WE NEED TO KEEP C.R.A. STRONG BECAUSE WE ALL BENEFIT FROM
           COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT. C.R.A. ESTABLISHES A SIMPLE RULE THAT
           DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS MUST SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITIES
           IN WHICH THEY'RE CHARTERED. IN A SAFE AND SOUND MANNER, THEY
           FORM PARTNERSHIPS WITH GROUPS AND CONSUMERS TO PROVIDE LENDING
           TO THOSE DENIED CREDIT. IN A SAFE AND SOUND MANNER, BANKS WORK
           WITH FAMILIES LOOKING TO ACHIEVE THEIR DREAM OF OWNING A HOME N
           A SAFE AND SOUND MANNER, BANKS LEND TO SMALL BUSINESSES TO HELP

           THEM GROW. IN A SAFE AND SOUND MANNER, BANKS LEND TO FARMERS
           WHO FALL ON HARD TIMES AND NEED SOME EXTRA HELP TO SURVIVE THE
           FALLING COMMODITY PRICES. FOR MANY CONSUMERS, C.R.A. HAS BEEN A
           LIFE SAFER -- SAVER. TO DENY THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF C.R.A., THE
           POSITIVE IMPACT THAT C.R.A. HAS MADE IN IMPROVING THE ECONOMIC
           HEALTH OF OUR COUNTRY IS SIMPLY TO DENY THE FACTS. THE C.R.A.
           HAS DELIVERED AN ESTIMATED ONE TRILLION OR FOR MORE AFFORDABLE
           HOMEOWNERSHIP AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. THE ROLE OF C.R.A. IS

           NOT TO BENEFIT THE MOST IMPOVERISHED NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR
           STATES; RATHER, C.R.A. CUTS ACROSS CLASS LINES, RACE LINES,
           GENDER LINES, PRACTICALLY EVERY HURDLE TO DISCRIMINATION TO
           PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR FAMILIES, SMALL FARMERS, FARMERS
           AND COMMUNITIES AND THIS LEGISLATION IN ITS PRESENT FORM
           ELIMINATES THAT. WHAT'S MY PROOF?
           ACCORDING TO THE STATISTICS, COLLECTED BY THE LOCAL INITIATIVE

           SUPPORT GROUP CORPORATION -- OR LISC -- IN 19 1997, LEND
           $LENDING TO MINORITY AND LOW-INCOME BOR ROARS IS ON THE RISE.
           SINCE 1993, THE NUMBERS OF HOME MORTGAGE LOANS TO
           AFRICAN-AMERICANS INCREASED BY 58%. TO HISPANICS BY 62%, AND TO
           LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME BORROWERS BY 38%, WELL ABOVE THE
           OVERALL MARKET N 1997, LARGE COMMERCIAL BANKS MADE $18.6
           BILLION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS. IN 1997, BANKS
           AND THRIFTS SUBJECT TO C.R.A.'S REPORTING REQUIREMENTS MADE

           $2.6 MILLION IN SMALL BUSINESS LOANS FOR A TOTAL OF $159
           BILLION, TWO-THIRDS OF ITS SMALL BUSINESS LOANS MADE THAT YEAR.
           MORE THAN ONE-FIFTH OF THOSE LOANS WERE MADE TO SMALL
           BUSINESSES AND LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME COMMUNITIES. EACH TIME
           I RETURN TO MINNESOTA MINNESOTA, I AM CONVINCED THAT C.R.A. IS
           WORKING. EARLIER THIS YEAR, AID CHANCE TO PRESENT AN AFWOORD A
           FAMILY WHO HAD ACHIEVED THEIR DREAM OF BECOMING HOMEOWNERS,
           RENEE AND LAURINE CABRINE WERE THE 750TH FAMILY TO PURCHASE

           THEIR HOME THROUGH A COMMUNITY GROUP ACORN AND A LOCAL BANK.
           RENEE AND LAURINE HAVE HAD TO MOVE OUT OF THEIR APARTMENT WHEN
           IT WAS CONDEMNED FOR REPAIR PROBLEMS. AS A RESULT, THEY MOVED
           IN WITH THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. THE CABRERAS BEGAN WORKING WITH A
           COMMUNITY GROUP, ACORN, IN THE TWIN CITIES AND WERE ABLE TO
           OBTAIN A LOW-INCOME LOAN THANKS TO A C.R.A. AGREEMENT. THERE IS
           NO DOUBT THAT C.R.A. THAT IS BENEFITED RENEE AND GLORI U.N. E.

           THEY'RE NOW PROUD HOMEOWNERS LIVING IN THE PHILLIPS
           NEIGHBORHOOD. MR. PRESIDENT, FROM THE NEARLY 170 MAYORS WHO
           HAVE SIGNED THEIR NAME IN SUPPORT OF THE PROGRESS THAT C.R.A.
           MAZED IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, THERE'S TREMENDOUS SUPPORT. AND
           FROM FAMILY FARMED AND RURAL ORGANIZATIONS, THERE'S TREMENDOUS
           SUPPORT. IN FACT, THE STORY OF EMPOWERMENT CAN BE SHARED BY
           EVERY GROUP WORKING FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF THEIR RIGHTS AND
           DESPITE ITS UNDENIABLE SUCCESS, THE C.R.A. IS UNDER ATTACK. S.

           900 WOULD BEGIN TO DISMANTLE ITS EFFECTIVENESS IN THE
           COMMUNITIES IT'S BEEN SO BENEFICIAL IN. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK
           TO TWO ANTI-C.R.A. PROVISIONS IN S. 900. FIRST, S. 900 CREATES
           A SAFE HARBOR FOR BANKS THAT HAVE MAINTAINED A SATISFACTORY
           C.R.A. RATING FOR THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS. THIS PROVISION WOULD
           PRACTICALLY ELIMINATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE
           C.R.A. PERFORMANCE OF A BANK AT THE TIME OF A MERGER
           APPLICATION. BANKS THAT HAVE RECEIVED A SATISFACTORY OR BETTER

           C.R.A. RATING FOR THREE YEARS CONSECUTIVELY WOULD BE DEEMED IN
           COMPLIANCE AND, THEREFORE, FREED FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF PUBLIC
           COMMENT ON THEIR APPLICATION. MR. PRESIDENT, PUBLIC COMMENT ON
           A PROPOSED MERGER IS AN ESPECIALLY USEFUL TOOL IN THE CASE OF
           LARGE BANKS SERVING A VARIETY OF MARKETS. IN SUCH CASES,
           REGULATORS EXAMINE ONLY A PORTION OF THESE MARKETS. SINCE
           PERFORMANCE IN SMALL COMMUNITIES IS WEIGHTED LESS THAN IN
           LARGER EARX PUBLIC COMMENT SOMETIMES PROVIDES THE ONLY MEANS TO

           TRULY EXAMINE THE COMMITMENTS OF A BANK TO ALL OF ITS COMMUNITY
           MEMBERS. SIMPLY PUT, PUBLIC COMMENT IS A CHANCE FOR COMMUNITY
           GROUPS AND CONSUMERS TO BRING TO LIGHT IMPORTANT INFORMATION
           AND THE FACTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED DURING THE REVIEW
           PROCESS. HOWEVER, THIS AVENUE FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE
           MERGER PROCESS IS SERIOUSLY UNDERCUT BY S. 900'S SAFE HARBOR
           PROVISION. THE ONLY WAY A CITIZEN COULD EXERCISE HIS OR HER

           DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS WOULD BE TO FIND A "SUBSTANTIAL, VERIFIABLE
           INFORMATION" OF NONCOMPLIANCE SINCE THE MERGING BANK'S LAST
           C.R.A. LAST EXAMINATION. THIS IS A VERY HIGH BURDEN. AND
           ESTIMATED 95% OF ALL BANKS ARE DEEMED C.R.A. COMPLIANT. AS A
           RESULT, THE VAST MAJORITY OF MERGERS WOULD BE EXEMPTED FROM
           PUBLIC COMMENT. SOME HAVE JUSTIED THIS UN UNDEMOCRATIC SAFE
           HARBOR AS A WAY TO PREVENT EXTORTION BY COMMUNITY GROUPS DURING
           THE MERGER REVIEW PROCESS. WELL, MR. PRESIDENT, IN AUGUST 1998,
           I WROTE A LETTER TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE REQUESTING A PUBLIC

