[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4574-4581]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1375, FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATORY 
                           RELIEF ACT OF 2003

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 566

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1375) to provide regulatory relief and improve 
     productivity for insured depository institutions, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill (except those arising under provisions of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 other than section 302(f)) 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     (except those arising under provisions of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 other than section 302(f)) are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to the demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded 
for the purposes of debate only.
  The resolution before us is a structured rule providing 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. The 
rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. 
However, the only Budget Act waiver granted in this rule is for section 
302(f).
  It also provides that the substitute amendment provided by the 
Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary is 
considered as read as an original bill for the purpose of amendment.

                              {time}  1030

  This rule also waives all points of order against consideration of 
the substitute, however, the only Budget Act waiver granted in this 
rule is for section 302(f). It makes in order only those amendments 
printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. 
These amendments shall be considered as read, and may only be 
considered in the order printed in the report, may only be offered by 
the Member designated in the report, and shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; not to be subject to amendment and not to be 
subject to a demand for a division of the question in the whole House 
or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Finally, this rule waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to introduce the rule for H.R. 1375, the 
Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act. This bill is commonsense 
legislation that will diminish or eliminate outdated statutory banking 
provisions to reduce the regulatory compliance burden faced by our 
Nation's financial institutions to improve their productivity, as well 
as to make necessary technical correction to current statutes.
  America's banking laws are full of outdated and burdensome 
regulations, some dating back to the Great Depression, that have long 
outlived their usefulness. To address the problem of outdated rules and 
the rapidly advancing and highly competitive financial services 
industry, in 2001, Committee on Financial Services chairman, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), asked the State and Federal regulators 
of our Nation's financial institutions to provide him with a list of 
regulations that they believed have outlived their usefulness.
  The regulators answered the chairman's call, along with the rest of 
the financial services community, providing the chairman with a number 
of suggestions that, when enacted, will benefit consumers and 
regulators alike by lowering the cost of transacting financial 
services.
  This wide-ranging list of proposals affecting banks, savings 
associations, and credit unions was first passed by the committee as 
H.R. 3951, but unfortunately the 107th Congress expired before it could 
be considered on the House floor. The bill that is being considered on 
the floor today is a new and updated version of that original 
legislation and remains true to the original vision of providing 
regulatory relief in financial services that the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley) and the bill's chief sponsor, the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) had when they began this process more than 3 
years ago.

[[Page 4575]]

