Jim Leach

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, with reservation I rise today in support of this conference report. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by offering my appreciation to the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], my friend and colleague, as well as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, for their work in completing what is clearly a strong bipartisan agreement. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, for his exceptional work in helping craft a solution to the problem of expiring section 8 multifamily housing contracts. The dedication of the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] to sound housing and community development policy is a credit to their respective chairmanships. Mr. Speaker, so there is no misunderstanding, current section 8 programming symbolizes Congress being placed by prior Congresses in a catch-22 where good public intentions have, in too many cases, crossed wires with imperfect private sector motivations, which in turn have been exacerbated by unrealistic legislation. The deferred obligations implicit in section 8 housing present Congress with an untenable choice: Either walk away from projects that serve hundreds of thousands of needy people, many of whom are elderly, or accept funding obligations far in excess of those originally conceived. The end effect of the current program has been the classic scheme of advancing programs for the moment, with huge deferred funding liabilities. Those liabilities have now come due and are stretching the congressional budget process in an unseemly as well as expensive manner. Mr. Speaker, from the authorizing committee's perspective, we have attempted to devise an approach correcting the deferred liability schematics of the past. It is clear that the status quo is unfair to taxpayers and unfavorable to tenants. Owners, on the other hand, have unintentionally been provided cost-plus incentives to maximize return without necessarily paying adequate attention to property maintenance. The section 8 reforms presented by the Senate for consideration by the Committee on Appropriations were clearly improvements over the current system, but the House authorizing committee, in negotiations with the Senate, took the position that the public treasury would still be at risk and tenants in jeopardy unless systems were put in place that took owners out of the driver's seat. Hence, the authorizing committee developed a legislative approach based on three broad premises: One, full and fair competition among administrative entities with a greater emphasis and utilization of nonprofit institutions; two, greater empowerment opportunities for program participants and the assumption that the greater the choices allowed tenants, the greater the accountability of landlords; and, three, stronger protections against potential fraud and abuse by building checks and balances into Administration decision-making. Some of our approaches were embraced by the appropriations conference. We cannot say, however, that our concerns have fully been met or that we have been pleased with all of the processes of consideration that have taken place. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say I must express some concern with the significant number of targeted special purpose grants included in this report. At issue are questions of judgment as well as the proper constitutional role of the Congress, which may in the end be embarrassed by a President exercising proper line-item veto authority. Mr. Speaker, with reservation I rise today in support of the fiscal year 1998 VA, HUD and independent agencies appropriations conference report. Let me begin by offering my appreciation to my friend and colleague from California, the subcommittee chairman, and the ranking member from Ohio for their work in completing the bipartisan agreement we have before us today. I must also thank the Housing Subcommittee chairman from New York, Mr. Lazio, for his exceptional work in helping craft a solution to the problem of expiring section 8 multifamily housing contracts. His and Mr. Lewis' sincere dedication to sound housing and community development public policy are a credit to their respective chairmanships. So there is no misunderstanding, current section 8 programming symbolizes Congress being placed by prior Congresses in a catch-22, where good public intentions have in too many cases crossed wires with imperfect private sector motivations which in turn have been exacerbated by unrealistic legislation. The deferred obligations implicit in section 8 housing present Congress with an untenable choice: Either walk away from projects that serve hundreds of thousands of needy people many of whom are elderly, or accept funding obligations far in excess of those originally conceived. The end effect of the current program has been the classic scheme of advancing programs for the moment, with huge deferred funding liabilities. Those liabilities have now come due and are stretching the congressional budget process in an unseemly as well as expensive manner. The goal of the multifamily restructuring legislation contained in title V of the conference report is to reform today's system, but also to assure that taxpayers and tenants are better protected in the future. In my view, this can only be done if it is clear to landlords that their ownership is jeopardized both by financial profligacy and by ill- service to tenants. Hopefully, the conference report lays out a legislative scheme which allows the Government to more easily say ``no'' and to allow intervention by nonprofits, as well as alternative voucher approaches. In my judgment, without the possibility of Government intervention and vouchers, imperfect landlords will be given free rein. A key element under the multifamily restructuring program is the determination of rents for comparable properties, or market rents. The conference report provides that ``where applicable'' comparable properties should be located in the same market area as the section 8 project. Thus, the conferees recognize that it may not be possible to find comparable properties in some areas. This is particularly true for projects in rural communities, and especially