Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5640.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I particularly thank the gentleman for holding this Special Order in honor of his great Texas friend. In my time in the United States Congress, I have served with no more honorable a man. Henry was an old-fashioned liberal, and he never had a conflict of interest. He did not just simply advocate, he lived campaign reform. His only special interest was his constituents. He never let them down. Nor did they ever countenance an alternative. Honesty has its rewards. I might say that, while a bit more conservative and bent, I believe his values are very much reflected in his son, with whom we are also very honored to serve. As colleagues on the Committee on Banking, Henry and I held differing positions on a number of issues, particularly matters involving the Federal Reserve. But Henry Gonzalez always had an element of justice, an element of good judgment on the side as, for example, when he sought to bring more transparency to certain operations of the Federal Reserve. He also led Congress in efforts to uncover money laundering in all parts of the country, particularly in his own region, the San Antonio Federal Reserve District. It is sometimes said that the true riches in one's life can be measured by the lives that one has touched and changed for the better. Throughout his history in public service, Henry Gonzalez has served as a model for millions of Americans. And throughout his career, he steadfastly stood for those less advantaged. He has literally represented and improved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. For his honorableness, his commitment to basic values, for his remembrance of his roots, we in this House are deeply honored to have served with this man and we honor his memory.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and I believe it was a thoughtful expression of concern on the gentleman's part in the last debate, and that colloquy should stand exactly as in this debate.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), this body's great friend and I guess the term is ``soon to be departed,'' but with our greatest, greatest esteem.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first in response to something the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) said, let me stress that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and I were deeply disappointed that the provision mentioned was deleted from the bill, and I am hopeful in the next Congress we can move forward with that kind of provision. I would be delighted to assist the gentleman in that effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the subcommittee chairman. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me thank again the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the distinguished ranking member, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), two extraordinary subcommittee chairmen, on this bill. This is a bill that has returned to the House with a very important provision unfortunately deleted because it could not receive consensus in the other body. But I am very hopeful that this bill in its current form can be accepted by the other body and that we will have a change in law that will be for the good of the country and particularly for the good of those Americans that are on the cusp of being able to afford a family home. I urge acceptance of this bill.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5640) to expand homeownership in the United States, and for other purposes.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act, combines a number of important banking and housing proposals that were approved by the House on a bipartisan basis earlier in the session. We are bringing this legislation back to the floor after a consultation with the other body with the expectation that this bill will eventually be enacted into law. With regard to housing, the legislation draws substantially from H.R. 1776, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act, which passed the House by a vote of 417 to 8 on April 6. Mr. Speaker, there are also provisions drawn from H.R. 202, the Preserving Affordable Housing for Seniors and Vulnerable Families into the 21st Century Act, another bipartisan bill designed to help the elderly and individuals with disabilities. Let me stress that the housing provisions of this bill are a testament to the extraordinary work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. During the last 6 years, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Lazio) has been a recognized leader in Congress on affordable housing and community renewal issues, and in particular, as the author and champion of the historic Public and Assisted Housing Reform Act enacted in the 105th Congress. In my experience, there has been no greater subcommittee chairmanship than that of the gentleman from New York, and his work will make a great deal of difference in the everyday lives of low-income Americans for generations to come. There is an also great debt of gratitude owed in this act to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), particularly for those parts of the bill that deal with deregulation and certain aspects in the banking industry. Finally, let me just stress that this bill contains some very important manufactured housing provisions. Manufactured housing is an important part of the American housing mosaic, and modernizing the reform and regulations governing manufactured housing is long overdue. It is critical for the economy to improve the quality and affordability of such housing in the context of maintaining consumer protection and safety. There are a number of other features in the bill that other Members are going to address, but let me just conclude by thanking all Members for their help and participation in this bill. In particular, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for his graciousness and thoughtfulness, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for a number of very thoughtful additions to this bill. I am very, very much in both of their debts. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act, combines a number of important banking and housing proposals that were approved by the House on a bipartisan basis earlier in this session. We are bringing this legislation back to the House after consultation with the other body, with the expectation that this bill will eventually be enacted into law. With regard to housing, the legislation draws substantially from H.R. 1776, the ``American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act,'' which passed the House by a vote of 417 to 8 on April 6, 2000. There are also provisions drawn from H.R. 202, the ``Preserving Affordable Housing for Seniors and Vulnerable Families into the 21st Century Act,'' another bipartisan bill designed to help the elderly and individuals with disablilites with their housing needs which passed the House on September 27, 1999 by a vote of 405 to 5. Let me stress that the housing provisions in this bill are a testament to the extraordinary work of the gentleman from New York, Rick Lazio, the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee. During the last 6 years, Chairman Lazio has been the recognized leader in Congress on affordable housing and community renewal issues, in particular, as the author and champion of the historic public and assisted housing reform enacted in the 105th Congress. In my experience, there has been no greater Subcommittee chairmanship than that of Rick Lazio, and his work will make a real difference in the everyday lives of low-income Americans for generations to come. Today, affordable housing continues to be out of the reach for many Americans. A strong economy has created a dynamic where in many parts of the country the cost of real estate is rising faster than income levels. Secondly, although interest rates are not as high as at other times in our history, an unprecedented differential has nevertheless come into being between inflation and long-term interest rates, making financing of a home purchase extremely difficult. Included in our bill are innovative homeownership programs to empower low-income recipients of Section 8 housing assistance to apply that assistance towards buying a home. Provisions included in this bill from H.R. 202 will help the elderly and individuals with disabilities immensely, and assist the construction and financing of more facilities for these populations. The legislation helps Native Americans and Native Hawaiians, and contains many more provision that will improve our Nation's housing and increase homeownership opportunities. Finally, the bill also contains important provisions modernizing the Federal manufacturing housing regulatory regime. Manufactured housing is an important part of America's housing mosaic. Modernizing the reform and regulations governing manufactured housing is long overdue. It is critical to the economy to improve the quality and affordability of such housing in the context of maintaining consumer protection and safety. With regard to the banking provisions of the bill, the legislation includes several provisions that the House has previously approved this session in separate pieces of legislation, combined with non- controversial, bipartisanly-supported elements of a regulatory relief package. Many of these regulatory provisions were contained in H.R. 4364 of the 105th Congress which the House approved by voice vote two years ago, and were carried over this session in legislation introduced in the House by the gentlelady from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the distinguished chair of our Financial Institutions Subcommittee. In this package we are also renewing, some with slight changes, reporting requirements by the Executive Branch and independent regulators in some 45 instances, as provided for in legislation passed by the House last year on a voice vote. Included is the semi-annual report to Congress of the Federal Reserve Board on the conduct of monetary policy. While the reports being renewed are deemed important for the oversight work of the Banking Committee, I know of no more important oversight responsibility of the Congress than the review of the Fed's conduct of monetary policy. With regard to the Fed, there is one other section of the bill that deserves note. This is a section that provides pay parity for Fed Governors and their Cabinet and sub-cabinet counterparts. Let me conclude by thanking all of those Members and staff on both sides of the House who have participated in putting together the legislation before us today, and to thank in particular Mrs. Roukema, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. LaFalce and Mr. Frank who have contributed so much to all aspects of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material regarding H.R. 5640.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, in June of 1998, the Committee on Banking and Financial Services held a series of hearings on financial instability around the world, including Russia, whose economy was soon to be devastated by the collapse of its domestic bond market and a devaluation of the ruble. Afterward, I asked the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of the effectiveness of U.S. and other western assistance in facilitating Russia's transition from a failed Communist-style command economy to a modern market economy. The committee's ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), joined me in that request. The GAO has now completed its works and the findings are disturbing, indeed dispiriting. Between 1992 and September of 1998, the United States and the West, including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, provided some $66 billion in assistance to Russia, not counting food aid, trade credits and debt rollovers. Of this, the United States contributed $2.3 billion in bilateral grants under the Freedom Support Act to address humanitarian needs and support economic and democratization reform. According to the GAO report which was issued today, far from putting post-Communist era Russia on a course of prosperity and stability, these funds were largely wasted. Russia's economic decline has been more severe and its recovery slower than anticipated, the GAO report notes. Progress toward reaching broad program goals have been limited. The assistance was, in fact, worse than wasted. Because donors lacked clear strategy and coordination, as the GAO observes, the money which was virtually thrown at Russia contributed to the spread of a culture of corruption and the concentration of some of the country's most valuable economic assets in the hands of a handful of oligarchs who operate on the margin of, if