Maxine Waters

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 minutes to accommodate those who have been waiting, and I think there is an agreement from the other side to do that.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jesse Jackson, Jr.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), whose district this incident occurred in. (Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse). (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on this bill, H.R. 1635. This bill requests the National Park Service, number one, to produce and disseminate appropriate educational materials to inform people about the Underground Railroad, provide technical assistance to the Underground Railroad Partnership, which includes individuals, Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector to ensure coordination. Thirdly, to create and adopt a symbol to be placed at all sites designated along the network known as the Underground Railroad. During perhaps the worst period in American history, the Underground Railroad emerged, an important historic coalition of black and white, religious and concerned citizens joined together to form the abolitionists movement. Many of the people involved in the Underground Railroad were called conductors. Many of them were former slaves. The conductors led other slaves out of bondage to freedom. They developed their own terminology to protect those persons involved in helping to secure freedom as well as the slaves. The slaves were known as packages or freight. The route from one safehouse to the next was called the line. The safehouses were called stations. Those who aided the fugitive slaves were conductors. The most famous of these conductors was Harriet Tubman. It is said that she personally conducted approximately 300 persons to freedom in the North. Reportedly, she even threatened to shoot any of her charges who wanted to turn back. She felt that moving forward or death was the only way to keep the locations of the stations secret. Without fear for her personal safety, Harriet Tubman would disappear for weeks at a time to provide safety for her passengers on the Underground Railroad. She did so even though she was hunted by slaveholders and slave hunters. Harriet Tubman worked closely with abolitionists such as John Brown and Germain Logan, Frederick Douglas, and countless other named and unnamed Underground Railroad supporters. After the outbreak of the Civil War, Harriet Tubman also served as a soldier, a spy, and a nurse. During the war, with her keen knowledge of the route from the south to Canada, she served as a guide to many black soldiers. The importance of our debate here today is to begin a coordinated effort to mark some of the many sites along the route of the Underground Railroad for generations to come. The work of assisting fugitive slaves along the Underground Railroad is a critical piece of our collective history. Before the Civil War, it is estimated that approximately 70,000 slaves escaped and made the journey safely to northern States and Canada and subsequent freedom through the Underground Railroad. It is my hope that the designation of the sites along the Underground Railroad, along with the educational programs and information that follows, will allow Americans of all walks of life to understand the important contribution to the history of the Underground Railroad. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and everybody that has been involved in making this a possibility.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, it is about time. The big money laundering bust successfully executed by the United States Customs Department is the kind of work that our government ought to be doing. Clearly we know that 70 percent of the cocaine and over half the heroin is imported by the multinational drug cartels, like the Colombian Cali cartel and the Mexican Juarez cartel. Finally, the money operations of these international syndicates have been successfully targeted. If we are to get drugs off the streets of our communities, South Central Los Angeles, East Los Angeles and other cities, we must capture, indict and convict the white collar criminals that run the drug trade's money laundering operations and not spend all of our time and resources going after the small time street level criminal. Without the ability to spend the profits of drug trafficking, the drug trade would come to a screeching halt. It is money laundering that keeps the drug trade going. But we must go further. We must also target the American banks who cooperate with foreign banks to launder drug money. Today I wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno to inquire about Citicorp/Citibank's involvement in the latest money laundering raid. Citicorp/Citibank is currently under investigation into its involvement with the drug money laundering activities of Raul Salinas, the former senior Mexican official and brother of former President Carlos Salinas. Citibank controls one of the three banks that was indicted just the other day in the money laundering case. Confia is one of three Mexican banks indicted in Operation Casablanca for systematic involvement in drug money laundering for the Juarez and Cali cartels. According to the Attorney General and Customs officials, they have been involved in massive money laundering for years. Confia's previous parent group, Abaco Grupo Financiero, was recently implicated in a major bank fraud case in which Abaco's chairman was sent to prison for defrauding investors of $170 million. During the same period, Citibank worked to acquire Confia in order to expand its position in the Mexican market. In August of 1997, Citibank signed a letter of intent to acquire Confia; this is the bank that is known to be trafficking and laundering money. They paid $45 million over the market value to secure control of Confia. Why? On May 11, 1998, Citibank took control over Mexican bank Confia and a week later guess what happened? Confia was indicted in this big drug raid. This is the bank that just was acquired by Citicorp and Citicorp acquired the bank at the same time that it was under investigation by the Justice Department for money laundering. I am interested in determining whether Operation Casablanca raises new questions about Citicorp/Citibank's banking practices. Today we learned that, in addition to that, $4.2 million was seized in this operation from an account in Bankers Trust in New York as part of further arrests and indictments. We do not know where this is going, and we do not know where it is going to stop, but there certainly are a lot of unanswered questions. I am pleased that this enforcement action appears to have been a success. However, we should not allow the indictment of the banks to stop at the border. They could not be successful without the cooperation of some of our American banks. We cannot allow our American banks off the hook. To that end, I am calling on Attorney General Janet Reno to look into the role of Citicorp/Citibank, Bankers Trust of New York and any other U.S. bank that is involved in this and related money laundering cases. Let me just say that this is a big discussion going on in this House. The Republicans have taken it up as a political issue in an election year. They would like to point their fingers at the Democrats and say, oh, you have not done enough. Let me warn the Republicans and the Democrats, this issue is not to be played with. This cannot be a short- term Band-Aid type look at these problems. Some of us have invested priority time in trying to get to the bottom of drugs in this country. Illegal drugs are destroying America. It is our greatest risk. I am saying to this entire Congress, we have got to be serious about the business of getting to the bottom of it. It is about time we look at big boys in high places and white collar criminals who are involved in money laundering. I submit for the Record the letter to Janet Reno that requires her to look further into this matter. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, May 21, 1998. Hon. Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Dear Attorney General Reno: As a senior member of the House Banking and Financial Services Committee, I read the reports of the U.S. Customs Service break-up of a major drug money- laundering operation with great interest. I congratulate all those involved in targeting the top levels of the Juarez and Cali cartels and their bankers and banks. I am encouraged to learn that the Attorney General's office and the Department of Treasury is starting to put more resources into targeting drug money laundering. Cutting the drug lords off from their profits is key to ending this deadly trade. However, a careful review of the situation raises additional, unanswered questions regarding the role of U.S. banks in this investigation. It is common knowledge that Citicorp/Citibank is under investigation, regarding its involvement with Raul Salinas' money laundering activities. We now learn that Citicorp's banking unit, Citibank, recently assumed management control over Confia--one of the three indicted banks in Operation Casablanca. In addition to the current indictment, which came after three years of undercover investigations, Confia's parent group, Abaco Grupo Financiero S.A., recently was implicated in a major fraud case in which Abaco's chairman was imprisoned last November for defrauding investors of $170 million dollars. While Confia was engaged in systematic drug money laundering for the Juarez and Cali cartels, Citibank signed a letter of intent to acquire Confia in August of 1997. Citibank took over control of Confia on May 11. These facts raise some serious questions about the relationship of U.S. based financial institutions to those implicated in this major money laundering case. 1. Did the acquisition of Confia by Citibank help facilitate money laundering by Confia? 2. Given what we know of the rampant money laundering activities by Confia, what was the responsibility of Citibank to exercise due diligence in the acquisition of Confia and did Citibank meet its burden? 3. Is the current investigation of the potential involvement of Citicorp/Citibank in Raul Salinas' drug money laundering activities close to concluding? 4. Are there any other U.S. financial institutions under investigation for money laundering activities? As Members of the House Banking Committee consider the implications of Operation Casablanca with regards to the integrity of our financial system, I would greatly appreciate a prompt response to these questions. Sincerely, Maxine Waters, Member of Congress.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill to support U.S. Customs' interdiction efforts with the latest high-tech equipment for detecting narcotics coming through commercial trade, although I am going to work to remove the anti-worker provisions the Republican leadership has stuck in this bill. The eradication of illegal drugs in our society is a number one priority of the Congressional Black Caucus. We put it in our priority statement over two years ago and we have been working very hard. I am pleased that the Republican leadership has finally gotten around to calling for funding the sophisticated antidrug technology that we possess. I was calling for this during the debate over fast track, when I put out a major report on the effect of NAFTA and other trade treaties on the increase of drug trade through commercial trucks and ships. Unfortunately, neither the Republican leadership nor the drug czar wanted to address the drugs and trade then. I could not even get the Republican Members of this House to accept a copy of the report that I put together talking about what was going on. I also introduced my legislation January 27, 1998, that calls for funding sophisticated high energy container x-ray systems and automated targeting systems for inspection of cargo at major border checkpoints. I am pleased that this bill will authorize these inspection systems. Some would say the Republicans stole my legislation, but whether they did or not, I am glad that they finally caught up. I must say I do have reservations about some of the provisions that have been stuck in the bill. I think it was in there because it was supposed to scare away people who are friends to organized labor, but we are not running from this. We will straighten it out in conference. The Senate put it in. They did it right. This provision that my colleagues on the other side have put in is just a poison pill, but I will support the bill and work to take that out. I want my colleagues to know we must commend this administration for the big money-laundering bust that just took place. I am going to know my colleagues are serious when they join me on the money laundering bill that takes some of the American banks into the 21st century.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise to voice my strong opposition to the Baker amendment. If passed, the Baker amendment would exempt more than 60 percent of all banks from the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act. This amendment is a frontal attack on the Community Reinvestment Act and has absolutely no place in this bill. The fact of the matter is the Baker amendment tries to solve a problem that does not exist. The new CRA regulations have already streamlined the exam process for small banks. Under the new rule, banks with assets of less than $250 million are no longer required to collect, report or disclose any data. Instead, examiners look at a small bank's loan-to-deposit ratio and distribution of loans across geography and income levels. Even though the new rule went into effect in January of 1996, the effect is already being felt. According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, over 80 percent of all banks covered by CRA qualify for the streamlined performance standards for small banks and thrifts. They also report that the actual time spent in community banks on CRA examinations have been reduced by 30 percent. To argue that small banks are still suffering under unfair burdens is absolutely preposterous. CRA works. The Community Reinvestment Act has been an extremely hard- fought reform of our banking sector that has brought over $400 billion in resources to poor and minority communities. This has meant the availability of critically needed lending for community, small business, and housing developments. That is why the friend