for specially designed properties for the elderly. In those cases the appraiser could look to other areas to locate comparable properties. From the authorizing committee's perspective, we have attempted to devise an approach correcting the deferred liability schematics of the past. It is clear that the status quo is unfair to taxpayers and unfavorable to tenants. Owners, on the other hand, have unintentionally been provided cost-plus incentives to maximize return without necessarily paying adequate attention to property maintenance. The section 8 reforms presented by the Senate for consideration by the Appropriations Committee were clearly improvements over the current system, but the House authorizing committee in negotiations with the Senate, took the position that the public treasury would still be at risk and tenants in jeopardy unless systems were put in place that took owners out of the driver's seat. Hence the House authorizing committee developed a legislative approach based on three broad premises: first, full and fair competition among administrative entities with a greater emphasis on utilization of non-profit institutions; second, greater empowerment opportunities for program participants on the assumption that the greater choices allowed tenants, the greater the accountability of landlords; and third, stronger protections against potential fraud and abuse by building checks and balances into administration decisionmaking. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the House authorizing committee's legislation scored savings of $759 million in fiscal year 1998 according to CBO, almost $200 million more than the Senate legislation. The Appropriations Conference unfortunately chose to lean to the Senate approach. Nevertheless, from an authorizing committee perspective, we are pleased that reform is underway and that some of our approaches were embraced by the Appropriations Committee. We cannot say, however, that our concerns have been fully met or that we have been pleased with all the processes of consideration that have taken place. Finally, I must express my concern with the significant number of targeted special purpose grants included in the conference report. For instance, almost 130 separate communities or projects will receive exclusive funding grants totaling more than $100 million in carve-outs under the $138 million Economic Development Initiative program. I must urge my colleagues to carefully consider the implications of stipulating so many projects for funding. At issue are questions of judgment as well as the proper constitutional role of a Congress, which may, in the end, be embarrassed by a President exercising proper line- item veto authority. We in Congress are simply obligated to recognize that there is a place for professionalism in executive departments like HUD where individual program priorities should be set. Congress' role should be to pass broad laws with definitive policy parameters. Individual program decisions, on the other hand, should largely be left to the executive branch.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, let me stress the issue of airplane sales has been raised. That professionals tell us that if this policy had been in effect over the last decade, it would have cost about $8.7 billion in U.S. aircraft sales and in the immediate future about $11 billion in aircraft sales. Yes, it is true that some of our aircraft manufacturers have made certain agreements with countries around the world to produce parts of crafts there. On the other hand, so has Airbus. So the question becomes whether the United States wants to become a part of these markets or not. If we support this amendment, the United States will be blocked out of these markets, and once we are blocked out of certain markets, that ends up having a literally cyclonic effect for other markets. It is not as if one market stands alone. Madam Chairman, in terms of what it means for jobs, it has been estimated that in just eight key emerging markets the approach contained in this amendment would lose about $16 billion of U.S. export sales. That is 227,000 jobs, or about 521 jobs per congressional district. I think that is a pretty difficult thing to suggest that we ought to be eliminating. Finally, the issue is not whether Exim as an institution is forced to be closed down. The issue is whether we cede markets to other countries, whether we embargo United States exports, whether we give up United States jobs. Madam Chairman, this is a case of unilateral economic disarmament. It is well-intended, but it is clearly counterproductive. I urge in no uncertain terms the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. LEACH. Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Let me just say this amendment not only defies rational explication today, it defies our history. For half a century the United States of America has set a model around the world of active engagement with many different societies, even when we disagree with what is happening in those societies. What this amendment says is, if we do not like what is happening in another society, we are going to express our differences by hitting ourselves in the face. It is patently counterproductive. I would say to my distinguished friend that while he has certain premises and certain concerns which we all share, by the same token he has a solution that I think is a countersolution. The great question is, is this country going to be better off to constructively engage even with those with whom we differ, or are we better off going through some sort of economic isolation that amounts not only to unilateral economic disarmament but amounts to harming ourselves by giving markets to others, by allowing them to build up their export capacity in direct competition with us? I think the answer has to be that this is an amendment that is very dicey and something that this Congress should would be ill-served to adopt.