Alfonse D’Amato

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. The letter is addressed to Senator Lott, the majority leader, with copies sent to myself and Senator Sarbanes, the ranking member. He concludes by saying: We believe that existing safeguards--together with such new statutory protections as the 6 percent capital requirement, risk-based capital requirement for complex credit unions, and the system of prompt corrective action--represent an adequate response to the safety and soundness concerns about credit unions' business lending. Mr. President, I believe the 7 percent will constitute a very real and severe burden and hardship. As I mentioned, 85 credit unions already exceed the cap. It is mischief making. The unintended consequences will not improve the safety and soundness of credit union operations. That is just not the case. I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. I yield the floor. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader and the minority leader, I ask unanimous consent that following the 5:30 p.m. vote, there be 2 minutes for debate to be equally divided on the Hagel amendment and that a vote then occur on the motion to table the amendment with no second-degree amendment in order prior to the vote.

Mr. D'AMATO. I do not know how many Members would like to speak to this, but I would think, given the time situation that we have, that those Members on either side who would like to either speak on the bill or state their support or opposition to the amendment that is now pending, that they should attempt to do so. Because at 3:30, I believe, Senator Shelby will be coming down to the floor in order to offer his amendment, and we will then lay aside this amendment for the purposes of discussing the amendment put forth by my colleague from Alabama. Then thereafter, from 4:30 to 5:30, Senator Gramm of Texas is scheduled on the floor where we will then entertain the Gramm amendment, which will be the pending business and which will be the vote that we take up at 5:30. I believe at that point my colleague, the ranking member of the committee from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, will make a motion to table. And with that the votes will begin. So my suggestion, to those colleagues who would like to be heard on this amendment or on the overall bill, is that they use this time to come to the floor within a half hour because I think the schedule will then begin to get somewhat crowded. If no one is seeking recognition, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I have spoken to this issue before, so I am going to try to make my remarks very succinct. That is difficult for me, I realize that, but there are others waiting. The Senator from Kansas has been on the floor for 2 hours and the Senator from Massachusetts is waiting to speak also. I share the concerns that my colleagues have raised regarding the fairness of what would appear to be overreaching in certain cases involving our community banks. I believe we need to have a full and thorough hearing to look at this question and examine it. Not just one hearing, but a comprehensive study and a series of hearings to see if we cannot advance the goals. Because I don't think there is anyone, anyone, who is opposed to the goals of ensuring that there is capital available in our rural areas and our small communities. Capital that might not otherwise be there were it not for CRA. The question is, Is that capital being made available? How effective is CRA? Or has there been an unexpected consequence from the impact of the legislation and the compliance requirements? And has that consequence been so overwhelming as to keep the small banker from doing his job? Those are legitimate questions. We should review this important issue in its entirety and we should examine it. But we should not offer an amendment now that would in any way make it impossible for this bill to go forward. That is exactly what would take place. There is no way, no way, that we could get sufficient votes nor would the administration enact legislation if the CRA provision was stripped out. I say ``stripped out'' because that is, indeed, what the amendment would do. The Shelby amendment would literally strip it out. There is no way for evaluating if a bank had proven itself year after year and earned a relaxation in its examination schedule so it would be reviewed less frequently or even periodically. That is the kind of thoughtful consideration that we need to do. This doesn't say, well, let's look at giving better tax treatment to the smaller community banks so that they can do their job. And, for example, Senator Allard has worked long and hard on developing a proposal that would do that. That is the kind of thing we have to do. But to come in here now and suggest that we simply strip out CRA for all community banks would be wrong. And you can say that you favor credit unions, but if you vote for this amendment, what you are doing is taking a chance that credit unions will have irreparable damage done to them. So I am going to urge my colleagues to support the motion to table Senator Shelby's legislative effort. As well intended as it may be, it should not be here.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 10 minutes of additional time be granted, and if the Senator from Texas would yield, we could take it out of our time. The Republicans would get 10 minutes equally divided. I see the Senator from Kansas who has been here 2 hours. Senator Thurmond has come to the floor and 2 other Members are here. If we can divide 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side, I make that request.