|
Following the financial crisis of 2007-08, legislators unsuccessfully tried to reinstate Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32 as part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Currently, bills are pending in United States Congress that would revise banking law regulation based on Glass–Steagall inspired principles. Both in the United States and elsewhere banking reforms have been proposed that also refer to Glass–Steagall principles. These proposals raise issues that were addressed during the long Glass–Steagall debate in the United States, including issues of “ring fending” commercial banking operations and “narrow banking” proposals that would sharply reduce the permitted activities of commercial banks. Please see the main article, Glass–Steagall in post-financial crisis reform debate, for information about the following topics: * Failed 2009-10 efforts to restore Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32 as part of Dodd–Frank * Post-2010 efforts to enact Glass–Steagall inspired financial reform legislation * Volcker Rule ban on proprietary trading as Glass–Steagall lite * Further financial reform proposals that refer to Glass–Steagall * *UK and EU “ring fencing” proposals * * *Similar issues debated in connection with Glass–Steagall and “firewalls” * *Limited purpose banking and narrow banking * * *Wholesale financial institutions in Glass–Steagall reform debate * *Glass–Steagall references in reform proposal debate This article is about efforts in the United States to reinstate repealed sections of the Glass–Steagall Act following the financial crisis of 2007-08 and the adoption or proposal of other financial reforms in the United States and elsewhere that reference Glass–Steagall or have been connected with Glass–Steagall. For broader coverage of Glass–Steagall, including its history, regulatory and industry reactions, and its partial repeal, see the main article, Glass–Steagall Act. ==Failed 2009-10 efforts to restore Sections 20 and 32 as part of Dodd–Frank== During the 2009 United States House of Representatives consideration of H.R. 4173, the bill that became the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) proposed an amendment to the bill that would have reenacted Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32, which had been repealed by the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), and also prohibited bank insurance activities. The amendment was not voted on by the House. On December 16, 2009, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced in the United States Senate the “Banking Integrity Act of 2009” (S.2886), which would have reinstated Glass–Steagall Sections 20 and 32, but was not voted on by the Senate.〔〔.〕 Before the Senate acted on its version of what became the Dodd–Frank Act, the Congressional Research Service issued a report describing securities activities banks and their affiliates had conducted before the GLBA. The Report stated Glass–Steagall had “imperfectly separated, to a certain degree” commercial and investment banking and described the extensive securities activities the Federal Reserve Board had authorized for “Section 20 affiliates” since the 1980s.〔.〕 The Obama Administration has been criticized for opposing Glass–Steagall reenactment.〔〔.〕 In 2009, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testified to the Joint Economic Committee that he opposed reenacting Glass–Steagall and that he did not believe “the end of Glass–Steagall played a significant role” in causing the financial crisis.〔. .〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Glass–Steagall in post-financial crisis reform debate」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|