  This legislation accomplishes a number of important things, and in 
the interest of time I will only mention a few. For instance, for 
banks, H.R. 1375 removes the prohibition on national and State banks 
from expanding across State lines by opening branches. It eliminates 
unnecessary and costly reporting requirements on banks regarding 
lending to bank officials; and it streamlines bank merger application 
regulatory requirements.
  For savings associations, the bill removes lending limits on small 
business and auto loans, and increases the limit on their business 
loans. It gives these institutions parity with banks with respect to 
broker-dealer and investment adviser SEC registration requirements; and 
it gives thrifts the same authority as national and State banks to make 
investments primarily designated to promote community development.
  For credit unions, the bill expands the investment authority of 
Federal credit unions. It increases the general limit on the term of 
Federal credit union loans from 12 to 15 years, and it eases 
restrictions on voluntary mergers between healthy credit unions.
  Finally, for the Federal financial regulatory agencies, the bill 
provides agencies with the discretion to adjust the examination cycle 
for insured depository institutions to use agency resources in the most 
efficient manner. It modernizes agency recordkeeping requirements to 
allow the use of optically-imaged or computer-scanned images. It 
clarifies that agencies may suspend or prohibit individuals charged 
with certain crimes from participation in the affairs of any depository 
institution and not only institutions for which that individual is 
associated.
  By fixing these and many other technical and outdated problems, H.R. 
1375 will allow financial institutions to devote more resources to the 
business of lending to consumers and less to the compliance with 
outdated and unneeded regulations. Reducing these regulatory burdens 
will lower the cost of credit for consumers and help our economy to 
grow and to provide more jobs even more quickly.
  And while there are a number of things that Congress still needs to 
accomplish, like creating a uniform and cutting-edge national privacy 
standard for consumers, this legislation is a great step in the right 
direction. It will make all of our country's financial institutions 
more efficient, while balancing the additional regulatory burden they 
face each day as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act, and it will help our 
banks, savings associations, and credit unions to focus their 
compliance efforts on combating money laundering and terrorist 
financing, not on wasteful and duplicative regulations.
  I strongly support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I 
urge my colleagues to do so. I would like to congratulate the members 
of the Committee on Financial Services who have made great 
contributions to this bill, including the chairman, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus). These are the people who have helped to bring 
this bill to the floor today. I am proud of what they have done.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on 
the Judiciary referred an imperfect bill to the full House. However, in 
a rare bipartisan move, the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley), the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) joined together to 
try to fix what is one of the more controversial elements of this bill. 
And they deserve credit for trying to work in a bipartisan way and to 
build consensus and to bring something to this floor that a majority of 
this House will be able to support.
  Unfortunately, last night, the Committee on Rules failed to follow 
the lead set by our three distinguished colleagues. In what has become 
a very disturbing standard of operating procedure in the people's 
House, the Committee on Rules once again issued a restrictive rule. 
Now, this is the 12th rule considered by this body this year so far, 
and only one of them has been open. Mr. Speaker, a restrictive rule on 
a noncontroversial bill, and I think it is fair to say if the manager's 
amendment gets approved, this is a fairly uncontroversial bill, is 
simply undemocratic.
  Every day, the people I talk to grow more and more outraged with the 
way this Republican leadership shuts down the democratic process in 
this House. This restrictive rule I think is also an insult to the 
former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach), who I have great admiration for. The major 
controversy with the underlying bill is the regulation of industrial 
loan companies, or ILCs. The manager's amendment includes the 
compromise that I mentioned, worked out among the chairman, the ranking 
member (Mr. Frank), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
  The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), as he testified last night in 
the Committee on Rules, was not satisfied with the compromise language 
on ILCs. And as is his right, he came to the Committee on Rules last 
night to offer an amendment regulating these businesses. Now, during 
their testimony, I asked the chairman and I asked the ranking member if 
they supported the right of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) to 
offer his amendment on the floor today. And while they said that they 
had some issues with the substance of his amendment, and they would not 
be able to support it, they both agreed that the former chairman of the 
Committee on Financial Services deserves the right to offer his 
amendment before the full House, an amendment that deals with a very 
important aspect of this bill.
  Now, if the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services and if 
the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Financial Services do not have 
a problem with the offering of the gentleman's amendment, why in the 
world does the Committee on Rules have a problem with the gentleman 
from Iowa being able to offer his amendment?
  The amendment that was brought before the Committee on Rules was 
completely in accordance with the rules of this House. There were no 
waivers that were required in order for it to be considered on the 
floor today. In fact, if this was an open rule, he would be able to 
offer the amendment. There would be no problem. The gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach) is a distinguished Member of this House who drafted this 
amendment in a thoughtful way, and I believe that the former chairman 
of the Committee on Financial Services deserves more than he is getting 
here today.
  There are other amendments that were brought before the Committee on 
Rules last night that were not made in order. In addition, the 
Committee on Rules set a deadline for submitting amendments to the 
committee of 10 a.m. yesterday morning. By the time the Committee on 
Rules convened to report the rule last night, the Republican leadership 
knew full well that only 10 amendments would be offered today. Instead 
of granting an open rule so that all 10 amendments could be considered 
under regular order, the Committee on Rules granted this rule which 
provides for 1 hour of general debate and 70 minutes for consideration 
of the amendments.
  With this restrictive rule, the Republican leadership not only shuts 
out one of their more distinguished Members but other Members who would 
like to offer amendments to this bill. Again, during the hearing last 
night in the Committee on Rules, both the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) made mention of the 
fact that all these amendments could be dealt with in a relatively 
short period of time; that there was no reason why some of these 
amendments needed to be shut out of the process.

[[Page 4576]]

  For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the Committee on Rules 
and the Republican leadership continues to insist on shutting down 
democracy in this House of Representatives. Sometimes, like today, it 
seems as though they stifle debate just because they can. It is like a 
bad habit they cannot break. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is 
addicted to their own power, and I urge them to take the first step 
toward recovery by admitting that they have a problem, a big problem. 
And it is not too late. Democrats stand ready to help you, there are 
thoughtful Members on the Republican side who stand ready to help you.
  There is no reason why this bill needs to come to the floor today 
under this restrictive process. This should be an open process. This 
should be a relatively noncontroversial process, but you have made it 
more controversial than it needs to be. So I hope the Republican 
leadership at some time comes to their senses and does the right thing, 
but I am not holding my breath. But we are going to continue to insist 
that this process be more open and be more democratic.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I would stand to be corrected, Mr. Speaker, but as I recall the 
testimony last night in the Committee on Rules, it was that the 
chairman of the Committee on Financial Services said that he had no 
problem making the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa in order, but 
would defer to the Committee on Rules to make that decision. And, in 
fact, we did.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, maybe we need to go get the text of the 
hearing last night. I asked specifically whether or not either the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) or the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley) had a problem with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) 
offering his amendment, and the answer was no. There was no 
qualification.
  So that is why I asked the question. And I repeated it several times 
during the hearing to make the point that even though they had some 
problems with the substance of the gentleman's amendment, they had no 
problem with him offering his amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments, and as part of that same openness to the gentleman 
from Davenport, Iowa, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Leach), the former chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, or 
perhaps it was the Committee on Banking and Financial Services at that 
time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and let me just say that it is with the greatest sadness and 
discomfort that I rise in opposition to the rule, and because of the 
rule, I am also obligated to oppose, with every degree of intensity I 
can, the underlying bill.

