Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What Senators said 10 years ago when the major bank deregulation bill was passed by the Senate

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:20 PM
Original message
What Senators said 10 years ago when the major bank deregulation bill was passed by the Senate
Back in November 1999, Congress passed legislation pushed by then Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX), rescinding the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act. The measure, backed by the Clinton administration, and overwhelmingly passed by the Senate (90-8) and the House (362-57), opened the way for banks to merge with investment banks and insurance companies, and led directly to the current financial cataclysm.

What they said in 1999 about repealing the Glass-Steagall Act:

Larry Summers, he wasn't a Senator but is the director of President Obama’s National Economic Council:

"Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century. This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY):

"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai becoming the financial capital of the world. 'There are many reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain competitive."


Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas):

"The world changes, and we have to change with it. We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer."

Sen. Bob Kerry (D-NB):

“The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown.”

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

And those who spoke out against this insane measure:

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), one of seven Senate Democrats who voted against revoking Glass-Steagall, said in 1999:

“I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010. I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness."

Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), who also voted against repeal said:

“…determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes. Scores of banks failed in the Great Depression as a result of unsound banking practices, and their failure only deepened the crisis. Glass-Steagall was intended to protect our financial system by insulating commercial banking from other forms of risk. It was one of several stabilizers designed to keep a similar tragedy from recurring. Now Congress is about to repeal that economic stabilizer without putting any comparable safeguard in its place."

News source: http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff03272009.html



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













Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Larry Summers...Larry Summers...
now where have I heard that name before?

Oh yeah! I read it all over Tim Geithner's resume!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. "I think we will look back in 10 years' time..."
He got the timing almost exactly right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Dorgan's a really great guy that doesn't get enough cred.
Very smart, down to earth man.

I will say one thing, however, in defense of Schumer. I don't know how credible a threat it would really be to have the financial industry move en-masse, but as the Senator from New York, where all this goes down, it'd probably be irresponsible of him not to represent the interests of his state on this issue. Not saying that his policies were right, but we all slam Congress critters for not representing the people, and Schumer's people are the financial district and the millions that derive their employment from it, either directly or indirectly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Isn't the responsibility to do what's in the constituents' best interest
tempered by a responsibility to do what's in the country's best interest?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Hard to make that argument on a bill that passed nearly unanimously.
If it were a close vote, I could see where you might be coming from, but damn near everyone thought it was a good idea at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
32. I didn't think it was a good idea at the time
I'm not an economist or a finance person at all. But I remember hearing about it on the radio in my cubicle at work and thinking, "Cripes, we're gonna have another great depression."

Pretty much everything I've done since then was based on that belief, along with the belief that I've had since I was a kid that the social security fund would be emptied out by the time it was my turn to collect.

I've watched this same scenario too many times. Every time a pot gets big, someone bigger comes along and steals it.

I just wish I'd seen the seantor's 10-year quote so I'd have had an idea of the time frame. That's where I missed..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Dorgan is a REALLY good guy that doesn't get enough cred. It's the hair. He's not 'cool'. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Tastee Diner's quality has gone downhill recently, hasn't it?
Maybe my tastes have changed, but it seems waaaaaaaaay greasier now than it used to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. My serving of Mac and Cheese this noon was significantly smaller...
Edited on Fri Mar-27-09 02:48 PM by Captain Hilts
and I told them. They offered to bring me more.

It's really a place to eat breakfast. At $7.50 the spaghetti is a rip off.

Still, I like the folks: Beth, Frank, Mary, Heidi, etc.

I don't care much for the SS Tastee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. That's absolute bull shit on Senator Schumer
Edited on Fri Mar-27-09 02:39 PM by Better Believe It
It's true that Schumer represented the Wall Street crooks, but don't suggest that their interests are identical to the vast majority of working people in New York state who are now or soon will be hurting due to the economic crisis caused by Wall Street and their political whores!

Millions of New York city residents derive their employment from Wall Street? That's total nonsense! And among those that actually did, tens of thousands have lost their jobs due to the depression caused by a deregulated financial service industry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The bill passed with a 90% majority in the Senate and an 86% majority in the House
Clearly, not everyone thought this would be the result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. They were willing to roll the dice and leave it in the hands of Wall Street "free marketers"

Were they totally deaf to the warnings and pleas of those Senators who voted against and just stupid or where many just plain bought off by Wall Street?

Either way, that doesn't justify the votes of those Senators who surely knew what they were voting for. I can't believe that 90 Senators were ignorant about the risks .... if they were, perhaps those that are still in the Senate should STFU about the economy or at least apologize for their votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. I don't disagree with any of what you wrote.
Alls I'm saying is that it would have been exceptionally difficult for Schumer to vote against a bill that was allegedly going to directly benefit his state while everyone else was on board with it.

Should Congress, as a whole, have been more responsible here? Absolutely. I think deregulation - not just in finance, but in utilities, insurance, the environment, the media, the airlines, and just about everywhere else it happened - has been an abject nightmare for our country. I'm just not willing to single out and pillory the Senator from the state that had (allegedly) the most to gain from that bill's passage, just as I don't blame Biden or Carper for voting in favor of outrageous credit card laws. I don't agree with them, but I understand where they're coming from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. And this legislation has served the financial district so well in the past
couple years - after allowing them to LOOT the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nicholas D Wolfwood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Well, in my opinion, it was a greenlight to loot not only the country, but the world.
It was abysmal. My opinion of deregulation for anything is pretty flat - I don't agree with it. Why people don't understand that there are usually pretty good reasons (Great Depression anyone?) why the regulation got put there in the first place is beyond me.

My defense is only of Schumer for supporting a bill that was allegedly going to benefit his state primarily, which he, and inexplicably, everyone else, thought was a good idea. That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. Wall Street does not represent the entire state.
And it damn sure isn't good for the vast majority of the people who live here to have the system break down like this either. What's good for Wall Street has never been what's good for the rest of us as 1929 and 2008 have so painfully shown. Frankly, I'm tired of our Senators sucking up to the rapacious assholes who occupy a rather small part of the bloody state. (Hell they suck up a small part of the bloody city too!)

Regards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. I am sorry but that is a lame rationalization. His vote help destroy our countries economy.
This will hurt his constituents as much as the rest of us. I don't for a minute believe that a negative vote would have seen the financial industry move en-masse from NY. He is a representative that is supposed to do the right thing even if it will harm himself politically. This is not a pure democracy where the every wish of the public is granted.

And didn't Schumer sponsor AG Michael (waterboarding isn't torture) Mukasey?

As far as I am concerned, he can go straight to hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
26. How is NY doing today?
And are they happy about it? Not from what I hear. So in the long run, he did not represent the interests of his state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this."
Great call by Dorgan. Had the timing right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPedigrees Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
13. Do you have any info on the bill that Clinton vetoed...
enabling the credit card cos to raise their interest rates and rape their customers in other ways?

I remember that Clinton had refused to sign it during his terms in office, despite heavy lobbying from the banks, stating that it would place an undue burden on the middle class.

One of Bush's first misdeeds when he took office was to sign the bill into law. That was when all the phoney "credit counselling" ads began showing up on tv and we started getting frequent notices from the banks about changes to our credit card accounts. My husband translated one such statement "This is how we're going to fuck you, and this is another way we're going to fuck you, and so on."

Just wondering if you might have a saved article about that bill which tells the particulars, ie name of bill, date, etc.

Thank you very much for posting the info about the dereg bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Sorry that I can't help you in that regard but perhaps someone else can on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
31. This was trickier to find than I expected because the purpose of the bill was changed
so - the name in the Roll call didn't sound like it had anything to do with Bankruptcy.

But here it is:

H.R.2415
Title: To enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher H. (introduced 7/1/1999) Cosponsors (1)
Related Bills: H.CON.RES.427, H.RES.247, H.RES.624, H.R.833, S.625, S.886, S.3046
Latest Major Action: 12/19/2000 Pocket Vetoed by President.
Latest Conference Report: 106-970 (in Congressional Record H9723-9765)
Note: As sent to the President, H.R. 2415 was a bankruptcy reform bill. Originally, H.R. 2415 was an FY2000 State Department authorization bill with provisions for enhancing the security of American embassies. On 11/17/1999 another version of the FY2000 State Department authorization bill was introduced as H.R. 3427. H.R. 3427 was incorporated by cross-reference in the conference report to H.R. 3194, which became Public Law 106-113. On 10/11/2000 the H.R. 2415 conference committee struck all of the House bill after the enacting clause and inserted the provisions of S. 3186, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000. The President pocket vetoed the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000.

Here's the roll call:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 2nd 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 (H.R. 2415 Conference Report )
Vote Number: 297 Vote Date: December 7, 2000, 03:46 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Conference Report Agreed to
Measure Number: H.R. 2415
Measure Title: A bill to enhance security of United States missions and personnel overseas, to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.
Vote Counts: YEAs 70
NAYs 28
Present 1
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Abraham (R-MI), Yea
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Ashcroft (R-MO), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bryan (D-NV), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Chafee, L. (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Present
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Gorton (R-WA), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grams (R-MN), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerrey (D-NE), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Not Voting
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Mack (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Moynihan (D-NY), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Robb (D-VA), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Roth (R-DE), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

(Here is an advocacy group's letter asking for the veto, that provided the bill number:
http://www.progsec.org/Dynmenu/DynMenu.php?Table=LetterControlRetired&Page=Bankruptcy1_________
Their link to more info doesn't work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
19. NY Times article and some people behind derugulation....
Edited on Fri Mar-27-09 09:14 PM by slipslidingaway
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/congress-passes-wide-ranging-bill-easing-bank-laws.html

L. Coyote posted in it yesterday in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=289053&mesg_id=289288

FRom the OP

President Clinton

"...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..."


