[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 105 (Wednesday, August 3, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  REQUEST FROM SENATOR DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE 
                           BANKING COMMITTEE

  Mr. RIEGLE. I ask unanimous consent that the statement of managers 
filed with the conference report on H.R. 3841, the Riegle-Neal 
Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, which is 
attached, be reprinted in today's Congressional Record. The version of 
the statement printed in the August 2, 1994, Congressional Record 
omitted the crucial words ``or branch'' on page H6641 in the statement 
of managers description of ``Applicability of Section 5197 of the 
Revised Statutes and Section 27 of the FDI Act.'' Reprinting it here 
will ensure that the public has the correct version.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

       JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE

       The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the 
     conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 3841) to amend the 
     Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Revised Statutes of the 
     United States, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to 
     provide for interstate banking and branching, submit the 
     following joint statement to the House and the Senate in 
     explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the 
     managers and recommended in the accompanying conference 
     report:

                      SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS

               Title I--Interstate Banking and Branching


                           interstate banking

       The legislation permits bank holding companies to acquire 
     banks in any State one year after enactment of the 
     legislation. State laws which require the acquiring company 
     to acquire a bank that has been in existence for a specified 
     minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) are 
     preserved. Any State law which requires a bank to be acquired 
     to be in existence for more than five years applies as if it 
     requires that the bank being acquired be five years old.
       Section 3(d)(1)(D) of the Bank Holding Company Act, as 
     amended by section 101, protects the applicability of a State 
     law that makes the acquisition of a bank contingent upon a 
     requirement that a portion of the bank's assets be available 
     to a State-sponsored housing entity established under State 
     law, under the conditions that the State law is not 
     discriminatory, that the State law was in effect as of the 
     date of enactment of this Act and that compliance with the 
     State law would not result in an unacceptable risk to the 
     deposit insurance fund and would not place the bank in an 
     unsafe or unsound condition.
       The Federal Reserve Board may not approve an interstate 
     acquisition if, as a result of the acquisition, the bank 
     holding company would control more than 10 percent of the 
     total amount of deposits of insured depository institutions 
     in the United States or 30 percent or more of the deposits in 
     the home State of the bank to be acquired. Notwithstanding 
     the 30 percent limit, the Board could approve such a 
     transaction if the home State waives the 30 percent limit 
     either by statute, regulation, or order of the appropriate 
     State official based on standards that do not have the effect 
     of discriminating against out-of-State institutions.
       The above concentration limits do not apply to initial 
     entry into a State by a bank holding company. If, however, a 
     State has a deposit concentration cap which applies in a 
     nondiscriminatory manner to both in-State and out-of-State 
     bank holding companies making initial entry acquisitions, 
     then nothing in the legislation affects the State's authority 
     to impose such deposit cap.
     Community Reinvestment Laws
       The Board shall continue to comply with its 
     responsibilities under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 
     with respect to applications under section 3(d) of the Bank 
     Holding Company Act of 1956. Currently the Board reviews 
     applications under section 3(d) in accordance with existing 
     regulations (such as Regulations Y and BB) and practices, and 
     the conferees intend that nothing in this bill will alter or 
     affect such regulations and practices as established by the 
     Board.
       In acting on an application under section 3(d), the Board 
     shall also consider the applicant's record of compliance with 
     applicable state community reinvestment laws.
     Applicability of Antitrust Laws
       The title provides that no provision of the antitrust laws 
     is to be construed as being affected by the interstate 
     banking amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act, including 
     the Act's provisions on concentration limits. The 
     applicability, if any, of State antitrust laws is likewise 
     preserved. Nothing in this provision is intended to affect or 
     expand the existing applicability of State antitrust laws, 
     under current statutory or case law, to interstate 
     acquisitions.


                        STATE TAXATION AUTHORITY

       Section 101(b) amends the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 
     to provide that nothing in that Act shall be construed as 
     affecting the authority of any State or political subdivision 
     to adopt, apply or administer any tax or method of taxation 
     to any bank, bank holding company or foreign bank, or their 
     affiliates, to the extent that such tax or tax method is 
     otherwise permissible under the Constitution or other Federal 
     law. This is intended to clarify that it is not the 
     Conferees' intent to overturn existing State tax law 
     pertaining to distinct legal entities within a corporate 
     structure. The provision recognizes the existence of 
     corporate affiliates and reaffirms that States may segregate 
     the separately incorporated entities within a bank or bank 
     holding company for state taxation purposes, to the extent 
     permissible under the Constitution or other Federal law.
       Similar amendments are made to section 44 of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act and to Title I.


                       AFFILIATED BANKS AS AGENTS

       The Conferees accepted a modified version of a provision in 
     the House bill permitting certain affiliated depository 
     institutions to act as agents for each other for purposes of 
     receiving deposits, renewing time deposits, closing loans, 
     servicing loans and receiving payments on loans and other 
     obligations for other affiliated depository institutions, 
     with several amendments.
       The modified provision permits bank subsidiaries, rather 
     than depository institution subsidiaries, of bank holding 
     companies to act as agents for depository institution 
     affiliates. Subject to certain conditions, insured savings 
     associations which were affiliated with banks as of July 1, 
     1994, may act as agents for such banks under this provision.
       As used in this provision, the term ``receive deposits'' 
     means the taking of deposits to be credited to an existing 
     account and is not meant to include the opening or 
     origination of new deposit accounts at an affiliated 
     institution by the agent institution.
       The Conferees deleted the authority in the House bill for 
     affiliated depository institutions to disburse the proceeds 
     of loans for other affiliated depository institutions and 
     substituted authority to service loans. The Conferees intend 
     that, under this authority to service loans, agent banks may 
     perform ministerial functions for the principal bank making a 
     loan. Those ministerial functions include such activities as 
     providing loan applications, assembling documents, providing 
     a location for returning documents necessary for making the 
     loan, providing loan account information (such as outstanding 
     loan balances), and receiving payments. It does not include 
     such loan functions as evaluating applications or disbursing 
     loan funds. The term ``close loans'' does not include the 
     making of a decision to extend credit or the extension of 
     credit.
       The Conferees also intend that the provision permit 
     affiliated banks to act as agents for one another regardless 
     of whether the institutions are located in the same or 
     different states.
       Under section 18(r)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
     (as added by section 101(d) of this title), a bank may not 
     conduct any activity as an agent that such bank is prohibited 
     from conducting as principal under applicable Federal or 
     State law. Prohibited activities under this provision include 
     activities by a bank acting as agent that would be prohibited 
     to the bank acting as principal under the applicable consumer 
     protection, powers and other laws of the State where the bank 
     is situated. The Conferees intend that the limitation on 
     acting as agent under section 18(r)(3) shall also be applied 
     to all United States offices of foreign banks covered under 
     the definition of bank in the Act, when acting as agent for a 
     depository institution affiliate. Agency relationships may be 
     used to promote operational efficiencies, but they may not be 
     used to evade applicable consumer protection, powers, and 
     other laws of the State where the agent institution is 
     situated.
       The Conferees also intend to clarify, through the addition 
     of a savings clause, that this section does not affect the 
     authority of a depository institution to be an agent for a 
     depository institution under any other provision of law, nor 
     does it affect a determination under any other provision of 
     law whether the agent should be considered to be a branch of 
     the depository institution. The Conferees do not intend that 
     new subsection 18(r) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act 
     affect the application of other provisions of law which 
     permit agency relationships between affiliated depository 
     institutions. The Conferees note that subsection 18(r) 
     applies narrowly only to affiliated depository institutions 
     acting as agents, and has no application to agency 
     relationships concerning non-depositories as agent, whether 
     or not affiliated with the depository institution.
       Section 18(r) shall not be construed as authorizing 
     transactions which result in the transfer of any insured 
     depository institution's Federal deposit insurance from one 
     Federal deposit insurance fund to the other Federal deposit 
     insurance fund.


