[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]

 
                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12 noon 
having arrived, the Senate will stand in recess until the hour of 3 
p.m.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:07 p.m. recessed until the hour of 3 
p.m.; whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the 
Presiding Officer [Mrs. Murray].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of 
Washington, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1659

                   (Purpose: To require a GAO report)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I have an amendment relating to a GAO 
report I would like to offer at this time. I send the amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1659.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.  . GAO REPORT ON DATA COLLECTION UNDER INTERSTATE 
                   BRANCHING.

       (a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall submit to 
     the Congress, not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, a report that--
       (1) examines statutory and regulatory requirements for 
     insured depository institutions to collect and report deposit 
     and lending data; and
       (2) determines what modifications to such requirements are 
     needed, so that implementing the interstate branching 
     provisions contained in this Act results in no material loss 
     of information important to regulatory or congressional 
     oversight of insured depository institutions.
       (b) Consultation.--The Comptroller General, in preparing 
     the report required by this section, shall consult with 
     individuals representing the appropriate Federal banking 
     agencies, insured depository institutions, consumers, 
     community groups, and other interested parties.
       (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms 
     ``appropriate Federal banking agency'' and ``insured 
     depository institution'' have the same meanings as in section 
     3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I have an amendment relating to a GAO 
report on the requirement for insured depository institutions to 
collect data in light of this legislation, which I understand will be 
accepted by the managers of the bill. As I indicated, this amendment 
would simply direct GAO to submit a report on data collection under 
interstate branching to determine if modifications to existing 
requirements should be implemented in light of the enactment of this 
legislation.
  I appreciate the chairman's suggestion to perfect the amendment.
  Madam President, I had intended to offer an amendment to S. 1963, the 
Interstate Banking and Branching Act of 1994, that related to 
continuing current law requirements for certain statements of 
condition. The information in those condition statements is useful to 
regulators and consumer groups in evaluating the performance of insured 
depository institutions, but in the new banking structures allowed 
under S. 1963, there may be significant gaps in the reporting that we 
currently require.
  These gaps arise because of the nature of the new banking structures 
allowed in S. 1963. Because under current law, branches are allowed 
only in the same State as their home bank, these statements of 
condition, known as call reports, necessarily provided a State-by-State 
assessment of key financial institution activities. The potential for 
cross-State branching could undermine the ability of regulators and 
consumer groups to make such assessments on a State-by-State basis.
  A central concern that many of us have with the proposed national 
interstate banking and branching legislation is the potential for a 
loss of critical banking services in some communities, as banks are 
purchased by large out-of-State institutions. Information provided in 
call reports can be useful in evaluating that kind of trend, and is all 
the more important as we move away from our traditional State-based 
banking system to a nationwide system.
  Although I considered offering an amendment specifically requiring 
that, for institutions with assets over $1 billion, limited call 
reports be made on a State-by-State basis, I am persuaded that this 
matter should be examined in the larger context of the call reports 
themselves.
  To that end, I will not offer my original amendment, but instead have 
offered language requiring that the General Accounting Office review 
the statutory and regulatory requirements for the collection and report 
of deposit and lending data, in consultation with regulators, 
consumers, community groups, and representatives of insured 
institutions.
  I hope this GAO analysis of the broader issue of call report 
information will help assess whether such requirements for State-by-
State reporting should be mandated either by statute or regulation.
  I appreciate the support of the managers for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Madam President, let me say to the Senator from Wisconsin 
that this is an amendment that I am prepared to accept. It has been 
cleared on the Republican side. I now urge its adoption without 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1659) was agreed to.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, first, let me commend the members of 
the Banking Committee, Senator Riegle particularly, who is on the 
floor, Senator D'Amato, and Senator Dodd, for bringing up what I 
consider long overdue, and that is the interstate banking bill. As 
Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen said last year: ``We currently have a 
de facto system of interstate banking. But it's a patchwork system, and 
it's clumsy.''
  I would certainly agree, Madam President, and I believe this bill 
will bring a degree of much needed rationality to the banking system 
and make our Nation's banks more competitive with their international 
counterparts. It is very important.
  I was in the commercial banking business for 25 years, and I have 
observed the participation of foreign institutions doing business in 
the United States, their ability to compete with us, and, of course, 
the difficulty of our banks being allowed access to foreign countries 
on the basis of reciprocity. So we need to have a correction here that 
will bring our banking system more into conformity to compete with our 
international counterparts. Those counterparts in many cases do not 
have the same antitrust oversight that ours have.
  Madam President, there is another aspect of the banking system that I 
personally think Congress should revisit. I know this is something that 
occasionally is misinterpreted when we talk about the Community 
Reinvestment Act of 1977, or the CRA, and the impact that the CRA has 
on community-owned banks which are owned by minorities. In our effort 
to try to ensure equity, we have an unworkable situation that really 
needs to be addressed.
  When we adopted the Community Reinvestment Act, we did so with the 
intent of getting banks and other financial services institutions to 
better serve citizens living in communities where they operate. In 
particular, it was designed to encourage lending activity in poor 
communities, the low-income communities, and especially communities 
where there were large minority populations. Too often, we have heard 
of situations where large State and nationally chartered banks 
establish branches in and around low-income communities, collected 
their deposits, and then refused to provide loans to businesses and 
individuals living right around the corner from the branch. Obviously, 
that is wrong, and corrections were needed.
  However, unlike large multi-State banks, small community banks 
generally receive their funds from the community where they operate and 
most often invest those funds back within the community. Yet small 
community banks are regulated by the same set of rules under the 
Community Reinvestment Act as large banks which have branch offices in 
many different communities that have greater opportunity to invest 
selectively in any part of the country or, for that matter, abroad.
  By their very nature, most small community banks try to conform to 
the spirit of the Community Reinvestment Act, and yet they have to 
abide by the onerous burdens imposed by the Community Reinvestment Act. 
In a recent study of community banks, it was found that community banks 
have to spend more than $1 billion annually to comply with the 
Community Reinvestment Act. Imagine that, Madam President, $1 billion 
it cost these small community banks to comply with these regulations. 
The cost of establishing the sophisticated CRA compliance program is 
especially burdensome to small community bankers and places them at a 
competitive disadvantage with their larger competitors. If community 
banks have to pass on their costs to their customers for this CRA 
compliance, their customers are simply going to move. They are going to 
go to the larger banks that have branches in the surrounding areas 
because they can better absorb the cost of the compliance. Clearly, the 
larger banks can absorb the cost of compliance. The smaller bank cannot 
and, as a consequence, have to pass it on.
  The real issue is whether the paperwork and outreach requirements 
imposed by the CRA make any sense, especially in the case of community 
banks owned by minorities. We have encouraged lending in poor and 
minority communities by providing preferences to minority-owned banks. 
Fine. That is as it should be. That reflects the real world reality 
that many minority-owned lending institutions are more willing to 
provide loans to minority members than are large multi-State banks.
  And it is a reality that many members of minority groups feel more 
comfortable doing business with a bank with the same ethnic heritage. 
We can certainly understand that. It may not be the way we would like 
to have the banking world operate--or businesses, for that matter--but 
it is a known fact. I know of many cases where immigrants from Korea, 
Taiwan, and China have come to this country looking to make a better 
life and have found that the most comfortable way is using a bank owned 
by Asian-Americans to transact business. Language and cultural barriers 
are minimized when they do business with such banks, and they perceive 
having a better chance of receiving a loan from such a bank that 
understands them and is interested, obviously, in their establishing 
themselves here in America.
  I have heard the same story told about African-American citizens. 
Many minority groups believe they have a better chance of getting a 
loan to start a business or buy a house if they are dealing with a bank 
that is owned by members with similar ethnic backgrounds. Many of these 
minority-owned banks want to make loans to members of their ethnic 
group.
  Last year, two senior executive officers of African-American-owned 
banks in Los Angeles wrote to the Los Angeles Times confirming this 
view, and let me quote from their letter to the Times:

       As minority bankers, we are well aware that minority banks 
     were formed specifically to lend to minority applicants who 
     were overlooked by more mainstream institutions. Asian-
     American banks tend to lend to Asian-American applicants, and 
     African-American banks tend to lend to African-American 
     applicants--because those applicants often have nowhere else 
     to turn.

  Madam President, that is the reality of minority banking. It will 
continue to be.
  That brings me back to the Community Reinvestment Act and the 
accompanying regulations.
  The minority-owned bank must make overt efforts to reach out to all 
groups in the community where it is operating, and is judged by the 
same standards for community reinvestment as nonminority-owned 
institutions.
  Imagine in Los Angeles, Madam President, under the Community 
Reinvestment Act, a small community-owned bank, serving an ethnic 
district has to show that it is trying to solicit business from outside 
that area in the same manner that any other national bank with many 
branches in Los Angeles is trying to do. It is an impossibility. It is 
an inconsistency. It is not practical. It makes all community-owned 
banks less competitive and really achieves no other purpose, other than 
increasing their costs.
  For example, Madam President, a Hispanic-owned bank operating in a 
community that has a large population of Asian Americans, as an 
example, must make significant efforts to provide services to the Asian 
community. That may require placing ads in local Chinese-, Japanese-
language newspapers, contacting local Chinese and Japanese community 
groups, and making other outreach efforts to serve the financial needs 
of this community.
  That would be the mandated effort under the act of a Hispanic-owned 
bank, say in Los Angeles. It has to reach out beyond the minority it 
serves and prove that it is attempting to serve Asian-Americans, 
Japanese, Chinese and so forth. That is really an impracticality and 
one I am inclined to generalize. But I feel the Banking Committee has 
overlooked this, in its efforts in this regard to bring about 
substantive changes in our banking regulations.
  Of course the same is true for an Asian-American bank operating in a 
community composed of groups of Asian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and 
African-Americans. From what I have learned from speaking to minority 
bankers in some of these communities, the result of these outreach 
programs have been very discouraging and very costly. Time and money 
has been spent on bridging cultures, and produces very little, if any, 
new opportunities for these minority-owned banks. Resources that could 
be better be spent on servicing the ethnic group reflecting the 
minority owners is diverted into a futile effort to bridge ethnic 
groups.
  One Asian-American bank in Los Angeles--I might add an Asian-
American-owned bank--has written to me to indicate its efforts to 
penetrate the Hispanic and African-American communities. Since 1992 the 
bank has advertised continually in local newspapers in different 
languages. The bank has participated in community development programs 
and has had regular contact with community groups, local governments, 
nonprofit developers, to ascertain the credit needs of these 
communities and minority groups. After a year of effort the bank 
received one response from the Hispanic community; none from the 
African-American community. This is a Chinese ethnic bank, serving 
Chinese-Americans in Los Angeles. But it is forced to move out into the 
Hispanic area and African-American community, to comply with this law.
  These are the facts. Minority-owned banks are trying to meet the 
standards imposed by the CRA, but for cultural reasons they simply find 
they cannot get into business with other minority groups. Yet at the 
same time these minority-owned banks are servicing the very minority 
populations that they are closest to, and doing a good job. These are 
often the same minority groups that would have difficulty gaining 
credit from other lenders, and for that reason we encourage minority 
ownership of banks. That is the basic reason. It is unfair and 
inefficient to penalize minority-owned banks with the same standards 
that we impose on other banks in this regard.
  If they are serving ethnic minorities, whether the minority borrower 
is around the corner from the bank or across the city should make no 
difference under this regulation. In many cases, if the minority-owned 
banks do not make a loan to the minority borrower, the borrower might 
have nowhere else to turn for the credit.
  Many minority-owned banks are very concerned about what else they can 
do to meet this CRA standard. Their fear is exacerbated that pending 
regulations would impose civil penalties against banks that receive a 
composite CRA rating of substantial noncompliance. Frankly, there is no 
basis for this regulatory proposal since the CRA provides only one 
specific sanction for a poor CRA record--the agency may condition or 
deny an application for a deposit facility by the bank, or a branch 
bank for that matter.
  I ask the floor managers if they have given any consideration to this 
dilemma relative to the service that the minority banks are providing 
in the community and the fact that there is no practical way they can 
comply with the CRA mandate because they are limited to service within 
the community and the minorities that they serve? To have to show 
evidence that they are effectively soliciting and generating business 
outside, that seems to be an inconsistency that the legislation that 
has been proposed has overlooked.
  I am hesitant to offer an amendment because I know the chairman of 
the Banking Committee is attempting to move this legislation along, but 
I really feel in this sense we have a void, and I would appreciate any 
comments or consideration he might give this matter with the assurance 
they try to consider the inequity and injustice that is before us.
  I would appreciate any remarks of the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Madam President, let me respond to the Senator from 
Alaska. I think he makes an important point, a valuable point. We have 
asked the bank regulators to look at the CRA and to concentrate on 
performance rather than forms and paperwork per se. They are in the 
process of reviewing and revising the method by which those objectives 
are pursued by banks.
  I think in the situation that the Senator cites, there are special 
factors and considerations that apply there. The Senator's point is 
well taken. It will be part of this debate. We will see to it that the 
regulators pay attention to the issues that my colleague has raised, to 
see what might be done about it.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the comments of the chairman of the 
Banking Committee. I think it is important for the regulators, the 
examiners, to recognize the merits of the job a minority bank is doing 
in meeting the credit needs of the minority community.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Right.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. To expect them to be very effective outside that puts 
them at a great disadvantage. I hope we can see within the interpretive 
language of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, some language that would address this 
inconsistency, because I have heard from those regulators and they, 
too, have a degree of frustration because they are mandated under the 
act. Yet the realities are that many of these small community banks do 
a good service. It puts them at an unfair disadvantage to be measured 
by a ruler that simply is unrealistic.
  If the chairman can give me that assurance the legislative language 
or intent will recognize this, I will not proceed with my proposed 
amendment.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Let me continue by saying I will take the issue up with 
the regulators. We will see what can be done. They are in the process 
right now of attempting to reevaluate how the CRA process is applied 
and made to work and is measured. I think there is, as the Senator 
says, an anomaly here. There is an inherent contradiction, if you will, 
when you get outside the minority interests that a specialized 
institution of the kind the Senator cites is aimed at.
  So let us pursue it that way. I think that is probably the best way 
to try to respond to the concern the Senator has raised.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the spirit under which the chairman took 
my remarks and look forward to some enlightenment from the regulators.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1660

(Purpose: To clarify the statute of limitations for actions brought by 
  the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Resolution Trust 
                Corporation as conservator or receiver)

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1660.

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 26, after line 18, insert the following new title:

            TITLE II--BANK AND THRIFT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Bank and Thrift Statute of 
     Limitations Clarification Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 202. AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT.

       Section 11(d)(14)(B)(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(14)(B)(i)) is amended by inserting 
     after ``receiver'' the following: ``, regardless of whether 
     the claim may have been barred under any otherwise applicable 
     statute of limitation at the date of such appointment, unless 
     such claim was barred more than 5 years before the date of 
     such appointment''

     SEC. 203. APPLICABILITY.

       The amendment made by section 202 shall apply to all 
     actions pending or brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation and the Resolution Trust Corporation as 
     conservator or receiver on or after August 9, 1989.
       On page 1, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

             ``TITLE I--INTERSTATE BANKING AND BRANCHING''.

       Redesignate sections 1 through 7 of the bill as sections 
     101 through 107, respectively.
       On page 1, line 4, strike ``Act'' and insert ``title''.

