Major Financial Services Legislation, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (P.L. 106-102): An Overview

Major Financial Services Legislation, The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (P.L. 106-102): An Overview

Order Code RL30375
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Major Financial Services Legislation,
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (P.L. 106-102):
An Overview
Updated December 16, 1999
F. Jean Wells
Specialist in Economic Policy
Government and Finance Division
William D. Jackson
Specialist in Financial Institutions
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT
P.L. 106-102, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (initially passed by the House as H.R. 10 and by
the Senate as S. 900) is landmark financial services legislation. This comprehensive
legislation is very complex and addresses a wide range of issues. It will significantly
modernize the delivery of financial services to customers by changing the regulatory structure
of financial services providers and rationalizing some of the ways in which they do business.
This report provides background analysis of key issues and a short legislative history of this
important legislation, together with reference to underlying congressional documents. It will
not be further updated. Continuing CRS analysis on various financial issues is available in
the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Banking and Financial Services.

Major Financial Services Legislation,
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (P.L. 106-102): An Overview
Summary
On November 4, 1999, the 106th Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
by a large bipartisan majority. The resulting public law, P.L. 106-102 (initially passed
by the House as H.R. 10 and by the Senate as S. 900) will significantly modernize
American finance, thereby bringing it into line with other countries. Enactment of the
legislation resolves two decades of controversy in the United States about the nature
of financial competition and regulation. This comprehensive legislation is very
complex and addresses a wide range of issues.
The Act modernizes the delivery of financial services to customers by changing
the regulatory structure of financial services providers and rationalizing some of the
ways in which they do business. Central to the Act are the provisions repealing
portions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the Bank Holding Company Act of
1956 to facilitate affiliation among banks, securities firms, and insurance companies.
These changes will permit financial conglomerates to cross-sell a variety of financial
products to their customers (“one-stop shopping”), thus broadening the services
available to users of financial services. The Act addresses permissible structures for
the resulting organizations and how they will be regulated. It incorporates various
kinds of consumer protections, including provisions addressing the privacy of personal
financial information, and community reinvestment. These issues were very
controversial; thus, many of the provisions represent compromises reached in the
legislative process after extensive debate.
Because of its scope, this landmark legislation will affect financial services
providers ranging from the largest multi-product financial organizations to the
smallest, community-based institutions; state and federal financial regulators;
community groups; and, especially, the individual consumers of financial services.
Much of the way this Act specifically affects financial services will depend on how the
regulators write the regulations and how financial services providers and users of
financial services respond to the new opportunities. As experience with the Act
evolves, it is likely that some fine-tuning of its provisions may result.

Contents
What Does This Legislation Do? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Affiliations Among Financial Services Firms and Their Regulation . . . . . . . 2
Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Privacy Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Other Major Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Community Reinvestment Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Banking and Commerce: Unitary Thrift Holding Companies . . . . . . . 6
Implications and Implementation of the Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
How the Legislation Developed in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Major Financial Services Legislation,
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (P.L. 106-102):
An Overview
Resolving many years of controversy in the United States about the nature of
financial competition and regulation, the 106th Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act by a large bipartisan majority.1 The resulting public law, P.L. 106-102, will
significantly modernize American finance. This comprehensive legislation is very
complex and addresses a wide range of issues. The Act consists of seven titles. They
address affiliations of banking, insurance, and securities firms and regulation of the
resulting organizations; securities and insurance regulation; unitary thrift holding
companies (a company that owns one thrift institution); financial privacy; Federal
Home Loan Bank System modernization; and other provisions, including changes in
the Community Reinvestment Act and many other regulatory changes.2
This Act requires a number of regulatory agencies to develop new regulations
to carry it out. It also calls for several studies on some of the issues it addresses. Its
impact will depend on many of its provisions being adopted by financial markets and
users of financial services. As experience with the Act evolves, it is likely that some
fine-tuning of its provisions may result.3 This report provides an overview of the
nature and some possible consequences of this landmark legislation. It looks at this
measure from the perspective of its enactment. Continuing CRS analysis of various
financial issues is available in the CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Banking and
Financial Services.4
1 On November 4, 1999, the Senate approved the Conference Report on S. 900, by 90-
8. The House followed within hours by a vote of 362-57. President Clinton signed the
measure on November 12, 1999. Financial modernization legislation initially passed the
House as H.R. 10 and the Senate as S. 900.
2 In this report, the use of the term “bank” incorporates savings associations and similar
organizations generically. The Act contains a number of technical terms, many of which are
identified in CRS Report RL30039, Financial Institution Reform and Diversification: A
Legislative Glossary of Often Used Terms, by F. Jean Wells and William Jackson.
3 Even before the legislation was signed, bills had been introduced to modify privacy
provisions in it, H.R. 3320 and S. 1903. Subsequently, S. 1924 was introduced.
4 It can be accessed at [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebfin1.html].