                          INTERSTATE BRANCHING

     Introduction
       The Conferees decided on an interstate branching structure 
     somewhat different than the structure of either the House or 
     the Senate bills. Under the House structure, branching (other 
     than the establishment of de novo branches) was permitted 
     three years after enactment through a one-step acquisition of 
     an existing bank and its conversion to branches of the 
     acquiring bank, under the National Bank Act for national 
     banks or the Federal Deposit Insurance Act for State banks. 
     The Senate structure used a two-step process effective June 
     1, 1997, with the interstate acquisition of a bank under the 
     Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 subsequently followed by a 
     consolidation of the newly acquired bank with another bank 
     owned by the holding company.
       The Conferees adopted a structure under which a bank would 
     engage in a merger transaction with the out-of-State bank and 
     convert any of its offices into branches of the resulting 
     bank under the authority of a new section of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act. Such a transaction would be subject to 
     approval under the Bank Merger Act.
       The House bill authorized bank holding companies to 
     consolidate affiliated banks into a single bank with 
     interstate branches 18 months after enactment of the 
     legislation. The Senate bill did not provide for early 
     consolidation. The House receded to the Senate, thereby 
     permitting consolidation of affiliated banks in different 
     States through an interstate merger transaction when 
     interstate branching takes effect on June 1, 1997.
       Once a bank has established branches in a host State 
     through an interstate merger transaction, such bank may 
     establish and acquire additional branches at any location in 
     the host State where any bank involved in the interstate 
     merger transaction could have established or acquired 
     branches under applicable Federal or State law.
     Interstate Branching Through Mergers
       Beginning June 1, 1997, a bank may merge with a bank in 
     another State so long as both States have not opted out of 
     interstate branching between the date of enactment and May 
     31, 1997. States may enact laws opting-out of interstate 
     branching before June 1, 1997, subject to certain conditions. 
     States may also enact laws permitting interstate merger 
     transactions before June 1, 1997. Host States may impose 
     conditions on a branch resulting from an interstate merger 
     transaction that occurs before June 1, 1997, if the 
     conditions do not discriminate against out-of-State banks, 
     are not preempted by Federal law, and do not apply or require 
     performance after May 31, 1997.
       State laws requiring out-of-State banks or bank holding 
     companies to merge with, or acquire a bank that has been in 
     existence for a specified minimum period of time (not to 
     exceed five years) are preserved with respect to interstate 
     merger transactions. Any such State law which imposes a 
     minimum age requirement of more than five years on a bank to 
     be acquired is to be applied as if the minimum age 
     requirement is five years.
       Any bank that files an application for an interstate merger 
     transaction shall comply with any filing requirement of any 
     host State of the bank resulting from the transaction, to the 
     extent the requirement does not discriminate against out-of-
     State banks or bank holding companies, and is similar to any 
     requirement imposed on nonbanking corporations incorporated 
     in another State that engage in business in the host State. 
     Banks must also file a copy of the application for the 
     interstate merger transaction with the State bank supervisor 
     of the host State. The responsible agency may not approve an 
     application if the applicant materially fails to comply with 
     the host State's filing requirements.
       The responsible agency may not approve an application for 
     an interstate merger if the resulting bank would control more 
     than 10 percent or more of the total amount of deposits of 
     insured depository institutions in the United States or 30 
     percent or more of the deposits in any State affected by the 
     interstate merger. Notwithstanding the 30 percent limit, the 
     responsible agency could approve such a transaction if the 
     home State waives the 30 percent limit either by statute, 
     regulation, or order of the appropriate State official based 
     on standards that do not have the effect of discriminating 
     against out-of-state institutions.
       The concentration limits do not apply with respect to any 
     interstate merger transactions involving affiliated banks. 
     The concentration limits also do not apply to initial entry 
     into a State by a bank or its affiliates. If, however, a 
     State has a deposit concentration cap which applies in a non-
     discriminatory manner to both in-State and out-of-State banks 
     and bank holding companies, then nothing in the legislation 
     affects the State's authority also to impose such deposit 
     caps to initial entries.
       The responsible agency may approve an application for a 
     merger only if each bank involved in the transaction is 
     adequately capitalized as of the date the application is 
     filed, and the agency determines that the resulting bank will 
     continue to be adequately capitalized and adequately managed.
       The laws of the host State regarding community 
     reinvestment, consumer protection (including applicable usury 
     ceilings), fair lending, and establishment of intrastate 
     branches shall apply to any branch of a national bank in the 
     host State to the same extent as such State laws apply to a 
     branch of a bank chartered by that State, except when Federal 
     law preempts, or when the Comptroller determines that the law 
     has a discriminatory effect on the branch in comparison to 
     branches of State-chartered banks. Such laws shall be 
     enforced by the Comptroller of the Currency.
     Acquisition of Branches
       New section 44(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act (as added by section 102(a)) permits the responsible 
     Federal regulator to approve the acquisition of a branch of 
     an insured bank without the acquisition of the entire bank 
     only if the law of the State in which the branch is located 
     permits out-of-State banks to acquire a branch of a bank 
     without acquiring the bank. The Conferees intend that, in 
     approving such acquisitions, Federal regulators will ensure 
     that state minimum age restrictions under paragraph (5) which 
     apply to such acquisitions are preserved. Federal banking 
     agencies should not approve the acquisition of a branch (if 
     permitted under paragraph (4)) in host States which have 
     minimum age laws regarding the acquisition of banks, unless 
     such laws expressly permit branches in the host state to be 
     acquired without the acquisition of the bank.
     Applicability of Community Reinvestment Laws
       Under current law, most interstate movement by banking 
     organizations takes place via the Bank Holding Company Act. 
     Current regulations and practices of the Board of Governors 
     of Federal Reserve System delineate the scope of CRA 
     performance considered by the Board in acting on applications 
     by a bank holding company to move interstate via section 3(d) 
     of the Bank Holding Company Act.
       Section 44(b)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (as 
     added by section 102(a) of this title) provides that, only 
     with respect to initial entry into a host state by a bank 
     without branches or a bank affiliate in that host state, the 
     scope of CRA performance considered by the responsible 
     Federal banking agency in connection with an interstate 
     branching application will parallel the scope of CRA 
     performance which would be considered by the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System (to the same extent 
     as outlined in the statement of managers accompanying section 
     3(d)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended 
     by section 101(a) of this title) if the application were for 
     an interstate bank holding company acquisition pursuant to 
     section 3(d) of the Bank Holding Company Act. Hence, in those 
     cases of initial entry, the Conferees intend that the 
     responsible federal banking agency comply with its 
     responsibilities under section 804 of CRA consistent with 
     current regulations and practices with respect to bank 
     mergers and also to take into account the CRA record, 
