macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 1985-12-18
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. as the gentleman from Pennsylvania Is a member of our Committee on Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs. I would like to state that it has come to my attention that the other body has placed in the continuing resolution some special legislation for special people. There is a Member of the other body who. in 1983. fought tooth and nail to prevent a housing bill from being adopted In the Congress. Againthis year. Members will recall we put our housing bill into reconciliation. Once again. the same individual Member of the other body is saying. "No. no. no. He is using parliamentary chicanery to deny the people of this Nation safe. decent. sanitary housing."
Date: 1985-12-18
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

We shall not skirt offensively. We were just thinking of the homeless of this Nation. the people who are being evicted from buildings built with tax dollars for the profits of developers. I am told that in that particular. piece of legislation. the continuing resolution. will be over $1 billion for a project for synfuels. A billion dollars for synfuels is fine. is it not? But not one penny for the homeless. I think that is a tragedy.
Date: 1985-12-19
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. I would like to point out that the Banking Committee is trying to get something resolved in the housing area. and until such time we still have pending a very important H 13038 Co piece of legislation which has to be disposed of. which is an FHA extender. So I would ask that we not forget the fact that we have to dispose of or take care of an FHA extender before we leave.
Date: 1985-12-19
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking. Finance and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of the joint resolution. (H.J. Res. 495) to provide for the temporary extension of certain programs relating to housing and community development. and for other purposes and ask for its immediate consideration.
Date: 1985-12-19
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. House Joint Resolution 495 would extend the following programs to March 17. 1986: The Federal Housing Administrations mortgage insurance programs. the section 312 rehabilitation loan program. the Farmers Home rural housing authorities. the flood and crime insurance programs. the community development block grant entitlements. the section 202 interest rate limitation. and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Mr. Speaker. the. conferees have been unable to resolve the housing authorization issues in the context of the reconciliation bill and this temporary extender is. needed to keep these important programs alive until we have an opportunity to review them early in the next session.
Date: 1985-12-19
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the joint resolution just passed.
Date: 1985-12-19
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I send to the desk a concurrent resolution . to correct the enrollment of H.R. 2100. and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.
Date: 1985-12-19
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I would be very happy to explain to the gentleman. When the conference report on the farm bill was finalized. inadvertently two sections were left out by the staff. and this is to allow the enrolling clerk to insert the two sections that had been left out.
Date: 1985-12-19
Speaker: DE L GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

Technically. no. It was not incorrectly enrolled. but the mfstake was ours. The copy that we gave to the Speaker had two sections that had been left out. and this is to allow them to insert them. There are two sections in the credit section that were identical in the House bill and the Senate bill. The staff left them out. one thinking that the other had taken care of that.
Date: 1985-12-19
Speaker: DE LA GARZA (democrat)
Chamber: H

