Why did 44 vote no originally and then 8 in final vote of '99 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act debacle!

[1776Forever]

I just found out this is the full list of those who voted against the bill - On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended) conference report, which took place 6 months after the bill had already passed in the senate, there were the 8 who had voted against it, and just over a week before it was signed into law. The bill was not passed 90-8; it was passed 54-44, almost strictly down party lines (The lone Democrat to vote for the bill was Ernest Hollings of South Carolina).

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act - Sen Phil Gramm,

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended )
Vote Number: 105 Vote Date: May 6, 1999, 08:14 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 900
Measure Title: An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.

- NAYs ---44
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cleland (D-GA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

................

The final 8 were NAYs ---8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)


Some are saying these people caved in and the final vote was 90-8 - Read this and make up your mind:
Two items of note.

1. This is the page that Taranto linked to in that first bold quote (90-8) as evidence of who did and did not vote for passage of the bill.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354

2. Using the roll call from that linked page, he says "John McCain was absent"

Problem is, that page is not a transcript of the roll call vote for the bill. This is:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

It took place on May 6, 1999. The page that Taranto linked to was a vote on the conference report, which took place 6 months after the bill had already passed in the senate, and just over a week before it was signed into law. The bill was not passed 90-8; it was passed 54-44, almost strictly down party lines (The lone Democrat to vote for the bill was Ernest Hollings of South Carolina).

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.invest.stocks/2008-09/msg01745.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. I like Boxer more and more all the time. Grats to all of them.

[CBR]

2. Interesting.... Shelby (R-AL)... nt

[1776Forever]

8. Check my post out again - I had to change it - I found out more on it after I looked up Shelby.

That is one good thing about DU you always get to dig into things that you hear and prove them one way or the other! The final vote was 54-44! Thanks!

[redqueen]

11. No, the final vote was 90-8.

The 55-44 vote was before the bill was sent back for changes.

[1776Forever]

16. Read this and let me know what you think:

From this site:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.invest.stocks/2008-09/msg01745.html

Two items of note.

1. This is the page that Taranto linked to in that first bold quote (90-8) as evidence of who did and did not vote for passage of the bill.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354

2. Using the roll call from that linked page, he says "John McCain was absent"

Problem is, that page is not a transcript of the roll call vote for the bill. This is:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

It took place on May 6, 1999. The page that Taranto linked to was a vote on the conference report, which took place 6 months after the bill had already passed in the senate, and just over a week before it
was signed into law. The bill was not passed 90-8; it was passed 54-44, almost strictly down party lines (The lone Democrat to vote for the bill was Ernest Hollings of South Carolina).

...........

This is very confusing.

[redqueen]

19. The vote in May was before reconciliation.

After the bill went in for changes, a lot of Dems hopped on board.... the final vote was in November.

[Eric J in MN]

20. People who voted Yes either time deserve blame,

...whether they voted for the early version of the bill or the final version of the bill or both.

[karynnj]

35. this was a nice proof that Mccain was NOT against the bill

written after a WSJ article attempted to blame the Democrats for the bill. Given the time written it is very partisan. It does prove Mccain was for it.

[pnorman]

30. Thanks for the clarification!

I was really perplexed on that point, having just recently viewed that video of Rachel Maddow interviewing Senator Dorgan.

pnorman
On edit: I've been unable to locate the complete list of those 8 NAY-voting Senators. Can anyone here help?

[1776Forever]

44. It is in my posting - list follows:

The final 8 were NAYs ---8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

[Captain Hilts]

3. What on earth was Leach doing in a lineup with batshit crazy guys like Gramm and Bliley???

Leach also was an Obama supporter.

[1776Forever]

5. Wish Rachel M would have him on her show. I would like to hear him out too!

:shrug:

[rurallib]

27. Leach was my rep . He tried to explain this away in a radio interview

a few months ago. Unfortunately I was in a car at the time and couldn't give full attention.
I believe it is the second listed interview from September 30th. I don't know how to play it.
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuni/news.newsmain

IIRC (and this is not gospel)Leach defended his support of the bill because the practices allowed by the bill had been in practice for a long time. So this bill only made legal what was already in practice. I believe he also claimed that the walls of separation between various financial institutions were of little consequence.

