Biden, Edwards, Kerry NAY!.. McCain YEA! S.900 the bill that started it - The complete Roll Call:

[fascistgroovething]

S.900
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.

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

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


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), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bryan (D-NV), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Chafee, J. (R-RI), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Coverdell (R-GA), 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), Nay
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), Nay
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), Not Voting
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (R-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerrey (D-NE), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Mack (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
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), Nay
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), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Now tell me... which party has their shit together? Please make as many people as you can aware of who caused this and who voted for it.

[livetohike]

1. Welcome to DU!

:hi: and Thanks for this - recommended.

[graywarrior]

2. Welcome

And that's a beautiful piece of info.
:toast:

[Lyric]

3. I see both of my Senators on the right side of the vote.

Good job, fellas. :thumbsup:

[alittlelark]

4. Almost straight along party lines w/ 1 defecting Dem.

Hollings (D-SC), Yea ...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

7. I trust...

Old age is something less than enjoyable for Sen. Hollings. As it should be.

[pleah]

5. Good to know.

Thanks fascistgroovething! :hi:

[annabanana]

6. Even Landrieu & Lieberman voted against it!

Looks like Fritz is the only bad guy Dem

[IndyOp]

8. Wellstones - we love you and miss you...

[WhiteTara]

9. thanks for posting!

welcome to DU :hi:

[reorg]

10. I wouldn't be so quick

because elsewhere you can find something different:

Vote Number: 354
Vote Date: November 4, 1999, 03:30 PM
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

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

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

[BrklynLiberal]

17. The OP was passage of bill, yours is on conference report. Not sure what the report thing is...

[reorg]

22. it's the final version of the bill

... I think.

This is where you get if you click on "Latest Conference Report":

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp106:FLD010:@1(hr434)

[BrklynLiberal]

23. hmmm so what happened between May and November???

[TheDoorbellRang]

34. It's the approval of a conference report on the bill

Something to do with reconciling the differences in wording between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

[karynnj]

24. This happens all the time

If the bill is not changed substantially in the conference report.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

11. Seeing Wellstone's name up ther brought a sad tear to my eyes...

and fuels my resentment of this maladministration even more.

[Usrename]

37. Me too.

:cry:

[myrna minx]

52. Me too,

:cry:

[Metta]

12. A valuable piece of information. Thanks for posting.

I've recently thought, many times, who did what.

[Old and In the Way]

13. There you go Tom Allen.

Wrap this vote around Sue Collin's neck.

[DesertFlower]

14. thank you for posting this information

and a warm welcome to DU. :toast:

[pnorman]

15. Here's how those good folks at the Heritage Foundation, describes that bill:

October 28, 1999
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (S. 900): A Major Step Toward Financial Deregulation

Congress may soon have an opportunity to officially recognize that America's financial services industry has changed over the past 66 years. It will consider the conference report to a bill, known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (S. 900), which would repeal obsolete Depression-era laws that still govern financial transactions today. Significantly, this means banks, securities firms, and other types of financial institutions could join together to offer their customers a more complete range of services. In addition, this bill takes steps to correct some of the worst abuses of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)--a misguided effort that forced banks to invest in disadvantaged neighborhoods even when it was not financially feasible--and to provide consumers with significant new protections of personal financial data. Although it is still not a perfect combination of possible financial services reforms, this legislation represents the most significant deregulation of the financial services industry in over half a century.
THE CHANGING REALM OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

Since 1933, federal law has effectively divided the U.S. financial services industry into separate and distinct types of institutions, such as banks, mutual funds managers, insurance companies, and securities firms. For the most part, the separate types of financial services companies were strictly prohibited from merging and from offering their products. Thus, banks were not allowed to own securities firms or to underwrite or sell most stocks and bonds. Similarly, insurance companies were prohibited from owning banks or taking deposits. Each type of firm had its own regulatory agency that jealously guarded its authority over the companies it supervised. And because deposits are federally insured, strict limitations were placed on the activities of banks.

This artificial division worked for some time but, over the past 20 years, the distinctions between these types of transactions have blurred. Innovative managers and technological advances allowed some firms to offer services that closely resembled those offered by competitors. At the same time, seemingly minor loopholes in the laws were exploited to allow banks to increase their securities activities and permit securities houses and other types of firms to buy or open companies--known as non-bank banks--that offered credit cards and other banking products. Federal courts ruled that these new activities were legal, but because they were conducted indirectly through legal loopholes, they often became less efficient and more expensive than necessary.

Adding to these changes is the tremendous impact of the Internet and electronic transactions. As financial services companies continue to deliver more services through electronic means, customers may never physically visit their bank or broker. In addition, loan approvals that once took weeks are being made almost instantaneously. This new technology has added a new level to an already fierce competitive market, and companies that delay joining this revolution may find that their customers will disappear.