                              {time}  1045

  Let me explain what is happening before this House. The underlying 
bill is a bill that is a deregulatory bill. It is good in many ways for 
virtually every sector of the financial community in parts. It is not 
necessarily good in all parts for the public interest. Some of this 
bill I very much support. Other parts of it I very much object to. But 
embedded in the bill is a new empowerment, an empowerment that goes to 
a charter that virtually nobody in the public has ever heard of called 
industrial loan companies. Industrial loan companies will now be able 
to offer virtually every feature and service of a commercial bank, but 
they will be able to offer it without the protections to the public 
comparable to that authorized for commercial banks.
  What this implies is that we have a breach of what is called commerce 
and banking; that is, industrial loan companies can be owned by 
commercial entities. We also have a breach of standards of regulation 
that have come to be commonplace in the United States and now in 
Europe, what is called consolidated regulation. In America, we do this 
in the Federal banking statutes in which the Federal Reserve Board is 
the consolidated regulator of holding companies.
  What we have here is an exception to that rule. What it means, and I 
think this Congress should understand this, is that there are a number 
of problems that occur in banking now and again, or financial services. 
One relates to incompetence, and so you have regulatory authority. In 
this case, the FDIC will be a partial regulator of these institutions. 
Then you have a problem that relates to very sophisticated new 
instruments of finance, particularly those described as derivatives 
kinds of products. Historically these are the province of larger 
institutions. Now they are increasingly used by smaller institutions. 
Industrial loan companies used to be very small, mom-and-pop in the 
financial services industry kinds of institutions. None up to 1987 was 
as large as $400 million in assets. Most were under $50 million. Now we 
have one that is $60 billion and we have eight that are over $1 billion 
in size. It is becoming the obvious charter of choice to a lot of 
companies.
  But then let me also mention that you have a problem of criminality 
and criminalities of many kinds. It can be American-derived; it can be 
foreign-derived. One of the roles of the Federal Reserve of the United 
States is the gatekeeper to access to the American financial system, 
which is the Federal Reserve system, and what this statute will say is 
that the Federal Reserve system can be tapped by institutions, foreign 
or domestic, which the Federal Reserve will not have the power to 
regulate. And so if you take a Latin American bank, a Russian bank, if 
they get chartered by one of the five States allowed to authorize 
industrial loan companies, they will be able to tap into the payment 
system and to Federal deposit insurance and without Federal Reserve 
oversight.
  I will tell you, this is a scandal. It is nothing less. It is an 
embarrassment to the committee of jurisdiction; it is an embarrassment 
to the Committee on Rules. Because all I asked the Committee on Rules 
to do was allow a single, short amendment that simply said if the new 
powers under this act come to be applied, an institution would have to 
come under the Federal banking statutes, meaning Federal Reserve 
oversight of the holding company. But the fix was in. The power 
groupings did not want this to happen. I will say to you in my time in 
the United States Congress, this is the greatest microcosm evidence of 
special interest reasoning that does not even allow debate on this 
subject in an amendment on the House floor.
  I happen to be the senior member of the committee of jurisdiction, a 
former chairman. I consider it not particularly uncivil to me that I am 
not allowed to offer this amendment, but I consider it an embarrassment 
to the House that this issue cannot be debated on the most important 
banking bill that is going to be before this Congress this year. Just 
so that no one is under any disillusionment, I am not on a hare. 
Chairman Greenspan and the Federal Reserve could not feel stronger 
about an amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen in finance over the last decade some 
difficulties that have arisen. They have arisen because we have 
empowered the big without appropriate oversight. A legislative body 
really has a great deal of difficulty of understanding the subtleties 
of modern day finance. That is why we establish institutions in America 
that are designed to be the experts in this area. Most particularly we 
look in finance at very large levels, for example, in derivatives 
products, in money laundering, to holding company oversight to the 
Federal Reserve of the United States.
  This Congress is saying that we do not want to see that oversight. 
This Congress is saying in this bill that we want to loosen things up. 
Here let me go to the structure of the bill because we have an 
interesting grandfather provision. We will say some will have these 
powers. Others after given dates of incorporation will not. Part of 
this is derived from a desire among some to

[[Page 4577]]

