Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference Report to H.R. 2684, the ``FY 2000 VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act.'' Let me commend the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Walsh, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Mollohan, for their tremendous work in completing one of the most complex and jurisdictionally-diverse funding bills before Congress. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud of provisions that are included in the bill before us under title V, entitled ``Preserving Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families into the 21st Century.'' This legislation is the product of months of work among Republicans and Democrats in both bodies and the Administration to deal with one of the most pressing social needs in recent years--the need for safe, secure, affordable housing. Our proposal addresses the so-called Section 8 ``opt-out'' problem where hundreds of thousand of affordable housing units would have been at risk of being lost over the next several years as rental assistance contracts with the Federal Government expire in increasing numbers. Our legislation protects seniors, individuals with disabilities and low- income families living in assisted housing from displacement in opt-out circumstances, and encourages the preservation of the housing as affordable where possible. ``Preserving Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families into the 21st Century'' passed the House freestanding on September 27, 1999, by an overwhelming vote of 405 to five. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House today is one of the most important housing bills in recent years, and would affect the lives of millions of low-income families across the country. The loss of affordable housing in my home state of Iowa first generated national attention to the critical nature of the problem. More than 15,000 families in Iowa, and more than 500,000 across the country would potentially be at risk of losing their homes if we do not act. Without the cooperation and assistance of Members from both sides of the aisle as well as the Administration we could not be here today. Under the leadership of Secretary Andrew Cuomo, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has been a key player throughout the entire process in our efforts to protect vulnerable families from displacement and to preserve affordable housing. Our work together on this legislation is one of the most significant efforts of truly bipartisan cooperation of the 106th Congress. Above all, let me recognize the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee and author of the bill, Mr. Lazio, for his leadership and tireless dedication to provide affordable housing and community development opportunities to those least able to provide for themselves.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for yielding me this time, and also thank him for his leadership and that of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and, of course, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), for bringing this bill before us. The United States Congress rarely authorizes gold medals. In this case, it is choosing to do so for a man who symbolizes the most profound of American values, a faith-based commitment to civil rights, to quality education, to peace and the processes needed to produce a more civil world. Father Hesburgh is a man of and for all seasons. His life is worthy of admiration and, more importantly, replication. Heroes are many kinds, but if there is such a thing as a hero of faith, it is Father Hesburgh. He has ennobled his church, his university, his country. With this Congressional Gold Medal, we honor his life and his contribution to our times. By so doing, we also pay homage to the role of Catholic education and church leadership in America.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 417, the Shays/ Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999. The bill has flaws, the biggest of which is that it does not go far enough. I would have preferred it impose spending limits and greater restraints on political action committees--the so-called PACs. Never-the-less, Shays/Meehan is a significant and long overdue effort at addressing the most pressing ``democratic'' issue facing the nation. In a country where process is our most important product, what is true for sports is doubly so for politics--how the game is played matters. Lincoln's government of, by and for the people cannot be one in which influence is disproportionately wrought by those with large campaign war chests. A fitting corollary to Lord Acton's dictum that ``power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely'' is the precept that even more corrupting than aspiring to power is the fear of losing it. This survivalist instinct, the desire to hang on to power, is the principle reason why meaningful campaign finance reform has been so difficult to advance. The current system is an incumbent-based monopoly that rewards accommodation rather than confrontation with special interests. Campaign reform is about empowering citizens rather than influence peddlers. It is the equivalent of applying the antitrust laws to the political parties. Without the sort of reforms Shays/Meehan makes, Congress will increasingly become a legislative body where the small businessman, the farmer, the worker, and the ordinary citizen are only secondarily represented. The time is long passed to infuse more democracy into our democratic system.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, let me first begin by saying I regret I am rising in strong opposition to this bill because I have such enormous respect for the two gentlemen that have just spoken, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). But I rise in opposition on the grounds of process, the grounds of substance, and the grounds of precedent. In terms of process, Members will be asked to vote on the creation of a massive new $1.5 billion Federal credit program designed to benefit certain steel as well as oil and gas companies that has never been considered by the House or any of its committees. I have grave doubts about the appropriateness of a new contingent liability of this nature in the Federal Government for a number of reasons, including the fact that the proposal coming from the other body lacks adequate taxpayer safeguards. Not only are there no warrants to reward taxpayers for risks undertaken, as was in the case of the Chrysler program, this legislation does not even comply with OMB guidelines establishing core policies for Federal credit programs. To cite just one, financial standards for