of my colleague got some money. He lives in a community that had not been getting the money, and now he has got it. It has nothing to do with affirmative action. So we have a successful law. It should not be dismantled. Vote against this amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Financial Services Act of 1998. I am not opposed to the reform of our banking laws. However, I oppose this bill because it sacrifices the needs of the American consumer and underserved communities in order to benefit our Nation's huge banking securities and insurance industries. H.R. 10 undermines the Community Reinvestment Act. Many of us inside and outside of Congress have struggled to make financial institutions more accountable to the communities they serve. This bill weakens the CRA by allowing banks to shift assets to affiliates with no CRA obligation. H.R. 10 does not adequately protect consumers. The bill permits the unprecedented preemption of stronger State consumer protection laws. State banking laws that prohibit ATM surcharges or require the provision of low-cost bank accounts would be subject to Federal preemption. H.R. 10 allows the dangerous mixing of banking and commerce. H.R. 10 permits banks to merge with retail and manufacturing companies. This would undermine the critical role of banks as the impartial providers of credit and concentrate economic power in the hands of just a few institutions. None of the national consumer organizations support this bill, and neither do I. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 10.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would call for a review of the 1995 memorandum of understanding that currently exists between the Director of Central Intelligence and the intelligence community and the Department of Justice regarding reporting of information concerning Federal crimes. This amendment is very simple and noncontroversial. It calls for a review of the current memorandum of understanding to ensure that drug trafficking and drug law violations by anybody in the intelligence community is reported to the Department of Justice. Specifically, the review would examine any requirements for intelligence employees to report to the Director of Central Intelligence and any requirements for the Director to report this information to agencies. This information would be reported to the Attorney General. The review would be published publicly. This simple amendment fits well with the recent calls for a reinvigorated war on drugs. The need for this amendment, however, cannot be understated. One of the most important things that came out of the hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was an understanding about why we did not know about who was trafficking in drugs as we began to investigate and take a look at the allegations that were being made about the CIA's involvement in drug trafficking in south central Los Angeles and the allegations that profits from that drug trafficking was going to support the Contras. We discovered that for 13 years the CIA and the Department of Justice followed a memorandum of understanding that explicitly exempted the requirement to report drug law violations by CIA non-employees to the Department of Justice. This allowed some of the biggest drug lords in the world to operate without fear that the CIA would be required to report the activity to the DEA and other law enforcement agencies. In 1982, the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence entered into an agreement that excluded the reporting of narcotics and drug crimes by the CIA to the Justice Department. Under this agreement, there was no requirement to report information of drug trafficking and drug law violations with respect to CIA agents, assets, non-staff employees and contractors. This remarkable and secret agreement was enforced from February 1982 to August of 1995. This covers nearly the entire period of U.S. involvement in the Contra war in Nicaragua and the deep U.S. involvement in the counterinsurgency activities in El Salvador and Central America. Senator Kerry and his Senate investigation found drug traffickers had used the Contra war and tie to the Contra leadership to help this deadly trade. Among their devastating findings, the Kerry committee investigators found that major drug lords used the Contra supply networks and the traffickers provided support for Contras in return. The CIA of course, created, trained, supported, and directed the Contras and were involved in every level of their war. The 1982 memorandum of understanding that exempted the reporting requirement for drug trafficking was no oversight or misstatement. Previously unreleased memos between the Attorney General and Director of Central Intelligence show how conscious and deliberate this exemption was. On February 11, 1982, Attorney General French Smith wrote to DCI William Casey that, and I quote, this is what he said: I have been advised that a question arose regarding the need to add narcotics violations to the list of reportable non-employee crimes . . . no formal requirement regarding the reporting of narcotics violations has been included in these procedures. On March 2, 1982 William Casey responded: I am pleased these procedures which I believe strike the proper balance between enforcement of the law and protection of intelligence sources and methods will now be forwarded to other agencies covered by them for signing by the heads of those agencies. My colleagues heard me correctly.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment that is being offered for a meager 5 percent cut from the intelligence budget. I rise to support it because it makes eminently good sense. First of all, no matter what my colleagues say, those who are opposed to this amendment, those who can appear and rant and rave about why we should not only support the budget but be for more money for that budget, first of all, it has been said over and over again, the Cold War is over; the Soviet Union is no more. Where is this great threat to our country? Who can identify anybody in the world who is prepared to take on the United States of America? Someone alluded to Iran and alluded to China. Well, I can talk a lot about China. And if we feel they are such a great threat, why are we chasing them down, embracing them, running after them to do business with them, to be involved in trade activities with them? Let me tell my colleagues where the threat is. The real war that is being waged on America today is the drug war. Where is our great intelligence to tell us who the drug lords are and how they manage to continue day in and day out, week in and week out, to dump tons of drugs into this Nation that finds its way into our cities and our rural communities, addicting our children, creating more crimes, with people who get addicted and are looking for ways to support those habits. Why cannot this intelligence community tell us who these drug lords are? Why is it these cartels can continue to operate without any interference? It is so embarrassing to have our own Drug Czar go down to Mexico and wrap his arms around General Gutierrez Rebollo. And just a few days after he is down there talking about how great he is, this is our own