stem a particular institution to get certain powers. I am not against 
any single institution. I am for everyone coming under the same law of 
the United States. This puts inequality under the law between financial 
institutions, ILC versus others, and then between types of ILCs. It is 
really preposterous.
  All I am suggesting to this body is let us have evenness of law, let 
us have credible law to protect the public, and let us also recognize 
that when you make it easier for people to tie into the payment system 
that are foreign, you are inviting money laundering, among other 
things. You are inviting criminality. You are making it easier for the 
national security of the United States to be jeopardized. It is in that 
context that I would say to the committee of jurisdiction, I am deeply 
disappointed that this simple amendment could not be offered on this 
floor and, therefore, I must oppose this rule. I hesitate to oppose 
rules of my political party, but I have no option except to do so. I 
have to oppose the underlying bill even though there are a number of 
provisions in it that I strongly support. But this jeopardizes the 
United States public and the United States national security and I am 
deeply appalled.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for his comments. 
Again, I wish that he had the opportunity to offer his amendment 
because I think there were a lot of Members who share his concerns. 
Maybe before this debate is over with, we can get an explanation from 
someone on the Committee on Rules as to why his amendment which was 
perfectly in order, required no budgetary waivers, was not allowed 
here, which I think is really unfortunate. We certainly have the time 
to be able to debate it and every Member should have the right to vote 
up or down on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Financial 
Services who most recently David Broder in a Washington Post article 
referred to as one bold thinker among Democrats, one of the most 
effective Members of this House.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate my 
colleague and neighbor's generous remarks and I am abashed that I bring 
nothing bold to this debate. I apologize, but sometimes boldness is not 
appropriate. I think this legislation is a very well balanced one and I 
will be, when we get into the substantive debate, arguing for it. There 
are a couple of amendments that will be offered. The gentlewoman from 
California has a good one that I believe will prove noncontroversial. 
The gentleman from New York has one that I think is a good consumer 
protection amendment that we will have some controversy about.
  What this bill tries to do is to continue what I believe has been the 
pattern in the committee which we dealt with last year with regard to 
the extension of the rules governing credit. That is, recognize the 
importance of market forces while at the same time providing those 
consumer protections and those public interest protections that the 
market is not designed to do. That is, I think our posture ought to be 
that the market works, the market is a great mechanism for creating 
wealth and providing services and creating goods but that you cannot 
leave it entirely alone, and our job is to try and do such regulation 
as vindicates important public interests but not to the point where you 
might become a burden on the market. This is a bill that tries to fine-
tune that sum, that cuts back in some areas in regulation in ways that 
I do not think cause trouble.
  Let me just address the gentleman from Iowa for whom everyone in this 
House has a great deal of respect both for his own commitment to the 
legislative process as a very serious effort and from his own expertise 
on the committee. I differ with him substantively on this and we will 
get into it more when we get into the manager's amendment. I did, as my 
friend from Massachusetts said, agree that the amendment ought to be 
offered. I would have voted against it. We debated it fully in the 
committee.
  I do want to just respond briefly. One of our differences, I think, 
between myself and the gentleman from Iowa is that I think he equates 
not regulation by the Federal Reserve to not regulation by anybody 
else. There is, after all, under the existing law regulation, for 
example, by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. It is not simply 
in this area, but there have been other areas where I think the notion 
of the Federal Reserve being the only regulator is a problem.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. The gentleman is correct. The FDIC will regulate the 
depository institution but it cannot regulate the holding company. And 
what the Federal Reserve would do is regulate the holding company and 
would leave the FDIC as the primary regulator of the institution as it 
would be under the current law.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I understand that. But I believe that in 
this case, the entity that has a claim on the deposit insurance, that 
gets into the payment system, will be the entity that is regulated by 
the FDIC. Let us be clear in this bill, we are not creating ILCs. ILCs 
have been in existence for a considerable period of time. They are 
especially important in the States of California and Utah. I believe we 
will hear from some of our colleagues from California and Utah who 
think we are being unduly restrictive toward institutions which they 
say, experience has shown, play a useful role and do not interfere.
  Mr. LEACH. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I think the 
Congress ought to be made aware that under law only five States can 
have ILCs. One is Utah, one is California, with Utah being the dominant 
one. But to vote for this approach means that people from 45 other 
States are going to see their institutions disadvantaged and devalued 
based upon our empowering institutions that can only operate in five 
States. It is really a quirk in the law that ought to be thought 
through.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, I understand that. But I would 
differ that they were disempowered. I must tell the gentleman, here we 
may have some difference. I do not think our function here ought to be 
to worry about institutions. Our job is to worry about the economic 
function that institutions perform and what they offer consumers.
  I understand that institutions will say this puts them at a 
disadvantage. I have been dealing with businesses in America for my 24 
years here, in the Committee on the Judiciary with one set of 
businesses, in the Committee on Financial Services with another. 
Economists have downward sloping curves and upward sloping curves. We 
have a downward sloping metaphor. I am convinced from listening to 
testimony all this time that every single business in America is at a 
competitive disadvantage versus every other business. It is like in 
Lake Wobegon where everybody is above average. Here everybody is below 
in competitive advantage. Everyone argues that they have got a 
competitive disadvantage.
  We are not here to protect institutions or to listen, I believe, to 
complaints that, gee, this one is a little unfair compared to the other 
in the way it ought to function. We also should note that in this bill 
which would allow them to extend to other States, there is a new 
restriction and that is the one that the gentleman referred to with the 
grandfathering, the institutions, any new ones would have to meet a 
certain test, others will have been in existence.
  The other thing I would mention, though, is this. To the extent that 
we are talking about institutions that are not regulated by the Federal 
Reserve but have access to various advantages that we give banks, there 
is nothing unique about the ILCs in that regard. There are other banks 
in this country of various sorts that are regulated. As the gentleman 
knows, we have the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, we have 
the FDIC, we have the

[[Page 4578]]

Office of Thrift Supervision, we have State bankers. There are other 
banks that do not have Federal Reserve supervision. There is a 
difference between us. I understand there is a view, and the gentleman 
from his own long years of study and I differ, for example, with regard 
to the Basle Accords internationally. Many of us found an overreach by 
the Federal Reserve. There is a view that says the Federal Reserve is 
the kind of lead regulator and the others are relegated. I disagree 
with that.
  Mr. LEACH. If the gentleman will yield further, what is being 
established by this law is the notion that comparable institutions in 
45 States will come under Federal law and in five States will not in a 
very significant area of Federal law and, that is, holding company 
regulation.