risk taking require that private lenders who extend government guaranteed credit must bear at least 20 percent of the loss from any default. This standard OMB policy is not included in this loan guarantee program, thus making the program a bailout for poor lending policies of banks, as well as poor management practices of steel and oil and gas companies. For a country with the most sophisticated market economy in the world, the approach advocated today represents an astonishingly slippery slope. Loan guarantee proposals and circumstances of this nature have a tendency to create stilted markets and unfair competition. They implicitly disadvantage competitors and may not be as protective of ordinary workers as they may be for investors and a few companies and lending institutions that may have troubled loans in place. Let me be clear: Nothing in this bill expands demand for steel or creates a single job. It may protect a particular worker's job in a particular company, but it is not a jobs protection bill. At the very most, it allocates jobs by protecting the least efficient producers and jeopardizing more efficient ones. For example, I represent an industrial river district with four steel plants. None can be expected to receive any of the resources made available under this act. But this bill authorizes assistance to steel producers in competition with these efficient plants. For every job that may be protected in West Virginia, one will be lost in Iowa, and for every dollar diverted in this market intervention program, one will be deprived from HUD, the USDA and an assortment of other government agencies. There is no free lunch for loan guarantees of this nature. To be sure, last year steel import crisis was real and caused harm to our industry and its workers. In reaction, the United States Government responded aggressively to anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases against a variety of countries. At the same time, the executive branch exerted bilateral pressure on key trading partners, including Japan and Korea, to reduce their steel imports to the United States. According to Commerce Secretary Daley, these efforts are beginning to have an effect. While our steel industry still faces a number of economic difficulties, we have reversed last year's historic import surge. Total steel imports have returned to pre-crisis levels. April 1999 imports of all steel products were 22 percent below April 1998 levels and 6 percent below April 1997. Indeed, this April's import levels were more than 42 percent below last August's peak. Ironically, just today it was reported the domestic steel companies are raising spot market prices of large volume flat rolled products by as much as 9 percent. According to the Chicago Tribune, these price increases have been made possible by sharp economic rebounds in key parts of Asia's Pacific Rim which is soaking up steel that otherwise might have been shipped to the United States. As for the oil and gas dimension of this bill, it should be understood that this provision was added in the other body when crude oil prices were at an inflation-adjusted post World War II low. But from a bottom of $10.27 cents per barrel in February of this year, oil prices have rallied over 100 percent, to $20.62 today. The recovery of crude oil prices makes this bill not only philosophically dubious, but untimely. Let me turn now to precedent. Here two issues stand out. First, the fact that this legislation is being considered on the House floor in this way is a testament to the disproportionate power individual Members of the other body have attained through precedents and rules not shared by this body. The principal reason this bill is before us is that one powerful member of the other body refused to allow a national defense and humanitarian spending measure to go forward until he received a pledge from House leaders that this legislation would receive expedited consideration in this body, in disregard of regular House processes. To allow this kind of process to be subjected in the House is precedential folly. The procedures of the other body demand reform for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they disadvantage the people's body. But under no circumstances should House Members be a party to power plays in the other House that dictate how this House should proceed, especially if such commitments have the effect of bypassing the committee system, which is designed to protect the House and the public interest. Further complicating this bill are constitutional and administrative law questions. In an effort to make the loan guaranty program less expensive, the bill was amended to require the chairman of the Federal Reserve to serve as the chairman of a three-member board to administer the program. But it should be remembered, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, not part of the executive branch. It is responsible for conducting the Nation's monetary policy, as well as supervising and regulating banking institutions. This bill would entangle the Federal Reserve in inappropriate executive branch functions and compromising political judgments. The program the bill establishes is more political than economic in character. It is designed by politicians to benefit certain companies in selected industries. In its present form, it entwines the Federal Reserve Board, which both parties on a bipartisan basis have a vested interest in keeping above politics, into the hurly-burly of congressional politics. Extraordinarily, the bill causes the chairman of the Fed to become, in effect, a loan officer who also may be regulating financial institutions with which the Federal Reserve may, under this bill, become a party in lending judgments. The only thing more foolish than the economic and political judgments in play are the process considerations for Congress, the executive branch, and the Fed. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the interventionist policy under consideration represents a procedural, substantive, and precedent-setting umbrage. Loan guaranty approaches should only be considered after extensive review and only under the most exigent of circumstances. This particular congressional intrusion into the American free market should be viewed with the utmost skepticism. Mr. Speaker, I urge its defeat, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1094) to amend the Federal Reserve Act to broaden the range of discount window loans which may be used as collateral for Federal reserve notes, as amended.