Richard Bryan

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. I say to the senior Senator from Maryland, not only do they not realize it, they are absolutely dumbfounded and amazed. Most people believe that in the world of high finance, brokerage accounts, insurance and banks, there is a system of Federal law that protects their privacy. I say to the Senator from Maryland, we all recognize that we are entering a new era of financial transactions, the Internet; computers have transformed the way in which we transact our business; the old green eyeshade guys are gone. Today the right of privacy as we know it in America is threatened, I say to my friend from Maryland. More than a century ago the able, later Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court advocated, in a Harvard Law Review article, a right of privacy. That right was later enshrined in subsequent opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. I think the very essence of a right of privacy ought to be your personal financial information--how much money you have in your bank account; to whom you choose to make payments; your insurance coverages; any medical conditions that might be a part of that insurance record; what stocks and bonds and securities you hold; when those certificates of deposit might mature. To say that all of that can be sold, transferred without your knowledge, without your consent, to some total stranger who may not, I say to my friend from Maryland, be a legitimate vendor--we don't know who these guys might be. All of a sudden you get a ton of mail coming in and saying: Mrs. Smith, I know your husband just died last year, and I know you have some certificates of deposit. They are getting a 5-percent return. As a widow, you need to know, if you invest with us, we can quadruple that rate of return. That is what is happening, I say to my friend from Maryland. That is something that I think is appropriate for the Congress and the Federal Government to say, that is wrong. I appreciate the leadership of the ranking member on this. This is something that ought not to divide us, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative.

Mr. BRYAN. I look forward to working with the senior Senator from Maryland on this. Let me say, I am going to withdraw this amendment, because of the lateness of the hour and because we want to move forward to process this. I say to my friend from Maryland--I know he feels this very strongly--the word should go out tonight from this Chamber to the industry groups that believe this is an issue that is going to go away. It is not going to go away. What we are talking about is the essence of reasonableness and fairness. If you are talking about selling some information or making it available to a total stranger, you as an individual ought to have the right to make that decision. That is something that is fundamental and basic. As an accommodation to these new affiliate arrangements that can be entered into under this new legislation, we say, with respect to any transfers between the affiliates, an opt-out provision is a reasonable compromise. I encourage our friends from the industry to work with us on this. I say to the Senator from Maryland, because this is not going to go away, we are going to address this issue, and the American people are going to be thoroughly outraged when they become aware that these new arrangements permit this continuation of an invasion of their privacy in the most personal way possible.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator from Maryland. I am prepared to yield the floor. Mr. President, from a procedural point of view, I would like to withdraw the amendment. May I do so, or do I need unanimous consent?

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, we are about ready to debate an important issue dealing with the Community Reinvestment Act. Let me say that I think there has been considerably more heat than light generated in the debate surrounding this issue. I thought it might be helpful to my colleagues to explain how the provisions of this act work, what is involved, what is not involved, the provisions that currently exist in the bill we are debating, and the contents of the amendment. The Community Reinvestment Act has been in operation now for 21 years. The act itself is triggered in either of two circumstances--one, as part of a periodic review, and that depends upon the size of the institution. It applies only to insured depository institutions, so we are talking about banks and thrifts. It also is triggered when a depository institution files an application for a charter conversion, for merger, acquisition, or requesting authority for additional branches. Those applications, then, are reviewed by the appropriate bank regulator, or the thrift regulator, whether that be the OCC, the Federal Reserve, or the OTC. Notice is then given, and the community groups have an opportunity to comment on the application. So you have a periodic review, which may be annually or a longer period of time, or you have the circumstances in which an insured depository institution seeks either a charter conversion, a merger, an acquisition, or additional branches. Notice is given. Now, 97 percent of all depository institutions-- banks or thrifts--get a satisfactory CRA rating. The penalties that can be provided are that, No. 1, an application could be denied, an application could be accepted subject to certain conditions, or the application can be approved without conditions. I think it is important to understand who is making the decision here. It is not the community groups that have a veto power. These are decisions that are essentially made by bank regulators--regulators that have traditionally evinced no hostility to the banking industry. And even an institution which gets the lowest rating--substantial noncompliance is the lowest rating you can get--may still have its application approved. So nothing in the language of CRA compels a regulator to disapprove an application, even if the