[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]

 
                            THE BANKING BILL

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I arrived in the Chamber just as they were 
moving to final passage, and I did not want to interrupt the flow of 
what they were doing.
  The chairman has done a wonderful job managing this bill, the 
Interstate Banking and Branching Act. I know that he has had some 
difficulty with some health concerns in his family and was leaving. So 
I did not want to interrupt it.
  I did want to take a moment to say a few words on this bill.
  I did vote ``no.'' Although we did not have a rollcall vote, when you 
asked for a voice vote I said ``no'' largely because I think this bill 
causes some very significant concerns, at least for me and I hope some 
others in this country.
  I am very concerned about some parts of the banking industry in our 
country. I should not mean to represent that as the entire industry. 
But I pick up the newspaper and read about banks losing money under 
derivatives--something most people cannot even explain--but a kind of 
financial casino game, I worry about that.
  I worried when the S&L's were buying junk bonds, and I was on the 
floor of the House at that point and the House passed the legislation 
that prohibited S&L's from buying junk bonds again and I remember they 
had junk bonds and spent over $100 billion to get rid of them. I was 
concerned about that.
  I am concerned when I read about banks involved in trading 
derivatives and having speculative losses of substantial amounts of 
money.
  That is not the point with respect to this particular issue. It is 
just that I wanted to say that I am concerned about a number of things, 
including the potential for more and more concentration in the banking 
industry. More concentration in the industry is not going to serve this 
country's interest. Those of us from rural areas especially, in my 
judgment, are unlikely to see greater bank service as a result of 
legislation like this and as a result of legislation in some of the 
States, including mine.
  I think we are likely to see larger concentrations of bank 
enterprises establishing centers across this country, grabbing deposits 
out of those areas that might be having slower growth and moving them 
into investments in areas of higher growth. And I worry a great deal 
about what that means for rural America.
  And I, for that reason, did not support and do not support this 
legislation. I think history will show this to be ill-advised, at least 
with respect to the interest of a State like North Dakota or other 
rural States where we have had great economic difficulty. What we very 
much need is a network of financial institutions who will take deposits 
from our States to invest back into our States, and I fear that that is 
not going to be the case with this type of legislation.

                          ____________________