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1094, a bill to broaden the range of discount window loans which may be used as collateral for Federal Reserve notes. I would like to point out at the outset this is not a new approach for this House. Virtually the same proposal was incorporated into the bankruptcy reform bill, H.R. 833, which passed this body on May 5, but which has not yet cleared the other body. The bill enjoys the strong support of the Federal Reserve, as reflected in correspondence with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to the last Congress, and again in testimony by the member of the Federal's Board of Governors, Edward Kelly, at a hearing held by the committee in April. The bill also enjoins strong bipartisan support on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. The original sponsors of the bill include the ranking minority member of the full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and Monetary Policy, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the ranking member, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and I understand it has the support of my good friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a brief moment to explain the need for the bill and the issue of timing. Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act requires the Federal Reserve to collateralize Federal Reserve notes when they are issued. The list of eligible collateral includes, at present, Treasury and Federal agency securities, gold certificates, special drawing rights certificates, and foreign currencies. In addition, the legally eligible backing for currency includes discount window loans made under Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act. Over the years, Congress has added a new section to the law to permit lending by the Federal Reserve to depository institutions under provisions other than section 13 and against a broader range of collateral. However, section 16 has not been similarly amended to accommodate these new sections, thus limiting the types of loans the Federal can use to back currency. For example, certain discount window loans made by the Federal under 10B of the Act and secured by mortgages on one-to-four family residences cannot be used to back currency. The bill before us today, H.R. 1094, simply seeks to update the currency collateral provisions in section 16 to reflect the broader range of collateral accepted for discounted window loans under section 10A, section 10B and section 13A of the Federal Reserve Act. Finally, I would like to point out the reason for bringing this measure to the floor today as a stand-alone proposal is one of timing. According to the Federal Reserve Board, the existing limits on currency collateral are becoming a potential problem because of the increased use of retail sweep accounts over the past 5 years and the corresponding decline in reserve balances that can be used as excess collateral for currency. The small margin of available currency collateral could pose a potential problem should there be a substantial increase in the demand for discount window loans due to temporary, or unusual, circumstances, such as might occur around the year 2000 date change. Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, this is not a new proposal, but given the issues of timing and the need to ensure that our bank agencies have all the necessary tools at their disposal to smooth the transition to the year 2000, I believe it is important for this body to act separately on this bill. I appreciate the great courtesies extended by the minority in this regard. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 900) to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes, with House amendments thereto, insist on the House amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are three aspects of this motion to instruct. As chair of the committee, I strongly support the first two. On the third, I remain somewhat bewildered. What the third instruction suggests is that the committee should advance strong medical privacy provisions. Then it goes on to say that we should delete the title related to medical privacy and recede to the Senate which has no title on medical privacy. It is a conundrum, a logical inconsistency. I would say to the gentleman in furtherance of certain earlier comments that only about 18 States have prohibitions on the sharing of information. This bill is not designed to supplant, replace, or weaken any State provision or deny future State provisions. It may not be quite as strong as the gentleman would prefer, but it is the first serious prohibition on an insurance company giving medical privacy information without patient consent to an affiliate or third party. As chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and as a conferee, I am willing to accede to this motion under the understanding that it is a conflicted motion. There is a call for medical privacy and then a call for a deletion. So what I think the gentleman and what this instruction is saying is that there should be a medical privacy provision in this bill. That being the case, I cannot object to this particular instruction as a conferee. So I would urge my colleagues to recognize that the first two provisions are a call to support the House provision. The third provision is a call to maintain medical privacy, although in a way that is perhaps illogically stated. So my recommendation is to vote ``yes'' on a deeply flawed, deeply ironic motion to instruct.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, let me say I intend to yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) as a representative of the Committee on Commerce at the appropriate point. Mr. Speaker, I agree with, in fact, the first two provisions of the motion to instruct and will reluctantly accede to the third, but I am compelled to note that the controversy over the medical privacy provisions that this motion to instruct seeks to strike from the bill presents one of the most ironic circumstances that I have dealt with as a committee chairman. The same Members who have quite properly insisted on placing privacy protections for consumers of financial services in the bill are now strenuously insisting on deleting from it a provision that would offer consumers powerful new protections in an area where there is perhaps the greatest sensitivity to privacy, that relating to personal health and medical records. I continue to believe that the medical privacy provision championed by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and others has been widely misunderstood both by Members of this body and outside groups that have expressed certain skepticism. Here let me be clear. The provisions would block the sharing of the individually identifiable customer, health, medical, and genetic information by an insurance