Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Old and In the Way

(37,540 posts)
8. Excellent Post.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:05 PM
Jan 2012

As you point out, BC did make a mistake in signing it. But, IIRC, he might have been a tad distracted with that impeachment problem that was taking place at the time. This was a classic piece of republican legislation. From Wikipedia-

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report that explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[3]

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[4]

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1, 1999, by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),[5][6][note 1] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[8][9][10][note 2]

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1; Ind. 1–0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).[note 3]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[9][12] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[13][note 4] and by the House 362-57.[14][note 5] The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[1

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I think I'll skip it izquierdista Jan 2012 #1
How much say did bubba have ? surfdog Jan 2012 #2
He had a lot of say izquierdista Jan 2012 #4
From what I know ... JoePhilly Jan 2012 #6
The senate vote was 90-8 surfdog Jan 2012 #15
Yup ... and if I recall ... JoePhilly Jan 2012 #24
It was written by three GOP'ers and was veto proof. Sirveri Jan 2012 #17
True perhaps, but one can still veto things on principle (nt) The Straight Story Jan 2012 #20
And bill would have looked very weak surfdog Jan 2012 #21
I'd rather look weak to those who were weak, than actually be weak (nt) The Straight Story Jan 2012 #23
Actually, that article is BULL SHIT, and I'll explain why. JoePhilly Jan 2012 #3
+1 redqueen Jan 2012 #5
In one version of this that I read a while ago ... JoePhilly Jan 2012 #7
Excellent Post. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #8
And may I say .. Great ADDITION to my post ... !!! JoePhilly Jan 2012 #9
Thanks to you too. Cameron27 Jan 2012 #11
was he distracted or Whisp Jan 2012 #12
You claim that... surfdog Jan 2012 #14
He didn't have to sign anything, but it would have passed anyways. Sirveri Jan 2012 #18
Nearly every democrat voted for the bill surfdog Jan 2012 #19
Interesting, thanks. Cameron27 Jan 2012 #10
NP ... and I understand the situation you describe ... JoePhilly Jan 2012 #25
That is a core conflict. Old and In the Way Jan 2012 #26
An oldy but a goodie, Krugman on NAFTA: joshcryer Jan 2012 #28
+2 n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #13
Here's an interesting clip from TYT on this. AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #16
Although I agree that repeal of Glass-Steagal NashvilleLefty Jan 2012 #22
Love this thread Cameron27 Jan 2012 #27
In addition to Gramm-Bliley-Leech, the Clinton administration mmonk Jan 2012 #29
meh mdmc Jan 2012 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Bill Clinton and the repe...»Reply #8