     including the most recent written evaluation, of any 
     affiliate banks of the resulting bank.
       With respect to all other interstate branching applications 
     apart from those involving initial entry into a host state, 
     the responsible Federal banking agency shall carry out its 
     responsibilities under section 804 of the Community 
     Reinvestment Act consistent with its current regulations and 
     practices with respect to bank mergers.
       In all cases, when taking into account the CRA performance 
     of an institution with branches in more than one state in 
     connection with acting on an interstate branching 
     application, the Conferees expect that the responsible 
     Federal banking agency will take into account the 
     institution's performance under CRA in each state in which it 
     maintains branches.
       In addition, when acting on a interstate branching 
     application, the responsible Federal banking agency shall 
     take into account the records of compliance with applicable 
     State community reinvestment laws of any applicant bank.
     Applicable State Law
       States have a strong interest in the activities and 
     operations of depository institutions doing business within 
     their jurisdictions, regardless of the type of charter an 
     institution holds. In particular, States have a legitimate 
     interest in protecting the rights of their consumers, 
     businesses, and communities. Federal banking agencies, 
     through their opinion letters and interpretive rules on 
     preemption issues, play an important role in maintaining the 
     balance of Federal and State law under the dual banking 
     system. Congress does not intend that the Interstate Banking 
     and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 alter this balance and 
     thereby weaken States' authority to protect the interests of 
     their consumers, businesses, or communities.
       Accordingly, the title emphasizes that a host state's laws 
     regarding community reinvestment, consumer protection, fair 
     lending, and establishment of intrastate branches will apply 
     to interstate branches of national banks established in the 
     host state to the same extent as those laws apply to a branch 
     of a State bank, except when Federal law preempts application 
     of the State laws to a national bank, or when the Comptroller 
     of the Currency determines that the State laws have a 
     discriminatory effect on the branch as compared with their 
     effect on a branch of a State bank.
       Under well-established judicial principles, national banks 
     are subject to State law in many significant respects. The 
     laws of the State in which a national bank is situated will 
     apply to the national bank unless those State laws are 
     preempted by Federal law. Generally, State law applies to 
     national banks unless the State law is in direct conflict 
     with the Federal law, Federal law is so comprehensive as to 
     evidence Congressional intent to occupy a given field, or the 
     State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the 
     full purposes and objectives of the Federal law. In this 
     regard, the impact of a State law on the safe and sound 
     operations of a national bank is one factor that may be taken 
     into account in considering whether Federal law preempts 
     State law. Courts generally use a rule of construction that 
     avoids finding a conflict between the Federal and State law 
     where possible. The title does not change these judicially 
     established principles.
       During the course of consideration of the title, the 
     Conferees have been made aware of certain circumstances in 
     which the Federal banking agencies have applied traditional 
     preemption principles in a manner the Conferees believe is 
     inappropriately aggressive, resulting in preemption of State 
     law in situations where the federal interest did not warrant 
     that result. One illustration is OCC Interpretive Letter No. 
     572, dated January 15, 1992, from the OCC to Robert M. 
     Jaworski, Assistant Commissioner, State of New Jersey 
     Department of Banking, concluding that national banks in New 
     Jersey are not required to comply with the New Jersey 
     Consumer Checking Account Act. It is of utmost concern to the 
     Conferees that the agencies issue opinion letters and 
     interpretive rules concluding that Federal law preempts state 
     law regarding community reinvestment, consumer protection, 
     fair lending, or establishment of intrastate branches only 
     when the agency has determined that the Federal policy 
     interest in preemption is clear. In the case of Interpretive 
     Letter No. 572, it is the sense of the Conferees that the 
     fact the Congress has acknowledged the benefits of more 
     widespread use of lifeline accounts through the enactment of 
     the Bank Enterprise Act did not indicate that Congress 
     intended to override State basic banking laws, or occupy the 
     area of basic banking services to such an extent as to 
     displace State laws, or that the existence of State basic 
     banking laws frustrated the purpose of Congress.
       The Conferees have similar concerns regarding the scope of 
     the OCC interpretive rule that appears at 12 C.F.R. 
     Sec. 7.8000, which broadly asserts that Federal law governing 
     the deposit-taking functions of national banks preempts any 
     State law that attempts to prohibit, limit, or restrict 
     deposit account service charges. In light of the Conferees' 
     views regarding the proper application of recognized 
     preemption standards discussed above, the Conferees urge the 
     OCC to review Interpretive Ruling 7.800 to determine if it 
     should be withdrawn or revised.
       The Conferees understand that in certain cases some states 
     have imposed conditions on, or obtained commitments from, 
     bank holding companies in connection with a company's 
     acquisition of banks outside its home state. The title 
     provides that such conditions or commitments existing as of 
     the date of enactment of the Interstate Banking and Branching 
     Efficiency Act of 1994 will continue to be enforceable 
     against the bank holding company or an affiliated successor 
     company to the same extent as they were previously if a bank 
     holding company with bank subsidiaries in more than one state 
     chooses to combine its banks under new section 44 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act (as added by section 102(a) of 
     this title). The title does not create any new State 
     enforcement authority with respect to any conditions imposed 
     or commitments made before the enactment of the title.
     Interpretations Concerning Federal Preemption of State Law
       In view of the Congressional concern regarding preemption 
     of State law regarding community reinvestment, consumer 
     protection, fair lending, and establishment of intrastate 
     branches, the Conferees concluded that a more open process 
     for reaching preemption conclusions in these areas, with a 
     clearly structured, meaningful opportunity for interested 
     parties to communicate their views to the agency, was 
     warranted. Also, it is important that the agencies make their 
     determinations on Federal preemption of State law available 
     to the public in a timely and accessible manner. Accordingly, 
     the title imposes certain procedural requirements on agency 
     preemption opinion letters and interpretive rules in 
     connection with State laws regarding community reinvestment, 
     consumer protection, fair lending, and establishment of 
     intrastate branches, whether or not related to interstate 
     branching. The Conferees believe that the public notice and 
     openness provided by the new process will be a vital 
     safeguard to ensure that an agency applies the recognized 
     principles of preemption, discussed above, in a balanced 
     fashion.
       The title provides that before issuing any opinion letter 
     or interpretive ruling concluding that Federal law preempts 
     State law regarding community reinvestment, consumer 
     protection, fair lending, or establishment of intrastate 
     branches, the appropriate Federal banking agency will publish 
     notice in the Federal Register of the request, or of the 
     agency's intention on its own motion, to determine whether 
     Federal law preempts a particular State law. The notice 
     should describe each State law in question and otherwise 
     provide information sufficient to enable interested parties 
     to comment meaningfully on the issue under consideration. The 
     agency also should promptly make available upon request a 
     copy of any incoming request letter. The title also requires 