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of my colleagues legislation I introduced last week with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] in support of international efforts to provide redress to victims of the Holocaust. In the Judaic tradition, Rosh Hashanah, which commenced at sundown last Wednesday, initiated 10 days of spiritual introspection that concludes on Friday of this week with the Day of Atonement, a time of reconciliation of man with God. The bill I have introduced, H.R. 2591, the Holocaust Victims Redress Act, represents national recognition of an aspect of the Holocaust for which the concept of reconciliation and introspection, in this case at the societal level, is profoundly appropriate. The purpose of the legislation is to provide a measure of relief for the remaining victims of the greatest crime in man's memory, the Holocaust. The bill would authorize up to $25 million for a U.S. contribution to organizations serving survivors of the Holocaust who live in the United States. The genesis for this proposal dates back to hearings which the Committee on Banking and Financial Services held over the past year, chronicling how the Nazis looted gold from the central banks of Europe as well as from individual Holocaust victims. As some of my colleagues may know, following World War II the Tripartite Gold Commission, consisting of the United States, United Kingdom, and France, was created to oversee the recovery and return of Nazi-looted gold. Most of the gold recovered during that period was long ago returned to claimant countries. However, a portion of that gold remains to be distributed. The gold in the custody of the Tripartite Gold Commission, amounting to 6 metric tons, is worth anywhere from $50 to $70 million. Fifteen nations hold claim to some portion of that gold. The case for speedy final distribution of remaining gold to Holocaust survivors, which involves a donation by 15 claimant nations of their share, is compelling. The moral case for such a distribution has been increased by the horrific revelation in the recently released Eizenstat report that Nazi Germany commingled victim gold, taken from the personal property of Holocaust victims, including their dental fillings, with monetary gold, resmelting it into gold bars and ingots which the Nazis then traded for hard currency to help finance their war efforts. This legislation would put Congress on record in strong support of the State Department's appeal to claimant nations to contribute their share of Tripartite gold to Holocaust survivors. It would also strengthen the department's hand in seeking further recompense from other nations by authorizing the President to commit the United States to a voluntary donation of up to $25 million. A voluntary contribution on our part could go a long way in facilitating a similar gesture of generosity from others who may be claimants of the gold pool or who may have reason to provide redress for actions taken during the dark night of the human soul we call the Holocaust. A contribution of this nature by the United States would also serve as an act of conscience on the part of this Nation. A second aspect of the bill deals with the Nazi-looted art. Under international legal principles dating back to the Hague Convention of 1907, pillaging during war is forbidden, as is the seizure of works of art. In defiance of then extant international standards, the Nazis looted valuable works of art from their own citizens and institutions as well as from people and institutions in France and Holland and other occupied countries. This grand theft of art helped the Nazis finance their war efforts. Avarice served as an incentive to genocide with the ultimate in government censorship being reflected in the Aryan supremacist notion that certain modern art was degenerate and thus disposable. Last Thursday in synagogues throughout the world, the shofar was sounded three times. The shrill blast of the ram's horn reminds us of many things, perhaps most importantly that God remembers the deeds of all. It is thus appropriate that as we begin the Jewish New Year of 5758, we also move forward with reconciliation with people and with their descendants whose lives were destroyed during World War II in a way we can never truly understand. During all days, but particularly during this period of remembrance and atonement, we cannot forget what occurred and those issues which remain to be resolved and the people who deserve justice.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say on behalf of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services that I consider this to be a very constructive amendment. The new name well-defines the institution that we are talking about that is the subject of legislation on the floor today. I have some pains that the current name, which has such a fine general reputation, may go by the boards. But I think this is a very constructive and helpful amendment. Finally, let me stress as carefully as I can that the currently named Export-Import Bank only subsidizes the sales of U.S. goods and services abroad. There is no mandate of the bank to construct any kind of American company on anybody else's shores. It is simply to support goods and services produced in the United States to be sold abroad.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, first let me say I think the gentleman from Illinois has a very thoughtful series of concerns which are thoroughly valid. However, it would appear, based on administration judgment and those of an awful lot of other people on the trade front that the results of his approach will be counter-productive. What we will have established if this amendment passes is a carrot- and-stick approach in which the carrots will be given to competitors of U.S. businesses and the stick will be given to the U.S. worker. The fact of the matter is, as we isolate problems in foreign societies, and they are in many countries on many different continents, if our firms cannot deal with imperfect buyers, foreign competitors will be happy to step in and deal with them themselves. Who then gets the carrot? The foreign companies. Who gets the stick? It is the American worker who will not have a job to export a given kind of good. So I would simply say this is a good, thoughtful, decent perspective that the gentleman from Illinois has brought us, but by the same token, the end result is probably counter-productive.