[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               INTERSTATE BANKING EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1994

  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the 
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 384) to amend the Bank Holding Company 
Act of 1956, the Revised Statutes of the United States, and the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Act to provide for interstate banking and branching, 
as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3841

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Interstate 
     Banking Efficiency Act of 1994''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

               TITLE I--INTERSTATE BANKING AND BRANCHING

Sec. 101. Interstate banking.
Sec. 102. Interstate branching by national banks.
Sec. 103. Interstate branching by State banks.
Sec. 104. Branching by foreign banks.
Sec. 105. Interstate consolidations.
Sec. 106. Branch closures.
Sec. 107. Prohibition against deposit production offices.
Sec. 108. Federal Reserve Board study on bank fees.
Sec. 109. Restatement of existing law.

                       TITLE II--CRA EVALUATIONS

Sec. 201. State-by-State CRA evaluations of depository institutions 
              with interstate branches.
               TITLE I--INTERSTATE BANKING AND BRANCHING

     SEC. 101. INTERSTATE BANKING.

       (a) Interstate Acquisitions.--Section 3(d) of the Bank 
     Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1842(d)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(d) Interstate Acquisitions.--
       ``(1) Approvals authorized.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Board may 
     approve an application under this section by a bank holding 
     company to acquire, directly or indirectly, any voting shares 
     of, interest in, or all or substantially all of the assets of 
     any additional bank or any bank holding company located in 
     any State other than the home State of the applicant bank 
     holding company.
       ``(B) Concentration limits.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Board may not approve an application 
     under subparagraph (A) if--

       ``(I) the applicant (including all insured depository 
     institutions which are affiliates of the applicant) controls, 
     or upon completion of the acquisition would control, more 
     than 10 percent of the total amount of insured depository 
     institution deposits in the United States; or
       ``(II) the applicant (including all insured depository 
     institutions which are affiliates of the applicant) controls, 
     or upon completion of the acquisition would control, 30 
     percent or more of the total amount of insured depository 
     institution deposits in the State in which the bank to be 
     acquired is located.

       ``(ii) Waiver by state.--A State may waive the application 
     of clause (i)(II) to an acquisition in such State.
       ``(2) Applicability of state law to acquisitions.--
       ``(A) Inapplicability of certain state laws to 
     acquisitions.--Subject to paragraph (3), any acquisition 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) which has been approved under 
     this section may be consummated notwithstanding any law of 
     any State that would prohibit or otherwise limit such 
     acquisition on the basis of--
       ``(i) the location or size of the acquiring company or any 
     subsidiary of such company;
       ``(ii) the number of bank subsidiaries of such company; or
       ``(iii) any other factor that--

       ``(I) directly or indirectly, has the effect of prohibiting 
     or limiting the acquisition of shares or control of a bank or 
     bank holding company located in such State by an out-of-State 
     bank holding company; and
       ``(II) is not applied with similar effect with respect to 
     acquisitions of banks or bank holding companies located in 
     such State by bank holding companies located in the State.

       ``(B) Applicability of state law on the form of 
     acquisition.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this subsection and subject to clause (ii), any law of a host 
     State which--

       ``(I) is in existence on the date of the enactment of the 
     Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994 or is enacted after 
     such date; and
       ``(II) allows an out-of-State bank or bank holding company 
     to establish a bank in the host State only by acquiring an 
     existing bank in the host State,

     shall apply with respect to the establishment or acquisition 
     of a bank in the host State under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Applicability of provisions relating to minimum 
     period of existence of acquired bank.--In the case of any 
     State law referred to in clause (i) which is enacted after 
     the date of the enactment of the Interstate Banking 
     Efficiency Act of 1994 and requires the bank to be acquired 
     to have been in existence (as of the date of the transaction) 
     for a period of time greater than 5 years, such law shall be 
     applied under clause (i) by substituting `5-year period' for 
     such greater period.
       ``(3) Applicability of state law to interstate banking 
     operations.--
       ``(A) State taxation authority not affected.--No provision 
     of this subsection shall be construed as affecting the 
     authority of any State or political subdivision of any State 
     to apply and administer any tax or method of taxation to any 
     bank, bank holding company, or foreign bank, or any affiliate 
     of any bank or bank holding company, to the extent such tax 
     or tax method is otherwise permissible by or under the 
     Constitution of the United States of America or other Federal 
     law.
       ``(B) Applicability of deposit caps and antitrust laws.--No 
     provision of this subsection shall be construed as 
     affecting--
       ``(i) the authority of any State to limit the percentage of 
     the total amount of insured depository institution deposits 
     in the State which may be held or controlled by any bank to 
     the extent the application of such limitation does not 
     discriminate against out-of-State banks or bank holding 
     companies; or
       ``(ii) the applicability of the antitrust laws or any State 
     law which is similar to the antitrust laws.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) Antitrust laws.--The term `antitrust laws'--
       ``(i) has the same meaning as in subsection (a) of the 1st 
     section of the Clayton Act; and
       ``(ii) includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act to the extent such section 5 relates to unfair methods of 
     competition.
       ``(B) Deposits.--The term `deposits' has the same meaning 
     as in section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       ``(C) Home state.--The term `home State' means, with 
     respect to a bank holding company, the State in which the 
     total deposits of all banking subsidiaries of such company 
     were the largest on the later of July 1, 1966, or the date on 
     which the company becomes a bank holding company.
       ``(D) Host state.--The term `host State' means, with 
     respect to a bank holding company acquiring or establishing a 
     bank in a State other than such company's home State, the 
     State in which the bank being acquired or established is 
     located.
       ``(E) Insured depository institution.--The term `insured 
     depository institution' has the same meaning as in section 3 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       ``(F) Out-of-state bank holding company.--The term `out-of 
     State bank holding company' means, with respect to any State, 
     a bank holding company the home State of which is another 
     State.''.
       (b) Subsidiary Depository Institutions as Agents.--Section 
     18 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1828) by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(q) Subsidiary Depository Institutions as Agents for 
     Certain Affiliates.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any depository institution subsidiary of 
     a depository institution holding company may receive 
     deposits, renew time deposits, close loans, disburse proceeds 
     of loans, and receive payments on loans and other obligations 
     as agent for a depository institution affiliate located in 
     another State.
       ``(2) Depository institution acting as agent is not a 
     branch.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     depository institution acting as agent in accordance with 
     paragraph (1) for a depository institution affiliate shall 
     not be considered to be a branch of the affiliate.
       ``(3) Activities as agent.--Paragraph (1) shall not be 
     construed as authorizing a State depository institution to 
     engage in activities as an agent in which such institution is 
     not authorized to engage as principal under the laws of the 
     State in which such institution acts as agent.
       ``(4) Plan on meeting local credit needs.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a depository institution holding 
     company controls any depository institution which acts as 
     agent for another depository institution subsidiary of such 
     company pursuant to paragraph (1), the depository institution 
     holding company shall file a local credit needs plan with the 
     appropriate Federal banking agency for the subsidiary which 
     acts as agent before the date on which the subsidiary begins 
     acting as agent.
       ``(B) Local credit needs plan defined.--The term `local 
     credit needs plan' means a plan for meeting local credit 
     needs in the communities served by any depository institution 
     subsidiary (of a bank holding company) which acts as agent 
     pursuant to paragraph (1), which includes an estimate of the 
     extent to which the amount of the anticipated savings 
     attributable to the use of depository institution 
     subsidiaries as agents under this subsection will be 
     available to meet such local credit needs.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply after the end of the 12-month period beginning on 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 102. INTERSTATE BRANCHING BY NATIONAL BANKS.

       Section 5155 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 36) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (d) through (h) as 
     subsections (g) through (k), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(d) Interstate Branching by National Banks.--
       ``(1) Approvals of acquisition of existing branches 
     authorized.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4) and 
     subsections (e) and (f), after the end of the 3-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of the Interstate 
     Banking Efficiency Act of 1994, the Comptroller of the 
     Currency may approve an application to allow a national bank 
     to--
       ``(A) acquire a bank or branch located outside the home 
     State of such bank in a State in which the bank does not 
     maintain a branch; and
       ``(B) operate such bank or branch (including any branch of 
     such bank) as a branch,

     if the conditions established in paragraph (6) are met.
       ``(2) State `opt-in' election to permit interstate 
     branching through de novo branches.--Subject to subsections 
     (e) and (f), the Comptroller of the Currency may approve an 
     application by a national bank to establish and operate a de 
     novo branch outside the home State of such bank in a State in 
     which the bank does not maintain a branch if--
       ``(A) there is in effect in the host State a law that--
       ``(i) expressly permits all out-of-State banks to establish 
     de novo branches in such State; and
       ``(ii) applies equally to national and State banks; and
       ``(B) the conditions established in paragraph (6) are met.
       ``(3) State `opt-out' election to prohibit interstate 
     branching by acquisition of existing banks.--
       ``(A) In general.--An application by a national bank to 
     establish a branch in a State other than the home State of 
     such bank through the acquisition of an existing bank or 
     branch in the host State may not be approved by the 
     Comptroller of the Currency if there is in effect in the host 
     State a law which--
       ``(i) expressly prohibits all out-of-State banks from 
     acquiring a branch located in such State through the 
     acquisition of an existing bank or branch in the host State;
       ``(ii) was enacted during the period beginning on January 
     1, 1990, and ending 3 years after the date of the enactment 
     of the Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994; and
       ``(iii) applies equally to national and State banks.
       ``(B) Effect of prohibition.--A national bank whose home 
     State has in effect a prohibition described in subparagraph 
     (A) may not acquire or establish, under this subsection, a 
     branch located in any other State.
       ``(4) State laws requiring minimum period of existence for 
     acquisitions by out-of-state banks.--
       ``(A) Laws enacted before interstate banking act.--In the 
     case of a State in which a law is in effect which--
       ``(i) allows an out-of-State bank or bank holding company 
     to establish a bank in the host State only by acquiring a 
     bank or branch (in the host State) which has been in 
     existence for not less than the minimum time period specified 
     in such law; and
       ``(ii) took effect on or before the date of the enactment 
     of the Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994,

     an out-of-State national bank which has no branch in such 
     State may establish a branch in the State under this 
     subsection only by acquiring a bank or branch which has been 
     in existence for not less than the minimum time period 
     specified in such law.
       ``(B) Subsequent enactments.--In the case of a State in 
     which a law is in effect which--
       ``(i) allows an out-of-State bank or bank holding company 
     to establish a branch in the host State only by acquiring a 
     bank or branch (in the host State) which has been in 
     existence for not less than the minimum time period specified 
     in such law; and
       ``(ii) took effect after the date of the enactment of the 
     Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994,

     an out-of-State national bank which has no branch in such 
     State may establish a branch in the State under this 
     subsection only by acquiring a bank or branch which has been 
     in existence for not less than the lesser of the minimum time 
     period specified in such law or 5 years.
       ``(5) Early approval authorized if state law permits.--The 
     Comptroller of the Currency may approve an application under 
     paragraph (1) before the expiration of the 3-year period 
     described in such paragraph if the State in which the branch 
     is or will be located has in effect a law which expressly 
     permits interstate branching by all national and State banks.
       ``(6) Conditions applicable to the establishment or 
     acquisition of interstate branches.--The Comptroller of the 
     Currency may approve an application under paragraph (1) or 
     (2) by a national bank to acquire or establish a branch only 
     if--
       ``(A) the national bank is adequately capitalized (as 
     defined under section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act) as of the date the application is filed; and
       ``(B) the Comptroller of the Currency determines that--
       ``(i) the national bank will continue to be adequately 
     capitalized upon the consummation of the acquisition or 
     establishment of the branch; and
       ``(ii) on the basis of an evaluation conducted by the 
     Comptroller, the management of the bank has the necessary 
     management skills to manage the operations of the bank upon 
     the consummation of the acquisition or establishment of the 
     branch.
       ``(e) Provisions Applicable to Application and Approval 
     Process.--
       ``(1) Consultation with state bank supervisor.--In 
     determining whether to grant approval of an application under 
     subsection (d), the Comptroller of the Currency shall 
     consider the views of any appropriate State bank supervisor 
     of the bank which submits the application regarding the 
     bank's compliance with applicable State community 
     reinvestment laws.
       ``(2) Compliance with state filing requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--An out-of-State national bank that files 
     an application under subsection (d) to acquire or establish a 
     branch within a host State shall--
       ``(i) comply with any filing requirement of the host State 
     that--