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, this amendment will protect over 
$1.6 billion in RTC and FDIC claims in the courts.
  Two weeks ago, the Acting Chairman of the FDIC, Mr. Andrew Hove, Jr., 
sent a letter to Senator Riegle, with a copy to myself, asking for this 
legislation. Two days later, the RTC's Acting Chief Executive Officer, 
Mr. John Ryan, also sent a letter asking for legislation.
  The FDIC letter said that $500 million in existing FDIC lawsuits was 
threatened unless we pass legislation.
  The RTC letter said that over $1.1 billion in RTC claims against 
officers and directors who are culpable in the failure of savings and 
loans is at risk without this legislation.
  The RTC letter also said that without legislation, the statute of 
limitations legislation that we recently passed is in jeopardy. I think 
this is important to many of my colleagues.
  The RTC said that our two recent extensions of the Federal statute of 
limitations are imperiled. These extensions were in December's RTC 
Completion Act and in February legislation--authored by Senator D'Amato 
and myself--in response to the Whitewater-Madison Savings and Loan 
floor debate.
  I know that Senator D'Amato feels strongly about this problem, 
because on April 14, he introduced a bill, S. 2021, containing the 
language of this amendment. I am an original cosponsor with Senator 
D'Amato, along with Senators John Kerry  and Donald Riegle.
  When he introduced the bill, Senator D'Amato said that he was 
concerned about its retroactivity. I want to tell my colleague from New 
York that there is no legal impediment to the retroactive application 
of nonsubstantive civil law, such as this amendment.
  Let me also assure my colleague that, under this amendment, 
defendants cannot be sued for acts that were not illegal at the time 
they committed them. No one will wake up and find themselves sued for 
something that was not illegal when they committed it. All this 
amendment does is give the Government extra time to discover previous 
wrongdoing and file suit.
  This amendment is necessary because recent Federal court decisions 
have created a deplorable situation. Federal courts have dismissed FDIC 
and RTC lawsuits against officers and directors of failed S&L's and 
banks who were clearly involved in misconduct.
  I want to repeat that. Federal courts have dismissed FDIC and RTC 
lawsuits against officers and directors of failed savings and loans and 
banks who were clearly involved in misconduct.
  Unfortunately, because of these recent court decisions, the 
wrongdoers will never have to pay for their wrongdoing. Who do you 
think will pay? The same crowd that always has to pay: The taxpayers 
will pay.
  The reason has nothing to do with the merits of the cases. The reason 
is that a State statute of limitations expired before the FDIC took 
over the thrift or bank. That gets pretty technical; if the State 
statute expires, the Federal statute does not attach.
  We have a Federal statute of limitations, which we enacted in FIRREA. 
Unfortunately, many Federal courts have interpreted FIRREA to require 
that the State statute of limitations must be unexpired before the 
Federal statute of limitations can take effect. I believe those courts 
misjudged in those cases. In effect, the Federal statute must attach to 
an unexpired, State statute. That is something we did not intend when 
we adopted FIRREA, and it should not be the law.
  The language of FIRREA says that the Federal statute of limitations 
``begins to run * * * on the later of,'' one, the date that the thrift 
is taken over by the Federal Government, or, two, the date the cause of 
action accrues.
  Clearly, Congress meant by this that the statute of limitations 
cannot run before the RTC or FDIC takes over. Nonetheless, more and 
more courts have interpreted FIRREA to require that the State statute 
of limitations not have expired when the RTC or FDIC takes over.
  We did not contemplate this when we passed FIRREA. In fact, the 
FIRREA conference committee rejected a provision that would have said 
that FIRREA would not revive claims under expired State statutes of 
limitation.
  To let the present situation continue is manifestly unfair to the 
taxpayer who must pay the bill when wrongdoers cannot be sued.
  This is not something we can put off. My colleagues on the Banking 
Committee and others are suggesting this is not quite the time, but 
this is an urgent matter. The FDIC and the RTC are losing cases almost 
every week because of these court decisions. They are asking us to help 
them. They are trying to do their job as Government officials, trying 
to hold people responsible who should be held responsible, and we have 
an obligation to vote favorably and adopt this amendment in order to 
protect the taxpayers' interests.
  We can talk all we want over here about balancing the budget. We can 
talk about all the things we are doing to save taxpayers money, but if 
we do not adopt this amendment, we are letting billions of dollars, 
about $1.5 billion, fly out the door, and the taxpayers will be Mr. and 
Mrs. Sucker. He or she will be stuck holding the bill.
  Thus far, 50 cases have been affected.
  This amendment is very simple. It does two things. First, it 
clarifies that Congress, when it passed FIRREA, intended the Federal 
statute of limitations to run without having to attach to an unexpired 
State statute of limitations. Second, it limits the revival of any 
claim whose statute of limitations has expired under State law. This 
amendment says that claims which expired under State statute of 
limitations law more than 5 years before the FDIC or RTC took over a 
thrift or bank may not be brought. Claims cannot be revived more than 5 
years before the RTC or FDIC take over. That protects taxpayers. It 
starts with the $1.6 billion in existing lawsuits against failed banks 
and savings and loan office directors that the RTC and FDIC say is at 
risk if we do not pass corrective legislation.
  Clearly, we cannot wait for separate legislation. With a simple two-
sentence clarification, $1.6 billion in claims can be protected.
  Now, my friend, the chairman of the committee, and others have 
suggested to me that the Banking Committee wants a clean bill. Well, I 
wish to have a clean sweep of all the dollars that are owed to the 
taxpayers of this country by officers and directors who were guilty of 
wrongdoing and ripped off the RTC or the FDIC.
  The RTC has already spoken on the need for this legislation, as part 
of the Banking Committee's annual RTC oversight hearing. The FDIC 
acting chairman has asked this committee, the Banking Committee--in 
fact, he urged the committee--to ``propose'' and ``promote'' this 
legislation. His words, not mine--``propose and promote.'' His letter 
says that ``without such legislation, more and more RTC and FDIC 
professional liability cases will continue to be dismissed on the 
technicality of the statute of limitations having run before the 
institution failed.'' That is his quote--``on the technicality of the 
statute of limitations having run before the institution failed,'' 
before the RTC or FDIC could even get in there.
  The present situation is simply inequitable, unfair to the taxpayers. 
Let my give you an example that illustrates the unfairness of the 
current situation. Last month, in Tyler, TX, in the case of FDIC versus 
Henderson, the case went to trial before a Federal jury. The jury found 
that the defendant was grossly negligent and in breach of his fiduciary 
duties in connection with the failure of two thrifts. The defendant, a 
Mr. John Henderson, was the president, the chairman, and the largest 
stockholder of the thrifts. Mr. Henderson was clearly in control of the 
failed thrifts. He was the only board member to attend board meetings 
for almost 2 years. In fact, he was the only board member despite a 
Texas State law that requires five board members. In order to cover up 
this failure, Mr. Henderson had the minutes of the board of directors 
create the impression there were several board members present. Things 
were so bad that the jury found Henderson liable to the Federal 
taxpayers for $7 million in damages resulting from his grossly 
negligent behavior.
  But at the same time the jury concluded that, because of the recent 
Federal cases which require that State statutes of limitation not be 
expired before the Federal statute of limitations takes hold, Mr. 
Henderson could not be held accountable for his demonstrable 
wrongdoing. The Texas 2-year State statute of limitations had run 
before the FDIC took over the thrift.
  Let me give you the picture. Before the FDIC took over, Mr. Henderson 
was in control. He was the sole board member attending board meetings. 
He was the largest single shareholder. He was the chairman of the 
board. He was in total control. And he milked from this savings and 
loan an amount that the jury found to be $7 million.
  Now, the FDIC comes in at a later point when the thrift goes belly 
up, or prior to its actually going belly up, and takes over, and the 
thrift says, well, the reason for much of this loss relates directly to 
Mr. Henderson's conduct.
  So they sue Mr. Henderson, and Mr. Henderson, largest share holder, 
chairman of the board, only member of the board attending the meetings 
for 2 years, comes in and says, ``I have a defense. The State statute 
expired long before the FDIC took over.''
  That is unfair. It is unfair to the taxpayers. Mr. Henderson acted in 
a grossly negligent manner when he controlled the thrifts. His gross 
negligence cost innocent taxpayers millions in losses, yet he cannot be 
brought to justice. Instead, innocent taxpayers will have to pay. Mr. 
Henderson squandered the thrift's money, which has to be made up by the 
taxpayers, on risky loans. He squandered the thrift's money on 
outrageous personal benefits and accouterments, and he will not have to 
pay back a single penny.
  Why should Mr. Henderson get off on a technicality? While the thrift 
was losing almost a quarter of a million dollars a month, he spent the 
thrift's money on luxury cars and four $2 million airplanes for his own 
personal use. He had the thrift buy him a specially equipped $75,000 
BMW. Other cars, including a Mercedes, were kept at Henderson's ranch 
some 300 miles from the thrift where there was no way they could be 
used for thrift-related work. Henderson even had the thrifts buy him a 
$2 million jet, which he used to fly back and forth to the ranch for 
lunch--for lunch--all at the taxpayers' expense. A $2 million taxpayer-
financed plane to fly home for lunch. There is another way to describe 
it. Mr. Henderson was, indeed, taking the taxpayers for a ride.
  Unfortunately, because of these recent court decisions, Mr. Henderson 
is going to get away with it without repaying a dime. Why should the 
$35,000-a-year worker who works hard, struggles to pay his or her 
Federal income taxes, and barely makes it have to pay for Mr. 
Henderson's jet? I say to my colleagues, this case illustrates why we 
need this amendment.
  I could give you a number of other examples. Who is more culpable, 
the innocent taxpayer or Mr. Henderson with his $2 million lunches?
  I ask my colleagues to support fairness, to support this amendment, 
and I wish to point out that this amendment has been offered as a 
separate bill cosponsored by Senator Riegle, Senator D'Amato, Senator 
Kerry, and myself. The RTC and the FDIC say we need it. Without it, our 
recent extensions of the Federal statute of limitations are in peril. 
With two simple sentences, merely clarifying what we already passed, 
and one rollcall vote, we can correct this problem and protect over 
$1.5 billion in taxpayer money. I ask my colleagues to join me and vote 
for this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Madam President, the Senator from Ohio, as he has on a 
number of other occasions, has importantly highlighted this issue and 
this problem.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my remarks the letter from 
the FDIC dated April 11, 1994, be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. RIEGLE. Madam President, that letter requests that we introduce 
this legislation at their initiation. We have done so. We introduced it 
``by request,'' which is the phrase we use in situations like that. 
Senator D'Amato, the ranking minority member, joined me in responding 
to that request from the FDIC. But I hasten to add that we have not had 
any legislative hearings, as you might expect, because this letter is 
as recent as just a few days ago.
  So let me tell you that I introduced it not only because of the 
request from the FDIC, but I support the substance of the request. I 
support the extension myself. So I agree with the Senator from Ohio on 
the substance of the issue.
  Let me tell you one problem we have with it, however. As I am sure 
the Senator knows, this issue legislatively is not within our 
jurisdiction with respect to what will have to happen on the House 
side. The Judiciary Committee in the House will have to be involved in 
this issue. So it is outside the scope of our counterpart Banking 
Committee on the other body.
  One of the concerns that I have is that anything that we attach to 
this bill--which is a banking bill and a vote in the Banking 
Committee--in turn has to be set off by a second and different 
committee in the House, which always poses problems for us, as the 
Senator from Ohio knows. He is smiling because he can recall any number 
of cases where that has happened. I fully expect that it may happen in 
this case, as it has before, assuming that this were to be attached 
here.
  So that is a matter of some concern to me just as the manager of the 
bill, because I want to get the bill through, and I do not want to run 
into complications that are of a jurisdictional sort on the House side 
for that reason.
  We have in the past voted on extensions on a number of occasions, not 
precisely as drafted in this instance. But just for the record, on 
March 26, 1992, on September 8, 1992, on September 25, 1992, then in 
1993 on May 13, and then again this year on February 9, on those five 
occasions we have all had to deal with and vote on amendments or 
provisions regarding the statute of limitations and the extension. I 
have supported that all five times because I feel strongly about it for 
many of the reasons that the Senator from Ohio has stated. But I do see 
this complication in terms of the jurisdiction. I make that point.
  As I said, or meant to say, we have not had time yet to have 
legislative hearings on this issue in the committee because, as I say, 
we have just introduced this by request just in the last few days.
  Let me yield the floor at this point.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                   Federal Deposit