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I would like to take up to 5 minutes. I support the Senator's efforts, the efforts of the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm. As strenuously as I have argued against the inclusion of legislation that would affect community banks and CRA, I do not believe this is the time for us to go forward and place the same CRA provisions, which are so controversial as they relate to community banks, on the backs of credit unions. We want to see that credit unions are soundly run. We want to protect the taxpayers. We want to see that credit unions can do their business, and that business is to make the small loans that others traditionally are not willing to make. I am going to ask that a letter from the National Credit Union Association, written by Robert E. Loftus, Director, Public and Congressional Affairs be printed in the Record in a minute, but I want to read this part out, relating to inquiries we made as to what obligations the CRA portions of our bill would require. He says, ``Our investigations have not produced any evidence that credit unions are guilty of redlining or other discriminatory practices.'' Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from Mr. Loftus dated June 1, 1998, be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, there is no evidence that people are not getting credit that they should be getting. This legislation is ill conceived, to place these burdens on these small credit unions and credit unions that are by their nature nonprofit and voluntary. I don't understand this. To paraphrase the statement that has been used often, ``This is a solution in search of a problem.'' We don't even have a problem and we are coming up with a solution. Let's look and see what the National Credit Union Administration says. These are the people who are going to draw the rules enforcing this vague open-ended legislation. Listen to what they say about implementing the legislation that imposes the CRA requirements: This will be a time-consuming and difficult process, as the Board will have to agree on the meanings of terms such as ``periodically'' and ``criteria.'' This legislation, as it is written, is ambiguous. This is not the time for my colleagues to be putting this kind of legislation into law. This proposed legislation is wrong. The letter from the National Credit Union Administration goes on and says: . . . after a public comment period which will run for several months. Staff expects that developing the community service regulation will be the most challenging part of implementing H.R. 1151. My gosh, there you have the people who are going to administer these CRA provisions, as well-intentioned as they might be, saying that developing the community service regulation will be the most challenging part of implementing H.R. 1151. The National Credit Union Administration is saying that this is going to be the most difficult part of the law. Furthermore, there is no community service problem that is outstanding. I don't think we want to engage in this type of legislation. Last but not least, let me say what we should be doing and what the administrator of the credit unions, the National Credit Union Administration, should be doing is concentrating on seeing to it that those few credit unions that may have trouble with their capital standards, et cetera, are subject to the prompt corrective action provisions in the bill so that the taxpayers are protected. Let's protect the taxpayers, and let's see to it that credit unions do what they have done best, and that is to be available to the community that often has had difficulty getting credit. That is what this is about. That is what this legislation should be about. As strongly as I am opposed to an attempt to strip out CRA from community banks, it is ill conceived to place these kinds of legislative prerogatives and requirements on credit unions that are not even adequately defined and that the National Credit Union Administration itself says will be the most difficult to undertake. I yield the floor.

Mr. D'AMATO. I am moving to table this amendment because we have had for years no limitations on credit unions and their loans commercially. And, by the way, with all that with no limitations, only 1.3 percent were made for commercial purposes. Now we impose 12.25 percent. We limit them. And to say that we are not doing something when we place restrictions on them and you want to go further, I think this is wrong, it is ill conceived, and that is why I will move to table. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to table. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to take time out of our busy schedule to recognize the bravery and valor of U.S. Capitol Police Officers John M. Gibson and Jacob J. Chestnut. These two fine officers were killed in the line of duty while protecting our Nation's Capitol building and protecting those who pass through this great building. They died fulfilling their sworn duty to protect the public, and they did so in an exemplary way. They are heroes who saved many lives by their actions. I remember a period of time after the World Trade Center bombing in New York in 1993 when law enforcement officials informed me of threats against my life. The Capitol Police quickly formed a detail for my protection. Officer Gibson was a member of this detail. I feel a personal loss. This man was willing to lay down his life for mine and, in fact, he did for others. Tomorrow we will pay homage to their memory as they lay in honor beneath the majestic Rotunda in the very building in which they gave their lives to protect. The thoughts and prayers of this great body, as well as that of the Nation, goes out to the families and friends of Officers Gibson and Chestnut.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Government Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia to meet on Monday, July 27, 1998, at 3:00 p.m. for a hearing entitled ``Keeping the Nation's Capital Safe.''