As the old distinctions became harder to apply, the American public and the financial services industry began pressing Congress to change federal law. Now many Members of Congress recognize that a new financial system would more effectively meet the needs of American consumers and corporations in an expanding and more global economy. To that end, Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Representatives Jim Leach (R-IA) and Thomas Bliley (R-VA) developed S. 900.
WHAT S. 900 WOULD DO

S. 900 would make major changes in the way that the financial services industry has been organized. By eliminating obsolete distinctions between different types of financial institutions and allowing them to merge, the bill would enable one company to meet all of its consumers' financial needs, and at a vastly lower cost. One estimate suggests that consumers would save $15 billion a year in fees levied on financial services thanks to greater competition and a more efficient financial services system. 1
Establish a New Financial Services System
*
*
*

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/BG1338.cfm

Later, when my stomach is strong enough, I'll prowl through that website and see what they have to say about it NOW.

pnorman

[BrklynLiberal]

20. THAT is REALLY putting lipstick on a pig!!!!!

[pnorman]

29. Like this?

( I spotted this on DU a few days ago, and have been running WILD with it ever since!)

pnorman

[BrklynLiberal]

32. Exactly!!!!

:rofl:

[pokerfan]

16. Why wasn't it vetoed?

:shrug:

[BrklynLiberal]

21. Interesting. In 1999 Clinton could have vetoed it..

[Ilsa]

28. There must have been some sort of sweetener put in it for

Bill Clinton. I don't know what. But I can't imagine him blindly signing this.

[johnaries]

44. Here we go. It's the Clenis' fault. nt

[pokerfan]

48. I'm asking a freaking question

54-44 vote, split along party lines.

[johnaries]

51. Oh, sorry, but

there are many other similar questions in the thread asking the same thing.

Clinton didn't write the damn thing, Gramm did. Clinton also didn't add "signing statements" on every damn piece of legislation he signed.

The "Clinton veto question" is nothing more than a distraction, IMHO. Presidents often have to sign bills they don't like, for one reason or another.

We will never know the question "why" Clinton signed it. But we do know why Gramm wrote it!

[malaise]

18. Please send this to KO and Rachel

I heard at least one McPOW campaign man saying Biden voted for it.

[karynnj]

19. This is as clear cut a party line vote as you can get

and Gramm is McCain's economic adviser.

This shows how involved he was :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7138055&mesg_id=7138055

[Major Hogwash]

25. Really? Which party is Bubba for?

This bill was signed into law in 1999.

I guess Bubba didn't have a veto stamp at his desk.

[karynnj]

27. You are right

Put my comment down to failing to see beyond the Congress. It would be nice to know why, whether he pushed against it or for it.

[alittlelark]

33. He was in the middle of Monica 'shock and awe'

He took his eyes off the prize.

Nasty couple of years there for a BJ.

[LiberadorHugo]

26. First D yea I saw is from Fritz the Klansman...

No surprise there. Senator Hollings played a major role in the Nazification of America's copyright laws (thanks to all the Disney Dollars stuffed down his pants) and is a former Grand Dragon of the KKK; in other words, he was the ultimate DINO. But still, even the most hardened Castroist should see the benefit of getting progressive Democrats elected to Congress.

[AZ Criminal JD]

30. I think you have him mixed up with Byrd of W. Virginia

Byrd was in the KKK.

[slipslidingaway]

31. But only 7 Democrats voted against the conference report...

what happened between the original vote in May and the conference report vote in November that so many switched their votes to YES.


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

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)

[TheDoorbellRang]

35. The bill had already passed. It was a done deal.

The November vote was on the conference report. The conference report is basically for clarification. Here is the definition of a conference report:

CONFERENCE REPORT – The conference committee's recommendations to the House and the Senate for a bill reconciling the differences between the bills passed by each house.

[slipslidingaway]

36. 7 Democrats votes against the done deal...

does that mean they did not like the clarifications?


:shrug:

"conference report - The compromise product negotiated by the conference committee. The "conference report," which is printed and available to Senators, is submitted to each chamber for its consideration, such as approval or disapproval."

[TheDoorbellRang]

38. That would seem logical to assume n/t

[slipslidingaway]

39. So is that like voting against it before you vote for it...

;-)

[TheDoorbellRang]

40. At that point, resistance was futile since it had already passed, I would guess

I'm considering the "yea" votes by the dems on the conference report vote more like a statement of "Whatever!"

[slipslidingaway]

41. Oh well 7 held their ground n/t

[pokerfan]

42. So why did Clinton sign it into law?

There wasn't enough votes to overturn a veto.

[magellan]

45. He didn't have to sign it for it to become law if it was veto-proof

It would have looked better for him if he hadn't.

[pokerfan]

46. But it was a 54-44 vote

How is that veto-proof?

:shrug:

[magellan]

47. Sorry, I've heard again and again here that it was veto proof

...and so I was speaking from that. Wasn't it?

If it wasn't, why the hell did he sign it??

[pokerfan]

49. The R's would have needed 67 votes to make it veto-proof

That's thirteen senate votes short.

[magellan]

50. Wow. Okay, so then why didn't Clinton veto it? n/t

[johnaries]

43. THANK YOU for posting this! Oh, and welcome to DU! k&r.