                              {time}  1100

  That is really bizarre. We are saying five States will not operate 
under Federal law; 45 States will.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would 
differ with the gentleman. There is this problem we have here, which 
is, certainly, the notion of grandfathering is not unique. If one is 
doing something that might pollute the air in California, they are 
subject to different laws than if they are doing it in Iowa. We do not 
have this absolute uniformity. And part of the problem we have is this: 
when we decide to change laws in any area, banking, pollution, other 
cases, we sometimes find that there are existing patterns in particular 
States, and we have this dilemma. We do not want to necessarily 
nationalize them, but we do not want to disrupt existing arrangements. 
So the notion in this very diverse country that we will sometimes have 
a lack of uniformity is inevitable if we are going to be able to 
legislate sensibly; otherwise every time we try to do something new, we 
will be faced with the notion that we have to uproot what exists. I do 
not think that is a problem, but I do want to stress again the fact 
that there will be financial institutions that are not regulated by the 
Federal Reserve, which is nothing new; and leaving aside ILCs, there 
are other financial institutions not regulated by the Federal Reserve. 
I know we will debate this later because my understanding is when we 
get to the manager's amendment, which is to restrict ILCs to vis-a-vis 
the bill, we will have some opposition from people who think we are 
being too restrictive.
  But I just wanted to get back to my central theme, and I just would 
add one other thing to my friend from Iowa. As my friend from 
Massachusetts said, when I was asked, I said I thought his amendment 
ought to be in order, and the gentleman from the Committee on Rules 
said that I defer to the Committee on Rules. That is the wrong verb. 
Being a man of some awareness of my surroundings, I often find that I 
submit to the Committee on Rules. There is not anything voluntary about 
it. That is a fact of life. But I would say to my friend from Iowa I 
appreciate the feeling he has now. I hope the next time a rule comes up 
in which significant Democratic amendments are restricted that his 
indignation might carry over a little bit and that he will not 
necessarily vote for such rules.
  What this bill does in summary is to say that we understand the need 
both to have regulation and to keep it updated so that it meets its 
public interest requirements and does not become excessive.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Duluth, Georgia (Mr. Linder), from the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), my friend and colleague, for yielding me this time. I rise 
in support of the rule and urge my colleagues to join me in approving 
it.
  H. Res. 566 is a structured rule that makes in order a total of six 
amendments. Of that total, three are sponsored by Democrats and three 
by Republicans. This is a fair and balanced rule that will allow the 
House to work its will on a number of different issues, and this rule 
should be overwhelmingly approved by the House.
  With respect to the underlying legislation, H.R. 1375, it would 
streamline the regulatory compliance process for banks, thrifts, and 
credit unions and would eliminate or alter outdated, ineffective, and 
duplicative regulations. Removing existing burdens on depository 
institutions has become even more necessary since the enactment of the 
2001 USA PATRIOT Act which mandates that depository institutions, in 
addition to other functions, focus compliance efforts on combating 
money-laundering and terrorist financing.
  Some highlights of H.R. 1375's provisions relating to credit unions 
include streamlining procedural requirements and voluntary mergers 
between healthy credit unions, providing an exemption to existing law 
to allow private insured state-chartered credit unions to join a 
Federal Home Loan Bank, and increasing the general limit on the term of 
Federal credit union loans from 12 to 15 years.
  H.R. 1375 would also remove ineffective regulations governing banks 
and thrifts. Under the legislation, the prohibition on national and 
State banks expanding across State lines to open branches would be 
eliminated, bank merger application requirements would be simplified, 
limits on thrifts for small business and auto loans would be removed, 
and thrifts would be given the same authority as national and State 
banks to make investments primarily designed to promote community 
development.
  In conclusion, H.R. 1375, sponsored by the gentlewoman from West 
Virginia (Mrs. Capito), streamlines some of the outdated and 
ineffective regulations that have been hindering the financial and 
business activity of depository institutions. Removing these burdensome 
regulations will not only encourage productivity but will also save 
depository institutions valuable time and money.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may 
proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), one of the more thoughtful 
Members of this House and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to the 
Committee on Rules for making my amendment in order and to the sponsors 
of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act, which seems to be an 
excellent piece of legislation, although somewhat complex for those of 
us who are not familiar with banking law.
  My amendment is both very simple, very easy for average consumers and 
businesses to understand. In fact, I believe when many of my colleagues 
are confronted with my amendment, they are going to be shocked that 
what I proposed to ban is even permitted in the first place.
  We all know that when someone writes a check to someone, let us say 
they are buying an air conditioner at a local appliance store, they 
write a check. If they do not have sufficient funds to cover that, very 
often in addition to having to make up the funds for the bounced check, 
they get a fee from the bank. I think many of us can quibble about 
whether that fee is too high or not, whether it is fair. However, that 
is reasonable. They have violated the essential rules of the 
transaction by not having enough money in the account.
  What many Americans do not realize is that small business who is 
selling them that air conditioner, also when they have the check 
bounce, they are out the money. They have lost their air conditioner 
because they have already turned it over to the customer. But little 
known to many Americans is they also pay a fee. Banks charge the victim 
of a bounced check fees in the magnitude of $10 to $25 and in some 
cases $30. Seventy-five percent of all banks in the country charge this 
fee to the victim. We may hear arguments that, well, it costs us some 
money for the transaction. I do not dispute that. In fact, the person 
who is bouncing the check is paying a fine. What is unique about this 
practice that my amendment seeks to ban is it takes a customer who has 
done nothing wrong,