       ``(I) is not discriminatory in nature; and
       ``(II) is similar in effect to any requirement imposed by 
     the host State on a nonbanking corporation from another State 
     that seeks to engage in business in the host State; and

       ``(ii) submit a copy of the application to the State bank 
     supervisor of the host State.
       ``(B) Penalty for failure to comply.--The Comptroller of 
     the Currency may not approve an application under subsection 
     (d) by an out-of-State national bank which materially fails 
     to comply with subparagraph (A) with respect to such 
     application.
       ``(3) Concentration limits.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Comptroller of the Currency may not 
     approve an application by a bank under subsection (d) if--
       ``(i) the bank (including all insured depository 
     institutions which are affiliates of the bank) controls, or 
     upon completion of the acquisition would control, more than 
     10 percent of the total amount of insured depository 
     institution deposits in the United States; or
       ``(ii) the bank (including all insured depository 
     institutions which are affiliates of the bank) controls, or 
     upon completion of the acquisition would control, 30 percent 
     or more of the total amount of insured depository institution 
     deposits in the State in which the proposed branch would be 
     located.
       ``(B) Not applicable to de novo out-of-state branches.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the establishment of a de 
     novo branch outside the home State of a national bank.
       ``(C) Waiver by state.--A State may waive the application 
     of subparagraph (A)(ii) to the acquisition of banks or 
     branches in such State.
       ``(4) Consideration of bank affiliates.--In determining 
     whether to grant approval of an application under subsection 
     (d) with respect to a proposed branch by a national bank 
     which, as of the date of the application, does not have a 
     branch in the host State (of the proposed branch), the 
     Comptroller of the Currency shall take into account the most 
     recent written evaluation under section 807 of the Community 
     Reinvestment Act of 1977 of each bank affiliate of the bank 
     which submits the application.
       ``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection and 
     subsections (d) and (f) the following definitions shall 
     apply:
       ``(A) Affiliate.--The term `affiliate' has the same meaning 
     as in section 2(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956.
       ``(B) Antitrust laws.--The term `antitrust laws'--
       ``(i) has the same meaning as in subsection (a) of the 1st 
     section of the Clayton Act; and
       ``(ii) includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act to the extent such section 5 relates to unfair methods of 
     competition.
       ``(C) De novo branch.--The term `de novo branch' means a 
     branch of a national bank which--
       ``(i) is originally established by the national bank as a 
     branch; and
       ``(ii) does not become a branch of such bank as a result 
     of--

       ``(I) the acquisition by the bank of an insured depository 
     institution or a branch of an insured depository institution; 
     or
       ``(II) the conversion, merger, or consolidation of any such 
     institution or branch.

       ``(D) Deposits.--The term `deposits' has the same meaning 
     as in section 3(l) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       ``(E) Home state.--The term `home State' means, with 
     respect to a national bank, the State in which the main 
     office of the bank is located.
       ``(F) Host state.--The term `host State' means any State in 
     which a national bank establishes or maintains a branch other 
     than the home State of such bank.
       ``(G) Insured depository institution.--The term `insured 
     depository institution' has the same meaning as in section 
     3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       ``(H) Out-of-state bank.--The term `out-of-State bank' 
     means, with respect to any State, a bank whose home State is 
     another State.
       ``(I) Out-of-state bank holding company.--The term `out-of-
     State bank' means, with respect to any State, a bank holding 
     company whose home State (as defined in section 3(d)(4)(D) of 
     the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956) is another State.
       ``(J) State bank.--The term `State bank' has the same 
     meaning as in section 3(a)(2) of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act.
       ``(K) State bank supervisor.--The term `State bank 
     supervisor' has the same meaning as in section 3(r) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       ``(f) Applicability of State and Federal Law to Interstate 
     Branching Operations.--
       ``(1) Certain state laws applicable to national bank 
     branches.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any branch of an out-of-State national 
     bank shall be subject to the laws of the host State with 
     respect to intrastate branching, consumer protection, fair 
     lending, and community reinvestment as if the branch were a 
     branch of a bank chartered by that State, except to the 
     extent any such State law is preempted by Federal law 
     regarding the same subject.
       ``(B) Prohibition on discriminatory effect.--
     Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a branch of an out-of-State 
     national bank shall not be subject to a State law described 
     in such subparagraph to the extent the Comptroller of the 
     Currency determines that the application of the law has, or 
     would have, a discriminatory effect on the branch in 
     comparison with the effect the application of such law has 
     with respect to branches of a bank chartered by the State.
       ``(C) Enforcement of applicable state laws.--The provisions 
     of any State law to which a branch of a national bank is 
     subject under this paragraph shall be enforced, with respect 
     to such branch, by the Comptroller of the Currency.
       ``(2) Treatment of branch as bank.--All laws of a host 
     State, other than the laws described in paragraph (1) or laws 
     pertaining to the application or administration of any tax or 
     method of taxation, shall apply to a branch (in such State) 
     of an out-of-State national bank in the same manner and to 
     the same extent such laws would apply if the branch were a 
     national bank located in that State.
       ``(3) State taxation authority not affected.--No provision 
     of this subsection or subsection (d) or (e) shall be 
     construed as affecting the authority of any State or 
     political subdivision of any State to apply and administer 
     any tax or method of taxation to any national bank, including 
     any branch of a national bank, any bank holding company which 
     controls a national bank, or any affiliate of any such bank 
     or bank holding company to the extent such tax or tax method 
     is otherwise permissible by or under the Constitution of the 
     United States of America or other Federal law.
       ``(4) State-imposed notice requirements.--A host State may 
     impose any notification or reporting requirement on a branch 
     established or acquired under subsection (d) if the 
     requirement--
       ``(A) does not discriminate against out-of-State banks or 
     bank holding companies; and
       ``(B) is not preempted by any Federal law regarding the 
     same subject.
       ``(5) Applicability of deposit caps and antitrust laws.--No 
     provision of this subsection or subsection (d) or (e) shall 
     be construed as affecting--
       ``(A) the authority of any State to limit the percentage of 
     the total amount of insured depository institution deposits 
     in the State which may be held or controlled by any bank 
     (including all insured depository institutions which are 
     affiliates of the bank) to the extent the application of such 
     limitation does not discriminate against out-of-State banks 
     or bank holding companies; or
       ``(B) the applicability of the antitrust laws or any State 
     law which is similar to the antitrust laws.''; and
       (3) in subsection (i) (as so redesignated by the amendment 
     made by paragraph (1) of this section), by striking ``The 
     term'' and inserting ``Branch.--Except as provided in section 
     18(q) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, the term''.

     SEC. 103. INTERSTATE BRANCHING BY STATE BANKS.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1811 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 44. STATE BANK BRANCHES.

       ``(a) Consent of Corporation.--
       ``(1) Establishment of branches.--No State nonmember 
     insured bank (except a District bank) may establish and 
     operate any new domestic branch without the prior written 
     consent of the Corporation.
       ``(2) Change of location of state bank offices and 
     branches.--No State nonmember insured bank (except a District 
     bank) may move the main office or any domestic branch of such 
     bank from 1 location to another without the prior written 
     consent of the Corporation.
       ``(3) Change of location of insured branch of foreign 
     bank.--No foreign bank may move any insured branch from 1 
     location to another without the prior written consent of the 
     Corporation.
       ``(4) Factors to be considered.--The Corporation shall 
     consider the factors enumerated in section 6 in making any 
     determination under this subsection.
       ``(b) Establishment of Foreign Branches.--
       ``(1) In general.--No State nonmember insured bank shall 
     establish or operate any foreign branch without the prior 
     written consent of the Corporation.
       ``(2) Conditions and regulations.--The Corporation may 
     establish such conditions and prescribe such regulations for 
     the establishment and operation of foreign branches of State 
     nonmember banks as the Corporation may determine to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(c) Interstate Branching by State Banks.--
       ``(1) Approvals of acquisition of existing branches 
     authorized.--Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4) and 
     subsections (d) and (e), after the end of the 3-year period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of the Interstate 
     Banking Efficiency Act of 1994, the appropriate Federal 
     banking agency may approve an application under this section 
     to allow an insured State bank to--
       ``(A) acquire a bank or branch located outside the home 
     State of such bank in a State in which the bank does not 
     maintain a branch; and
       ``(B) operate such bank or branch (including any branch of 
     such bank) as a branch,

     if the conditions established in paragraph (6) are met.
       ``(2) State `opt-in' election to permit interstate 
     branching through de novo branches.--Subject to subsections 
     (d) and (e), the appropriate Federal banking agency may 
     approve an application by a State bank to establish and 
     operate a de novo branch outside the home State of such bank 
     in a State in which the bank does not maintain a branch if--
       ``(A) there is in effect in the host State a law that--
       ``(i) expressly permits all out-of-State banks to establish 
     de novo branches in such State; and
       ``(ii) applies equally to national and State banks; and
       ``(B) the conditions established in paragraph (6) are met.
       ``(3) State `opt-out' election to prohibit interstate 
     branching by acquisition of existing banks.--
       ``(A) In general.--An application by an insured State bank 
     to establish a branch in a State other than the home State of 
     such bank through the acquisition of an existing bank or 
     branch in the host State may not be approved by the 
     appropriate Federal banking agency if there is in effect in 
     the host State a law which--
       ``(i) expressly prohibits all out-of-State banks from 
     acquiring a branch located in such State through the 
     acquisition of an existing bank or branch in the host State;
       ``(ii) was enacted during the period beginning on January 
     1, 1990, and ending 3 years after the date of the enactment 
     of the Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994; and
       ``(iii) applies equally to national and State banks.
       ``(B) Effect of prohibition.--An insured State bank whose 
     home State has in effect a prohibition described in 
     subparagraph (A) may not acquire or establish, under 
     subsection (c), a branch located in any other State.
       ``(4) State laws requiring minimum period of existence for 
     acquisitions by out-of-state banks.--
       ``(A) Laws enacted before interstate banking act.--In the 
     case of a State in which a law is in effect which--
       ``(i) allows an out-of-State bank or bank holding company 
     to establish a bank in the host State only by acquiring a 
     bank or branch (in the host State) which has been in 
     existence for not less than the minimum time period specified 
     in such law; and
       ``(ii) took effect on or before the date of the enactment 
     of the Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994,

     an out-of-State insured State bank which has no branch in 
     such State may establish a branch in the State under this 
     subsection only by acquiring a bank or branch which has been 
     in existence for not less than the minimum time period 
     specified in such law.
       ``(B) Subsequent enactments.--In the case of a State in 
     which a law is in effect which--
       ``(i) allows an out-of-State bank or bank holding company 
     to establish a branch in the host State only by acquiring a 
     bank or branch (in the host State) which has been in 
     existence for not less than the minimum time period specified 
     in such law; and
       ``(ii) took effect after the date of the enactment of the 
     Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994,

     an out-of-State insured State bank which has no branch in 
     such State may establish a branch in the State under this 
     subsection only by acquiring a bank or branch which has been 
     in existence for not less than the lesser of the minimum time 
     period specified in such law or 5 years.
       ``(5) Early approval authorized if state law permits.--The 
     appropriate Federal banking agency may approve an application 
     under paragraph (1) before the expiration of the 3-year 
     period described in such paragraph if the State in which the 
     branch is or will be located has in effect a law which 
     expressly permits interstate branching by all national and 
     State banks.
       ``(6) Conditions applicable to the establishment or 
     acquisition of interstate branches.--The appropriate Federal 
     banking agency may approve an application under paragraph (1) 
     or (2) by an insured State bank to acquire or establish a 
     branch only if--
       ``(A) the bank is adequately capitalized (as defined under 
     section 38) as of the date the application is filed;
       ``(B) the bank is authorized to establish branches in other 
     States under the law of the home State of the bank; and
       ``(C) the appropriate Federal banking agency determines 
     that--
       ``(i) the bank will continue to be adequately capitalized 
     upon the consummation of the acquisition or establishment of 
     the branch; and
       ``(ii) on the basis of an evaluation conducted by the 
     agency, the management of the bank has the necessary 
     management skills to manage the operations of the bank upon 
     the consummation of the acquisition or establishment of the 
     branch.
       ``(d) Provisions Applicable to Application and Approval 
     Process.--
       ``(1) Consultation with state bank supervisor.--In 
     determining whether to grant approval of an application under 
     subsection (c), the appropriate Federal banking agency shall 
     consider the views of any appropriate State bank supervisor 
     of the bank which submits the application regarding the 
     bank's compliance with applicable State community 
     reinvestment laws.
       ``(2) Compliance with state filing requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--An out-of-State insured State bank that 
     files an application under subsection (c) to acquire or 
     establish a branch within a host State shall--
       ``(i) comply with any filing requirement of the host State 
     that--