Jim Leach was a very Republican republican who cultivated a moderate image in the media. He was always there for his party when needed. But since he represented on of the more liberal districts in the country, he was allowed by his party to vote 'liberal' when his vote wasn't needed. He was the first congressman called a 'catch-and-release' republican. He often vote to bring a bill up for a vote then vote against it and then claim his first vote as his 'I voted for that bill' vote.
I have a very interesting story of how he came after me at a town hall when I challenged his claims on minimum wage voting. He would vote to bring the bills to the floor then vote against them etc. I really thought he was going to hit me.

[Captain Hilts]

28. Interesting!! Thanks for this information!

Isn't he in the wrestling Hall of Fame with Wellstone?

[rurallib]

32. I don't know if he is in the hall of fame. He was a wrestler and I believe

a state champion from Davenport. Wrestling is one sport I don't follow. Maybe if it was co-ed?
I saw his temper face to face one day. In another incident a good friend of mine did, also. She was actually scared badly by Leach. He is one who does not brook anyone challenging what he says.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Getting rid of laws intended to prevent another Great Depression...

...also seemed like a bad idea to me at the time.

[1776Forever]

6. I guess those who voted yea were not thinking in their right minds!

I agree totally, what was their reasoning? :shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

9. The main argument made for repealing Glass-Steagall was that it would be convenient for consumers...

...to open a savings account, an investment account, and an insurance account all during one visit to a bank.

But I doubt that Senators really thought that was a good reason.

The reason it passed probably has to do with our campaign finance system. Party committees (DSCC, DNC, RNC, etc.) can receive big bucks, currently $28,500 per donor.

Rich executives can donate $28,500. Ordinary people can't.

If that maximum were lowered, then our government would be less corrupt.

[1776Forever]

10. Take a look at the post - I just changed it after researching more on it.

It was passed 54-44 - Right down party lines.

[Eric J in MN]

15. But most of the Senators who voted No in May 1999 caved by November 1999...

...to the rich executives who wanted mergers-and-acquisitions for savings banks, investment banks, and insurance companies.

[onenote]

48. or maybe they supported the bill in November because of changes made in conference

[Adelante]

7. Gladly

:patriot:

[indepat]

12. 'pukes voting in lock-step with a DINO signing into law?

:shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

13. Senators who voted No in May and Yes in November....

...don't have my gratitude.

================================================================
May 6, 1999: This bill passed in the Senate by roll call vote. The totals were 54 Ayes, 44 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting.

Jul 20, 1999: This bill passed in the House of Representatives without objection. A record of each representative's position was not kept.
Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 90 Ayes, 8 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting.


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900
================================================================

[BeFree]

21. Fair point

But the real point is that the first victory in the battle was all republicans for, nearly all Democrats against removing proper, conservative regulations.

That's the real story. Democrats voting for a conservative financial system.
Republicans voting for a new radical system, which is what we now have.

How did the House vote the first time? Did that vote follow party lines too?

[Eric J in MN]

25. The November House vote was 362 Ayes, 57 Nays, 15 Present/Not Voting.

Bill history:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106-900

November 1999 House vote:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-570

[onenote]

49. the reason there is no record of the House vote in July is that it was approved

by unanimous consent. It was known at the time that the bill they were passing was different than the Senate bill and that the Senate would not agree to the House version in toto. So the House basically decided to move the process along so the bill could get to a conference committee that would work out a compromise bill that both chambers could accept. Which is what happened.

[Supersedeas]

14. If only some news anchor or investigative journalist would take this to the networks

And disseminate the damned truth.

[Eric J in MN]

18. Rachel Maddow did an interview with Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND),

...in which she emphasized his opposition Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_hbezbsJ8s

[terisan]

17. Your post is quite misleading all but 8 Democrats voted YEA for the final bill which became law.

Not only did all but 8 Dems in the senate vote for it, some including Schumer gave detailed paraise on what it would accomplish.

[1776Forever]

22. Take a look at this link. I just changed the post:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.invest.stocks/2008-09/msg01745.html

Half way down the page there is an explanation of the vote - confusing!

[terisan]

23. Thanks for changing and you are right it is confusing. nt

[Better Believe It]

36. It's not confusing at all. Some are just trying to muddy up the waters. It was passed 90-8.

The votes on earlier drafts of the legislation that DID NOT become law are totally irrelevant.

The bill that passed the Senate 90-8 is the only one that matters and is the only legislation that actually became the law of the land!

Bills that come out of House/Senate conference become law if they are passed. Bills that are sent to a joint conference for amendment never become law.

