c) The ranking minority Members shall fix the compensation of all professional and investigative staff provided to the minority party Members of the Committee. 4. From the amount provided to the Committee in the primary expense resolution adopted by the House of Representatives, the Chairperson, after consultation with the ranking minority Member, shall designate an amount to be under the direction of the ranking minority Member for the compensation of the minority staff, travel expenses of minority Members and staff, and minority office expenses. All expenses of minority Members and staff shall be paid for out of the amount so set aside. 5. It is intended that the skills and experience of all members of the Committee staff be available to all Members of the Committee. rule xi--travel 1. All travel for any Member and any staff member of the Committee in connection with activities or subject matters under the general jurisdiction of the Committee must be authorized by the Chairperson. Before such authorization is granted, there shall be submitted to the Chairperson in writing the following: (a) the purpose of the travel; (b) the dates during which the travel is to occur; (c) the names of the States or countries to be visited and the length of time to be spent in each; and (d) the names of Members and staff of the Committee for whom the authorization is sought. 2. In the case of travel outside the United States of Members and staff of the Committee, such Members or staff shall submit a written report to the Chairperson on any such travel including a description of their itinerary, expenses, activities, and pertinent information gained as a result of such travel. 3. Members and staff of the Committee performing authorized travel on official business shall be governed by applicable laws, resolutions, and regulations of the House and of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of two of the four articles of impeachment. For a long time I have thought the character issue surrounding this President deserved political and legal accountability, but assumed it fell short of requiring a Constitutional remedy. I have concluded, however, that I have no choice but to vote for two of the four Articles of Impeachment--specifically Articles I and II, those dealing with perjury. My reasoning is straightforward. The President has committed crimes and misdemeanors. The question that perplexes each of us as Members and the public at large is whether these crimes and misdemeanors are ``high'' enough to meet the standard required by the Constitution. The defenders of the President have suggested that lying about a fundamental privacy issue--sex--and the issues surrounding sexual harassment do not rise to a constitutional level. While I respect judgments to the contrary, I have concluded that perjury in this instance has been committed, not only to protect the President from embarrassment, but to deny an American citizen due process under the law. It must be considered a high crime, one against the state. The fundamental issue is that no individual is above the law and that democratic governance depends on trust, which in turn depends on truth- saying. Leadership is a conjunction of good ideas and good character. One without the other is unsustainable. In America, process is our most important product. Winning does not vindicate taking shortcuts with public ethics, even if it can be suggested that others may have followed similar or less defensible paths. In her philosophical treatise Lying, Sissela Bok, the Harvard ethicist, notes that ``veracity functions as a foundation of relations among human beings; when this trust shatters or wears away, institutions collapse.'' Bok goes on to note that ``truthfulness has always been seen as essential to human society, no matter how deficient the observance of other moral principles.'' This is why lying under oath is so serious and why the President's refusal to acknowledge truthfully the factual circumstance that has been established so shatters the moral underpinnings of government. The fact that the President may face liabilities after he leaves office if he states the truth is no excuse for continued obfuscation. At the core of the President's Constitutional responsibilities is his duty to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' It is hard to conceive of an offense that more clearly violates--and is more clearly relevant to--this core responsibility than perjury, which, if left unchecked, would destroy the rule of law. By lying under oath in a federal civil rights lawsuit and subsequently before a federal grand jury, the President not only failed to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' he acted to subvert the law itself. A situation simply cannot be tolerated in which the highest officer of the Executive Branch is called before a judge and orchestrates a cover-up constructed of fraudulent half-truths, misleading omissions, and deliberately spun webs of deceit. While the Judiciary has mechanisms by which it can defend the integrity of its processes, what is unusual in this particular impeachment proceeding is the prospect of Congress taking action to right the balance between two branches of government, in this case the Executive and the courts. Because it is a referral of the Office of Independent Counsel which obligated Congress to assess whether actions of the President rise to impeachment proportions, it should be understood for the record that it was the Justice Department and the Courts, rather than Congress, which precipitated the independent counsel's review of perjury related to the President's private life. While Congress called for, and the President explicitly, though reluctantly, approved the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the Whitewater matter (which, to date, has yielded convictions of 14 individuals on 41 criminal counts), it was the Attorney General who directed the Counsel to widen his probe to include aspects of the civil suit brought by Paula Jones, and it was the Supreme Court which allowed the suit to go forward during the President's tenure. It is important to separate Congress from a call for a review of aspects of the personal life of a President because of the terrible precedent it would set. It is also important for Congress to ponder whether the future presidents should be subject to civil actions during their terms for which intrusive depositions may be in order. The Independent Counsel's probe has been too long, too expensive, and too intrusive. I have great qualms about the seemliness and precedent of some of the tactics of the Independent Counsel's office, particularly the use of and potential resort to further surreptitious tape recordings to gather additional evidence against the President. Nonetheless, the results of the Counsel's probe cannot be dismissed. The underlying acts under review have demeaned the office of the President, debased the public dialogue, and eroded the President's moral authority to govern. Impeachment should neither be used to punish the President nor to settle political scores. Indeed, its consideration should only proceed with the goal of protecting the office by replacing a sullied occupant with an individual of unsullied character. This is the case today. Conviction by the Senate on impeachment charges at this time in this circumstance would represent less an overturning of a democratic election than a reaffirmation of the strength of the processes of governance, the putting in place of a new leader of the same party and philosophical bent as the President. While the lines between the political parties may become accentuated in an impeachment vote, the end result of a successful impeachment would almost certainly redound to the political advantage of the President's party and--more importantly--to the country. In fulfilling his Constitutional duty to lead the United States government the President has an implicit obligation to stand as the apotheosis of American values. While ethics are an integral part of the human condition and at bottom a matter of individual responsibility, an American President must be above demeaning behavior and free of any shadow concerning allegiance to the law and to the truth. To hold otherwise is to assume we are neither a nation of laws nor of moral values. In the final measure, what is at issue regarding the possible impeachment of the President is the question of relativism versus absolutism. Relatively speaking, there is little doubt that other Presidents have had inappropriate relationships, including one with an individual who, as a slave not only worked for but was owned by a President. There is also no doubt that other Presidents have lied about public matters, perhaps more serious than adultery--the U.S. role in the Bay of Pigs invasion, the true nature of Gary Powers' mission to Russia in a U-2 spy plane, and the details of the arms-for-hostages transaction that was at the heart of the Iran-Contra affair, to name a few. On the other hand, none of these circumstances involved Presidential fabrications made under oath. Since the country's founding, oaths have implied a moral and Constitutional affirmation, moral in the sense that our founders justified the American revolution with an appeal to higher authority than British civil law, establishing a Republic under, not above, God; and Constitutional in the sense that oaths of office were premised on the notion that truth-telling was critical to the functioning of our judicial and political processes. What distinguishes President Clinton from his predecessors in this regard is that, relatively speaking, the acts under review may not represent as great umbrages to our system as certain others, but lying under oath amounts to an absolute breach of an absolute standard. While it is never acceptable for elected officials to mislead those who have given them a solemn public trust, it is the element of lying while under oath that raises the President's conduct to a constitutional dimension. Future Presidents who raise their hand and swear an oath to God to tell the truth in a judicial proceeding and then offer false testimony should recognize that the prospect of impeachment would loom, because such conduct is an affront to the rule of law by which all citizens must abide. There is a view among Constitutional experts that perjury is an impeachable offense but that it does not necessitate impeachment in every instance. This is the case for a number of reasons. The issue of motivation and of consequences must be taken into consideration. The philosopher Isaiah Berlin notes that in a pluralistic society values are often in conflict. It is not the case that some must be true and others false. Rather, collisions of values shape who and what we are. ``We are doomed to choose, and every choice may entail an irreparable loss,'' he argues. What makes the impeachment issue difficult is not just the problem of measuring how high the crimes under consideration are but how juxtaposed various values have become. For instance, the importance of holding the chief political officer of the land accountable for a breach of the law and the public trust is in conflict with the importance of respecting the result of a democratic election. If I thought the country would be worse off or the Presidency weakened with a Constitutional transition to the Vice President, I might have to conclude that despite the perjury the President should not be impeached. But I believe the opposite: the Presidency would be re- legitimized and revitalized if Constitutional accountability occurred. The motivation behind the crime in this case is patently self- serving. Unlike certain other examples of Presidential mendacity, no national interest rationalizations exist. For this and other reasons, most notably the desirability of reestablishing trust between the public and its government, the effect of an impeachment of a shamed President would be to reaffirm the rule of law and strengthen the Presidency. While I have reluctantly reached this decision, I respect the contrary judgment reached by others and believe that out of fairness those of a different mind should have been provided a rule allowing them a chance to vote for a censure alternative. I recognize censure is not envisioned in the Constitution and that there may be separation of powers and bill of attainder problems with certain censure approaches; nonetheless I believe a censure approach can be crafted which would not be Constitutionally inappropriate. Indeed, as Constitutionally awkward as such an approach would be, future negotiations between the White House and Congress on impeachment alternatives, such as those proposed by Governor Weld and Senator Dole, cannot be ruled out. While no one should vote for impeachment unless he or she is convinced that the conduct under review is of such a nature that the Senate should remove the President from office, the Senate is not constitutionally required to carry the impeachment process to completion. Finally a note about citizen input and citizen attitudes. As this House today takes up the issue of impeachment the polls indicate approximately 40 percent of the people favor impeachment with 60 percent in opposition. at the same time over 80 percent believe the President is not telling the truth. As an elected representative in our unique democracy I must acknowledge the imperfect circumstance at hand, but I am obligated to measure my vote by the Constitution's standard as it relates to impeachment and by the Constitution's framework which requires votes by made in conscience. This is my duty, but in reaching judgment I am also obligated to listen respectfully to the best of my ability to the citizens of the District I represent. In this regard, I would like to present for the record a summary of the letters and e-mail I have received and of the comments I have been provided at farmsteads