       ``(I) is not discriminatory in nature; and
       ``(II) is similar in effect to a requirement imposed by the 
     host State on a nonbanking corporation from another State 
     that seeks to engage in business in the host State; and

       ``(ii) submit a copy of the application to the State bank 
     supervisor of the host State.
       ``(B) Penalty for failure to comply.--The appropriate 
     Federal banking agency may not approve an application under 
     subsection (c) by an insured State bank which materially 
     fails to comply with subparagraph (A) with respect to such 
     application.
       ``(3) Concentration limits.--
       ``(A) In general.--The appropriate Federal banking agency 
     may not approve an application by a bank under subsection (c) 
     if--
       ``(i) the bank (including all insured depository 
     institutions which are affiliates of the bank) controls, or 
     upon completion of the acquisition would control, more than 
     10 percent of the total amount of insured depository 
     institution deposits in the United States; or
       ``(ii) the bank (including all insured depository 
     institutions which are affiliates of the bank) controls, or 
     upon completion of the acquisition would control, 30 percent 
     or more of the total amount of insured depository institution 
     deposits in the State in which the proposed branch would be 
     located.
       ``(B) Not applicable to de novo out-of-state branches.--
     Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to the establishment of a de 
     novo branch outside the home State of an insured State bank.
       ``(C) Waiver by state.--A State may waive the application 
     of subparagraph (A)(ii) to the acquisition of banks or 
     branches in such State.
       ``(4) Consideration of bank affiliates.--In determining 
     whether to grant approval of an application under subsection 
     (c) with respect to a proposed branch by an insured State 
     bank which, as of the date of the application, does not have 
     a branch in the host State (of the proposed branch), the 
     appropriate Federal banking agency shall take into account 
     the most recent written evaluation under section 807 of the 
     Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 of each bank affiliate of 
     the bank which submits the application.
       ``(e) Applicability of State and Federal Law to Interstate 
     Branching Operations.--
       ``(1) State laws applicable to branches of out-of-state 
     banks.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subsection (d), any branch of 
     an out-of-State insured State bank shall be subject to the 
     laws of the host State as if such branch were a branch of a 
     bank chartered by that State.
       ``(B) Activities of branches.--An insured State bank that 
     establishes a branch in a host State may not conduct any 
     activity at such branch that is not permissible for a bank 
     chartered by the host State.
       ``(C) Reservation of certain rights to states.--No 
     provision of this subsection or subsection (c) or (d) shall 
     be construed as limiting in any way the right of a State to--
       ``(i) determine the authority of State banks chartered in 
     that State to establish and maintain branches; or
       ``(ii) supervise, regulate, and examine State banks 
     chartered by that State.
       ``(2) State taxation authority not affected.--No provision 
     of this subsection or subsection (c) or (d) shall be 
     construed as affecting the authority of any State or 
     political subdivision of any State to apply and administer 
     any tax or method of taxation to any State bank, including 
     any branch of a State bank, any bank holding company which 
     controls any State bank, or any affiliate of any such bank or 
     bank holding company to the extent such tax or tax method is 
     otherwise permissible by or under the Constitution of the 
     United States of America or other Federal law.
       ``(3) State-imposed notice requirements.--A host State may 
     impose any notification or reporting requirement on a branch 
     established or acquired under subsection (c) if the 
     requirement--
       ``(A) does not discriminate against out-of-State banks or 
     bank holding companies; and
       ``(B) is not preempted by any Federal law regarding the 
     same subject.
       ``(4) Applicability of deposit caps and antitrust laws.--No 
     provision of this subsection or subsection (c) or (d) shall 
     be construed as affecting--
       ``(A) the authority of any State to limit the percentage of 
     the total amount of insured depository institution deposits 
     in the State which may be held or controlled by any bank 
     (including all insured depository institutions which are 
     affiliates of the bank) to the extent the application of such 
     limitation does not discriminate against out-of-State banks 
     or bank holding companies; or
       ``(B) the applicability of the antitrust laws or any State 
     law which is similar to the antitrust laws.
       ``(f) Coordination of Examination Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--A host State bank supervisor may examine 
     a branch operated in the host State by an out-of-State 
     insured State bank to--
       ``(A) determine compliance with host State laws regarding 
     banking, community reinvestment, fair lending, consumer 
     protection, and permissible activities; and
       ``(B) ensure that the activities of the branch do not 
     constitute a significant risk to the safe and sound operation 
     of the branch.
       ``(2) Enforcement.--If the State bank supervisor of a host 
     State described in paragraph (1) determines that there is a 
     violation of host State law concerning the activities being 
     conducted by a branch operated in such State by an out-of-
     State insured State bank or that the branch is being operated 
     in an unsafe and unsound manner, such host State bank 
     supervisor or, to the extent authorized by the law of the 
     host State, a State law enforcement officer may undertake 
     such enforcement actions or proceedings as would be permitted 
     under host State law if the branch were a bank chartered by 
     the host State.
       ``(3) Cooperative agreement.--The State bank supervisors of 
     1 or more States may enter into cooperative agreements to 
     facilitate State regulatory supervision of State banks and 
     branches, including cooperative agreements relating to the 
     coordination of examinations and joint participation in 
     examinations.
       ``(4) Federal regulatory authority.--No provision of this 
     section shall be construed as limiting the authority of any 
     Federal banking agency to examine any bank or branch of a 
     bank for which the agency is the appropriate Federal banking 
     agency.
       ``(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(1) Antitrust laws.--The term `antitrust laws'--
       ``(A) has the same meaning as in subsection (a) of the 1st 
     section of the Clayton Act; and
       ``(B) includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 
     Act to the extent such section 5 relates to unfair methods of 
     competition.
       ``(2) De novo branch.--The term `de novo branch' means a 
     branch of a bank which--
       ``(A) is originally established by the bank as a branch; 
     and
       ``(B) does not become a branch of such bank as a result 
     of--
       ``(i) the acquisition by the bank of an insured depository 
     institution or a branch of an insured depository institution; 
     or
       ``(ii) the conversion, merger, or consolidation of any such 
     institution or branch.
       ``(3) Home state.--The term `home State' means, with 
     respect to a State bank, the State by whom the bank is 
     chartered.
       ``(4) Host state.--The term `host State' means the State in 
     which a bank establishes or maintains a branch other than the 
     home State of the bank.
       ``(5) Out-of-state bank.--The term `out-of-State bank' 
     means, with respect to any State, a bank whose home State is 
     another State.
       ``(6) Out-of-state bank holding company.--The term `out-of-
     State bank' means, with respect to any State, a bank holding 
     company whose home State (as defined in section 3(d)(4)(D) of 
     the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956) is another State.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 3(o) of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(o)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(o) Definitions Relating to Domestic and Foreign 
     Branches.--
       ``(1) Branch.--The term `branch' means a domestic branch or 
     a foreign branch, except when such term is used in connection 
     with the term `Federal branch' or `insured branch'.
       ``(2) Domestic branch.--The term `domestic branch' includes 
     any branch bank, branch office, branch agency, additional 
     office, or any branch located in any State at which deposits 
     are received, checks are paid, or money is lent.
       ``(3) Foreign branch.--The term `foreign branch' means any 
     office or place at which banking operations are conducted and 
     which is not located in any State.''.

     SEC. 104. BRANCHING BY FOREIGN BANKS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5(a) of the International Banking 
     Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3103(a)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) Interstate Branching and Agency Operations.--
       ``(1) Federal branch or agency.--Subject to the provisions 
     of this Act and with the prior written approval by the Board 
     and the Comptroller of the Currency of an application, a 
     foreign bank may establish and operate a Federal branch or 
     agency in any State outside the home State of such foreign 
     bank to the extent that the establishment and operation of 
     such branch would be permitted under section 5155 of the 
     Revised Statutes if the foreign bank were a national bank 
     whose home State (as defined in subsection (e)(5) of such 
     section) is the same State as the home State of the foreign 
     bank.
       ``(2) State branch or agency.--Subject to the provisions of 
     this Act and with the prior written approval by the Board and 
     the appropriate State bank supervisor of an application, a 
     foreign bank may establish and operate a State branch or 
     agency in any State outside the home State of such foreign 
     bank to the extent that such establishment and operation 
     would be permitted under section 44 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act if the foreign bank were a State bank whose 
     home State (as defined in subsection (g) of such section) is 
     the same State as the home State of the foreign bank.
       ``(3) Criteria for determination.--In approving an 
     application under paragraph (1) or (2), the Board and (in the 
     case of an application under paragraph (1)) the Comptroller 
     of the Currency--
       ``(A) shall apply the standards applicable to the 
     establishment of a foreign bank office in the United States 
     under section 7(d); and
       ``(B) may not approve an application unless the Board and 
     (in the case of an application under paragraph (1)) the 
     Comptroller of the Currency--
       ``(i) determine that the foreign bank's financial 
     resources, including the capital level of the bank, are 
     equivalent to those required for a domestic bank to be 
     approved for branching under section 5155 of the Revised 
     Statutes and section 44 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; 
     and
       ``(ii) consult with the Secretary of the Treasury regarding 
     capital equivalency.
       ``(4) Requirement for a separate subsidiary.--If the Board 
     or the Comptroller of the Currency, taking into account 
     differing regulatory or accounting standards, finds that 
     adherence by a foreign bank to capital requirements 
     equivalent to those imposed under section 5155 of the Revised 
     Statutes and section 44 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
     could be verified only if the banking activities of such bank 
     in the United States are carried out in a domestic banking 
     subsidiary within the United States, the Board and the 
     Comptroller of the Currency may approve an application under 
     paragraph (1) subject to a requirement that the foreign bank 
     or company controlling the foreign bank establish a domestic 
     banking subsidiary in the United States.
       ``(5) Additional authority for interstate branches and 
     agencies of foreign banks.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), a foreign bank may, with the approval of the 
     Comptroller of the Currency, establish and operate a Federal 
     branch or Federal agency or, with the approval of the Board 
     and the appropriate State bank supervisor, a State branch or 
     State agency in any State outside the foreign bank's home 
     State if--
       ``(A) the establishment and operation of a branch or agency 
     is expressly permitted by the State in which the branch or 
     agency is to be established; and
       ``(B) in the case of a Federal or State branch, the branch 
     receives only such deposits as would be permissible for a 
     corporation organized under section 25A of the Federal 
     Reserve Act.''.
       (b) Continued Authority for Limited Branches, Agencies, or 
     Commercial Lending Companies.--Section 5(b) of the 
     International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3103(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Notwithstanding subsection (a), a foreign bank may continue 
     to operate, after the enactment of the Interstate Banking 
     Efficiency Act of 1994, any Federal branch, State branch, 
     Federal agency, State agency, or commercial lending company 
     subsidiary which such bank was operating on the day before 
     the date of the enactment of such Act to the extent the 
     branch, agency, or subsidiary continues, after the enactment 
     of such Act, to engage in operations which were lawful under 
     the laws in effect on the day before such date.''.
       (c) Clarification of Branching Rules in the Case of a 
     Foreign Bank With a Domestic Bank Subsidiary.--Section 5 of 
     the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3103) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Clarification of Branching Rules in the Case of a 
     Foreign Bank With a Domestic Bank Subsidiary.--In the case of 
     a foreign bank that has a domestic bank subsidiary within the 
     United States--
       ``(1) the fact that such bank controls a domestic bank 
     shall not affect the authority of the foreign bank to 
     establish Federal and State branches or agencies to the 
     extent permitted under subsection (a); and
       ``(2) the fact that the domestic bank is controlled by a 
     foreign bank which has Federal or State branches or agencies 
     in States other than the home State of such domestic bank 
     shall not affect the authority of the domestic bank to 
     establish branches outside the home State of the domestic 
     bank to the extent permitted under section 5155(d) of the 
     Revised Statutes or section 44 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act, as the case may be.''.
       (d) Home State Determinations.--Section 5(c) of the 
     International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3103(c)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Determination of Home State of Foreign Bank.--For the 
     purposes of this section--
       ``(1) in the case of a foreign bank that has any branch, 
     agency, subsidiary commercial lending company, or subsidiary 
     bank in more than 1 State, the home State of the foreign bank 
     is the 1 State of such States which is selected by the 
     foreign bank or, in default of any such selection, by the 
     Board; and
       ``(2) in the case of a foreign bank that does not have a 
     branch, agency, subsidiary commercial lending company, or 
     subsidiary bank in more than 1 State, the home State of the 
     foreign bank is the State in which the foreign bank has a 
     branch, agency, subsidiary commercial lending company, or 
     subsidiary bank.''.