Now what exactly is so confusing?

It seems that some are just trying to muddy up the waters to make it appear the legislation was a partisan Republican bill that had little or no support from Democrat Senators.

Is that what's going on here?

[DirtyJersey]

24. All but 7 Dems

One of the nay votes was Shelby, a Republican.

[terisan]

29. Thanks for your correction. nt

[slipslidingaway]

26. Cspan archives for May and November 1999

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=289053&mesg_id=289452

Who said what...just click a name in the middle section or on the right.

[TayTay]

31. The May vote was contested by a lot of Dems because of the CRA

provisions. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act">Community Reinvestment Act was adopted into law in 1977 and was a way of making banks lend to lower-income people in the areas in which they were chartered to serve. The CRA also was a prime force in outlawing "redlining," which is the practice of not lending to people who live within geographically designated areas. Redlining was a long standing way of denying credit to people of color.

The May debate featured many Senators trying to stand up for keeping the CRA alive and functioning. The Republican debate centered around loosening the restrictions on banks under the CRA. (One Senator even called the effort to make banks responsible under community lending laws, "slavery." )

The compromise legislation that passed in November did include language that protected the CRA laws and kept them fairly undiluted and on the books. BTW, loans made under the CRA provisions did significantly better than the subprime loans handed out without the restrictions of this act. See this account http://traigerlaw.com/publications/The_community_reinvestment_act_of_1977-not_guilty_1-26-09.pdf">report of CRA loans for more details.

Democratic Senators were able to preserve a key program that helped low-income and minority citizens. That was part of the compromise bill that passed in November of 1999. That is also why there is such a difference in the vote totals.

[Lasher]

33. Well stated and exactly right.

:thumbsup:

[Better Believe It]

37. But here's what really happened .... the bottom line.

Blame The Subprime Meltdown On The
Repeal Of Glass-Steagall
The Consumerist
April 17, 2008

A lot of blame has sloshed around for the sub-prime meltdown, from greedy borrowers to greedy mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan, but if you want the real culprit, it was the repeal of the Glass-Stegall Act. On November 12, 1999, the champagne must have been shooting from the walls at Citigroup, which had worked behind the scenes for over 30 years to get the act overturned. After recovering from their hangover, they and their banking buddies went on a sub-prime lending orgy. But what was Glass-Steagall and how did it use to protect us?

Glass-Steagall was passed under the Roosevelt administration in 1933 in direct response to the Wall Street shenanigans that ushered in the Great Depression where banks shoved their own depositors into buying the stocks the banks were dealing. The basic idea was to keep banks from speculating with the savings that American citizens were entrusting within their vaults.

Now, on the one side they could sell mortgages to homeowners, and then invent fancy investment structures which they sold on Wall Street. Because they were "covered" on both ends, banks felt free to sell increasingly dicey mortgages, just so long as another sucker was picking up the garbage. This sucker was picking it up because he had a plan to repackage it and sell it to another sucker, and so on. Eventually we end up with no-doc stated income interest-only option-ARM no money down mortgages being repackaged as "sound investments" being sold as "stable assets" for city pension plans to park their money in. (See "Subprime Meltdown As Told By Stick Figures").

We can only imagine the level of machination exerted over those 30 years, but we do know this. Robert Rubin was Secretary of Treasury, which had oversight over Glass-Steagall regulation. Days before he resigned, Glass-Steagall was repealed. Just over a year later, he became chairman of the Citi executive committee, with an annual compensation of $40 million, a position he still holds, despite Citigroup's $24 billion in subprime-related losses.

Please read the entire article at:

http://consumerist.com/381032/blame-the-subprime-meltdo ...

--------------------------------------

Repeal of the Act

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s.

The repeal enabled commercial lenders such as Citigroup, the largest U.S. bank by assets, to underwrite and trade instruments such as mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations and establish so-called structured investment vehicles, or SIVs, that bought those securities. Citigroup played a major part in the repeal. Then called Citicorp, the company merged with Travelers Insurance company the year before using loopholes in Glass-Steagall that allowed for temporary exemptions. With lobbying led by Roger Levy, the "finance, insurance and real estate industries together are regularly the largest campaign contributors and biggest spenders on lobbying of all business sectors . They laid out more than $200 million for lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics..." These industries succeeded in their two decades long effort to repeal the act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

------------------------------------------------------

Here's how the Senators voted on the final bill that President Clinton signed into law.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Conference Report (S.900 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 354 Vote Date: November 4, 1999, 03:30 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: S. 900
Measure Title: An Act to enhance competition in the financial services industry by providing a prudential framework for the affiliation of banks, securities firms, and other financial service providers, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 90
NAYs 8
Present 1
Not Voting 1

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---90
Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, L. (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Robb (D-VA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Present - 1
Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Not Voting - 1
McCain (R-AZ)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r ...