           HEARING ON THE PROPOSED MERGER BETWEEN NORWEST CORPORATION
           BASED IN MINNESOTA AND WELLS FARGO COMPANY. I REQUESTED THAT
           SPECIAL ATTENTION BE PAID TO THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THIS
           MERGER WOULD HAVE ON THE PEOPLE AND THE COMMUNITIES WHO RELY ON
           NOR NORWEST'S SERVICES AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ACROSS THE
           STATE. I ASK MY COLLEAGUES, WAS THIS EXTORTION?
           I WAS NOT THE ONLY ELECTED OFFICIAL TO REQUEST SUCH A HEARING.
           A CONGRESSMAN, A STATE REPRESENTATIVE, AND VARIOUS COMMUNITY
           GROUPS DID AS WELL. WERE THEY GUILTY OF EXTORTION?

           THE TWO-DAY HEARING OPENED THE DOORS FOR 70 DIFFERENT GROUPS
           AND INDIVIDUALS TO PUBLICLY COMMENT ON THE STRENGTHS AND
           WEAKNESSES OF BOTH NORWEST AND WELLS FARGO WITH REGARD TO
           COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. REMTS FROM THE NAVAJO NATION, STATEWIDE
           NONPROFIT HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS AND MICROLENDING HOUSING
           ORGANIZATIONS ALL HAD THEIR CHANCE TO BE HEARD. THEY HAD THEIR
           CHANCE TO PUBLICLY CHALLENGE THAT'S MERGING ENTITIES TO REMAIN
           INVOLVED IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. DID THE THIS CONSTITUTE
           EXTORTION?

           NO ONE WAS PRACTICING EXTORTION BY REQUESTING A PUBLIC HEARING
           ON THE MERGER BETWEEN THESE TWO FINANCIAL GIANTS. NO ELECTED
           OFFICIALS OR NONPROFITS WERE DOING ANYTHING IMPROPER WHEN THEY
           PUBLICLY COMMENTED ON THE LENDING PRACTICES OF THESE TWO BANKS.
           WHAT THESE 70-PLUS GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS WERE PRACTICING WAS
           DEMOCRACY, USING S. 900. CITIZENS UNDER S. 900 WOULD BE
           DEPRIVED DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS UNLESS THEY COULD "SUBSTANTIALLY
           VERIFY A MERGING BANK'S NONCOMPLIANCE." THAT'S NOT JUST

           UNDEMOCRATIC. IT'S UNJUST. AT LEAST THE DASCHLE-SARBANES
           AMENDMENT WOULD RETRAIN THE CONSUMERS' DEMOCRATIC RIGHT TO THE
           PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. THE SECOND ANTIH.C.R.A. PROVISION
           IN S. 900 IS THE SMALL BANK COMPEPG SHON THIS. WOULD EXEMPT
           BANKS IN RURAL COMMUNITIES WITH ASSETS OF LESS THAN $100
           MILLION FROM C.R.A. REQUIREMENTS T WOULD EXEMPT 63% OF ALL
           BANKS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF C.R.A. IT WOULD SEND A CLEAR
           MESSAGE TO FARMERS, TO SMALL BUSINESSES AND TO CONSUMERS IN

           SMALL TOWNS THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO CREDIT AS
           CONSUMERS WHO LIVE IN URBAN AREAS. SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD
           ARGUE THARLS SMALL BANKS N. AND RURAL COMMUNITIES DONTSG NEED
           C.R.A. THEY CLAIM THAT SMALL BANKS, BY THEIR NATURE, SERVE THE
           CREDIT NEEDS OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES. BUT C.R.A. COMPLIANCE
           RECORDS WILL TELL YOU A DIFFERENT STORY. MORE IMPORTANTLY,
           RURAL AMERICA IS FACING AN ECONOMIC CRISIS. FAMILY FARMS ARE
           DISAPPEARING ONE BY ONE FROM THIS COUNTRY'S RURAL LANDSCAPE.

           MANY RURAL COMMUNITIES ARE IN GREAT NEED OF ACCESS TO CREDIT
           BEFORE THEIR ECONOMIES COLLAPSE. THIS ANTIC.R.A. PROVISION
           COMPLETELY IGNORES THE REALITIES AND NEEDS OF RURAL AMERICA.
           ACCORDING TO A RECENT S.B.A. REPORT, SMALL BUSINESS
           ADMINISTRATION REPORT, JUNE 1998 DATA SHOW A 4.6% DECLINE IN
           THE NUMBER OF SMALL FARM LOANS. THAT JUNE 1998 DATA REVEALS
           THAT THE VALUE OF VERY LARGE MILLION TO FARM LOANS, OVER ONE
           MILLION, HAS INCREASED BY 25% WHILE SMALL FARM LOANS, UNDER

           $250,000, INCREASED BY ONLY 3.9%. AS FAMILY FAMILY FARM AND
           RURAL ORGANIZATION CONCLUDED, LARGER LOANS ARE GOING TO FEWER
           FARMERS. ACCORDING TO A SIMILAR STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE STATE OF
           WISCONSIN, FARMING OPERATIONS WERE MORE LIKELY TO OBTAIN A LOAN
           IF THEY WERE UNDER CONTRACT WITH AN AGRIBUSINESS. SMALL AND
           INDEPENDENT FARMERS FACED GREATER DIFFICULTY ACCESSING THE
           NECESSARY CREDIT TO REMAIN IN OPERATION. TO QUOTE AN APRIL 29
           LETTER, SIGNED BY 19 ORGANIZATIONS, REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS

           OF FARMERS AND RURAL COMMUNITIES, RURAL AREAS CONTINUE TO
           SUFFER FROM A SERIOUS SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. FARMERS
           ARE FACING THE WORST FINANCIAL CONDITIONS IN MORE THAN A DECADE
           DUE TO DECLINING COMMODITY PRICES. RURAL AMERICANS CONTINUE TO
           NEED THE TOOLS OF C.R.A. TO ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THEIR
           LOCAL LENDING INSTITUTIONS. C.R.A. HELPS TO MEET THE CREDIT
           DEMAND OF MILLIONS OF FAMILY FARMERS, RURAL RESIDENTS AND LOCAL
           BUSINESSES. IN A MARCH 24 LETTER TO SENATORS, THE NATIONAL

           FARMERS UNION ALSO SENT THE MESSAGE THAT RURAL AMERICA NEEDS
           THE C.R.A. JUST AS MUCH AS OUR URBAN CENTERS TO. QUOTE THE
           LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT, LEL AMENDMENT. N SWENSON, "THE
           COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT PROHIBITS RED REDLINING AND
           ENCOURAGE BANKS TO MAKE A AFFORDABLE MORTGAGE, SMALL FARM, AND
           SMALL BUSINESS LOANS. UNDER THE IMPETUS OF C.R.A., BANKS AND
           THRIFTS MADE $11 BILLION IN FARM LOANS IN 1997 P. C.R.A. LOANS
           ASSISTED SMALL FARMERS IN OBTAINING CREDIT IF FOR OPERATING

           EXPENSES, LIVESTOCK, AND REAL ESTATE PURCHASES. AND
           MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES ALSO BEN FRIT 23RDZ.8 BILLION IN SMALL
           BUSINESS LOANS IN 197. IN 1999 ACCESS TO CREDIT IS TIGHTER THAN
           USUAL MAKING IT CRITICAL TO MAINTAIN THE C.R.A. MR. PRESIDENT,
           FOR MANY CONSUMERS LIVING IN RURAL COMMUNITIES, HAVING ACCESS
           TO CREDIT IS HAVING ACCESS TO A FUTURE. OUR RURAL COMMUNITIES
           NEED C.R.A. BECAUSE THEY CAN DEPEND ON LITTLE ELSE IN TODAY'S
           AGRICULTURAL MARKETS. I AM STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE STRONG BANK

           EXEMPTION IN S. 900 BECAUSE I'VE WITNESSED FIRSTHANTEDZ
           IMPORTANT ROLE C.R.A. PLAYS IN RULE COMMUNITIES IN MINNESOTA.
           AT LEAST THE SARBANES-DASCHLE AMENDMENT WOULD REMOVE THIS
           HASHALFUL PROVISION FROM THE BILL. WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES, DO
           WE REALLY INTEND TO RETURN TO THE OLD BANKING PRACTICES OF
           RED-LINING?
           DO WE WANT TO LEAVE OUR CITIES, SMALL TOWNS AND FAMILIES
           WITHOUT A MEANS TO BECOME ECONOMICALLY STABLE AND STRONG?
           DO WE INTEND TO DRAW CLEAR LINE TWEENS THE HAVE'S AND THE HAVE