                                        Insurance Corporation,

                                   Washington, DC, April 11, 1994.
     Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I would like to bring to your attention 
     concerns that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has 
     with respect to recent court decisions interpreting the 
     statute of limitations governing actions brought by the FDIC 
     and the Resolution Trust Corporation as receiver or 
     conservator of failed institutions.
       The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and 
     Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) provides that the statute of 
     limitations for tort claims brought by the FDIC and the RTC 
     as conservator or receiver is the longer of three years or 
     the period applicable under state law. FIRREA also clearly 
     states that the date on which the statute of limitations 
     begins to run is the later of the date of the appointment of 
     the Corporation as conservator or receiver or the date on 
     which the cause of action accrues. Nevertheless, the courts 
     have added the further requirement that the claim must not be 
     barred under state law at the time the FDIC takes over.
       As described in the enclosed analysis of the issue, we 
     believe the courts have incorrectly applied the statute of 
     limitations that was established under FIRREA. Also enclosed 
     is legislation intended to clarify FIRREA with respect to 
     this issue. How the statute of limitations is computed is 
     critical to the FDIC's mission to hold bank and thrift 
     officials and professionals accountable and to maximize 
     recoveries from failed institutions. We estimate that over 
     $500 million in claims in pending lawsuits involving FDIC and 
     old FSLIC receiverships, and millions more for claims still 
     under investigation, are at risk for dismissal on statute of 
     limitations grounds if the proposed legislation is not 
     enacted. We understand that claims of the same general order 
     of magnitude involving RTC receiverships are similarly at 
     risk.
       I urge you to introduce the proposed legislation and to 
     promote its passage. Legislation to clarify the statute of 
     limitations is critical to allowing the FDIC and the RTC to 
     fulfill their missions to hold wrongdoers accountable and to 
     recover losses for the insurance funds and the taxpayers. 
     Without such legislation, more and more RTC and FDIC 
     professional liability cases will continue to be dismissed on 
     the ``technicality'' of the statute of limitations having run 
     before the institution failed. Such legislation is important 
     not only to maximize recoveries involving institutions that 
     failed in the past but also to ensure the orderly resolution 
     of institutions that may fail in the future.
       Please let me know if you have any questions or need 
     assistance with respect to our proposal.
                                              Andrew C. Hove, Jr.,
                                                  Acting Chairman.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Madam President, I think the chairman has articulated 
the situation well. I would be hard pressed to maintain opposition.
  I want to be very candid to the Senator from Ohio regarding his 
amendment. Given the fact that we have extended the statute of 
limitations unanimously--or just nearly unanimously--in this body as it 
related to the RTC, and notwithstanding that the FDIC has sent a letter 
indicating that they are not supportive, I think that the overwhelming 
sentiment of the body would be to go forward.
  Therefore, I will not oppose. As I think the chairman has quite 
accurately portrayed the situation that the House, as it relates to 
jurisdiction, may not, and indeed the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee in all likelihood will raise opposition.
  Again, I would say to both the chairman and to the distinguished 
Senator from Ohio that I will raise no opposition to this amendment 
here at this time, nor will I raise opposition to the amendment in 
conference. I will call for its adoption in conference. But again, to 
be very candid, because I do not want to say one thing to my 
colleague--and I think he knows we may agree or disagree on a number of 
issues--I do not say one thing to him today and do another thing 
tomorrow.
  I am a cosponsor of the original bill, the original legislation. But 
I am fearful that in the final analysis we may not be successful in 
getting the House to accept this. But I will go forward in a good-faith 
effort provided that it does not --as long as he understands that it 
does not--ultimately jeopardize final passage of the bill.
  I think he understands if I say that, I will make a good-faith effort 
to see that it is retained. I will do that. But up to the point that if 
indeed the House is in opposition and will not act on it because of the 
various committee jurisdictions and the disputes as it relates to that, 
then at that point I will feel constrained to yield to the House.
  I do not know. Maybe the House will accept this. It is not without 
precedent. The Senator knows the various players and Members. He has 
dealt with them through the years over there. I think he will probably 
reach out and contact the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and see 
if he cannot get them to acquiesce.
  So I say to him in all good faith that I will do nothing to attempt 
to impede this when it gets over to conference. I join with my 
colleague, if the Senator wants to urge adoption.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1660) was agreed to.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the role.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, while the Senator from Ohio is 
contemplating if he is ready to go forward--and if he is, I will resist 
going forward--I will make a statement relating to the Fair Housing 
Act, and advertising under the Fair Housing Act.
  Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to a troubling 
situation concerning the Fair Housing Act. It was originally designed 
to ensure decent, safe, and affordable housing for all Americans. The 
act is now being cited as an impediment to the ordinary and everyday 
process of advertising a home or property for sale, rent, or lease.
  The Federal Fair Housing Act bars discrimination against families 
with children and the disabled on the basis of a potential tenant's 
race, religion, national origin, or gender.
  Unfortunately, the interpretation of this fundamental principle has 
led us into the world of uncertainty over what is indeed fair when it 
comes to advertising property.
  The realtor associations and newspaper organizations around the 
country are sending out warnings to their members that they need to be 
very, very sensitive to words, phrases, and statements that relate to 
people and that might be construed to be discriminatory. Fair housing 
advocates are poring over real estate sections in local newspapers 
looking for anything that might be perceived as steering minority 
communities away from the advertised property or community.
  From New York to Ohio, Oregon to Kentucky, Iowa and Virginia, 
newspapers are facing lawsuits or complaints alleging they have printed 
discriminatory ads.
  In Oregon, a fair housing advocacy group filed complaints last year 
against more than a dozen of the State's newspapers. Without admitting 
guilt, the newspapers nonetheless agreed to pay the council $25,000 and 
provide $42,000 worth of free advertising to publicize the Fair Housing 
Act. As a result, the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association now has a 
special guidebook for members, and one Oregon landlord organization has 
developed a list of troublesome words that could lead to problems. 
Among other things, the publisher's guidebook warns that a home 
advertised as ``perfect for running, biking professional'' may run 
afoul of the Fair Housing Act because it discriminates against the 
handicapped.
  In Dubuque, IA, a newspaper agreed to pay $1,000 and run a series on 
fair housing issues after local activists complained about four ads. In 
one of the ads, the advertiser used the phrase ``two-person occupancy'' 
in a description of a two-bedroom apartment.
  Mr. President, these cases raise an interesting dilemma for anyone 
who tries to market a property: You could be liable under the Fair 
Housing Act for something that might not be discriminatory nor 
intentional.
  Hundreds of cases have been filed by individuals and organizations 
using the Fair Housing Act as the cornerstone of their legal battle. 
Many of these cases are legitimate, but some have been frivolous. Are 
we in for a flood of litigation because of the way in which the Fair 
Housing Act is being interpreted?
  If you say your home is ``close to the best schools,'' is that 
discriminatory? If you advertise a property in an ``exclusive 
neighborhood,'' is that indicative of a racial bias? If the home or 
apartment is ``perfect for singles,'' does that discriminate against 
families with children? Even the word ``executive'' has been cited in 
complaints.
  Unfortunately, the only way to be safe is to simply describe a 
property in the basic sense. But I ask you, Mr. President, is that 
fair? Should realtors and property owners be forced to overcomply with 
the law simply to avoid litigation? Should newspapers be in the 
business of policing classified ads to see that the Fair Housing Act is 
being followed?
  Even a newspaper's first amendment protection is no match for the 
Federal Fair Housing Act. So far, this problem is limited to 
residential real estate advertising.
  I support the goal of the Fair Housing Act to reduce discrimination 
in the buying, selling, and rental of real estate. Nevertheless, this 
effort is fraught with danger. Since the risk of being sued has never 
been greater, all sellers and landlords who are planning to publish an 
ad should first get the help of a veteran real estate agent, 
advertising specialist, or lawyer. One wrong word, and they may be 
headed for court.
  All publishers of advertisements, advertising agents, and firms 
engaged in the sale, rental, or financing of real estate are required 
to provide a printed copy of their nondiscrimination policy to 
employees and clients.
  It is hard to believe that we have, in America, a list of words that 
cannot be used to protect newspapers, realtors, landlords, anyone who 
has something to publish from ending up in court. But we do. Some of 
those awful words and phrases are ``physically fit,'' ``mature,'' 
``families,'' ``adults,'' ``bachelor,'' ``retired,'' and the list goes 
on and on. The word ``privacy'' is even prohibited, according to the 
Oregon guidebook.
  Should we also be concerned about terms like ``active,'' ``desirable 
neighborhood,'' ``handyman's dream,'' ``quiet neighborhood,'' 
``sophisticated,'' and ``within walking distance of''? What about 
``fisherman's retreat''? Could that be construed to be discriminatory 
against nonfishermen? Against women who fish? It is absurd, but it is 
all possible under the Fair Housing Act.
  This trend is to promote lists of acceptable and unacceptable words 
for advertisers. But I am very concerned about the way we are 
interpreting the Fair Housing Act and worry that it may not end with 
real estate ads. It may not affect you now, but where do we go from 
here?
  Mr. President, a real estate developer of single-family housing 
expressed to me that he was concerned that newspapers have turned his 
ads down because he wanted to advertise a ``master bedroom,'' ``walk-in 
closet,'' or ``in close proximity to churches and temples.''
  If indeed we are reaching this point of absurdity, and it is absurd, 
we are at total variance with what the Fair Housing Act is and should 
be about. It should be about seeing that there is no discrimination.
  I suggest that if we get into the business of saying that ``walk-in 
closet'' may somehow connote that it does not take into consideration 
the handicapped and that this should be on the list of proscribed no-
nos, this becomes a rather dangerous precedent and one that I think is 
well beyond the intent of Congress, and I would hope that HUD will be 
sensitive to the realities of the world and not attempt to stifle free 
speech in such a way.
  Free speech is at the core of this. Long Island and probably many 
other communities came about many years ago initially as a result of 
communities being in close proximity to mass transportation--at that 
time it was the Long Island Railroad, and it was very desirable to have 
a home within walking distance of this railroad, as it still is in many 
communities. Have we become so paranoid with political correctness that 
we cannot say ``walking distance'' because somehow that would be 
interpreted as not being inclusive or aware of the handicapped and 
their needs? If so, I would say to you that it is a great perversion of 
what the law should be about.
  My staff has contacted the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development and made them aware of these concerns which have been 
brought to my attention by many people in the real estate and housing 
industry. HUD must look carefully at this and not make a mockery of a 
very important law, a law against discrimination that should be 
enforced with vigor but not reach so far as to make it a sham.
  I yield the floor, and 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. 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.


                           Amendment No. 1661

 (Purpose: To amend provisions of the bill relating to State decisions 
   to allow or prohibit interstate branching, and for other purposes)

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, a number of Senators have been working 
with me and Senator D'Amato to try to perfect an amendment, and we 
resolved that issue. It is the major issue that we have been dealing 
with over the last few hours.
  I want to give a brief explanation and send it to the desk on behalf 
of Senator D'Amato and myself.
  In developing this amendment, I have worked not only with Senator 
D'Amato, but with Senator Graham of Florida; Senator Roth; Senator 
Feingold, who is here and expressed a keen interest in this; Senator 
Simpson; Senator Kerrey; and Senator Campbell, a member of the 
committee. All of those Senators are listed as cosponsors of this 
amendment.
  We have discussed the amendment that I will be sending to the desk 
with the administration, and they do not object to it.
  This amendment would extend until June 1, 1997, the time period for 
which States can decide whether to opt out of the interstate 
combination provisions of the bill. This would essentially extend the 
time period for an additional year as compared to what was provided in 
the reported bill. This amendment responds to concerns of some States 
and their Senators that the State legislatures need a sufficient period 
of time to consider legislative changes that might be needed at the 
State level in preparation for interstate branching.
  I now send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Riegle], for himself, Mr. 
     D'Amato, Mr Graham, Mr. Roth, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Simpson, Mr. 
     Kerrey, and Mr. Campbell proposes an amendment numbered 1661.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 6, strike lines 10 through 12, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) Combinations authorized.--Beginning on June 1, 1997, 
     a bank holding company having''.
       On page 11, line 6, insert ``and prior to June 1, 1997,'' 
     before ``that applies''.
       On page 11, lines 17 and 18, strike ``Laws enacted 
     subsequent to authorization date.--'' and insert ``Effect of 
     state election.--''.
       Beginning with page 11, line 25, strike ``during the 2-year 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     subsection'' and insert ``prior to June 1, 1997''.
       On page 12, strike lines 19 through 23 and insert the 
     following:
       ``performance beyond June 1, 1997.
       ``(8) Combinations after june 1, 1997.--A State described 
     in para--''.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I do not know if the ranking minority 
member wants to make a comment--perhaps the Senator from Wisconsin 
does--but we would be prepared to move on this quite rapidly.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be able to support 
this amendment. I think it makes ample sense.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to thank the manager very 
much for bringing this amendment forward. It is something I have been 
working on with people from Wisconsin, including the Governor, who 
thought this would be very helpful.
  As the manager suggested, this would simply extend from 2 years, 
which is the current period suggested, to a date certain, June 1, 1997, 
the period of time during which States could opt out of interstate 
branching. The additional time is necessary to allow State legislatures 
the opportunity to enact State legislation which will provide the 
framework for the new system.
  Because a number of State legislatures will not be in session after 
July 31, it is important that these kinds of complex issues have some 
legislative time at the State level.
  This change is supported by the National Governors Association.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the 
Governor of Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson, regarding this issue be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I also want to add, Mr. President, that even with this 
change, any State can enact interstate branching before this time 
period, before June 1, 1997. They are free to move forward as rapidly 
as they wish.
  All this amendment does is simply give those States, especially rural 
States where legislatures are not in continuous session, a little more 
time to respond in a comprehensive and responsible fashion.
  So I, again, am very grateful to the manager for his cooperation and 
help in making this possible.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                           State of Wisconsin,

                                                   April 19, 1994.
     Hon. Russell Feingold,
     Hart Senate Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: I would like to bring to your 
     attention my concerns about the interstate branching 
     legislation and urge you to support amendments that would 
     protect state revenues and regulatory interests.
       The current Senate bill (S. 1963) does neither. The 
     legislation authorizes interstate branching unless a state 
     opts out within a two year time period. States, at a minimum, 
     need a three year time frame before implementation of this 
     bill in order to amend state tax and banking laws affected by 
     federal legislation. After May 31st of this year, 37 state 
     legislatures will not be in session and will not be able to 
     initiate the necessary changes. Unless our state tax laws are 
     amended, Wisconsin stands to lose significant revenue when 
     interstate branching occurs.
       In addition, the bill does not specifically preserve the 
     rights of states to apply state laws to the branches of 
     national banks. This legislation could override state 
     regulatory and consumer laws. State sovereignty requires that 
     states have the ability to affect banking operations within 
     their borders.
       Most importantly, all banks within the state should be 
     subject to the same rules. Banks moving into Wisconsin to do 
     business should follow the same laws as local banks.
       The state of Wisconsin will benefit from your support of 
     any amendments that provide states three years to consider 
     interstate branching and that ensure interstate branches of 
     out-of-state banks are subject to the laws of our state just 
     like state-chartered banks.
       Please call me or Robert Cook (202-624-5870) if you have 
     any questions regarding the effect of this legislation on 
     Wisconsin.
           Sincerely,
                                                Tommy G. Thompson,
                                                         Governor.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Riegle and 
D'Amato in offering this amendment because I am concerned that States 
will not have adequate time to respond to the very fundamental 
questions posed for them by this bill.
  As Secretary Bentsen emphasized, we should ``continue to leave it 
entirely to the States to decide if they don't want out-of-state banks 
doing business within their borders.'' That makes sense to me. 
Unfortunately, as the bill is currently drafted, States would have just 
2 years to enact legislation prohibiting interstate branching if they 
so chose. If a State does not act in that time, banks within the State 
can begin to consolidate their operations across State lines. This 
presents particular difficulties in States where legislatures do not 
meet each year. Of course, a State may address the issue in later 
years, but the horse is already out of the barn. Under the legislation 
it is not possible to reverse any consolidation that has lawfully taken 
place.
  Because there are so many factors that each State's policymakers must 
take into account in formulating a decision, not the least of which is 
the revenue consequences, the Governors and the State legislatures have 
requested that they be given 3 years instead of 2 to make their initial 
choices. I would think they are the experts on how much time they need 
and that as representatives of the States in the Congress, we should be 
deferential on such a matter. They seem to grasp the reality that the 
choices given by the bill are not simple. The ramifications are many; 
the politics, intense; the revenue consequences, serious.
  During deliberations in the Banking Committee, I had pressed for 3 
years and was pleased that the bill which at the time provided only 1 
year to decide was amended to 2 years. At that time I reserved my right 
to support a 3-year amendment on the floor, and I am pleased to do so 
now as a cosponsor of the amendment to extend the opt-out period until 
June 1, 1997.
  I had argued in committee--and I repeat here--that the 2-year 
provision in the bill may very well be self-defeating for the 
proponents of the legislation. Constrained by a short period of time, 
and 2 years for a dozen States actually translates into a few months, 
many States may protect themselves by opting out so that they then have 
forever to decide. I respectfully suggest that forever is longer than 3 
years or until June 1, 1997, and that the proponents should find it in 
their interests to accept this amendment.
  The amendment we introduce today will ensure adequate time is granted 
for States to fully consider the merits of interstate branching, its 
impact on State tax revenue, and its effect on the consumer. I strongly 
support the change and urge swift adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1661) was agreed to.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1662

 (Purpose: To establish the National Commission on Financial Services)

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I will, in a moment, send to the desk an 
amendment on behalf of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun that has been 
cleared on both sides, the purpose of which is to establish a National 
Commission on Financial Services.
  I ask the clerk to report the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle] for Ms. Moseley-
     Braun, proposes an amendment numbered 1662.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 1, between lines 1 and 2, insert the following:
             ``TITLE I--INTERSTATE BANKING AND BRANCHING''.
       Redesignate sections 1 through 7 of the bill as sections 
     101 through 107, respectively.
       On page 26, after line 18, add the following new title:
                      TITLE II--FINANCIAL SERVICES

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited at the ``National Commission on 
     Financial Services Act''.

     SEC. 202. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FINANCIAL 
                   SERVICES.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the ``National Commission on Financial Services'' 
     (hereafter in this title referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership of the Commission.--
       (1) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 7 
     voting members and 3 nonvoting members appointed as follows:
       (A) Three voting members and 1 nonvoting member to be 
     appointed by the President.
       (B) Two voting members and 1 nonvoting member to be 
     appointed jointly by the Majority Leader of the Senate and 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
       (C) Two voting members and 1 nonvoting member appointed 
     jointly by the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority 
     Leader of the House of Representatives.
       (2) Qualifications.--
       (A) Voting members.--
       (i) In general.--Voting members appointed pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be appointed from among individuals who 
     are users of the financial services system, and shall include 
     representatives of business, agriculture, and consumers.
       (ii) Prohibition.--No voting member of the Commission shall 
     be an employee of the Federal Government or any State 
     government.
       (B) Nonvoting members.--Nonvoting members appointed 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be appointed from among 
     individuals who are experts in finance or in the financial 
     services system.
       (3) Appointment.--The appointment of the members of the 
     Commission shall be made not later than June 30, 1994.
       (4) Terms.--Members shall be appointed for the life of the 
     Commission.
       (5) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect the powers of the Commission and shall be filled in 
     the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (6) Chairperson.--The President shall designate 1 of the 
     voting members of the Commission to serve as the chairperson 
     of the Commission (hereafter in this title referred to as the 
     ``Chairperson'').
       (7) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (8) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (9) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.

     SEC. 203. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall, after consultation 
     in accordance with paragraph (3), conduct a study of all 
     matters relating to the strengths and weaknesses of the 
     United States financial services system in meeting the needs 
     of users of the system, including all laws, regulations, and 
     policies that govern part or all of the financial services 
     industry or that affect the ability of the financial services 
     industry to effectively and efficiently meet the needs of--
       (A) the United States economy;
       (B) individual consumers and households;
       (C) communities;
       (D) agriculture;
       (E) small-, medium-, and large-sized businesses (including 
     the need for debt, equity, and other financial needs);
       (F) governmental and nonprofit entities; and
       (G) exporters and other users of international financial 
     services.
       (2) Matters studied.--The study required under paragraph 
     (1) shall include consideration of--
       (A) the changes underway in the national and international 
     economies and the financial services industry, and the impact 
     of such changes on the ability of the financial services 
     system to efficiently meet the needs of the United States 
     economy and the users of the system during the next 10 years 
     and beyond;
       (B) the adequacy of the existing framework of Federal and 
     State laws and regulations, and the extent to which Federal 
     laws and regulations, in an efficient and cost-effective 
     manner--
       (i) achieve consumer protection objectives;
       (ii) promote competition and prevent anticompetitive acts 
     and practices or undue concentration;
       (iii) ensure that the financial services are delivered in a 
     nondiscriminatory and cost-efficient manner; and
       (iv) ensure access to the financial services system for all 
     potential users of the system, regardless of where such users 
     are located; and
       (C) the extent to which the Federal regulatory structure 
     impacts the achievement of the objectives in subparagraph 
     (B).
       (3) Consultation.--Consultation in accordance with this 
     paragraph means consultation with--
       (A) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System;
       (B) the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision;
       (C) the Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation;
       (D) the Comptroller of the Currency;
       (E) the Secretary of the Treasury;
       (F) the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development;
       (G) the Securities Exchange Commission;
       (H) the Commodities Futures Trading Commission;
       (I) the Director of the Congressional Budget Office; and
       (J) the Comptroller General of the United States.
       (b) Recommendations.--Based on the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a), the Commission shall develop 
     specific recommendations for changes in laws and regulations 
     to improve the operation of the United States financial 
     services system, including needed changes in the Federal 
     legislative and regulatory policies and in the Federal 
     regulatory structure that would enhance--
       (1) the ability of the financial services system, or any 
     part thereof, to respond to the needs of all potential users 
     of the system;
       (2) the systemic safety of the financial services system;
       (3) the cost of financial services to users of the system;
       (4) the competitiveness of the various providers of 
     financial services;
       (5) how funds are allocated to the financial services 
     system; and
       (6) how funds are allocated by the financial services 
     system to users of the system or to specific categories of 
     users.
       (c) Report.--Not later than March 31, 1995, the Commission 
     shall submit to the President, the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, and the President pro tempore of the Senate 
     a report describing the activities of the Commission, 
     including the study conducted under subsection (a) and any 
     recommendations developed under subsection (b).

     SEC. 204. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out this section.
       (b) Obtaining Official Data.--The Commission may secure 
     directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information (other than information required by any statute 
     of the United States to be kept confidential by such 
     department or agency) as the Commission considers necessary 
     to carry out its duties under this section. Upon the request 
     of the Chairperson, the head of that department or agency 
     shall furnish such nonconfidential information to the 
     Commission.
       (c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

     SEC. 205. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson may, without regard to the 
     civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate an 
     executive director and not more than 2 additional 
     professional staff members to enable the Commission to 
     perform its duties. The employment of an executive director 
     shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--The Chairperson may fix the compensation 
     of the executive director and other personnel without regard 
     to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 
     53 of title 5, United States Code, relating to the 
     classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates, 
     except that the rate of pay for the executive director and 
     other personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (d) Detail of Federal Employees.--Upon the request of the 
     Chairperson, any Federal Government employee may be detailed 
     to the Commission without reimbursement, and such detail 
     shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status 
     or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson may procure temporary and intermittent 
     services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code, at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Chairperson, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Commission 
     to carry out its responsibilities under this section.

     SEC. 206. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date of 
     submission of the report required under section 203(c). All 
     records and papers of the Commission shall thereupon be 
     delivered by the Administrator of General Services for 
     deposit in the National Archives.

     SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the 
     authorization contained in this section shall remain 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, our financial services system plays 
a critical role in the American economy. Families use it to purchase a 
car, to buy a home, to fund their children's education, and for myriad 
other everyday, but vitally important, purposes. Businesses use it to 
fund their operations, to finance expansion, to create jobs, and for an 
equally large variety of other reasons. In fact, our economy absolutely 
depends on the ability of our financial services system to meet the 
needs of consumers and households, communities, agriculture, business, 
governments of all types, and nonprofit entities.
  It is equally clear that our financial services system, and our 
economy as a whole, are undergoing major changes. The revolution in 
communications, computerization and other technological changes, 
changes in the kinds of services demanded by various users of our 
system, the creation of new financial products and services and whole 
new financial sectors, and structural changes in our economy itself are 
all combining to reshape our financial system.
  Our banking system has been shrinking as a percentage of the overall 
financial system. Mutual funds now have over $2 trillion in assets. And 
the derivatives area, perhaps most visibly embodied in the two Chicago 
Futures Exchanges, has resulted in changes in our financial system that 
weren't even imagined a few decades ago.
  The Federal Government's involvement in our financial services system 
is almost as complex as the system itself. The Treasury Department, the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Reserve, the 
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency, 
the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance 
Corporation, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Federal 
Trade Commission are just some of the Federal departments and agencies 
with major responsibilities and authorities that directly impact on our 
financial system.
  Federal laws and regulations ensure the stability of our payments 
system, and protect the savings of ordinary Americans. Federal laws and 
regulations govern the conduct of monetary policy, and ensure that 
consumers have the information they need to shop for credit. Federal 
laws and regulations protect the integrity and fairness of our capital 
markets, and the privacy of consumer credit history information. 
Federal laws and regulations credited a huge secondary market in 
mortgages, and regulate important parts of each and every home buying 
transaction. Federal laws and regulations in the financial services 
area affect every single American--and the rest of the world.
  Given the scope and extent of Federal involvement in our financial 
system, and given the scope and extent of the changes now underway in 
that system and our economy at large, I believe it is time for a 
comprehensive examination of our financial system. That is why I am 
offering this amendment establishing a national commission on financial 
services.
  There have been a lot of studies of various financial issues in the 
past, including:
  The Hunt Commission, established in 1970;
  The Financial Institutions in the Nation's Economy--``FINE''--study, 
conducted in 1975;
  President Carter's report on geographic restrictions, conducted in 
1978; and, most recently,
  The 1991 study, entitled ``Modernizing the Financial System.''
  All of these studies examined parts of our financial system. However, 
the subtitle of the 1991 study, ``Recommendations for a Safer, More 
Competitive Banking System,'' highlights the differences between what 
has gone before and the amendment I am proposing today.
  The Commission approach embodied in my amendment will study the 
entire financial system, not just the banking system. And, since the 
banking system is shrinking as a percentage of our total financial 
system, I think it is appropriate that we look at the entire system in 
a comprehensive way.
  Moreover, this amendment mandates study of our financial system from 
the viewpoint of our economy and from the viewpoints of users of the 
financial system, including consumers and households, communities, 
agricultural interests, and businesses of all sizes, instead of from 
the viewpoint of providers or from the viewpoint of Government. To 
ensure that objective is met, the voting members of this Commission 
will be drawn from the users of the system.
  I am new to these issues at the Federal level. However, I have worked 
with them at the State level, and I strongly believe it could be very 
helpful to have the framework of a broad set of recommendations to help 
us deal with the huge changes underway in our economy and our financial 
system.
  I do not think such a commission should prevent us from acting on 
those issues that are ready for action during this Congress. However, 
whether we attempt to act comprehensively in the future, or whether we 
go step-by-step, I think we will clearly benefit having some better 
understanding of:
  The needs of the users of our financial system;
  How well the system meets those needs; and
  The impact Federal laws and regulations have on the system and its 
ability to meet the needs of consumers, communities, businesses, and 
the rest of the users of our financial system.
  A comprehensive study of our financial system can give Congress and 
the President a framework that will help us ensure that Federal laws 
and regulations are adequate and up to date, that they do not 
unreasonably or inappropriately get in the way of or distort the 
fundamental changes now underway in our financial system and in our 
economy, and that they are able to achieve their public policy 
objectives.
  At the same time, such a study can help us frame new responses, to 
extend and reform Federal laws and rules to cover new areas where 
necessary and appropriate, and to meet ongoing public needs in new, 
creative ways.
  Mr. President, the Commission created by this amendment will report 
back to Congress by March 31, 1995. This time period is, I am 
convinced, one of the best investments in our future we can make.
  If we care about big issues, like the future of our economy and our 
international competitiveness, and if we care about people and 
communities, and how the financial system works for them, then we 
should begin this study now. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me 
in working to see that this amendment proposing a National Commission 
on Financial Services Act is quickly enacted into law.
  Mr. RIEGLE. As I say, this has been cleared on both sides, and I ask 
that it be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion of the amendment?
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I am sure I have no objection. I was 
off the floor for a minute. Are these managers' amendments?
  Mr. RIEGLE. This is an amendment on behalf of Senator Carol Moseley-
Braun to set up a National Commission on Financial Services.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Senator. I apologize for interrupting.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I would rather have the Senator ask and be sure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment (No. 1662) was agreed to.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  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. D'AMATO. 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. NICKLES. In section 2 of this bill, the language provides a 25-
percent deposit cap or concentration limit for banks in any one State. 
Oklahoma law currently sets an 11 percent deposit cap in the State 
banking code. Under the House version of this bill, it is clear that 
States have the right to set their own limits. My question is does the 
language in the Senate's version of the bill preempt Oklahoma's 11-
percent concentration or deposit cap limitation?
  Mr. RIEGLE. It does not. Oklahoma law and any other State law which 
sets a lower deposit concentration limit would be protected under this 
language. This section is intended only to set a ceiling above which a 
State may not go without a specific waiver by the State bank supervisor 
on a case-by-case basis.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I have two other items here. I hope we can 
resolve the issue with Senator Metzenbaum because we are ready to go to 
final passage here very shortly, I think, and would like to do so.


                           Amendment No. 1663

 (Purpose: To remove certain limitations on the maximum interest rate 
               that may be charged on certain FmHA loans)

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Pryor. It raises concerns and deals with concerns about the 
applicability of State usury laws to out-of-State branches.
  During discussions of the interstate banking bill, Senator Pryor 
raised concerns about the applicability of State usury laws to out-of-
State branches. He wanted to ensure that branches of out-of-State banks 
coming into Arkansas were subject to that State's usury ceiling. My 
staff consulted with his staff and we addressed his concern in the 
committee report on S. 1963 in which we made clear State usury laws 
would apply to interstate branches coming into the host State. During 
those discussions, Senator Pryor raised an additional concern of his 
State's usury law and its impact on Farmers Home Administration loan 
programs. That issue is addressed by this amendment.
  This amendment would override Arkansas' usury law with respect to 
three different Farmers Home Administration [FHA], loan programs. These 
programs are the water and waste disposal direct and guaranteed loan 
programs, the community facilities direct and guaranteed loan programs, 
and the business and industry guaranteed loan program. Currently, these 
programs perform below par in Arkansas because that State's usury 
ceiling restricts their use, thereby inhibiting community and economic 
development. For the past 4 years, Federal money allocated by the 
Farmers Home Administration for direct loans and loan guarantees in 
Arkansas has been reallocated to other States because FHA was unable to 
expend it in Arkansas due to the usury ceiling. This amendment would 
override any State usury ceiling with respect to these programs, but 
would give States 3 years to opt out of this provision and reimpose 
their State usury limit if they so choose.
  Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides. I send 
the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle], for Mr. Pryor, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1663.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE ON CERTAIN FmHA LOANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 307(a) of the Consolidated Farm 
     and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1927(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``Except'' and 
     inserting ``Notwithstanding the provisions of the 
     constitution or laws of any State limiting the rate or amount 
     of interest that may be charged, taken, received, or 
     reserved, except''; and
       (2) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) by striking ``(5) The'' and inserting ``(5)(A) Except 
     as provided in subparagraph (B), the''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) In the case of a loan made under section 310B as a 
     guaranteed loan, subparagraph (A) shall apply notwithstanding 
     the provisions of the constitution or laws of any State 
     limiting the rate or amount of interest that may be charged, 
     taken, received, or reserved.''.
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), the amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to a 
     loan made, insured, or guaranteed under the Consolidated Farm 
     and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) in a State 
     on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) State option.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) shall not apply to a loan 
     made, insured, or guaranteed under the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act in a State after the date (that occurs 
     during the 3-year period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act) on which the State adopts a law or certifies 
     that the voters of the State have voted in favor of a 
     provision of the constitution or law of the State that states 
     that the State does not want the amendments made by 
     subsection (a) to apply with respect to loans made, insured, 
     or guaranteed under such Act in the State.
       (3) Transitional period.--In any case in which a State 
     takes an action described in paragraph (2), the amendments 
     made by subsection (a) shall continue to apply to a loan 
     made, insured, or guaranteed under the Consolidated Farm and 
     Rural Development Act in the State after the date the action 
     was taken pursuant to a commitment for the loan that was 
     entered into during the period beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and ending on the date on which the 
     State takes the action.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides. If 
there is no further debate on it, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1663) was agreed to.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. 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. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio had intentions 
of offering two amendments, one having to do with low-cost banking, and 
the other having to do with check cashing.
  I think, after discussion, that the chairman of the committee and the 
ranking member may be able to handle this matter in another way, and 
therefore I will not offer that amendment.
  There is another amendment that the Senator from Ohio is prepared to 
offer. There is no question that it is a controversial amendment. But 
it has to do with the fact that the Supreme Court in one fell swoop the 
other day totally eliminated the obligation and liabilities of 
accountants, lawyers, and all those who are involved in connection with 
underwriting, and securities transactions, a horrendous decision by the 
Supreme Court--horrendous because had that decision been in effect 
previously, the $275 million recovered from the accountants and the 
lawyers and others in connection with the investment bankers in the 
Keating matter would not have occurred. Right now, under the law, it is 
precluded from recovering any additional dollars along that line.
  It is my understanding that some Members of this body would strongly 
react to attempting to correct that matter, and this is the second bill 
to which the Senator from Ohio had intentions of offering it as an 
amendment. I hope that we can figure out some other way to do it. But I 
make no bones about it. Before this session is over, I will give every 
Member of this body the chance to correct this terrible inequity that 
has been created by the Supreme Court of the United States. It was not 
one of their great days. It certainly was unfair to the taxpayers of 
this country who have been stuck with the liabilities that otherwise 
accountants, attorneys, investment bankers, and others should be 
paying.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 (Mr. Wofford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1664

    (Purpose: Relating to the Mount Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act)

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment that has been cleared 
on both sides in behalf of Senator Daschle and Senator Pressler, and I 
send it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle], for Mr. Daschle, 
     for himself and Mr. Pressler, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1664.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.  . MOUNT RUSHMORE COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT.