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on July 27, 1998 at 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate The Women's Motorcyclist Foundation, Inc. for their continued efforts in the battle against breast cancer. The fight against breast cancer is one that everyone must join in together. Unfortunately, Mr. President, New York has one of the highest incidence rates of breast cancer in the country. Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women with over 2.6 million living with it presently in the United States. The Women's Motorcyclist Foundation has taken an active role in trying to solve this problem by sponsoring a nation wide tour across 44 states and fifty major metropolitan areas in an event known as the Pony Express Tour. The women cyclists began as a group to inspire other women to take up the avocation of and interest in the motorcycling industry. As the organization grew, the foundation decided to enlarge its perspective by voting in 1992 to use its collective passion for motorcycling as a vehicle to raise money for breast cancer research. It was further decided that the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation would be the main recipient of the Foundation's efforts. The Komen Foundation is the largest private organization in the world whose sole aim is eradicating breast cancer. The Women's Motorcyclist Foundation is comprised of a large number of national, international and independent clubs and associations. Each organization provides the particular activities, values, character and personality that works for its particular membership. Having always been a non-profit organization, it has recently evolved into a tax- exempt charitable organization. The Women's Motorcyclist Foundation is presently articulating its Mission Statement through activities to raise money for the Komen Foundation. During the summer of 1993, the Foundation participated in the Women's Arctic Tour and raised $25,000 for the Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. Then, in 1996, these women raised 12 times that amount when they rode across the nation in the Pony Express Tour. The Pony Express Tour '98 has set a goal of $500,000 for the 500,000 lives that will be lost to this deadly disease in just this decade. The Women's Motorcyclist Foundation has also been recognized with two national awards. The American Motorcyclist Association and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation both honored them for their positive contributions and dedication to a cure. The Women's Motorcyclist Foundation is to be commended for their dedication and desire to find a cure for this deadly disease. It is through their concentrated efforts that they provide both the money and awareness to American women in the fight against breast cancer. I am extremely proud of The Women's Motorcyclist Foundation's commitment and I encourage other organizations and associations throughout the country to search for innovative ways of not only providing funds for breast cancer research, but information and awareness to women of all ages so that we may be able to detect this cancer in its earliest stages.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. D'AMATO

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that staff of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be permitted access to the floor during consideration of this bill.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, today, we consider H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act, which is critical legislation. It is legislation necessary to preserve the ability of all Americans to join the credit union of their choice, and to ensure that 73 million Americans who are currently members of a credit union in no way have their membership status jeopardized. Credit unions work, Mr. President. They work for working families, they work for the little guy. And in their hour of gravest need, it is time for Congress to work for them. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation as enthusiastically as our friends in the House did-- by an overwhelming vote of 411-8. I am confident that we will act to preserve the rights of all Americans to join credit unions now and into the future. Mr. President, this legislation was crafted in response to a Supreme Court ruling that was decided on a very narrow legal point, handed down on February 25 of this year. That ruling placed 20 million Americans in immediate jeopardy and tens of millions of others of being kicked out of the credit unions they belong to. Who are these Americans? They are small business employees and small business owners, low- and moderate- income earners, farmers, laborers, church members--the hard-working American men and women who have a right to affordable financial services as much as anyone else. For decades, the American dream has been made a reality by credit unions. These cooperatives reach out to individuals, associations and communities who have had the door slammed in their faces by other financial institutions. Make no mistake about it, Mr. President, the economy, while strong today, the economy--such that people can get loans for a variety of reasons--may not always be that strong. I hope it is. But if history is any reminder of what may be in the future, there will be difficult times. It has always been the credit union that has given to the little guy, the forgotten middle class--I don't mean little in terms of size and not as a pejorative, but indeed I am talking about the backbone of this country--the opportunity to look his or her neighbor in the eye, who knows that they are good and who knows they will work to pay back that loan, as opposed to somebody 2,000 miles