     SEC. 105. INTERSTATE CONSOLIDATIONS.

       Section 18(d) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 
     U.S.C. 1828(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Interstate Consolidations.--
       ``(1) Consolidations authorized.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in section 3(d)(1)(B) 
     of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and notwithstanding 
     any other provision of Federal law or any provision of State 
     law (other than a law referred to in subparagraph (B)), a 
     bank holding company which has bank subsidiaries in more than 
     1 State may, with the prior written approval by the 
     responsible agency (as determined in accordance with section 
     18(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) of an 
     application and subject to the requirements of subsection 
     (c), combine 2 or more of such banks into a single bank by 
     means of merger, consolidation, or other similar transaction 
     in accordance with such subsection after the end of the 18-
     month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the 
     Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994.
       ``(B) Exception for states which prohibit the acquisition 
     of a branch by any out-of-state bank.--No bank which is 
     located in a State in which a law described in section 
     5155(d)(3)(A) of the Revised Statutes of the United States or 
     section 44(c)(3)(A) is in effect may be a party to a merger, 
     consolidation, or other similar transaction under 
     subparagraph (A) with any other bank affiliate of such bank.
       ``(C) Exception for certain banks acquired during 
     transition period.--No bank subsidiary of a bank holding 
     company, or any branch of any such bank--
       ``(i) control of which was acquired, directly or 
     indirectly, by such company after the end of the 18-month 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of the 
     Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994; and
       ``(ii) which is located in a State in which the company did 
     not control any bank or branch as of the end of such 18-month 
     period,

     may be a party to a merger, consolidation, or other similar 
     transaction under subparagraph (A) with any other bank 
     affiliate of such bank before the end of the 3-year period 
     beginning on such date of enactment, unless the State in 
     which the bank or branch is located is a State referred to in 
     section 5155(d)(5) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States or section 44(c)(5).
       ``(2) Effect of state prohibition on branching.--If a 
     branch which results from a transaction under paragraph (1) 
     is located in a State in which a law--
       ``(A) takes effect after the consummation of the 
     transaction;
       ``(B) is enacted during the period beginning on January 1, 
     1990, and ending 3 years after the date of the enactment of 
     the Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994;
       ``(C) expressly prohibits all out-of-State banks from 
     acquiring a branch located in such State through the 
     acquisition of an existing bank in the host State; and
       ``(D) applies equally to national and State banks,

     the branch shall be promptly converted back into a bank as 
     the bank existed before such transaction, in accordance with 
     regulations of the Federal banking agency or State bank 
     supervisor which had jurisdiction over the bank which was 
     converted into a branch.
       ``(3) Applicability of state and federal law to interstate 
     branching operations.--If a branch which results from a 
     transaction under paragraph (1) is the branch of a national 
     bank, section 5155(f) of the Revised Statutes of the United 
     States shall apply with respect to such branch.
       ``(4) State taxation authority not affected.--No provision 
     of this subsection shall be construed as affecting the 
     authority of any State or political subdivision of any State 
     to apply and administer any tax or method of taxation to any 
     bank subsidiary or additional branch resulting from a 
     consolidation or other transaction under paragraph (1) or 
     (2), any bank holding company which controls any bank or 
     branch resulting from any such consolidation or other 
     transaction, or any affiliate of any such bank or company to 
     the extent such tax or tax method is otherwise permissible by 
     or under the Constitution of the United States of America or 
     other Federal law.
       ``(5) Plan on meeting local credit needs.--The responsible 
     agency (as determined under subsection (c)(2)) may not 
     approve any application for any consolidation or other 
     transaction under this subsection unless the responsible 
     agency has considered a plan submitted by the applicant bank 
     holding company for meeting local credit needs in the 
     communities served by any bank subsidiary of the company 
     which is involved in the proposed consolidation or 
     transaction, including the extent to which the amount of the 
     anticipated savings attributable to the proposed 
     consolidation or other transaction will be available to meet 
     such local credit needs.''.

     SEC. 106. BRANCH CLOSURES.

       Section 42 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1831r-1) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Branch Closures in Interstate Banking or Branching 
     Operations.--
       ``(1) Notice requirements.--In the case of an interstate 
     bank which proposes to close any branch in a low- or moderate 
     income area, the notice required under subsection (b)(2) 
     shall contain the mailing address of the appropriate Federal 
     banking agency and a statement that comments on the proposed 
     closing of such branch may be mailed to such agency.
       ``(2) Action required by appropriate federal banking 
     agency.--If, in the case of a branch referred to in paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) a person from the area in which such branch is 
     located--
       ``(i) submits a written request relating to the closing of 
     such branch to the appropriate Federal banking agency; and
       ``(ii) includes a statement of specific reasons for the 
     request, including a discussion of the adverse effect of such 
     closing on the availability of banking services in the area 
     affected by the closing of the branch; and
       ``(B) the agency concludes that the request is not 
     frivolous,

     the agency shall consult with community leaders in the 
     affected area and convene a meeting of representatives of the 
     agency with community leaders in the affected area and such 
     other individuals, organizations, and depository institutions 
     (as defined in section 19(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Reserve 
     Act) as the agency may determine to be appropriate, to 
     explore the feasibility of obtaining adequate alternative 
     facilities and services for the affected area, including the 
     establishment of a new branch by another depository 
     institution, the chartering of a new depository institution, 
     or the establishment of a community development credit union, 
     following the closing of the branch.
       ``(3) No affect on closing.--No action by the appropriate 
     Federal banking agency under paragraph (2) shall affect the 
     authority of an interstate bank to close a branch (including 
     the timing of such closing) if the requirements of 
     subsections (a) and (b) have been met by such bank with 
     respect to the branch being closed.
       ``(4) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       ``(A) Interstate bank defined.--The term `interstate bank' 
     means a bank which maintains branches in more than 1 State.
       ``(B) Low- or moderate-income area.--The term `low- or 
     moderate-income area' means a census tract for which the 
     median family income is--
       ``(i) less than 80 percent of the median family income for 
     the metropolitan statistical area (as designated by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget) in which the 
     census tract is located; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a census tract which is not located 
     in a metropolitan statistical area, less than 80 percent of 
     the median family income for the State in which the census 
     tract is located, as determined without taking into account 
     family income in metropolitan statistical areas in such 
     State.''.

     SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DEPOSIT PRODUCTION OFFICES.

       (a) Regulations.--Before the end of the 120-day period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of the Interstate 
     Banking Efficiency Act of 1994, each appropriate Federal 
     banking agency shall prescribe regulations which prohibit any 
     person from using any authority to engage in interstate 
     branching pursuant to this title, or any amendment made by 
     this title to any other provision of law, primarily for the 
     purpose of deposit production.
       (b) Guidelines for Meeting Credit Needs.--Regulations 
     issued under subsection (a) shall include guidelines to 
     ensure that each interstate branch meets the credit needs of 
     the community and market area in which the branch operates.
       (c) Limitation on Out-of-State Loans.--
       (1) Limitation.--Regulations issued under subsection (a) 
     shall require that if the percentage of outstanding loans 
     made by an interstate branch to borrowers located in the host 
     State of, or market area served by, the branch is less than 
     half the average of such percentage for all Federal 
     depository institutions and State depository institutions 
     having their principal place of operations in the host State 
     or that market area--
       (A) the appropriate Federal banking agency for the branch 
     shall review the loan portfolio of the branch and determine 
     whether the branch is reasonably meeting the credit needs of 
     the community and market area in which the branch operates; 
     and
       (B) if the agency determines that the branch is not 
     reasonably meeting those needs--
       (i) the branch shall be closed, and
       (ii) the person which established the branch may not open a 
     new branch in that State unless the person provides 
     reasonable assurances to the satisfaction of the appropriate 
     Federal banking agency that the new branch will reasonably 
     meet the credit needs of the community and market area in 
     which the new branch will operate.
       (2) Considerations.--In making a determination under 
     paragraph (1)(A) regarding an interstate branch, the 
     appropriate Federal banking agency shall consider--
       (A) whether the branch was acquired as part of the purchase 
     of a failed or failing depository institution;
       (B) whether the branch has a higher concentration of 
     commercial and credit card lending; and
       (C) the ratings received by the branch in evaluations under 
     the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.
       (d) Application.--This section shall not apply to any 
     interstate branch acquired before January 1, 1992, as part of 
     any consolidation or merger of depository institutions.
       (e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Appropriate federal banking agency.--The term 
     ``appropriate Federal banking agency'' has the same meaning 
     as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       (2) Branch.--The term ``branch'' means any office, agency, 
     or other place of business located in any State at which 
     deposits are received, checks paid, or money lent.
       (3) Federal depository institution and state depository 
     institution.--The terms ``Federal depository institution'' 
     and ``State depository institution'' have the same meanings 
     as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
       (4) Host state defined.--The term ``host State'' means the 
     State in which a bank establishes or maintains a branch, 
     other than--
       (A) in the case of a insured State bank, the State in which 
     the bank is chartered;
       (B) in the case of a national bank, the State in which the 
     main office of the bank is located; and
       (C) in the case of a bank holding company, the State in 
     which the total deposits of all bank subsidiaries of such 
     company is the greatest.
       (5) Interstate branch.--The term ``interstate branch'' 
     means a branch established pursuant to the authority referred 
     to in subsection (a).
       (6) Principal place of operations.--The term ``principal 
     place of operations'' means the State in which the total 
     deposits of all bank subsidiaries of a person are greatest.
       (7) State defined.--The term ``State'' has the same meaning 
     as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

     SEC. 108. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD STUDY ON BANK FEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1002 of the Financial Institutions 
     Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1811 
     note) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 1002. SURVEY OF BANK FEES AND SERVICES.

       ``(a) Annual Survey Required.--The Board of Governors of 
     the Federal Reserve System shall obtain a sample, which is 
     representative by geographic location and size of the 
     institution, of--
       ``(1) certain retail banking services provided by insured 
     depository institutions; and
       ``(2) the fees, if any, which are imposed by such 
     institutions for providing such service, including fees 
     imposed for not sufficient funds, deposit items returned, and 
     automated teller machines.
       ``(b) Annual Report to Congress Required.--
       ``(1) Preparation.--The Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System shall prepare a report of the results of each 
     survey conducted pursuant to subsection (a).
       ``(2) Contents of the report.--Each report prepared 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include--
       ``(A) a description of any discernible trend, in the Nation 
     as a whole and in each State, in the cost and availability of 
     retail banking services which delineates differences on the 
     basis of size of the institution and engagement in multistate 
     activity; and
       ``(B) a description of the correlation, if any, among the 
     following factors:
       ``(i) An increase or decrease in the amount of any deposit 
     insurance premium assessed by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation against insured depository institutions.
       ``(ii) An increase or decrease in the amount of the fees 
     imposed by such institutions for providing retail banking 
     services.
       ``(iii) A decrease in the availability of such services.
       ``(3) Submission to congress.--The Board of Governors of 
     the Federal Reserve System shall submit each annual report to 
     the Congress not later than June 1 of each calendar year.''.
       (b) Sunset.--The requirements of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply after the end of the 7-year period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 109. RESTATEMENT OF EXISTING LAW.