and in school yards throughout the District. In setting these views forth, I would like to underscore that there has been no issue in my time in public life in which the public has been more universally informed, nor more thoughtful in its judgments. The evidence for this assertion is contained in the comments which follow, the first body of which relate to those expressing sentiment for impeachment, the second, sentiment against. For Impeachment ``I am a police officer in Cedar Rapids. As such, I know that if I were to give the type of testimony that President Clinton gave, I would be indicted for perjury.'' ``I am a retired military officer, so integrity is an issue that I hold high. It was ingrained in me that I should never use my authority or position to engage in less than honorable behavior. I'm saddened to see the presidency undergo yet another assault on its powers and prestige due to the behavior of the very human incumbent.'' ``Clinton was told unanimously by the Supreme Court that he could be sued by Paula Jones. Whether you think Jones had a case or not (personally I don't), he can't be allowed to just do whatever he wants in the courtroom.'' ``I have in the past admired your ability to vote your conscience--please do the same here and respect the law as the standard to which we all must be held. To do otherwise will create the foundation for a cynicism that, I believe, will undermine the judicial system and all that our Constitution stand for.'' ``If impeachment fails, we will have established a new class of criminally immune political elitists.'' ``Allowing him, as the Chief Law Enforcement agent of the United States, to place himself above the law will set a terrible precedent for the future.'' ``Bill has violated the trust of America.'' ``Clinton has immolated himself.'' ``To allow the impeachable actions of the president would cheapen the laws on perjury and obstruction of justice and hasten the disastrous moral decline of America. Censure is insufficient.'' ``Even the President is not indispensable, especially one who lacks morality as well as good judgment.'' ``My deep-rooted Midwestern values endorse impeachment since with responsibility comes accountability.'' ``If he was any other person in the United States, he would have been charged.'' ``Although it is very regrettable that events have come to this, I would urge you to vote for impeachment of the President.'' ``Our leaders should be held to a higher standard, perhaps even higher than the regular citizen because of the high offices they hold.'' ``Just because he is the President it does not give him the right to get away with breaking the law.'' ``It is my strongest hope that you vote to send the case to the Senate. A felony is a felony no matter who commits it.'' ``As a libertarian, I believe that we must impeach Clinton. A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation.'' ``Follow your conscience and vote for principle instead of polls. Please do not buy into the fallacious arguments of `Everyone does it, `It's wrong but not impeachable,' and `The American people want censure.' '' ``I want you to know that as one of your constituents, I will respect your votes concerning the four articles of impeachment. I would rather not have a person holding the office of the President who has put himself above the law of this land.'' ``Our country, our children, and our children's children simply cannot tolerate the precedent that would result should this President be allowed to get away with perjury, obstruction of justice, and bribery.'' ``Whatever Paula Jones' motive was or whoever was behind her, she had a right to her day in court. I have no doubt that earlier presidents have gotten away with similar dishonorable actions (perhaps worse), but now we have sexual harassment laws, a civil right long overdue. The President should be held to task for his arrogant attitudes toward women in general.'' ``If I were to commit perjury in a court of law, I would likely be punished for the act. I do not believe that even the President of the United States is above the law.'' ``This is the first time I have communicated to any of the people who represent me in government, but I've had enough. This man does not deserve to be President of the United States. He broke the law--not once but on many occasions. He's made a mockery of the presidency and the law. He's supposed to be a role model--someone for my 6 year old son to look up to.'' ``I believe he is a liar and a dodger of truth. If you vote ``NO'' on his impeachment, you can expect a ``NO'' from me when you next run for office.'' ``As a former law enforcement officer, I have seen many criminals sent to prison for lesser offenses.'' ``You who have made honesty the keynote of your public service and campaigns should demonstrate no less respect for truthfulness when you cast your vote. Republicans may not unite on every issue but they should all be able to stand for the principles of honesty and the rule of law.'' ``We believe you are a man of integrity. We will always remember the way you handled the Whitewater incident. When the truth was being abused, you stood by your principles and called it as you saw it. Now I want you to know that the truth is being assaulted. I believe perjury is a big deal.'' ``As the father of an 18-year old son, who does watch the news and sees the example set by all of you in the House, and needs to see that there is still a right and wrong in this country, I urge you to vote for impeachment because he lied.'' ``We're offended by Clinton's actions. He continually side- steps the perjury and obstruction issues in each of his apology statements. To us, these actions show his arrogance and disrespect for the people, for the office, and for the system.'' ``What are we to think about a person whose judgment is so skewed and who seems willing to do anything to remain in office? We cannot trust him any longer . . . His word is no good and his respect for the law seems to be completely gone.'' ``I did not spend more than five years fighting WWII only to end up with a President of his manifest character. Please help Mr. Clinton step aside.'' ``I haven't always agreed with your decisions, but I have always respected your ethical and moral stands on your decisions Please vote for impeachment. This is the ethical thing to do. If you do otherwise, you are saying to the people that there is a double standard before the law for those who are in power or have the money to muddle the truth.'' ``I am urging you to vote for impeachment. I believe this is the only way to save the office of the Presidency.'' ``If the law is to ever again of enforced in any court in the country, it is imperative that the president be held accountable for these actions.'' ``We feel that the question here is whether the President is a citizen who must live under the same laws that govern all the rest of us, or whether he will be treated like a king, too important to be bothered by the conventions, laws, and morals that shape the lives of everyone else. Are sexual harassment laws real laws with real consequences or can citizens lie under oath to protect their families without consequences since it's only about sex and every one lies about it?'' ``In order to uphold the Constitution, the Law of the land, and preserve the integrity of the United States, I believe there are times in which Congress must follow the Law and not the majority wishes of its constituents. I believe this is one such time.'' ``I feel the President must be impeached. I am now convinced that there isn't anything the man won't do or say to get what he perceives to be in his best interest. The man is completely without moral compass moral compass, a quality that should be one of the greatest strengths of this highest of offices.'' ``After seeing the evidence, I believe that President Clinton committed the crimes that he is charged with, and therefore violated his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws. I believe that short-term inconvenience of the Senate trial is insignificant compared with the long-term damages to the rule of law and the constitution that not voting for impeachment would cause.'' ``I'm a government and history teacher, and my students always feel honesty is one of the most important characteristics of a leader. What message will our government be sending our children if the President lies under oath and goes unpunished. He has violated the Constitution and should be removed from office. ``We feel there is nothing more important than to protect the integrity of the Constitution, the office of the President and the rule of law. Mr. Clinton has, over time, proven that he has little respect for any of these. His actions have defined his character. His actions have not just demonstrated his exceedingly bad judgment, they have been proven to be illegal. As such, a vote for impeach is the only right thing to do.'' ``It is with great regard that I write to you to urge you to impeach our President. We simply cannot have the leader of our country take the office of the President with such little regard as to defile it with a lack of self-discipline. It is embarrassing as an American when I am abroad. It is disturbing as a woman to see our leadership demonstrate such disrespect towards women.'' ``In this day and age, it is very difficult to raise children to be honest and trustworthy individuals, especially when so much that you see and hear and read is so full of wrong doings. I believe that when my President goes on national television and looks that camera in the eye and can boldface lie to his whole nation then he has just undermined everything that I have tried to teach my children.'' ``His behavior exhibits an arrogance and disdain for our legal system. The president is a lawyer and clearly understood what he was doing. We believe his subversion of the legal system was intentional and premeditated.'' ``As a parent, there are many times when you look for all the alternatives to punishing your child for all the things that he did. But as the child becomes more and more belligerent and insists ``I didn't do anything wrong'' you finally have to put your foot down and do what in your heart you know is right. Please Congressman Leach, show my thirteen year old daughter that this country still stands for something. She asks me every few days how come if a 13 year old kid can tell he is a liar, that adults can't.'' ``Having put aside the rumors and allegations against Mr. Clinton prior to his first campaign for the office of president, we voted for Mr. Clinton. We were pleased with his performance in his first four years in office, and gave him our vote of confidence in his second election. It is with heavy hearts that we now ask that you vote for his impeachment. It is our opinion that he has abused the power of his office, obstructed justice and lied to the grand jury.'' ``I voted for Bill Clinton and believe that, for the most part, he has done an excellent job as president. Although I find this position somewhat problematic, I would like to encourage you to vote for impeachment. My reasons for this are: (1) perjury undermines the judicial system which I view as the fundamental basis for our government; (2) the president is in an incredibly powerful position and should not use the power to his advantage (if a professor had a sexual relationship with a student, the professor would lose his or her job); and (3) the president should be expected to comply with the same laws as everyone else.'' ``Many Clinton supporters seems to think the terms `high crimes and misdemeanors' are one and the same. I would think they are separate acts, and while he has perhaps not committed treason or what could be considered a high crime (such as murder or bribery), he has most certainly committed very serious misdemeanors against his office, his oath, and his country. ``Oaths are critical to the system of liberty in place in the Constitution. If we abandon them then liberty is in constant jeopardy; it has no support.'' ``In committing perjury, Clinton deprived everyone entitled to the truth under the law of their eights. Please vote to impeach. ``I would like to add the five voters of my family to the list those of favor of impeachment, though, to me the real answer is for the President to resign. I have often told my daughters that if they told me a lie I would lose confidence in them, and it would take a long time to gain that back.'' ``As a social studies teacher in Iowa City, Iowa, I feel strongly about the coming vote in the House. My personal perception is that there is obvious evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the President. Therefore believe impeachment is necessary. That being said, the punishment must fit the crime and something short of removal by the Senate seems appropriate''. ``He clearly broke the law, and refused to take responsibility for that part of it. This is exactly the opposite of what I am trying so hard to teach my children.'' ``We are told that Kelly Flynn was court marshaled because she lied about her adulterous affairs. I am unable to understand why we cannot hold the chief law enforcement officer of this country, and commander in chief of the armed forces, to the same standards.'' ``You were not elected to high office roll over and take the easy way out just because a well marketed President has public opinion polls in his favor.'' ``Remember that truth must always be served first.'' ``My 14-year old son just keeps saying, if this were me (being Clinton) I would be in jail.'' ``If Clinton gets away with perjury, I will I will never be able to serve on a jury because we could not believe anything said in a courtroom. ``I want you to know there are a lot of silent voters out here in your district that want that liar out of office.'' ``We all know that if any person's workplace conduct were similar to the President's they would be summarily