       (a) Distribution of Surcharges.--Section 8 of the Mount 
     Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act (104 Stat. 314; 31 U.S.C. 
     5112 note) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) the first $18,750,000 shall be paid during fiscal 
     year 1994 by the Secretary to the Society to assist the 
     Society's efforts to improve, enlarge, and renovate the Mount 
     Rushmore National Memorial; and
       ``(2) the remainder shall be returned to the Federal 
     Treasury for purposes of reducing the national debt.''.
       (b) Retroactive Effect.--If, prior to the enactment of this 
     Act, any amount of surcharges have been received by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury and paid into the United States 
     Treasury pursuant to section 8(1) of the Mount Rushmore 
     Commemorative Coin Act, as in effect prior to the enactment 
     of this Act, that amount shall be paid out of the Treasury to 
     the extent necessary to comply with section 8(1) of the Mount 
     Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act, as in effect after the 
     enactment of this Act. Amounts paid pursuant to the preceding 
     sentence shall be out of funds not otherwise appropriated.
       (c) Numismatic Operating Profits.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to affect the Secretary of the Treasury's 
     right to derive operating profits from numismatic programs 
     for use in supporting the United States Mint's numismatic 
     operations and programs or to allow the distribution of 
     operating profits from the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund 
     to a recipient organization under any numismatic program.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. It relates to a slight change in an existing law regarding the 
Mount Rushmore Commemorative Coin Act. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1664) was agreed to.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the chairman of the 
Banking Committee for the outstanding work he has done in crafting an 
interstate banking and branching bill which I believe is in the best 
economic interests of this country. I believe the committee bill will 
significantly improve the efficiency of financial institutions across 
this country to the long-term benefit of individuals and businesses. It 
will strengthen our economy.
  On the one hand, we need to eliminate unnecessary Federal barriers 
and allow interstate banking and branching to proceed as market forces 
dictate. On the other hand, we need to do this in a manner which does 
not threaten the safety and soundness of our banking system, and which 
respects both States' rights and the legitimate franchise interests of 
community banking institutions. In my view, the committee bill 
accomplishes these objectives.
  I became strongly interested in the issue of interstate banking and 
branching in 1991 at the urging of bankers in my State. At that time, 
they came to me with serious concerns that the pending Bush 
administration proposal went too far toward favoring the interests of 
large banks, and that other proposals had little chance of passage. 
Working together with our bankers and many other State banking 
organizations--as well as the distinguished chairman of the committee--
we were able to develop a compromise proposal which I was privileged to 
offer as an amendment to the Senate floor and which passed the Senate.
  The committee bill before us today is similar to that amendment in 
many ways, but contains some important improvements. I strongly support 
this measure.
  There is, however, one aspect of this debate which concerns me and 
the bankers in my State a great deal. That is the issue of interstate 
branching by foreign banks. I believe the House bill, H.R. 3841, gives 
competitive advantages to foreign banks. This bill has already passed 
the full House of Representatives, and I presume the treatment of 
foreign banks will be an issue in the conference committee. I strongly 
favor the Senate approach.
  Mr. President, foreign banks have expanded their presence in this 
country dramatically in recent years, to the point where they now enjoy 
a significant market share. They are not merely operating at the 
fringes of our banking system, as some would suggest.
  In 1993, foreign banks operating in the United States controlled $872 
billion in banking assets, $872 billion. Foreign banks controlled an 
additional $329 billion in off-shore assets. Ninety percent of these 
assets were booked in the Cayman Islands, and most of the remainder 
were booked in the Bahamas. The Federal Reserve has just begun 
calculating these off-shore assets, presenting a more accurate picture 
of the reach and influence of foreign banking operations in this 
country. Together, these totals show that foreign banks in 1993 held a 
staggering $1.5 trillion in U.S. loans and securities out of a total 
U.S. market of $3.9 trillion. This means foreign banks controlled 30.5 
percent of U.S. bank assets in 1993.
  Forty-two percent of all business loans in the United States last 
year were made by foreign bank-owned entities. Foreign banks held more 
than $200 billion in commercial and industrial loans for each of the 
last 3 years, compared to $85 billion 10 years ago. Foreign banks held 
an additional $70 billion in commercial real estate loans last year as 
well.
  Mr. President, I have been surprised to learn how many individuals in 
this town have been retained by foreign banking interests and are 
willing to defend foreign banking interests affected by this 
legislation.
  I have also come to learn that many foreign banks compete directly 
for the same business U.S. banks dominated only a few years ago, and 
they have a pretty sweet deal. Do not get me wrong, I am not opposed to 
competition. I am not opposed to interstate banking and branching 
activities being conducted by foreign banks. However, in my view, I 
believe they should compete equally with our own banks. They should be 
subject to the same regulatory restrictions as our own banks if they 
are competing directly.
  Instead, their cost of capital appears to be much lower than that of 
U.S. banks, which means that they can accept a much lower rate of 
return. Why? Most foreign banks do not have to worry about complying 
with community reinvestment laws, or consumer banking laws, or fair 
lending laws. Most do not have to worry about the Home Mortgage 
Disclosure Act, or the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, to name a 
few.
  Foreign banks also continue to enjoy the ability to enter into other 
fields which are off limits to U.S. banks. Current Federal law exempts 
foreign banks in certain cases from restrictions on U.S. bank holding 
companies relating to interests in nonbanking organizations. I am told 
this has enabled foreign banks to engage in a wide range of business 
activities from raising poultry to manufacturing metal products.
  Let me say again, I have no problem with competition. But fair 
competition means playing by the same rules. I think we must have 
balance in this bill, providing the same benefits and burdens for 
foreign banks as are available for U.S. banks.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the Banking 
Committee, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, if he would answer 
a few questions regarding the concerns I have with foreign banks under 
an interstate banking and branching bill.
  First, I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Banking 
Committee, has the committee heard testimony expressing concern over 
preferential treatment for foreign banks under any interstate banking 
legislation?
  Mr. RIEGLE. Yes. At the committee hearings on this bill, testimony 
was given on this issue. We were told that foreign banks presently 
receive preferential treatment in our market inasmuch as their 
wholesale branches are not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act 
and other consumer laws. We were also told they can attract corporate 
customers since they do not pay deposit insurance premiums on corporate 
accounts taken in their wholesale branches.
  Mr. FORD. Do foreign banks have the right to branch interstate under 
the House bill without meeting the same requirements we put on domestic 
banks?
  Mr. RIEGLE. I understand the House bill permits foreign banks to 
branch interstate without the need for a subsidiary bank chartered in 
this country.
  Mr. FORD. I would say to the chairman that my concern with the 
approach is that the Community Reinvestment Act and other consumer laws 
would not apply to the foreign bank branches under the House bill. Let 
me ask the chairman further, do foreign banks have the ability to 
branch interstate under the Senate bill?
  Mr. RIEGLE. Yes. They have all of the same rights as U.S. banks. 
Under the Senate bill, foreign banks can acquire and combine banks on 
an interstate basis just like U.S. banks if they use the structure 
required of domestic U.S. banking organizations. This ensures they do 
not receive preferential treatment.
  Mr. FORD. In areas where foreign banks compete directly with U.S. 
banks, would it be the chairman's view that the inapplicability of the 
Community Reinvestment Act or consumer banking laws or fair lending 
laws could give foreign banks a competitive advantage over U.S. banks?
  Mr. RIEGLE. Yes. In fact, the committee recently received a letter 
from the Independent Bankers Association of America contending that 
because the wholesale branches of foreign banks are not subject to such 
requirements, they have a competitive advantage over U.S. banks and can 
thus ``undercut the price charged by U.S. banks for comparable 
services.'' I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record that 
letter from the IBAA.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                               Independent Bankers


                                       Association of America,

                                Washington, DC, December 21, 1993.
     Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the IBAA has long favored 
     the ``Fair Trade In International Banking Act'', and has 
     testified in favor of the bill several times. We believe that 
     ``national treatment'' is becoming an increasingly important 
     concept as international banking expands, both in the United 
     States and worldwide. However, the Fair Trade In 
     International Banking Act only speaks to the treatment 
     afforded to U.S. banks doing business in foreign countries. 
     We have concerns that the playing field is not even here in 
     the United States and that U.S. banks are currently at a 
     serious competitive disadvantage.
       Foreign banks can operate in the U.S. in many forms. These 
     include agencies, Edge Act corporations, full service 
     branches and ``wholesale'' branches. Only the FDIC insured 
     full service branches are subject to the panoply of bank 
     regulatory laws and regulations. Generally, federal and state 
     branches of foreign banks must be FDIC insured if they 
     receive deposits under $100,000.00, unless the appropriate 
     federal regulator determines that the branch is not engaged 
     in ``domestic retail deposit activity''. 12 U.S.C. Section 
     3104
       Pursuant to this section, regulations have been promulgated 
     which allow uninsured foreign branches to accept initial 
     deposits of at least $100,000.00 even if the deposit falls to 
     less than $100,000.00. 12 C.F.R. Section 364.4. In addition, 
     an uninsured foreign branch can accept initial deposits of 
     less than $100,000.00 if the deposit is from any business 
     entity and certain other depositors. 12 C.F.R. Section 346.6
       We believe that these provisions effectively allow branches 
     of foreign banks to compete with U.S. banks on a retail 
     deposit level. However, the branch does not have to pay FDIC 
     deposit premiums and is not subject to a great many banking 
     and consumer protection laws. This gives the branch of the 
     foreign bank a distinct cost savings that allows it to 
     undercut the prices charged by U.S. banks for comparable 
     services. We believe that this disparity has helped foreign 
     banks to control almost 36% of all commercial and industrial 
     loans in the U.S., as well as to control 21% of all U.S. 
     banking assets.
       On October 5, 1993 Federal Reserve Governor LaWare 
     testified before the Senate Banking Committee that he 
     believed foreign banks should receive the same treatment with 
     regard to interstate banking and branching as U.S. banks. 
     This is an especially troubling idea given the apparent 
     preferential treatment that these banks now have.
       We believe it is appropriate for the Senate Banking 
     Committee to investigate whether and to what extent foreign 
     banks receive preferential treatment, both in the areas 
     discussed above and other areas. For the banking industry to 
     effectively compete, it must have a level playing field both 
     here and abroad. The Fair Trade In International Banking Act 
     will help insure that national is afforded U.S. banks abroad. 
     We also need to insure that the same treatment is afforded 
     here.
           Sincerely,
                                              Kenneth A. Guenther,
                                         Executive Vice President.

  Mr. FORD. Is the chairman aware of any other concerns being expressed 
by U.S. bankers about possible competitive advantages being given to 
foreign banks under any interstate banking proposals?
  Mr. RIEGLE. Yes. I have received 16 letters from State banking 
organizations from across the country expressing concerns that the 
language in the House bill gives foreign banks competitive advantages. 
These State banking organizations have all expressed support for 
retaining the State approach on this issue. I ask unanimous consent 
that these letters be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Alabama Bankers Association,

                                   Montgomery, AL, April 20, 1994.
     Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle. I am writing in reference to the 
     foreign branching language in the House interstate banking 
     bill (H.R. 3841). I am very concerned about this portion of 
     the bill as this letter will explain.
       The Senate version of the interstate banking legislation 
     (S. 1963) provides that foreign banks could, like domestic 
     banks, branch interstate by first establishing an insured 
     bank in this country and then branching from such bank. The 
     House version, however, would allow foreign banks to put 
     their direct wholesale branches and agencies throughout the 
     United States.
       According to recent Federal Reserve Board data, there are 
     over 300 foreign banking organizations from 62 different 
     countries operating banking facilities in the United States. 
     Of the almost 700 different types of facilities, only 93 are 
     subsidiaries, while 378 are branches and 211 are agencies. 
     Foreign banks make 75% of their United States loans from 
     wholesale branches and agencies. These branches and agencies 
     are not subject to FDIC insurance premiums, CRA, HMDA 
     requirements, and other consumer bank requirements. 
     Therefore, this provision would only widen the unfair 
     advantage they have over domestically chartered banks.
       The recently completed GATT agreement states that a host 
     country should provide foreign financial institutions 
     ``treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like 
     service providers.'' There is no obligation to give foreign 
     institutions more favorable treatment.
       Foreign banks now account for a 42% share of all business 
     loans made in the United States. The foreign share of the 
     United States banking market is larger than the foreign 
     banking share of most other major financial markets in the 
     world. The reason for this is the distinct competitive 
     advantage these foreign banks have over domestic banks in our 
     own market.
       Allowing foreign banks new competitive advantages in the 
     United States market, as proposed in the House interstate 
     banking bill (H.R. 3841), would be detrimental to the 
     domestic banking industry. The Senate interstate banking bill 
     passed by your Committee allows foreign banks chartered in 
     the United States to take advantage of the interstate 
     language. Those not chartered in the United States could keep 
     their present offices, but would continue to be required to 
     obtain state approval to operate a branch or representative 
     in the different states.
       Foreign banks operating domestically should not receive 
     preferential treatment over domestic banks by our own 
     government. I respectfully ask that you make every effort to 
     keep the Senate interstate banking bill free from language 
     that establishes preferential treatment for unincorporated 
     foreign banks in the United States. United States banking 
     regulations should apply to all financial institutions doing 
     business in the United States, whether domestic or foreign.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Jerry W. Spencer,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                             The Arkansas Bankers Association,

                                  Little Rock, AR, April 21, 1994.


                                        Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,

     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: I am writing this letter to bring 
     your attention to the foreign branching language in the House 
     interstate banking bill (H.R. 3841).
       The interstate banking bill currently before the Senate (S. 
     1963) provides that foreign banks could, like domestic banks, 
     branch interstate by first establishing an insured bank in 
     this country and the branching from such bank. The House 
     interstate banking bill, in contrast, would allow foreign 
     banks to put their direct wholesale branches and agencies 
     throughout the United States. Since the wholesale branches 
     and agencies of foreign banks, from which they make over 75% 
     of their U.S. loans, are not subject to FDIC Insurance 
     premiums nor CRA and other consumer bank requirements, this 
     would add to the already grossly unfair advantage they have 
     over U.S. domestically chartered banks.
       National treatment for financial institutions, as defined 
     in the recently completed GATT agreement, states that a host 
     country should provide foreign financial institutions 
     ``treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like 
     service providers.'' There is no obligation to give foreign 
     institutions more favorable treatment.
       According to recent Federal Reserve Board data there are 
     presently over 300 foreign banking organizations from 62 
     different countries operating banking facilities in the 
     United States. Of the almost 700 different types of 
     facilities, only 93 are subsidiaries, while 378 are branches 
     and 211 agencies. These latter two types of facilities from 
     which foreign banks do most of their business in this country 
     are exempt from FDIC insurance, HMDA requirements, CRA 
     provisions, etc.--thus giving such foreign bank offices a 
     distinct advantage in loan pricing.
       Foreign banks are not small players in the U.S. market. 
     They now account for a 42 percent share of all business loans 
     being made in the United States. This foreign share of our 
     banking market is larger than the foreign banking share of 
     most other major financial markets in the world. Is this 
     happening because U.S. banks are inept competitors? The 
     answer is clearly and emphatically NO. Is it because foreign 
     banks have competitive advantages over U.S. banks in our own 
     market. The answer is just as emphatically YES.
       There is no need to give foreign banks new competitive 
     advantages in our market as proposed in the House interstate 
     banking bill (H.R. 3841). Under the Senate interstate banking 
     bill passed by your Committee, foreign banks which are 
     chartered in the U.S., whether national or state will be able 
     to take advantage of the interstate language. Those which are 
     not chartered in the U.S. could keep their present offices 
     but would continue to need state approval to operate a branch 
     or representative in the different states.
       It is our feeling foreign banks operating domestically 
     should not receive preferential treatment from our government 
     over U.S. domestic banks. An example of the preferential 
     treatment foreign banks are currently receiving is exhibited 
     in Subsection 236.6 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations which 
     allow unincorporated, uninsured foreign branches and agencies 
     to accept deposits of any amount from any business entity 
     which engages in commercial activities from profit.
       I would respectfully ask that you make every effort to keep 
     the Senate interstate banking bill free from established 
     preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the 
     U.S. Our U.S. banking regulations are there for a reason and 
     they should apply to all financial institutions, domestic or 
     foreign, doing business in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                     H.C. Carvill,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                       Colorado National Bank,

                                       Denver, CO, April 22, 1994.
     Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Campbell: I urge you to support the interstate 
     banking and branching bill (S. 1963) which is scheduled for 
     consideration on Monday and Tuesday (April 25 and 26) by the 
     full United States Senate.
       Passage of interstate banking and branching is the number 
     one legislative priority for First Bank System. I urge you to 
     keep the interstate bill ``clean'' and vote against any 
     amendments which address non-related issues, such as 
     insurance, basic banking services or CRA. Any such unrelated 
     amendments will undermine the passage of the bill, which in 
     its present form will increase the competitiveness and safety 
     of the banking industry and benefit our customers.
       Again, I urge you to support passage of a ``clean'' 
     interstate banking and branching bill when it comes up for a 
     vote on the Senate floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                Daniel W. Yohannes
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                  Indiana Bankers Association,

                                Indianapolis, IN., April 19, 1994.
     Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: My purpose in writing to you is in 
     regard to the House interstate banking bill (H.R. 3841), 
     particularly the foreign branching language it contains.
       The House interstate banking bill would allow foreign banks 
     to locate their direct wholesale branches and agencies 
     throughout the U.S. This would add to the unfair advantage 
     they have over U.S. chartered banks, since the wholesale 
     branches and agencies of foreign banks, from which they make 
     more than 75 percent of their U.S. loans, are not subject to 
     FDIC insurance premiums, the Community Reinvestment Act, or 
     other consumer bank requirements.
       Foreign banks have a great presence in the U.S. 
     marketplace. Federal Reserve data point out that there are 
     more than 300 foreign banking entities from 62 countries 
     operating banking facilities here. Only 93 are subsidiaries, 
     378 are branches, and 211 are agencies. Foreign banks account 
     for a 42 percent share of all business loans being made in 
     the U.S. You may know that the branches and agencies of the 
     foreign players are exempt from FDIC insurance, HMDA 
     requirements, and CRA provisions, among others. These foreign 
     competitiors clearly have competitive advantages over U.S. 
     banks in our own market.
       I respectfully ask that you not give foreign banks 
     preferential treatment over our own banks in our market as 
     proposed in the H.R. 3841. Under the Senate interstate 
     banking bill passed by your Committee, foreign banks which 
     are chartered in the U.S. whether national or state, will be 
     able to take advantage of the interstate language. Those 
     which are not chartered in the U.S. could keep their present 
     offices but would continue to need state approval to operate 
     a branch or representative office in the different states. An 
     example of current preferential treatment foreign banks have 
     is exhibited in Subsection 346.6 of the FDIC rules and 
     regulations which allow unincorporated, uninsured foreign 
     branch and agencies to accept deposits of any amount from any 
     business entity which engages in commercial activities for 
     profit.
       The foreign branching language in H.R. 3841 would give 
     foreign banks competitive advantages over U.S. banks. There 
     is no obligation to give foreign institutions more favorable 
     treatment. Thank you for your consideration of my views.
           Sincerely,
                                                  William H. King,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                     Iowa Bankers Association,

                                   Des Moines, IA, April 19, 1994.
     Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: I am writing this letter to bring 
     your attention to the foreign branching language in the House 
     interstate banking bill (H.R. 3841).
       The interstate banking bill currently before the Senate (S. 
     1963) provides that foreign banks could, like domestic banks, 
     branch interstate by first establishing an insured bank in 
     this country and then branching from such bank. The House 
     interstate banking bill, in contrast, would allow foreign 
     banks to put their direct wholesale branches and agencies 
     throughout the United States. Since the wholesale branches 
     and agencies of foreign banks, from which they make over 75 
     percent of their U.S. loans, are not subject to FDIC 
     insurance premiums nor CRA and other consumer bank 
     requirements, this would add to the already grossly unfair 
     advantage they have over U.S. domestically chartered banks.
       National treatment for financial institutions, as defined 
     in the recently completed GATT agreement, states that a host 
     country should provide foreign financial institutions 
     ``treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like 
     service providers.'' There is no obligation to give foreign 
     institutions more favorable treatment.
       According to recent Federal Reserve Board data there are 
     presently over 300 foreign banking organizations from 62 
     different countries operating banking facilities in the 
     United States. Of the almost 700 different types of 
     facilities, only 93 are subsidiaries, while 378 are branches 
     and 211 agencies. These latter two types of facilities from 
     which foreign banks do most of their business in this country 
     are exempt from FDIC insurance, HMDA requirements, CRA 
     provisions, etc.--thus giving such foreign bank offices a 
     distinct advantage in loan pricing.
       Foreign banks are not small players in the U.S. market. 
     They now account for a 42 percent share of all business loans 
     being made in the United States. This foreign share of our 
     banking market is larger than the foreign banking share of 
     most other major financial markets in the world. Is this 
     happening because U.S. banks are inept competitors? The 
     answer is clearly and emphatically NO. Is it because foreign 
     banks have competitive advantages over U.S. banks in our own 
     market? The answer is just as emphatically YES.
       There is no need to give foreign banks new competitive 
     advantages in our market as proposed in the House interstate 
     banking bill (H.R. 3841). Under the Senate interstate banking 
     bill passed by your Committee, foreign banks which are 
     chartered in the U.S., whether national or state will be able 
     to take advantage of the interstate language. Those which are 
     not chartered in the U.S. could keep their present offices 
     but would continue to need state approval to operate a branch 
     or representative in the different states.
       It is our feeling that foreign banks operating domestically 
     should not receive preferential treatment from our government 
     over U.S. domestic banks. An example of the preferential 
     treatment foreign banks are currently receiving is exhibited 
     in Subsection 346.6 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations which 
     allow unincorporated, uninsured foreign branches and agencies 
     to accept deposits of any amount from any business entity 
     which engages in commercial activities for profit.
       I would respectfully ask that you make every effort to keep 
     the Senate interstate banking bill free from established 
     preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the 
     U.S. Our U.S. banking regulations are there for a reason and 
     they should apply to all financial institutions, domestic or 
     foreign, doing business in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Neil Milner,
                            CAE, Executive Vice President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                   Kansas Bankers Association,

                                       Topeka, KS, April 18, 1994.
     Re interstate banking and branching legislation.
     Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chair, Senate Committee on Banking Housing, and Urban 
         Affairs, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle. The purpose of this letter is to 
     encourage that the language on foreign bank competition in S. 
     1963 prevail in Conference Committee over the language 
     contained in H.R. 3841.
       We commend the Senate in crafting legislation which does 
     not grant foreign financial institutions treatment more 
     favorable than domestic institutions. Foreign banks are big 
     players in the players in the U.S. market, and there is 
     nothing inherently wrong with this, so long as the playing 
     field is maintained on the level.
       We understand the Senate version would allow foreign banks 
     which are not chartered in the U.S. to keep their present 
     offices, but they would continue to need state approval to 
     operate a branch or other operation within a state. Those 
     that are chartered in the U.S., will be treated as any other 
     domestic bank. This seems infinitely fair.
       Thank you for your consideration and your efforts to 
     prevent preferential treatment to foreign banks that choose 
     not to become incorporated in the U.S. and hence, operate 
     free from financial and other impediments of their 
     competitors.
           Cordially,
                                                 Harold A. Stones,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                 Kentucky Bankers Association,

                                   Louisville, KY, April 19, 1994.
     Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: I am writing this letter to bring 
     your attention to the foreign branching language in the House 
     interstate banking bill (H.R. 3841).
       The interstate banking bill currently before the Senate (S. 
     1963) provides that foreign banks could, like domestic banks, 
     branch interstate by first establishing an insured bank in 
     this country and then branching from such bank. The House 
     interstate banking bill, in contrast, would allow foreign 
     banks to put their direct wholesale branches and agencies 
     throughout the United States. Since the wholesale branches 
     and agencies of foreign banks, for which they make over 75% 
     of their U.S. loans, are not subject to FDIC insurance 
     premiums nor CRA and other consumer bank requirements, this 
     would add to the already grossly unfair advantage they have 
     over U.S. domestically chartered banks.
       National treatment for financial institutions, as defined 
     in the recently completed GATT agreement, states that a host 
     country should provide foreign financial institutions 
     ``treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like 
     service providers.'' There is no obligation to give foreign 
     institutions more favorable treatment.
       According to recent Federal Reserve Board data there are 
     presently over 300 foreign banking organizations from 62 
     different countries operating banking facilities in the 
     United States. Of the almost 700 different types of 
     facilities. only 93 are subsidiaries, while 378 are branches 
     and 211 agencies. These latter two types of facilities from 
     which foreign banks do most of their business in this country 
     are exempt from FDIC insurance, HMDA requirements, CRA 
     provisions, etc.--thus giving such foreign bank offices a 
     distinct advantage in loan pricing.
       Foreign banks are not small players in the U.S. market. 
     They now account for a 42 percent share of all business loans 
     being made in the United States. This foreign share of our 
     banking market is larger than the foreign banking share of 
     most other major financial markets in the world. Is this 
     happening because U.S. banks are inept competitors? The 
     answer is clearly and emphatically NO. Is it because foreign 
     banks have competitive advantages over U.S. banks in our own 
     market. The answer is just as emphatically YES.
       There is no need to give foreign banks new competitive 
     advantages in our market as proposed in the House interstate 
     banking bill (H.R. 3841). Under the Senate interstate banking 
     bill passed by your Committee, foreign banks which are 
     chartered in the U.S. whether national or state will be able 
     to take advantage of the interstate language. Those which are 
     not chartered in the U.S. could keep their present offices 
     but would continue to need state approval to operate a branch 
     or representative in the different states.
       It is our feeling that foreign banks operating domestically 
     should not receive preferential treatment from our government 
     over U.S. domestic banks. An example of the preferential 
     treatment foreign banks are currently receiving is exhibited 
     in Subsection 346.6 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations which 
     allow unincorporated, uninsured foreign branches and agencies 
     to accept deposits of any amount from any business entity 
     which engages in commercial activities for profit.
       I would respectfully ask that you make every effort to keep 
     the Senate interstate banking bill free from established 
     preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the 
     U.S. Our U.S. banking regulations are there for a reason and 
     they should apply to all financial institutions, domestic or 
     foreign, doing business in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                          Ballard W. Cassady, Jr.,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                 Michigan Bankers Association,

                                      Lansing, MI, April 22, 1994.
     Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Don: This letter confirms our concerns expressed last 
     week when we met with you regarding the foreign branching 
     language in the House interstate banking bill (H.R. 3841), 
     which differs significantly from your S. 1963.
       The interstate banking bill currently before the Senate (S. 
     1963) provides that foreign banks could, like domestic banks, 
     branch interstate by first establishing an insured bank in 
     this country and then branching from such bank. The House 
     interstate banking bill, in contrast, would allow foreign 
     banks to put their direct wholesale branches and agencies 
     throughout the United States. Since the wholesale branches 
     and agencies of foreign banks, from which they make over 75% 
     of their U.S. loans, are not subject to FDIC insurance 
     premiums nor CRA or other consumer bank requirements, this 
     would add to the already grossly unfair advantage they have 
     over U.S. domestically chartered banks.
       National treatment for financial institutions, as defined 
     in the recently completed GATT agreement, states that a host 
     country should provide foreign financial institutions 
     ``treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like 
     service providers.'' There is no obligation to give foreign 
     institutions more favorable treatment.
       The 378 branches and 211 agencies of foreign banking 
     organizations from which they do most of their business in 
     this country are exempt from FDIC insurance, HMDA 
     requirements, CRA provisions, etc.--thus giving such foreign 
     bank offices a distinct advantage in loan pricing.
       Foreign banks are not small players in the U.S. market. 
     They now account for a 42% share of all business loans being 
     made in the United States. This foreign share of our banking 
     market is larger than the foreign banking share of most other 
     major financial markets in the world. This isn't happening 
     because U.S. banks are inept competitors; it is because 
     foreign banks have competitive advantages over U.S. banks in 
     our own market.
       There is no need to give foreign banks new competitive 
     advantages in our market as proposed in the House interstate 
     banking bill (H.R. 3841). Under the Senate interstate banking 
     bill passed by your Committee, foreign banks which are 
     chartered in the U.S., whether national or state will be able 
     to take advantage of the interstate language. Those which are 
     not chartered in the U.S. could keep their present offices 
     but would continue to need state approval to operate a branch 
     or representative in the different states.
       We believe that foreign banks operating domestically should 
     not receive preferential treatment from our government over 
     U.S. domestic banks.
       We respectfully ask that you make every effort to keep the 
     Senate interstate banking bill both on the Senate floor and 
     in conference free from established preferential treatment to 
     unincorporated foreign banks in the U.S. Our banking 
     regulations are there for a reason and they should apply to 
     all financial institutions, domestic or foreign, doing 
     business in United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Donald A. Booth,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                              Mississippi Bankers Association,

                                      Jackson, MS, April 19, 1994.
     Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Riegle: On behalf of our Association's 
     membership, the commercial banks of Mississippi, I am writing 
     in regard to the foreign branching provisions included in 
     H.R. 3841, the House interstate banking legislation.
       The Senate interstate banking bill, S. 1963, provides that 
     foreign banks may branch interstate only by first 
     establishing an insured bank in this country and then 
     branching from that bank. This is the same rule that applies 
     to domestic banks. However, H.R. 3841 would allow foreign 
     banks to place direct branches and agencies throughout the 
     United States. Such branches and agencies of foreign banks 
     are not subject to FDIC insurance premiums or many of the 
     other banking regulations which apply to domestically 
     chartered banks. Such a change as proposed by H.R. 3841 would 
     give a grossly unfair competitive advantage to these foreign 
     branches and agencies.
       The vast majority of foreign banking facilities in the 
     United States are either branches or agencies. According to 
     numbers from the Federal Reserve Board, of 682 foreign 
     banking facilities in the United States, 589 of these are 
     branches and agencies. While foreign banks do most of their 
     business in this country through branches and agecnies, these 
     facilities are exempt from FDIC insurance, CRA provisions and 
     many other regulations to which domestic banks are subject. 
     We object to the unfair advantage given to such foreign 
     banking facilities.
       It is our position that foreign banks with operations 
     within the United States should not receive any preferred 
     treatment under the interstate banking law. There is no need 
     to give these foreign banks any new competitive advantages as 
     would be provided by H.R. 3841. The Senate interstate banking 
     bill (S. 1963) gives foreign banks chartered in the U.S. the 
     ability to utilize the interstate banking law. Foreign banks 
     without a U.S. charter could still keep their present offices 
     and continue to apply for state approval to operate branches 
     in different states.
       We would urge you to work to maintain the Senate position 
     on these foreign bank branching provisions in the interstate 
     bill. We believe that foreign banks which do not have a 
     charter in the United States should not be given preferential 
     treatment and that our banking regulations, both state and 
     federal, should be allowed to apply equally to domestic and 
     foreign banks.
           Sincerely,
                                               McKinley W. Deaver,
                                               Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                     Ohio Bankers Association,

                                     Columbus, OH, April 18, 1994.
     Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Ohio bankers, as we believe is generally 
     the case around the country, support S. 1963. Action by 
     states have long since made interstate banking a reality. 
     Standardized federal rules will help rationalize and simplify 
     the business of banking. We write this letter not just to 
     support passage by the Senate of S. 1963 but to express a 
     strong preference for the treatment of branches of foreign 
     banks in your bill as opposed to that in House's counterpart 
     (H.R. 3841).
       We believe that foreign banks should be treated as 
     competitive equals in this country. Your bill, as we 
     understand it, provides that once a foreign bank establishes 
     an insured bank in this country it could branch interstate. 
     The House version requires no U.S. insured bank. Thus, it 
     would allow foreign banks to compete directly with U.S. banks 
     without being subject to a number of costly regulatory 
     requirements faced by U.S. banks including deposit insurance 
     premiums and community reinvestment.
       Today U.S. banks already operate at a disadvantage compared 
     with foreign bank operations in the United States. The 
     results are dramatic. Foreign banks have captured 42 percent 
     of all business loans being made in the United States. One 
     example of a significant, current competitive inequity comes 
     through F.D.I.C. rules which allow unincorporated, uninsured 
     foreign branches and agencies to accept deposits of any 
     amount from any business entity which engages in commercial 
     activities for profit. Given the current significant premium 
     levied by the F.D.I.C. many businesses are finding the 
     resulting rate differential to be compelling. H.R. 3841 would 
     increase that sort of inequity for U.S. banks.
       We would ask you to oppose any efforts to incorporate 
     preferential treatment for foreign banks in this legislation. 
     Ohio banks do not fear competition as long as the same rules 
     apply to all.
           Sincerely,
                                              Michael Van Buskirk,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                 Oklahoma Bankers Association,

                                Oklahoma City, OK, April 18, 1994.
     Donald W. Reigle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S., Senate Washington, DC.
     Re interstate branching by foreign banks.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: The interstate banking bill currently 
     before the Senate (S. 1963) is much different than its 
     counterpart in the House (H.R. 3841) regarding the ability of 
     foreign banks to establish branches on an interstate basis. 
     H.R. 3841 would allow foreign banks to put their direct 
     wholesale branches and agencies throughout the United States 
     without maintaining an actual charter. S. 1963 would require 
     that the foreign banks first establish an insured bank in 
     this country and then it would be treated the same as a 
     domestic bank in terms of its ability to branch on an 
     interstate basis. The wholesale branches and agencies of 
     foreign banks, from which they make over 75% of the U.S. 
     loans, are not subject to FDIC insurance premiums nor CRA and 
     other consumer bank requirements. H.R. 3841 would add to the 
     already grossly unfair advantage they have over U.S. 
     domestically chartered banks.
       National treatment for financial institutions, as defined 
     in the recently completed GATT agreement, states that a host 
     country should provide foreign financial institutions 
     ``treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like 
     service providers.'' There is no obligation to give foreign 
     institutions more favorable treatment, which is precisely 
     what H.R. 3841 does.
       According to recent Federal Reserve Board data there are 
     presently over 300 foreign banking organizations from 62 
     different countries operating banking facilities in the 
     United States. Of the almost 700 different types of 
     facilities, only 93 are subsidiaries, while 378 are branches 
     and 211 agencies. These latter two types of facilities from 
     which foreign banks do most of their business in this country 
     are exempt from FDIC insurance, HMDA requirements, CRA 
     provisions, etc.--thus giving such foreign bank offices a 
     distinct advantage in loan pricing.
       Foreign banks are not small players in the U.S. market. 
     They now account for a 42 percent share of all business loans 
     being made in the United States. This foreign share of our 
     banking market is larger than the foreign banking share of 
     most other major financial markets in the world. This has 
     resulted in large measure because foreign banks have distinct 
     competitive advantages over U.S. banks in our own market.
       There is no need to give foreign banks new competitive 
     advantages in our market as proposed by H.R. 3841. Under the 
     Senate interstate banking bill passed by your Committee, 
     foreign banks which are chartered in the U.S., whether 
     national or state will be able to take advantage of the 
     interstate language. Those which are not chartered in the 
     U.S. could keep their present office but would continue to 
     need state approval to operate a branch or representative in 
     the different states.
       Oklahoma bankers believe that foreign banks operating 
     domestically should not receive preferential treatment from 
     our government over U.S. domestic banks. An example of the 
     preferential treatment foreign banks are currently receiving 
     is exhibited in Subsection 346.6 of the FDIC Rules and 
     Regulations which allow unincorporated, uninsured foreign 
     branches and agencies to accept deposits of any amount from 
     any business entity which engages in commercial activities 
     for profit.
       I would respectfully ask that you make every effort to keep 
     the Senate interstate banking bill free from established 
     preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the 
     U.S. Our U.S. banking regulations are there for a reason and 
     they should apply to all financial institutions, domestic or 
     foreign, doing business in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                Roger M. Beverage,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                             South Dakota Bankers Association,