away who doesn't even see that person, who gets an application, who views it in terms of what the income is or the fact that the person is out of work, or the fact that the person has a small farm and is running against tough times and says, no, and turns them down. It has traditionally been the credit union neighbor, knowing a neighbor employee, working next to his co-employee, recognizing their needs, making that money available so they can send their kid to school. It is one of the great strengths of this country, and it gives us economic diversity, it gives people choice, and it provides competition. There are those who do not like competition, who set up a whole series--almost a canard as to, ``Oh, no; credit unions are a problem.'' They are a problem, because they give people affordable opportunities to borrow at the lowest rates, because they don't pay income taxes. Why? They are not paying dividends out to people. Where do those moneys go? Those moneys go so that additional loans are available to their members. I love it. I think it is great. I think it really is Americana at its best. During good and prosperous times, we should not turn away and we should not create conditions that make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to serve the needs of our neighbors and our friends, and people in all of our communities. Mr. President, it is not good enough to say, ``I am going to vote for a credit union bill,'' and then attempt to fix a whole series of measures aimed at impeding the credit unions from doing their job. There are going to be some of my good friends and colleagues who are going to come here and say, ``We want to make it possible for others in the financial services area to recognize that we love them and we care for them,'' et cetera. There are going to be a number of amendments that are going to be put forth. Some of these amendments, and one in particular, one that would attempt to remove the Community Reinvestment Act from the obligation of community banks--if that is passed, that will spell a veto of this bill. I am not suggesting to you we shouldn't help community banks. I want to help them. Indeed, our President who presides today has come forth. I want to commend the Senator from Colorado for some very creative, long overdue actions to help community banks in the most positive way by seeing to it that they do not have unfair tax burdens placed upon them, by seeing that they have the opportunity to expand their board of directors or their shareholders, the number of shareholders, without falling into another taxable area. There are things we can do and should be doing. But we shouldn't be attempting to do them, in my opinion, on this bill because it clouds the issue of whether or not we are going to give credit unions the opportunity to continue to serve their people. Let me suggest this. Our Senate bill goes much further than the House bill to ensure the safety and the soundness of credit unions through tougher, more detailed provisions requiring a system of prompt, corrective action for federally insured credit unions. This is not a giveaway. This is not the same bill that came from the House. It is improved. It is tougher on them and fairer on them. We sat down and negotiated with them. We said to them that we are not going to place at risk the FDIC insurance for the American taxpayer. They agreed. The system is be patterned after the prompt corrective action provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. This is a different bill from the one that comes from the House. It is aimed at protecting our taxpayers. The Senate bill also includes for the first time capital requirements for all federally insured credit unions, including a risk-based capital requirement for complex credit unions. Together, these provisions represent the most significant legislative reform of credit union safety and soundness since 1970 when the National Credit Union insurance fund was created. We have included the enhanced safety and soundness provisions upon the recommendation of the Treasury Department following an extensive Treasury Department study placed in legislation by our colleague, Senator Bennett. These are basic, prudent approaches to successfully manage any financial institution that Congress has already applied to banks and thrifts. In the long run, it is the American taxpayer that we protect by assuring that credit unions reach and attain high levels of capital, or face restrictions with respect to their operations. Credit unions, no matter how small or how large, need a sufficient capital buffer to handle unexpected downturns in the economy and subsequent losses. The capital requirements in this bill will see to it that those goals are achieved. We all know how important prevention is, along with legislative oversight, when dealing with financial institutions. Credit unions are no different from other financial institutions when it comes to prevention and oversight. There are those who will say you are going in and giving to the masses. No. We responded to their legitimate concerns that they can continue business. But we have tougher end requirements as it relates to sound operation and oversight and the ability to close those down who may not be meeting their obligations. In 1991, the GAO issued an extensive study which detailed the recommendations for corporate credit union investments and capital ratios that were later adopted. These recommendations were also adopted by the NCUA. The failure of Cap Corp. in 1995 raised specific concerns about the interest rate risk that corporate credit unions were taking. Our committee held hearings in early 1995 and later reported out a bill, S. 883. In 1997, NCUA issued a comprehensive