[[Page 4579]]

they have followed every single rule of their bank, every single rule 
of trust, every single rule of good faith, and there is no way they can 
avoid this fine. And who is getting it? Average consumers get it from 
time to time when someone purchases something from someone and they 
accept a check, but more often than not it is small businesses who are 
victimized. That is why so many small business groups are in favor of 
this amendment. The Consumer Federation of America representing 
consumers is supportive of this amendment.
  I, frankly, would defy anyone to tell me why the person who received 
the check should be penalized or sanctioned. Do not argue to me that 
they need to be disincentivized or discouraged from accepting a check. 
Believe me, no one intentionally takes a bad check. They are already 
harmed in many ways. Do not tell me that there is money that it costs 
to process the transaction. That could very well be the case. The only 
point I am making is why should the person who has already been harmed 
once be harmed again?
  And perhaps the worst possible reason is the one that underlies all 
of the opposition to this amendment to the extent that there is any. 
Banking institutions said, Hey, Congressman Weiner, we make a lot of 
money on this. That is not a good enough reason. Frankly, the rules of 
the banking system, like any rule, like any law, should provide people 
fundamental rules of the road, should provide disincentives to do 
something bad, should punish someone who does something bad; and at the 
end of day in the final analysis if they are a good citizen, a good 
consumer, they should be able to avoid the sanction.
  In the case of this fee, there is no way that any of those four 
things apply. They cannot avoid the fee. They cannot do anything. They 
can ask, I want to see ID, I want to see their driver's license. You 
cannot even call up the bank and say, hey, does Mr. Smith have enough 
money in his account, because privacy laws now prohibit releasing that 
type of information. Simply put, there is no rational reason why the 
victim, the small business that is the victim, should have to pay this 
fee, and there is no reason why the consumer who is the victim of a 
bounced check should have to pay this fee.
  I will be offering an amendment that, as I said, I am grateful to the 
Committee on Rules for making in order which will say they simply 
cannot charge this fee. This is one that is not fair. I do not care if 
they disclose it in bold print, it is simply not fair, and anyone who 
believes it is have them come to this floor and say during this debate 
that we believe it is fair. It has no more connection to the person who 
received that check than it is to someone walking by the bank that day, 
charging them the fee. There is no connection with what they did 
either, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
  If the banking community believes that they need additional money to 
pay for these transactions, there are plenty of ways that they can deal 
with this. They can charge more at the front end. They can have 
interbank relationships that say, You have a customer that wrote a bad 
check and we want a few dollars from you to help cover it, or they can 
spread out the cost throughout if it is that substantial, which I 
frankly do not believe it is. Some estimates say it is as low as 62 
cents, even when the banks themselves say that they have a case where 
someone can test and I want a copy and I want to debate it; even that 
only costs them $4 or $5 or $6. The simple fact is this is a way that 
victims are victimized again, and I urge support of the Weiner 
amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close for our side.
  Let me just again get back to the issue of the rule. I understand 
that there may be occasions for rules to come before the Members of 
this House that are not completely open, and the majority does after 
all have the responsibility of making sure that this House runs, that 
the legislative agenda moves forward. And I would prefer that any rules 
that come to the floor that have any kind of restrictions in them be 
done in consultation with the chairman and ranking members of the 
appropriate committees and subcommittees.
  But here we have a situation where the ranking member of the 
Committee on Financial Services and the chairman of the Committee on 
Financial Services said that they had no problems with the amendments 
that were being offered last night; and specifically in response to a 
question by me regarding the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Leach) 
amendment, they said they had absolutely no problem with his offering 
that amendment on the floor today. And I do not understand why the 
majority of the Committee on Rules decided last night to cut the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) out of the process.
  There has been a very interesting dialogue between the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). This 
is obviously a very important issue. Members have strong feelings on 
both sides. This is the kind of amendment that we should have a debate 
on on the floor and Members of both sides should be able to vote up or 
down on. And it is not like we do not have the time. According to the 
schedule that the majority put out today, we are going to be out of 
here by three o'clock. I do not think this would take very much time.
  They do not want to deal with issues of substance. We cannot deal 
with the extension of unemployment benefits. We cannot deal with a 
trade bill to stop sanctions against U.S. products. I do not know where 
the transportation bill is or health care bills or anything else, but 
we do have this bill on the floor. We do have the time. And it just 
seems to me to be somewhat puzzling that they could not find it within 
their wisdom last night as the majority to allow this amendment to come 
to the floor and for Members to vote up or down on it. Maybe it is just 
because they are in the habit of restricting things and closing things 
down.
  But it just seems to me on a bill that is relatively noncontroversial 
where the chairman and the ranking member have no problem with the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) offering his amendment, I do not 
understand why the Committee on Rules has such a big problem. And I 
think it is unfortunate, and I think Democrats and Republicans need to 
continue to point out the unfairness of this process. We can do much 
better. And on bills like this, there is absolutely no reason why this 
should not have been a wide-open rule. We could have handled this in a 
reasonable period of time, and we could have respected all the Members 
of this House, both Republican and Democrat; and I just think it is 
unfortunate that this is becoming a trend in the Committee on Rules.
  We only had one open rule this year, notwithstanding all the great 
speeches those guys give about how they are committed to openness. This 
is not how we should be doing this, and I apologize to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and others who did not have their amendments made 
in order last night, but I hope in the future that we do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts does raise many very 
important points including that the distinguished chairman, former 
chairman, of the banking committee did appear before the Committee on 
Rules last night. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) is a very 
valuable and important and thoughtful member of our conference. The 
fact of the matter is the Committee on Rules has, in our own judgment, 
a lot of things which we consider on a regular basis, and some of those 
things do deal with whether a person chose to have a vote in the 
committee of jurisdiction or not. The fact of the matter is that the 
gentleman did not request a vote in the committee of jurisdiction that 
he came from.

