John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the subcommittee, for the recent way that he and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) have all helped us come to what I think is an important part of this appropriations bill as any I can think of. I would like the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and his staff to join with me in examining something that Arianna Huffington has brought to our national attention. There are two reports, one from the Center for Public Integrity, which has found that the United States' antidrug money is frequently funneled through corrupt organizations in the Latin America side, sometimes it is the military, sometimes it is the paramilitary, sometimes it is their intelligence organizations; and that this money is really going nowhere and meeting none of the objectives that we voted on it for. In addition, it ends up frequently contributing to the violation of human rights. This cannot go on. I have a lot of respect, growing respect for the people of Colombia who have to carry the burden of what their government is doing, what their army is doing, what the paramilitary is doing, what the rebel countries are doing, and it seems to me that we need to take a close look at this study to which I have referred. The other study to which I refer is with much less enthusiasm, but I think it gives a telling message. Here we have the Rand Corporation, a wonderfully dedicated public sector organization commissioned by the United States Air Force to study this whole question of how we deal with the narcotics issue in Colombia. What was their recommendation? They said well, look, why do you not just cut out the pretense of the counternarcotics approach? Why do you not just get in the war and settle this thing and come to the direct assistance of the Colombian government? For 37 years there has been a fierce civil war going on; 37 years, and their recommendation, because they were paid by the U.S. Government to study this, and their recommendation is, get in the war, help the Colombian Government put down the rebel organizations, of which there are three or more by this time, who hold and have held parts of this country under their command. So we have to tiptoe through this set of tulips with great care. This is not a simple matter of sending over some ``private contractors'' to join in with our military. Remember, everything the private contractors do is a part of our military operation. They are armed. They are mostly veterans. They know what war is about. They are not there to practice peace. So it is very, very important that we recognize that we are being torn and tested by these two very different reports, one which was done by a nonprofit group, not at government expense, and the other was done, paid for by the U.S. Air Force that said, let us get in the war and really help our Colombian Government out. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, has the gentleman ever heard of manual destruction of the crops as a process?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very critical discussion that we are about to enter into involving the Andean Regional Initiative. When Plan Colombia was passed in the appropriations bill last year, Congress assured the public that we would not be getting into Colombia's 37-year-old civil war and there would be no mission creep. The goal of assistance to Colombia was to support counterdrug activities. Safeguards were put into Plan Colombia to prevent an escalation of U.S. involvement without congressional oversight, which included a 500-person U.S. military cap and a 300-person U.S. civilian contractor cap. Civilian contractors are those many ex-military people who work closely with the military although they are civilians. Now, while the appropriations bill before us maintains the 500-person cap on military, it lifts the 300-person civilian contractor cap for Colombia under the Andean Regional Initiative. The current language would permit unlimited increases of U.S. civilian contractors without notifying Congress. Now, thanks to so many people here on the committee, I have new admiration for the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and all of my friends on the other side, but particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). We have reached an agreement. This amendment that we now have before us is an amendment in place of amendments 9 and 10 which creates safeguards against an unlimited increase in civilian contractors without congressional notification. The agreement reached would maintain an aggregate ceiling of 800 United States personnel in Colombia which consists of a 500-person cap on U.S. military personnel and 300 on U.S. civilian contractors. Mr. Chairman, let me just give my colleagues the operative problem that we are working under. Ninety percent of the cocaine and 60 percent of the heroin that reaches the United States is produced in Colombia, and so this is very critical. We have several forces working down there. Besides the U.S. military, we have the Colombian military. Beside three rebel organizations, we have a reactionary paramilitary in Colombia which, once we get the Colombian army to lighten up, then we have the paramilitary coming in doing even more damage than the Colombian army was doing. And then we have our own private civilian contractors doing God knows what under the loose arrangements that we have. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, this amendment is exceedingly uncomplicated. It calls for the prohibition of aerial spraying efforts in Colombia in an attempt to eradicate illicit crops. We are offering this amendment because this program and this part of our Plan Colombia Andean Initiative has been spectacularly unsuccessful. We have a number of photographs that I just want to bring to my colleagues' attention. The picture of the baby was taken by an American photographer, Angeline Rudd, was taken on a delegation that she went on to Colombia in March of this year. The little child was caught under the aerial spray and the rash is a result of the exposure to the herbicide. The photos of cows grazing in a typical pasture in Putumayo were taken January 2001 by Paul Dix, professional photographer from this country. And the next picture, several days later, shows a cow, a dead cow that had grazed on a pasture that had been sprayed with our defoliant of choice, Roundup. This cow and others had failed to notice a warning Monsanto had issued against grazing livestock within 30 days in fields that have been sprayed with Roundup, the chemical used in aerial fumigation. Now, here is the problem. I pose no preference of how we take care of the eradication of drugs, coca crops; but the problem, if we destroy farmer's crops before we have gotten to the agricultural alternative, guess what happens to the farmers? Okay, this is not complicated, my colleagues. No military background required or not much agricultural background either. All we do is watch and see what happens as a result. As results-oriented people, we cannot be destroying poor farmers' crops, who then either have to, one, go further into the rain forest, clearing virgin forest for more coca crops, which destabilizes the ecosystem; or they join the 2 million or more internal refugees in Colombia, who usually end up in the cities; or they join the largest employers in the region, the right-wing paramilitary or the left-wing guerrillas, if they do not get killed in a war between both of them, who are trying to control more land. Not a pleasant picture. And so supply-side eradication has a lot in common with its namesake, supply-side economics.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have recently introduced HR 2273, the National Bank Offshore Activities Act of 2001, which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services on June 21, 2001. If enacted, this legislation would amend banking laws with respect to offshore activities, investments, and affiliations of national banks, which are chartered by the United States Comptroller of the Currency. Specifically, the legislation tightens regulations and closes loopholes in this country's supervision of the national banks it charters when they operate overseas. In this global economy, banks chartered and regulated by our government must maintain the highest legal and ethical standards wherever they operate, yet far too often, our banks have not been as scrupulous as they should be when they get involved in overseas activities. I am introducing this legislation because it has been brought to my attention that there have been recent allegations of great improprieties committed by our national banks chartered by the Comptroller of the Currency when they operate overseas, and that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has concluded it is powerless to act against these U.S. chartered banks under certain circumstances. There have even been allegations that some of our chartered banks have been involved in illegal activities, including possible money laundering, yet our own Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is supposed to investigate these matters, has determined that it does not have the power to stop these practices given its current enforcement authority. As I stand here today, I am aware that the ownership and control of one overseas company in particular has been transferred in a bankruptcy proceeding to a trustee approved by a group of U.S. chartered and foreign banks, and that there have been allegations that the appointed trustee in this matter has committed embezzlement, money laundering, and other crimes. Yet it is my understanding that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has not fully investigated these matters, and that they may need further enforcement authority in order to do so. This is why I believe that H.R. 2273 is such an important piece of legislation. Congress needs to make certain that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has full enforcement powers so they may act to enforce our nation's banking laws. Above all, H.R. 2273 improves upon the existing enforcement regime of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency so that they may better identify possibly harmful bank relationships and practices before they hurt U.S. depositors and shareholders. Our global economy requires that U.S. banking laws reach activity affecting U.S. shareholders and investors wherever it occurs. From the standpoint of international relations, we also do not want U.S-chartered and licensed banks to engage in unsound and unsafe practices in other countries that we would not tolerate in America's backyard. H.R. 2273 is also an important step towards addressing offshore risks to the U.S. financial system's integrity. We need to make certain that our banks are accountable when they operate overseas. Simply put, our vital system of banking regulation and our confidence in our financial system is compromised when a U.S. chartered bank or its agents are implicated in criminal activities anywhere in the world. Therefore, our Comptroller of the Currency must have full power and authority to investigate these offshore activities of our national banks, and to order these banks to cease their involvement in an overseas interest, if this activity leads to Illegal activities, or other violations of law. To achieve this end, H.R. 2273, among other things, increases the reporting requirements our national banks must comply with when they acquire, directly or indirectly, a beneficial interest in any offshore company. When our national banks engage in such activities, this legislation will require them to provide a full disclosure of information to the Comptroller of the Currency about the offshore interest they will be acquiring. Specifically, they will be required to submit a report listing the names of all the shareholders, principals, or holders of a beneficial interest in the offshore company, provide the names of any directors, officers, or managing agent of the offshore company; provide the identity and value of any assets held or owned by the offshore company; supply the Comptroller of the Currency with information about the criminal histories and any legal accusations filed against any of the named individuals in the report; and provide such other information as the Comptroller of the Currency may require. These banks will also be required to provide periodic updates of this information to the Comptroller of the Currency. H.R. 2273 also prohibits certain relations between national banks and certain violators of Federal, State, or foreign criminal law, banking or financial services law, or labor law, or any regulations prescribed under any such law, by any agent or affiliate of the national bank, or any other entity with which the national bank maintains a correspondent banking relationship, which has been finally adjudicated or determined by any adjudicative, regulatory, or other governmental authority. In addition, H.R. 2273 provides that both national banks and any other persons or entities, including any Federal or State official, department, or agency, may file a notice with the Comptroller of the Currency to notify the Comptroller of any violation of law that has occurred as a result of the affiliation of the national bank and the offshore interest, and to petition the Comptroller of the Currency to prohibit any further relationship between the national bank and the entity with respect to whom such notice is filed. Upon receiving any such complaint, the Comptroller of the Currency would then be required by the legislation to serve on the national bank a written notice to show cause why the Comptroller should not issue an order prohibiting any further relationship between the national bank and any such agent, affiliate, or other entity. Third parties would also be given the right under H.R. 2273, to petition for a hearing before the Comptroller of the Currency concerning the relationship at issue between a national bank and an offshore interest, and that person making the request for a hearing shall be provided with an opportunity to be heard on the record at a hearing. The Comptroller of the Currency would also be granted the authority to issue a cease and desist order to stop the involvement Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2273 is an important first step toward improving our nation's banking laws. I would ask my colleagues to join me in seeking passage of this important bill.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, we have had a very instructive discourse here today and quite revealing, I believe. As a result, this motion to recommit would simply safeguard the Federal, State and local civil rights laws as they presently exist. Mr. Speaker, bigotry and discrimination have been, unfortunately, our Nation's greatest curse for more than 210 years, and we should never, ever knowingly adopt legislation which would in any way worsen the problem, as the measure before us clearly does. So to my friends on the Republican side who urge that we might have created a more narrow motion, I say to them just this: It is just as wrong for the bill to set aside State and local civil rights laws as it is for the bill to set aside Federal civil rights laws. We need to fix both problems, and we need to fix them now and not in conference or some day later. So let us all of us stop trying to divide our Nation by religion, by race, by ethnicity, by sexual orientation. Let us pass a motion that I think most of us can agree on so we can increase the role of religion without trampling on our precious civil rights. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). (Ms. BALDWIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of our time to my distinguished leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to this body, if someone had told me that in the first year of he 21th century, the U.S. Congress would be on the verge of passing a bill making it lawful to discriminate with taxpayer funds, I wouldn't have believed them. I would have told them that too many had fought too long for us to backtrack in the battle against bigotry. Yet that is exactly what this bill does, and that is exactly what we are trying to undo with this Democratic substitute. I am astonished the Bush Administration would fight so strenuously to extend the right to discriminate in employment on account of religion. If government funds truly will not