revision of the rules governing corporate credit unions to address concerns arising from the failure of Cap Corp. Mr. President, credit unions all over are now in solid shape, as concluded in the exhaustive study done by Treasury last year. The new safety and soundness provisions, as recommended by the Treasury Department, will further strengthen insured credit unions across the country and, in so doing, protect our taxpayers. Our legislation also goes much further than the House in placing for the first time significant restrictions on member business loans. We are going to hear something about that. We are going to hear that we should restrict loans that credit unions can make. While the House bill simply puts a freeze on current regulations and requires a study, our bill places statutory limits on the amount of total business loans available for credit unions. This is not a bill crafted to please all. This is a bill crafted to permit credit unions to do that which they do best--to make those loans, those personal loans to their members, and, yes, to meet the needs of the small businessmen. In the Senate bill, the total amount of outstanding member business loans of a federally insured credit union cannot exceed 12.25 percent of the assets of the credit union. Credit unions that become undercapitalized--that is, less than 6 percent of their net worth--are prohibited from making new commercial loans that would result in an increase in the total amount of member business loans outstanding. Credit unions that presently exceed the member business loan limits will be given 3 years in which to come into compliance. Mr. President, this is a pretty tough loan limitation, the first time. It is not in the House bill--never had any limitations on business loans. There are going to be some who genuinely feel that should be curtailed even further. I would suggest to go further would really do violence to the ability of almost 200 of the Nation's 1,500 credit unions that make these loans available today. It is unintended mischief that will take place if that legislation passes. I say ``unintended,'' Mr. President. Notwithstanding unintended, the consequences will not be fair and will be disruptive. These restrictions on business lending in our bill are real and they are meaningful, and together with the expanded safety and soundness provisions in title III of the bill, we will ensure that credit union business lending does not present any safety and soundness concerns. In a July 13 letter to the majority leader, Secretary Rubin has stated Treasury's position that the prompt corrective action in capital standard provisions in the bill represent an adequate response to any safety and soundness concerns about credit union business lending. Furthermore, I have a copy of the statement of the administration policy dated July 22, 1998, which states that there is no safety and soundness basis for additional business loan requirements. I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Rubin's letter and the Statement of the Administration Policy be printed in the Record.

Mr. D'AMATO. We need to act expeditiously on this legislation. I am deeply grateful to the Senate majority leader for making this time available so that we can go forward. Make no mistake about it, without the ability to add new members and new groups, the credit union movement would be fatally injured. I am convinced that we are going to move in a prompt way and that the legislation will pass by an overwhelming margin. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for 73 million Americans who now belong to credit unions, for the 20 million Americans whose current credit union membership is threatened, and for the 675 million Americans and small businesses who may be shut out, prevented from joining a credit union in the future. I certainly urge my colleagues to support and expeditiously act on this important legislation. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I would be remiss if I did not thank my colleague, the ranking member of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, for his outstanding contribution and leadership in helping to craft this legislation and to bring it to this point in a totally bipartisan fashion. We would not be here positioned to go forth on this legislation were it not for his outstanding leadership and that of a dedicated bipartisan staff, might I add, on the minority side. They have done an absolutely fabulous job in bringing us to this point. I yield the floor. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me just take a brief moment because I know the Senator from Missouri has been anxiously waiting to seek the floor. I thank my colleague from Colorado, a member of our Banking Committee, as well as the Presiding Officer, for their support not only in this endeavor as it relates to the credit unions but for our overall legislative efforts. Indeed, I believe that Senator Allard has offered in a most constructive way an opportunity to begin to give to the small business entrepreneur, and in this case the small community bank, an opportunity to create meaningful competition, to allow retained earnings to be held to avoid double taxation, and to make a very positive impact on financial modernization that will lead to greater competition and in the long run will expand the economy and the tax base for individual small banks, and as a result, benefit all of our citizens. This effort is not only a worthwhile endeavor, it is one that all of us should seek to support, Republicans and Democrats alike. Let me simply say this because I feel compelled to do so. I understand the frustrations of many of my colleagues as we debate the question of CRA and whether or