[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 115 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3481, THE INTERSTATE BANKING BILL

                                 ______


                         HON. ROMANO L. MAZZOLI

                              of kentucky

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, August 16, 1994

  Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, even though I voted for final passage of 
H.R. 3841, the interstate banking bill, I continue to have reservations 
about the statute of limitations language included in the conference 
report. I expressed those same reservations as a Judiciary Committee 
conferee on the bill.
  The House bill did not change State statutes of limitations affecting 
actions which can be brought against bank directors, officers, and 
advisors whose actions or inactions contributed to the collapse of the 
institution involved.
  However, the Senate's version of the interstate banking bill 
retroactively extended State statutes of limitations allowing actions 
to be brought by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] and 
the Resolution Trust Corporation [RTC] as receivers of failed 
institutions, against those who brought about the collapse. The Senate 
language would have permitted claims involving simple negligence to be 
revived.
  During the conference, the House Conferees offered to the Senate 
Conferees a counterproposal which extended State statutes of 
limitations for 5 years on expired claims against bank insiders. The 
standard in the House offering was intentional misconduct resulting in 
unjust enrichment, or intentional misconduct resulting in substantial 
loss to the institution. Bank regulators could not reopen cases barred 
by State statutes of limitations involving simple negligence or even 
gross negligence on the part of bank officials.
  The Conference Committee voted to accept the House proposal. However, 
I voted against this language because I feel it could hamper--as stated 
in letters to the Conferees by bank regulators--the RTC and the FDIC 
from prosecuting claims against directors, advisors, and officers of 
failed banking institutions and recovering, on behalf of the taxpayers 
of the Nation, money advanced to reimburse depositors and investors of 
failed institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that some of these bank officials were 
innocent bystanders and not responsible for the skullduggery and the 
fraud which allowed financial institutions to be treated as the 
personal piggybanks of the insiders, to be looted and left empty 
awaiting bailout by the taxpayer. Nevertheless, I could not tie the 
hands of the Federal regulators--which is what the language now in H.R. 
3841 does according to them--so I opposed the House position.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress should assist the RTC and FDIC in 
prosecuting those responsible for bank failures, as the Government can 
recover money advanced by the taxpayers of America to close these 
institutions. To do this, the Senate's position on State statutes of 
limitations should have prevailed.

                          ____________________