       No provision of this title and no amendment made by this 
     title to any other provision of law shall be construed as 
     affecting in any way the right of any State, or any political 
     subdivision of any State, to impose or maintain a 
     nondiscriminatory franchise tax or other nonproperty tax 
     instead of a franchise tax in accordance with section 3124 of 
     title 31, United States Code.
                       TITLE II--CRA EVALUATIONS

     SEC. 201. STATE-BY-STATE CRA EVALUATIONS OF DEPOSITORY 
                   INSTITUTIONS WITH INTERSTATE BRANCHES.

       Section 807 of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (12 
     U.S.C. 2906) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) Institutions With Interstate Branches.--
       ``(1) State-by-state evaluation.--In the case of a 
     regulated financial institution which maintains 1 or more 
     domestic branches located outside the State in which the 
     institution's principal place of business is located 
     (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the `home 
     State'), the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency 
     shall prepare--
       ``(A) a written evaluation of the entire institution's 
     record of performance under this Act, as required by 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section; and
       ``(B) for each State in which the institution maintains 1 
     or more domestic branches (including the institution's home 
     State), a separate written evaluation of the institution's 
     record of performance within such State under this Act, as 
     required by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (b)(1) of 
     this section.
       ``(2) Content of state level evaluation.--A written 
     evaluation prepared pursuant to paragraph (1)(B) of this 
     subsection shall report the information required by such 
     paragraph separately for each metropolitan area (as defined 
     by the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency) in 
     which the regulated financial institution maintains 1 or more 
     domestic branch offices and separately for the 
     nonmetropolitan portion of the State if the institution 
     maintains 1 or more domestic branch offices in such 
     nonmetropolitan area.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Neal] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] whether she is standing in opposition to the bill 
before the House.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Speaker, the minority is in agreement.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill and would 
like to be recognized also.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] is 
entitled to control the time, and will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Neal].


                             general leave

  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and 
extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material, on H.R. 
3841, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], the very 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs.
  (Mr. GONZALEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, did a magnificent job steering and chairing this 
subcommittee and this very difficult legislation through successfully. 
I rise in support of the legislation.
  Madam Speaker, the House Banking Committee has considered and passed 
interstate banking and branching legislation many times in the past 
only to meet obstacles down the road. Competition among financial 
service providers, a divided banking industry, and other unrelated 
issues have previously spelled doom for such legislation. This year, at 
long last, all obstacles have been surmounted. H.R. 3841 takes an 
important step toward modernizing banking laws, allowing institutions 
to better diversify risks and serve customers nationwide. The 
legislation also contains safety and soundness safeguards and customer 
protections. I urge the House to pass this valuable piece of 
legislation and commend Chairman Steve Neal for his diligence in moving 
this legislation forward.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  (Mr. NEAL of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 3841, the Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994.
  There are many people to thank for their hard work in bringing this 
legislation to the House floor. I begin by commending Chairman Gonzalez 
for scheduling an early Banking Committee markup of H.R. 3841, and 
seeking rapid floor action after the Banking Committee approved the 
bill by a 50 to 1 vote.
  I also commend Mr. McCollum, the ranking Republican on the Financial 
Institutions Subcommittee, for all of his leadership on this issue.
  I thank Mr. Vento, whose hard work on this legislation in 1991 laid 
the foundation for interstate branching legislation this year.
  Lastly, I thank all those on both sides of the aisle who have agreed 
to forego offering floor amendments to H.R. 3841. I am very sympathetic 
to many of the issues my colleagues have raised, but I am afraid the 
past history of interstate branching legislation proves this is an 
engine that can carry very little freight.
  I do look forward to working with my colleagues, however, to address 
many of the issues they have raised that could not be addressed in this 
bill. As I have stated before, I am particularly interested in making 
sure that low- and moderate-income Americans have access to financial 
facilities and services.
  Madam Speaker, the present Federal geographic constraints on banking 
were enacted in the 1930's and 1950's. The world has changed 
dramatically since then, and so has the way we do our banking in 
America. Americans are more mobile today than ever before. Technology 
now permits consumers to withdraw money from their accounts at ATM's 
across the country and around the world. Capital now flows from 
community to community and State to State irrespective of political 
boundaries.
  The legislation before us today helps Federal laws keep pace with 
these changes. Just as important, it fosters creation of a stronger 
banking system that is more responsive to the needs of American 
consumers and businesses alike.
  Madam Speaker, 60 million Americans presently live in metropolitan 
areas that straddle State lines. Four million Americans commute to and 
from work every day across State lines. Americans take more than 440 
million trips between different regions of the country every year.
  This bill gives these millions of Americans the freedom to walk into 
any branch of their bank anywhere in the country and access their 
bank's complete line of products and services. That is exactly the type 
of convenience consumers have a right to expect as we move toward the 
21st century--and exactly the type of convenience current interstate 
branching restrictions prevent.
  Businesses will also be winners. As a result of this bill, many 
businesses will be able to reduce the fees and monitoring costs they 
incur operating their treasury management programs.
  Taxpayers will be winners, because banks with branch networks are 
more resistant to failure than are their less geographically diverse 
counterparts. By branching, a bank can diversify both its sources of 
deposits and its assets, and better insulate itself from economic 
downturns beyond its control.
  This bill will also help prevent and ameliorate credit crunches. 
Geographically diverse banks are better able to weather local and 
regional downturns without calling loans and turning down creditworthy 
borrowers.
  Lastly, banks will benefit. No other American industry is forced to 
establish a separate subsidiary in each State in which it does 
business, and no other industry is restricted by law from expanding its 
core business across State lines. This bill gives banks the freedom to 
structure themselves, and to pursue business opportunities, according 
to business judgment rather than Government dictates.
  Madam Speaker, I have looked forward to today for many years, because 
I believe we are handing the American people a victory by passing this 
bill. This bill will promote convenience for bank customers. It will 
enhance the safety and soundness of the banking system and heighten 
resistance to credit crunches. It will give banks greater operational 
and organizational flexibility.
  I believe these benefits are long overdue. For that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to join with me in suspending the rules and passing H.R. 
3841.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation on 
interstate banking and branching. I want to commend the subcommittee 
chairman. I think it is time we rationalize this. The issue is 
noncontroversial. It passed in the committee 50 to 1.
  There are a lot of other issues that need to be addressed by the 
committee. I trust that the chairman will address those consumer 
issues. He has been very fair. We have a long list, and we hopefully 
can work out most of that in the near future and satisfy some of the 
concerns and objections that Members might have, not to the basic 
legislation, which they have actually voted for, but to the fact that 
we need to address other concerns.
  I want to commend the chairmen, both the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Neal] and the 
ranking members that have worked on this.
  It is a compromise that has been around for awhile that we have 
worked out. It is time to enact it and rationalize the system of 
interstate banking and branching.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3841, the Interstate 
Banking Efficiency Act of 1994. This legislation is needed and worthy 
of our positive action. I would like to recognize the hard work of 
Chairmen Neal and Gonzalez, as well as Congressmen McCollum and Leach 
in bringing this consensus bill to the full House.
  Nationwide banking and branching is an issue whose time has come. 
There is a general consensus that interstate banking and branching 
translates into savings and efficiencies for the banks; increased 
competition and opportunities for consumers and increased 
diversification for insured financial institutions--a crucial safety 
and soundness factor.
  The issue of interstate banking and branching is not new. This is a 
matter which has been fully debated and voted upon at the subcommittee 
and full committee levels and here on the floor of the House. In fact, 
in 1991, the full House of Representatives considered and approved an 
amendment very similar to the pending bill. That bipartisan compromise 
amendment, which I crafted with Congressmen Bereuter, Neal, Wylie and 
Gonzalez, was adopted by the full House by a vote of 366-4. 
Unfortunately, interstate banking and branching was not realized 
because the underlying bill was later defeated.
  The bill now pending before us is a balanced approach, which reflects 
significant compromises and protections for consumers and local 
communities. The need and correctness of the decision is if any thing 
more apparent today with the State-by-State regional compacts, the 
regulatory decisions which extend branching and interstate banking to 
savings and loans and the creative First Fidelity decision of 30-mile 
radius.
  An important feature of the bill is that it maintains a positive role 
for the States. Under this bill, States have 3 years to opt-out of the 
interstate branching network. As an additional protection for States' 
rights, the legislation specifically protects State deposit caps and 
applies State consumer protection, fair lending, intrastate branching 
and community reinvestment laws to branches of out-of-State banks.
  Madam Speaker, many of our colleagues were rightly concerned that 
interstate banking and branching would be a conduit to draw funds out 
of a State. In this legislation, we are proactive in addressing such 
possible problems, by providing for State-by-State CRA evaluations and 
by prohibiting deposit production offices. In fact, the bill provides 
that if a branch does not provide loans above a certain threshold, the 
Federal regulator may close that branch and not permit the responsible 
bank to open a new branch in the State until there are adequate 
assurances that local credit needs will be met.
  As Members, we must also be concerned about the safety and soundness 
of the Federal Deposit Bank Insurance Fund. Through regional 
diversification, banks should be stronger and better able to withstand 
local economic or natural disasters. In addition, H.R. 3841 includes a 
key safety factor by limiting interstate branching to adequately 
capitalized and well managed institutions.