financial institution that is applying for the relief sought gets the lowest evaluation possible. What is the history in the last 21 years of the act? There have been some 86,000 applications filed over the last 21 years and, of those, only 660 have received adverse comments. So less than 1 percent of all of the applications relating to CRA that have been received have been subject to objections or adverse comments by any of the regulating groups over a period of 21 years. What has CRA accomplished? Well, it has accomplished a great deal. In point of fact, the CRA, over the years, has resulted in a substantial increase in lending and other financial activity within the inner-city and minority groups in America. CRA encourages banks to meet the credit needs of the entire community, including low- and moderate-income areas. Over the last 21 years, the CRA has been one of the strongest incentives to encourage investment in low-income and minority communities. Under the law, federally insured financial institutions have made billions of dollars in profitable market rate loans and investments in underserved urban and rural areas. And it has done so without creating a large Federal bureaucracy, or jeopardizing the safety and soundness of any financial institution. CRA has been an important tool in improving access to credit for minority and low- to moderate-income Americans. The dramatic increase in home ownership rates for minorities is attributable in large part to increased focus on banks' CRA performance. Between 1993 and 1997, the number of conventional home mortgage loans extended increased for African Americans by 72 percent; for Hispanics, 45 percent; for Asian Americans, 31 percent; for Native Americans, 30 percent; for low- and moderate-income census tracks by 45 percent. Small business owners in low- and moderate-income communities have seen a substantial increase in their access to credit under the law. Under the emphasis of CRA, banks have made loans to African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic and Asian Americans, and, according to the Small Business Administration, loans to African- American-owned firms increased by 145 percent between 1992 and 1997. In 1997 alone, banks made more than $34 billion in loans to entrepreneurs located in low- and moderate-income areas. These loans have financed businesses which have been critical to revitalizing the distressed communities. Mr. President, it seems to me that has a desirable result for every mayor of every major community in America struggling to revitalize the inner core of his or her State. That is the experience in my own State. That is the experience, I suggest, of every State. As a result of CRA, we are seeing more money being invested and loaned in inner cities with minority businesses. That, it seems to me, makes sense, and good public policy. Who, then, objects to CRA? We are dealing with a piece of legislation that will substantially transform the way in which modern financial institutions will be regulated--banking, securities and insurance. Mr. President, those groups are in support of CRA, and they are in support of the amendment which I have offered. Indeed, in the last session of the Congress, H.R. 10, which contains CRA provisions virtually identical to the ones that are contained in the Bryan amendment, were passed by the House of Representatives, and emerged from a Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 16 to 2--broad bipartisan support. In this Congress, the financial institution restructuring bill that is making its way through the other body was approved by a vote of 51 to 8--51 to 8--and the CRA provisions contained in that piece of legislation are essentially identical to the provisions that the Bryan amendment addresses. Banks are supportive, the insurance industry is supportive, and the securities industry--the major players are supportive. Moreover, banks have found not only that it is good public policy, but it makes sense financially. The National Association of Home Builders, which has participated in an enormous growth in the rate of new housing starts, and has seen a remarkable increase in the percentage of home ownership in America, has this to say about CRA. The National Association of Home Builders: Therefore, the NAHB, the National Association of Home Builders, supports any amendments offered to remove or replace the provisions in S. 900-- That is the bill that we are debating-- that deals with a much more restrictive and a roll-back provision of CRA. The Home Builders go on to say: While the CRA may not be the perfect solution to ensuring housing credit is available to all communities, financial institutions of all sizes, through their compliance with CRA, have provided crucial community development loans and affordable housing production loans that have benefited millions of people across the United States. We see no public good served by a weakening or a reduction in the CRA requirements. I will explain shortly how S. 900, the bill before us, would substantially weaken the CRA provisions, and the position taken by the Home Builders, and others, is to support the amendment which is presently before the body. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the committee and I have a difference of opinion. And he will have an opportunity, I am sure, to articulate his point of view. The chairman--it is entirely appropriate for him to do so--sent out letters to various groups to get their comments. A letter from a small banker dated March 26 of this year responds to that--a copy of which was made available to those of us who serve on the committee--a letter addressed to: Dear Senator Gramm: I received a copy of your letter to Scott Jones-- Mr. Jones is the President of the American Banking Association-- regarding the proposed exemption from CRA requirements for small banks. While I appreciate your efforts on our behalf, I have to say that this exemption ``Don't mean jack to me.'' That is a quote. That is his language. We have two bank charters, and have always received an outstanding rating. The burden is not onerous, especially under the revised requirements now in effect for the past two or three years. The information I gather to determine in-area versus out-of-area loans is useful to me outside of the CRA requirements. I probably spend less than 5 hours a year on the issue. I don't think it is worth squandering any political capital you have to eliminate the CRA. That is the essential text of the letter that our distinguished chairman received. That small banker made reference to some provisions in CRA that were changed in 1996. Mr. President, recognizing that a small bank has a much smaller staff to deal with compliance issues, substantial changes were made in the CRA requirements for small banks. Essentially, we are talking about institutions under $250 million. No. 1, with respect to CRA, those small banks have no CRA reporting requirements. Let me reemphasize that. They have no CRA reporting requirements. And the standards which are applied to larger banks that are involved in a lending, a service, and an investment criteria are not applicable to small banks. Indeed, small banks do not have to compile any data. They don't have to submit any reports. They have to have records available so that when the bank examiner comes in pursuant to this periodic request, or if a small bank requests some activity which triggers the application of CRA, they simply say to the bank examiner, ``Our records are contained in the file cabinet over there.'' There is no reporting requirement and no affirmative burden on their part other than to have the records which, as the small banker who wrote the letter to our distinguished chairman pointed out, a bank would want to have for itself independent and separate and apart from the CRA requirements. So, indeed, there has been an acknowledgment and an attempt to streamline the requirements that small bankers are subject to. And that has been acknowledged by the correspondent who wrote to our distinguished chairman. What do we have in the current bill? The current bill does a couple of things which, in my view, roll back the provisions of CRA. It says, in effect, that if a financial institution has a CRA rating of satisfactory or above for a period of 36 months, 3 years, it would be deemed in compliance for purposes of CRA, and for any one of the applications for either a merger, an acquisition, or grant of extension, there would be no opportunity for community groups to comment. That would roll back the provisions.

Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the chairman. The chairman states correctly the contents of the bill. However, let me say in response to the Senator's position, we have in effect a 97- percent compliance rate. Mr. President, 97 percent of the financial institutions in the country receive satisfactory or better. In the entire history of the Community Reinvestment Act, with some 86,000 applications, we have had fewer than 1 percent of those protested in any way. In terms of balance, to give community groups an opportunity not only to comment but to register concerns, it strikes me that the Senator's provisions impose limitations that do not currently exist in the law. I know the able chairman well understands, even if there were a finding under current law that the particular financial institution has the lowest possible rating--substantial noncompliance--that does not preclude the bank regulator from approving the application. CRA is not an onerous burden. Under the current law, which would remain in place with the Bryan amendment, a bank that seeks a merger approval or charter provision change or a new branch, even if that bank had a substantial noncompliance, the lowest rating possible in the CRA, under the law, nothing precludes the bank regulator from approving that application. I understand the concern of the Senator from Texas in terms of balancing the equities here. It strikes me that we ought not to put that additional burden of proof on community groups who may want to file some legitimate concerns they have about a proposed merger, acquisition, or a branch extension. I think the record reflects, of 86,000 applications, we have had fewer than 1 percent, 660, that have availed themselves of this. I respectfully submit, in response to the comments of my friend from Texas, that is not, in my judgment, unduly burdensome. The Senator also provides in his version of S. 900 a small bank exemption. The effect of that would be to eliminate about 37 percent of all of the banks in the country from the current provisions of CRA. Again, I think it is a balance. It is not the purpose of the Senator from Nevada nor of those who support the Bryan amendment to want to impose an onerous, unreasonable, unfair burden upon a financial institution. However, I must say, I think the track record would indicate that is not the case. Responding to a legitimate concern of small banks, as I pointed out, in 1996 the rules were changed so that small banks do not have a reporting requirement. All they must do is maintain records so that the bank examiner who comes in periodically to review, or whenever the application is filed that triggers the CRA review to look at the records, can make sure in effect that the bank is lending in the community. It strikes me that is good public policy. Indeed, banks have profited from that activity. Those are the two provisions that the Senator's version of S. 900 would contain. Also, it would eliminate CRA from the new activities which would be permitted under the provisions of this law. The thrust of this legislation is to provide a regulatory framework that deals with the reality of the marketplace. Many of those who do not serve on the Banking Committee have heard Glass-Steagall mentioned frequently in the course of financial modernization discussions. This is a Depression-era piece of legislation. I like it. It neatly compartmentalizes banking regulation, insurance regulation, and security regulation. It makes