CRS-2
What Does This Legislation Do?
This Act modernizes the delivery of financial services to customers by changing
the regulatory structure of financial services providers and rationalizing some of the
ways in which they do business. In short, the Act:
! repeals portions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956 to facilitate affiliation among banks, securities firms, and
insurance companies, permitting financial conglomerates to cross-sell a variety
of financial products to their customers (“one-stop shopping”),
! provides for umbrella regulation of the resulting financial holding companies
vested in the Federal Reserve,
! preserves the role of federal and/or state bank, securities and insurance
regulators over their respective functions inside financial holding companies,
! allows national and state banks to create financial subsidiaries for
diversification into insurance sales and full-service securities activities under
specified conditions,
! provides consumer safeguards such as more disclosure of terms and conditions
for consumer financial products, for privacy of nonpublic financial information,
and against fraudulent access to financial information,
! expands bank access to and the mission of the Federal Home Loan Banks,
! changes the application of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA)
by relieving many smaller banks from frequent examinations, requiring banking
organizations to be compliant in order to diversify, and mandating disclosure
of CRA-related agreements between banks and many nongovernmental entities
(“CRA sunshine”), and
! includes other regulatory improvements.5
Affiliations Among Financial Services Firms and Their Regulation
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act represents a significant change from preceding law
since it permits affiliations among banking, securities, and insurance companies. This
change is accomplished by repealing or overriding sections of the Glass-Steagall Act,
the Bank Holding Company Act, and state laws preventing such affiliations. These
financial services organizations will be organized in a holding company framework,
although bank subsidiaries (“financial subsidiaries”) will be permitted to engage in
5 For a detailed exposition of the Act, see the Managers’ Joint Explanatory Statement
of the Committee on Conference (H. Rept. 106-434, pp. 151-188, or Congressional Record,
November 2, 1999, vol. 145, no. 152, H11255-11303). (Hereafter referred to as Conference
Report).

CRS-3
some nonbanking activities not previously allowed.6 Besides the permissible financial
activities enumerated in the legislation, it provides a mechanism between the Federal
Reserve (the Fed) and the U. S. Department of the Treasury (the Treasury) to decide
what is an appropriate new financial activity.
One of the many contentious issues during the path to enactment was the
question of whether new activities could be conducted in financial subsidiaries of
national banks or whether they required a holding company form of organization. In
October 1999, the Fed and Treasury proposed a compromise which is reflected in the
legislation. P.L. 106-102, therefore, provides some choice whether to place activities
such as securities underwriting in a financial subsidiary or in a holding company
affiliate of a national bank. Both national and state-chartered banks are authorized
to form financial subsidiaries. Activities such as insurance underwriting, or real estate
investment or development activities (unless otherwise expressly permitted), are
prohibited in these subsidiaries. Five years after enactment, the Fed and Treasury may
review whether merchant banking activities should be permissible for financial
subsidiaries.7
The Fed will be the umbrella supervisor for financial holding companies owning
a bank. Under its “streamlined” supervision, the Board will focus on the consolidated
risk position of the entire holding company while relying on information from
supervisors of its components.8 It is thus limited in its day-to-day authority to oversee
the functionally regulated nonbanking subsidiaries of these holding companies.
Primary supervision of all components, be they banking, insurance, or securities firms,
remains with their federal or state line supervisor. National banks with financial
subsidiaries remain regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
Safeguards for financial safety and soundness apply throughout the new holding
companies. In particular, the so-called “‘safety and soundness’ firewalls” required of
today’s bank holding companies are extended to protect the banks within financial
holding companies. Firewalls are also legislated for financial subsidiaries of banks.
Securities
Under functional regulation, which provides for regulation by activity rather than
by institution, securities regulators will generally regulate securities activities no
matter where they occur. The Act retains certain exemptions for banks to facilitate
activities in which they have traditionally engaged.9 To continue to provide these
6 Financial subsidiaries are authorized in Section 121 of P.L. 106-102. See Conference
Report, p. 37.
7 For additional background on merchant banking, see CRS Report RL30328, Financial
Reform Legislation in the 106th Congress: Merchant Banking, by Gary Shorter.
8 Remarks by Chairman Allan Greenspan, Before the Annual Meeting of the American
Council of Life Insurance, Washington, D.C., November 15, 1999. This speech may be
accessed on the web site of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:
[http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/boarddocs/speeches/1999/19991115.htm].
9 Exemptions, with certain restrictions, “relate to third-party networking arrangements,
(continued...)