not altogether outside, the law. These politically powerful economic groups have had little interest in reform. Thus, to a significant degree, western aid programs were not only ineffective; they provided fuel to groups that opposed reform. Consider the Russian banking system. Donors recognized that an efficient and competitive financial system was a basic need if the economy was to prosper. To this day, however, 8 years after the collapse of Communism and the break-up of the Soviet Union, Russia does not have a banking system worthy of the name. There are more than 1,000 banks in Russia, but their total assets are only about $65 billion, the level of a mid-size provincial bank in the United States. This is because the Russian public does not trust their own banking institutions. Most of these banks, particularly the small ones, exist as money laundering platforms to help their clients evade taxes, duties and other legal requirements, and to spirit capital to overseas havens. More than $100 billion has fled the country, and some estimates place the amount much higher. The GAO analysis released today underscores an unfortunate but inescapable conclusion: The United States and the West missed one of the great foreign policy opportunities of this century, to bring Russia into the Western family of nations, politically as well as economically. Despite the aid, Russia's economic decline was among the most severe and its recovery among the most limited among transition countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Many Russians have concluded that the West deliberately impoverished their country. Today only 37 percent of the Russian people have a favorable view of the United States, down from some 70 percent in 1993. Among the key findings of the GAO report are: One, that the U.S. and the West failed to object strongly to the corrupt loans for shares privatization scheme that consolidated the business empires of Russia's oligarchs. Two, Russia's primary motivation of borrowing from the IMF was less to stabilize and reform its economy than to become eligible for debt relief from the United States and other creditor countries through the Paris Club. Three, the IMF was pressured by key shareholders to support new loans for Russia in 1994 and 1996 in an effort to demonstrate U.S. and Western political support for President Yeltsin. Four, despite compelling evidence of an absence of the rule of law and massive governance challenges, explicit anti-corruption efforts have represented a relatively small share of international assistance to Russia. And lastly, little or no progress has been made in strengthening Russia's banking and financial system. The recent rise in world oil and commodity prices has improved the trade balance of Russia, but continuing capital flight indicates major legal reforms have yet to occur. As a result, the business climate in Russia is still unfavorable. In a recent strategy review, the EBRD concluded, severe weakness in the rule of law continues to undermine investment. The power of vested interest to hold back critical reforms must be effectively checked. Standards of corporate governance need to be strengthened. Without demonstrable progress in these areas, Russia's impressive recovery is not sustainable. Despite these failures and frustrations, the U.S. cannot afford to remain uninvolved with Russia. Stretching across 11 time zones, twice the distance from New York to Honolulu, almost halfway around the world, Russia is a country without which no serious international issue can be resolved. In recent years, some progress has been made in nuclear weapons reduction and security; and in April, Russia finally ratified the START II agreement. But many other problems remain. Among them is Russia's decision to build nuclear reactors in Iran and transfer missile technology to that country. In this context, the recent revelations that the U.S. and Russia had entered into a secret agreement to allow Moscow to continue arms to Iran are especially troubling. It would appear that the Clinton-Gore administration, in its relations with Russia, chose to abandon the principles of progressive diplomacy established at the beginning of the century by Woodrow Wilson in his demand for open covenants, openly arrived at. The still secret Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement not only flouted law, but also failed to safeguard our national interest and security. In what amounted to an inverted arms-for-hostage deal, U.S. policy was, in effect, taken hostage by a Russian arms strategy designed to destabilize the Middle East. The agreement's apparent purpose was to facilitate a Russian aid policy that resulted in the squandering of American tax dollars for the benefit of a kleptocratic elite, rather than the Russian people. The legitimization of Russian arms sales in defiance of law is hardly in the interest of a safer world. The naivete of this approach is matched only by the perfidiousness of its execution. From an American perspective, it would appear that one of the purposes of the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission may have been to burnish the Vice President's foreign policy credentials and make his management of U.S.-Russia relations a centerpiece of his potential campaign themes. It is now self-evident that U.S. policy failed, and the Gore- Chernomyrdin Commission is a symbol of that failure. The question is how the U.S. and the next Administration should proceed from here. Though isolationism is always at issue in our democracy, the American tradition is dominated by pragmatic and compassionate internationalism. Most Americans recognize that what happened in Russia, still a nuclear superpower with a seat on the UN Security Council, is profoundly important to our national security. A peaceful and democratic Russia remains a compelling U.S. interest. Consistent with the strong humanitarian strain in our foreign policy, Americans maintain an interest in helping the Russian people achieve a market economy based on the rule of law. America need not turn its back on the international financial institutions, but it has an obligation to see that taxpayer resources are not squandered, nor used to enrich the few at the expense of the many. Americans should continue to be prepared to support genuine Russian efforts to help themselves. Here, it must be understood that Russia's economy will remain hapless unless the Russian government begins to deal effectively with corruption and takes the necessary steps to establish an intermediary financial system that services a saving public, instead of a thieving elite. 