a lot of sense. In the aftermath of the financial collapse of the 1920s and the Great Depression that followed, a number of abuses were pointed out. This legislation was in response to those abuses. It served the Nation effectively for many decades. As a result of court decisions and actions taken by bank regulators, today much of Glass-Steagall has been effectively emasculated and the marketplace is dictating new products that involve combinations of insurance, securities, and banking functions. I agree with the distinguished chairman that we need a piece of legislation which effectively deals with that. In effect, what we are doing is establishing that modern framework. We have established essentially a system of functional regulation. It appears from the testimony we have received from the Banking Committee and others who have offered comment that the new financial world will deal not so much in terms of mergers and acquisitions but will seek to avail itself of the new financial services that banks will be able to participate in under the provisions of S. 900, the financial restructuring bill we are debating. Those services involve, essentially, securities and insurance functions. This is testimony offered before the House Banking Committee by Treasury Secretary Rubin. I think he makes a point far more effectively than I. Banking industry experts agree that most of the consolidations within the banking community have occurred and that the new frontier will involve mergers among banks, securities and insurance firms. As a side point, that is the kind of activity which the S. 900 restructuring bill will authorize. According to Treasury Secretary Rubin, if we wish to preserve the relevance of CRA at a time when the relative importance of bank mergers may decline and the establishment of nonbank financial services will become increasingly important, the authority to engage in newly authorized activities should be connected to a satisfactory CRA rating. That is the philosophical underpinning. We will be dealing with a new world, a new financial structure, and that, we believe, is appropriate in light of the changes in market conditions. What are the requirements that would be imposed upon a depository institution under the provisions of this amendment which would seek to avail itself of these new activities--insurance and securities? No. 1, as a condition precedent, a depository institution would have to have a satisfactory rating. That is not, it seems to me, an unreasonable provision. What kind of action must the regulator consider? If the institution has a satisfactory CRA rating and all other regulatory issues nonrelated to CRA are in place, that application could be approved, it could be subjected to certain conditions, or it could be denied. An agreement could be entered into between the financial institution and the regulator if, indeed, there were some concerns about maintaining the CRA, and the regulator would have the ability to do several things if there were a noncompliance with the agreement entered into. On balance, what we are talking about is preserving the relevance of CRA in this new financial world we are talking about that will deal with mergers and acquisitions involving brokerage and insurance type of services which are not currently authorized under the regulatory framework. So I think, just by way of concluding, what we are talking about is not a bold or reckless expansion of CRA. We are really talking about, No. 1, maintaining the status quo with respect to CRA and its traditional functions as it deals with the mergers and the acquisition and charter changes and the new branch request, which is the current part of the law. And we are simply saying, with respect to these new services, these new opportunities which financial institutions will be allowed to participate in, which as Secretary Rubin points out is where the action is going to be, that is where the field of play is. To say that with respect to those new activities no CRA would be applicable, no requirement would be in place, is, in effect, to roll back the application of CRA to the range of financial services that banks are currently allowed to participate in. In my judgment, this is a reasonable and fair amendment. Bankers support it. Securities firms support it. Insurance companies support it. It enjoys a broad range of support. Let me emphasize to my colleagues that, unlike some issues which have tended to divide us in terms of partisan differences, the House of Representatives, in considering banking legislation and financial restructuring--the same type of legislation we are debating here today--in a vote of 51 to 8 approved CRA provisions which essentially track the Bryan amendment. In the last Congress, when we came within a gnat's eyelash of getting financial restructuring legislation enacted, it was approved by a bipartisan majority in the House and it cleared the Senate Banking Committee on a vote of 16 to 2. So this should not be, and I hope it will not be, a partisan vote. In the 21 years that CRA has been around, 86,000 applications have been received that were triggered by the provisions of the existing law. And in fewer than 1 percent--fewer than 1 percent--have objections or adverse comments been made. I think the amendment is fair. It strikes a middle ground. It acknowledges the concerns of small banks with the changes that were made in 1996. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this legislation. I see the Senator from Maryland----

Mr. BRYAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. It is the regulators, whether it is the OTS, or Federal Reserve, or the OCC. As the Senator from Maryland knows, because of his longstanding membership on the committee, much can be said about bank regulators. I do not believe anybody would indicate or suggest the record would indicate that there is a hostility by the regulators to the institutions they regulate. In effect, the regulators have the opportunity to consider the CRA issues presented among a range of other issues--capital adequacy, a whole host of things that may be unrelated. As the Senator from Maryland knows--and I think this is something that needs to be pointed out--even if the institution which has the application has the lowest possible rating--substantial noncompliance, which, in effect, means they have done virtually nothing--the regulator can still approve the application. They can still approve it. So there is no requirement under the existing law with respect to the kinds of mergers, acquisitions, charter changes, and branch expansions that requires a financial institution to even have a satisfactory rate. So this is hardly an onerous provision, I say to my friend from Maryland.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Maryland makes a good point. I think any fair reading, in terms of the standards of proof, is that a ``substantial'' standard is much higher than a scintilla. In effect, what this provision would do is raise the bar substantially, I say to my friend from Maryland, for community investment groups being able to, in effect, make their case for the consideration--the consideration of the regulator. I come back to the point. Even if they make their case that, indeed, the bank has not been responsible, has not done what it ought to do under CRA, the regulator may disregard that and still grant that approval. So it strikes me that by posing a standard before they even get into the ball game of ``substantial,'' you indeed cut off access to much of the input the community groups ought to have before a regulator makes a decision.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator makes a good point. That is absolutely correct. As the Senator knows, as a practical matter, although CRA is triggered generically in two circumstances--one, part of a periodic review; the other, when applications are made for charter changes or new branches or mergers or acquisitions--as a practical matter, the only opportunity community groups have is in this application process which the Senator has described. That is the only opportunity. So if you foreclose them by a standard that is unreasonable and difficult to meet, you have, for all intents and purposes, foreclosed community groups from registering any effective concerns that they have.

Mr. BRYAN. That is the understanding of the Senator from Nevada, we have had no hearings at all. I must tell the Senator from Maryland that the financial institutions in my State are supportive of CRA. If we want to take anecdotal evidence, I have to say financial institutions in my State have indicated, one, it is good public policy, and, two, they have financially benefited. But there is no record before us, based upon any hearings or testimony--and I must say I think that there is opportunity for hearings to be held. When we are dealing with some other regulatory relief issues in the Banking Committee, that might be an appropriate time to bring people in so we can build a record. My understanding is that we have had nothing to that effect and, indeed, this Senator has been on the committee now for 11 years. Financial institutions in my own State are very supportive of the provisions.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Maryland is correct. Recognizing that small banks are in a different situation than larger banks in terms of staff capability, the Secretary did precisely that. In January 1996, these new provisions went into effect, and they are appropriate, in my judgment, and they are dramatic. No small bank under the size of $250 million has to report CRA. There is no reporting requirement for CRA that is incumbent upon a small bank, as defined in the provisions. The responsibility of the small bank is simply to make available to the bank examiner, when he or she comes in periodically or when the examiner is reviewing the records for an application, the fact that the bank is serving the community. Moreover, the standards which are required for a larger bank dealing with a lending standard, a service standard and investment standard are inapplicable to small banks. In trying to balance the inequities here, as I know the distinguished Senator from Maryland is interested in doing and all of us share in a very bipartisan way, dealing with the very special concerns of small banks has been addressed, we have eliminated the reporting requirement and have simply said, if I might respond to my friend from Maryland, that when the bank examiner comes in, the only obligation on the part of the financial institution is to direct the bank examiner to the file drawer and say, ``Those are our records.'' The bank examiner examines those records, and that is the burden that is imposed. I must say, in terms of the balance, as the Senator from Maryland knows, coming from a State which has major metropolitan areas that fight urban decay, as does every major community in America, CRA is one of the most effective redevelopment tools for the inner cities in America that we have. It has poured hundreds of millions of dollars of new investments into the inner cities. That benefits not just the inner cities, but that benefits all of us. The tragedy that occurred in Littleton, CO, 2 weeks ago occurred in a suburban area, but I think it is increasingly apparent to America, whether you live in the inner city or live in the suburbs, the problems that our inner cities have in America spread like a contagion. So it is in the best interest of every American, wherever he or she lives, that those inner cities which face all the problems of urban decay, crime, and drugs, that what we can do to help to build those inner cities and strengthen the hands of mayors, Democrats, Republicans, nonpartisan, is important public policy, and CRA has done the job. That is why the U.S. Conference of Mayors, as the distinguished ranking member knows, has been so strongly supportive of the provisions in the Bryan amendment that we offer today.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator from Nevada is happy to do so.