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I would like to also express my great appreciation for his leadership on this issue and also that of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake]. In that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] is retiring from this body, I would think it very appropriate to point out that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] is not only one of the most decent Members I have ever served with, he has a streak of pragmatic practicality that is as large as any Member in this body. I think that is something that is much appreciated by everyone who has ever worked with him. As for the Export-Import Bank, I know of no institution in the U.S. Government that has been more successful and is more supported on a bipartisan basis. Republicans, Democrats, business, labor, all have come to appreciate this particular small institution that helps the American worker and American business to compete in a very sophisticated global environment. Reauthorization of this institution is, thus, highly critical for America's competitive position in the world. Just to give one example, because sometimes in vignettes there is great truth, I spoke at an event in East Moline, IL, this spring at the John Deere Co., where business and labor came together to celebrate an Export-Import Bank supported production assembly of hundreds of tractors and combines that were sent to the Ukraine. At this event, a train actually took off with a group of combines on it. A series of people talked abstractly about the Export-Import Bank, but real meaning was brought by an 18-year-old woman who had been hired by Deere and Company, their first literally youthful hiree in the last decade. Her job was made possible simply because of this export-supported program. I think that is a very telling circumstance. The issue of corporate welfare has properly been raised. On the other hand, the Export-Import Bank over its long history has about broken even, slightly made a little bit of money, but approximately broken even. But if one adds to the U.S. Government revenue all the funds that are derived from those that pay taxes because of jobs they had that they would not otherwise have had, the Export-Import Bank is enormously in the black. So I think one can say that this is a very pragmatic institution of government. If there is a corporate welfare argument, which properly arrises any time there is government intervention, it should be noted that the real corporate welfare would be to Japanese and French and German companies if we do not reauthorize Export-Import Bank. In conclusion, let me just suggest that if we look at our own economy, that is doing rather well the last few years, it is impressive to point out that fully one-third of the economic growth in this country is related directly to exports. That export-driven growth is singularly important to the well-being of all Americans. Finally, because this is a fairly partisan era, let me say to the Clinton administration that they have appointed decent people to work at the Export-Import Bank, decent people to lead it, and they have led in a very pragmatic direction that has emphasized small business support, and as chairman of the authorizing committee, I want to tip my hat to the administration for its attention to this institution. Let me also express my gratitude to our distinguished retiring former chairman, Representative Gonzalez, Representative LaFalce, the chairman of the Asia Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter, and one of this body's strongest supporters of small business, Representative Manzullo, among many others. Mr. Chairman, as Members are aware, Eximbank is an independent Federal agency established to provide export financing for U.S. businesses. The Bank has a dual purpose: to neutralize aggressive financing by foreign export credit agencies, and to furnish prudent export credit financing when private financing is unavailable or insufficient to complete the deal. It does this through a variety of loan, guarantee, and insurance programs. Since its founding, Eximbank has supported more than $300 billion in U.S. exports, almost $100 billion in this decade alone. The Bank currently supports about $15 billion in U.S. exports annually. More than 80 percent of Eximbank's transactions are for exports from small businesses, a dramatic increase from just a few years ago. Most of Eximbank's activities are directed at supporting U.S. exports to emerging market economies. As we all understand, developing markets offer tremendous opportunities for American businesses. More than 40 percent of U.S. exports, worth about $180 billion, go to developing countries, and the amount is rising. The World Bank estimates that by the year 2010, these countries will consume 40 percent of all goods and services produced worldwide. From a midwestern agribusiness perspective, exports not only of crops, but value-added products from processed pork to refined steel, tractors and combines are increasingly in demand. In many respects, the heightened importance of exports to my home State of Iowa parallels the growing importance of exports to the overall national economy and the Nation's standard of living. In 1970, for example, the overall value of trade to the U.S. economy equals about 11 percent of GDP. Over the past 3 years, exports have accounted for about one-third of total U.S. economic growth. In 1995, some 11 million jobs depended on exports, and by the year 2000 that number will have risen substantially. But commercial competition for sales in the global economy is formidable, particularly in emerging markets. Evidence of competitive financing is often a requirement just to bid on a contract. To sweeten the financing terms for potential buyers, many foreign export credit agencies eagerly offer officially backed loans or guarantees as a way to cinch the deal for their own country's exporters. At other times, the requirement of official financing for the import of goods and services is simply written into the terms of the foreign contract. If the United States is to remain the world's preeminent exporter, which I am sure is the goal of every Member in this body, then American companies and American workers need the support of Eximbank to defend themselves against foreign government-supported competition. And that competition