Sanders Blocking Vote to Confirm Obama Nominee (Gary Gensler) Who Worked to Deregulate Credit Default Swaps
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=289652&mesg_id=289652

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/25/sen_sanders_blocking_vote_to_confirm

"...AMY GOODMAN: Why don’t you want Gensler to be confirmed?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I don’t believe that we need more of the same old same old. The philosophy that Gensler espoused when he was working for Bill Clinton in the Treasury Department was strongly deregulation, was the Robin Rubin theory of economics. And in many respects, accentuated by eight years of George Bush, that type of deregulation activity, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the putting derivatives under the radar screen, deregulating that and allowing these transactions to take place without public notice, these are the actions that took us to where we are right now.

I happen to be a very strong supporter of President Obama. I think he’s doing a great job in many, many respects. But I think, in terms of his financial advisers, he has people who have come from the Wall Street crowd who are looking at the world in a certain way, and I want to see some different points of view involved in this discussion..."


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

(9) S.Amdt. 312 by Sen. Dorgan
To prohibit insured depository institutions and credit unions from engaging in certain activities involving derivative financial instruments.
Proposed: May 6, 1999.

(10) S.Amdt. 313 by Sen. Dorgan
To subject certain hedge funds to the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940.
Proposed: May 6, 1999.


Introduced Apr 28, 1999
Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Reported by Committee Mar 4, 1999
Amendments (15 proposed) View Amendments
Passed Senate May 6, 1999
Passed House Jul 20, 1999
Differences Resolved Nov 4, 1999
Signed by President Nov 12, 1999


Summmers, Rubin, Geithner and Gensler were all at Treasury when the fight NOT regulate derivatives and to repeal significant portions of the Glass-Steagall Act took place, now they are trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Not sure why we should have a lot of faith in the same people to make the correct assessments this time.

:shrug:










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
20. It was not Bill's finest hour. . . . n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
21. K&R-The bank bill wrecked the economy--What will result if we give Ins Corp's a mandated monopoly???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-27-09 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. Schumer was behind Garn St. Germain as well (caused the S & L crisis)
That's one corrupt piece of shit who never learns. Sure would b nice to replace him before he does anymore damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zodiak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. He also runs the DSCC like a DLC recruitment piggy-bank
Schumer funnels money to pro-business Dems and shuts out progressives for being too scary liberal. He is the Rahm Emanuel of the Senate.

If his votes were all we had to contend with, it wouldn't be so bad, but Schumer takes his wall St. attitude to national politics and tries to shape the democratic party in his image.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #24
34. I thought Rahm only sought to back Democrats who could win their districts
You are saying he directly stood in the way when there was a choice between a winning progressive and a losing conservaDem?

Which districts and in what states?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
25. This sort of contradicts the account of history written by FrenchieCat a few days ago.
I don't mean this as a callout (mods if you think it is please remove.)

I'm interested in an exchange here to iron out the differences. For starters, in this case you have Summers voicing strong support for the bill, where in the other account the emphasis is on him having nothing to do with it (and I thought) nothing to say about it, as though he was just totally removed from the whole thing....

Then there's the take on democratic involement, which characterized completely differently between the two accounts.

Let's get it on :evilgrin: Why are there discrepancies and who is correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
27. I miss Paul Wellstone. n/t
:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
28. watch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
29. Democrats really botched that one
Edited on Sat Mar-28-09 05:34 PM by Hippo_Tron
The sold away Glass-Stegall for keeping the Community Reinvestment Act intact. If we had played that one like the Republicans do, Clinton would've vetoed Gramm-Leach-Bliley and any Republican who dared to vote against the Community Reinvestment Act would've been labeled a racist. That's something Democrats have never quite figured out how to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Faryn Balyncd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Can it get worse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-28-09 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
33. Maybe this would have worked
Had all the votes been counted in Fla and President Al Gore would have seen it coming and did something about it once it looked liked it was going to fail. But then again anything dealing with Phil Gramm has got to fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
genna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
35. I think this shows we all need to much more financially literate.
The process has to be open and transparent.

Even when a measure is EXTRAORDINARILY popular with one segment of DNC, we LOUDLY disagree. It seems that campaign finance reform is more needed than I originally thought. When Democrats get called out for continuing to take money from TARP sources, we ask them why this is not a pay for play move.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PM Martin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
36. So both parties are to blame for the current mess.
I see.
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 Apr 26th 2024, 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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