Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What really happened with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-08 10:33 AM
Original message
What really happened with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
The Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act of 1999 was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) as S. 900 and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) as H.R. 10. S. 900 was passed along party lines 54-44 in the Senate by Roll Call Vote 105 on by May 6, 1999. H.R. 10 passed by a 343-86 bipartisan vote in the House 343-86 on July 1, 1999 by Roll Call Vote 276.

The bill was returned from conference for final votes in both Houses as S. 900. It passed 90-8 in the Senate on November 4, 1999 by Roll Call Vote 354 and passed 362-57 on the same day in the House by Roll Call Vote 570.

The Act had bipartisan support in the House from the beginning, but initially passed in the Senate virtually by a party line vote. What happened between May 6, 1999 and November 4, 1999 to convince Senate Democrats to support the bill? You might suppose that the final vote was just in regard to the changes that the Conference Committee had made and not on the overall substance of the legislation, but that argument doesnt hold water.

The truth is, Senate Democrats supported the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns. This is why the bill was veto proof when it went to Clinton. But dont be too quick to give Clinton a pass on this, since its likely that he would have signed the bill anyway. He and Congressional Democrats seemed interested in only these two issues, and were apparently unconcerned about repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

Republicans Propose a Deal on Financial Services - New York Times - October 13, 1999

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 notwithstanding, Phil Gramm deserves blame because it is primarily he who introduced and sponsored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. But nearly all members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, were complicit when the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 met its demise. The same is true of Bill Clinton and his administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
screembloodymurder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-08 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Everybody is guilty. They're all crooks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Well, Republicans more so but Democrats went along with Gramm on this.
Edited on Mon Sep-22-08 11:21 AM by Lasher
There's some confusion about just how this went down, so I thought I would share conclusions of some research.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 is a different story. It blessed us with the Enron Loophole, but even more importantly it deregulated credit default swaps. This legislation had been considered dead that year, but Phil Gramm slipped it into an omnibus spending bill in December 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC