Seriously. The Truth on Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

[PBS Poll-435]

Congressional history of the Act


The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA).

The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. Nov 4, 1999

After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill only after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.

The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15.

Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act




How quickly some people forget political reality.

[QC]

1. Political reality???

Are we allowed to talk about that in this forum? Are you sure it's not against the rules?

[PBS Poll-435]

5. I don't know about all of that, but I did have pizza for dinner.

At Campisi's.





It was delicious.

[Skip Intro]

2. K&R - thanks for dispelling the bullshit.

[PBS Poll-435]

7. I do what I can.

Monday must be "Clinton Hate Day"

Or something...

[BrklynLiberal]

3. What a disgusting display of spinelessness that was on the part of the Dems...all around.

[PBS Poll-435]

20. It was a booming market and the Dems didn't want to be the gatekeepers

[Eric J in MN]

4. Russ Feingold and Paul Wellstone voted NO.

No to the first Senate version.

No to the final version.

They were right.

Investment banks, savings banks, and insurance companies should be separate.

[PBS Poll-435]

6. I agree with them

Doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Democrats in the House and Senate voted FOR the Conference Committee bill.

[ProSense]

8. That is not the truth about Glass-Steagall

Sarbanes, Dodd, Kerry, Bryan, Boxer, Moseley-Braun, Johnson, and Reed. Filed additional views expressing concern that the bill does not adequately address the protection of a customer's personal financial information, and eliminated the life-line banking provision included in the House.

link

Stop trying to give the Republicans a pass on this.

[PBS Poll-435]

9. And the bill ended up in Conference.

The link you posted has no relevance to the bill that was ultimately passed and signed by the President.

[ProSense]

10. And the republicans attached Gramm's amendment to it

In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call “a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,” the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm.

link

No matter how you try to cover for Bill, this was his (he's proud) and the Republicans doing.

[PBS Poll-435]

11. Ummm

December 15, 2000

reauthorization bill



Ummm?

Huh?

...Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Paging Dr. Brown...

[ProSense]

12. If you read the entire history of Gramm's bill

that's what the repeal opened the way to, and that's the reason Gramm is being blamed for the crisis.

Bill is proud of opening the door to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Completely tone deaf.

[PBS Poll-435]

13. But the link that you posted twice talks about the 2000 re-auth.

Why would you post that?

:shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

19. Honestly, why would you post such obviously misleading content?

Why?

Oh.

Why?

[ProSense]

23. It's not misleading.

In fact, the damage escalated when the CRA provisions were weakened.

[PBS Poll-435]

25. You are right. It isn't misleading. It is a damned lie.

Thank you for pointing this out.

[ProSense]

27. Sorry, you look desperate. Conference Report doesn't excuse bill being passed.

No bill, no problem. Republican, including McCain pushed and passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Nothing you spin changes that.

[PBS Poll-435]

30. .....

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

It is a good night for truth.

[PBS Poll-435]

14. Kick for those being lied to

[DiamondKrosse]

15. I cannot thank you enough

for shedding light on the fact that Clinton was not "triangulating" but doing what was politically necessary. This was not a fight he was going to win either way. Also, thanks for helping to show Clinton the honour he deserves.

[PBS Poll-435]

18. Well...

I thank you.

You helped disprove a nasty lie being perpetrated here at DU.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. I don't doubt that Clinton didn't have a choice with veto-proof margins, but...

Could the White House have whipped the votes to sustain a veto? Did they attempt to? I'm not accusing Clinton of doing anything wrong here because I admit that I don't know the circumstances. But I'm wondering if you have more details than those in the OP.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. 90 - 8 -1 - (1)

It just wasn't going to happen in the Wall Street utopia that was 1999.

[ProSense]

21. You are still misrepresenting what a conference report does

The bill was passed by Republicans 55-44. No bill, no problem. The Conference Report does not change amendments passed. Stripping an amendment from the bill would have been impossible. The Republicans had a majority. The most Dems could do is negotiate protections, which they tried to do with the CRA provisions. The Conference Report passes anyway with a Republican majority.

The fact that Bill Clinton supported this bill wholeheartedly is a problem.

[PBS Poll-435]

24. "still" and "misrepresenting" What the F**K?

This is the first time that you have admitted your folly.

Why did you say McCain voted for THIS bill? He didn't.



The bill, in its ultimate form, was passed 90-8-1-1 in the Senate.

That, is called "veto-proof."

Why do you continue to lie about this?

[ProSense]

26. John McCain voted for the bill Glass-Steagall repeal.

What are you seriously trying to claim he didn't? The conference report is a process of reconciling the House and Senate bills and negotiating language.

He voted for the bill that became law.

You need to stop trying to give Bill Clinton cover because it's leading you to apologize for McCain. It's pathetic.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. Actually, he DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE BILL THAT BECAME LAW

The bill that became law was the product of the Conference Committee. You know, the committee that is dedicated in reconciling differences in House/Senate bills? McCain was not present for a vote on that bill.

Ummm.... DUH?

WTF?

You either are lying or just that damned stupid.