     the agency to publish in the Federal Register a copy of the 
     final opinion letter or interpretive rule.
       The Federal Register publication requirement is intended to 
     provide readily available and widespread notice to interested 
     parties of the opportunity to comment on preemption matters 
     that have not been previously resolved by the agency or 
     courts. The title requires the agency to give interested 
     parties not less than 30 days in which to submit comments. In 
     establishing the length of the comment period, the Conferees 
     intend that the agencies should take into account the 
     complexity of the preemption issue involved and the number of 
     parties likely interested in responding to the solicitation 
     of public comment and the resources of those parties. The 
     Conferees also expect the agencies to be flexible in 
     extending the comment period if requested to do so by an 
     interested party for good cause shown. The title further 
     requires the agency to take the public comments into account 
     in reaching its decision, even though each particular comment 
     need not be specifically discussed in the final product.
       This process is not intended to confer upon the agency any 
     new authority to preempt or to determine preemptive 
     Congressional intent in the four areas described, or to 
     change the substantive theories of preemption as set forth in 
     existing law. Rather, it is intended to help focus any 
     administrative preemption analysis and to help ensure that an 
     agency only makes a preemption determination when the legal 
     basis is compelling and the Federal policy interest is clear.
       The public notice and comment process is not required when 
     a particular request raises issues of Federal preemption of 
     State law that are essentially identical to those previously 
     resolved by the agency or the courts, or when the incoming 
     request regarding preemption contains no significant legal 
     basis upon which to make a preemption determination. The 
     title also exempts materials prepared for use in judicial 
     proceedings, for submission to Congress or a member of 
     Congress, and for intra-governmental use from the new public 
     notice requirements. The intra-governmental use exception, in 
     particular, is intended to carve out an exception for 
     materials provided to or from, or shared with, agency 
     personnel or other agencies in the Executive Branch. Examples 
     of the type of such material include, but are not limited to, 
     memoranda, letters, correspondence, advisory opinions, or 
     other materials that are part of the deliberative process 
     that governs the making of decisions and policies within the 
     Executive Branch. An exception to the notice and comment 
     provisions is also provided in cases when the appropriate 
     Federal banking agency determines in writing that the 
     exception is necessary to avoid a serious and imminent threat 
     to the safety and soundness of a national bank.
       The Comptroller must follow the notice and comment process 
     in making any determination under section 5155(f)(1)(A)(ii) 
     of the Revised Statutes that State laws discriminate against 
     a branch of a national bank as compared with a branch of a 
     State bank.
       The Conferees expect that the Federal banking agencies will 
     be receptive to well-supported requests from interested 
     parties seeking reconsideration of previous interpretive 
     rules or opinions regarding state community reinvestment, 
     consumer protection, fair lending and intrastate branching 
     laws, consistent with the approach to preemption discussed 
     above.
     Host State Notification Requirements
       Host States may impose any notification or reporting 
     requirement on a branch in the State if the requirement does 
     not discriminate against out-of-State banks and is not 
     preempted by Federal law. Such requirement is in addition to 
     the filing requirement for individual transactions.
     State Opt-Out of Interstate Branching
       Section 44(a)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (as 
     added by section 102(a)) provides that States may opt out of 
     interstate branching by enacting legislation after the date 
     of enactment of the title and before June 1, 1997. If a State 
     opts-out, no bank in any other state may establish a branch 
     in that State, either State, either through an acquisition or 
     de novo. A bank whose home State opts-out of interstate 
     branching may not participate in any interstate merger 
     transaction.
     Interstate Branching De Novo With State Authorization
       The appropriate Federal regulator may approve an 
     application by a bank to establish and operate a de novo 
     branch in a State in which the bank does not maintain a 
     branch if a State opts-in to de novo branching, and expressly 
     permits de novo branching. The establishment of the initial 
     branch in a host State which permits de novo interstate 
     branching is subject to the same requirements which apply to 
     the initial acquisition of a bank in the host State, other 
     than the deposit concentration limits. Those limits are 
     inapplicable to de novo entry since, by definition, the bank 
     would not control any deposits in the host State at the time 
     of entry.
       Once a bank has established a branch in a host State by de 
     novo branching such bank may establish and acquire additional 
     branches at any location in the host State in the same manner 
     as a bank could have established or acquired under applicable 
     Federal or State law.
     Exclusive Means of Interstate Branching
       The Conferees adopted provisions to assure that the 
     comprehensive framework for interstate branching established 
     by Title I will, when the provisions take effect, be the 
     exclusive means for national and State banks to enter new 
     States with interstate branches.
       Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 102(b) amend the National 
     Bank Act and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, respectively, 
     to state that when the interstate merger and branching 
     provisions take effect, initial interstate entry into a host 
     State may, with exceptions for certain emergency situations, 
     occur only in accordance with this legislation. These 
     provisions will assure that the conditions and safeguards 
     which accompany initial interstate branching will apply to 
     the establishment of interstate branching networks at the 
     time those provisions take effect.
       The Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has used the 30 mile 
     relocation provision of the National Bank Act (section 2 of 
     the Act of May 1, 1886, 12 U.S.C. 30), to approve several 
     transactions which have permitted national banks to move 
     their main offices to other States but to retain branches in 
     the States left by the main offices. Section 102(b)(2) amends 
     the provision so that after June 1, 1997, a national bank 
     relocating its main office to another state may maintain its 
     branches in the first state only if those branches could have 
     been established by a bank with its home State in the new 
     State. However, along with the OCC's approval for the 
     relocation, the bank would be required to obtain the 
     Comptroller's approval under section 5155 of the Revised 
     Statutes to continue to operate any remaining branch offices 
     located in State other than the State of its new main office. 
     Thus, the bank would be required to file a consolidated 
     application with the OCC covering both aspects of the 
     transaction; the OCC would be authorized to act on the 
     remaining out-of-State branch aspect of the transaction only 
     pursuant to section 5155. State banks are treated in a 
     similar manner.
       The Conferees are aware of the OCC procedures in permitting 
     relocation across state lines. The Conferees concur with 
     those procedures, including the application of appropriate 
     State law and authority. The Conferees expect the OCC to 
     continue to follow those procedures until the provisions of 
     Title I become fully applicable on June 1, 1997.
       Banks that have moved their main offices pursuant to 12 
     U.S.C. 30 should not be treated differently than other banks 
     with their main offices in that state. Specifically, for 
     purposes of section 3(d) of the Bank Holding Company, and 
     sections 5(d)(3) and 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Act, such banks shall be able to make acquisitions and 
     establish branches in the state to which their main office is 
     relocated to the same extent as any other bank with its main 
     office in that state.


