Connie Mack: “It is a dramatic change, and here we are. We have been talking about this legislation for all those years and we haven't…”

“It is a dramatic change, and here we are. We have been talking about this legislation for all those years and we haven't made the modifications we needed to make. I hope we will be successful this time. I rise in support of the underlying bill and in opposition to the Sarbanes substitute. We all know that legislation to overhaul the bank regulatory structure is long overdue, and I join many of my colleagues in thanking the chairman for his hard work in writing this bill and bringing it to the floor. I will begin by quoting the words of the Senate Banking Committee report, which I believe presents a strong case for financial modernization. It states: The argument for legislation to rationalize our financial structure is strong. Regulatory and court decisions have eliminated many of the barriers between commercial and investment banking. The barriers separating commercial banks from investment banks have been perforated in both directions. Finally, changes in the technology and practice of financial intermediation have rendered the restrictions of Glass-Steagall increasingly ineffective and obsolete. There is nothing particularly remarkable about that language, Mr. President. In fact, those same arguments will be made by many of my colleagues here today. But what is remarkable about the statement I just read is that it comes from a committee report on banking legislation in 1991.”