CRS-4
activities, banks need not register as broker-dealers. New hybrid products come under
rulemaking of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Prior to commencing
a rulemaking, the SEC shall consult with and seek the concurrence, of the Federal
Reserve Board. A dispute resolution process is provided for through the U.S. Court
of Appeals. If an entity chooses to become an “investment bank” (broker-dealer)
holding company, then it would be regulated by the SEC. The Act also amends bank
investment company (mutual fund, etc.) activities to make banks subject to the same
regulation as other investment advisers and to disclose that advised funds are not
federally insured.
Insurance
The new Act includes a number of provisions intended to maintain the state level
of regulation of the business of insurance. It reaffirms the McFarran-Ferguson Act
to that effect. The Act also mandates compliance with state insurance licensing
requirements. It generally forbids national banks from underwriting insurance,
including title insurance. Moreover, national banks generally cannot sell title
insurance unless they were doing so on the date of enactment, or unless state banks
in the same state may do so, and then only to the extent and in the manner permitted
for those state banks.
Generally, state laws may not discriminate against banks and their affiliates either
in becoming affiliated with insurance companies or engaging in insurance activities.
Federal banking agencies and state insurance regulators are to coordinate their
regulatory efforts. With respect to insurance sales, 13 “safe harbors” generally
protect certain state laws from federal preemption: for example, regulations requiring
banks to disclose that insurance products are not federally insured. Federal banking
agencies must issue consumer protection regulations covering insurance sales by
banking entities. However, inconsistent state laws will not be subject to automatic
federal preemption. For state laws enacted after September 3, 1998, a new dispute
resolution procedure is set forth in the legislation.
The Act encourages states to allow mutual insurance companies to reorganize
into mutual holding companies with stock ownership. In order to encourage states
to provide for a uniform (interstate) insurance agent and broker licensing system, the
Act authorizes the creation of the National Association of Registered Agents and
Brokers (NARAB) to provide a mechanism for uniform licensing of insurance.10
9(...continued)
trust activities, traditional banking transactions such as commercial paper and exempted
securities, employee and shareholder benefit plans, sweep accounts, affiliate transactions,
private placements, safekeeping and custody services, asset-backed securities, derivatives, and
identified banking products.” Conference Report, pp. 163-164.
10 See Title III, Subtitle C, National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers,
beginning on page 88 of the Conference Report.

CRS-5
Privacy Provisions
Privacy proposals have been much debated. Such provisions will affect how
financial conglomerates may use personal financial information. Combining several
financial services in one company provides expanded opportunities for cross-selling.
That is important to financial services providers wishing to diversify and may afford
customers better product information than they would have otherwise. At the same
time, there has been increasing concern about how personal information is used.
Financial institutions are required to establish privacy policies and disclose them
at the start of a customer relationship and not less than annually thereafter. Such
policies include disclosing how the institutions share information with affiliates as well
as with third parties. With some exceptions, these institutions are prohibited from
disclosing nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties unless they
have given consumers the opportunity to “opt out.”11 They are also prohibited from
disclosing customer account numbers to nonaffiliated third parties for marketing
purposes such as telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through
electronic mail. The law also sets forth how its privacy provisions interact with state
law and the Federal Credit Reporting Act. Regulators must promulgate implementing
regulations.12
Prohibitions on pretext calling under law (obtaining customer information by
false pretenses) are enhanced. A medical and health information privacy provision
that was included in the House version of the legislation was deleted in Conference.13
Federal Home Loan Bank System Modernization
The mission of the government-sponsored Federal Home Loan Banks is
expanded to include support for small business, small farms, and small agribusiness
lending engaged in by “community banks.” Commercial banks with less than $500
million in assets, of which there are about 8,000, qualify as “community banks” under
P.L. 106-102. The Act rationalizes the capital and financing of the Federal Home
Loan Banks as well.14
11 In Title V, the law contains general and specific exceptions which apply here, some
of which reference other federal or state law. The exceptions include certain joint marketing
agreements.
12 See CRS Report CRS Report RS20185, Privacy Protection for Customer Financial
Information, by M. Maureen Murphy.
13 See CRS Issue Brief IB98002, Medical Record Confidentiality, by C. Stephen
Redhead and Gina Marie Stevens, Co-Coordinators.
14 See entry on Federal Home Loan Banks by Barbara Miles in the CRS Electronic
Briefing Book on Banking and Financial Services.