                 amendment to the home owners loan act

       The amendment made to the Home Owners Loan Act by section 
     102(b)(5) of the bill overturns an interpretation of that Act 
     in First Gibraltar Bank  v. Morales, (5th Cir., Dkt. 93-8170, 
     decided April 29, 1994). In the case the United States Court 
     of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Office of 
     Thrift Supervision had the authority to issue a regulation 
     preempting a provision in the Texas Constitution protecting 
     homesteads of consumers in the State.
       This amendment clarifies that neither the Home Owners Loan 
     Act nor any other provision of law provides the Director of 
     the Office of Thrift Supervision with the authority, through 
     regulation or otherwise, to preempt Texas law in the area of 
     homestead protection. By extension, housing creditors under 
     the Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act who were 
     impacted by the decision in the First Gibraltar case also 
     continue to be subject to Texas law in the area of homestead 
     protection.


        provisions relating to direct branches of foreign banks

     Establishment of Direct Branches of a Foreign Bank Outside 
         the Foreign Bank's Home State
       Under the House bill, section 5(a) of the International 
     Banking Act of 1978 (IBA) was amended to permit a foreign 
     bank to establish and operate State-licensed branches, either 
     de novo or by acquisition and merger, in any State outside 
     its home State to the same extent that a bank chartered by 
     the foreign bank's home State may establish such branches de 
     novo or by acquisition and merger, respectively. A parallel 
     provision allowed a foreign bank to establish and operate 
     Federally-licensed branches in any State outside its home 
     State to the same extend that a national bank from the 
     foreign bank's home State may do so. In addition, the House 
     bill restates the provision of current law that allows a 
     State to permit foreign banks to establish agencies or 
     limited branches that accept only such deposits as are 
     permissible for a corporation organized under section 25A of 
     the Federal Reserve Act to accept.
       The Senate bill did not amend the IBA. As a result, the 
     Senate bill permitted foreign banks to engage in interstate 
     branching only if they first established or acquired a bank 
     in the United States and then followed the same procedures 
     applicable to U.S. Banks. The Senate adopted its approach to 
     address its concern that the wholesale direct branches of 
     foreign banks enjoy competitive advantages over U.S. banks 
     because such branches are not subject to the Community 
     Reinvestment Act or to deposit insurance coverage and 
     assessments.
       The Conferees agreed to adopt the House structure regarding 
     foreign banks. However, in order to address concerns 
     regarding a level playing field between wholesale direct 
     branches of foreign banks and domestic banks, the Conferees 
     added provisions regarding: (a) continued application of CRA 
     requirements to a direct branch resulting from an initial 
     interstate entry by acquisition of a regulated financial 
     institution: (b) revision of the regulations governing the 
     types of deposits that may be accepted by uninsured direct 
     branches of a foreign bank; (c) types of activities at 
     offshore shell branches managed and controlled by U.S. 
     branches and agencies of foreign banks; and (d) application 
     of consumer protection laws to direct branches of foreign 
     banks. These provisions are among those described below.
       Requirement for a separate subsidiary. Section 5(a) of the 
     IBA is amended to provide that the Federal Reserve Board or 
     the Comptroller of the Currency may require a foreign bank to 
     establish a separate U.S. subsidiary bank in order to engage 
     in interstate branching if the Board or the Comptroller finds 
     that it is the only way to verify that a foreign bank adheres 
     to capital requirements that are equivalent to those 
     applicable to a U.S. bank engaged in interstate branching.
       Continued application of CRA requirements to a direct 
     branch resulting from an initial interstate entry by 
     acquisition of a regulated financial institution. The 
     Conferees added section 5(a)(8) to the IBA to provide that in 
     cases where a foreign bank acquires a bank or a branch of a 
     bank, in a State in which the foreign bank does not maintain 
     a branch, and such acquired bank was, or was part of, 
     immediately prior to the acquisition, a regulated financial 
     institution as defined in the Community Reinvestment Act 
     (CRA), the CRA shall continue to apply to each branch of the 
     foreign bank which results from the acquisition as if such 
     branch were a reguated financial institution. The Conferees 
     note that the requirements of section 6(c) of the IBA will 
     still apply. The requirements of section 5(a)(8) would not 
     apply in the case of a branch that results from such 
     acquisition that accepts only such deposits as are 
     permissible for a corporation organized under section 25A of 
     the Federal Reserve Act to accept.
       Continued authority for branches, agencies and commercial 
     lending companies established prior to this Act. Section 5(b) 
     of the IBA is amended to include a provision that permits 
     foreign banks that lawfully established and operated 
     interstate branches, agencies or commercial lending company 
     subsidiaries before the date of enactment of this Act to 
     continue to operate such offices or subsidiaries after the 
     enactment of this Act.
       Determining home State of foreign bank. Section 5(c) of the 
     IBA is amended to provide that any foreign bank that operates 
     a branch, agency, subsidiary commercial bank or commercial 
     lending company must have a home State.
       Clarification of direct branching rules in the case of a 
     foreign bank with a domestic bank subsidiary. Section 5(d) is 
     added to the IBA to clarify that a foreign bank may establish 
     direct branches and agencies on an interstate basis and also 
     own or control a U.S. subsidiary bank, and that a national or 
     State subsidiary bank of a foreign bank may acquire, 
     establish or operate branches outside its home State to the 
     same extent as any other national or State bank, 
     respectively, from the subsidiary bank's home State.
     Deposits That May Be Accepted by Uninsured Direct Branches of 
         Foreign Banks
       Revision of regulations governing types of deposits that 
     may be accepted by uninsured direct branches of foreign 
     banks. The IBA was amended in 1991 to prohibit a foreign bank 
     from establishing any new branches which take domestic retail 
     deposits that have balances of less than $100,000 and require 
     deposit insurance. As a result, a foreign bank must establish 
     a U.S. subsidiary bank in order to conduct a domestic retail 
     deposit-taking business. Regulations issued by the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Comptroller of 
     the Currency under section 6 of the IBA govern the types of 
     deposits that may be accepted by uninsured direct branches of 
     foreign banks. To address concerns that these regulations may 
     permit such branches to engage to some extent in domestic 
     retail deposit-taking activity, in regard to which they are 
     not subject to FDIC insurance coverage and assessments or to 
     the requirements of the Community Reinvestment Act, the 
     Conferees added a requirement that the FDIC and the 
     Comptroller revise their regulations to ensure that foreign 
     banking organizations do not receive an unfair competitive 
     advantage over U.S. banking organizations.
       In reviewing their regulations in accordance with this 
     subsection, the agencies must consider whether to permit the 
     acceptance of initial deposits of less than $100,000 only 
     from specified types of customers. As part of this revision, 
     the agencies must reduce--from five percent of average branch 
     deposits to no more than one percent--the exemption that 
     allows such branches to accept initial deposits of less than 
     $100,000 from any party on a de minimis basis. In carrying 
     out this revision, the agencies must take into account the 
     importance of maintaining and improving the availability of 
     credit to all sectors of the U.S. economy, including the 
     international trade finance sector of the U.S. economy. The 
     agencies must publish final regulations no later than twelve 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act and may 
     establish reasonable transition rules to facilitate any 
     termination of any deposit-taking activities that were 
     previously permissible.
       Treatment of FDIC-insured banks chartered in Puerto Rico, 
     Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands and U.S. territories. 
     Section 6(d) of the IBA is amended to clarify that banks 
     insured by the FDIC and chartered in any territory of the 
     United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa or the 
     Virgin Islands are not included as foreign banks for purposes 
     of the requirement to establish a banking subsidiary to 
     engage in a domestic retail deposit-taking business. This 
     provision clarifies that such insured banks (which are also 
     subject to CRA requirements) are to be treated like any other 
     FDIC-insured bank for purposes of acceptance of retail 
     deposits and are therefore not subject to the provisions of 
     section 6(c).
     Types of Activities at Offshore Shell Branches Managed and 
         Controlled by U.S. Agencies and Branches of Foreign Banks
       U.S. banking agencies do not regulate or supervise the 
     activities of offshore shell branches of foreign banks, even 
     if such branches are managed and controlled by U.S. agencies 
     and branches of foreign banks. The Conferees wanted to avoid 
     any potential for a foreign bank to use its U.S. branches or 
     agencies to manage types of activities through offshore shell 
     branches that could not be managed by a U.S. bank at its 
     foreign branches or subsidiaries.
       To address this concern, the Conferees added Section 7(k) 
     to the IBA to provide that a U.S. branch or agency of a 
     foreign bank may not, through an offshore shell branch that 
     it manages or controls, manage types of activities that a 
     U.S. bank is not permitted to manage at a foreign branch or 
     subsidiary. Any regulations promulgated to carry out this 
     section must be promulgated in accordance with section 13 of 
     the IBA and must be uniform, to the extent practicable.
     Other Foreign Bank Provisions
       Application of consumer protection laws to direct branches 
     of foreign banks. Section 9(b) of the IBA is amended to 
     affirm that direct branches and agencies of foreign banks and 
     commercial lending company subsidiaries are, by various 
     statutory provisions, subject to the following consumer 
     protection laws: Electronic Funds Transfer Act, Equal Credit 
     Opportunity Act, Expedited Funds Availability Act, Fair 
     Credit Billing Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt 
     Collection Practices Act, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Real 
     Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Truth in Lending Act, Truth 
     in Leasing Act, and Truth in Savings Act.
       Foreign bank examination fees. Sections 7(c) and 10(c) of 
     the International Banking Act state that the Federal Reserve 
     Board shall assess the cost of any examination of a branch, 
     agency or representative office of a foreign bank against the 
     foreign bank. The conference report provides a three-year 
     moratorium on any assessments under these sections.