drug czar, the drug czar was busted because he is connected to the Juarez cartel. Now, our Drug Czar was in the service. He is a general. He knows about the DIA, the CIA, and everybody else. But he goes down there, wraps his arms around him, talks about how great he is, he has known him for years; and he is the dope dealer. He is the one that is connected to the drug cartel. This is outrageous. It is embarrassing. And do not tell me how good the intelligence community is. It does not matter whether we are talking about Mexico or Peru or Colombia. Why cannot our intelligence community tell us about the heads of government and the leadership of those countries who are involved in trafficking drugs, at the same time we are giving support to them, we are showing up with them in every kind of cockamamie scheme, talking about we are helping to eliminate drugs, when the fact of the matter is, it is getting worse. If this intelligence community was about the business of dealing with any war, it would be the war on drugs. That is the war that is being waged on America. I am sick and tired of hearing that we cannot streamline, we cannot cut, we cannot do anything about the intelligence community. And there are those who just romanticize the intelligence community, those who think we cannot ask any questions, we cannot cut them, we cannot dare challenge them. It is outdated, long overdue for cuts and being streamlined. And yet we come to the floor, person after person, talking about how great it is, how we should continue to support it. Well, my colleagues know that I have been involved in this drug war for a long time, and they understand that the number one priority of the Congressional Black Caucus is to get rid of drugs in our society. We do not have any help from the CIA. As a matter of fact, we are still investigating the CIA and their involvement in drug trafficking. As my colleagues know, we just had a hearing, and I would like to thank our ranking member for embracing some of the ideas that I have, and in that hearing we are investigating what was the CIA doing when all the drugs were being trafficked in South Central Los Angeles and profits were going to fund the contras? Where were they? Well, I will tell my colleagues where they were. They were at the same place they were when they were in Southeast Asia, turning their backs on drug trafficking, even being involved in it, to have additional money. They like slush funds. It is not enough that we give them over $30 billion in this intelligence community. If we want an intelligence operation that is dealing with the real war, turn their attention to the drug war and maybe we will want to support them in the future.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and our ranking member and say to our ranking member that I really appreciate the fact that he has at least been able to listen to some of the ideas that I have brought to that committee. I know that the gentleman is, by far, one of the most knowledgeable in this area and that some of the things that I am raising are things that challenge conventional wisdom. But the gentleman has been very cooperative, and I appreciate it.

Ms. WATERS. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the fact that President Reagan's Attorney General and Director of Central Intelligence thought that drug trafficking by their assets agents and contractors needed to be protected has been long known. These damning memorandums and the resulting memorandum of understanding are further evidence of a shocking official policy that allowed the drug cartels to operate through the CIA-led Contra covert operations in Central America. This 1982 agreement clearly violated the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949. It also raises the possibility that certain individuals who testified in front of congressional investigating committees perjured themselves. Mr. Chairman, every American should be shocked by these revelations. Given the shameful history of turning a blind eye to CIA involvement with drug traffickers, this amendment seeks to determine whether the current memorandum of understanding closes all of these loopholes to the drug cartels and narcotics trade. At this time I know that there is a point of order against my amendment. The chairman of the committee is going to oppose this amendment, and so I am going to withdraw the amendment. But I wanted the opportunity to put it before this body so that they could understand that we had an official policy and a memorandum of understanding that people could fall back on and say I did not have to report it. Yes, I knew about it. We have a subsequent memorandum of understanding of 1995 that is supposed to take care of it. I am not sure that it does. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the following correspondence between William French Smith and William J. Casey: Office of the Attorney General, Washington, DC, February 11, 1982. Hon. William J. Casey, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC. Dear Bill: Thank you for your letter regarding the procedures governing the reporting and use of information concerning federal crimes. I have reviewed the draft of the procedures that accompanied your letter and, in particular, the minor changes made in the draft that I had previously sent to you. These proposed changes are acceptable and, therefore, I have signed the procedures. I have been advised that a question arose regarding the need to add narcotics violations to the list of reportable non-employee crimes (Section IV). 21 U.S.C. Sec. 874(h) provides that ``[w]hen requested by the Attorney General, it shall be the duty of any agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government to furnish assistance to him for carrying out his functions under [the Controlled Substances Act] . . .'' Section 1.8(b) of Executive Order 12333 tasks the Central Intelligence Agency to ``collect, produce and disseminate intelligence on foreign aspects of narcotics production and trafficking.'' Moreover, authorization for the dissemination of information concerning narcotics violations to law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, is provided by sections 2.3(c) and (i) and 2.6(b) of the Order. In light of these provisions, and in view of the fine cooperation the Drug Enforcement Administration has received from CIA, no formal requirement regarding the reporting of narcotics violations has been included in these procedures. We look forward to the CIA's continuing cooperation with the Department of Justice in this area. In view of our agreement regarding the procedure, I have instructed my Counsel for Intelligence Policy to circulate a copy which I have executed to each of the other agencies covered by the procedures in order that they may be signed by the head of each such agency. Sincerely, William French Smith, Attorney General.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. The gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and his extreme right-wing friends are attempting to polarize and divide this Nation by pitting citizens of this country one against another. The gentleman from California would have Members believe that somehow whites are being disadvantaged by affirmative action and African Americans and Latinos and others are at a great advantage, and they are getting all of the slots in these schools. Let me give the actual numbers that we have not heard for the University of California. In 1997, out of 44,393 students on nine campuses, guess how many were African Americans? 