is substantial. According to the General Accounting Office [GAO], no less than 73 export credit agencies now exist worldwide. Yet the United States devotes fewer resources to trade finance than our competitors. For example, in terms of the percentage of national exports financed by the G-7 industrialized countries, Eximbank is tied for last. In 1995, Eximbank supported 2 percent of total U.S. exports. By contrast, Japan supported 32 percent of its countries exports that year, with France second at 18 percent. That lower level of spending is also consistent with a U.S. preference for fair competition in free markets. Again according to GAO, unlike Eximbank, other export credit agencies ``appear to compete to varying degrees with private sources of export financing. They do not aim to function exclusively as `lenders of last resort,' as Eximbank strives to do.'' Eximbank is the last line of defense for American businesses that are competitive in terms of price, quality, and service but which are facing officially financed foreign competition. As one witness testified before the Banking Committee earlier this year, ``This is the crux of the matter. No U.S. company, no matter how big, can compete against a foreign government in international finance. Neither can U.S. commercial lenders.'' In this context, Eximbank estimates that in 1995 almost three- quarters of its activity was directed at leveling the playing field for American exporters, while the rest went toward making up gaps in private financing. Eximbank also helps give our negotiators leverage to bring greater discipline to the rules governing official export-credit- agency financing. And this trade policy leverage has been used effectively to negotiate subsidy reductions. For example, tied aid export promotion offers by foreign governments have declined by 75 percent since 1991. Interest rates on Eximbank's direct loans are priced at the cost of borrowing plus 1 percent. Guaranteed loans are priced by commercial banks at market levels. Eximbank also charges U.S. exporters exposure fees to cover the risk of loans. The Bank's annual program budget reflects the difference between these fees and losses which may be incurred on new business committed that year. This appropriation acts as a loan loss reserve. As a result of the Bank's requirement of a reasonable assurance of repayment for each transaction, losses on the approximately $125 billion of loans financed since 1980 are less than $2.5 billion--a loan loss ratio of 1.9 percent. This figure is superior to that of commercial banks lending to foreign governments. It should also be noted that the Bank is fully reserved against potential losses in its guarantee and insurance portfolio. In closing, I would stress that Eximbank's role in U.S. trade finance reflects the almost instinctive American philosophical preference for open markets and open trade. As GAO testified before the Banking Committee, Eximbank functions as a lender of last resort to American exporters. But while Congress has mandated that Eximbank complement the market and not compete with the private sector, other well-supported export credit agencies have historically demonstrated less fidelity to the precepts or free markets of fair trade. Without Eximbank, American exporters would be left defenseless in the face of aggressive officially financed foreign competition. The ability of American firms to win contracts, market-share, and follow on deals in important emerging market economies--and the high paying jobs that support those exports--would be placed in jeopardy. Congress needs to reauthorize Eximbank to help continue to reduce export credit subsidies and make international trade more market-oriented. I urge support for this important legislation.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Crapo for managing the bill today and Chairman Dan Schaefer and Ranking Member Ralph Hall of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, as well as Chairman Tom Bliley and Ranking Member John Dingell of the Committee on Commerce for bringing this legislation to the floor so expeditiously. I would also like to express my appreciation to the staff of the Commerce Committee, and particularly Joe Kelliher, for their work on the bill. H.R. 2165 authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] to extend the time required for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in my district for a maximum of three consecutive 2-year periods. The project this legislation affects, FERC Project No. 3862, calls for the construction of a 27-megawatt hydropower facility on lock and dam 19 located on the Mississippi River adjacent to LeClaire, IA. Plans for deregulation of the power industry have temporarily halted the willingness of utilities to enter into long-term power purchase agreements. As a result, project coordinators do not anticipate being able to finalize power sales negotiations in time to meet the present February 28, 1998, deadline for beginning construction on the project. My understanding is that granting FERC the authority to extend the deadline for such projects has become a routine matter, and that FERC has indicated that it has no objection to the extension called for by H.R. 2165. Granting the extension authorized by this legislation would help ensure a responsible review of the project's economic viability. It would also enable the environmental impact of the project to remain under review in order to help ensure that the project's impact on the ecology of the Mississippi River is benign. Again, I would like to thank the members of the Commerce Committee and its staff for their support of H.R. 2165 and urge its support by my colleagues in the House.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude with one brief observation. Methodologically, this bill is being brought up under the Consent Calendar, and I would just simply like to state that I think this is a very appropriate manner to bring a bill of this nature to the floorup. I think it has been a very constructive and helpful circumstance to have the calendar which this is being brought up under. I apologize, I do not mean the Consent Calendar, I mean the new Corrections Calendar that was established for this kind of correction. In any regard, I also want to particularly thank the minority for their help in this matter, and our committee for its unanimous support. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her terrific leadership on this and so many other issues related thereto. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services's Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 2343, would abolish a Federal agency, the Thrift Depositor Protection Board, which was established to oversee the activities of the now defunct Resolution Trust Corporation and the Resolution Funding Corporation. By background, the oversight board was created in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, FIRREA, in 1989. FIRREA was the Federal Government's response to the massive financial crisis of the savings and loan industry and its insolvent insurance fund, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. With the enactment of FIRREA, the Resolution Trust Corporation was created to close or sell the failed institutions transferred to it by the industry's new regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision. The RTC was then tasked with selling the assets of failed thrifts. FIRREA also established the Resolution Funding Corporation, REFCORP, a mixed-ownership Government corporation for the purpose of providing financing for the RTC. The oversight board was created to oversee the RTC and its use of taxpayer funds, as well as activities of REFCORP. Today, the oversight board is no longer needed, given that its primary responsibility ceased when the RTC's doors were closed on December 31, 1995. The oversight board's remaining programmatic responsibilities are: First, oversight of the REFCORP; and Second, through fiscal year 1998, a nonvoting membership on the Affordable Housing Advisory Board. H.R. 2343 would transfer the REFCORP oversight responsibilities to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Affordable Housing Advisory Board would be restructured to eliminate the nonvoting seat held by the oversight board. As a result, CBO estimates the passage of this bill would result in annual savings of over $250,000 in personnel and overhead costs for the remaining 33 years of the board's life. In short, the bill will abolish a Government agency that is no longer needed and result in significant savings to the taxpayers. H.R. 2343 has the support of all three members of the oversight board, Acting Chairman Hawke, Secretary Cuomo, and Chairman Greenspan. In addition, the Committee has been informed that the Office of Management and Budget has no objection to this legislation. In terms of procedure, the committee held a hearing on September 9 and favorably reported the bill on a unanimous voice vote. In this context, I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. LaFalce and Mr. Vento for their cooperation in this endeavor and for the corrections day task force for its constructive support. I hope this commonsense legislation will receive the approval of the House. After all, the bill eliminates an unneeded Government agency, has bipartisan support, and saves the taxpayer money. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], for whom we are all in such great debt. Mr. Speaker, at issue with American coinage and currency is the need for stability and confidence, combined with the need for keeping up with the times. This bipartisan legislation, largely the work of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic International Monetary Policy, uniquely is designed to maintain continuity by keeping George Washington on one side of the quarter, while celebrating American history, and particularly that of her 50 States, in new ways on the reverse side. The legislation provides an opportunity for artistic expressions from our citizenry; it celebrates State history in an uplifting way; and it allows for collectors to collect all 50 quarters for only $12.50. Not only is this exciting approach educational, indeed fun, but the Government projects that the program will produce interest savings on the debt of between $2.6 and $5.1 billion. I know of very few bills ever brought before Congress in which one can find a more unique combination of circumstance: a celebration of history, an exercise in artistic expression, and multibillion dollar savings to the Federal Government. This modest modification of our coinage could not be more in the public interest. I congratulate the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] on their imaginative initiative.

Mr. LEACH

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

Mr. LEACH. Under the gentleman's reservation, Mr. Speaker, in response, let me state that H.R. 2248 was introduced by myself, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush], and is cosponsored by 327 Members. It authorizes President Clinton to present Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew a gold medal on behalf of Congress in recognition of his enduring contributions towards religious understanding and peace. Yesterday the House passed House Concurrent Resolution 134, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], to authorize the use of the Capitol Rotunda for a congressional ceremony honoring the Patriarch Bartholomew later this month. Patriarch Bartholomew is the spiritual leader of nearly 300 million Orthodox Christians around the world. Through his ministry he has devoted his life to world peace, religious understanding, and protecting the global environment. Patriarch Bartholomew's first visit to our country as Patriarch will provide an opportunity for him to meet with many Americans who comprise the more than 5 million Orthodox Christians in the United States, and to convey his message of reconciliation to citizens of all faiths. Patriarch Bartholomew has been formally recognized for his outstanding achievements by numerous governments and academic institutions around the world. At this time I ask for the support of this House in awarding the Patriarch a gold medal on behalf of the U.S. Congress and the citizens of the United States. This will be a fitting symbol of our appreciation for his admirable work towards world peace, and I urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support this legislation.