not it should be a factor for small banks, whether it should be continued, or whether it should be modernized. Indeed, I think we should take a closer look at this issue, as Senator Allard has in terms of coming forth with his legislative proposal which addresses tax relief. The CRA amendment regarding small banks is a broad brush, shotgun approach for those who would support the effort of dealing with this issue in the context of a very important legislative matter. It beclouds the issue. Addressing this important matter of CRA for small banks now does not help in attempting to see to it that we remove barriers from honest competition, barriers that maybe should be removed and that we should address. But, I repeat, to bring it up in this form with the limited time that we have this Session will be disruptive to the overall effort. I ask all of my colleagues, my Republican colleagues in particular, and even those who have signed on and indicated support of the effort of the Senator from Alabama to help community banks, not to undertake it at this time. It actually distracts from the merits of their argument. It will prevent considering their concerns carefully and analyzing what can be done to ease these burdens, to assess if they really are burdensome and if so, in what way. So I am going to appeal to my colleagues--I appeal to them today; I will appeal to them on Monday--this is not the time to be going forward seeking relief that we will not have the opportunity to act on in any event. It will fracture our efforts on the credit union bill. It will at the least, the very least, bog down this effort. The House of Representatives will not accept the bill with this amendment. If they do accept it, then what will happen is that the bill will be a vetoed. Now what are we accomplishing? Why do we want to confuse whether or not we are really supporting credit unions with this attempt at dealing with another unrelated issue? That will only serve to hurt our efforts for credit unions. This Senator intends to support the motion of Senator Gramm of removing the CRA provisions from this credit union bill. But my gosh, if we are going to begin reaching far back through existing laws, without doing so in a meaningful way, then what I suggest what we are doing is purely mischief making. We want to be loved by all. We want to make everyone happy. I understand that. That is the nature of those in politics. But there comes a time when we have to take a stand and do what is right. Sometimes you can't have the adoration of all. Better to have the respect and to do what is right. I will be urging that of my colleagues, and particularly those who have concerns about the application of CRA on the community banks. Let's do what is right. I yield the floor. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I propound a unanimous consent request: That the pending Gramm amendment be temporarily set aside; I further ask that at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, July 27, the Senate resume consideration of the Gramm amendment, with 1 hour for debate equally divided prior to a motion to table; I further ask that the tabling vote occur at 5:30 p.m, with no second-degree amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote.

Mr. D'AMATO. I believe my colleague from Connecticut has a brief statement. I believe he has asked our other colleagues that he be recognized.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I think, as much as we will be returning on Monday to resume debate and consideration of the credit union legislation, which is so important, and which I believe will be adopted overwhelmingly, I urge any of my colleagues who might want to make statements that we will be available to receive those statements at this point. If not, it seems to me we will then be moving, at the request of the majority leader, to adjourn until Monday. So I am going to suggest the absence of a quorum and hope if there are any of my colleagues who would like to make their statements now, opening statements or observations, that they would do so within the next 5 to 10 minutes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I must say that in the areas in which my ranking member, friend and colleague, Senator Sarbanes and I have worked on in the Banking Committee, we have shared rather similar positions on--well, just about 80 or 90 percent of the issues we have addressed, whether it be on housing issues or mass transportation issues or issues regarding financial services. Indeed, I almost reluctantly come to the conclusion that this is not the appropriate time to undertake expanding CRA activities by prescribing them for credit unions. And just as I have cautioned my colleagues and friends-- most of them on the Republican side--that if we are to look at the benefits, and maybe some of the effects that are not beneficial which could be the unintended consequences of a well-intentioned law--and I have no doubt it is well-intentioned--it is my opinion, overall, that CRA has been beneficial in attempting to ensure that financial institutions that accept deposits from a particular area or community, direct some of those financial activities back into that community. Now, let us not kid ourselves. I think we are disingenuous if we would suggest that all institutions are sure to meet both a financial and moral commitment and balance both. Some of these financial institutions have to be conscious of their stockholders and conscious of doing business in our very competitive society. And I think that we would be less than candid if we were not to recognize that there have been institutions over the years that have directed their investment activities with almost a singular purpose--to