                                       Pierre, SD, April 21, 1994.
     Mr. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: I am writting to communicate the 
     growing concern of South Dakota bankers with the provisions 
     for foreign bank branching found in the House interstate 
     banking bill (H.R. 3841),
       It is my understanding that you have received a letter from 
     Ballard Cassady, Jr., executive vice president of the 
     Kentucky Bankers Association which describes in some detail 
     the differences between the interstate banking bill passed by 
     the House, and the bill currently before the Senate (S. 
     1963). Mr. Cassady's letter illustrates the significant 
     competitive advantages given to foreign banks in the House 
     bill. We believe that the Senate interstate banking bill is 
     much more balanced in its treatment of foreign and 
     domestically-chartered banks. We do not believe that foreign 
     banks operating domestically should receive preferential 
     treatment over banks domiciled in the United States.
       We hope you will makes every effort to keep the Senate 
     interstate banking bill free of established preferential 
     treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the U.S. We also 
     hope you can be successful in maintaining this position in 
     the conference report.
       Thank you for your attention to our concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                                Jeffrey J. Rodman,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                Tennessee Bankers Association,

                                    Nashville, TN, April 18, 1994.
     Mr. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: The purpose of this letter is to call 
     your attention to the foreign branching language in the House 
     interstate banking bill (H.R. 3841). Unlike the Senate 
     interstate bill (S. 1963) which provides that foreign banks 
     could, like domestic banks, branch interstate by first 
     establishing an insured bank in this country and then 
     branching from such a bank, the House interstate bill would 
     allow foreign banks to put their direct wholesale branches 
     and agencies throughout the United States. Since the 
     wholesale branches and agencies of foreign banks are not 
     subject to FDIC insurance premiums, nor CRA, this would add 
     to the already unfair advantage they have over U.S. 
     domestically chartered banks.
       According to the recently completed GATT agreement, the 
     host country should provide foreign financial institutions 
     treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like 
     service providers. There is no obligation to give foreign 
     institutions more favorable treatment.
       Foreign banks are not small players in the U.S. market. 
     They account for a 42% share of all business loans made in 
     the United States. This fact is not because U.S. banks are 
     not interested in quality loans, but more due to the fact 
     that foreign banks have competitive advantage over U.S. banks 
     in our own market.
       I would request that every effort be made to keep the 
     Senate interestate banking bill free from established 
     preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the 
     United States. U.S. banking regulations are in place for a 
     reason, and the regulations should apply to all financial 
     institutions, domestic or foreign, who choose to do business 
     in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bradley L. Barrett,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                 Virginia Bankers Association,

                                     Richmond, VA, April 18, 1994.
     Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: I am writing to you to express 
     concern with any provisions that might be advocated for 
     inclusion in the Senate's interstate banking bill that would 
     conflict with our state law that prohibits foreign bank entry 
     into Virginia.
       During the 1994 session of the Virginia General Assembly, a 
     bill was adopted, with the support of the Virginia Bankers 
     Association, to move Virginia from regional to national 
     interstate banking. Retained in the statute that was passed 
     was a provision prohibiting foreign banks from coming into 
     the Commonwealth.
       It is my understanding that the House passed bill, H.R. 
     3841, would likely nullify our foreign bank prohibition. It 
     is further my understanding that the Senate interstate bill, 
     S. 1963, would more nearly protect our existing Virginia law 
     by requiring a foreign bank, like a domestic bank to first 
     establish an insured bank in this country before being able 
     to branch. While the Senate language is much preferable to 
     the House language, the Senate provision could be further 
     improved by also providing that state laws that are more 
     restrictive than federal laws will prevail.
       I would respectfully request that you make very effort to 
     retain the Senate version of how foreign banks that operate 
     in this country will be governed and, if possible, further 
     strengthen that provision with language that protects more 
     restrictive state laws. There is simply no reason to give our 
     markets to foreign banks, or give them preferential treatment 
     over our own domestic banks.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Walter C. Ayers,
                                         Executive Vice President.
                                  ____

                                             West Virginia Bankers


                                            Association, Inc.,

                                   Charleston, WV, April 18, 1994.
     Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: I am writing this letter to bring 
     your attention to the foreign branching language in the House 
     interstate banking bill (H.R. 3841).
       The interstate banking bill currently before the Senate (S. 
     1953) provides that foreign banks could, like domestic banks, 
     branch interstate by first establishing an insured bank in 
     this country and then branching from such bank. The House 
     interstate banking bill, in contrast, would allow foreign 
     banks to put their direct wholesale branches and agencies 
     throughout the United States. Since the wholesale branches 
     and agencies of foreign banks, from which they make over 75% 
     of their U.S. loans, are not subject to FDIC insurance 
     premiums nor CRA and other consumer bank requirements, this 
     would add to the already grossly unfair advantage they have 
     over U.S. domestically chartered banks.
       National treatment for financial institutions, as defined 
     in the recently completed GATT agreement, states that a host 
     country should provide foreign financial institutions 
     ``treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like 
     service providers.'' There is no obligation to give foreign 
     institutions more favorable treatment.
       According to recent Federal Reserve Board data there are 
     presently over 300 foreign banking organizations from 62 
     different countries operating banking facilities in the 
     United States. Of the almost 700 different types of 
     facilities, only 93 are subsidiaries, while 378 are branches 
     and 211 agencies. These latter two types of facilities from 
     which foreign banks do most of their business in this country 
     are exempt from FDIC insurance, HMDA requirements, CRA 
     provisions, etc.--thus giving such foreign bank offices a 
     distinct advantage in loan pricing.
       Foreign banks are not small players in the U.S. market. 
     They now account for a 42 percent share of all business loans 
     being made in the United States. This foreign share of our 
     banking market is larger than the foreign banking share of 
     most other major financial markets in the world. Is this 
     happening because U.S. banks are inept competitors? The 
     answer is clearly and emphatically NO. Is it because foreign 
     banks have competitive advantages over U.S. banks in our own 
     market? The answer is just as emphatically YES.
       There is no need to give foreign banks new competitive 
     advantages in our market as proposed in the House interstate 
     banking bill (H.R. 3841). Under the Senate interstate banking 
     bill passed by your Committee, foreign banks which are 
     chartered in the U.S., whether national or state will be able 
     to take advantage of the interstate language. Those which are 
     not chartered in the U.S. could keep their present offices 
     but would continue to need state approval to operate a branch 
     or representative in the different states.
       It is our feeling that foreign banks operating domestically 
     should not receive preferential treatment from our government 
     over U.S. domestic banks. An example of the preferential 
     treatment foreign banks are currently receiving is exhibited 
     in Subsection 346.6 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations which 
     allow unincorporated, uninsured foreign branches and agencies 
     to accept deposits of any amount from any business entity 
     which engages in commercial activities for profit.
       I would respectfully ask that you make every effort to keep 
     the Senate interstate banking bill free from established 
     preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the 
     U.S. Our U.S. banking regulations are there for a reason and 
     they should apply to all financial institutions, domestic or 
     foreign, doing business in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Thomas A. Winner,
                                                President and CEO.
                                  ____



                                             Wisconsin Bankers

                                                  Association,

                                       Madison, WI April 21, 1994.
     Hon. Donald W. Riegle, Jr.,
     Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Riegle: I would like to bring to your 
     attention the foreign branching language in the House-passed 
     interstate banking bill (H.R. 3841).
       The companion bill currently before the Senate (S. 1963) 
     provides that foreign banks could, like domestic banks, 
     branch interstate by first establishing an insured bank in 
     this country and then branching from such bank. The House 
     bill, by contrast, would allow foreign banks to put their 
     direct wholesale branches and agencies throughout the United 
     States. Since the wholesale branches and agencies of foreign 
     banks, from which they make over 75% of their U.S. loans, are 
     not subject to FDIC insurance premiums, CRA or other consumer 
     bank requirements, this would add to the already grossly 
     unfair advantage they have over domestically chartered banks.
       National treatment for financial institutions, as defined 
     in the recently completed GATT agreement, states that a host 
     country should provide foreign financial institutions 
     ``treatment no less favorable than it accords its own like 
     service providers.'' There is no obligation to give foreign 
     institutions more favorable treatment.
       According to recent Federal Reserve Board data, there are 
     presently over 300 foreign banking organizations from 62 
     different countries operating banking facilities in the 
     United States. Of the almost 700 different types of 
     facilities, only 93 are subsidiaries, while 378 are branches 
     and 211 are agencies. These latter two types of facilities 
     from which foreign banks do most of their business in this 
     country are exempt from FDIC insurance, HMDA requirements, 
     CRA provisions, etc.--thus giving such foreign bank offices a 
     distinct advantage in loan pricing.
       Foreign banks are not small players in the United States. 
     They now account for a 42 percent share of all business loans 
     being made in the United States. This foreign share of our 
     banking market is larger than the foreign banking share of 
     most other major financial markets in the world.
       Is this happening because U.S. banks are inept competitors? 
     The answer is clearly and emphatically NO. It is because 
     foreign banks have competitive advantages over U.S. banks in 
     our own market.
       There is no need to give foreign banks new competitive 
     advantages in our market as proposed in H.R. 3841. Under the 
     Senate's interstate banking bill passed by your Committee, 
     foreign banks which are chartered in the United States, 
     whether national or state, will be able to take advantage of 
     the interstate language. Those which are not chartered here 
     could keep their present office but would continue needing 
     state approval to operate a branch or representative office 
     in different states.
       It is our belief that foreign banks operating domestically 
     should not receive preferential treatment from our government 
     over domestic banks. An example of the preferential treatment 
     foreign banks currently receive is exhibited in Subsection 
     346.6 of the FDIC Rules and Regulations. This allows 
     unincorporated, uninsured foreign branches and agencies to 
     accept deposits of any amount from any business entity which 
     engages in commercial activities for profit.
       I respectfully ask that you make every effort to keep the 
     Senate interstate banking bill free from establishing 
     preferential treatment to unincorporated foreign banks in the 
     United States. Our banking regulations are there for a 
     reason, and they should apply to all financial institutions, 
     domestic or foreign, doing business in the United States.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Harry J. Argue,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. FORD. I thank the chairman. Mr. President, I find the House 
language on foreign banks to be very troubling. My bankers are 
certainly strongly opposed to it, and I believe most of my colleagues 
will find the same reaction from their own bankers. As the chairman has 
stated, nothing in the Senate bill prohibits a foreign bank from 
establishing a subsidiary as a U.S.-chartered bank, which then has 
available all of the same rights and privileges of interstate banking 
and branching this legislation provides to U.S. banks. But to obtain 
these privileges, they must pay the same price as U.S. banks--
compliance with all relevant laws which apply to chartered 
institutions. This includes community reinvestment laws, consumer 
banking laws, and fair lending laws.
  Under the House bill, however, the special section on foreign 
branching assures an uneven playing field. Under section 104 of the 
House bill, foreign banks can establish a Federal branch in another 
State to the extent it would be permitted if that foreign bank were a 
national bank. Foreign banks can establish a State branch in another 
State to the extent it would be permitted if the foreign bank were a 
State bank.
  If we are going to treat foreign banks as if they are national or 
State banks for purposes of interstate branching, we had better treat 
them as if they were national or State banks for purposes of community 
reinvestment laws, consumer banking laws, and fair lending laws. The 
House bill does the former, giving foreign banks all the same benefits. 
But the House bill fails to do the latter, by imposing none of the 
burdens which apply to U.S. banks.
  This provides a substantial competitive advantage for foreign banks 
under the House language. It is a serious concern for my bankers, and 
it is a problem for me.
  I thank the chairman for answering my questions. I support interstate 
banking and branching reform as strongly as any Member of this body, 
and I strongly support this Senate bill. However, I would urge the 
chairman to seek to retain the Senate approach on foreign banks in a 
conference committee, or to significantly modify the House approach to 
include fair treatment of U.S. and foreign banks with respect to both 
the burdens and benefits of interstate banking and branching. I regret 
to say to the chairman that if the conference report contains the House 
language giving a competitive advantage to foreign banks, I will feel 
compelled to actively oppose the passage of the conference report.
  I know the chairman understands my concerns, and he has a great 
ability to articulate concerns on such complex topics as this one. I 
considered offering a sense of the Senate amendment expressing the 
policy that this legislation not provide any competitive advantage to 
foreign banks. I believe such an amendment would have passed 
unanimously. However, I know of the chairman's interest in moving this 
legislation, and I am hopeful this statement and colloquy will prove 
sufficient to make the same point. I would hope the chairman would take 
these concerns with him into a conference committee, and I would be 
happy to provide any assistance which he sees fit to assure that this 
issue is satisfactorily resolved.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I thank the Senator from Kentucky for his help and for 
his statement.
  I know the Senator from New York has a sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
he is prepared to offer and which I am prepared to accept.
  I yield for that purpose.


                           Amendment No. 1665

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the President should 
work to achieve a clearly defined and enforceable agreement with allies 
 of the United States which establishes a multilateral export control 
regime to stem the proliferation of products and technologies to rogue 
   regimes that would jeopardize the national security of the United 
                                States)

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. D'Amato], for himself, Mr. 
     Riegle, and Mr. Sasser, proposes an amendment numbered 1665.

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 26, after line 18, add the following new section:

     SEC. 8. SENSE OF THE SENATE CONCERNING MULTILATERAL EXPORT 
                   CONTROLS.

       (a) findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) the United States and its allies have agreed that as of 
     March 31, 1994, the Coordinating Committee (hereafter 
     referred to as ``COCOM''), the multilateral body that 
     controlled strategic exports to the former Soviet Union and 
     other Communist States, ceased to exist;
       (2) no successor has yet been established to replace the 
     COCOM;
       (3) threats to United States security are posed by rogue 
     regimes that support terrorism as a matter of national 
     policy;
       (4) a critical element of the United States proposal for a 
     successor to COCOM is that supplier nations agree on a list 
     of militarily critical products and technologies that would 
     be denied to a handful of rogue regimes;
       (5) some allies of the United States oppose this principle 
     and instead propose that such controls be left to ``national 
     discretion'', effectively replacing multilateral export 
     controls with a loose collection of unilateral export control 
     policies which would be adverse for United States security 
     and economic interests;
       (6) multilateral controls are needed to thwart efforts of 
     Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and other rogue regimes, to 
     acquire arms and sensitive dual-use goods and technologies 
     that could contribute to their efforts to build weapons of 
     mass destruction; and
       (7) the United States would be forced to make the difficult 
     choice of choosing between unilateral export controls under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, which would put 
     American companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide, 
     or allowing exports that could seriously harm the national 
     security interests of the United States.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) the President should work to achieve a clearly defined 
     and enforceable agreement with allies of the United States 
     which establishes a multilateral export control system for 
     the proliferation of products and technologies to rogue 
     regimes that would jeopardize the national security of the 
     United States; and
       (2) the President should persuade allies of the United 
     States to promote mutual security interests by preventing 
     rogue regimes from obtaining militarily critical products and 
     technologies.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the chairman, 
Senator Riegle, who is a cosponsor, and Senator Sasser, who is a 
cosponsor, as well as 18 other colleagues.
  This is a resolution which expresses how extremely important it is 
that the President work with our allies in order to achieve a clearly 
defined and enforceable agreement which establishes a multilateral 
export control system for the antiproliferation of products and 
technologies to rogue regimes that would jeopardize the national 
security of the United States and, indeed, world peace.
  Mr. President, the United States faces three choices in the 
implementation of an export control policy. First, the United States 
can use its diplomatic leverage as a world leader to foster an 
effective and enforceable multilateral export control organization to 
stem the proliferation of products and technologies that contribute to 
the development and production of weapons of mass destruction. Then, 
the United States can continue to use the Export Administration Act 
[EAA] as the legal authority for implementing both multilateral and 
unilateral export controls.
  Second, the United States can move forward without multilateral 
coordination and use the Export Administration Act as a tool to act 
only unilaterally to stem the flow of militarily strategic technology 
from terrorist and other countries. Or, third, the United States can 
eliminate all export controls except the most egregiously dangerous.
  Mr. President, there is only one clear choice among these options. 
The President must work with our allies to create an effective and 
enforceable multilateral export control organization. There is no 
question that without effective multilateral coordination, any 
implementation of the Export Administration Act will result in 
selective unilateral controls by the United States. While the nature of 
the threat has changed, from a anti-Communist to an antiproliferation 
focus, the fact is that multilaterally agreed upon export controls 
remain essential to our international security.
  They also remain an essential component of our exporters' ability to 
compete on a level playing field in the international marketplace. 
According to a representative of the National Association of 
Manufacturers [NAM],

       The most important premise of the NAM proposal is that 
     export controls on commercial goods and technology, including 
     non-proliferation controls must be applied multilaterally. 
     Absent multilateral agreement, export controls are 
     ineffective and hurt only U.S. exporters.