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 land mass most similar to our own, has been kept back for most of this century by the Big ``C'' of Communism and is now being kept back by the little ``c'' of corruption--which may prove more difficult to root out than Communism was to overthrow. 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 governance and finance, virtually everything else will fall into place. Unfortunately, over the past six or eight years the basics of law and economics have been ignored for the sale of the politics of expediency and neither the national interest of America nor Russia has been advanced by a mistargeted and mismanaged aid program. It is time that the symbiotic statecraft symbolized in the Gore- Chernomyrdin relationship that has legitimized and ensconced crony capitalism in Russia be brought to a halt. It is time for the American people to insist that their leaders concern themselves with the plight of the Russian people rather than the well being of a new class of kleptocrats.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise to alert the House that there is a provision in this statute that I think is of seminal significance for the small business community. Since 1933, there has been a prohibition in the banking industry on the capacity of banks to pay interest on demand deposits for business. In this bill is a repeal of that prohibition. For the first time small business in the United States will be allowed to receive interest on their checking accounts at depository institutions. It is a phased-in circumstance over several years, with, at the beginning, a concept called sweep accounts involved, and then a complete prohibition comes into play. But I would just simply alert the body that this provision is in this bill, and I would like to also express my deep appreciation of the leadership for allowing this very important banking bill to come under consideration at this particular time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, following is a section-by-section analysis of S. 1452. S. 1452, Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000 with Amendments

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this bill, the Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act, are not new to the House. They were approved in the 105th Congress and again this year as part of the bankruptcy reform legislation. But because of the uncertainty whether a bankruptcy bill can become law, it is important to move this legislation on its own. After all, if a major derivatives player were to become insolvent, cascading effects on the economy could too easily ensue. What this change in law accomplishes is the orderly unwinding of contracts in a timely, indeed almost immediate basis, in the event of a bankruptcy circumstance. If, on the other hand, the derivatives contracts of a company that declares bankruptcy become tied up on a lengthy basis in bankruptcy court proceedings, the financial system could be destabilized. This is the case in part because of the timing but in larger part because of the difference between the growing size of derivatives contracts and their netted value, the latter being quantumly smaller and more manageable. Without liquidation procedures of this nature, delays in the handling of these contracts could spread to financial problems of one derivatives firm to other companies which could be required to make payments on the other side of a deal, but unable to immediately collect on the other side. This legislation, which has bipartisan sponsorship and is strongly supported by both the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, may not seem important in good times. But if there is a downturn in the economy or a wrench in world politics, its provisions become self-evidently imperative. In closing, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), for their cooperation in allowing this bill to come to the floor today. I include for the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee on Banking and these committees. I would also again like to thank the minority, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), whose expertise in these areas is second to none on the committee. House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, September 6, 2000. Hon. Jim Leach, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Washington, DC. Dear Jim: I am writing with regard to your committee's recent action on H.R. 1161, the Financial Contract Netting Improvement Act of 1999. As you know, the Committee on Commerce was named as an additional committee of jurisdiction upon the bill's introduction based upon its jurisdiction over securities and exchanges pursuant to Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Because of the importance of this legislation, I recognize your desire to bring it before the House in an expeditious manner, and I will not exercise the Committee's right to further consideration of this legislation. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, however, the Committee on Commerce does not waive its jurisdiction of H.R. 1161. In addition, the Committee on Commerce reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this or similar legislation. I appreciate your commitment to support any request by the Commerce Committee for conferees on H.R. 1161 or similar legislation. I request that you include a copy of this letter and your response in your committee report on the bill and as part of the Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Tom Bliley, Chairman.