[ProSense]

31. The Conference Report is not the bill.

is the reconciliation of the reauthorization bill. The entire package. You don't know what you're talking about.

[PBS Poll-435]

33. .....

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Right...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[ProSense]

38. Nervous laughter?

The conference report

Most times, the conference committee produces a conference report melding the work of the House and Senate. A conference report proposes legislative language as an amendment to the bill committed to conference. And the conference report also includes a joint explanatory statement of the conference committee. This explanatory statement provides one of the best sources of legislative history on the bill. (See, e.g., Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 17-18 (1978) (Rehnquist, dissenting).)

Once a bill has been passed by a conference committee, it goes directly to the floor of both houses for a vote, and is not open to further amendment. In the first House to consider the conference, a Member may move to recommit the bill to the conference committee. But once the first House has passed the conference report, the conference committee is dissolved, and the second House to act can no longer recommit the bill to conference.

Conference reports are privileged. And in the Senate, a motion to proceed to a conference report is not debatable, although Senators can generally filibuster the conference report itself. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 limits debate on conference reports on budget reconciliation bills to 10 hours in the Senate, so Senators cannot filibuster those conference reports.

link

Or desperation?

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Senate Democrats could've filibustered the conference report according to those rules

This wasn't a "budget reconciliation bill" and so if the 44 Senators who had voted against the initial bill actually wanted to stop it from passing they could've filibustered the initial bill or filibustered the conference report.

[ProSense]

44. They could have filibustered Alito too.

The fact is that they did not vote for the bill. It passed. Who knows if they had the 40 votes to filibuster. The fact is Republicans pushed and passed the bill.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. Well according to you they had 44 votes against the bill

If those 44 had been serious about stopping it then why not filibuster? It seems to me that since most of those 44 changed their vote for the bill after it came out of Conference Committee that they weren't serious about stopping the bill and simply voted against it the first time in order to establish a bargaining position from which to negotiate with the Republicans.

[PBS Poll-435]

41. LOLOLOLOLOL

Once a bill has been passed by a conference committee, it goes directly to the floor of both houses for a vote, and is not open to further amendment...

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1998/99-finserv.htm

Edited on Mon Sep-22-08 10:56 PM by ProSense
Do you know what this is:


In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call “a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,” the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm.

link


Time for all the apologists to stop acting like other people are stupid.

Bill is proud of signing the bill that created this crisis. That's ludicrous.

[PBS Poll-435]

34. And again...you have no FUCKING clue

Do you know what "sunset" provisions are?

Do you even know what a conference report is?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[ProSense]

39. Your argument reminds me of Hillary's I voted for it, but I didn't want it to pass.

Voting yes on a bill indicated you want it to pass.

[PBS Poll-435]

42. And...As we learned tonight....90 Senators wanted the bill that became law to pass

Including the vast majority of Democrats.

Um, DUh.

[ProSense]

45. No, 90 Senators voted on the negotiated bill with the CRA provisions.

You want the Conference Report to be the original bill upon which the Report is based, but it isn't.

Republicans own the bill, and Bill enthusiastically supported it.

It all comes down to this: He is still proud he signed the bill knowing that it is responsible for this crisis. Tone deaf.

[PBS Poll-435]

49. Nah....The overwhelming majority of the Senate, including most Democrats and Republicans said "Yea"

And then?

[PBS Poll-435]

35. And for more LOLZ..... Why would you reauthorize a bill that hasn't been made law?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


:wtf:

[ProSense]

43. The repeal with all the amendments.

You know what I'm talking about. A Conference Report is reconciling all the bill and all the amendments. It isn't created out of thin air. The bill passed the Senate with Republican support only. The Conference Report reconciled the bill and it's 15 amendments with the House bill.

No bill, no Conference Report, no problem.

[PBS Poll-435]

46. You have no clue.

Sorry.

:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

28. If 44 Senate Democrats really opposed it, they could've filibustered

[PBS Poll-435]

32. That was before the Conference Committee meeting on the issue

After the House and Senate reconciled their differences, the bill passed in both houses nearly unanimously.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. I'm agreeing with you

ProSense seems to make the case that because Clinton wouldn't stand behind a veto that the Senate Democrats had no choice but to settle for changes in the CRA because it would've passed either way.

I'm saying that they could've filibustered the Conference Report instead of just settling for changes to the CRA. Last I checked there's no Senate rule that says there is limited debate on something that comes out of conference.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. That's a good point

I suppose it's almost the opposite of the situation now where even the Democrats are almost unanimous in their support for more oversight and the Republicans are split.

[spag68]

36. Dems. in congress

None of our guys gets a pass from me on this or any other bad legislation. I will grant a pass if it can be explained how the rethugs can screw up good legislation without a vote, but the dems. can't do the same when they were in the minority.

[flamingdem]

47. OY VEY. McCain has that as a talking point against Dems & Clinton

Oh well.. It's not just Gramm after all

[PBS Poll-435]

48. If McCain planned his "no-show" at the Conference Committee vote nine years ago

Then...

He is Beelzebub.

No doubt about it.

[PBS Poll-435]

51. Kick

:kick:

[PBS Poll-435]

52. kick

for the new rating system....