dismissed, no questions asked. It would be reprehensible to send any different message to the American People just because he is the President. My children have already seen two significant legal dramas in their lifetimes. The message in the O.J. Simpson trial was that being celebrity is more important than personal behavior and the truth. Please don't reinforce the message by applying it to Mr. Clinton.'' ``Bill Clinton's selfish desire to remain in office at all costs is a shinning example of why he should be removed. He's more interested in keeping his political power than in abiding by the law. I hope you will not make the same mistake.'' ``In our country, no one should be above the law--we are all equal and have no monarchy.'' ``As a twenty year-old Iowan from Cedar Rapids, I have always admired the way you have always took for setting standards in all that you do. That is why I am writing you Congressman Leach, to not back down from those standards. I believe it is in the best interest of everybody, especially young people like me, for [you] to vote for impeachment of President Clinton.'' ``This impeachment vote is a chance for you and your peers to be moral leaders and not poll readers.'' ``I believe that Mr. Clinton needs his day in court. In this case, that court should be in the United States Senate. It seems that anything short of giving Clinton his right to a trial is an injustice.'' ``I work in the nuclear power industry. We have a `Fitness for Duty' regulation from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If I were to lie, or do anything that makes my integrity suspect, I could be fired. Why doesn't this president live according to the same standard? He is after all in charge of the entire nuclear arsenal of this country--I could only affect 1 nuclear power plant.'' ``I have had to give depositions in product liability litigation and, although I would like to have told the plaintiff's attorneys that their questions were not relevant, I could not, and had to answer their questions truthfully. All of the questions put before Mr. Clinton in his deposition were legitimate and relevant to a citizen's legal grievance.'' ``If Mr. Clinton's actions are allowed to stand unchecked by the remedy of the constitution, the office of the President is given extraordinary powers disproportionate to the other branches of government.'' ``I also talk to my son about the laws of our land and about our government. When he asks what is happening to our president, I simply tell him that the president lied to all of us and that he lied under oath. He is in the Cub Scouts so he understands what an oath is.'' ``Luckily, in both my military and civilian careers, I have worked for people of integrity and honesty. I have taken an Oath of Office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and I wish you strength as you proceed with your constitutional duty.'' ``I, too, am a Gulf War veteran and served my country with honor for five years as a Marine. Before induction, I took an oath to defend the Constitution, an oath similar to that of Mr. Clinton's. Rarely are we forced to choose between fulfilling our oath or betraying it for personal gain or survival. I chose to risk my life and live up to the obligations of my oath rather than disgrace it.'' ``How much lying does it take before we call it lying? Do we accept the arguments of a man who apologizes profusely in the face of duress, but offers no admission of guilt and no apologies for lying to a grand jury? It is no longer about the president, it's about us.'' ``Please vote to impeach. It would be much easier to vote no. But the long term effects on our country would not be favorable.'' ``As a single mother I am trying to teach my children values. What kind of an example do we have in the White House? For him it is OK to lie to us and apologize for it later. NO--Whatever he did compromised the people of the United States. It boils down to he lied and he did it under oath. Period.'' ``To lie and cheat on your wife is a despicable offense but none-the-less a somewhat personal offense. To repeatedly perjure yourself in a court of law or in any legal setting is simply put, a crime to be punished. Toleration of Bill Clinton's offenses will only lead us down a path of mediocrity and moral degeneration.'' ``I am the mother of four children to whom I have preached that they should never tell a lie because eventually it will become known and the punishment for a lie is far greater than the lie itself. They are grown up now and of voting age and they are telling me that a lie is okay because the President of the United States, our role model, got by with it. Is this the message that you want to send to the American people and the world?'' ``This should be a lesson to any persons in high government, that no one is above the law in this country. This is what sets us apart from other nations. You cannot have two scales of justice.'' ``As my representative, I urge you to not ignore the laws of this country. All are subject to them. Vote to impeach President Clinton.'' ``The President has lied to a Federal Judge, a Grand Jury, and the American People. If he can lie to all these people without any consequences why should the rest of us tell the truth?'' ``Not to proceed with [impeachment] is doing a great disservice to the rule of law in this country. It will effectively set a double standard.'' ``If Mr. Clinton were a member of the armed forces, he would have faced a court martial and have been dishonorably discharged a long time ago. As the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, shouldn't he have to adhere to the same standards as those he supposedly commands?'' ``I am a freshman at the University of Notre Dame and have been following the impeachment process occurring in recent days, and I feel it is imperative that we as an American people show the world that we will not tolerate disregard for the law in the highest levels of our government.'' ``My wife and I are both teachers. How do we explain the fact that the President of the United States can lie--and get away with it. Please represent us by voting to impeach Bill Clinton.'' ``If [the President] were to be placed under oath today in a civil suit, I'm sure he would still bend all credible interpretations of the truth, misrepresent, prevaricate, lie, and do whatever he could to escape being responsible for his actions. So for both my wife and I, we say impeach him; don't vote for censure.'' ``With great hubris, President Clinton has continued to dissemble and obfuscate. He has used the awesome power of his office to mold public opinion. For the President to get by with his lying and abuse of power would be a dangerous precedent for our highest office.'' ``The idea that all Republicans are just voting along party lines is disturbing. Democrats do the same. As a first grade teacher and parent of four sons (along with my husband) I feel anything short of impeachment is giving our youth the wrong message about right and wrong, truth and falsehoods, and marriage vows.'' ``I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water, but if you can't see how this president has hurt our country, our reputation for moral leadership in the world, how he has damaged my children's respect for the law and the office of president, etc., then you have completely lost my future votes.'' ``We are horrified that sexual encounters, lying under oath and his consistent lying in general is tolerated. His example is tearing down the fabric of an already unstable moral and responsible society.'' ``This may not rise to some Ivy League professor's impeachment bar, but remember they got Al Capone for tax evasion.'' ``If he lied to us once, what's to stop him from doing it again. What makes you think his whole life isn't a lie . . . Get rid of him.'' ``If the President can't control his private life, what makes you think he can the public's?'' ``The basis of a civil society is truth. If we cannot trust the President, we cannot trust the government.'' against impeachment ``I believe the crimes--if indeed there were crimes--do not fit the punishment.'' ``I do not wish to condone President Clinton's behavior; but his actions were of a private nature, and Mr. Starr should never have asked him to reveal his private activities.'' ``I am a kindergarten teacher as well as a single parent. How can you people feel good about yourselves knowing that impeaching a president over his private life is a higher priority than crumbling schools, hungry kids, people going without health care?'' ``I understand the moral injustice that he has committed. I feel however it is time for things to come to an end, and this must happen before we put our nation into a greater tailspin of turmoil, economically, politically and with foreign matters.'' ``As the vote in the Judiciary Committee demonstrates this is a partisan exercise with no pervasive support. The Founders did not contemplate a partisan impeachment of the President.'' ``I'm sure you don't want to be part of a congress that will go down in history as pulling off the first bloodless coup in our history.'' ``I look back in time to President Johnson right after the Civil War, and read about the type of things they tried to impeach him on, and wonder what will people think 50 or 100 years from now about the actions of our congress of today. Probably laugh when they discuss it.'' ``Our household consists of two democrats and one republican. We are all in agreement that impeachment is not an appropriate action to take against our president.'' ``If you impeach Clinton for this, you would have had to impeach 90% of our presidents.'' ``Clinton has only two years to go. If he is removed from office, your party will soon face an incumbent Democratic president who will likely win re-election. Besides that, in terms of policy, Clinton is as good a Republican president as you could have found from within your own ranks!'' ``He has degraded the judicial system. In a sense, however, he has merely been responding in a pragmatic manner to a judicial system that has already been degraded--in a more odious manner--by individuals and organizations that are willing and able to pursue their political agendas in a non- democratic manner through an endless series of lawsuits, investigations, and probes.'' ``The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot on this one and I dare say that perhaps that fact alone is probably the only good outcome of all of this.'' ``I am a physician at the University of Iowa Hospitals. My father served in the legislature and my grandfather as the assistant attorney general of Iowa. I am writing to encourage you to vote against impeaching our president, a man elected by many of the same people that elected you.'' ``I urge you to vote against the impeachment of the President. I voted against him twice. On the other hand, our party was twice outvoted in fair elections.'' ``I have forgiven President Clinton.'' ``Keep in mind that the appropriate methods of removing someone from office is at the ballot box except under very extreme circumstances!'' ``That Kenneth Starr came back with no incriminating evidence against Clinton regarding Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate underscores the desperate need Clinton's enemies had to pin something, anything, on him.'' ``I believe the matters of his infidelity and its cover-up are something he and his wife and his God need to handle--not Congress. Please do not set such a dangerous precedent by voting to remove this resident from office. Let morality be taught at home and in the schools lest we begin to set standards no mortal can reach.'' ``I predict if the House votes to impeach the President, the Republicans will suffer such defeats in the next election they will lose control of the House by a large margin, possibly the Senate and most assuredly a Democrat will be elected President.'' ``I'm sure you are familiar with the term Pyrrhic Victory? This will be what the Republicans achieve if he is impeached.'' ``I listen to Republicans talk about how children are going to believe that it is OK to lie if the President can, and that children in classrooms all over this country are talking about this and asking serious questions. I teach fifth grade in Davenport, Iowa, and I have a pretty astute group of students. Never has this subject come up, even though we have the Quad City Times delivered to our classroom daily.'' ``The last time impeachment was voted out of the house, in 1868, a few Senators placed the good of the republic ahead of narrow partisanship. The few Republicans who broke with their party are honorably remembered as statesmen. An Iowan-- Senator Grimes--was one those select few statesmen.'' ``We urge you to vote no on all articles of impeachment. We feel that a censure and a fine would by far serve our country better than to put the country through the impeachment process. We need to put an end to this and get back to helping the country.'' ``Many Republicans have already stated that they are voting for impeachment, knowing full well that the Senate will not convict, as a sever form of rebuke and censure of the President. This, Mr. Leach, is an abuse of power that trivializes the process for future Presidents, including Republican presidents.'' ``President Clinton has behaved poorly and has provided poor moral leadership. However, I do not believe that the crimes that he is alleged to have committed merit impeachment. The House Judiciary Committee did a poor job in adding any additional information to what was contained in Ken Starr's report.'' ``If there are truly grounds for impeachment, then they should be clear to us, the people of this country, and to both parties in Congress. This is not the case.'' ``Impeachment under these circumstances would do permanent harm to the Presidency, to the balance of powers, and to our Constitutional system.'' ``I feel strongly that