  I would urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3841. While some counsel 
delay, I do not believe that delay is warranted or prudent. Today, the 
profitability of banks and the marketplace are stable. Action on this 
legislation will send a message to reinforce and enhance the soundness, 
certainty, and predictability of our national financial institutions' 
policy path and law.
  Madam Speaker, we need the banks to remain an integral part of our 
financial community. We need these financial institutions to make loans 
to small businesses, to provide a full range of financial services to 
our constituents, and to be a leading force in our community. We cannot 
expect banks to make those positive contributions if we tie their hands 
to an out-dated banking system. It is appropriate today and necessary 
to permit banks to effectively compete in our national financial 
marketplace. H.R. 3841 is an important step in achieving that goal. I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, the gentleman has reminded 
me, I want to point out that this bill passed our subcommittee by a 
vote of 29 to 0. It passed the full Senate Committee on Banking, 
Housing and Urban Affairs by a vote of 19 to 0. It passed the full 
House Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs by a vote of 50 
to 1.
  There are extraneous issues, lots of them, that we could add to this 
bill. But we should not. We ought to deal with this bill as it is and 
then deal with other issues, which we can certainly do.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. I 
commend the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full 
committee and the ranking minority members for the fine work they have 
done.
  Madam Speaker, Congress has been dealing with the issue of interstate 
branching for the past decade. At long last, we finally have the chance 
to enact legislation on this issue. As Congress has been engaged in 
endless deliberations, the market has made enormous progress toward 
forming a nationwide interstate system. Congress now needs to recognize 
that new reality and pass this legislation.
  This legislation is a balanced approach to interstate branching. It 
reflects the various concerns and perspectives of many of those who 
have in the past not supported interstate branching legislation. While 
the banking industry supports this legislation, it should be emphasized 
this bill would not allow the banking industry total freedom in its 
branching activities. This bill contains provisions that maintain 
substantial power with the States, as well as provisions that address 
the concerns of consumers.
  The overwhelming benefits of this interstate branching legislation 
should be recognized by everyone concerned. First, it will provide a 
safer and sounder banking system through the benefits of geographic 
diversification. The benefits of diversification--both geographic and 
across product lines--have unfortunately not been fully appreciated by 
the Congress to date. Increased geographic diversification will reduce 
a bank's exposure to a single regional economy--a problem which has 
been the source of so many bank failures in recent years. Regional 
economic downturns need not result in bank failures, which only 
exacerbate the problems in a local economy.
  Second, this interstate legislation will result in increased 
availability of credit to our communities. When banks are allowed to 
operate through a more efficient branching structure, they are relieved 
of the burden of expending valuable capital on establishing separate 
banks in individual States. The resources once wasted on duplicative 
corporate structures can now be used to make more loans.
  With respect to some of the concerns often expressed by consumers, 
the bill is very strong. Concerns have often been expressed that States 
currently exercising authority over banks operating within their 
borders would lose that authority if these banks were converted into 
branches. This issue is addressed very specifically in the bill. Under 
the bill, interstate branches are subject to the laws of the host State 
with respect to intrastate branching, consumer protection, fair lending 
and community reinvestment as if the branch were a branch of a bank 
chartered by that State. States also retain their current taxing 
authority.
  The bill also contains provisions to ensure that CRA evaluations done 
on large banking organizations with interstate branching networks 
provide sufficiently detailed information about the adequacy of lending 
done in specific States and regions within those States. The bill 
requires that in addition to a CRA evaluation of the entire 
institution's CRA performance, bank regulators would also be required 
to do evaluations of a bank's CRA performance in each State, each 
metropolitan area, and the nonmetropolitan portions of the State.
  The bill also addresses another concern of many consumer groups--that 
interstate branching would enable large banking organizations to use 
their branching structure to siphon deposits out of local communities 
to be lent out elsewhere. The bill would severely restrict the ability 
of banks to engage in this type of activity.
  I want to emphasize the larger issue of benefits to consumers. We are 
all consumers of financial services. A more efficient, more competitive 
banking system provides the best assurance of providing all consumers 
with a broad array of financial services at reasonable prices. We also 
need to realize that corporations and smaller firms are also consumers 
of financial services and that they would benefit from a more efficient 
financial system, resulting in higher levels of economic growth and 
more jobs.
  As important as it is to eliminate interstate branching restrictions, 
we must recognize that doing so will not be sufficient to make our 
banking industry fully competitive--on either a national or an 
international level. In addition to the geographic diversification that 
this bill will allow, we also need diversification across product 
lines. This was the conclusion of my Task Force Report on the 
``International Competitiveness of U.S. Financial Institutions'' 
completed in 1990. It remains valid today. Nevertheless, passage of 
interstate branching legislation is an essential first step.
  Our banking industry is experiencing what has been referred to as a 
``secular decline.'' In addition to the role played by the 
inefficiencies of current interstate branching restrictions, this 
decline can be attributed to the fact that the banking franchise in the 
United States is too narrow. The banking charter is overly restrictive 
in comparison to both the array of financing options available in the 
market from non-bank financial institutions, and the changing shape of 
consumer needs. The result is that banking has become a much riskier 
business as banks have concentrated their portfolios in certain types 
of lending and in certain regions of the country.
  Banks are prevented by law from offering the full array of financial 
products their customers demand. After losing many of their best 
corporate customers to the commercial paper market in the early 1980's 
because of these legal restrictions, too many banks were inclined to 
replace that business with what were often much riskier loans, leading 
eventually to large loan losses and bank failures.

  The recent protracted credit crunch is simply one installment of the 
price we will pay if we allow the decline of our banking industry to 
continue. Unless the banking charter is expanded, credit availability 
problems will continue to plague us in the future.
  In order to make credit available to a full range of customers 
including small businesses, our banks must be sufficiently 
diversified--geographically and across product lines--to be profitable 
and avoid losses.
  During the 1980's, our banks were prevented by law from attaining 
such diversification, and the results were disastrous--both for the 
banks that failed as a result of overexposure to certain regions of the 
country and certain industries, and for the economies whose economic 
hardship was further exacerbated by lack of credit. If we fail to learn 
the lessons of our mistakes, we are bound to repeat them.
  Finally, I want to emphasize the fundamental connection between the 
strength and competitiveness of our banking industry and the strength 
and competitiveness of our economy. Put very simply, the cost of 
maintaining restrictive legislation which prevents banks from operating 
most efficiently is slower economic growth and fewer jobs. While many 
large companies can access the capital markets to meet their financing 
needs, small businesses often rely exclusively on bank financing. 
Consequently, the major impact of our outdated banking laws falls on 
small firms--those very firms which provide the engine of growth for 
our economy.
  This legislation is long overdue and I urge its passage. It is the 
first step in the reforms that are necessary if our banking system is 
to serve the interests of economic growth and job creation.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to take a moment to say a couple of things that I 
think are very, very important.
  First of all, I need to join with the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Neal] in congratulating the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. 
Roukema] for her work on this bill. Of course, the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Neal] for his work and both the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Gonzalez] and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Leach], who have worked very, very hard on this and other issues that 
have come before our committee.
  I do not say that lightly. Their work has been instructive for many 
of us and certainly beneficial for our entire Nation.
  Interstate banking, for the record, is long overdue and much-needed 
legislation, because it essentially frees in many respects our Nation's 
financial institutions to be competitive and to have some sense of 
purpose. It gives banks the kind of organizational and operational 
flexibility that is so very, very desperately needed.
  Madam Speaker, I voted for this bill in subcommittee. I voted for it 
in the full committee. I thought it was important that we have it here 
on the floor. And important also, quite frankly, that it passed.
  As members of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
know, I offered during markup, in conjunction with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], 
an amendment that would have substantially brought consumer rights into 
this legislation in a way that I think clearly would benefit those 
persons in our community who needs banks, who banks service and who 
have put their deposit there and their faith, quite frankly, in banks, 
in whose communities banks sit and who have a right to believe that the 
consumer has some importance in this.
  That particular amendment was voted down. The last time we visited 
this legislation beforehand, it passed. And so I guess, depending on 
what day it is and what the dynamic or dynamism is within the 
committee, it is pretty had to determine what will happen.
  But what did happen was a commitment from me to bring this 
legislation or this amendment to the floor so that the full House might 
have an opportunity to be on the record with respect to this very 
important consumer issue.

  Unfortunately, this bill is being brought up under Suspension of the 
Rules, which does not allow, then, for that amendment to be offered.
  I regret that. I think in some respects, while we all want interstate 
banking and branching to pass, have done a disservice to the full 
membership of this body, many of whom want the right to be able to vote 
on such a consumer amendment, all of whom certainly ought to have the 
right to do that.
  So we find ourselves, as we do in this kind of dichotomy, where we 
believe, as members of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs, in this legislation and the importance of it. And we have been 
prepared over and over again to stand up for it, while at the same time 
coming to grips with the very basic reality.
  The reality is that we have not done all for consumers in this bill 
that we could do and that once we pass this particular bill, it is 
gone. There is no chance to come back and, in my opinion at least, and 
do what we have the opportunity to do now or certainly what we would 
have had the opportunity to do had this bill not been brought up under 
Suspension.
  I regret that. Inasmuch as I want it to be enacted, I would not be 
able to sleep at night knowing that I had walked away from my 
commitment to consumers, to people all across this Nation who have 
every right to believe that their rights and their particular interests 
are reflected in this very important bill.
  For that reason, I will oppose this legislation, not because I do not 
believe in it, but because I believe more in the need for us to reflect 
in the legislation that we pass at least some sense of the needs of 
consumers in this country who do not have a voice in this body and 
certainly, because we are voting tonight under Suspensions, will not 
have a voice in this process.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MFUME. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I appreciate his position.
  I rise in very strong support of this legislation, congratulate the 
chairman and the ranking members for their work on this.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3841, the Interstate Banking 
Efficiency Act. The bill before us today is the product of considerable 
work by the banking community and Congress.
  For too many years the issue of interstate branching when unresolved 
as a number of smaller issues sidetracked it. However, today, under the 
suspension of the rules, we are able to vote on what has always been 
the central issue for interstate banking: whether interstate branching 
would be permitted. And whether, by extension, our country would move 
forward to reduce the often duplicative regulatory requirements placed 
on interstate banks.
  If we pass this bill, we will permit interstate branching and allow 
some of our country's largest banks to consolidate their operations and 
improve their efficiency. Why is this important?
  Every dollar the bank ties up in regulatory capital requirements, or 
pays in administrative costs, is a dollar that cannot be loaned to a 
small business which wants to expand its operations; or to a family 
which is paying for a child's college education. The interstate banking 
legislation will make interstate banks more competitive and will allow 
them to make more money available to communities and families.
  I recognize the concerns which many smaller independent banks raised 
over this legislation. For that reason, I am also pleased the bill 
before us today includes important provisions allowing States to ``opt 
out'' of interstate banking and branching. The bill also restricts 
larger interstate banks to a percentage of the deposits they can 
control nationwide and within a particular State.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Vote for H.R. 3841, 
and free banks to invest more of their money in the businesses and 
individuals who drive economic growth.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], who has been a real leader 
on this issue.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3841, 
the Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994.
  As a long and energetic supporter of interstate banking and 
branching, I believe this legislation represents the best compromise on 
the important issues of interstate banking and branching that we have 
achieved in several years.
  H.R. 3841 was adopted by the Banking Committee several weeks ago by 
an overwhelming vote of 50 to 1.
  Under this legislation: Interstate banking can take place after 1 
year; full nationwide branching will go into effect within 3 years, and 
States rights are protected by giving them an option to opt out if they 
do not support branching as well as clarifying State authority to tax 
bank affiliates.
  This interstate banking and branching bill, more than any other 
provisions we have adopted over the past few years, will help enhance 
competitiveness among our banks.
  Interstate banking and branching will help make banks safer through 
geographic diversification by allowing banks to diversify their loan 
portfolios and lessen their exposure to swings in regional economies.
  Interstate branching will make banks more efficient through 
substantially reduced operating costs because it will be less costly to 
operate branches than to maintain separate banks.
  This provision will also increase competition which will benefit 
consumers by providing more competitors in the marketplace and thereby 
making more bank products available and raising the probability that 
banking services will become less expensive.
  During the full Banking Committee markup, a managers amendment was 
offered which addressed several concerns relating to CRA performance, 
State law-enforcement rights, and branch closing procedures.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues should realize that too much work went 
into this bill and too much is at stake with the future of the Nation's 
banking industry.
  Interstate banking and branching is a must do and I urge passage of 
H.R. 3841.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Hoagland], who has always 
been a longtime worker in the vineyards.
  Mr. HOAGLAND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Speaker, I want to join with my thanks to the chairman of the 
full committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] and the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Neal] and my colleagues on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban 
Affairs for finally having brought to rest this very difficult issue 
and controversy.
  For decades now our banking system has been laboring under 
excessively restrictive banking and branching statutes. Through the 
years many thousands of individuals through the country have worked to 
reform these restrictions and rationalize our banking structure, but as 
has been said previously, this issue has often been caught up in 
extraneous issues that have prevented us from getting to the heart of 
the interstate branching and banking issue and bringing it to closure. 
We are able to do this this month and this session.
  Often it is said that Congress largely ratifies the changes that have 
already taken place, but that is only partially the case here. It is 
true that an awful lot of changes have taken place in the decade since 
these restrictions were first enacted, that have had the tendency to 
break down these restrictions, but also all sorts of new services and 
new activities will be allowed once this legislation passes.
  Those new services and new activities are going to make the banking 
system we have in America more competitive, and ultimately affect our 
economy very much, to the benefit of all of us, and I am delighted we 
are finally getting this done this session. Once again, I would like to 
congratulate those responsible.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  (Mr. KENNEDY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I have always been a supporter of the 
interstate banking bill, and hope that we can find a way to make this 
bill work on behalf of all the consumers of our country.
  This bill, I believe, however, contains a major weakness. There is 
nothing in it to ensure that the benefits of interstate banking are 
felt by all consumers, including those who live in our rural 
communities and our inner cities.
  In the last several years, as banks have increasingly crossed State 
lines, we have witnessed a disturbing trend. Banks have gone into new 
communities, taken in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of 
deposits, but little, if anything, is then provided to the local 
community in the form of credit.
  Madam Speaker, the fact is that if we are serious about providing 
credit to the American people, then I think we ought to commit 
ourselves to three basic, modest provisions that would allow this bill 
to be not only a good bill for those in wealthier communities, but a 
good bill for those in rural communities and in our inner cities.
  Madam Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of our committee, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez], who has always supported the 
concept of asking for some consumer protections when we are providing 
banks with new powers. I think it would be a sad day for the Congress 
to begin a process of allowing the banks to get new powers without 
having to provide some basic consumer protection.
  Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Neal] 
has always been a strong supporter, not only of new powers, but also of 
the notion of looking out for the American consumer. However, the 
provisions that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume] and myself, and 
the other gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn] and the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Waters] supported in the committee were provisions that 
have passed the full Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs in 
the past. In the past, the bills that provided for interstate powers, 
the bills always contained the three provisions that were in this 
amendment.
  That is, first and foremost, that lenders demonstrate how they will 
meet the credit needs of lower- and moderate-income consumers in the 
areas where they wish to open a branch; second, that lenders not be 
allowed to branch across State lines if they have a demonstrated 
pattern of closing branches in low- and moderate-income areas; and, 
third, that the biggest banks report information on loans to small 
businesses, including minority-owned businesses, so that those small 
businesses will not be discriminated against.
  Madam Speaker, I ask the Congress to consider supporting these 
provisions in this legislation. The fact is that if we have a bill that 
provides these new powers, and we provide at the same time these 
consumer protections, I think we will have passed good, forward-looking 
legislation that will have the best interests of not just the wealthier 
communities, but the best interests of all the communities in our 
country in mind.
  Madam Speaker, this is not, as I say, legislation that deals with 
just minority communities. This is legislation, as the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. a member of our committee, indicated the other 
day, that is critically important to the rural communities of our 
country.
  Madam Speaker, I would hope that we could ask Congress to consider 
including these three provisions as we look forward to supporting 
interstate banking. Again, Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] and the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Neal] on a job well done, and I hope that we can find a 
way to look out after the interests of all the consumers in our country 
at the same time.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Mfume] yield time to me to discuss some of these matters? 
I have a number of Members who want to speak, and if the gentleman has 
enough time, I would request that he yield me 4 minutes.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out 
that the bill, H.R. 3841, already contains many important consumer 
provisions.
  It preserves State branching, consumer protection, fair lending, and 
community reinvestment laws as they apply to interstate branches.
  In a February 22 letter to Senate Banking Committee Chairman Donald 
Riegle, consumer groups praised H.R. 3841's applicable State law 
provision, noting that the ``legislation in the House, now pending 
before the Banking Committee, contains the safeguards consumers need 
and have come to expect in the marketplace.''
  It requires a State-by-State application of the Community 
Reinvestment Act. H.R. 3841 would require that each State-by-State CRA 
evaluation of an interstate bank be further subdivided to report on the 
bank's CRA performance in each metropolitan area in which it maintains 
branches, and in the nonmetropolitan portions of a State if the bank 
maintains branches in nonmetropolitan areas.
  The bill requires forward commitments for interstate consolidations 
which would recapture some of the banks' savings from consolidations 
for local communities. The bill requires a bank that plans to 
consolidate multistate groups of banks into a single network of 
branches to submit a plan to meet local credit needs.
  The bill prohibits deposit production offices by taking steps to 
ensure that interstate branching will not lead to the siphoning of 
deposits out of communities.
  The bill would ensure that State law enforcement officers as well as 
State banking supervisors may enforce applicable State laws on in-State 
branches of out-of-State State banks.
  In addition, the Banking Committee adopted an amendment that requires 
Federal bank regulators, in acting on bank applications to branch 
interstate, to review the CRA performance of all bank affiliates of the 
applicant bank, and not just the CRA rating of the applicant bank.
  Another amendment, authored by the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Waters] and adopted by the Banking Committee, requires Federal 
regulators to convene meetings of community leaders, depository 
institutions, and other interested parties to explore ways of replacing 
a branch that is closing with adequate alternative facilities and 
services.
  In sum, I would say to my friends, the bill already contains many 
worthwhile consumer provisions. I believe this is a fair and balanced 
bill.