  coordination of examination authority regarding interstate branches

       Section 105 permits the appropriate State bank supervisor 
     of a host State to examine branches of out-of-State Banks to 
     assure compliance with host State laws, including those 
     governing banking, community reinvestment, fair lending, 
     consumer protection and permissible activities, and to assure 
     that the activities of the branch are conducted in a safe and 
     sound manner.
       The host State bank supervisor, or other host State law 
     enforcement officer (if authorized under host State law) may 
     take appropriate enforcement actions and proceedings 
     regarding the branch.
       State bank supervisors are permitted to enter into 
     cooperative agreements to facilitate supervision of State 
     banks operating interstate. Under the Senate-passed bill, 
     such agreements would have been subject to approval of the 
     appropriate Federal regulator. The House-passed bill had no 
     requirement for approval. The Senate receded to the House on 
     this issue. Both bills contained a provision that nothing in 
     the section affected the authority of Federal banking 
     agencies to examine branches of insured depository 
     institutions, and the Conferees enclosed such a provision in 
     the title.


                            branch closures

       The House-passed bill added a new section 42(d) to the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Act, setting forth a procedure for 
     notice, comment, consultation with community leaders and a 
     meeting of representatives of the appropriate Federal banking 
     agency whenever an interstate bank proposes closing a branch 
     in a low- or moderate-income area. The Senate-passed bill 
     contained no comparable provision.
       The House provision was amended by the Conferees to 
     specifically include other interested agencies in the 
     required meeting in order to include the National Credit 
     Union Administration in the meetings for the purpose of 
     exploring the development of the use of community development 
     credit unions.
       This section does not effect the authority of an interstate 
     bank to close a branch, or the timing of the closing.


                federal reserve board study on bank fees

       The Federal Reserve is required to conduct an annual survey 
     of the fees charged by banks for retail banking services. 
     Each report shall describe any national or state trends in 
     the cost and availability of such services. Reports are 
     required for seven years.


             prohibition against deposit production offices

       In order to assure that the new interstate branching 
     authorities provided by the Interstate Banking and Branching 
     Efficiency Act of 1994 do not result in the taking of 
     deposits from a community without concern for the credit 
     needs of that community, section 107 requires each 
     appropriate Federal banking agency to promulgate regulations 
     effective June 1, 1997, prohibiting interstate branches from 
     being used as deposit production offices. The regulations are 
     to include guidelines to ensure that each interstate branch 
     is reasonably helping to meet the credit needs of the 
     community in which the branch operates.
       The Conferees do not intend that section 109 creates any 
     additional regulatory or paperwork burdens for any 
     institution.
       The regulations must require that if the percentage of 
     loans made by an out-of-state bank in the host state relative 
     to the deposits taken by the out-of-State bank in the host 
     state is less than half the average of such percentage for 
     all host-state banks, the appropriate federal banking agency 
     shall review the loan portfolio of the bank and determine 
     whether the out-of-state bank is reasonably helping to meet 
     the credit needs of the community served by the bank in the 
     host state. If the agency determines that it is not, it may 
     order the branch to be closed and the bank which established 
     the branch may not open to a new branch in that State, unless 
     the bank provides reasonable assurances to the agency that 
     the bank has an acceptable plan that will reasonably help to 
     meet the credit needs of the communities served by the bank 
     in the host state.
       In making such a determination, the appropriate Federal 
     banking agency shall consider a number of factors including 
     whether the branch was acquired as part of the purchase of a 
     failed or failing depository institution; whether the branch 
     was acquired under circumstances where there was a low loan-
     to-deposit ratio; whether the branch has a higher 
     concentration of commercial and credit card lending; and the 
     ratings received by the out-of-state bank in CRA evaluations.
       This provision applies to new interstate branches of 
     national banks, state banks, and foreign banks established 
     pursuant to this title or any amendment thereto.


