The most comprehensive banking bill since the Great Depression cleared a House committee Thursday after 16{ grueling hours of debate, but it faces an uncertain future with little time left in Congress' legislative year. The bill, approved by the House Banking Committee on a 30-20 vote, grants banks broad new securities powers but restricts their ability to enter real estate and insurance and imposes new obligations on them to serve the poor. The bill now is headed for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where the chairman, Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., is known to be skeptical of letting banks into the securities business. Depending on how long House Speaker Jim Wright, D-Texas, allows for Dingell's review, the powerful Michigan Democrat could kill the bill through delay or exact concessions by threatening delay. Congress is preparing to leave town for its summer recess on Aug. 12 and won't be back until Sept. 6. Then, it plans only a month-long session before adjourning for the fall election campaign. ``There's a real question whether this bill is going to pass the House. It's a very controversial bill and there just isn't much time,'' said Edward Yingling, chief lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, the industry's largest trade group. Aides to Dingell, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Wright has not yet decided on a deadline for the Energy and Commerce Committee, but they indicated that Dingell is not inclined to act quickly. The Banking Committee, after a session that began 10 a.m. Wednesday and ended 2:30 a.m. Thursday with only short breaks, approved the measure with all but three Democrats in favor and all but three Republicans opposed. The hodgepodge of compromises struck to get it through has created some odd political coalitions. The banking industry and the securities industry, normally bitter opponents, are both opposing it for different reasons. Consumer groups are supporting it, along with the real estate and insurance industries. But, the alignment could change _ with banks on one side and all of the other groups on the other _ if Dingell, as expected, tightens the restrictions on how banks are permitted to exercise the new securities activities. ``The likelihood of the bill being improved by the Energy and Commerce Committee is very small,'' Yingling said. Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., whose Energy and Commerce subcommittee on finance gets first crack at the securities provisions, said Thursday his panel needed to make ``major changes'' in the bill. ``There simply are not adequate safeguards for the banking system,'' he said. The bill would, if enacted, represent the first crack in the barrier between investment and commercial banking that was erected as part of the reforms stemming from the 1929 stock market crash. It allows bank holding companies to underwrite virtually every type of security except corporate stock. The securities industry had unsuccessfully sought to keep underwriting of corporate bonds, mutual funds and corporate debt convertible to stock away from banks. But, the House bill includes those powers as well as the underwriting of commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds and securities backed by mortgages and other consumer debt such as auto loans. Other sections require banks: _To serve poor people by providing low-cost ``lifeline'' checking services for accounts between $25 and $1,000. _To offer special accounts for the cashing of government checks such as Social Security and welfare checks, with a cashing charge of no more than $2. _To have a good record of serving poor communities in their lending area before getting permission from the Federal Reserve Board to exercise new powers. _To cease further expansion into the real estate business for two years. _To stay out of insurance underwriting and to limit the number of additional institutions that can sell insurance underwritten by other companies. The chairman of the banking committee, Rep. Fernand J. St Germain, D-R.I., in a statement Thursday, hailed the bill as ``a major step forward in providing a sane restructuring of the financial industry and establishing a solid framework of protections for consumers.'' Republican opposition to the consumer sections had threatened committee passage of the bill until an hour-long negotiating session behind closed doors after midnight. Democrats agreed to accept some watering down of the consumer provisions and, in exchange, three Republicans _ Steve Bartlett of Texas, John Hiler of Indiana and Thomas Ridge of Pennsylvania _ voted in favor of the bill. Rep. Chalmers Wylie of Ohio, the ranking Republican on the committee, had argued that the consumer provisions would, in effect, give the federal government the power to allocate credit. Also, because of their expense, they could impair the soundness of the banking system, he said.