CRS-6
Other Major Provisions
The Act contains other provisions designed to improve financial regulation and
practices. Of particular interest are the Community Reinvestment Act and the unitary
thrift holding company provisions.
Community Reinvestment Act. The Community Reinvestment Act provides
that banks and thrifts must meet the credit needs of their entire communities. P.L.
106-102 affects that Act in several ways:
! at the time an organization applies to establish a financial services holding
company, its bank(s) must have at least a “Satisfactory” CRA rating as of its
most recent CRA examination, and a bank or financial holding company cannot
commence new activities authorized under the Act unless the bank or bank
affiliate of the holding company has at least a “Satisfactory” CRA rating as of
its most recent CRA examination,
! small banks with less than $250 million in assets have the time between routine
CRA examinations extended to 4 or 5 years depending on the rating on their
most recent CRA exam, and
! CRA agreements made between banking organizations and nonbank parties in
connection with CRA have to be made public, and annual reports on uses of
the money and other resources involved in the agreement are required (CRA
“sunshine” provisions).
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act states that nothing in it is to be construed to repeal any
provision of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.15
Banking and Commerce: Unitary Thrift Holding Companies. The extent
to which financial and commercial (for example, manufacturing) firms should be
allowed to affiliate has been debated over the history of the development of the
legislation. Until enactment of P.L. 106-102, there were no restrictions on ownership
of a specific type of savings and loan holding company — the unitary thrift holding
company (UTHC). Through this specialized holding company, a commercial firm
could, in effect, own or affiliate with a single savings association. Under the new
law, there are limits put on the commercial activities and affiliations of new UTHCs.
UTHCs existing as of May 4, 1999, and applicants that had filed for approval by that
date, retain their authority to engage in nonfinancial activities.
Implications and Implementation of the Act
This Act is generally expected to enhance capital formation in the national
economy. Because of the range of provisions in this comprehensive legislation, it will
affect financial services providers ranging from the largest multi-product financial
15 See CRS Report RS20197. Community Reinvestment Act: Regulation and
Legislation, by William Jackson.

CRS-7
organizations to the smallest, community-based institutions; state and federal financial
regulators; community groups; and, especially, the individual consumers of financial
services. Much of the way this Act actually affects financial services will depend on
how the regulators write the regulations and how the marketplace responds to the
new opportunities.
Markets have already adopted many of the changes in financial conduct that this
Act ratifies. In a sense P.L. 106-102 recognizes marketplace realities in a world that
is much changed from that of the 1930s when the Glass-Steagall Act and related
securities measures were enacted, or the 1950s when the Bank Holding Company Act
was first legislated. It also allows for flexibility in providing for future changes in
financial practices and their regulation. Globalization and technological innovation
in finance have been major driving forces. Domestic and foreign banking, insurance,
and securities services continue to become less compartmentalized.16 Such changes,
in turn, have effects on all parts of the financial system.
Users
Accessibility to services, the range of services, their pricing, and possible
influences of consumer privacy are important aspects of the legislation’s potential
effects on users.
The measure clearly stimulates competition in the provision of financial services
of all kinds. The array of products available to any given customers will become
greater, perhaps more convenient to obtain, and perhaps less expensive. Consumers
of financial services will feel its impact in different ways. Larger businesses should
benefit from being able to receive all their financial services from one provider.
Smaller businesses and individuals may benefit from some economies of transactions.
That could result in lower prices on some services for individual consumers. On the
other hand, consumer groups have expressed concern that some changes could result
in higher prices to consumers for checking accounts and small loans, for example.17
A number of provisions are also designed to protect consumer privacy. At the
same time, some have expressed concern that customers may experience problems
with privacy of their financial information.18 Many of the effects of the privacy
provisions will not be known until financial providers adapt their practices to the new
law and its yet to be promulgated implementing regulations. How these federal
privacy mandates will interact with state initiatives is likely to be tested by interested
parties. Other initiatives that could affect actual experience include separate federal
and/or state legislation, the President’s directive to the National Economic Council
to work with other agencies to study information sharing as mandated in P.L. 106-
16 Institutional arrangements continue to differ among countries. A worldwide summary
appears in: Institute of International Bankers. Global Survey 1999.
[http://www.iib.org/global/1999/global99.pdf]
17 Sung, Ellen. Financial Services Industry Banking on Reforms. Policy.com,
November 8, 1999. [http://www.policy.com/news/dbrief/dbriefarc391.asp]
18 Ibid.