community reinvestment act evaluation of banks with interstate branches

       For each insured institution that maintains branches in two 
     or more states, the appropriate Federal banking agency must 
     prepare a written evaluation (pursuant to sections 807 (a), 
     (b), and (c) of the Community Reinvestment Act) of the 
     institution's overall CRA performance, along with separate 
     written evaluations and ratings of the institution's CRA 
     performance in each state in which it maintains branches. If 
     an institution has branches in two States in a single muli-
     state metropolitan area, the agency will prepare a separate 
     written evaluation of the institution's CRA performance 
     within that metropolitan area, and adjust the state-by-state 
     evaluations of the institution accordingly.
       Each state-by-state evaluation is to present information 
     separately for each metropolitan area (within that state) in 
     which the institution maintains one or more branches, and 
     separately for the nonmetropolitan area of the state if the 
     institution has at least one branch in such non-metropolitan 
     area.


                      restatement of existing law

     State Taxation Authority
       Section 111(1) restates as part of Title I the provisions 
     of section 7(b) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 
     regarding state taxation authority. Section 111(2) states 
     that nothing in the title shall be construed as affecting the 
     existing authority of any state or political subdivision of 
     any state to impose and maintain a nondiscriminatory 
     franchise or other nonproperty tax on any bank, branch or 
     bank holding company.
     Applicability of Section 5197 of the Revised Statutes and 
         Section 27 of the FDI Act
       Section 111(3) specifically states that nothing in Title I 
     affects sections 5179 of the Revised Statutes or section 27 
     of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Accordingly, the 
     amendments made by the Interstate Banking and Branching 
     Efficiency Act of 1994 that authorize insured depository 
     institutions to branch interstate do not affect existing 
     authorities with respect to any charges under section 5197 of 
     the Revised Statutes or section 27 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act imposed by national or state banks for loans or 
     other extensions of credit made to borrowers outside the 
     state where the bank or branch making the loan or other 
     extension of credit is located.


                     gao report on data collection

       The Conferees adopted a Senate provision requiring a 
     General Accounting Office report no later than 9 months after 
     enactment on existing requirements for insured depository 
     institutions to collect and report deposit and lending data 
     and determine what modifications are needed so that 
     interstate branching results in no material loss of 
     information important to regulatory or congressional 
     oversight of insured depository institutions. The House-
     passed bill had no similar provision.


  preemption of arkansas usury ceiling as it applies to certain loans

       The Conferees adopted a Senate-passed provision preempting 
     Arkansas usury limit for Consolidated Farm and Rural 
     Development Act loans, while providing the State with a 
     three-year period in which to reenact its limitation. The 
     House-passed bill had no similar provision.

                      Title II--General Provisions


                         statute of limitations

       Section 201 of the bill as adopted by the conference would 
     permit the FDIC or the RTC, as conservator or receiver of a 
     failed depository institution, to ``revive'' under certain 
     circumstances, certain tort claims that had expired under a 
     State statute of limitations within five years of the 
     appointment of the conservator or receiver. This provision 
     does not affect other applicable State laws concerning the 
     running or the tolling of statutes of limitations (by reason 
     of adverse domination or otherwise), nor does it alter 
     section 11(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 
     1821(k), as amended by the Financial Institutions Reform, 
     Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989.
       The revival of expired claims is an extraordinary remedy 
     because it is a form of the retroactive application of law 
     which the courts and Congress have generally disfavored. 
     Accordingly, section 201 would limit this extraordinary 
     remedy to claims arising from an egregious class of conduce, 
     i.e., fraud, intentional misconduct resulting in unjust 
     enrichment, and intentional misconduct resulting in 
     substantial loss to the institution. This three-pronged, 
     fraud/intentional misconduct standard is precisely the same 
     as the one that Congress adopted last year, after 
     considerable debate, with respect to a retroactive statute of 
     limitations extension in the Resolution Trust Corporation 
     Completion Act of 1993.
       As with last year's reauthorization of the RTC, the 
     intentional misconduct standard for revival in this provision 
     is not intended to apply to claims arising from negligence, 
     whether pleaded as simple, ordinary, or gross negligence. 
     Claims arising from such negligent conduct by directors, 
     officers, and outside professionals, such as negligent 
     approval or review of loan applications, do not warrant the 
     extraordinary remedy of revival if it is in the contravention 
     of State law.
       Section 201 would recognize that there is a level of 
     misconduct which justifies Congressional actions to 
     retroactively set aside a State statute of limitations, 
     particularly where, for example, this misconduct involves 
     individuals who improperly manipulated institutional affairs 
     to prevent themselves from being brought to justice before 
     the State period of limitations expired. This level of 
     misconduct is reflected in particular forms of intentional 
     behavior. The intentional misconduct standard is written to 
     specifically include conduct such as self-dealing that result 
     in unjust enrichment or a substantial loss to the 
     institution, manipulation by institution insiders that 
     results in a running of a statute of limitations, falsifying 
     financial records that disguises increased financial loss, 
     and conspiracy to violate banking rules or regulations.


             sense of the senate regarding export controls

       The Conferees adopted a Senate provision expressing the 
     Sense of the Senate that the President should work toward 
     establishment of a multilateral system to prevent acquisition 
     by rogue regimes of products and technologies which could 
     pose a threat to the national security of the United States. 
     The House bill contained no similar provision.


   amendment relating to silver medals for Persian gulf war veterans

       The purpose of the LaRocco Amendment is to permit the 
     Secretary of the Treasury to begin production of the Persian 
     Gulf silver medals, which were authorized by the 102nd 
     Congress and signed into law by President Bush. These medals 
     are in recognition of service rendered to the nation by 
     members of the U.S. Armed Forces who served in the Gulf War. 
     The amendment will allow the Secretary of the Treasury to use 
     funds that have already been generated through ongoing sales 
     of bronze replicas to begin production and continue so long 
     as funds remain available.


           commemoration of 1995 special olympics world games

       The 1995 Special Olympics World Games Commemorative Coin 
     Act authorizes the issuance of 800,000 one-dollar silver 
     coins, which will be emblematic of the 1995 Special Olympics 
     World Games. The coins will be issued during the period 
     beginning on January 15, 1995 and ending on December 31, 
     1995, and will result in no net cost to the United States 
     Government. The dates of issuance are not intended to 
     conflict with any other coins authorized under this Act.
       The 1995 Special Olympics World Games will be held July 1-
     9, 1995 in New Haven, CT and will attract more than 6,500 
     athletes from around the world. Funds raised through the ten 
     dollar surcharge on the sale of each coin will be used to: 
     (1) provide a world-class sporting event for athletes with 
     mental retardation; (2) demonstrate to a global audience the 
     talents, dedication and courage of persons with mental 
     retardation; and (3) underwrite the cost of staging and 
     promoting the 1995 Special Olympics World Games.