                              {time}  1850

  That is not to say ever that we have done enough. My friends from 
Massachusetts and Maryland have been leaders in looking out for the 
interests of the consumers of this country, low- and moderate-income 
people. I hope to be able to continue to work with them. I have 
supported many of their ideas. I am happy to hold hearings when we can 
on ideas that will improve our system.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's sincerity. 
There are, however, three issues that were never resolved by this bill 
and that have brought us to this point of opposition. The first was 
that lenders demonstrate how they will meet the credit needs of low-
income and moderate consumers in rural areas as well as in inner-city 
areas. And I would like to get the gentleman to respond to that. I mean 
is the gentleman prepared to hold hearings in that regard for the 
purposes of passing legislation?
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Honestly, I will say to the gentleman, 
and maybe this will answer all of the questions, if there is any 
evidence that our banking system is flawed and not serving the American 
public the way it should, I want us to look into it. So I would love to 
look into this issue, and perhaps the gentleman will bring up some 
others.
  Mr. MFUME. If I might just continue, the second issue was that 
lenders not be allowed to branch across State lines if they have a 
demonstrated pattern of closing branches in rural areas and in low- and 
moderate-income areas.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. That is an issue that goes to the bill. 
Personally, I do not think that it is fair to apply a consumer 
provision to one small group of banks. If something is a good idea in 
terms of consumer provisions, it ought to be applied to all banks.
  Personally, I see this legislation as in the interest of consumers. 
This is a branch opening bill.
  This will provide more services to the American people. So when we 
are talking about doing something that will limit interstate branching, 
I personally do not think that it is in the public interest.
  Mr. MFUME. This is where the gentleman and I have a disagreement, 
because I think if something is bad, and if we agree that it is bad, 
and closing banks clearly is bad in rural communities and in low-income 
communities who do not have access, then I cannot bring myself to say 
OK, for the purposes of just moving forward with this legislation I am 
going to go ahead with it. It is still bad.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. I had forgotten about the Waters 
amendment. I mentioned it earlier, but let me mention again the Waters 
amendment which we adopted in the committee, which requires Federal 
regulators to convene meetings of community leaders, depository 
institutions and other interested parties to explore ways of replacing 
a branch that is closing with adequate facilities to replace it. I 
think that speaks somewhat to what the gentleman had in mind. I am not 
sure it answers everything.
  Mr. MFUME. Would the gentleman be willing to revisit this whole 
matter after we have had an opportunity to see what has taken place 
over 6 months or 12 months, to ascertain whether or not in fact there 
is a pattern of closing branches in rural areas and in low-income 
areas?
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Yes; I would be happy to.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, I would just like to make the point that 
we do note this is not an issue which needs further study. The fact is 
we can look at a HMDA here and an HMDA there, but all you have to do is 
drive to the rural areas of the country, or drive to any rural areas of 
America where they are particularly brown or black communities and 
determine that there have been an enormous amount of branch closings. 
And the fact is that the last thing it seems to me that is required is 
further study. There are provisions in the legislation that talk about 
regulators ought to consider these issues. Considering these issues by 
legislators gets us absolutely nothing. These are regulators that in 
the past telegraphed these studies and told the banks to prepare their 
PR machines in order to deal with the damaging reports that indicate 
that you are three times more likely to be turned down for a home 
mortgage loan because the color of your skin is black or brown versus 
if it is white, coming from the same neighborhoods with the same income 
levels.
  So I do not think we ought to be talking about further studies on 
this issue. The fact is that for the first time we are going to be 
bestowing upon the banks new powers, and we are not going to be asking 
the banks to meet the credit needs of the local communities. And that 
is exactly what the trigger mechanism that is built into the Community 
Reinvestment Act calls for, that when banks seek new powers, they must 
in fact have demonstrated creditworthiness to all of the people that 
they serve in their community or they are denied those powers. And that 
is what we are talking about trying to include in this legislation. And 
I think it would be a real mistake to get into a posture where we talk 
about further study if in fact we are going to be bestowing these new 
powers.
  Mr. MFUME. If the gentleman will yield further, I assume then the 
gentleman from Massachusetts is in opposition to the bill?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The gentleman knows how I feel about that. I have 
struggled with this issue, and the more we talk the more I am going to 
vote against this bill.
  But we will see how we do at the end of the discussion.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
  (Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, first let me just congratulate particularly 
the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Neal]. This is a crowning achievement in his 
glorious career here. Also I want to congratulate my ranking member of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. As people 
may not know, on the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, I 
am somewhat reluctant about this approach, but I am kind of a 19th 
century mentality when it comes to some aspects of banking, and this is 
a 21st century bill. In any case, there are a lot of changes that have 
occurred in the banking system both in terms of law as well as in 
picture, and it is probably about the appropriate time for Congress to 
recognize that these changes are taking place.
  Let me just say from a consumer point of view, I am pleased that the 
leaders on this particular issue have included a provision that I have 
long been identified with, and that is a prohibition against what I 
call deposit production offices to ensure that larger interstate banks 
simply do not go into States and try to sweep deposits without a 
concomitant loan obligation in the areas in which those offices might 
be.
  This section requires a branch, owned by an out-of-State bank, to 
make at least 50 percent of the loans that its in-State peers are 
making, in the host State. If the number of loans falls below this 
level, the branch has to be closed. In order to reopen the branch, or 
establish a new branch, the institution must give reasonable assurances 
that it will comply with the provision.
  Despite this, I am troubled that the bill in its present form, 
without the inclusion of more prudential capital standards, will propel 
further consolidation of the banking industry without due regard to 
safety and soundness concerns and at the expense of competitive equity 
within the banking industry.
  During full committee consideration, I unsuccessfully offered an 
amendment that would have statutorily required all banks to be well 
capitalized before engaging in interstate banking, branching, and 
consolidation.
  The bill as reported by the committee only requires banks that engage 
in interstate branching to be adequately capitalized. With respect to 
full nationwide banking, and consolidation of existing interstate 
banks, the bill imposes no statutory capital requirements.
  A number of recent Government reports and studies support the goal of 
my amendment. The GAO, in its November, 1993 report to the committee, 
suggested that ``permitting interstate banking and branching for well-
capitalized, well-managed banks could potentially benefit regulation 
and the Bank Insurance Fund.''
  In addition, last year I asked the Federal Reserve Board to conduct a 
study of capital levels in State versus national banks. The report 
demonstrated that, on average, State banks with assets from $300 
million to $10 billion have higher leverage ratios than national banks. 
The Board's report indicates that currently 4,663 State banks are now 
subject to higher capital standards than the Federal level. This 
represents approximately 60 percent of all State-chartered banks.
  One of the extraordinary things happening in banking today is not 
only the consolidation of the industry, but the fact that this 
consolidation is occurring with banks with less capital taking over 
better capitalized banks, using techniques which reduce rather than 
increase the amount of capital in the system.
  The amendment offered in committee would have required banks that 
wish to acquire banks across State lines to meet a well-capitalized 
standard, which today is modestly set at a 5-percent leverage ratio. Of 
the top 25 banks in the United States by asset size, at most only 2 of 
these banks would not meet this standard based on statistics from the 
third quarter of 1993.
  The public has an interest in having a well-capitalized banking 
industry, both to ensure the safety and soundness of the financial 
system and the adequacy of resources to make entrepreneurial loans. 
Banks simply will not make entrepreneurial loans unless they have 
sufficient capital to take risks. The more the capital base of a 
financial institution is reduced, the less likely it is to support a 
growth-oriented economy.
  In conclusion, the U.S. banking system is on the brink of becoming 
the strongest in the world, but the Congress should take care not to 
jeopardize the stability and strength of the financial system by 
refraining to adopt standards which would prevent capital flowing out 
of the system.
  I think regulators have to be put on guard that they have a very 
large responsibility to make sure that this change neither jeopardizes 
the safety and soundness of the system nor leads to a circumstance 
where industrial and commercial lending is given a back seat. So let me 
congratulate the progressives and suggest with some reluctance I am 
being brought along.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume 
to just make a couple of other points. Again, I am going to go back to 
what was spoken last in the remarks of one who has spoken tonight. We 
all understand how important this legislation is. We all have worked 
very, very hard in the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs 
to get it to this point. The work of Chairman Neal, and the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach], 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] has been reflected in my 
own remarks, and I think the appreciation is broad based.

