Debbie Dingell: “normally I would be very supportive of motions to strike the enacting clause and things of that sort. At this particular…”

“normally I would be very supportive of motions to strike the enacting clause and things of that sort. At this particular time, however, I am compelled reluctantly to rise against it in sprite of the vast respect I have for the offerer, the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia. I would like to devote my attention to the question of the motion to strike the enacting clause. One of the reasons that adopting the motion to strike the enacting clause would be very bad is simply that that would leave us in the awkward position of being unable to devote our attention to the Solomon amendment, and I would like to address now the reasons that the Solomon amendment is so important to the business in which we are now engaged. What Mr. Solomon seeks to do is to see to it that the status quo remains in place, because what is contemplated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is an illegal act wherein the Comptroller of the Currency proposes to go beyond the authority which he has under law. And I would like to quote a letter written in 1995 by the present chairman of the Banking Committee to the OCC in which the chairman had this observation to make: There is not a shred of statutory support for the notion that a national bank is authorized to conduct activities in a subsidiary that are not permissible for the national bank itself.…”