[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4230-H4231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RIEGLE-NEAL CLARIFICATION ACT OF 1997
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1306) to amend the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act to clarify the applicability of host
[[Page H4231]]
State laws to any branch in such State of an out-of-State bank, with
Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments, as follows:
Senate amendments:
Page 2, lines 2 and 3, strike out ``Clarification'' and
insert ``Amendments''.
Page 2, line 5, before ``Subsection'' insert:
(a) Activities of Branches of Out-of-State Banks.--
Page 3, strike out lines 3 through 7 and insert:
``(3) Savings provision.--No provision of this subsection
shall be construed as affecting the applicability of--
``(A) any State law of any home State under subsection (b),
(c), or (d) of section 44; or
``(B) Federal law to State banks and State bank branches in
the home State or the host State.
Page 3, after line 10 insert:
(b) Law Applicable to Interstate Branching Operations.--
Section 5155(f)(1) of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C.
36(f)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Review and report on actions by comptroller.--The
Comptroller of the Currency shall conduct an annual review of
the actions it has taken with regard to the applicability of
State law to national banks (or their branches) during the
preceding year, and shall include in its annual report
required under section 333 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C.
14) the results of the review and the reasons for each such
action. The first such review and report after the date of
enactment of this subparagraph shall encompass all such
actions taken on or after January 1, 1992.''.
Page 3, after line 10 insert:
SEC. 3. RIGHT OF STATE TO OPT OUT.
Nothing in this Act alters the right of States under
section 525 of Public Law 96-221.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend Federal
law to clarify the applicability of host State laws to any
branch in such State of an out-of-State bank, and for other
purposes.''.
Mrs. ROUKEMA (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the Senate amendments be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would take
this opportunity to acknowledge changes that were made in this time-
sensitive legislation by the other body.
I yield to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], the
subcommittee chairman, for an explanation.
{time} 1030
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, on May 21, 1997, the House considered H.R.
1306, the Riegle-Neal Clarification Act of 1997. It was considered
under suspension of the rules. The bill passed the House unanimously
and without controversy. This bill had strong bipartisan support and
clarifies the ambiguities of the Riegle-Neal interstate bill and
preserves the dual banking system by allowing an out-of-State branch of
a State bank to offer the same products allowed in its home State as
long as the host State banks or national bank branches in the State may
exercise those same powers.
In addition, the bill provides that the host State law will apply to
those out-of-State branches to the extent that it also applies to
national banks.
This bill does not authorize, and I stress this, does not authorize
new powers for State banks. It preserves the right of a State to decide
how banks it charters and supervises are operated and what activities
those banks can conduct.
On June 12, 1997, the Senate passed H.R. 1306 with the following
amendments: First, retitles the bill as the Riegle-Neal Amendment Act
of 1997; second, ensures that a Federal law that applies to a State
chartered bank also applies to branches of that bank and other States;
third, requires the Comptroller of the Currency to include in its
annual report to Congress a review and report of actions taken with
regard to the applicability of State law to branches of national banks,
including a review of all such actions taken since January 1, 1992; and
fourth, and finally, it preserves a State's right to opt out of the
Depository Institutions Regulatory and Monetary Control Act of 1980.
That act authorized State chartered banks to charge interest rates
comparable to those available to federally chartered banks.
H.R. 1306's intent was to provide parity between national and State
chartered banks in an interstate environment as well as to ensure the
viability of the dual banking system is unaffected by the Senate's
changes and those changes are acceptable, it is my understanding, to
both the majority and the minority members of the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services.
It is essential that this legislation be enacted into law as soon as
possible. On June 1, interstate branching became effective in 48 of the
50 States. In the interstate environment that now exists, State banks
will be at a distinct disadvantage to national banks if we fail to take
this action today. Failure to remedy this disadvantage will certainly
have a negative and counterproductive effect on our dual banking
system.
Mr. VENTO. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, the
House passed H.R. 1306 on suspension calendar on June 1. The deadline
for State action to limit interstate branching within the States was
June 1, and although we are a bit tardy, this bill is no less important
to maintain the viability of State bank charters today, than it was in
May.
As has been explained by the subcommittee chairman, the title was
changed, the application of Federal law to out-of-State State banks is
further clarified. A State's right to opt out of the Depository
Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act was preserved, and,
importantly, as this measure does not impact the Comptroller of the
Currency's administration of national banking law resulting in the
preemption of State laws when such preemption is warranted for national
banks, thus opening up preemption capabilities for out-of-State State
banks, the Senate amendments propose that an annual report be required
of the OCC to show when and where preemption of State law took place in
a previous year.
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to this, and I urge support for the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to take this
opportunity to acknowledge that changes were made to this time-
sensitive legislation by the other body, and would yield to the
subcommittee chairwoman, Mrs. Roukema from New Jersey, for an
explanation.
Continuing my reservation, the House passed H.R. 1306 on the
suspension calendar in an attempt to enact law prior to June 1, 1997,
the deadline for State action to limit interstate branching with the
States. Although we are a bit tardy, this bill is no less important to
maintain the viability for the State bank charter today, than it was in
May.
As has been explained, the title was changed; the application of
Federal law to out-of-State State banks was further clarified; a
State's right to opt out of the DIDA [the Depository Institutions'
Deregulation and Monetary Control Act] was preserved; and, importantly,
as this measure will not impact the Comptroller of the Currency's
administration of national bank law resulting in the preemption of
State laws when such preemption is warranted for national banks--thus
opening up preemption capabilities for out-of-State State banks--the
Senate amendments propose that an annual report will be required of the
OCC to show when and where preemption of State law took place in the
previous year.
Mr. Speaker, I will not object to moving this bill which will help
preserve a healthy dual banking system. I withdraw my reservation to
object and ask my colleagues for their support on this measure, H.R.
1306 as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Radanovich). Is there objection to the
original request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________