1,509. There were 5,685 Latino students out of these 44,393. In 1988, 1,243 are African- American, and 5,294 are Latino students. This is with affirmative action, nine campuses. He gave some figures, and he told us about UC Riverside, but what he did not tell us was this: that black undergraduate admissions dropped 66 percent in UC Berkeley, 43 percent at UCLA, 46 percent at UC San Diego, and 36 percent at UC Davis. These are the prestigious campuses. Latino undergraduate admissions dropped by 40 percent at UC Berkeley, 33 percent at UCLA, 20 percent at UC San Diego, and 31 percent at UC Davis. The gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and his supporters mischaracterized the admissions process and its reliance on race. Colleges and universities have always looked at a variety of factors, test scores, race, out-of-classroom experience, percentage achievement, and life challenges to determine who to admit to their institutions.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, firstly, I am appalled at the disrespect that is being shown to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). It is an unwritten rule in this body to allow the leadership of the district to go to that person who represents that district. Not only is she being disrespected, but after she gives us the facts and the figures, then we have Members on the other side get up and talk about she is wrong and give other facts and figures. I am appalled at what you are doing, and I do not think for one minute that you care more about this district than the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. And let me say this, the gentlewoman is smarter than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and all the rest of them put together. How dare you question her ability to lead this District? Madam Speaker, everybody knows this has been a political ploy. Not only do we not believe you care more about these children than the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, we do not believe that, but do you expect to buy their education on the cheap? We heard what education costs in all of these districts and the surrounding ones. But you want to come with a mere $3,200 a year for 3 percent of the students and then say that the $7 million will not take away from the other students in the district. It is outrageous. I would ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), those who believe in this so much, try it in your own district, try it in your own district. Even though I do not support this kind of thing, this kind of subsidy to private schools and to religious schools, if they want it so badly, I will support it for their districts. I would ask my Members, please do not run over the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Do not disrespect this district. Do not be bullies on this issue. We know that you are stepping on the District in every way that you can. They are down. It is difficult to fight. They do not have the power to stop you. You have the numbers. You can step on their backs. You can step on their necks. I would ask you to have a little decency. Give the right of representation to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Follow her lead and discontinue this madness. Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, if passed, H.R. 3717 would needlessly impose a permanent ban on the use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs even though they are scientifically proven to save lives and do not increase drug use. The research speaks for itself. Three comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature done by the United States General Accounting Office, the National Research Council, the Institute of Medicine and the University of California at San Francisco all found that needle exchange programs are an effective component of comprehensive community-based HIV prevention programs. In March 1997 the National Institutes of Health published a report which concluded that needle exchange programs did not cause an increase in drug use. In fact, needle exchange programs linked to drug treatment and other services actually led to a decrease in drug use. Mr. Speaker, we have got to get our heads out of the sand. The statistics speak for themselves. Thirty-three Americans are infected each day with HIV because of injection drug use. Nationwide, IV drug use accounts for more than 60 percent of the AIDS cases, over 70 percent of HIV infections among women of childbearing age, and more than 75 percent of babies diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. Every hour seven Americans are infected with HIV. Three of these seven are African- American. As many of us know, minorities are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS. While overall AIDS deaths have declined, AIDS is still the number one killer of African-Americans and Latinos between the ages of 25 and 44. The Congressional Black Caucus is committed to fighting the scourge of HIV/AIDS and drugs. We absolutely see no contradiction between supporting needle exchange and working to rid drugs from our communities. Let me say to my Republican friends, the Congressional Black Caucus made the fight of illegal drugs the number one priority for the 105th session. We have not been joined by those who claim they care about this issue. They better get on board and do something about the deaths that are occurring in this Nation. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this odious bill. This bill may as well be called the anti-Thelton Henderson bill. Republicans got upset with one Federal district judge's decision regarding proposition 209, and now they want to change the whole judicial process. These changes would make it possible to pick and choose with no justification. Thus, black judges, Latino judges, women judges would be challenged simply because of their color. The changes they propose are outrageous. They want to make it easy for racist and sexist judges to hear cases in civil actions. They want the Reagan-Bush appointed court of appeals judges to control the decisions about the constitutionality of State referenda issues. They want to restrict Federal district courts from enforcing rights laws if there are any fines involved. Now, after proposing all of that, the Republicans dangle the cameras in the courtroom provision as if to make a concession. Well, I am not falling for it. Now I wholly support the opening up of the judiciary. Cameras would help the public understand the justice system. But I will not sacrifice the integrity of the entire Federal judiciary for one good provision. This bill is unconscionable and unconstitutional. Tampering with the Federal justice system to get back at one judge's decision is petty and dangerous, and shame on my colleagues for pushing this bill, shame on all of us if we vote for it. I strongly urge a vote of ``no'' on H.R. 1252.