CRS-8
102, and the call to bankers by the President of the American Bankers Association “to
make privacy their top priority.”19 Some of these initiatives are an attempt to speed
the process embodied in the legislation that requires promulgation of new privacy
regulations within a year, and requires a study by the Secretary of the Treasury in
conjunction with other regulators before 2002.20
Providers
The first impact of this legislation may well be felt on Wall Street as merger and
acquisition deals take advantage of this legislation. Institutions can also broaden their
financial services by starting new activities themselves or by forming cross-marketing
arrangements with otherwise independent providers of the services. In this way
smaller institutions can benefit with or without their own financial subsidiaries.
This Act is expected to further accelerate the trend already underway to
consolidate like kinds of financial services providers and to enhance the ability to
merge across industry lines.21 Some cross-industry combinations were permissible
before now in the United States, especially insurance and securities affiliation.
However, banking and insurance companies have not been able to merge and
securities companies have not been able to own banks. The Act ends almost all
restrictions limiting the kinds of financial companies that could combine. Individual
combinations still remain subject to antitrust, safety and soundness, and community
reinvestment standards. Otherwise the new law opens the spectrum of possibilities
of combinations to the same extent as in many other countries.
The number of providers nationwide is expected to shrink. However, many
provisions in P.L. 106-102 are designed to continue or even enhance the viability of
smaller, community-type providers. Specific examples include the community bank
designation of borrowers from the Federal Home Loan Banks and the exemption of
small community banks generally from frequent routine Community Reinvestment Act
examinations. Small banks may also pick up some business shed by the bigger banks
as well as some customers who choose smaller providers for individual, customized
services. Even in Europe, small, often specialized providers, coexist with large
financial conglomerates.
Independent insurance agents may find their competitive position weakened by
the legislation. However, a somewhat counterbalancing provision of the Act provides
for functional regulation of insurance sales by state regulators who have traditionally
19 Remarks by the President at Financial Modernization Bill Signing, The White
House, Office of the Press Secretary, November 12, 1999,
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/html/19991112_1.html], and Johnson, Hjalma.
Banking and the Future of Financial Privacy: A Commitment to Our Customers, November
15, 1999. [http://www.aba.com/aba/ABAnews&issues/Privacy_HJSpeech.htm]
20 These provisions are found in the Conference Report: Sections 504 and 510, p. 106
and 112 (effective date); Section 508, p. 109 (study).
21 See CRS Report RL30333. Banking and Finance Acquisitions and Mergers: Policy
Issues, by F. Jean Wells and William Jackson.

