[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 47 (Tuesday, April 26, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              INTERSTATE BANKING AND BRANCHING ACT OF 1994

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume consideration of S. 
1963, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1963) to permit certain financial institutions 
     to engage in interstate banking and branching.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 1963.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I want to commend the chairman of the Senate 
Banking Committee, Senator Riegle, for his strong leadership in 
bringing this bill before the Senate. I speak specifically of the 
Interstate Banking and Branching Act of 1994.
  Mr. President, the Congress of the United States has considered the 
issue of interstate banking and branching for far too many years, in my 
opinion. We have debated every nuance, contemplated every scenario, and 
literally cited every statistic many times over. But, finally, after 
all this ruminating over many years, I believe we have achieved 
consensus on this most important issue.
  The swift movement of legislation through both Houses indicates just 
how strong this consensus is. The Senate Banking Committee, Mr. 
President, reported the interstate banking and branching bill out 19 to 
0 in February. In March of this year, the House Banking Committee 
approved a very similar bill by a vote of 50 to 1. The full House of 
Representatives then passed the bill by a voice vote.
  Mr. President, we need to continue this momentum, in my view, and to 
do everything possible to pass this legislation without amendments, I 
would say, that will immediately kill the bill or sentence it to a slow 
death, so that we may have an interstate banking bill on the 
President's desk by Memorial Day. I think, frankly, we can meet that 
goal.
  Mr. President, I have long supported changes to our archaic 
constraints on interstate banking and branching. For many years, I have 
introduced legislation to bring the geography of banking into the 20th 
century. With the passage of this bill, I believe we will be closer 
than we have ever been to finally doing away with a set of restrictions 
that simply no longer serve any legitimate purpose. Full interstate 
branching will streamline the administration, improve bank 
efficiencies, ease regional economic slumps, boost consumer 
convenience, ameliorate the impact of future credit crunches, and I 
think enhance the safety and soundness of the banking industry overall.
  Most important, Mr. President, it will benefit consumers in a way 
that should not be underestimated. The lives of bank customers 
nationwide will change considerably for the better as a result of this 
legislation. Interstate branching will permit customers to enjoy a full 
range of bank services available at their bank in any State in which 
that bank operates.
  For those who believe that the number of individuals who would 
benefit from these conveniences is small, recent statistics reveal 
otherwise. The Census Bureau reports that 16 million Americans who live 
in metropolitan areas cross State lines; 4 million Americans commute 
interstate each and every workday; and 493 million trips are taken by 
Americans each year across regions in this country. The countless 
Americans who vacation throughout these regions will be able for the 
first time in many instances to make deposits and conduct other normal 
bank business without regard to State lines. That is merely catching up 
with the reality of everyday life in our society.
  Recently, Mr. President, in my home State of Connecticut, a large 
money center bank opened its first bank in the State. Connecticut 
residents who work in New York--and many do--have deluged the bank with 
requests to deposit money in New York and withdraw it at home or vice 
versa. Due to interstate restrictions, the bank has had to say no. That 
just does not make any sense at all, in my view.
  In addition to increased convenience for customers and consumers, 
consumers will benefit from the savings achieved from the breakdown of 
market barriers and through increased competition. Recent studies have 
revealed that bank performance improves with increased market entry and 
lower prices, higher returns and greater convenience results. That is 
obvious, Mr. President--allow another bank to come in the area or view 
and start competing for consumers' business and consumers benefit.
  The economic benefits of interstate banking and branching are 
extremely important. Full interstate banking and branching authority 
would have been enormously invaluable in cushioning the impact in my 
region of New England's devastating credit crunch. I believe interstate 
banking and branching would have brought badly needed capital to our 
region from other parts of the Nation, easing economic difficulties, 
saving jobs, and avoiding much pain for people and their families. Bank 
failures and regional economic slumps could have been prevented if 
banks had been able to hold loan portfolios with greater geographic 
diversity.
  The legislation before us has been painstakingly crafted to address a 
wide variety and array of concerns that have been raised over many 
years when we have considered this issue.
  This legislation contains safeguards to preserve safety and soundness 
by prohibiting undercapitalized institutions from participating in 
interstate branching. It respects the interests of States by giving 
them a long transition time and requiring branches to abide by 
applicable State laws.
  Further, the legislation meets community needs by maintaining 
Community Reinvestment Act requirements. The legislation ensures 
competition and diversity of services by providing safeguards against 
overconcentration of banking assets in any one State.
  Mr. President, while personally I would prefer a swifter and more 
comprehensive shift to interstate banking and branching, I believe that 
this legislation establishes a sensible and consistent approach which 
will promote bank efficiency and growth.
  The legislation, Mr. President, further contains several wrinkles 
that need to be ironed out in my view when we resolve our differences 
with the House of Representatives, the other body. One I would like to 
mention is the failure of this legislation to provide national 
treatment to banks from other nations.
  As it is currently drafted, the bill would only permit foreign banks 
to branch through subsidiaries. I am concerned that this provision will 
adversely affect the ability of our institutions, our banks, to receive 
fair and equitable treatment in other nations. The Treasury Department 
also has serious concerns about this provision.
  I would point out for instance that an institution like Citicorp, or 
Citibank, has been located in Latin America since 1913. That has not 
only been a valuable asset for Citibank but also for many American 
businesses and individuals who travel and do business in Latin America. 
To have been able to have an American financial institution in those 
nations for almost a century has been extremely important to us as a 
nation.
  If we do not allow foreign institutions that meet our basic standards 
and tests to operate here, then U.S. institutions that operate so 
effectively and have over the years elsewhere of course could be badly 
adversely affected. This law is the exception to an otherwise I think 
well crafted piece of legislation which should and must be passed.
  We have reached an ideal time in my view to act on this enormously 
critical legislation which will bolster the long-term health of our 
banking system.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this significant change to 
our current system.
  Mr. President, I am told that there are a number of amendments that 
are being considered to be offered to this legislation. Let me just say 
to my colleagues, I am told that some of the ideas, in fact, are the 
ones that I have supported in the past and hopefully can support again. 
But we have worked for so many years to arrive at this moment in point 
to be able to have an interstate banking and branching bill which has 
passed the other body, has come out of our Banking Committee with a 19-
to-nothing vote, and is on the brink of passage here. If we take 
amendments to this legislation, no matter how meritorious they may be, 
I can almost guarantee that this legislation will die. We have a 
crowded agenda in the remaining weeks before us. If we get tied up in a 
conference with the House of Representatives on this bill, then my view 
is the legislation will fail, and once again, consumers in my view will 
be adversely affected.
  Our hope is today to be able to consider those amendments. Obviously 
each and every Senator has a right to offer amendments to this 
legislation. But if we consider those amendments today and pass this 
legislation by this evening, then I am confident that we could adopt 
this bill very, very quickly and make a significant contribution to 
improving the financial conditions of our institutions but more 
importantly to provide a real convenience and asset to millions of 
Americans and consumers who need and have a right to interstate banking 
and branching to meet their financial concerns and needs.
  Mr. President, it is 11:05. My hope is that over the next 50 minutes 
Members who have amendments will come to the floor so that we may 
consider those proposals. I am told that we will take a break for our 
respective conferences, as we do every Tuesday in the Senate normally 
between 12 and 2. But because of the considerations of health care 
legislation, the conferences are going to go a bit longer today until 3 
o'clock.
  So we will be tied up considering in our respective meetings the 
various health care proposals. So any amendments I would welcome in the 
next 50 minutes so we might dispose of before we go into that recess at 
12 noon.
  Without seeing any additional Members on the floor, Mr. President, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________