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion recently about credit unions. I submit for the Record recent remarks by Norman D'Amours, the chairman of the National Credit Union Administration, in which he discusses the proper role of the credit union movement. The Future of Credit Unionism (By Normal E. D'Amours) Good morning. It is always a pleasure and an honor to appear before so many dedicated credit union movement representatives. I thank Chairman Buck Levins and President Dan Mica and all of you for the opportunity to do so. It is also a pleasure to report that once again credit unions had an outstanding year and their financial performance continues to be magnificent. Both the NCUA and credit unions were closely examined by the U.S. Treasury Department last year and both emerged with their colors flying high. You can all be very proud of the success, strength, and safety of credit unions across the country. Although all of the statistical measurements are very positive and highly encouraging, we do face some serious challenges. For instance, you have heard much importuning from NCUA and others about the critical need to become Year 2000 compliant. It is difficult to overstate the importance of this issue and it requires our maximum attention. It is also difficult to overstate the importance of successfully responding to the bankers' attacks on our field of membership policies. You have heard, and will continue to hear, extensive discussions of these problems from me and others. But today, I want to talk about what I think is a more serious problem facing credit unions. It is more serious because it affects your ability to maintain the essential character of credit unionism in the United States of America. In my view, credit unionism in the U.S. seems to be drifting toward becoming a not-for-profit banking sector. We have seen this happen in other countries where credit unions have become little more than member-controlled financial institutions. Institutions that are virtually indistinguishable from mutual banks. Some in the credit union movement have advised me that this drift toward a banklike structure has already gone too far to be stopped. I don't believe that. It is not too late to stop this drift, but it will not be easy to do so. Changing course will require an honest acknowledgement of the problem. Stubborn denial serves no productive purpose. A thoughful decision is needed. I believe credit unions of all sizes and of differing memberships need to decide whether they wish to remain involved in the historical, philosophical and statutory mission of reaching out to people of small means. Whatever their own size, structure or membership characteristics, credit unions need to decide whether they wish to remain involved in the cooperative effort to reach out to empower the economically underserved. Indeed, whether they wish to continue operating in a cooperative atmosphere. It does not appear that these questions are being sufficiently acknowledged, debated, or discussed in the grassroots credit union movement. And in my view, it is unlikely that will happen until credit union volunteers reclaim their historic responsibilities and unambiguously reassert their role as full participants in the setting of credit union policy. Unpaid volunteers must demand a stronger voice in setting the direction of the credit union movement. This is necessary because in some instances professionals have taken a command of the movement that has effectively usurped the role that was intended for volunteers. The founders of this movement thought it absolutely essential that unpaid volunteers should set the tone. Friedrich Raiffeisen believed that volunteerism constituted ``. . . one of the most important principles observed by Credit Unions.'' Alphonse Desjardins agreed that the principle of volunteer participation was critical to credit unionism. He worked to spread credit unionism and served his credit union as president without taking any remuneration from the time he organized the credit union with a handful of dime and dollar deposits until he died in 1920, at which time its assets exceeded $1 million. Edward Filene and Roy Bergengren shared these views of volunteers. Certainly, no one is suggesting that competent and professional managers are not vital to credit union operations. They surely are. The point is that credit union founders understood the system needed a decision-making function as untainted as possible by self-interest and the drive for profit or personal enrichment. They knew that the course of economic decision-making will necessarily be different if the decision-makers have a financial stake in the outcome, be it profit or pay. It is surprising to observe how far we've strayed from this principle. While credit union directors are still volunteers who act unselfishly and take their responsibilities to heart, and we thank God for them, it is not uncommon to find professionals in control of policy. This is especially true in the big decision-making processes that affect the overall direction of the national credit union movement. These processes tend to be controlled by some trade group and other professionals with not nearly enough meaningful input from true volunteers. Let me be clear. I do not intend in any way to demean the importance and value of professionals to credit unions. I know that professionals both in trade groups and in credit unions are crucial to the economic success of credit unions and the movement. I know that thousands of them are as deeply imbued with the wonderful spirit of credit unionism as are volunteers. I've personally met many of them and admired their operations in both large and small credit unions. But professionals in the credit union world should not dominate policymaking to the virtual exclusion of volunteers. Credit unions deserve a system that includes strong and focused volunteer participation at the national and state decision-making levels. Such participation is needed to help set the system's objectives and help keep it on track. Unfortunately, that is not the way it seems to be working today. Instead, it appears that national or statewide decision-making in the movement today is almost totally professionalized. Just consider that there is not a single true volunteer serving on the CUNA Board, whereas a quota has been reserved to guarantee trade group professionals 25 percent of the membership on that board. When one considers that the credit union