What do U.S. Representatives Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Tim Walz (D-Minn.), and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) have in common with Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), and John Dingell (D-Mich.)? They are co-sponsors of HR 129, a bill to restore the Glass-Steagall Act. The bill has 53 co-sponsors.
A number of legislative approaches are being considered for dealing with the too-big-to-fail problem, including this effort to restore the 1933 law which went away with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. The LaRouche Political Action Committee is the chief proponent of HR 129, or the “Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013.”
There are a number of people calling for the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall, or the separation of investment and commercial banking. The South Dakota state legislature passed a resolution on Feb. 28 calling on the U.S. Congress to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
In Minnesota, a resolution (HF 1744) has been introduced which would call on Congress to separate commercial and investment banking functions. The Commerce and Consumer Protection Finance and Policy Committee of the Minnesota House of Representative is considering the resolution, which is sponsored by four Republicans and two Democrats.
Resolutions supporting the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall have popped up on other state legislatures this session, including Montana.
The LaRouche PAC web site states: “Glass-Steagall is the indispensable first step to global economic recovery. It will immediately halt the onset of hyperinflation, remove government commitment from toxic debts, end too-big-to-fail, and force separation of commercial banking functions from investment banking functions.”
In the last Congressional session, legislation to restore Glass-Steagall gained support from 84 co-sponsors.