---------------------------------------
Statements in support of bill that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: CHRISTI HARLAN
Friday, November 12, 1999 202-224-0894

GRAMM'S STATEMENT AT SIGNING CEREMONY
FOR GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT



Sen. Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, made the following statement today in a ceremony at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where President Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law:

"The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it.

"Abraham Lincoln used to like to use the analogy that old and outmoded laws need to be changed because it made about as much sense to continue to impose them on people as it did to ask a man to wear the same clothes he did when he was a child.

"In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets.

"We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.

"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."

-30-

-----------------------------------------

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release November 12, 1999
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT FINANCIAL MODERNIZATION BILL SIGNING

Presidential Hall

1:37 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you and good afternoon. I thank you all for coming to the formal ratification of a truly historic event -- Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes have actually agreed on an important issue. (Laughter.) Stay right there, John. (Laughter.) I asked Phil on the way out how bad it's going to hurt him in Texas to be walking out the door with me. (Laughter.) We decided it was all right today.

Like all those before me, I want to express my gratitude to those principally responsible for the success of this legislation. I thank Secretary Summers and the entire team at Treasury, but especially Under Secretary Gensler, for their work, and Assistant Secretary Linda Robertson. I thank you, Chairman Greenspan, for your constant advocacy of the modernization of our financial system. I thank you, Chairman Levitt, for your continuing concern for investor protections. And I thank the other regulators who are here.

I thank Senator Gramm and Senator Sarbanes, Chairman Leach and Congressman LaFalce, and all the members of Congress who are here. Senator Dodd told me the Sisyphus story, too, over and over again, but I've rolled so many rocks up so many hills, I had a hard time fully appreciating the significance of it. (Laughter.)

I do want to thank all the members here and all those who aren't here. And I'd like to thank two New Yorkers who aren't here who have been mentioned -- former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, who worked very hard on this; and former Chairman, Senator Al D'Amato, who talked to me about this often. So this is a day we can celebrate as an American day.

To try to give some meaning to the comments that the previous speakers have made about how we're making a fundamental and historic change in the way we operate our financial institutions, I think it might be worth pointing out that this morning we got some new evidence on the role of new technologies in our economy, which showed that over the past four years, productivity has increased by a truly remarkable 2.6 percent -- that's about twice the rate of productivity growth the United States experienced in the 1970s and the 1980s. In the last quarter alone, productivity grew at 4.2 percent.

This is not just some aloof statistic that matters only to the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and Wall Street economists. It is the key to rising paychecks and greater security and opportunity for ordinary Americans. And the combination of rising productivity, more open borders and trade, working to keep down inflation, the dramatic reduction of the deficit and the accumulation of the surplus, and the continued commitment to the investment in the American people, research and development, and new productivity-inducing technologies has given us the most sustained real wage growth in more than two decades, with the lowest inflation in more than three decades.

I can tell you that back in December of 1992, when we were sitting around the table at the Governor's Mansion, trying to decide what had to be in this economic program, the economists that I had there, who are normally thought to be -- you know, you say, well, they're Democrats, they'll be more optimistic -- none of them believed that we could grow the economy for this long with an unemployment rate this low and an inflation rate this low. And it's a real tribute to the American people.

So what you see here, I think, is the most important recent example of our efforts here in Washington to maximize the possibilities of the new information age global economy, while preserving our responsibilities to protect ordinary citizens and to build one nation here. And there will always be competing interests. You heard Senator Gramm characterize this bill as a victory for freedom and free markets. And Congressman LaFalce characterized this bill as a victory for consumer protection. And both of them are right. And I have always believed that one required the other.

It is true that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate to the economy in which we lived. It worked pretty well for the industrial economy, which was highly organized, much more centralized and much more nationalized than the one in which we operate today. But the world is very different.