Mr. BRYAN. That is fine.

Mr. BRYAN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. BRYAN. I share the observation and the conclusion reached by the distinguished ranking member. That is precisely the case. As the Senator from Maryland knows, we are dealing with a changing dynamic in the financial marketplace. That really is the catalyst that brings us into this financial restructuring debate. The Senator may have been off the floor when I shared the observation that the Treasury Secretary made, which reflects the view that the Senator has expounded upon. He says, in effect: [I]f we wish to preserve the relevance of CRA at a time when the relative importance of bank mergers may decline and the establishment of non-bank financial [services] will become increasingly important, the authority to engage in newly authorized activities should be connected to. . .CRA. He is saying that much better than I. He is saying, in effect: Look, this marketplace is shifting, it is moving. From what we have seen historically, since CRA has been in effect, with the traditional consolidation and mergers of one bank with another, that is not likely to be where the dynamic is in the marketplace in the future. We have already seen it. What we are going to see are consolidations and mergers with other aspects of the financial services community--insurance and securities. And if you say that CRA has no reference or application to those applications, in effect you are relegating CRA to the dustbin of history; by and large, it is no longer as relevant as it is currently. So, in effect, what we are trying to do is simply keep CRA as relevant in the new financial world as we have in the old financial world. I do not view this as an extension of CRA. It simply reflects a change in the marketplace that we are likely to see with respect to the way the financial services are provided to Americans.

Mr. BRYAN. That is precisely the case.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Senator for his comments, which I think helped elucidate a number of comments which are going to be important in this debate. I yield the floor. I note that the Senator from Minnesota may wish to speak. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BRYAN. I note that the distinguished chairman wants to speak. The Senator from Nevada would like to get 5 to 6 minutes at some point, if that can be accommodated.

Mr. BRYAN. I thank the chairman for accommodating me and allowing me to speak for 4 minutes. Let me say we had much debate and much discussion. There are amendments on bills that come and go. They really do not impact the overall outcome. This amendment is the most important amendment that will be considered in this debate. If the Bryan amendment loses, we convert what can be a bipartisan effort to get this legislation, which I strongly support and supported in the last Congress--and it becomes immediately a partisan vote, and that legislation has no chance in that form of becoming law. Whatever one's view is on CRA, and I understand we have widely different views, I respectfully submit this is not the vehicle to make this the issue. If, as the distinguished chairman and others have said, CRA needs to be revisited, let's do so in the context of some type of other legislation that is presently before the Banking Committee. We have had no hearings at all on this. The Bryan amendment does two very simple things. One, it retains the current CRA provisions, including those provisions which relate to small banks that eliminate their need to even file a report. All they have to do is to point for the bank examiner and say the records are in the file cabinet. They need do no more. So this is not, in my judgment, an onerous burden. And with respect to the new services that we permit banks to participate in, if Secretary Rubin and other experts who are looking at the banking field are correct, that is the wave of the future. If we do not require CRA as the condition of availing oneself of these new financial services, securities and insurance, in effect we marginalize and relegate CRA to a much lesser role. What is accomplished? Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in the inner cities in our country. Thousands of minority businesses have had an opportunity to participate, which they would not otherwise have gotten, and home ownership opportunities have expanded for literally millions of Americans. It would seem to me those are the kind of issues we can agree on--Democrats, Republicans, conservatives and liberals. CRA has accomplished much. We have gone through this before. A year ago, we nearly got a bill. It passed by a bipartisan majority in the House, with virtually the identical provisions that relate to CRA as contained in the Bryan amendment. It passed 16 to 2 out of the Banking Committee in this session of Congress; in the House Banking Committee by a vote of 51 to 8. This legislation has progressed with, again, virtually the identical provisions as it relates to CRA that the Bryan amendment contains. So why are we going through this? The protagonists, the bankers, the insurance companies and the securities industry, do not oppose this legislation. We are going through this because our able chairman, whom we all greatly respect, says he needs leverage in dealing with the House. The last time I looked at the record of the composition of the House, the Republican Party was in the majority. Among its leaders were people such as Tom Delay and Dick Armey, not exactly what you would call liberal exponents, bleeding-heart types. It seems to me the argument that we need leverage makes no sense at all. Finally, let me say this may be the only opportunity in this Congress to vote on a civil rights amendment, a process that has worked well and has served the nation well. It is not objected to by those who are struggling to reach the compromises on this piece of legislation. We should enact the Bryan amendment and move forward and get this bill over to the House, get it to conference and signed into law by the President. We have that opportunity only if the Bryan amendment prevails.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for a period of 12 minutes.