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking and Financial Services be discharged from further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2248, to authorize the President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in recognition of his outstanding and enduring contributions toward religious understanding and peace, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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. 2248, the bill just passed.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to file on behalf of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services a supplemental report to accompany the bill (H.R. 10) 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.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me say there are several aspects of this bill before us. One is an issue of sheer compassion, the whole precept of whether senior citizens should be preyed upon and whether profiteering should occur with regard to a very responsible Federal program which is applicable in a limited number of circumstances, the so-called reverse mortgage. The second relates to a series of issues of extenders that are part of this bill and what is perceived to be a delaying tactic on the minority side. I think it fair to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts, what extender does he object to? I say this because all of these provisions were dealt with in a bill that came out of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services called H.R. 2, or they are in current law. And so my concern is what precise extenders does the gentleman object to?

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply say the gentleman gave an opening introduction in which he objected to the extenders. So there is no misunderstanding, the minority has no objection to the extenders. They only object to the mark-to-market provisions. The mark-to-market approach, which is a fairly subtle thing in terms of the public perspective, is simply an extension of an ongoing program. Now, the question then becomes, what are we doing with the larger issue for which there are certain differences with the other body? The gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] has very thoughtfully introduced a very comprehensive bill. It is in the public record. We have modest differences with the other body on two large issues, both of which, however, are in the context of which there is 95 percent agreement on approach. It is the intent of the House side to be very forthcoming in negotiations with the Senate on these issues. What we are attempting to pass today is by no means intended to be delaying. It is intended to take care of extenders that must occur this month, and also to take care of a very compassionate issue. So I would only say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] that we have some very minor concerns about a given Senate approach in the mark to market. We will negotiate with them very straightforwardly, very reasonably, with the intent of protecting the U.S. taxpayer and the public interest, and no other intent or any other motivation whatsoever. In so doing, we hope to come out with a better protective taxpayer approach than has simply been endorsed by the other side today. But there is nothing in this proposal that is designed to do anything except advance what must be done this month under law and to take care of an approach, if there is no agreement that can be reached with the Senate. But we have total desire to reach agreement with the Senate. The chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee are very committed to resolving this issue in this Congress and if at all possible, in this session.

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

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, while the House of Representatives does not have a role in the process of confirming individuals to high-level Government positions, I feel compelled to object today to Senate intransigence with regard to a particular nomination, both because of the significance of the nomination itself and because of the reflection it casts on Senate procedures and American politics. First, with regard to the individual involved, it should be stressed that the President of the United States has designated a superbly qualified former Governor to be our Ambassador to Mexico. Bill Weld stands out for his integrity, his intelligence, and his distinguished public service. In selecting a Republican, the President has wisely determined to act in a bipartisan fashion. He is to be congratulated. The irony that a Senate controlled by the same political party as a nominee has not even given Governor Weld the courtesy of a public hearing reveals an intolerant aspect of public discourse today. It is an embarrassment to the Republican Party and to the Congress. In addition, the capacity of a single U.S. Senator to prevent a nomination from being considered underscores the need for the Senate to reform itself. The Constitution posits within the Senate the power to confirm. The Founding Fathers carefully and prudently crafted this provision to ensure that highly qualified persons would occupy high offices. They did not devolve this power over nominations by the President to an individual Senator. Presidents, under the Constitution, are provided veto authority over legislation. Individual Senators were never provided such authority over nominations. Indeed, the American Revolution was premised on the notion that democratic decisionmaking involving institutional checks and balances was preferable to kingly dictates and capricious decisions of a landed nobility. Governor Weld deserves a hearing. Senate procedures demand reform. The Constitution requires respect. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a perspective from my State of Iowa on the important work of the House today. It is my belief that few tax changes ever contemplated by Congress fit the rural economy as well as this one. Of particular import is the $500-per-child tax credit; the Archer capital gains cut, 20-year deferred payment contracts for family farms and small businesses for estates; 100 percent deductibility for self-employed individuals for health care cost; 3-year income averaging for farmers; and an increase in the inheritance exemption from $600,000 to $1 million and to $1.3 million for closely-held businesses and family farms, which is a potential total inheritance deduction of $2.6 million if both spouses are able to participate. The effect of all of this is that for the first time in the last half century, many Iowa farmers will be allowed to transfer their farms to their children virtually inheritance tax free. On the education front, with the exception of the revocation of tax- exempt status for TIAA-CREF, this legislation is a strong step forward for the education community. For the first time in over 10 years, students will be able to deduct a major part of interest accumulated on their student loans. In addition, the tax exemption for employer- provided undergraduate education assistance is extended for 3 years, and a HOPE tax credit is created to assist students and their families with out-of-pocket expenses associated with college attendance. This economic package is beneficial for the rural economy, good for higher education and is put in place within the context of balancing the budget by 2002 if conservative economic growth principles are assumed, and perhaps sooner if the economy continues to grow at or near its current rate.