the Republicans are misapplying the laws of our land, and that impeachment without strong bi- partisan support would be devastating for our country.'' ``Based on the party line votes, I would not consider this an objective evaluation of the facts and history and precedents. It is an attempt by the majority party to invalidate the electoral process and the will of the people.'' ``We all recognize the farce conducted by the hard-line conservative right to destroy and overturn a duly elected President. It is nothing more than a Lewis Carroll version of court without an Alice! Absurd and ridiculous! Where is our sense of proportion in all of this?'' ``While I do think that some sort of punishment is called for, I cannot see the wisdom of an impeachment vote. President Clinton was weak to be tempted as he was, and I wish that it had not taken place but what good will it do to impeach him and throw out all of his ideas.'' ``With so many people asking Washington to move on, why must this drag on? The American people know that Clinton was wrong in what he did. He admitted that, it has been shown, so let's have our politicians get to more important issues.'' ``I agree that some form of censure should be meted out, but to put the country through a lengthy impeachment process would be painful to the country and without merit.'' ``While we are thoroughly chagrined and disappointed at [the President's] lying to family, friends, party and the American people, we sincerely believe that such action falls considerably short of the `high crimes and misdemeanors' standard for impeachment.'' ``Nullifying who the people vote in as President is very serious. I don't feel what he did rises to the threshold for impeachment.'' ``To impeach this President is, to me, a terrible mistake. I do not condone what happened, but I believe he's human and, like everyone on this earth, he makes mistakes. I also believe it's human instinct to avoid the truth if you're married and having an affair. Censure is far more feasible a punishment.'' ``Is this impeachment for crimes against the people or political hatred? All I see are Republicans using every method they can to impeach, then say it's the President's job to prove his innocence. Sounds backward to me.'' ``I'm opposed to impeachment of the President. The allegations against him are not, in my opinion, `other high crimes or misdemeanors' as required by the Constitution. W hile Mr. Clinton's actions may be reprehensible and are certainly incredibly stupid, removing a president from office for lying to the American people about sex is, in my mind, absurd.'' ``This affair was brought about by an over zealous investigator-prosecutor who didn't know when to stop and President Clinton whose human failings overcame his common sense. President Clinton has brought disgrace and shame on himself, his family and his office. The opposition has been guilty of using every method to embarrass and remove him from office. What Clinton has done doesn't measure up to wrong done in Irangate when the White House totally disregarded Congressional direction and lied about trading arms for hostages. I urge you to vote against impeachment.'' ``I believe President Clinton failed to act with the moral and ethics appropriate to his office or a person. However, I do not believe his actions directly affected his official duties and decisions. I also do not believe he abused the powers of the presidency to the degree necessary for impeachment.'' ``Please vote no on the impeachment articles. President Clinton has made a fool of himself, but he has not misconducted himself in office. The prosecutor created the conditions for the alleged perjury and obstruction of justice by relentlessly pursuing the man into his most personal and private life.'' ``I hope you separate yourself from the mob mentality. If you step back and use that Iowa common sense that I know you have, you will decide that though the President's actions are deplorable they do not rise to an impeachable offense.'' ``Anyone who thinks what Clinton did rises to the standards that our forefathers set is really kidding themselves. How many presidents do you think have lied to the people. This lie did not hurt the people.'' ``I believe President Clinton has already suffered an enormous penalty. Do not penalize the future of democracy by sending the impeachment process to the Senate.'' ``I look at the waste of time and money on this and it makes me angry. I am not angry at President Clinton. I am angry at the system that would let it get this far.'' ``It is, as they say, not about sex. But it is also not about perjury. It seems to me to be about raw political power.'' ``If the Republicans continue to pursue impeachment, the American people will remember it at the polls.'' ``To have to debate at length whether or not we should impeach a president, seems ipso facto a reason not to impeach: a shadow of doubt.'' ``To regard Clinton's behavior, shameful as it is, as a threat to the country or the government, is ridiculous. He may be a bad example, but his difficulties should serve to keep others from his personal excesses.'' ``I am watching the Republican party march in lockstep toward a Constitutional crisis that seems more motivated by personal angst against Clinton than by any true understanding of the Constitutional standard for impeachment.'' ``While I realize that Congress has the constitutional right to overturn the will of the people, I don't feel that it has the moral right to do so.'' ``It is inexcusable to tie up the business of government for months over such a trivial matter.'' ``The facts don't justify capital punishment for this president.'' ``Enough is enough. Please stop this witch hunt.'' ``Some form of condemnation for the President's actions surely must take place, but not impeachment.'' ``I have always respected you as a fair and open minded representative who is not afraid to go against party lines on many issues. Impeachment is very serious business as I am sure you are aware, and that if followed through to completion would nullify a democratic election of the people, the majority of which do not support his process.'' ``It is not what the people want, not what the country or the world needs.'' ``This is an attempt by the majority party to reverse the vote of the people and remove the President from office. This has to stop.'' ``The Republican House leadership has no intention to find a solution to this situation short of embarrassing the President, destroying him, and driving him from office. That is not the kind of moral leadership this country needs. A strong statement of censure would accomplish what this country needs.'' ``I believe censure to be adequate. Clinton has proved himself to be a friend to those who need assistance in the areas of disabilities and education the most.'' ``Nothing the President did will harm the country nearly as much as an attempt by one party to throw out the other party's president.'' ``Stop the impeachment. Be inventive. Be a leader.'' ``We suggest that our nation desperately needs wisdom at this tremulous point in its history. We ask you to step forward, possibly at risk to your own place within the Republican party, to vocally and strongly challenge what the Judiciary Committee has set in motion. You would be serving the country greatly by an adamant refusal to get on a train that is single-mindedly heading down a track toward an unknown tunnel.'' ``For the good of the country, vote against impeachment. Time to forgive and get on with the business of our country.'' ``Don't bend to the partisan politics of the black and white moralist Republicans who claim this is a vote of conscience. It is obviously meant solely to get Clinton since it couldn't be done in a free and open election by the people.'' ``I think most of us who voted for him were well aware of this flaw and that is why most Americans oppose impeachment. Despite this flaw, he seems to be leading the country quite well. Infidelities are unfortunately common and should be resolved within family units not over the mass media.'' ``This biased and unjust process is perhaps the biggest threat to our democracy in our history. When a president is impeached it had better be for an extremely serious offense against our constitution or our country. There are many people who have stated that they will never vote again if their president is removed from office. When people lose faith in their way of government, that way is doomed.'' ``I met Clinton when he came to Davenport during the record floods that we had several years ago and I know that he feels for the common person.'' ``Don't let a minority take over the country. We elected Clinton twice, let him finish his mandate.'' ``It is my belief our president, in his wrongdoing, has been the beneficiary of fewer rights than any citizen would have in a court of law. It's questionable and I think for the sake of this country we should give him the benefit of the doubt.'' ``I have been a Republican all of my life. I do not like President Clinton and never have. However, I don not think these articles meet the intention of impeachment.'' ``I'm afraid that many people knew about Clinton's shortcomings in the area of his private life and voted for him anyway because they thought he would be a good president, and he has been. If you feel it necessary to punish him, please consider voting for censure and let him finish off his term. I think the country would be better served that way. Let this be over, please.'' ``The world looks to our country for stability. What good is going to come from an impeachment? Will the people benefit? Let the courts deal with him after his term.'' ``The process has been very unfair. If there is no chance to vote to censure, the unfairness will continue. Can Trent Lott and Republicans who didn't want Nixon impeached, vote to now remove a Democrat president for lesser offenses?'' ``Impeachment should have the support of a strong majority and overwhelming evidence of a crime so high or so specific to governing that there is no redress in the courts for it. Impeachment cannot go forward with any moral authority if it is borderline, or below, on reaching the high crimes level of importance. Impeachment on a purely partisan vote and without public support is just frightening.'' ``If the nation is crippled by a Senate trial, I believe the public will hold the GOP accountable in the year 2000. Issues that matter to most Americans will surely be put on the back burner for a trial that will certainly turn into a circus. Vote against impeachment so that the next Congress can work on saving Social Security and helping the farmers in the Midwest among other pressing issues.'' ``If the President deserved to be impeached there would be many Democrats supporting this effort. There are not. Impeachment as a political tool will undermine our entire political system and next time it could be a Republican president being forced out of office at the hands of partisan Democrats.'' ``every prosecuting attorney makes the decision on whether a case is sent to trial, based on many items including the probability of winning the case. A persecuting attorney who sends a case to trial with no probability of success will soon be voted out as over burdening the court system and wasting money. This case falls into that category. There appears to be no question of the outcome in the Senate, but to try the case would burden the Senate, the Supreme Court, the While House, and all other parts of the government that depend on them. It would send the country into turmoil and add an undue financial burden.'' ``While I in no way condone Clinton's behavior, I don't believe it is in the best interests of the U.S. to have this issue consume our agenda for the coming year.'' ``You have always had my vote because of your thoughtful and reasoned positions on the issues. Please continue in the face of this controversy. Many of the Republican members of the House seem to be out of control on this issue and as such are not serving the people.'' ``Please do your best within the Republican conference to push for the opportunity to vote for censure and stop the ridiculous partisan behavior of some members of your party.'' ``Although I am personally disgusted by his behavior and disappointed in his refusal to admit his errors, I do not believe that his actions rise to the level of impeachable offenses. If we set the standard for impeachable offenses at the level required by these articles, what president would be safe from future attack? I believe that the Founding Fathers intended impeachment to be a last resort against a corrupt and dangerous executive who poses a threat to the nation, not a routinely utilized method for attacking an executive whom congressional opponents find truculent.'' ``I wish to urge you to stop this pure political impeachment. I hear you Republicans intend to vote your conscience. I am here to tell you that if you Republicans had a conscience, you would never have started this travesty. The only sin that is unforgivable is deliberate maltreatment of another human. If you do this you are setting your party to henceforth always be the minority. I for one will never again vote for a Republican if you succeed in this pure political impeachment. STOP IT TODAY!!!'' ``This is the first I have sent an e-mail to any legislator. I implore you to please vote `no' on the impeachment proceedings. I don't condone what he has done concerning Monica Lewinsky, but I don't feel he deserves to be thrown out of office.'' ``The Republican majority of the Judiciary Committee has just flat refused to accept the apology of President Clinton.'' ``This impeachment process is like a plot from George Orwell.'' ``We know he is a person with negligible ethical sense, but we are also confident that he has not committed high crimes and/or misdemeanors that meet the level of impeachment. Please vote to end this