None whatsoever. And it has been cleared with the minority. As always. my ranking Member and I work closely together. and there is never any activity that is not in concurrence with both sides.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am sorry. I was out conferring with the ranking minority member on the legislation. but I think if anybody were to look at the RECORD of yesterdays proceedings before the Committee on Rules. they would see that the request from the Banking Committee was for an open rule. 1 hour of general debate. a very pure and simple request.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker. I think it is important to clear something up here. The advisory council that is contained in the legislation is. not paid from appropriated funds. The funds are from the Fed. and as we know. the Fed has its own funds. They are not appropriated funds. Therefore. to the best of my knowledge. I do not think a waiver is required.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I do not yield any further time. What I am saying is that even though the waiver is in there. it is an unnecessary waiver. It is not needed because there are no appropriated funds. The funds are coming from the Federal Reserve Board and they do not come under the jurisdiction of Appropriations. They have their own funds. I cannot say why the Committee on Rules chose to put that waiver in there. but it is an unnecessary waiver. H 76 Co
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I would say I have just checked with the Parliamentarian and he agrees the point I made about the Fed Is absolutely correct. and that as far as the advisory council is concerned there is no waiver necessary on that point. That is the point I was making.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I think it is unfortunate that legislation designed after lo these many years to correct an inequity on behalf of the consumers of this Nation is becoming embroiled in a debate that has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the bill. We have waited too long. The consumers of this Nation have seen the banks of this Nation use their money to make money. The consumers of this Nation have had fees tacked onto their accounts for checks returned for insufficient funds when all along the funds were in the account. but the bank said to the consumer. "You cannot have that money yet because we want to use it for a period of time to make more money for ourselves." Now. ladies and gentlemen of the House. since 1978. the Federal Reserve Board has been studying this issue. We finally got sick and tired of it. They told us this last year. year before last and when they came back before us again this past year. said give us more time to study. Ladies and gentlemen. the time has come for us to say to our constituents when you deposit a Treasury check. you do not have to wait 2 weeks to use your money. It is there the next day. I hope that we are not going to lose sight of the primary issue here. and that is the unfairness. the inequity to the consumers of this Nation. Let us at long last put an end to the use of the float by the banks and give people the benefit of their hardearned moneys. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for yielding.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. I might state that in my opening remarks to the Rules Committee yesterday. you made it very clear that neither H.R. 20 nor. I think. it is H.R. 2347. 1 may be wrong on the number. but the interstate banking bill.. neither one of those could be considered germane. in order. in any semblance. in any way. shape. matter. or fashion. I also gave my word to the Rules Committee that I would resist any attempt by the other body in conference to add either of those. because I have maintained all along as well that they should be considered separately on. their merits. So I did want to make it clear that I was prepared here to be very alert. very alert that the rules of the House be observed. and that there be no nongermane amendments of the type the chairman of the Rules Committee referred to as being tacked onto this bill. I just want my committee members and everyone in the House to be aware of the fact that that commitment was made to the Rules Committee.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. just briefly. I would like to again say to the Members of this House. everybody has assured each other and let us now assure the people of this Nation. the consumers of this Nation. and let us let them know that our first act in this Congress is to do something for them rather than to take something away from them. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. millions of hardworking Americans carry their paychecks down to the bank every week in anticipation that they can use the funds to buy groceries. pay the rent. buy clothes. and other necessities. In all too many cases. they dont have access to the money they have earned. It is tied up by banking policies. check hold policies. that say the customer has to wait days. and days and. sometimes. weeks and weeks. before the bank says the money is available. H.R. 2443 is designed to change this outlandish policythis ageold game of allowing banks to play with and profit from your money. the floatwhile the customer waits. Some may suggest that these are just minor inconveniences and that the Congress really ought not be worried. For the wellheeled with big balances in their checking accounts. the need for this legislation may. indeed. seem remote. But. for the millworker. the salaried employee. the retiree of modest means. and to others who must pay their basic living expenses out of their weekly or monthly iicome. these arbitrary check holds are a disaster. It is a traumatic. costly and embarrassing experience for the consumer who becomes a pawn in any banks check hold schemes. I can guarantee that the legislation has real meaning for Mrs. Lucy Cody of Boston. Last year. she deposited $1.413.45 in a Boston bank. Most of these deposits were in cash..but about $400 was in checks and an American Express money order. Mrs. Cody assumed that the deposits. since they. had included a preponderance of cash would be credited without delay. So she proceeded to write checks on the account. only to have the checks reAddabbo Akaka Applegate Archer AuCoin Barnes Bevill Bliley Boehlert Boland Bonker Boulter Boxer Breaux Broomfield Brown (CA) Burton (IN) Bustamante Campbell Carney Chappell Cheney Clay Clinger Coelho Collins Crane de la Garza DeLay Dixon Donnelly Dorgan (ND) Dowdy Duncan Edgar Fiedler
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I after deposit and nonlocal checks yield such time as she may consume to available the fourth day after deposit. the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I his remarks.) yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman. the New York . a member of act that we have before us today is not the committee. perfect. but the fact is -that .it is a step