Mr. BRYAN

Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, in the House Commerce Committee today, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power took the first step in what is fast becoming a futile ritual here in Congress. The subcommittee reported to the full committee a revised version of H.R. 45--the latest in a long string of legislative efforts to single the State of Nevada out as the dumping ground for the nuclear power industry's toxic high-level waste. The bill approved by the subcommittee today consists of a now familiar assault on the environment and the health and safety of millions of Americans, both in Nevada and along transportation routes throughout the Nation. It requires the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars on a completely unnecessary and misguided ``interim storage'' facility in Nevada. It makes a mockery of the National Environmental Policy Act process, and preempts every local, State, and Federal statute or regulation that interferes with the nuclear power industry's crusade to move high-level waste to Nevada, no matter what the costs or consequences may be. The bill is an unprecedented power grab by the nuclear power industry, trampling on the most fundamental states' rights. The bill overrides years of work by the Environmental Protection Agency in establishing a science based radiation standard, and substitutes by legislative fiat a standard more than six times less protective than generally accepted for citizens anywhere else in the United States. By shipping waste to Nevada in advance of determining the suitability or licensibility of the Yucca Mountain site, the bill also irreversibly prejudices the scientific work at the site. Any hope for an objective evaluation of Yucca Mountain will be lost. The bill approved by the subcommittee today is an environmental and public health travesty. Fortunately, as in the past two Congresses, the bill stands no chance of enactment into law. President Clinton continues to oppose the nuclear power industry's special interest legislation, and will veto the bill should it ever reach him. Even the industry knows there is absolutely no doubt of the firmness of the President's veto threat. Congress will vote to sustain the President's veto, and we will have once again wasted years of time and effort on a useless battle of wills, when we could have be working together towards an equitable, reasonable, and safe resolution of any legitimate grievances the nuclear power industry has with the federal high-level nuclear waste program. The nuclear power industry's obsession with moving its waste to off- site, no matter what the consequences, defies all logic. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the industry itself agree that the waste can be stored safely on site for the foreseeable future. Somehow, though, moving waste off-site has become the ``holy grail'' of the industry. Taking the liability for the industry's environmental travesty has been their only rallying cry. Unfortunately for the industry, commercial nuclear power's problems cannot be solved by waste legislation, or anything else we may do here in Congress. Nuclear power is a declining industry, unable to compete in an increasingly competitive electricity marketplace. An industry once touted as a technological marvel--one which we were told could produce power ``too cheap to meter'' at thousands of reactor sites--has turned into an aged collection of ``white elephants,'' struggling to keep operating. As the electricity marketplace moves away from the regulated environment, an environment which virtually guaranteed full cost recovery for utilities huge investments in nuclear plants, the cost of nuclear power continues to rise, due to increasingly expensive maintenance and retrofit costs to keep the plants in operation. While the industry likes to portray what they describe as ``radical environmentalists'' for its inability to compete, the true cause for nuclear power's demise is simple economics. The value of nuclear power plants in today's electricity marketplace has plummeted. Nuclear plants that do sell barely fetch any price in today's markets, and 21 reactors have simply been allowed to shut down. As the thoughtful newspaper article that I will insert in the Record makes pretty clear, nuclear power is an industry with no future. Unfortunately, the industry's last gasp, its last in a long series of strategic miscalculations, appears to be to deposit its legacy of high-level waste in Nevada. Since its very inception, the nuclear power industry has shown a totally irresponsible lack of foresight in dealing with its highly toxic waste stream. For decades, the industry has shut its eyes to its growing volume of high-level waste, and continued to generate waste with absolutely no rational plan to manage it. The end result of this irresponsible lack of planning--or maybe the real plan all along--has been simply a demand that the commercial utilities be permitted to shove the waste problem off on the American public. In 1982, the industry convinced Congress to accept responsibility for disposing of the waste, and, ever since then, the industry's demands on the Federal Government, and the Treasury, have only increased. The nuclear power industry's surreal sense of entitlement got a jolt of reality last week. For years, the industry has saturated Congress with frightening scenarios of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in supposed damages at the expense of the American