be used in a non-sectarian manner-- as the Administration claims--why in the world would we want to permit discrimination on the basis of religion? I've been asking this question for the last month, and have yet to receive any semblance of an adequate response. Every Member in this body knows that cooking soup for the poor can be done equally well by persons of all religious beliefs. But the Administration has bent over so far backwards to make sure we do not discriminate against religious organizations, that somehow they forgot about protecting the actual people--the citizens--against discrimination. This bill is so extreme it sanctions employment discrimination based on so-called ``tenets and teachings.'' This means a religious organization could use taxpayer funds to discriminate against gays and lesbians, against divorced persons, against unmarried pregnant women, against women who have had an abortion, and against persons involved in an interracial marriage. If you can believe it, the bill gets even worse. The legislation not only sets aside federal civil rights laws, it goes as far as to eliminate state and local civil rights laws. That means if the voters of a state or city had decided as a matter of public policy that organizations utilizing taxpayer funds should not be permitted to discriminate, that law would be set aside under H.R. 7. This turns the principle of federalism completely on its head. We shouldn't be surprised that the civil rights community is so strongly opposed to the bill. Just last week, Julian Bond, the Chairman of the NAACP, declared H.R. 7 will ``erase sixty years of civil rights protections.'' The NAACP Legal Defense Fund has written that charitable choice is ``wholly inconsistent with longstanding principle that federal moneys should not be used to discriminate in any form.'' The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has stated in no uncertain terms that charitable choice will ``erode the fundamental principle of non- discrimination.'' If our President really wanted to bring us together, he wouldn't push this legislation which so strongly divides this body and our nation. He would work with us on a true bipartisan basis to expend the role of religion in a manner that protects civil rights. We can begin this effort by voting yes on the Democratic substitute.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the committee, for his sterling statement. Except for the conclusion, of course, it was very well presented. Now, to the heart of the matter. The Conservative Family Research Council announced yesterday that they would abandon support for H.R. 7 if it were changed one iota to defer to existing State or local civil rights laws. Therein lays the rub. Namely, to put it another way, more colloquially, can a brother make as good a pot of soup as a Southern Baptist? Can too much diversity spoil the soup? That is the problem here, and it is why we are having so much trouble with faith-based which, incidentally, already exists, I say to my colleagues. Is there anyone not aware that we already have faith-based organizations dispensing charity by the billions of dollars? So what is the problem here? Well, during our discussion in the Committee on the Judiciary, no one caught this sense of the issue more sensitively than our distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), and I quote him at this point from page 191: ``For instance,'' he says, ``delivering soup. Let's say, for instance, in an area that is heavily served, let's say a synagogue, in an urban part of the area, listen, they want to get their soup. They do not want to hear somebody with views that are completely different from their own views. And I understand. I understand what the bill says, that they are not allowed to do that. But, again, if you compel these organizations, whose culture many Americans believe allow faith- based organizations to deliver services more effectively,'' and so on and so forth. So I thank our departing colleague for that very important contribution to what we are about here. Now, why do so many people feel uncomfortable about using this legislation as a vehicle to override our civil rights laws, our Federal civil rights laws, our State civil rights laws, our local civil rights laws? Why? Many of us are still recovering from the revelation that the Salvation Army negotiated a secret deal with the White House to override parts of civil rights laws, including those protecting domestic partner benefits. Most do not think it is right to trade off our civil rights laws to get legislative support from a private organization. Had the administration really wanted to do something to help religion, they might have tried to include the proposed charitable tax deductions in the $2 trillion tax deal. If they wanted to do something to improve social services, they would increase funding for drug treatment, housing and for seniors, instead of cutting these programs by billions of dollars. If they wanted to help our kids in our inner cities, of which I have heard so much today it is staggering, they would help us try to rebuild the crumbling schools all around them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the subcommittee from which this bill came.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a distinguished member of the Committee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the chairman of the committee, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given 10 additional minutes.