           NOT'S. IT'S BEEN NEARLY THREE YEARS SINCE THE PASSAGE OF
           WELFARE REFORM. SINCE THEN URBAN RURAL AMERICA HAS SEEN A
           DRAMATIC RISE IN THE NEEDS OF THE DESPERATELY POOR. MR.
           PRESIDENT, THAT'S RIGHT. SINCE THEN, WE'VE SEEN A DRAMATIC RISE
           IN THE NUMBER AND NEEDS OF THE DES PLATTELY POOR. WHY AREN'T WE
           TALKING ABOUT OTHER ISSUES ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE NIL EA
           GET BACK TO THIS IN A LITTLE WHILE. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO
           WITH C.R.A.?
           FRPGS. FAMILIES, NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS THAT ASSIST THE

           HOMELESS ARE RABEL TO ESTABLISH PARTNERSHIPS WITH BANKS TO
           ACCESS CREDIT AND BUILD AFFORDABLE EMERGENCY AND LONG-TERM
           HOUSING. COMMUNITIES ARE ABLE ASSIST FORMER WELFARE RECIPIENTS
           THAT DEVELOP DILAPIDATED NEIGHBORHOODS AND BRING MORE JOBS TO
           OUR URBAN CENTERS. OVER $1 TRILLION HAS BEEN INVESTORED THROUGH
           INNOVATIVE WAYS TO PROVIDE JOBS, COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION, TO
           STABILIZE ECONOMICALLY TROUBLED AREAS. C.R.A. HAS BEEN A
           MAINSTREAM BANKING PRACTICE FOR OVER 20 YEARS. IT'S EVOLVED
           OVER THE YEARS TO BETTER SERVE BANKS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND

           IT'S BEEN STREAMLINEED TO REDUCE REGULATORY BURDEN ON SMALL
           BANKS. THIS IS A LAW THAT HAS BEEN IMPROVED AND HAS GROWN TO
           BETTER SERVE BANKS AND SKURNLESE. A LOT OF BIG BANKS DON'T LIKE
           THE C.R.A. THEY FILETES EA AN IMPOSITION. THEY DENOUNCE IT AS
           "BIG GOVERNMENT" AND "OVERRELATION." BUT FOR MOST PEOPLE, I
           ASK, WHICH IS THE GREATEST DANGER HERE?
           CONCENTRATION OF POLITICAL POWER IN GOVERNMENT OR CONCENTRATION
           OF ECONOMIC POWER?

           I DON'T THINK IT'S A CLOSE CALL. I THINK OUR GOALS SHOULD BE TO
           HELP ORDINARY PEOPLE AND TO MIKE SURE THEY HAVE SOME DAY SAY
           OVER THE ECONOMIC SDHAIGSZ AFFECT THEIR LIVES. REPEALING C.R.A.
           ISN'T GOING TO DO THAT. NO MAST ANTIGOVERNMENT RHETORIC IS
           GOING TO DO THAT. BY ENFORCING SOME MEANINGFUL
           CONSUMERPPROXIMATELYS, IF WE DID THAT, THAT PROTECTIONS WOULD
           MATTER. SO WITH WOULD PROHIBITING MERGERS THAT THREATEN TO
           CROWD OUT COMMUNITY BANKING, SQUEEZING CREDIT FOR STPHAUL
           BUSINESSES AND OPEN THE DOOR TO HIGHER FEES AND EVERMORE FRAUD

           AND ABUSE. THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTALS PROBLEM WITH DEREGULATION
           AND ECONOMIC CONCENTRATION GENERALLY. IT ALLOWS THE NATION'S
           ECONOMIC POWER TO BE HELD IN THE HANDS OF FEWER AND FEWER
           PEOPLE. THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING IN MANY OF OUR OWN MAJOR
           INDUSTRIES INCLUDING AIRLINES,
{END: 1999/05/04 TIME: 15-00 , Tue.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}