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: DE LUGO (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the Expedited Funds Availability Act may be one of the best consumer protection bills to come before the Congress in many. many years. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 2443. I believe that passage of this bill will provide an equitable solution for consumers who have been victimized by unreasonable "checkholding" on deposited funds. I would also like to commend Chairman ST GERMAIN for his lead on this complex issue. and his determination to see that the needs of consumers and depository institutions were balanced--so that adequate protective measures would be provided to both. Additionally. special thanks must be extended to my friend anc colleague. Representative � ROBERT GARCIA. who saw that an amendment I requested was included to extend all of the consumer benefits in this legislation to residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The need for this legislation has become evident through continuous reports of abuse. increasing over the past several years. that have been received from across the country. Perhaps the saddest instances concern the poor and the elderly who. often living on fixed incomes. have had checks written in good faith returned because of an unreasonable hold on a check that more often than not was issued by the U.S. Federal Treasury. Although the banking industry maintains thatH.R. 2443 will increase institutional losses JSE .1189 as a result of the shortened period in which a bank can "hold" a depositors access to funds. the irrefutable.fact remains that banks do not often lose money on returned checks. According to a recent Bank Administration Institute study. it is estimated that banks actually earn $3.4 billion annually from charges imposed in connection with returned checks. Furthermore. H.R. 2443 provides the Federal Reserve Board with the authority to suspend application of these time limits for 45 days. on any classification of checks with unacceptable levels of loss which can be directly related to check availability schedules. This is an issue where the Congress can .take a stand in behalf of the American consumer. I think that it is time for us to do that now.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York . a member of the committee.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment in the nature of a (b) ScuEDULE.substitute be printed in the RECORD (1) AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL CHECKS.-Funds and open to amendment at any point. deposited in an account at a depository in-
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. as the gentleman so clearly stated. it clarifies that no provision of section 3 should be interpreted as requiring all depositors checks be returned or that notice of nonpayment be given with certain time frames.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. I would like to point out that in an explanatory letter to the membership that emanated from the author of the amendment. reading from the explanatory amendment. it says that first an institution may have information that the writer or drawee depositor of a check is insolvent. has or is about to declare bankruptcy. Now. you see. you have got to be a real crystal ball gazer on that one. "Or that the assets of the drawer of the check are in legal dispute." That covers anything under the Sun. "legal dispute." those are allembracing words. Any excuse whatsoever. Ladies and gentlmen. if we adopt this amendment we are indeed saying that we were just kidding about helping the consumers of this Nation because any teller. as I said in my opening statement. any teller with no experience at all can say. "Well. I have reason to believe that there is a legal person who wrote a check may be indispute." By the way. I say to the gen- solvent or bankrupt. In such cases. the tleman. if the check is deposited and institution should be able to protect that teller later on can decide there is itself since it has a reasonable belief reasonable belief that there is a legal that the check may not be honored. dispute and the funds are not avail- This amendment provides that protecable. it is in the processing stage and tion. they can hold it up for 1 week or 2 Perhaps it is important to focus on weeks. and as a result thereof that in- who is protected and benefited by this dividual. had he been told ahead of amendment. Initially. it is the finantime. that is. the depositor. could cer- cial institutions who will be able to tainly have gone to another bank and reduce their losses. But as is the case said. "Well. do you believe I am a good with all industry. losses caused by person and I have no legal disputes? If fraud and Insolvency are ultimately so. I will deposit my check. and you borne by consumers. Without the will have to comply with the act." Shumway amendment. the only alterSo this. is full. full of infirmities and native for depository institutions is to really and truly would do nothing instruct their tellers to refuse any deother than to make nil the whole pur- posit about which they have the pose of the bill. slightest doubt or suspicion. which will I thank the gentleman for yielding. only add to the inconvenience and
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. what the gentleman has just said is what this amendment does. Instead of saying. "Well. we are not going to accept a check for collection because we have reason to believe that you are in bankruptcy. in a legal dispute. or something like that." what this amendment does is to say to the bank. "You dont have to tell them. so you can take the check and maybe use it and maybe have the use of those funds. and if they want the funds. you just say. We have reason to believe that you are in a legal dispute." I would like to have the bank to have the guts to tell the customer. "We dont want to accept your check." Let us not ruin the legislation.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman. staff has just brought to my attention a statement that will be published in the RECORD by our colleague. the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. and he says: The bankruptcy laws include provisions that permit persons or companies who have filed bankruptcy to continue writing checks and that protect entities that deal with parties who have filed bankruptcy. In many instances. a courtappointed trustee must cosign these checks. Businesses that file under the chapter 1I reorganization provisions of the Bankruptcy Code need to be able to conduct business in the same manner as other companies. subject to bankruptcy court control and scrutiny. in order to survive. Then bankruptcy laws offer sufficient protection against bad checks. and the amendment would interfere with the aim of the bankruptcy laws.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman. I want to rise and state that indeed. as one who participated in the drafting and the adoption of that section. that I care. I would like to make another statement. I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts for his analysis of the pending amendment. As usual. his incisive mind has come up with additional defects in it.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I would also like to make a point to those of our colleagues who are busy in their offices and.are unable to be on the floor but who are. nonetheless. following the debate. This amendment is a bankers amendment. This amendment is not supported by the consumers and the people who elected you and I to this office. So I would say that we should reject this amendment because it Is antipeople. anticonsumer and probank. The banks are protected in this bill very. very sufficiently. Now. let us not be hoodwinked into adopting this amendment. it would destroy the effectiveness of the entire bill. Again. I wish to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. the banks know and every citizen of the United States of America knows when we face that type of a crisis because every channel on television and every- radio station plays it up. It is a drama that they enjoy. that Government workers may not be paid and social security recipients may not be paid. So certainly the banks are on notice as well that they may not be paid. So I am certain that if we were not to agree to increase the deficit. the banks would be on notice. and they would just say to you and to me when we go down with our little checks. "Sorry. we cant accept that because you have not agreed to increase the deficit."
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