nightmare.'' ``Certainly what he did was awful but it was not a high crime or misdemeanor like treason or bribery.'' ``Who among us has not done things which we are not proud of and have asked forgiveness from our family or our God. God forgives and it is time to admonish and forgive for the good of the country.'' ``Shame on you for not standing up and stopping this shameful exhibition of party politics at the expense of our nation.'' ``If 70% of the American people still approve of the job he is doing, I feel that as a representative of the people, there is only one way you can vote.'' ``Clinton's actions were despicable and sophomoric, but this prolonged debate on impeachment is patently a rush to conviction.'' ``President Reagan made more significant irreparable errors and caused harm to the United States in the Iran-Contra affair and he was not punished. President Reagan either lied or was the most stupid President our nation ever had. President Clinton did not cause harm to the United States.'' ``I teach at the University of Iowa Law School I known there will be tremendous pressure on you from all sides on the impeachment vote. I just hope that, as you so often do, you stand up to it and vote a conscience that (a) supports censure, but (b) opposes impeachment because of its inconsistency, the dangerous precedent set by a partisan vote, the absence of fact-finding by the Judiciary Committee, the resulting impropriety of the House, essentially, serving as a mere conduit from the Starr report to the Senate, its imposition on the U.S. Senate, and the American people, of months of additional focus on issues which neither thinks are deserving of more money and time, and, deliberately last, its adverse impact on the political system.'' ``Enough is enough!! I encourage you to work in whatever way you can to stop this impeachment movement.'' ``I think that a yes-vote on impeachment shows more irresponsibility than Clinton's actions.'' ``The President has done a fine job in governing the country and I do not feel that the private acts that have been focused on have any bearing on his ability to do the job.'' ``I fear that the outcome of this impeachment will be that future president will be perceived as having fewer rights under the law than ordinary citizens, that in the future presidents--and other public officials--will be perceived as obstructing justice any time they are deemed insufficiently cooperative in their own destruction by legal proceedings.'' ``You're a lame-duck Congress and you're about to impeach the president on a party-line vote, over clear public opposition. It reflects much worse on you than on Clinton.'' ``This is not a high crime or misdemeanor. Rather it is a collateral, personal matter involving circumstances the founders did not contemplate as a Constitutional matter. * * * A lawyer cannot allow a client to admit to a crime. The President's defense under the law relates to arguments of materiality and ambiguity.'' ``In my line of work [acting] no one thinks this is right. * * * The President needs to follow lawyers so he won't be jeopardized when he leaves office * * * He's been humiliated enough.'' ``I'm calling as a friend of Hillary and as one in charge of providing opposition to you * * * I ask for your independent judgment. It is simply clear that this may be a Presidential embarrassment but it is not an impeachable matter.'' ``The Republicans are hypocrites. They have Clinton envy.'' ``The Republicans talk righteousness but their motives are partisan.'' ``Ken Starr is as guilty as Clinton. Maybe more so because he makes me wonder if the F.B.I. can be asked to bug the President's private life, they can be asked to bug mine * * * I never dreamed of entrapment. Now I fear it. ``I do not believe in divorce * * * or impeachment.'' ``Impeachment for lying about sex * * * you gotta be kidding!'' ``If these articles pass, then virtually any future lack of presidential candor will be available as an excuse for one party in Congress to overturn the previous presidential election * * * the President's misconduct was neither a genuine attempt to undermine the judicial system, nor a corrupt deployment of executive power to unlawful ends. Absent serious criminality, presidential deeds that are virtually irrelevant to the conduct of the presidency cannot amount to ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' warranting removal * * * there is no variety of high crime or misdemeanor that legally obligates the House to impeach. Impeachment is always an exercise of the House's judgment and discretion. The matters about which President Clinton allegedly lied are trivial with regard to the conduct of the Presidency. Impeachment based on the statements involved will legitimate every future effort of one party in the House to impeach a President for alleged untruthfulness, without regard to seriousness or context.'' ``While the President is clearly a scoundrel as far as his personal behavior goes, and he has lied about it to everyone including the courts, this simply does not rise to the level requiring his removal from office.'' ``Many of us who voted for Bill Clinton understood that he was running for President and not the pope. We all have a right to privacy and I feel that everyone deserves privacy when it comes to intimate matters (not affecting the state).'' ``If this behavior is impeachable, then the bar has been placed so low that voyeuristic, salacious invasions of privacy of elected officials will become the commonplace, and impeachment hearings the tool of parties disappointed at the ballot box.'' neutral ``Vote your conscience on impeachment. I will support you no matter what your vote.'' ``The issue is simple, Congressman. Make your decision solely on what you think you can defend to your kids.''

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the Year 2000 Preparedness Act, and I would like to commend the chairwoman of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), for bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor. As one of the cosponsors of this new bill, I am pleased that it incorporates several aspects of H.R. 3968, the National Year 2000 Readiness Acts, which I introduced earlier this year along with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), as well as the chairmen of all five of the banking subcommittees. There are over 20,000 financial institutions in the United States today. Millions of individuals as well as businesses depend as never before on technology, intensive banking and financial services. Americans are accustomed to timely access to their direct deposit paychecks and Social Security benefits. They use credit and debit cards for billions of dollars of commercial transactions each year, and most of us have long forgotten the days before we had easy access to 24-hour cash through ATMs. We love the convenience of our 20th century technology. Unfortunately, as the American people are now coming to realize, our dependence on that technology has left us vulnerable to the Year 2000 computer bug. Because of this challenge, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services has held five hearings on the problem this year. During the course of our work the committee has broadened the authority of Federal thrift and credit union supervisors to examine data service providers for Year 2000 readiness and approve legislation to direct the Federal financial regulatory agencies to hold seminars for financial institutions and to provide model approaches for dealing with the year 2000 problem. The good news is that after the establishment of timetables and benchmarks the five Federal financial regulatory agencies have testified that the vast majority of banks, thrifts and credit unions had earned satisfactory ratings during the first round of Year 2000 exams. Nevertheless, the Year 2000 issue remains not only a significant safety and soundness problem for banks, but unless comprehensively dealt with a potential precipitator of a global recession. While there is no guarantee that 100 percent of our financial institutions will be 100 percent compliant, Americans can be assured that their deposits in federally-insured financial institutions are protected up to the statutory limit in the event of a Year 2000 computer glitch. There is no reason for the average American to panic and put savings in mattresses. Indeed, there has never been a greater case to save in secure federally-insured institutions. While it would be irrational to assume that regulators will be on top of every detail of bank compliance, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and numerous other committees of this body are doing everything we can to assure the public that their interest in welfare of the highest priority and that Year 2000 accountability is expected. When we first started working with Federal financial regulators on the issue, there was a great deal of discomfort among the agencies about their roles in the oversight intrusion of the Congress in this process. However, we strived to establish a constructive and cooperative relationship and believe that ultimately this oversight process is motivating parts of the government and private sector which may have been behind to catch up. Clearly a great deal is being done to get the banking industry ready for the Year 2000. More than any other sector of our economy, financial institutions are being held accountable for performance and Year 2000 goals and timetables. However, it is not clear how well some of the other critical infrastructures are doing. We have a highly inter- dependent economy at home and abroad. Financial institutions are critically dependent on power and telecommunications infrastructures to deliver services to customers. A serious Year 2000 problem in any infrastructure industry will quickly become a Year 2000 problem for other industries. We cannot let that happen. As with the banking industry, we need clear goals and measures for each critical infrastructure to build confidence that each is fixing the most important problems and each is achieving these goals in a timely fashion. It was to address this concern that my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and I introduced the National Year 2000 Readiness Act to require the President's Year 2000 Conversion Council to assess the status of the nation's critical infrastructures and to develop a national strategy to make sure these infrastructures are up and operating when we get to January 2000. Unfortunately, the chairman of the President's Conversion Council had objections to aspects of this initiative. I disagreed with the council chairman's objections and am pleased that despite these objections, the spirit of the critical infrastructure initiatives is incorporated in a strong sense of Congress language in this bill. I would like, however, to take a moment to address the council chairman's objections because I believe it goes to the character of leadership and would like to read a portion of a letter I received from the council chairman which represents one of the starkest denials of public accountability I have seen in my 20 years in Congress. The sentence reads: I think it unwise at this time for Congress to indicate that it and Executive Branch assume direct responsibility for failures in the private sector. That is not the precise purpose of our legislation, but administration concerns reveal a lot. It wants to avoid at all cost accountability for a problem that has huge public ramifications. Mr. Speaker, we have here a contrast of two styles of leadership, that of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) on the one hand along with Mr. Bennett in the Senate, and the other we have the President's representative who wants to avoid the establishment of potentially embarrassing public accountability. Leadership obligations should not and cannot be ducked. This bill, while modest in scope, is designed to establish greater private sector awareness and public sector accountability for a profound problem. I urge my colleagues to give it their unanimous support.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to redemonstrate our commitment to giving every American the opportunity to own their own home. The American Homeownership Act, fashioned by the able chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), facilitates homeownership for all Americans, including families that would not otherwise be able to afford homes, by removing barriers to affordable housing, improving FHA mortgage insurance, reauthorizing the home investment partnership program, and increasing local homeownership initiatives as well as improving manufactured housing. I would like to comment on two specific aspects of the bill. First, at the State and local level, the creation of the Homeownership Investment Partnership program will leverage affordable housing through local loan pools and the Home Loan Guarantee program. In addition, the bill authorizes Homeownership Zone Grants to serve as a catalyst for private investment. Second, the bill helps to eliminate excessive regulations that can add thousands of dollars to the cost of a new home. All Federal agencies were required to include a housing impact analysis with any proposed regulations in order to detect any significant negative impact on the availability of affordable housing. Homeownership is a fundamental aspect of the American dream. It is advanced in many ways, from lower interest rates made possible by a restrained monetary policy, to more constrained budgets, to direct infusions of governmental assistance, to less costly regulation. This bill is modest, but it is part and parcel of a comprehensive commitment of this Congress to increase homeownership in America. In this context, I urge its approval and would particularly like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), ranking member of the subcommittee. Finally, in this regard I would like to pay particular tribute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), who is retiring, for his many contributions to the country through his work in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and for being such a strong advocate of consumers and the disadvantaged in our society. His leadership will be missed. Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to redemonstrate our commitment to giving every American the opportunity to own their own home. The ``American Homeownership Act of 1998,'' fashioned by the able Chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, Mr. Lazio, facilitates homeownership for all Americans, including families that would not otherwise be able to afford homes by removing barriers to affordable housing, improving FHA mortgage insurance, reauthorizing the HOME Investment Partnership Program, increasing local homeownership initiatives and improving manufactured housing. I'd like to comment on two specific aspects of this bill. First, at the state and local level, the creation of the HOME investment partnership program will leverage affordable housing through local loan pools and a HOME loan guarantee program. In addition, the bill authorizes homeownership zone grants to serve as a catalyst for private investment, business creation, and neighborhood revitalization. Second, the bill helps to eliminate excessive regulations that add thousands of dollars to the cost of a new home. All Federal agencies will be required to include a housing impact analysis with any proposed regulations in order to detect any significant negative impact on the availability of affordable housing. Homeownership is a fundamental aspect of the American dream. It is advanced in many ways, from lower interest rates made possible by a restrained monetary policy and more constrained budgets to direct infusions of governmental assistance to less costly regulations. This bill is modest, but it is part and parcel of a comprehensive commitment of this Congress to increase homeownership in America. In this context I urge approval of H.R. 3899 and again want to thank Mr. Lazio for his hard work on this and other housing legislation this session, as well as note the contributions of the ranking minority Member of the Committee, Mr. LaFalce and the Housing Subcommittee, Mr. Kennedy, for their roles in making this such a historic session in terms of housing and community development. Finally, I'd like to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Mr. Kennedy, who is retiring after this session, for his many contributions to this country through his work on the Banking Committee, where he has been such a committed spokesman for consumers and the disadvantaged in our society. His leadership will be missed.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss one of the most serious and symbolic financial events of the decade: the failure and government-led rescue of America's largest and most heavily leveraged hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management. Dubiously enshrined in establishment economic thinking is the too- big-to-fail doctrine, the notion that government will intervene to save a bank in trouble if its collapse would cause major harm to the economy. Last month, with the rescue of Long-Term Capital Management, a corollary appears to be in the making that ``some financial firms are too big to liquidate too quickly.'' The application of the ``too-big'' doctrine for the first time beyond a depository institution raises troubling public policy questions. From a social perspective, it is not clear that Long-Term Capital, or any other hedge fund, serves a sufficient social purpose to warrant government-directed protection. In one view, hedge funds provide liquidity and stability in financial markets, allowing economies to finance infrastructure and enterprises necessary to modernize. In another view, hedge funds have a raison d'etre: They seem to be run- amok, casino-like enterprises, driven by greed with leverage bets of such huge proportions that they can control global capital markets and even jeopardize economic viability of individual sovereign States. In this case, the country's most sophisticated banking institutions provided loans to an institution that shielded its operations in secrecy, denying lenders and their regulators data about its positions or other borrowings. The rationale was that sharing information was competitively disadvantageous to the fund. Lenders to the fund, in effect, became responsible for a kind of blind-eyed complicity and speculative actions that might in some cases prove destabilizing for the very financial system upon which banks and the public rely. The envy of its peers, Long-Term Capital was the very paragon of modern financial engineering, with two Nobel Prize winners among its partners and Wall Street's most celebrated trader as its CEO. The fact that it failed does not mean that the science of risk management is wrong-headed; just that it is still an imperfect art in a world where the past holds lessons but provides few reliable precedents. Hedge funds were so named because their managers tried to reduce with offsetting transactions the risks they take with investor funds. Today, the name has an ironic ring. As hedge funds have grown in the last few years, so has the venturesome nature of their investments in pursuit of higher returns. The industry numbers between 3,000 and 5,500 funds, with somewhere between $200 billion and $300 billion in investment capital, supporting book assets in the order of $2 trillion. About a third of the funds are highly leveraged; in Long-Term Capital's case, about 27-to-1 when its books were solid; more so when difficulties emerged. Large financial institutions make this leveraging possible, often with federally-insured funds. If taxpayers are to share in the risk, they or at least their protectors, bank, securities, and commodities regulators, ought to understand what stakes are involved. The profit motive is the most powerful disciplinarian of markets, but the United States Government is obligated to be on top of the issues. There are points where politics and economics intersect; and when political institutions implode, as they have in Russia, economic consequences follow. The best and the brightest on Wall Street lost billions betting that Russia was too nuclear to fail. They did not grasp that it was too corrupt to succeed and that it did little good for the West to transfer resources to Russia's Central Bank if it simply recycled them to a private banking system which served as the money-laundering network for insiders. No nation-state can prosper if it lacks a place where people can save their money with confidence and seek lending assistance with security. Russia, which is the landmass most similar to our own, has been kept back for most of this century because of the Big ``C'', Communism, and is now in a despairing state because of the little ``c'', corruption, which is likely to be more difficult to root out than Communism was in the first instance. It is bewildering how, with all of the attention in recent months being given to forming a new global financial system architecture, no one is paying attention to universal values. Honesty must prevail over corruption, or no financial system will work. In fact, unless the point is made with regard to countries such as Russia that the problem is not that market economics are wanting but that corrupt market mechanisms are pervasive, the Russian people will never understand the lessons of the century. The old battleground in world affairs was Communism versus Capitalism; the new one contrasts corrupted market economies versus noncorrupted ones. What the Russian people, and those of so many developing countries, deserve is a chance to practice free market economics under, not above, the rule of law. If attention is paid above all to establishing honest, competitive institutions of governments and finance, virtually everything else will fall into place. From the public's perspective, it must be understood that politicians can be dangerous and that their most counterproductive weapon is protectionism. This is particularly true in finance. Any country that protects itself from foreign competition and finance injures itself and, in effect, emboldens corruption. Unilateral decisions or international agreements to open markets that are closed to Western- system financial institutions provide the best chance for corrupt systems to reform themselves. Their public will, if given a chance, lead their leaders by saving where they are best protected and borrowing where they get the most competitive terms. In Long-Term Capital's case, the underestimation of the role of corruption in Russia and other emerging economies led to an underestimation of the American economy and legal system. The mathematical model Long-Term Capital followed apparently assumed market tranquility. If certain bond yields relative to Treasuries widened, it predicted that market forces would correct the differential and yields would inevitably begin to converge. As spreads began to widen earlier this year, the fund bought long corporate and foreign bonds at the same time it sold short Treasury instruments. But when a flight to quality escalated, the spreads widened, rather than narrowed, and Long-Term Capital found itself on the losing end of both sides of key investment equations. At issue is not just a judgment of the moment but the problem of developing with confidence risk models for adverse times, especially when the vicissitudes of politics and human nature conspire with market forces. At issue also is the possibility that the failure of Long-Term Capital reflects the bringing home to the United States the economic problems of the rest of the world. As Wall Street firms have begun to move to protect themselves in recent weeks by pulling in credit lines and dumping less solid investments, a crisis of confidence appears to be developing. The impending credit crunch requires a monetary response from the Fed, i.e., immediate attention to lowering interest rates and, perhaps, a shot of fiscal stimulus from Congress, preferably a tax cut of modest dimensions on the order of the $16 billion a year one that passed the House last month. I was initially informed by a top Treasury official that there was a distinction between being informed and being consulted on the Long-Term Capital issue and that while Treasury had no disagreement with the judgment or the role of the Fed, Treasury's involvement could only be characterized as passively being informed of Fed concerns for the systemic implications of a fund failure in the economy. Minutes prior to the October 1 Committee on Banking and Financial Services hearing on Long-Term Capital, I received a letter from Treasury Deputy Secretary Summers, which in amplification stated: We were informed of the developments affecting Long-Term Capital Management, and we were kept apprised of the progress of discussions among its creditors. We did not, however, participate in any of these discussions. I was therefore surprised to learn in testimony from New York Federal Reserve Bank President William McDonough that he confirmed directly with Treasury Secretary Rubin on September 18 and that he was joined by Assistant Treasury Secretary Gary Gensler in discussions with Long-Term Capital's partners in Long-Term Capital's offices on September 20, the day prior to McDonough's decision to intervene in a role he analogized that played by J.P. Morgan in the panic of 1907. Given this circumstance, the ``informed/consulted'' distinction would appear to tilt to the ``consulted'' side. While oversight of bank lending to Long-Term Capital Management and financial instrument trading within the firm does not appear to have been governmentally coordinated, its bailout was. In retrospect, it is difficult not to be struck by the fact that the shrewdest in the hedge fund industry could commit such investment errors, that the most sophisticated in banking would give a blank check to others in an industry in which they considered themselves to be experts, and that the United States regulatory system could be so uncoordinated and so easily caught off guard. The Fed and the Comptroller of the Currency, principally the Fed in this case, had responsibility for regulation of the banks which extended such large credit lines to Long-Term. Questions exist as to how knowledgeable of loan extensions were the regulators. The principal agency with statutory authority over the fund's trading practices was the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, with which Long-Term Capital was registered as a commodity pool operator, and to which it was required to make periodic financial disclosures. According to CFTC officials, the Commission has the power to examine the firm's trading positions, yet apparently it did not do so, even after Long-Term Capital reported at the end of 1997 that its assets included nearly $3 million in swaps, forwards, futures, options, and warrants, and its liabilities, $6.4 billion in similar instruments, or that it had leveraged $4.7 billion in partners' capital into investments of $129 billion. While regulators appear to have egg on their face for the failure as well as the rescue of Long-Term Capital, risk-free regulation is not possible or necessarily appropriate. The economy could be as ill-served by financial institutions refusing to take risks as it would be by those taking too much. But Congress cannot duck its oversight responsibility of those charged with supervision of these markets. That is why 5 years ago I issued a 900-page report on the financial derivatives marketplace which included a series of 30 recommendations for regulatory guidance to constrain systemic risk in a market which I then described as ``the new wild card in international finance.'' In this