Mr. LEACH

Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this important and timely resolution. I would just offer a few thoughts on the very disturbing recent events in Cambodia. First, there should be no doubt the United States and the international community have important interests at stake in Cambodia. The United States helped lead the negotiations among the Permanent Five members of the U.N. Security Council leading up to the Cambodian peace agreement. We did so in order to create a legitimate and internationally recognized government, to reduce foreign interference, advance regional peace and stability, and avert the return to power of the genocidal Khmer Rouge. It remains in the U.S. interest to see that those objectives are met. Second Prime Minister Hun Sen's coup d'etat in Cambodia--and there can be no doubt this was a coup, a sudden and decisive exercise of force in politics--and subsequent resort to murder, torture, and political intimidation has betrayed the hopes for peace and prosperity by the Cambodian people. It has undermined the interests of the United States and the broader international community in a politically and economically stable Cambodia in which fundamental human rights are respected. It has set back Cambodia's efforts to join ASEAN and hindered its re-integration into the world community. Vietnam's role, if any, in this affair may be troubling for regional stability. The coup also raises the specter of civil war. Tragically, it may also very well help resuscitate the Khmer Rouge at a moment of maximum peril for the movement, when it appeared that its collapse was imminent, and that Pol Pot and other senior leaders--evidently now under house arrest-- might be turned over to an international tribunal for crimes against humanity. Hence it is paramount that the United States, ASEAN, Japan, and other parties to the Paris accords promptly engage in a full court press to make Hun Sen--and other leaders within the CPP--understand that no Cambodian Government will not receive significant international support if it uses political intimidation and violence against its opponents. Until very recently, I have been less than impressed by the vigor and determination that the administration has brought to bear on this issue. Hun Sen and his colleagues in the CPP, as well as Prince Ranariddh and his supporters, need to understand that their mutual miscalculations and zero-sum struggle for political supremacy has driven a stake in the heart of a Cambodia's economic recovery and reconstruction. Prior to the recent deterioration in the political and security environment, Cambodia's prospects were brighter than at any time in the last 25 years. But unless the political process created by the Paris accords is sustained, marcroeconomic instability, inflation, heightened levels of already widespread corruption, and a substantial decrease in aid from bilateral donors as well as the international financial institutions are likely to result. Without foreign external assistance, foreign investment, or significant revenues from tourism, Cambodia's already difficult external debt situation will be exacerbated. In short, the Cambodian economy will be seriously set back. These consequences need to be very carefully considered by the Hun Sen and his colleagues in Phnom Penh. The deteriorating situation in Cambodia has occasioned much criticism of the U.N. peacekeeping effort in Cambodia. Some of this criticism is well-founded, but much of it is not. Perhaps the biggest flaw in the U.N. effort was the failure to assert control over the security apparatus of Hun Sen in the run up to the election. As to the failure to disarm the parties, I would remind Members that disarmament and demobilization did not occur because the Khmer Rouge did not live up to their obligations. There was no support from any of the countries providing peacekeeping troops for a U.N. mandate that encompassed forcible disarmament. There was and is no NATO-like coalition that could accomplish this task. And while this Member has long favored a modest U.N. standing force to fulfill some of these objectives, such a force did not then and does not now exist. But there is also much to be proud of in what was then an unprecedented peacekeeping effort. Over 350,000 refugees were repatriated. Over five million Cambodians were registered to vote. Despite Khmer Rouge attempts to derail the election, a secret ballot was held in which the overwhelming majority of Cambodians exercised their right to vote. In the wake of the election an active opposition press sprung up, over 100 foreign and indigenous NGO's operated freely throughout the country, and the once-feared Khmer Rouge gradually diminished as a military force and began to turn in on itself. Despite tremendous poverty, and serious human rights and democracy concerns, there can be no doubt the people of Cambodia were moving forward toward better days and a better life. The egregious failure of Cambodia's leaders to pursue the national interest instead of self-interest, most particularly on the part of Hun Sen, severely jeopardizes the hopes and dreams of the Cambodian people. The international community needs to act now to prevent a fait accompli, to use its very substantial diplomatic and economic leverage to stave off the total collapse of prospects for a peaceful and prosperous Cambodia. After 25 years of civil war, genocide, and national destruction, the people of Cambodia deserve better.