movement is overwhelmingly populated by volunteers, one must be amazed not only at this obvious lack of volunteer participation, but also at the failure of the democratic processes that should protect against such representational distortions. Ruth Witzeling, a long time correspondent for CUNA's Center for Professional Development, said it well a few years ago: ``Volunteers are one of our greatest strengths, one of the greatest and most visible manifestations of how credit unions are different.'' She is right, and the credit union founders were right. And that means it is the responsibility of the volunteers working closely with professionals to bring back into balance the structure of the credit union movement. More volunteer involvement could mean a greater emphasis on the social mission of credit unions. It is amazing how much subtle and not so subtle resistance can be provoked in certain quarters simply by pointing out the social mission to which credit unions were dedicated by their founders, their history, and by federal statute. There should be no resistance to this defining principle. Indeed, the fact is that credit unions are successfully doing exactly that sort of work today. Although for some reason they are not bragging about it nearly as much as they should. Alphonse Desjardins warned his contemporaries against ``the error of thinking and doing only dry business, forgetting the most important . . . social and educational aspect of credit unions.'' Edward Filene and Roy Bergengren also stressed the importance of the social mission of credit unions. Clearly these founders had something in mind beyond providing the best high tech financial system available and earning good salaries for themselves. And it was this core belief that found expression in the Federal Credit Union Act's reference to serving ``people of small means.'' I know from experience that a credit union regulator who speaks out about this social mission of credit unions will be criticized by some in the movement for going beyond the narrow concern of the safety and soundness of credit unions. Of course, such criticisms conveniently overlook the fact that credit unions, by statutory directive, have a specific social mandate to serve people of small means. To go beyond what Desjardins called ``dry business.'' And isn't it strange that while such attitudes exist within the credit union system, we hear the Comptroller of the Currency, leaders at the Federal Reserve System, and others in the banking world urging their constituents to become more active in serving inner cities and the underserved? Yet I am not aware that the banking sector has criticized their regulators for such importuning comments. And remember those regulators do not have the statutory social mandate that Congress has imposed upon the NCUA. It is regrettable that credit unions and their trade groups are frequently not perceived as being in the leadership of modern efforts to empower those who are financially underserved. Isn't that the function of credit unions? Why do some credit union people seem unwilling to warmly embrace this social element of credit union philosophy? I know that most of you are accomplishing that social mission. You are and you should be very proud of that. But there is much more that could be done by the credit union movement to reach out to the people who are financially underserved in order to help them bring themselves into the financial mainstream. It is not enough to demonize and attack bankers for their fees or for a lack of commitment to the underserved. It is what credit unions are doing that should be stressed, not what others are not doing. If credit unions lose sight of their social mission they will become indistinguishable from the not-for-profit banking sector. And that will cause credit unions to lose the support they now receive from consumer groups, from the U.S. Congress, and from the American public. That will, in time, bring about taxation and bank-like regulation which will further accelerate their transmutation into not-for-profit banks. If the credit union movement wishes to intentionally become more bank-like, more free market competitive, and down play its social mission, that is a course it has a right to take. A not-for-profit member owned banking system has a value that is well worth defending. But that decision should be a consciously deliberated one. It should not be the product of drift. In a truly democratic movement, those who disagree with such a course should have an opportunity to say ``no'' even if they are a minority. Those who disagree should have an opportunity to express their opposition to becoming a not- for-profit banking sector. Nor should anyone hesitate to raise these questions. Over the history of credit unionism, many prominent leaders have worried and spoken out about losing sight of purpose. Alphonse Desjardins, as we have seen, warned about falling into the error of doing only ``dry business.'' Ralph Swoboda, a recent CUNA President who helped launch the renewal process, said that the real threat he saw to the credit union movement ``. . . despite all the rosy numbers and the good growth, [is] the deterioration of commitment to credit union ideals and philosophy.'' Al Williams, who was a good friend of mine and a former beloved chairman of CUNA and whom this conference is honoring, said in a speech only ten years ago that ``Perhaps we've lost sight of our purpose . . . it's time for us to rededicate ourselves to the ideas that created the credit union movement in the first place. We can grow and pile asset upon asset, but if we forget who we are and why we're here, we will have failed.'' One year later in 1989, a 45 year credit union organizer and leader named Donald J. McKinnon said he thought credit unions were headed toward their ``last phase'' because: ``They have not kept purpose constant''. Some credit union leaders have complained to me that by quoting from our founders and early leaders, as I often do, I tend to freeze us in a horse and buggy financial world. Well the quotes I've just used really aren't ancient history. But I could have gone back nearly 2000 years to the New Testament. In Mark 8:36, it is said ``What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world yet lose his own soul.'' You simply must not allow credit unionism to lose its soul. If credit unions do not preserve their social mission of empowerment, what financial sector will be fully committed to giving all