             national community service commemorative coins

       The National Community Service Commemorative Coin Act 
     authorizes the issuance of 500,000 one-dollar silver 
     commemorative coins, which will be emblematic of community 
     service volunteers. The coins will be issued for a period of 
     no less than six months, and no more than 12 months, 
     beginning no later than September 1, 1996, and will result in 
     no net cost to the United States Government.
       Funds raised through the ten dollar surcharge on the sale 
     of each coin will be paid to the National Community Service 
     Trust for the purpose of funding innovative community service 
     programs at American universities, including the service, 
     research, and teaching activities of faculty and students 
     involved in such programs.


             robert f. kennedy memorial commemorative coins

       The Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Commemorative Coin Act 
     authorizes the issuance of 500,000 one-dollar silver 
     commemorative coins, which will be emblematic of the life and 
     work of former Attorney General and United States Senator 
     Robert F. Kennedy. The coins will be issued for a period of 
     no less than six months, and no more than 12 months, 
     beginning no later than January 1, 1998, and will result in 
     no net cost to the United States Government.
       Funds raised through the ten dollar surcharge on the sale 
     of each coin will be used to improve the endowment of the 
     Robert F. Kennedy Memorial.


     UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY BICENTENNIAL COMMEMORATIVE COIN

       This legislation provides for the minting of coins to 
     commemorate the bicentennial of the U.S. Military Academy 
     located in West Point, New York. The Academy will celebrate 
     its bicentennial on March 16, 2002.
       The Military Academy has provided our nation with the core 
     of its military officers. It was founded in 1802, principally 
     as a result of the vision of George Washington. West Point 
     has been the source of most of our Nation's great military 
     leaders, like Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, John Pershing, 
     Dwight Eisenhower, and Norman Schwarzkopf. However, West 
     Point is much more than a training school for military 
     leaders: It has always been a national bedrock of values 
     which are best expressed by the Academy's motto, ``Duty, 
     Honor, Country.''
       In the year 2002, the United States Mint will issue 500,000 
     silver dollars to commemorate West Point's bicentennial. The 
     silver dollars will be struck at the United States Bullion 
     Depository at West Point. A $10 surcharge will be added to 
     the cost of the coins. The money raised from the surcharges 
     will be used by the Association of Graduates to provide 
     direct support to the academic, military, physical, moral, 
     and ethical development programs of the Corps of Cadets at 
     the United States Military Academy. The Association of 
     Graduates provides important activities and programs for the 
     Cadets in hopes of helping each young person adjust to the 
     tough and demanding four years at West Point. These 
     activities and programs are not funded by the taxpayers. 
     These coins will be minted at no net cost to the government.


            united states botanic garden commemorative coins

       The United States Botanic Garden Commemorative Coin Act 
     authorizes the issuance of 500,000 one-dollar silver 
     commemorative coins, which will be emblematic of the 175th 
     anniversary of the founding of the United States Botanic 
     Garden. Although the coins will be issued beginning on 
     January 1, 1997, and ending on December 31, 1997, the coins 
     shall be inscribed with the years 1820-1995 in order to 
     properly commemorate the Garden's 175th anniversary. No other 
     dates shall appear on the coin. The issuance of these coins 
     will result in no net cost to the United States Government.


                   mount rushmore commemorative coins

       In 1990, legislation was passed directing the U.S. Treasury 
     to mint a series of Mount Rushmore commemorative coins in 
     1991. The legislation specified that 50 percent of the 
     surcharge from each coin sold was to be directed to the Mount 
     Rushmore Society to preserve the Memorial and upgrade its 
     facilities. The other 50 percent of the surcharge was to be 
     directed to the U.S. Treasury for the purposes of deficit 
     reduction. At the time the legislation was passed, it was 
     anticipated that all of the coins would be sold, providing 
     revenues of $18,750,000 each of the Mount Rushmore Society 
     and the U.S. Treasury.
       Unfortunately, sales of the Mount Rushmore Commemorative 
     Coins generated only $12 million. This left the Mount 
     Rushmore Society with revenues of only $6 million--less than 
     a third of what was anticipated and not enough to fund the 
     Monument's preservation and improvement. This provision would 
     direct the first $18,750,000 in surcharges to the Society, 
     and allocate the remainder to the U.S. Treasury.


                     financial services commission

       The Conferees adopted a modified version of a Senate 
     provision requiring a study of the United States financial 
     services system. The House bill contained no similar 
     provision.
       The provision directs the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     conduct a study of the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. 
     financial services system in meeting the needs of users of 
     the system. The Secretary is to appoint between 9 and 14 
     members to an Advisory Commission on Financial Services, with 
     which the Secretary is to consult in conducting the study. 
     The Secretary is also to consult with enumerated federal 
     agencies and officials in conducting the study. The Secretary 
     is to report the results of the study and any recommendations 
     not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of the 
     legislation.


              flexibility in choosing boards of directors

       The Conferees agreed to reduce from two-thirds to a 
     majority the proportion of the board of directors of a 
     national bank who must reside in the same state in which the 
     bank is located (or within 100 miles of the main office).

     From the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, for 
     consideration of the House bill, and the Senate amendment, 
     and modifications committed to conference:
     Henry Gonzalez,
     Steve Neal,
     John J. LaFalce,
     Bruce F. Vento,
     Charles Schumer,
     Barney Frank,
     Paul E. Kanjorski,
     Joseph Kennedy,
     James Leach,
     Bill McCollum,
     Marge Roukema,
     Doug Bereuter,
     Tom Ridge,
     As additional conferees from the Committee on Agriculture, 
     for consideration of sec. 109 of the Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     E de la Garza,
     Charlie Stenholm,
     Harold L. Volkmer,
     Timothy J. Penny,
     Tim Johnson,
     Pat Roberts,
     Larry Combest,
     Wayne Allard,
     As additional conferees from the Committee on the Judiciary, 
     for consideration of secs. 101-03 of the House bill, and 
     title II and secs. 102-03 of the Senate amendment, and 
     modifications committed to conference:
     R.L. Mazzoli,
     Bill Hughes,
     Dan Glickman,
     Rick Boucher,
     John Bryant,
     Hamilton Fish,
     Chas T. Canady,
     Bob Goodlatte,
                                Managers on the Part of the House.

     .Don Riegle,
     Paul Sarbanes,
     Christopher Dodd,
     Jim Sasser,
     Managers on the Part of the Senate.

                          ____________________