Now we have to figure out, well, what are still the individual and family and business equities that are still involved that need some protections. And the long, and often tortured story of this law can be seen as a very stunning specific example of the general challenge that will face lawmakers of both parties, that will face liberals and conservatives, that will face all Americans as we try to make sure that the 21st century economy really works for our country and works for the people who live in it.

So I think you should all be exceedingly proud of yourselves, including being proud of your differences and how you tried to reconcile them. Over the past seven years, we've tried to modernize the economy; and today what we're doing is modernizing the financial services industry, tearing down these antiquated walls and granting banks significant new authority.

This will, first of all, save consumers billions of dollars a year through enhanced competition. It will also protect the rights of consumers. It will guarantee that our financial system will continue to meet the needs of underserved communities -- something that the Vice President and I tried to do through the empowerment zones, the enterprise communities, the community development financial institutions, but something which has been largely done through the private sector and honoring the Community Reinvestment Act.

The legislation I signed today establishes the principles that as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of that act. In order to take advantage of the new opportunities created by the law, we must first show a satisfactory record of meeting the needs of all the communities the financial institution serves.

I want to thank Senator Sarbanes and Congressman LaFalce for their leadership on the CRA issue. I want to applaud literally hundreds of dedicated community groups all around our country that work so hard to make sure the CRA brings more hope and capital to hard-pressed areas.

The bill I signed today also does, as Congressman Leach says, take significant steps to protect the privacy of our financial transactions. It will give consumers, for the very first time, the right to know if their financial institution intends to share their financial data, and the right to stop private information from being shared with outside institutions.

Like the new medical privacy protections I announced two weeks ago, these financial privacy protections have teeth. We granted regulators full enforcement authority and created new penalties to punish abusive practices. But as others have said here, I do not believe that the privacy protections go far enough. I am pleased the act actually instructs the Treasury to study privacy practices in the financial services industry, and to recommend further legislative steps. Today, I'm directing the National Economic Council to work with Treasury and OMB to complete that study and give us a legislative proposal which the Congress can consider next year.

Without restraining the economic potential of new business arrangements, I want to make sure every family has meaningful choices about how their personal information will be shared within corporate conglomerates. We can't allow new opportunities to erode old and fundamental rights.

Despite this concern, I want to say again, this legislation is truly historic. And it indicates what can happen when Republicans and Democrats work together in a spirit of genuine cooperation -- when we understand we may not be able to agree on everything, but we can reconcile our differences once we know what the larger issue is -- how to maximize the opportunities of the American people in a global information age, and still preserve our sense of community and protection for individual rights.

In that same spirit, I hope we will soon complete work on the budget. I hope we will complete work on the Work Incentives Improvement Act, to allow disabled people to go to work -- and I know Senator Gramm has been working with Senator Roth and Senator Jeffords and Senator Moynihan and Senator Kennedy on that.

There are a lot of things we can do once we recognize we're dealing with a big issue over which we ought to have some disagreements, but where we can come together in constructive and honorable compromise to keep pushing our country into the possibilities of the future.

This is a very good day for the United States. Again, I thank all of you for making sure that we have done right by the American people and that we have increased the chances of making the next century an American century. I hope we can continue to focus on the economy and the big questions we will have to deal with revolving around that. I hope we will continue to pay down our debt. I still believe in a global economy. We will maximize the opportunities created by this law if the government is reducing its debt and its claim on available capital. So I hope very much that that will be part of our strategy in the future.

But today we prove that we could deal with the large issue facing our country and every other advanced economy in the world. If we keep dealing with it in other contexts, the future of our children will be very bright, indeed.

Thank you very much. I'd like to ask all the members of Congress to come up here while we sign the bill. Thank you. (Applause.)

President Clinton Signs Repeal





And these 8 United State Senators understood what exactly the repeal meant and they could not be bought off by Wall Street. They are to be commended for their bold stand against the crooks on Wall Street.

NAYs ---8
Boxer (D-CA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Wellstone (D-MN)

Present - 1
Fitzgerald (R-IL)

And what stand did the "maverick" John McCain take on this legislation? He didn't vote! Sure .... he's a real tough pro-regulation kinda guy.

[Lasher]

38. We lost our way.

We fell for the snake oil sales pitch of Reaganomics and forgot about our New Deal foundation. And still we are stupid. We refuse to learn or even remember what we once knew. Although now in control of the Executive and Legislative branches we continue to compromise with the wealthy elite and their shills, hoping we might be seen by our enemies as reasonable. Shame on us.