of America's citizens a fair chance to meaningfully participate in the American economic system? What financial system will dedicate itself to providing all Americans with a fair chance at becoming the masters of their own economic destinies? What financial institutions will reach out to liberate people of small means from the depressing burdens of unmanageable debt? And we have another problem today that goes to the soul of credit unionism, our field of membership policies. Field of membership policies present yet another area where critical choices must be made. Few would disagree that one of the most vexing problems confronting credit unions today is the rapid expansion of community chartering and the overlapping of occupational and associational credit unions. The bankers' early success in the At&T Family case and the resulting court injunction have driven this issue to a preeminence that has caused a division both on the NCUA Board and among credit unions. Some would like this question avoided in order to dodge the resulting controversy. That would be a mistake. If this question of overlaps is not thoughtfully resolved, we run a risk of causing serious damage to the basic cooperative nature of credit unionism and accelerating its metamorphosis into a not-for-profit banking system. I understand and respect that there are some who sincerely believe that competition among credit unions is good for the credit union member and therefore should not be restrained. While there is certainly some validity to that argument, it tends to downplay the fact that credit unions are quintessentially cooperatives. They are cooperatives both in their internal structures and in their inter-credit union operations. Unrestrained competition is by definition the antithesis of cooperation. After all, the legitimate objective of free market competition is to destroy competitors and steal their customers. Certainly a mild level of competition is not harmful, but unrestrained free market competition among credit unions is destructive and might encourage predatory practices. That would make it very difficult if not impossible for credit unions large or small to maintain the trust needed to effectively pool their assets, liquidity, operational skills and expertise. The breakdown of this inter-credit union trust and cooperation and the opening of unrestrained free market competition could especially hurt small and mid-sized credit unions. It could result in the cherry-picking of their more affluent members and a loss of mentoring and other benefits. An important effect of this could be the drying up of the liquidity pools smaller credit unions need access to in order to meet the needs of their members of small means. And there is yet another vexing question lurking in the background with regard to this issue of overlaps and unrestrained free market competition. If community expansions will permit the capturing of overlapped occupational or associational credit union members on the basis of a member's right to the best level of services available, then why should not charter applications by new or existing occupational or associational credit unions be allowed to identify the exact same membership field as an existing credit union, so long as their purpose is to provide better or more services to the members of the existing credit union? Is that where you want to go? This possibility is not a frivolous one. It is supported by the exact same logic that has recently caused a change in our approach to overlaps. And the NCUA Board has recently been denying exclusionary clauses even when the involved credit unions mutually and voluntarily agree to the exclusionary clause. If credit union field of membership overlap and exclusionary policies are going to be driven by the single goal of improving the quality and quantity of member services, then we must prepare for a bank-like survival of the fittest culture. In my view, the key ingredient needed for a proper resolution of these and other issues is a greater involvement by volunteers. The credit union movement has become much too thoroughly professionalized. Much too driven by economic interests and the profit of individuals. Volunteers need to reassert their proper roles and authority. How can this be done? Clearly, one possible means to that end is through volunteer organization. The object could be to give volunteers an equal voice by creating active, well funded organizations of credit union volunteers at the state and/or national levels. Professionals who believe in the social mission of credit unions and who are willing to work in full partnership with volunteers would be recruited and retained. Or perhaps true volunteers should insist on having a strong voice on the boards of all credit union trade groups. Any groups or associations of professionals that might exist independently might be required to interface with boards on which volunteers have a strong voice. Moreover, volunteers should insist on significantly increasing the amount of education and training they have access to. Volunteer education and training has not been given the overall attention it deserves. That maybe the result of volunteers not being sufficiently involved in the decision-making of trade groups that should be better focused on this issue. Those of you volunteers and professionals who can see over the horizon and who wish to avoid the bank-like destiny that has befallen credit union movements in other countries need to ponder these issues. I raise them today only to stir discussion and collegial cooperative action, not hostility. If the credit union system needs to correct its course, someone must act. These are decisions that should be made thoughtfully and deliberately. Whatever the ultimate fate of credit unions will be, it should be the product of a conscious choice not aimless drift. And volunteers must have an important voice in making that choice. Your conference theme this year makes clear your belief that the credit union movement has the ability to mold its own future. It is not too late to make the choices that will allow you to keep purpose constant. But the hour of decision is at hand. The right course, I believe, can only be charted with the collective wisdom and a proper partnership of both volunteers and professionals working together. To do nothing means a continued drift away from your founding principles. How will you choose?

Ms. WATERS

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.