                              {time}  1115

  And we felt like that in the interests of us moving things on the 
floor, that

[[Page 4580]]

it would be best in this circumstance to let the committee of 
jurisdiction speak on that matter. They chose not to; the gentleman 
chose not to. We do not always feel that bringing it to the floor is 
the correct place.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to figure all of this out 
because, in the past, the Committee on Rules has used the excuse that 
Members have brought amendments up in their relevant committees of 
jurisdiction and they have not passed, so therefore we should make them 
in order. Now you are saying that because he did not, the gentleman 
from Iowa did not bring his amendment up in his committee of 
jurisdiction, that it should be made in order. So I do not understand.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as a matter of fact, 
the gentleman is correct. But there are circumstances many times 
related to how close a vote is, whether it is controversial; there are 
a number of things which identify that as what we might call or term a 
jump ball. It is important at various times for the Committee on Rules 
to look at and to weigh those things which we believe are important to 
the efficiency of the use of this time on the floor.
  In this case, we made a determination as to what we were going to do. 
We have made 3 Democrat amendments in order, we have made 2 Republican 
amendments and a manager's amendment in order. I believe that the time 
which we took yesterday in the Committee on Rules was appropriately 
done by the young chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), and I am very proud of what we have done.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule 
as reported out of the Committee for H.R. 1375. While portions of this 
bill that fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee came 
for review and analysis, I generally supported the version of H.R. 1375 
as reported out of the Committee; however, I shared one reservation 
about a provision that was not addressed at the Committee markup. 
Section 609 of H.R. 1375 amends section 11(b) of the Bank Holding 
Company Act of 1956, 12 U.S.C. 1849(b), and section 18(c)(6) of the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1828(c)(6), by reducing the 
minimum waiting period from 15 calendar days to 5 calendar days for 
banks and bank holding companies to merge with or acquire other banks 
or bank holding companies. Although no amendment was offered at the 
Committee, we feel that this provision should be struck from the bill.
  Community organizations have raised concerns about this provision, 
which reduces to five days the pre-merger, mandatory 15-day waiting 
period with the Attorney General's approval. During the course of a 
bank merger process, both the Federal financial supervisory agency and 
the Department of justice review the merger proposal for competitive 
concerns. After a Federal Banking agency approves a merger, DOJ has 30 
days to decide whether to challenge the merger approval on antitrust 
grounds. At a minimum, the merging banks must now wait 15 days before 
completing their merger. Currently, banking law allows third parties, 
other than Federal banking agencies or DOJ, to file suit during the 
post-approval waiting period. As proposed, section 609 would reduce the 
minimum 15-day waiting period to 5 days when DOJ indicates it will not 
file suit challenging the merger approval order.
  This provision is anti-Community Reinvestment Act, CRA, and strips 
the organizations' right to seek judicial review of Federal bank merger 
approval orders. Without such review, community organizations will be 
deprived of impartial means and mechanisms for ensuring that CRA 
performance obligations are taken into account when considering merger 
approvals. Community-based organizations use such suits to obtain 
information about the merger and ensure that the merger will not result 
in disproportionate branch closures in low-income or minority 
communities. These organizations play an important role in the public 
interest. The mandatory 15-day waiting period should remain intact and 
section 609 should be removed from the bill, if passed today.
  My amendment, number 9, would amend section 607 of H.R. 1375 as 
drafted. The specific language of this amendment reads:

       Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, when 
     a requesting agency requires expeditious action on an 
     application for a merger transaction, consideration should be 
     made as to the impact the merger transaction will have on 
     corporate and individual customers in an effort to ensure 
     that no harmful effects will result from the merger 
     transaction.