There Is nothing in this bill that says you are required to accept the check. All It says is that if you accept the check. you must in a timely fashion give credit to the depositor.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

By the same token. in one instance the gentleman says that the teller does not have the ability to make that decision. The gentleman just said that. right?
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

And yet what does the Shumway amendment do and what does it say? It says that if the teller feels there is reason to believe that there might be fraud or bankruptcy or legal procedures. they can put a hold on that check. So how in one instance does that teller bring it and in the other instance is not knowledgeable. if the gentleman will be good enough to explain that?
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. reserving the right to object. I cannot agree to the unanimous consent request. I cannot go along with it. because we made the debate. made the argument on this to date. based on the amendment as offered as printed in the RECORD. Although some of us disagreed. we did not seek that type of rule. nonetheless. the rule requires the amendments to be printed in the RECORD and. to the best of my knowledge. they are not amendable: and therefore. I do object.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I reserve the right to object so that I may make the statement to the effect that obviously there was intent not to add disclosure contained in this amendment. Even though it would be inserted here. when we go over to the Senate I feel there would be a move to delete it there. For that reason. Mr. Chairman. I am constrained to object because. very frankly. I disagree wholeheartedly with the Shumway amendment with or without the two unanimousconsent requests that have been made by the gentleman from New York. Mr. Chairman. I object.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

I am asking that the gentleman renew his unanimousconsent requests. Why do you not do it one at a time?
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. let me ask the gentleman from New York. the amendment would strike the words "or similar proceedings" from the Shumway amendment.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

And he would add the words at the end of the full amendment: In such situations. the depository institution shall promptly notify the drawer and drawee of the check when it takes action pursuant to this provision.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

May I inquire of the gentleman. From whence comes this language? It is not an excerpt from the California regulation? In California. it is a regulation. is it not? 0J 1520
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

In California. it is a regulation. is it not? I would yield to the gentleman from California for a response.
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

In other words. if John Doe deposits a check. and 5 days later. it is an outofState check. and 5 days later. the bank decides. well. we are going to invoke this. can they after 5 or 6 days?
Date: 1986-01-23
Speaker: ST GERMAIN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Reclaiming my time. and I would ask the gentleman to recognize the fact that this is my time. not his.