[Better Believe It]

39. Don't say "we"! I had nothing to do with it and I'm sure you didn't so write "they".

[Lasher]

40. Same thing.

We need to find a way to get our party away from the 'centrists' who are actually rightwing lite, particlularly considering how far this country has been dragged to the right over the last 3 decades. We need to draw a few lines in the sand.

Lasher

[1776Forever]

42. WOW - just WOW Here are a few jewels from your post:

Sen. Gramm statement:

"The world changes, and Congress and the laws have to change with it. Abraham Lincoln used to like to use the analogy that old and outmoded laws need to be changed because it made about as much sense to continue to impose them on people as it did to ask a man to wear the same clothes he did when he was a child. In the 1930s, at the trough of the Depression, when Glass-Steagall became law, it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets. We are here today to repeal Glass-Steagall because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom. I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."

..

AND President Clinton referencing Summers and Greenspan involvement and how this was a great day for the country:

"Like all those before me, I want to express my gratitude to those principally responsible for the success of this legislation. I thank Secretary Summers and the entire team at Treasury, but especially Under Secretary Gensler, for their work, and Assistant Secretary Linda Robertson. I thank you, Chairman Greenspan, for your constant advocacy of the modernization of our financial system. I thank you, Chairman Levitt, for your continuing concern for investor protections. And I thank the other regulators who are here.".....

"This is a very good day for the United States. Again, I thank all of you for making sure that we have done right by the American people and that we have increased the chances of making the next century an American century. I hope we can continue to focus on the economy and the big questions we will have to deal with revolving around that. I hope we will continue to pay down our debt. I still believe in a global economy. We will maximize the opportunities created by this law if the government is reducing its debt and its claim on available capital. So I hope very much that that will be part of our strategy in the future.

But today we prove that we could deal with the large issue facing our country and every other advanced economy in the world. If we keep dealing with it in other contexts, the future of our children will be very bright, indeed."

.....

Absoluetly frikin' amazing! Great post! Thank you much!




:wow:

[karynnj]

34. self delete

[depakid]

41. Bottom line-on issues like this there wasn't A DIME'S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE between the parties

Throughout the 1990's. Democrats abandoned their tradition constituencies (and traditional values). Instead of promoting consumer protection laws- they joined Republicans to insulate corporation from responsible regulation and accountability.

That's why the Greens were the fastest growing political party at the time- and why Nader had asignificant support in 2000.

[onenote]

43. the bill that passed the senate 54-44 was not the version that became law

The Senate passed the bill in May by a 54-44 vote. The House took up the bill in July and substituted a new version as an amendment for the Senate bill and passed it by unanimous consent, understanding that the final version of the bill would have to be worked out in conference. The bill was returned to the senate as amended, and the senate, as expected, refused to accept the House amendments, thus setting up the need for the conference committee. The conferees met in September and October and eventually agreed to a conference compromise version. That conference report was taken up by the Senate on November 4 and passed by a vote of 90-8. Later that same day, the House voted 362-57 for the conference report. I don't have any details on what the differences were between the bill originally passed by the Senate and the bill passed by the House or how the conference report, which is the version actually enacted into law, differed from either. But chances are that there were significant differences between the version that the senate passed 54-44 and the version that passed 90-8.

THus, to the extent the OP is suggesting that the bill was passed by a vote of 54-44 that is wrong. An earlier version of the bill passed by that vote, not the version that became law.

[1776Forever]

45. This link discusses a "conference report" says the bill was passed 54-44 & then

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Misc/misc.invest.stocks/2008-09/msg01745.html

The poster says that is not a transcript of the roll call vote for
the bill.

This is:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

It says Bill Passed:

Question: On Passage of the Bill (S.900 as amended )
Vote Number: 105 Vote Date: May 6, 1999, 08:14 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed

.....

Can you explain this because I cannot.

[onenote]

46. as I explained, the 54-44 vote was on a version of the bill that was subsequently amended

by the House and then further revised in conference. The 54-44 vote is not on the version of the bill that became law.

How a bill becomes a law:

The House and Senate must each pass the same bill. Where one body passes a bill and then the other house amends it, resolving the conflicts is left to a conference committee. If the conferees agree on a version and both bodies pass the conference version, it -- not either of the versions passed earlier -- becomes law.

[onenote]

47. delete dupe