[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 106 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3841, RIEGLE-
      NEAL INTERSTATE BANKING AND BRANCHING EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1994

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 505 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 505

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bilbray). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded during debate 
on this resolution is for purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 505 waives all points of 
order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 3841, the 
Interstate Banking Efficiency Act of 1994, and against its 
consideration. The Committee on Rules has recommended this rule so that 
the House may consider this important step in the development of a 
modern and competitive banking industry in the United States. The 
waivers are necessary because of amendments added by the Senate and an 
amendment adopted in conference relating to home-equity loans in my 
State of Texas. I would like to point out that the matter of the Texas 
home-equity loans is a question of great controversy within the State 
of Texas. This matter will have to ultimately be settled by the Texas 
Legislature. I believe the significance of establishing interstate 
banking and branching in law is so important that this amendment should 
not prevent the passage of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate 
the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Neal of North Carolina. It is through 
his tireless efforts that this legislation is before us today, and I 
believe we owe him our sincere thanks for advocating interstate banking 
and pushing for its implementation. Because of his efforts, the de 
facto interstate system that currently exists will be codified and will 
allow banks to modernize their operations and ultimately to provide 
cheaper and more efficient services to their customers.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in this 
Congress and I urge the House to adopt this rule in order to consider, 
and pass, this conference report.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that this rule waives 
points of order against language in the conference report regarding the 
controversial homestead protection provision in the Texas Constitution, 
I urge support for this rule. As the gentleman from Dallas noted, this 
interstate banking bill is too important to the long-term health of our 
banking system. The home equity loan battle is one that will have to be 
fought another day.
  I also want to commend Chairman Gonzalez for marshalling this bill 
through the conference committee.
  I know this is not one of his top priorities, so his efforts are even 
more appreciated. As the chairman knows, when I served on the Banking 
Committee, I worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get 
an interstate banking bill enacted into law, and I note it was not 
until I left the committee that we actually succeeded.
  More than anyone, my friend, the gentleman from Winston-Salem, NC, 
Steve Neal, has been a driving force on this and other proconsumer 
banking measures. He has done a tremendous job these past couple of 
years as chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, and he 
will be sorely missed, as he has chosen to retire.
  Mr. Speaker, had there been a full interstate bank and branch system 
in the 1980's, our financial institutions would have been better 
diversified to withstand the regional economic forces that led to our 
Nation's worst banking crisis in over 50 years.
  Instead, many large banking institutions, facing ever-changing market 
forces, have been compelled to maneuver slowly around regulatory 
barriers and depression-era laws to achieve economies of scale.
  In a sense, this legislation is nothing more than a recognition that 
competitive market forces have left the legal and regulatory structure 
of our banking system in the dust. Congress is constantly trying to 
play catch-up. It is time to take the next step and repeal another 
anticompetitive depression-era law: the Glass-Steagall Act.
  Mr. Speaker, we will have a more competitive, efficient, and 
financially sound banking system as a result of this legislation. In 
turn, we will have a stronger deposit insurance fund. For these 
reasons, I support the rule and I support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no requests for time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, have no requests for time, I urge support of 
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________