taxpayer resulting from delays in the Federal Government's high-level waste program. Last week, the U.S. Court of Claims dismissed one of the utilities self-serving billion-dollar lawsuits. The Court told Northern States Power, which had filed a claim for over $1 billion, to return to DOE, and seek appropriate adjustments under the contract the utility had signed in the early 1980s. More dismissals of utilities outrageous damage claims are sure to follow. While the math leading to the industry's claims of $80-$100 billion in damages was always very mysterious and suspect, last week's decision by the Court of Claims should lay this outrageous scare tactic to rest for good. The nuclear power industry, or, more accurately, its ratepayers, do have some legitimate grievances with the DOE. Since 1990, I have introduced legislation to help the Department of Energy and the industry address problems created by the Department's inability to meet the 1998 waste acceptance deadline. Under this legislation, utilities would be allowed credits against Nuclear Waste Fund payments for the costs associated with storage of waste the DOE was scheduled to accept. Recently, numerous proposals have surfaced which call into question the fundamental approach of legislation such as H.R. 45 and its predecessors. On the House side, legislation has been introduced, based upon a previous DOE proposal, which would allow utilities to escrow Nuclear Waste Fund payments, and use some of the investment income from these escrow accounts to pay the costs of on-site storage. In the Senate, a proposal is being developed to seek at least a partial technological solution to the high-level waste problem, through research and development of transmutation technology. This week, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research released a proposal which would store high-level waste on reactor sites, under the stewardship of a federally chartered non-profit corporation. The Secretary of Energy has his own very generous proposal to the utilities to address any inequities created by the DOE's failure to meet the 1998 deadline. As a settlement offer to the many utilities filing lawsuits against the Department, the Secretary has offered to take title to the waste at reactor sites. Under the Secretary's proposal, utilities would be relieved of both financial and legal responsibility for the waste, leaving full responsibility for the waste in the hands of the federal government. The Secretary's offer is more than generous. The modest adjustments in fees available to the utilities under the Standard Contract would be adequately addressed, in my view, by the Secretary's proposal. Several utilities, including Commonwealth Edison, one of the largest nuclear utilities in the nation, recognizing the futility of the nuclear power lobby's continued insistence on interim storage in Nevada, have indicated an interest in accepting the proposal. As the details of the proposal continue to develop, and as the prospects for interim storage in Nevada continue to decline, other utilities are sure to follow. In fact, for most utilities, the interim storage proposals currently before Congress provide little or no actual relief. For many utilities, even the overly optimistic 2003 deadline for the start of operation of an interim storage facility is too little, too late. By that time, many nuclear utilities intending to continue to operate nuclear plants will have already had to invest in additional on-site storage. For any of these utilities, the Secretary's offer of taking title provides far greater opportunity for relief than the pending legislation--even if the legislation had any chance of passage. Any utility CEO who refuses to consider the Secretary's offer to take title would be doing the utility's shareholders, and ratepayers, a grave disservice. Until the nuclear power industry can recognize that the tired, futile approach they have adopted for more than 5 years is going nowhere, and is merely setting a course for yet another legislation train wreck, Congress cannot address in any reasonable fashion whatever legitimate issues the industry may raise. It is well past the time that the industry should abandon its pipedream of interim storage in Nevada, and come to the table to negotiate an equitable financial and legal solution to its dispute with the federal government over its high-level waste. In case there is any question of the prospects for enactment for the bill marked up today by the Energy and Power Subcommittee, I will have printed in the Record a letter from the Secretary of Energy, dated yesterday, which puts the committee on notice that any legislation establishing interim storage in Nevada will be vetoed by the President. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Secretary of Energy, dated April 13, 1999, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BRYAN. In addition, the letter outlines numerous other environmental and fiscal concerns that the administration has with the revised version of H.R. 45 and makes it absolutely clear that the bill moving through the House in no way removes the administration's strong objection to this legislation. I will also have printed for the Record a letter from President Clinton earlier this year which repeats his veto threat in very clear and uncertain terms. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter to this Senator, dated February 16, 1999, and signed by the President of the United States, be printed in the Record.