company either within an affiliate structure or with outside third parties unless the customer expressly consents to such disclosure with a limited number of exceptions related to medical research or normal and customary underwriting in business functions. It should be emphasized that the Ganske language does nothing to undermine the more comprehensive medical privacy proposals being developed by other congressional committees or by the Clinton administration. The provision plainly states that it will not take effect or shall be overridden if and when Congress enacts comprehensive medical privacy legislation satisfying the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Moreover, as both the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and I made clear as legislative intent in House debate on the subject, the provision in no way undermines the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate regulations in this area if the Congress fails to meet its statutory mandate by August 21 of this year. In short, the provision was carefully designed to supplement rather than supplant or supersede other private and public sector legal and institutional barriers to the sharing of private health and medical information. As I have repeatedly stated, I was prepared to work at conference to further clarify the bill's text. The future HHS rulemaking would not be preempted. I also agreed to seek to remedy any imperfections in language that might realistically be deemed to compromise patient confidentiality. However, in light of the controversy generated by the provision and because I would like to proceed in as bipartisan a fashion as possible in producing a financial modernization bill that the President can sign into law, I am prepared not to fight instruction that the House recede to the Senate position on this issue. But in so doing I would reiterate my belief that opposition to the Ganske approach is based upon an underlying premise that is frail and upon outside advocacy that may be misdirected. Accordingly, it is my hope that those Members and outside associations that have so vehemently opposed addressing the issue of health and medical privacy in this bill will re-examine their positions. Little, after all, would seem more self-apparently appropriate than to prohibit sharing of medical records within or outside financial services companies without patient consent. Future Congressional and administrative actions to fashion law and regulation in this complex area will no doubt be modeled in large part on the provision that this instruction is designed to delete. But here the irony should further be underscored that HHS discretion, which the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and I are totally willing to protect, in any event only goes to health insurance. So what is happening here is that the motion to instruct is knocking out legislative protections for all medical privacy without the prospect that privacy protections for life and disability insurance can be addressed through administrative action. After all the contentions on the minority side that privacy protections should be in the bill, the argument now is that they should not be in the bill. I want bipartisanship and administration support for this legislation so I am willing to accede, but let me stress not without a degree of incredulity. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for his assistance on this issue and for his long-time quality representation on the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services. This is an issue primarily between the Executive Branch and the other body, but it is something that requires a shift in law, and this body, I think, at this time ought to recognize that particular problem and move as cooperatively as possible with the other body and the Executive Branch in this issue.

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

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2565) to clarify the quorum requirement for the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, as amended.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2565, a bill to clarify the quorum requirements for the Export-Import Bank of the United States. This bill is designed to remedy a serious problem that has developed with regard to vacancies in Ex-Im's Board of Directors. Without prompt congressional action, this situation could result in the suspension of the Bank's ability to make new financial commitments and jeopardize billions of dollars in pending U.S. export transactions. The background is as follows: The Bank's charter requires a quorum of its five-member board in order to conduct business. Prior to July 20, two vacancies existed on the board. On July 21, the term of a third board member expired. Although there is some ambiguity as to whether the quorum requirement refers to a majority of the statutorily prescribed five-person board or, instead, to a majority of board members currently in office, the former interpretation is legally preferable. As explained in legal analysis provided by the General Accounting Office, the quorum requirement for the five-member board necessarily requires at least three members to be present and transact the board's business. Thus, with only two incumbent members, the board lacks its legally required quorum. This unfortunate problem is compounded by the fact that no nominations have been made for these vacancies, nor has any intent to nominate been sent to the other body. In this awkward circumstance, Congress has no alternative but to act expeditiously to advance the Nation's interest and remedy this situation. Failure to do so would put America's exports and American jobs at risk. Therefore, H.R. 2565 clarifies Ex-Im's charter by explicitly providing that a quorum of the board shall consist of three members. At the same time, it provides the Bank with authority to continue operations with only two members of the board until October 1 of this year. This brief window should provide sufficient time for the administration to forward qualified nominees and for their expeditious consideration in the other body. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for his leadership and cooperation on this issue. Likewise, I would like to express my appreciation for the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, let me tell the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) that that is the definitive intent of mine. I think it would be a mistake of the House not to proceed with proper order and that this bill should be considered under regular basis in a conference setting, and it would be my hope that conferees would be appointed in the very near future.