report, I noted that, ``Historical experience is not always a guide to the future, especially when a relatively new market explodes in size'' and when there are ``unprecedented economic uncertainties.'' Among the recommendations in the report, which became one of the benchmark assessments of how derivatives should and should not be regulated, were that bank regulatory agencies should discourage active involvement in derivatives markets by insured institutions unless management can convincingly demonstrate both sufficient capitalization and sophisticated technical abilities. Greater transparency and uniform disclosure standards were also recommended. The troubles of Long-Term Capital presented the Fed with a dilemma. If it failed to act in the face of what is presumably deemed to be systemic risk, it would have been left open to charges that it abdicated leadership on a matter that might have affected the stability of markets around the world, and thus, the pocketbooks of millions of ordinary citizens. By acting as it did, however, it preserved an institution that in a free market economy would normally have been allowed to fail. The Federal Reserve's decision to intervene in the Long-Term Capital situation underscores that the Fed operates under two basic pinions: that low inflation is always a friend, and that instability is always the enemy. Clearly, the Fed will go to great lengths to reduce the dangers of instability, as well as inflation. But the government's intrusion into our market economy can be justified only if it can be credibly shown that there is a clear and present danger to the financial system in Long-Term Capital's failure, and that there were no stabilizing alternatives, other credible bids on the table, or other approaches to ensure that a market-shaking unwinding did not occur. In this case, another bid was on the table. According to Mr. McDonough, it was rejected by Long-Term Capital's management because it did not have the legal ability to accept it, although it had the ability to accept the alternative, which reportedly included a commitment to keep the management of Long-Term Capital intact. Here it deserves noting that in the wings was not only a ``Warren Buffett'' in terms of an alternative bid, but a ``Paul Volcker'' or ``Jerry Corrigan'' in terms of a possible court-appointed bankruptcy trustee. I stress the bankruptcy laws because, to the extent that another hedge fund of similar size or group of companies that, in combination, may be of comparable importance could get into trouble, the U.S. bankruptcy laws are designed to stabilize insolvent circumstances. Indeed, under the bankruptcy code, a trustee probably has more authority to proceed slowly than a reengineered company not protected by bankruptcy status. With regard to a future government role in bankruptcies of hedge funds or other financial institutions, the Fed might want to think through the possibility of making process recommendations to bankruptcy courts. For instance, if a significant fund fails, the Fed should prepare to go to a court and recommend a given type of process, as well as consideration of particular types of or actual individuals who might be appropriate to serve as trustees for a failed fund. If the problem relates to systemic concerns and the goal is an orderly unwinding of positions or orderly transfer of assets, the Fed is obligated to lend a perspective to the courts. Given that almost any future potential failure of another fund will raise questions of whether it will be given like treatment as Long-Term Capital, the Fed or Treasury should also consider issuing public guidelines or commentary about their intent to rely on orderliness through bankruptcy statutes to assure markets that unfortunate problems will not become systemic liabilities. In this regard, balance should be emphasized. Just as there may be systemic concerns for a too rapid unraveling of positions, there could be competitive and market concerns for too prolonged resolution of the problem. It is a particular umbrage that the hedge fund bailed out under the Fed's leadership operate commodity pools organized as Cayman Islands entities. Implicit in this circumstance is the possibility that individuals who presumably sought to reduce their United States tax obligations through Caribbean shelters could find their assets protected with the help of a United States government agency. To the degree doubt exists, because of the Cayman connection, whether U.S. bankruptcy laws could effectively have been applied in the Long- Term Capital situation, or whether actions might be brought in other jurisdictions, Long-Term Capital's problems underscore the legal risk issue. Prudent banks should have doubts about lending to institutions whose operations may not be within the full reach of the laws of the United States or other comparable legal systems. While the goal of the Fed's intervention was to avert a short-term shock to the international economic system, it appears that a more serious long-term threat may be the result. Today we have a reconstituted fund that is co-owned by 14 of the world's largest financial institutions, from Travelers and Merrill Lynch to J.P. Morgan and the Union Bank of Switzerland. In this regard, it should be understood that the coordinated government bailout approach which was undertaken may involve a tendency towards concentration with the new owners conjoined as a group having a greater impact on markets than in competition with one another. The Fed's unprecedented extension of the too-big-to-fail doctrine to a hedge fund does not insulate the fund and its new owners from the constraints of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Working as a cartel, those running Long-Term Capital potentially comprise the most powerful financial force in the history of the world, and could influence the well-being of Nation states for good or for naught, guided by the profit motive, rather than national interest standards. This dilemma is reflected in the announcement the week after the Fed intervened by the Secretary of the Treasury that the United States government and international resources should be put in play to prop up certain foreign currencies. Most analysts assume the Treasury was particularly concerned that the Brazilian cruzeiro might be devalued. But to give a governmental imprimatur to the fund as it is now constituted could cause conflicts of interest not only among its owners, but with our own government. The possibility that taxpayer dollars might be pitted in the future against those of a firm the United States government helped rescue could be an expensive irony. The antitrust laws are generally applied to concentration in a particular market sector, but the combination of many of the world's most sophisticated financial powerhouses in hedge fund activities is unprecedented in significance. Such a combination, if allowed to stand, could enable these institutions to hold sway over whole economies. No central bank or finance ministry in the world could match the assets they could wield in currency markets. Further complicating this collusion problem is the report that half- a-dozen or more government-owned banks are or have been strategic investors in Long-Term Capital. The possibility that fund managers might receive insider information from their own investors who represent foreign governments; or that any government would think it appropriate to invest public monies in a speculative hedge fund; or that our government might be put in the position of having to decide whether to rescue a fund which, if liquidated, might embarrass a government with which we interrelate on many issues, is bizarre and untenable. As powerful as they are, Long-Term Capital's new owners are confronted with a legal Catch-22. If they do not actively manage the fund, they could be sued for lack of prudential stewardship. If they do actively manage the fund, they could be sued for collusion. In testimony before the Congress last week, Fed officials said firewalls would be established to separate the fund's oversight committee managers from their home offices. However, firewalls, no matter how high, are particularly vulnerable when losses mount. If hedged positions improve, legal liabilities could be bedeviling. If, for instance, Long-Term Capital and any of its new investors were to take a position that would prove profitable, presumably someone on the unprofitable side of such a position might sue on collusion grounds. Or if it were to pay back a creditor partner and not a creditor non-partner, questions of equity could be raised. The Long-Term Capital saga is fraught with ironies related to moral authority as well as moral hazard. The Fed's intervention comes at a time when our government has been preaching to foreign governments, particularly Asian ones, that the way to modernize is to let weak institutions fail and to rely on market mechanisms, rather than insider bailouts. We have also encouraged developing countries to establish bankruptcy arrangements to cushion the shock of failures, and, where possible, fairly distribute the assets of bankrupt institutions. Now, as the country with the most sophisticated markets, bankruptcy laws, and legal precedents, we appear to have abandoned the model we urge others to follow. Worse yet, the Federal government appears to have played a role in precipitating a bailout offer that was more advantageous to the failed management than that which the free market offered. Warren Buffett may be fortunate to have had his bid for Long-Term Capital turned down in favor of the government-coordinated effort. Given reports of further erosion of Long-Term Capital capital, the new owners and the government, on the other hand, may be embarrassed if stabilization of the fund requires another rescue. It will be months before proper perspective can be applied to this unique circumstance, but the principal lesson would appear to be that the Fed should rely more extensively on market mechanisms and America's sophisticated bankruptcy laws. Above all, the public should be assured that the government will not subsidize insider bailouts, or protect those who make investment errors. The too-big doctrine is simply too prone to fail.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the Record the following statement memorializing an understanding between the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services relating to a specific provision of H.R. 1756: Section 2 of H.R. 1756 amends Chapter 53 of Title 31 of the United States Code to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to ``regularly review enforcement efforts under this subchapter and other provisions of law and, when appropriate, modify existing regulations or prescribe new regulations for purposes of preventing'' money laundering and related financial crimes. On June 25, 1998, the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Mr. Bililey, wrote me to express the concern that ``such a broad mandate could be interpreted to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to review enforcement actions under the Federal securities laws or to modify regulations promulgated pursuant to the Federal securities laws, or to grant the Secretary of the Treasury new or additional authority to prescribe regulations applicable to entities that are regulated pursuant to the Federal securities laws.'' In response, I hereby affirm that it is not the Banking Committee's intent for the language in Section 2 to grant the Secretary of the Treasury any new or additional authority over entities that are regulated pursuant to the Federal securities laws, or to require or encourage the Secretary of the Treasury to review enforcement actions under the Federal securities laws or to modify, or recommend the modification of, regulations promulgated under the Federal securities laws.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the only basis for canceling the card is if the card would not be in use for better than a 3-month period. That is a fairly common sense circumstance. So a financial institution does not have to carry the cost of dealing with people who do not use their card.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on those provisions of this conference report which amend laws under the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee. The conference report contains an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act designed to protect consumers from having their credit line revoked because they fully pay their outstanding debt in a timely manner. I support this change in law. It is individually counter-intuitive and socially counter-productive that lenders establish incentives to pull credit away from individuals who pay their bills on time. The Senate, however, originally coupled this provision with a prohibition against a creditor charging any type of fee with regard to an extension of credit on which no finance charge has been incurred. While perhaps well intended, this latter provision amounted to a public sector dictate on how the private sector should charge for goods and services. This price fixing provision would have frustrated responsible free market precepts and would have, if it had been enacted, resulted in a reduction in credit provided consumers. Because of concern for this prohibition, many of us voted last week against an instruction of conferees that also included the earlier described issue. The conferees approximately agreed to accept the first part of the instruction but not the second. Hence, I and many others who voted against the instruction can now enthusiastically support the provision. The conference report does include a number of other amendments designed to provide consumers more protections, including enhanced disclosures for credit card debt, which I also support. In summary, Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hyde, Chairman Geka's and the rest of the conferees for their willingness to take the Banking Committee's views into consideration on those relatively small parts of the bill that fall under the jurisdiction of the committee. While there are parts of this bill such as those related to child support, which I believe are imperfect, as a whole it represents reasonable reform. If the President vetoes this bill, he will also veto an approach it supports to better stabilize the shaky international economy and other Banking Committee provisions designed to protect consumers. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, let me stress that the conference report incorporates the provisions of H.R. 4394, the ``Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act of 1998'', which the Committee on Banking and Financial Services reported to the full House on August 21, 1998. These netting provisions were approved unanimously by the Banking Committee and are supported by Federal financial regulators and the Administration. They are designed to minimize the risk of a disruption within or between financial markets upon the insolvency of an entity with large holdings of qualified financial contracts. The near failure of Long-Term Capital Management LP highlights the need for the U.S. to further refine its bankruptcy and insolvency laws in order to avoid systemic risk to the nation's financial system in the event of a failure of a large bank, hedge fund, or securities firm with huge exposures to interest rate and currency swaps and other complex financial instruments.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just comment briefly on several provisions of this conference report that relate to items under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. The conference report contains an amendment to the Truth In Lending Act designed to protect consumers from having their credit lines revoked because they fully pay their outstanding debt in a timely manner. I support this change in law. It is individually counterintuitive and socially counterproductive that lenders establish incentives to pull credit from individuals who pay their debt on time. The Senate, however, originally coupled this provision with a prohibition against creditors charging any type of fee with regard to an extension of credit in which no finance charge has been incurred. While perhaps well-intended, this latter provision amounted to a public sector dictate and how the private sector should charge to goods and services. This price fixing provision would have frustrated responsible free market precepts and would have, if it had been enacted, resulted in reduction of credit provided to consumers. Because of concern for this prohibition, many of us voted last week against a construction of conferees. It also included the earlier described issue. Now that the conferees have appropriately agreed to accept the first part of that instruction but not the second, I and many others who voted against this instruction enthusiastically support this provision. In summary, let me just express again my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Gekas) as well as the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the rest of the conferees for their willingness to take the Committee on Banking and Financial Services' perspectives into consideration on the parts of the bill that rested within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services which, frankly, is not a major part of the bill. Let me just stress that financial netting section which we worked out with the administration is of signal significance in this time of economic turmoil. This is a provision of the bill that is bipartisanly supported and strongly endorsed by the administration, and it is a signal reason that this bill should be considered at this particular very dicy period of time.

Mr. LEACH. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is correct. If the card is in actual use. It is only if the individual did not use the card could an institution pull it.

Mr. LEACH

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.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, S. 2561, the Consumer Reporting Employment Clarification Act of 1998 amends the Fair Crediting Reporting Act FCRA to revise certain changes that were made to the act last Congress. Some of these changes had inadvertent consequences on the trucking industry's hiring practices. Specifically, the bill amends the FCRA to remove burdensome restrictions so that trucking companies will be able to conduct background investigations of driver applicants in a timely and efficient manner to help ensure highway safety. S. 2561 has bipartisan support and the agreement of the Federal Trade Commission and consumer advocacy groups. The bill is also strongly supported by the American Trucking Association and the Truckload Carriers Association. The legislation also amends the FCRA so employers have access to critical information in order to make informed hiring decisions. Current law exempts convictions of crime from consumer reports after 7 years for individuals applying for jobs with an annual salary of less than $75,000. S. 2561 would remove this exemption. Such information is particularly crucial in the hiring process for employers in the area of child or elderly care, school bus driving, and household services. This bill provides for small changes to the FCRA that will have a significant impact on the efficiency of many employers' hiring practices, resulting in a safer environment for all. I would like to commend Senator Nickles, Senator Bryan, and Senator Mack for their work on this legislation and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) for their leadership in the House and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for his cooperation in ensuring that this important legislation is able to be brought before us at the last moments of this Congress. By background, on September 30, 1996, Congress enacted amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that unintentionally hindered the ability of trucking companies to hire safe, professional truck drivers. The new regulations, which went into effect last Fall, require trucking companies to obtain written consent from truck driver applicants before the company may obtain driving records and accidents history information required by the Federal Highway Administration. the hiring process in the trucking industry, which employs over 3.5 million drivers, depends on an immediate ability to verify a driver's safety and employment history before a company will put a driver behind the wheel. Because of the high volume of applicants and the need to verify instantly safety and employment information, many trucking companies utilize an ``800'' number system. Under this system, trucking carriers will accept applications for employment over the telephone, and immediately orders a background report to determine if the applicant meets the carriers' hiring requirements. Due to the industry's high standards, the industry hires only one of every ten applicants. The new FCRA regulations have forced the trucking industry to add multiple, unnecessary steps to its hiring procedures, especially since these background checks are already required under federal law. Moreover, because of the burdensome paperwork requirements under these regulations, and because the industry is currently facing a critical shortage of drivers, many carriers will have no choice but to put drivers behind the wheel before their safety records can be verified. This obviously raises serious highway safety concerns. For all these reasons, the trucking industry strongly supports an amendment to FCRA that would permit trucking companies to accept an applicants consent over the telephone. Section 604 of the FCRA establishes, among other items, the conditions under which a consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report for employment purposes. Current law requires prospective employers to certify to the consumer reporting agency that certain notices, including a summary of rights in the event of adverse action, have been given to the consumer and that information from the report will be used for lawful purposes. In addition, the consumer reporting agency may only furnish a report to a prospective employer if the agency provides with the report the summary of consumer rights. The amendment establishes that the intent of the statute can be met without the consumer reporting agency providing the summary every time a report is obtained. Instead, the requirement is satisfied if the consumer reporting agency has previously provided a summary of rights. The amendment codifies interpretive letter of the Federal Trade Commission in this area. Section 4 amendments are conforming amendments for provisions added to Section 604(b)(4) in the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1998. These provisions created an exception for providing certain disclosures to consumers if a written determination was obtained from the relevant agency that the disclosure would threaten national security, endanger an individual's safety or hamper an official investigation. The proposed amendments provide for full compliance with the Intelligence Authorization provisions and protect consumer reporting agencies from unwarranted liability. The Intelligence Authorization Act amendments failed to make conforming exceptions for requirements imposed upon consumer reporting agencies. First, under Section 609, a consumer reporting agency must, upon request, disclose to the consumer the end-user of the report. The amendment would provide an exception to that requirement if the relevant agency makes the appropriate written determination. Second, under Section 613, consumer reporting agencies may be required to provide consumers with the name and address of person seeking consumer reports consisting of public record information. The amendment establishes an exception for disclosing this information in the context of the national security area. Under current law, if an individual is seeking a job with an annual salary below $75,000, no records of criminal activity, including convictions, may be reported if they antedate the report by more than seven years. This information may be of critical value to prospective employers, especially those in the areas of child or elderly care, school bus driving and household services. Under the bill, convictions of crimes from the seven-year obsolescence period would be exempted. All in all this is a common sense bill designed to protect the public. I encourage support of all members. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2561) to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to furnishing and using consumer reports for employment purposes.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the principal beneficiaries of the Depository Institution Regulatory Streamlining Act are the Nation's small businesses and their customers. The bill, so ably put together by the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, under the leadership of the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) will repeal overtime prohibitions in current law that bar banks from paying interest on business checking accounts. In addition, the bill authorizes financial institutions to establish on an interim basis 24-transaction-a-month money market accounts for businesses. In effect, this means that small businesses, which have fewer options in money management than their larger competitors, will be able to have their money work for them. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) deserves special attention for her contributions in helping craft this important provision. Given the liquidity problems increasing in American banking, the above provisions will enable the principal providers of credit, to midsized American business, to more efficiently serve their customers. I would like also to call attention to one other provision of the bill and that involves the Federal Reserve Board being allowed for the first time to pay interest to depository institutions on the money they are required to keep on reserve with the Fed. This would appear on its face to be only fair. Banks should be treated as equitably as others and allowed to collect interest on their savings. A critical upshot of advancing this commonsense precept is that the Fed will be able to better manage monetary policy because disincentives for holding funds at the Fed will be reduced. This important provision has been advanced with great effectiveness over the past several Congresses by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) and he deserves enormous credit for introducing legislation in this regard and keeping it before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs for such a long period of time. In closing, I would like to thank or note again the hard work in bringing this bill to the floor by our subcommittee chairman, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento), and, of course, particularly to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf), who has worked so tirelessly for the principles that are in this bill.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, quickly in summary, let me just stress that this is an important resolution involving two States and it is very appropriate for the Congress to put its imprimatur upon it. I would urge my colleagues to support this broadly nonpartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to explain the bill. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 51) granting the consent of Congress to the Potomac Highlands Airport Authority Compact entered into between the States of Maryland and West Virginia.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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. 2561, the Senate bill just passed.