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), and I would only again reciprocate by saying how much I have appreciated working with him, and I would urge support for this very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the amendment being offered today, S. 1452, the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act combines a number of important banking and housing proposals that are supported in the House on a bipartisan basis. With regard to housing, the committee amendment takes from H.R. 1776, the American Homeowners Act, which passed the House by a vote of 417 to 8 on April 6. There are also provisions drawn from H.R. 202, Preserving Affordable Housing for Seniors and Vulnerable Families into the 21st Century, another bipartisan bill designed to help the elderly and disabled with their housing needs which passed the House on September 27 by a strong vote of 405 to 5. Let me stress that the housing provisions in this bill are a testament to the extraordinary work and thoughtfulness of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), who is the chairman of the subcommittee, and reflect substantial bipartisan input from the minority, particularly the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). Affordable housing is increasingly out of the reach for many Americans. A strong economy has created a situation where in many parts of the country the price of housing is simply going up faster than income levels. Secondly, although interest rates are not as high as at other times in our history, an unprecedented differential has nevertheless come into being between inflation and long-term interest rates, making financing of a home purchase extremely difficult. Today more than 3 million working households spend half their income on housing. Of these, more than 220,000 are educators, police and public safety officers. In many cases, these public servants are precluded, due to high housing costs, from living in the communities they serve. These are the people who teach our children and protect our homes and families. H.R. 1776, for the first time, creates unique housing opportunities for these working families who have been unable to achieve the dream of owning a home, particularly in the communities in which they serve. This bill provides access to low-interest rate loans and 1 percent down payments on Federal Housing Administration, FHA, insured mortgages for teachers and public safety officers. We also authorize a pilot program to assist law enforcement officers, including correctional officers, to purchase homes in locally designated high crime areas with no down payment. In this way, we achieve not only a homeownership goal but community development objectives as well. The provisions included in this bill from H.R. 202 will help the elderly and disabled immensely and facilitate the construction and financing of more facilities for these populations. Included are innovative homeownership programs to empower low-income and disabled recipients of Section 8 housing assistance to apply that assistance towards buying a home. The bill also contains important provisions modernizing the Federal manufacturing housing regulatory regime, helps Native Americans and Native Hawaiians, and contains many more provisions that will improve our Nation's housing and increase homeownership opportunities. In legislation, there is never a perfect agreement. The manufactured housing provisions, for example, while neither exactly what the consumers nor industry have advocated, represent a middle ground that both sides can support. Manufactured housing is an important part of America's housing mosaic. Modernizing the reform and regulations governing manufactured housing is long overdue. It is critical to the economy to improve the quality and affordability of such housing in the context of maintaining consumer protection and safety. With regard to the banking provisions of the bill, the legislation includes several provisions that the House has previously approved this session in separate pieces of legislation, combined with noncontroversial bipartisanly supported elements of the regulatory relief package. Many of these regulatory provisions were contained in H.R. 4364 of the 105th Congress, which the House approved by a voice vote 2 years ago, and were carried over this session in legislation introduced in the House by the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the distinguished chair of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, and to her I extend a great debt of gratitude. In this package, we are also renewing, some with slight changes, reporting requirements by the executive branch and independent regulators in some 45 instances, largely as provided for in legislation passed by the House last year on a voice vote. Included is the semiannual report to Congress and the Federal Reserve Board on the conduct of monetary policy. While the reports being renewed are deemed important for the oversight work of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I know of no more important oversight responsibility of the Congress than the review of the Fed's conducted of monetary policy. With regard to the Federal Reserve System, there is one other section of the bill that deserves note. This is a section that provides pay parity for Fed Governors and their cabinet and subcabinet counterparts. Let me conclude by thanking all of those Members and staff on both sides of the House who have participated in putting together this legislation before us today and to thank, in particular, the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), who has contributed much to all aspects of this bill. 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. 1452) to modernize the requirements under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 and to establish a balanced consensus process for the development, revision, and interpretation of Federal construction and safety standards for manufactured homes, as amended.

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

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

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend. And would I reciprocate. I cannot think of a finer individual to work with on this committee. I would just like to conclude with two quick observations. One, this bill, at the leadership of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), includes some of the most important Native American housing initiatives ever before the Congress. It also includes a provision by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) that will allow police officers who choose to live in high-crime areas access to FHA, no-down-payment provisions for housing. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a very solid consensus bill, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. LEACH. I would advise the gentleman that I agree.

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

Mr. LEACH

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