CRS-9
understood the nature of the independent agency system. Securities firms that wish
to remain independent will find more competition awaits them because of the ability
of banks and banking organizations to underwrite securities of all kinds. Additionally,
financial holding companies may now engage in merchant banking, heretofore allowed
only for securities firms. On the other hand, securities firms may now buy banks or
have their own form of holding company regulated by the SEC if they do not buy
banks. Independent securities houses will now find their bank competitors’ securities
operations become more functionally regulated by the SEC, removing a perceived
competitive inequality.
Regulators
The breadth of this legislation calls for many new coordinative efforts among
federal and state regulators who are charged with writing the rules to carry out the
Act. Not only studies and reports but interagency joint and separate regulations are
called for in quantity. The duties of many regulators explicitly change with this law
as well. Indeed, a new regulator, the National Association of Registered Agents and
Brokers, is authorized. Many of the Act’s provisions will be expressed through rules,
regulations, and interpretations by the regulators, a number of which may well be
tested in court cases.
The regulators are also the front line in dealing with fallout if anything adverse
should happen to these institutions. For example, if a gigantic financial conglomerate
should experience severe losses or operational difficulties, that would test the
regulatory system in new ways. A particular concern has been that institutions could
grow so large that should they experience adverse conditions, they might be perceived
as “too big to fail” and thus strain government resources to deal with them.
How the Legislation Developed in the 106th Congress
After almost two decades of considering what to do about the Glass-Steagall Act
and allied issues, the 106th Congress moved swiftly on legislation.22 It completed
action on what resulted in P.L. 106-102, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, during the first
session.
In the 106th Congress, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Banking
Committees both initiated early legislative action to build on activity from the 105th
Congress. Within weeks of the new Congress having convened, both Committees had
marked up financial modernization legislation. On March 4, 1999, the Senate
Banking Committee marked up a Committee Print that was then introduced as S. 900,
the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. The following week, the House
Banking Committee approved H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999. That bill
was then sequentially referred to the House Commerce Committee.
22 For a chronology of congressional activity since the mid-1960s to change the Bank
Holding Company Act of 1956 and the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, see Decades of Efforts
to Change the Glass-Steagall Act, CQ Weekly, October 23, 1999, p. 2505.

CRS-10
Between the time that H.R. 10 left the House Banking Committee and the House
Commerce Committee acted, the Senate passed an amended version of S. 900, May
6, 1999, by a vote of 54-44. Following Senate floor action, the House Commerce
Committee marked up H.R. 10 amended, June 10, 1999. Shortly thereafter the House
Rules Committee resolved differences between the two versions of H.R. 10 and sent
it to the House floor where it was approved July 1, 1999, 343-86. H.R. 10 and S.
900 then went to Conference under the bill number S. 900. The Conference Report
of November 2, 1999 (H. Rept. 106-434), was approved two days later, first by the
Senate and shortly thereafter the House. On November 12, 1999, the President
signed the bill into law.23
Congressional documents underlying P.L. 106-102 include the following:
U.S. Congress. House. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Conference Report to accompany
S. 900. H. Rept. 106-434. 188 p.
Printed in the Congressional Record, November 2, 1999, H11255-H11303.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Financial
Modernization. Hearings, 106th Congress, 1st session. February 10, 11, and 12,
1999.
—— Financial Services Act of 1999. Report to accompany H.R. 10 together with
supplemental, additional and dissenting views. H.Rept. 106-74, Part 1. 328 p.
—— Financial Services Act of 1999. Supplementary Report to accompany H.R. 10.
H.Rept. 106-74, Part 2. 21 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Financial Services Act of 1999.
Report together with Additional Views. H. Rept. 106-74, Part 3. 338 p.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Finance and
Hazardous Materials. H.R. 10, The Financial Services Act of 1999. Hearings,
106th Congress, 1st session. April 28 and May 5, 1999.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations. Risky Business in the Op. Sub.: How the OCC Dropped the
Ball. Hearing. 106th Congress, 1st session. June 25, 1999.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Rules. H.R. 10 Committee Print,
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 10, As Reported. Committee
Print dated June 24, 1999.
23 Additional information on how H.R. 10 and S. 900 developed is available on the
Legislative Information System (LIS) [http://www.congress.gov/] and in CRS Report
RS20027, Financial Reform Legislation in the 106th Congress: Early Activity, by F. Jean
Wells; CRS Report RS20223, Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 (S. 900):
Affiliation/Regulation Issues and Vote, by William D. Jackson; and CRS Issue Brief
IB10035, Financial Services Modernization Legislation in the 106th Congress, by F. Jean
Wells.

CRS-11
—— Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 10, Financial Services Act of 1999.
Report to accompany H.R. 10. H. Rept. 106-214. 23 p.
—— Waiving Points of Order Against the Conference Report to Accompany S. 900,
The Financial Services Modernization Act. H. Rept. 106-440. 1 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Financial Services Legislation. Hearings, 106th Congress, 1st session. February
23, 24, and 25, 1999.
—— Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Report to accompany S. 900
together with additional views. S.Rept. 106-44. 79 p.