bring to the bottom line the greatest profits that they can possibly derive, without attempting to help a community, to derive an investment strategy or portfolio that would only give them the highest possible return. I think it was as a result of looking at activities where communities and banks were gathering deposits from communities and giving little, if any, back and, indeed, engaged in the practice of redlining--and there have been studies, these practices are documented. The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston conducted a study that documented redlining practices in Boston, Massachusetts. And that is unfortunate, it is an outrage. But those are the facts. Consequently, Congress came forth and passed legislation--and it is the law of the land--that directs credit allocation to these areas that heretofore were not receiving it, whether they be the rural areas or whether they be in the inner cities. But let us not kid ourselves. Redlining was taking place, and it is, again, disingenuous for any of our colleagues to suggest that it was not. Maybe we should provide an opportunity for some of the smaller institutions that have an exemplary record--and indeed I am very conscious of the statements made in the 1997 Federal Reserve report, that there were only nine--only nine out of the thousands of community banks that were cited for inadequate investment, not meeting the goals of CRA. That is a great, great record. Maybe we could find a solution where there is a less frequent accounting or reporting process that would ease the burden, particularly for institutions that have demonstrated that they do care, that they have a concern, and that they meet their social responsibility. That is why CRA came about--to see to it that it was not just to get the highest yield every time, because Congress said, ``We insure these, and we think there should be some effort made at allocating credit, yes, in communities that might not otherwise be as attractive for investment purposes.'' That is what we are talking about. That is how CRA came about. So while I am sympathetic to the unintended burdens that may have been created, I also am appreciative of the fact that there have been billions of dollars as a result of this program that have been invested in rural areas, in rural America, and in urban centers that may not have otherwise benefitted from investment. This practice has, in turn, created profits, jobs, opportunity and hope for Americans that otherwise wouldn't be. Having said that, I am arguing on one side why we should not at this time be looking to simply wipe out CRA legislation affecting community banks. I am willing to discuss this matter, willing to hold hearings and willing to go forward and examine, What alternative solutions can ease burdens that may exist? But by the same token, regarding CRA-like implications for credit unions, I just believe it is wrong. We are talking about groups of people, cooperatives, who come together by their very nature. When we look at this matter more closely--Monday, I intend to look at the profile of the credit union member. I have to tell you, they meet the description when we try to encourage making available moneys and resources and to see to it, whether it be the community banks or all the financial institutions, that they become involved. And that is why they have come together. Their very profile, absolutely in terms of demographics, in terms of per capita income, meets the needs that we have tried to establish overall through CRA. I believe it is absolutely counterproductive to say to the very people of these cooperatives--nonprofit institutions, have moneys that go right back into that institution; it is their capital, not the individual who earns more, or takes out more, or a stockholder--that we then place this requirement on them when it has never been demonstrated to be necessary. Indeed a letter from the NCUA attests to that fact. I will just read part of this letter. It was written to Phil Bechtel, chief counsel for the Senate Banking Committee, June 1, 1998, signed by Robert Loftus, director of Public Congressional Affairs. It says, ``Our investigations have not produced any evidence''--any evidence--``that credit unions are guilty of redlining or other discriminatory practices.'' Given that history, let us move forward--I support this legislation, but I believe that the Senator from Texas is right in moving to strike this provision. I also strongly believe that, to those of my colleagues who want to give regulatory relief to the small banks and community banks, as well intentioned as they are, their efforts will absolutely do nothing but delay, bring about more confusion, and the charges that in their attempt to do provide relief to small banks, what they are really doing is trying to defeat this legislation. I think whether it is an unintended consequence or not, that is exactly how it is going to be portrayed. And I will say on the floor to my colleagues: Recognize what you are doing, recognize that you want to be loved by all. I think that the point can be made. I think we can fight for regulatory relief. There are times and places to do it. But this is not the time nor the place. If this was the last boat going out of town, then fine, we would do it. I think there are a couple other areas where I could suggest that my colleagues address this issue of relief for small banks, if they really want to see this legislation enacted. And it would be appropriate to undertake that, but not here, and not on this credit union bill. I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is here, and I know he wants to speak to this bill. I yield the floor. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.