  This position undoubtedly applies to any proposal to reform the 
export control system under the EAA.
  The old multilateral export control system, CoCom, ceased to exist on 
March 31, 1994. CoCom's role was to keep leading-edge military 
technology away from Communist countries, mostly the Soviet Union and 
China. With no new multilateral regime in place to deal effectively 
with proliferation threats, the world became a free market for exports 
that contribute to the development and production of weapons of mass 
destruction by terrorist and other countries.
  The Clinton administration has so far been unable to foster 
cooperation among our allies to bring about agreement on a new regime. 
Today, exports are flowing world-wide based on the premise of national 
discretion. That is, each individual country will determine whether or 
not they will export a product. Products that contribute to weapons of 
mass destruction such as missile technology, nuclear and chemical and 
biological weapons are free to flow, to anyone, anywhere. We would hope 
that our allies will be prudent in their decisionmaking process but 
there is no way to know, until, possibly it is too late.
  The Clinton administration must develop consensus for a new regime, 
that is stronger than the current regimes, which operate on the basis 
of national discretion. The new regime is not to be viewed as merely a 
gap filler for the current nonproliferation regimes because they 
themselves do not have any real enforcement mechanisms. It must utilize 
some of the characteristics that made CoCom work such as veto power and 
prenotification of exports with viable enforcement mechanisms.
  The new regime must be designed with the goal of preventing any 
country, rich or poor, from building weapons of mass destruction. It 
must be especially sensitive to nations like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, 
Libya, Syria, and Cuba that support terrorism or other behavior that is 
inconsistent with international peace and security.
  The United States must convince our allies to work with us to slow 
the spread of dangerous weapons. We need to show our allies the 
importance of discretion in this still unstable world. Carelessness on 
the part of our allies will make it easier for the nuclear states to 
buy or build weapons of mass destruction.
  In order to achieve that goal, the Clinton administration must act 
with diplomacy and assertiveness in making this happen. They need to 
stop acting like a second-rate power and assume the role that has been 
achieved over many decades, that of a world leader. If they fail to 
accomplish this goal then we will once again prove to be a world leader 
with no leadership and have to deal with export controls that really 
have no control.

  Mr. President, this resolution expresses how extremely important it 
is that the President work with our allies in order to achieve a 
clearly defined and enforceable agreement which establishes a 
multilateral export control system for the anti-proliferation of 
products and technologies to rogue regimes that would jeopardize the 
national security of the United States.
  I ask my colleagues to support this measure and to let the 
administration know how extremely important this is to U.S. national 
security and to world security.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1665) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                community reinvestment act implications

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator Riegle 
in a short colloquy. I believe that there may be some confusion 
regarding the Community Reinvestment Act [CRA] implications of this 
legislation. For institutions that operate in more than one State, will 
S. 1963 require a separate CRA rating for each State in which the 
institution operates?
  Mr. RIEGLE. Yes, it will. In this fashion, S. 1963 seeks to ensure 
that financial institutions taking advantage of interstate banking 
continue to meet the needs of all communities that they serve.
  For multistate institutions, the bill requires a written evaluation 
for the entire institution and a separate written evaluation for each 
State in which the institution maintains one or more domestic branches. 
Under the Community Reinvestment Act, such evaluations each include the 
following: First the banking agency's conclusions for each assessment 
factor identified in the regulations; second the facts and data 
supporting such conclusions; and third the institution's rating and a 
statement describing the basis for the rating.
  Furthermore, these State level evaluations must also present both the 
agency's conclusion for each assessment factor and the facts and data 
supporting such conclusions separately for each metropolitan area in 
which the institution maintains one or more branches, as well as the 
remainder of the State if the institution maintains branches in 
nonmetropolitan areas. The institution will not, however, receive a 
separate CRA rating for each of the metropolitan and nonmetropolitan 
areas covered in the State level evaluation.


                          state applicability

  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to bring to the attention of the Chairman 
the concern of a number of my colleagues with the section of the bill 
dealing with applicable State law. My concern is that the section will 
result in a significant loss of authority for the States. Currently 
through their banking laws and their bank holding company statutes, 
States are able to require all banks to conform with a wide variety of 
State laws. States have applied laws in the areas of consumer 
protection, community reinvestment, and fair lending as well as a 
number of reporting and notification requirements to these 
institutions.
  We need to look at the financial system from the eyes of the users of 
the services, the consumers. We need to have uniformity and 
predictability. At the same time we need to have standards that best 
achieve the needs of the community. We must recognize the diversity of 
the community needs across the Nation and provide laws that allow 
communities to reflect those different needs.
  I am concerned as are a number of my colleagues that the current 
language of the bill does not give communities this needed flexibility.
  I am also concerned the section of the bill dealing with applicable 
law may result in many consumers not receiving the full protection of 
State law in the areas of consumer protection and fair lending 
practices. The language also reduces the authority of States to 
guarantee adequate community reinvestment.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Let me state for the record that some Senators have 
expressed concern about the implications of the applicable State law 
that would govern the operations of branches of out-of-state national 
banks in their States once this bill is enacted, as you have just 
mentioned. Under the reported bill, the States do not lose any 
authority that they already have over national banks. The bill also 
avoids having two classes of national banks resulting, interstate and 
intrastate, with each type of bank subject to different laws.
  I would just add that we worked hard in the committee to preserve the 
contours of the dual banking system in crafting this legislation and 
have not tried to alter the existing balance of power between the 
Federal and the State levels. The reported bill endeavors to maintain 
the status quo regarding a State's ability to regulate the activities 
of national banks operating in that State. However, I remain open to 
hearing from Senators regarding their suggestions to further fine tune 
the language that has been drafted in committee on this point. I would 
of course endeavor to consider their concerns in conference.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the willingness of the chairman to revisit 
this issue with an open mind. I would encourage the administration, the 
OCC, the National Governors' Association, and the Conference of State 
Bank Supervisors to discuss this issue before the conference committee 
meets and see if they can make progress toward bridging their 
differences.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I think that having such discussions would be an 
excellent idea. I would join the Senator in encouraging them to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to suspend for a moment. 
There may be one other item.
  Mr. President, we forgot one other refinement that needs to be added 
to the bill. This is an amendment to be offered by myself and Senator 
D'Amato having to do with State laws that would have an affect on the 
date of enactment.


                           Amendment No. 1666

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Riegle], for himself and Mr. 
     D'Amato, proposes an amendment numbered 1666.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 4, line 17, add the following after the period: ``a 
     State law in effect on the date of enactment of the 
     Interstate Banking and Branching Act of 1994 that permits 
     bank holding companies from only a limited number of States 
     to acquire banks in existence for a specified length of time, 
     in that State, shall be interpreted, under State and Federal 
     law, as permitting bank holding companies from any State, to 
     acquire a bank in that State, under the terms and conditions 
     of such State law.''

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1666) was agreed to.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. RIEGLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about 
the fact that the bill we are considering today does not include any 
provisions to allow for interstate expansion by foreign banks.
  International banks play a very important role in our economy today. 
The presence of international banks in our economy has helped not only 
to supply the credit needs of our Nation but has played an important 
role in assisting U.S. firms in exporting their goods and services and 
developing their expertise in successfully competing in the global 
market. In my home State of Florida, these foreign banks have worked in 
tandem with local businesses, and in many cases, small business to help 
them put together successful endeavors. Many U.S. companies have, 
through the knowledge and expertise of these institutions been able to 
find new markets in which to export their U.S. produced products. This 
bill recognizes the important efficiencies of allowing banks to operate 
across the United States. I believe we should therefore allow foreign 
banks to expand.
  We have recognized in this bill the desirability of allowing U.S. 
banks to expand their operations throughout the United States. I am 
extremely concerned that the current bill is discriminatory because 
U.S. banks are allowed to expand, but foreign banks operating in the 
United States are not allowed to expand. National treatment requires 
that international banks be allowed to expand interstate through direct 
branches.
  The United States has had a long history of providing national 
treatment to foreign institutions operating in the United States. In 
fact, when the International Banking Act of 1978 was adopted, the 
policy of national treatment was embodied in statute.
  The U.S. Treasury Department, along with the Federal Reserve has 
advocated a policy of national treatment. This policy has been the 
basis of U.S. negotiations on financial services and the concept of 
national treatment has been employed in many of the Friendship, 
Commerce and Navigation treaties as well as in a number of agreements 
relating to financial services that are currently in force with the 
OECD.
  Under Secretary of the Treasury, Frank N. Newman wrote to Senator 
Riegle about this issue on February 22, 1994. Under Secretary Newman 
points out that the current bill would not permit foreign banks to 
branch across State lines except through a subsidiary U.S. bank. He 
points out that:

       [t]he United States has repeatedly objected to similar 
     requirements imposed by foreign countries on U.S. banks that 
     operate abroad. Such requirements disproportionately burden 
     U.S. Banks and thereby deny them equality of competitive 
     opportunity in foreign financial markets. As we work to end 
     discrimination against U.S. financial institutions abroad, 
     and to enact the Fair Trade in Financial Services Act, we 
     will strengthen our hand by providing national treatment to 
     foreign banks operating in the United States.

  In addition, the Commission of the European Communities has expressed 
its concern that the bill does not provide for national treatment in 
that interstate banking provisions are not extended to foreign banks. 
They go on to state that they believe that this should be achieved 
without imposition of a branch roll-up requirement. The letter makes 
clear that the Second Banking Directive:

       Has been cited incorrectly to justify a subsidiary 
     requirement as a condition for permitting foreign banks to 
     conduct interstate banking in the U.S. * * * Neither the 
     Second Banking Directive nor national legislation of Member 
     States prevent foreign banks from maintaining existing 
     branches or from establishing new ones as a condition for 
     operating in the European Union. Direct branching from 
     outside the European Union by non EU banks is permitted in 
     Member States of the Union.

  Furthermore, the House of Representatives, in passing H.R. 3814, the 
Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994, recognized the importance of 
granting interstate expansion to foreign banks.
  I hope that when the Conference is convened, the Senate will review 
the House provisions and adopt them.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I would like to ask the chairman of the Banking 
Committee a question concerning a provision that I believe is in the 
House passed version of this legislation. As I understand it, the House 
bill authorizes depository institutions that are affiliated to act as 
agents for each other, and that such agents are not considered to be 
branches under Federal or State law. Was there any consideration to 
putting a similar provision in the Senate bill?
  Mr. RIEGLE. I am glad the Senator raised that point. In fact, Senator 
Shelby had discussed with me an amendment that would have authorized 
banks to conduct certain banking activities through an agent. Under 
Senator Shelby's amendment, such an agent would not be considered to be 
a branch. However, after discussing his proposal with the Comptroller 
of the Currency, I believe that national banks already possess 
significant authority to act through agents.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I see, so the fact that the amendment was not added to 
the bill simply reflects that national banks already possess similar 
authority under current law. Did the Comptroller provide the chairman 
with any examples?
  Mr. REIGLE. Yes, the Comptroller provided me with a representative 
list of examples of situations in which national banks have used third 
parties to provide banking services to their customers. I would ask for 
unanimous consent to include this list in the Record at this point. I 
would also point out that it is my understanding that under current law 
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 and the 
Comptroller's office has recently so opined.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Use of Third Parties by National Banks To Facilitate Traditional 
                     Deposit and Lending Activities

       The following lists situations in which affiliated and 
     nonaffiliated parties assist banks in engaging in traditional 
     banking activities without being considered to be bank 
     branches.
       A. Use of telephones and the post office to facilitate 
     deposit transactions does not render such facilities to be 
     branches of national banks. Independent Bankers Association 
     of America v. Smith, 534 F.2d 921 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 
     429 U.S. 862 (1976) (excerpt).
       B. ATMs owned by a third party (e.g., a supermarket) do not 
     constitute national bank branches even though bank customers 
     may access their accounts through such facilities. 
     Independent Bankers Association of New York State v. Marine 
     Midland Bank, N.A., 757 F.2d 453 (2d Cir. 1985), cert. 
     denied, 476 U.S. 1186 (1986).
       C. Loan origination activities by national bank through 
     third parties do not constitute branching. 12 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 7.7380(a).
       D. Disbursal of loan proceeds by national banks through 
     third parties (e.g., at a real estate closing) does not 
     constitute branching. OCC Interpretive Letter of June 23, 
     1993; OCC Interpretive Letter of April 24, 1992 (general 
     discussion of issue).
       E. Use of third party messenger services (e.g., Brinks) to 
     facilitate receipt of deposits and paying of withdrawals does 
     not constitute branching. 12 C.F.R. Sec. 7.7490 and as 
     revised January 13, 1993.
       F. Use of affiliated banks and thrifts to facilitate 
     banking transactions is not branching. OCC interpretive 
     Letter of October 8, 1992 (intrastate affiliated banks); FDIC 
     Interpretative Letter of August 12, 1993 (intrastate 
     affiliated banks); OCC interpretive Letter of October 18, 
     1993 (intrastate affiliated banks and thrifts); OCC 
     Interpretive Letter of April 6, 1994 (interstate affiliated 
     banks).
       G. Use of third party nonaffiliated nonbank to facilitate 
     deposit taking by national banks is not branching. OCC 
     Interpretive Letter (October 5, 1993).

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask for third reading of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the third 
time.
  The bill clerk read the bill for the third time.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. D'AMATO. 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. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Banking 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3841 and 
then without objection the Senate then immediately proceed to its 
consideration, and all after the enacting clause be stricken and the 
text of our bill S. 1963, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RIEGLE. And the bill be advanced to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for a third time.
  The bill (H.R. 3841) was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  So the bill (H.R. 3841) as amended, was passed, 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 
     holding company' 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.''.

  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate insist on its 
amendment and request a conference with the House of Representatives on 
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator D'Amato, and 
all other colleagues who worked with us on this legislation. It is an 
important piece of legislation and it has now been passed. We go to 
conference. I am eager to do so. I thank all involved for their 
cooperation.
  I now suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, let me commend the staff of the Banking 
Committee, both the majority staff and minority staff.
  I certainly commend Chairman Riegle for his job in moving this 
important legislation that will permit us to compete in the 
marketplaces of our country without regard to boundaries that have 
little sense today in light of the banking system that has evolved 
worldwide.
  Again, while the logic of this legislation, I believe, is 
irrefutable, the fact is that political considerations and policy 
considerations are important to many of the independent bankers. Over a 
period of time, they kept this legislation from moving forward.
  Hopefully, we will see a reduction in cost and increase in earnings 
and more opportunities for consumers. There is a whole host of reasons 
why this legislation is necessary.
  Again, I commend the chairman for his leadership in undertaking this 
important matter. He did it in a way which protected people's rights 
and yet kept a relatively clean bill so that it would not be loaded 
down with contentious matters that would ultimately lead to its defeat. 
There is no sense in passing a bill in one House without recognizing 
the considerations that the other body would be looking to.
  So I commend the chairman for his artful and yet forceful leadership.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. 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. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1963 be 
indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________