                              {time}  1900

  I am here in opposition this evening because, on a matter of 
principle, I think it is important to speak for the consumer.
  I recognize that the votes are not there to defeat the legislation, 
but I recognize also that if I did not stand in opposition, this 
argument would never be made. We would have gone beyond this and passed 
the bill on suspension, and while many of the Members who are cosigners 
and supporters of this amendment will probably also vote for it, and I 
understand that, it is important that these arguments be made, and in 
the absence of them being made, I again say that we do a disservice to 
consumers across this Nation.
  There are a lot of good things in this bill. I have worked to put a 
lot of them in. Other Members have done that, and we have done it as a 
committee, in a bipartisan way, I might add, but the argument today 
about needing to do more is an argument that must be made, and that is 
why I am standing to make it.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
McCollum).
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate his giving me the time simply to 
compliment everyone on this bill.
  I have been the ranking member on this subcommittee and worked with 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Neal] throughout the process. I 
got delayed from coming down here because of a Rules hearing a few 
minutes ago.
  But I think that this is one of the most significant pieces of 
legislation this Congress will pass, and certainly it is one of the 
most significant pieces of legislation in the years that I have been 
here for Banking. We are now finally opening the door to interstate 
banking. We are going to give the opportunity for branching and for the 
combination of efficiency that is going to occur across State lines for 
banks that own branches in other States, and I think it is being done 
in a very orderly, methodical fashion.
  We have not attached a lot of other things. It does not have products 
and services on it, and while I respect some of the debate here today 
of the concerns that several have over matters of community 
reinvestment and importance to the minority community, the key thing I 
wanted to talk about, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me to 
do, is simply to emphasize the overall importance of this bill to the 
economy of this country, to the banking community, to the citizenry of 
this country, and I think that it is a critical, critical bill that is 
being debated for a very short time.
  I urge its passage.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] the senior member of the 
committee.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, I do rise in support of the legislation. I compliment 
the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Neal] and the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the other members of the committee for their 
excellent work on this legislation.
  I am particularly appreciative of the fact that they have picked up 
the opt-out provisions for interstate branching.
  This is legislation that I proposed in the previous Congress. The 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] joined me in that, and we had a 
particular provision subject to a vote on the House floor. It passed by 
a very large margin.
  It makes it possible for many States to be supportive and legislators 
from those States to be supportive of this legislation. It gives those 
legislatures an opportunity to opt out, to take themselves out of this 
interstate branching arrangement if they choose to.
  Now, I do not expect them to do that in large numbers, if any in fact 
do, but that option is maintained, and that is an important States 
rights issue.
  I must express my concern yet that we may have an opportunity for too 
many decisions and too much of a community's resources to be drained 
from some rural areas and from some low-income urban areas.
  There were some provisions added that were authorized by the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Waters], for example, that were 
accepted with the blessing of the chairman and the minority members. 
That is an important step in the right direction.
  But it is time to modernize our banking legislation. We are in a 
disadvantageous position in this country with respect to banking in 
many other parts of the world. It is time to modernize. It is time to 
update.
  I compliment the chairman and all Members who have participated in 
this arrangement.
  Like the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach] I would have preferred 
higher capitalization levels. We fought the good fight, and we did not 
win on those issues. And this legislation, nevertheless, merits 
approval.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman from Maryland knows that while I am very sympathetic to 
where he is coming from, I am in support of the legislation.
  Let me say two things, Madam Speaker, No. 1, it is about time we did 
this. It is just long overdue. If America is going to have a banking 
system that can compete internationally, we should have interstate 
banking now. We should have had it 10 years ago, and there is no 
economic argument to stand in the way. It is pro-consumer to have 
interstate banking, because you have more banks competing. It is pro-
America to have interstate banking, because our banks will be stronger 
and compete internationally, and it will also bring about the kind of 
strengthening of the banking system, which I believe is rather weak, 
that we so desperately need.
  I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland, and my 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, I appreciate the valiant 
fight they are making, and I am very sympathetic and have always 
supported the type of legislation they are offering.
  But we have been through this time and time again. Every time we try 
to add one thing onto the bill, then other and other and other things 
happen, and nothing gets passed. We have to pass this bill plain.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  (Mr. BACHUS of Alabama asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Interstate Banking Efficiency Act.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee, Mr. Neal, and the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
McCollum, for all their hard work on this legislation. I am pleased to 
join my colleagues on the House Banking Committee in support of H.R. 
3841, the Interstate Banking Efficiency Act.
  This landmark legislation will lead to greater efficiency within the 
banking system while enabling customers to benefit from a wide variety 
of banking services at financial institutions across the country. When 
this legislation is fully enacted, residents of Alabama will be able to 
make a deposit at their bank in Florida or cash a check at their bank, 
hassle-free, in California.
  In our mobile society with citizens routinely travelling across our 
Nation, this type of service has become a necessity.
  As reported by the committee on March 9, H.R. 3841 will permit 
interstate banking after 1 year, consolidation of existing subsidiaries 
after 18 months, and full interstate branching by national and state-
chartered institutions after 3 years.
  Additionally, I am pleased my legislative language relating to 
accommodation services arrangements was incorporated in the bill. Under 
this arrangement, banks owned by the same holding company could act as 
agents for one another in offering banking services. This arrangement 
will provide holding companies such as SouthTrust Bank of Birmingham, 
AL, the alternative of retaining separately banks in each State or in 
each community within a State, with directors drawn from the local 
community, and yet still avail themselves of some of the advantages of 
interstate banking.
  In particular, this provision would permit each local bank to have 
local directors, require that each local bank be subject to separate 
examination of safety and soundness, consumer compliance, and CRA 
compliance, and require that each local bank be subject to separate 
capitalization.
  In my opinion, it makes good sense to permit these affiliated banks 
the alternative of maintaining a separate corporate existence and 
handling certain interstate transactions as agents for each other, such 
as receipt of deposits, renewal of time deposits, closing of loans, 
disbursement of loan proceeds, and receipt of loan and other payments.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in sending 
an interstate banking bill to the President at the earliest 
opportunity.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, in closing, I just have heard all the 
arguments. I understand all of the wonderful benefits that interstate 
banking is going to provide, and to those of you that say we ought to 
go ahead and do interstate because it is time for interstate to happen, 
I say yes, it is time for interstate to happen. But it is time for 
interstate to happen for all the people of this country.
  What we will do today is set a precedent of providing banks with 
powers. We are not asking the consumers to be protected. The poor 
people of this country, people of color in America have not been well 
served by the banks of our Nation, and we ought to be providing those 
individuals that have been denied credit, been denied their access to 
the American dream simply because of the color of their skin, because 
they cannot walk into a bank in this country and get a home mortgage or 
get a small-business loan to say, ``Enough is enough,'' and we expect 
banks that have acute records of disregard for people of color to not 
get new powers.
  We expect credit to be provided in the communities that they are 
going to purchase new banks in, and we expect we can learn these 
statistics on race for the loans that they make to small businesses.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, let me just say a couple of things in closing. First 
of all, I think this debate was necessary and important, because it 
highlights for many of us the need to be able to speak out on behalf of 
the American consumer in such a way that we elevate in this debate 
those concerns.
  Second, it is also important that we understand, I think, that being 
in opposition to the process is not necessarily being in opposition to 
the bill. We believe, and have worked on this bill, for a long time, 
but the process, we believe, is flawed.
  We believe also that the consumer of this Nation has been left out of 
this debate, and so whether we are talking about inner-city America or 
rural America or small businesses or minority businesses, I have 
offered in committee and have made this debate today to try to drive 
home the point that as we do what we do, we must also be mindful in the 
process of the people who are affected most.
  I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina and his arguments and 
certainly those who have been supportive, but I appreciate more the 
benefit of making this argument so that the American people will have 
an opportunity to understand there is a desperate need to keep 
consumers in legislation.

                              {time}  1910

  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I would point out there 
are a number of important consumer protections for less-advantaged 
people in the bill. There is a number of consumer benefits for all 
Americans in the bill; there is a number of benefits for business in 
the bill. Taxpayers come out way ahead because it reduces the 
likelihood that banks will get in trouble. Credit crunches will not 
occur as often because geographically strong banks will not be 
dependent on one part of the country. Banks will benefit, everyone 
benefits from this legislation.
  We have known it for about 10 years; this should have passed years 
ago. It has always failed because of someone's idea of just something 
else we could add to it, some little thing would make it different or 
make it better. This is the best we could do. I am happy to look at 
other issues at any time, but this is very much in the American 
interest, and I urge my colleagues to pass this very good bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). The time of the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Neal] expired.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
have an additional 30 seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Maryland.
  Mr. MFUME. Madam Speaker, do I still understand, as we close the 
date, the willingness of the gentleman to revisit in the form of 
hearings may of the concerns that I and Mr. Wynn and Mr. Kennedy have 
tried to articulate in the amendments we offered previously?
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. I said before, I do not want to say that 
I am going to go back and try to change the interstate banking 
legislation because that is not what we are about, but in terms of 
trying to improve the American banking system insomuch as I can help 
with that, I will try at any time. If that is not adequate, I can 
expand upon it. But I want the system to work for all Americans.
  Mr. MFUME. We do too, and I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. We will try to help you.
  Mr. FAZIO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3841, the 
Interstate Banking Efficiency Act. This legislation is a critical 
component of our efforts to keep the national economic recovery moving 
forward.
  Our Nation's bank regulatory system is riddled with cumbersome 
organizational requirements for interstate banking activities which add 
significant costs to banks that operate in more than one State. Today, 
174 multistate bank holding companies are required to set up separate 
and distinct organizational structures for each State in which they 
operate. They must have their own executives and boards of directors, 
undergo separate examinations and audits, receive separate ratings and 
maintain separate capital reserves. These organizational arrangements 
are required even if the bank affiliates are operating essentially as 
branches. Clearly, these requirements are an administrative burden 
which carries a heavy price in overhead.
  H.R. 3841 seeks to rationalize interstate banking and branching 
regulations to eliminate unnecessary administrative requirements 
without compromising the safety and soundness of our Nation's financial 
institutions. H.R. 3841 will streamline these regulatory burdens by 
enabling banks to own branches and provide banking services across 
State boundaries without having to establish separately capitalized and 
organized banks in each State as is required under current law.
  The major benefit of this legislation is that it will free up 
approximately $1 billion annually in capital that the banking industry 
now spends on administrative overhead costs. This is $1 billion that 
can be used to make loans. Projections suggest that this new loan 
making capability could pump $10 billion into the economy on an annual 
basis in the form of loans to small businesses, real estate ventures, 
or capital improvements--all of which are key to keeping our economy 
moving forward.
  Interstate banking and branching are long overdue. This bill is 
important to improving the efficiency and competitiveness of our 
financial institutions. Further, the bill will provide an economic 
stimulus to our country's capital markets. The time has come to make 
interstate banking and branching a reality. I encourage my colleagues 
to support H.R. 3841.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3841. While I 
have reservations over considering legislation of this importance under 
suspension of the rules, I believe the time for interstate banking and 
branching has come and the House should act on the bill.
  I am concerned that our States should have adequate time to decide if 
they want to participate in interstate branching. As Chairman Neal 
knows, I believe that States should have a 3-year period before 
interstate branching through consolidation of subsidiaries is 
permitted. While the bill has a 3-year waiting period for regular 
branching, it would allow subsidiaries of bank holding companies to be 
converted into branches after 18 months. Congressman Craig Thomas and I 
offered an amendment in committee to equalize the time period for 
branching and consolidation.
  I would have liked to have the full House consider this issue, but to 
enable the interstate bill to move forward, I am not contesting the 
consideration of the bill under suspension of the rules. Chairman 
Gonzalez and Mr. Leach agree with my view of the consolidation issue 
and I hope Chairman Neal will remain open to discussion on this issue 
when the bill goes to conference.
  I want to thank Chairman Gonzalez, Chairman Neal of the subcommittee 
and Mr. Leach and Mr. McCollum for working with me to clarify the 
bill's language relating to a State's tax authority. The bill and 
report protect a State's authority to tax the affiliates of banks and 
bank holding companies. I appreciate my colleagues' cooperation on this 
important issue. I support approval of H.R. 3841.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Neal] that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3841, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________