  This amendment, while very substantive, is also a less intrusive 
attempt to ensure that the emergency expedited application process for 
merger transactions called for in section 607 of this legislation will 
not allow applicants to harm customers and/or communities with the 
increased share of the respective market that will result from the 
transaction formed, as compared to my other amendment, Jackson-Lee No. 
9. Under this ``sense of Congress'' provision, Congress will make clear 
its intent to retain an important degree of oversight over the 
expedited process provided for in section 607 as drafted. The import of 
this amendment only spells out what should already be inherent in the 
operation of our Federal Reserve Board. It is clear, however, that such 
a provision is necessary because so many individuals and communities 
are suffering from disparate treatment by lending institutions.
  When we allow expedited review of a corporate act so substantial as a 
merger and of an act that will affect so many consumers, we must be 
very careful in conferring latitude to institutions or in curtailing 
our own oversight authority. The banking institutions covered under 
this legislation play a vital role in the lives of many individuals and 
corporations who receive their services.
  In the case of the recent JP Morgan and Bank One merger, Bethel New 
Life, Inc. expressed on the Federal Reserve Board's record the fact 
that this transaction had a tremendous impact on the Chicago area. It 
was explained that the loss of a bank headquarters would result in job 
loss, less civic interest and commitment, and less detailed knowledge 
of the local community. Furthermore, there would be less interaction 
between senior bank staff and the variety of people involved in 
community development in underserved communities. A bank, merger if the 
bank is willing, may give community groups the opportunity to engage in 
discussion with the bank(s) about future community reinvestment goals. 
The Jackson-Lee Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that this kind of 
respect for the underserved communities remains intact with sufficient 
Congressional oversight.
  While this legislation purports to facilitate the work of lending 
institutions by allowing them and other depository banks to devote more 
of their resources to the business of lending, section 607 makes it 
possible for some transactions to escape very important scrutiny.
  As we see in the recent merger of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., JPMCC, and 
Bank One Corporation, the capture of large portions of consumer markets 
in quick and easy transactions allow many individual and corporate 
customers to experience a negative impact of the transaction. The 
consolidation of the finance industry so rapidly allows institutions to 
exclude large parts of their activities from requirements set forth in 
the Community Reinvestment Act, CRA. CRA has been instrumental in 
increasing affordable housing, and making sure that banks throughout 
this country play a more responsible role in their communities. The CRA 
is working extremely well and must not be weakened by provisions such 
as those found in section 607. Instead of diminishing the CRA and other 
oversight tools that are in place, we must strengthen them. If this 
legislation passes as drafted, potentially fewer people will realize 
the dream of homeownership, fewer small businesses will get off the 
ground, fewer jobs will be created, and fewer neighborhoods will be 
rebuilt.
  The CRA was enacted in 1977 to address these concerns by requiring 
banks to make loans in neighborhoods where they collect deposits.
  Section 607 as drafted could allow for the virtual elimination of the 
oversight authority conferred through measures such as the Community 
Reinvestment Act relative to Houston businesses and individuals, as 
most of the authority will be vested in New York and diverted from 
Houston. Significant Community Reinvestment dollars are necessary for 
home loans for minorities, the development of affordable housing, small 
business loans for minorities, procurement opportunities for minority 
businesses, community lending for minorities, and community investment 
for industrial, commercial and social facilities in minority 
communities. It is absolutely essential that you thoroughly examine 
this merger in order to ensure that proper conditions are made to 
mitigate the imminent adverse affects on Houston's minority community.
  The CRA is only enforced in connection with banks' merger and 
expansion applications as

[[Page 4581]]

 is the subject of section 607. The Federal bank regulatory agencies 
periodically evaluate banks for their compliance with CRA and assign 
them one of four ratings: Outstanding, Satisfactory, Needs to Improve 
or Substantial Non-Compliance. In 1998, the agencies rated over 98 
percent of banks as either Outstanding or Satisfactory, despite that 
fact that, for example, the banking industry has continued to deny the 
mortgage loan applications of African Americans and Latinos twice as 
frequently as those of whites. Thanks to databases compiled under the 
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, HMDA, data are made available to show 
stark statistics about loan approvals and loan denials that banks are 
required to make public each year.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support Jackson-Lee No. 9 and 
support the legislation with this amendment and that of Mr. Oxley.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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.

                          ____________________