Bruce F. Vento: “I support the point of order that my colleague from Maryland raises. Under the precedents of the House, obviously the…”

“I support the point of order that my colleague from Maryland raises. Under the precedents of the House, obviously the limitation on appropriation is a very substantial power and a responsibility of Congress in terms of the purse strings. But the fact is that this amendment goes well beyond simply limiting funds. It intends to try to go into directly or indirectly controlling the Comptroller of the Currency's office with regard to activities that are ongoing and in place. I think there are constitutional questions with regard to the powers of the executive agencies and departments and there are questions of whether or not in fact the ongoing responsibilities can be exercised. So this is more than just simply a limitation in terms of new activities as it is being portrayed. I think that the ruling needs to differentiate and define the differences that exist here between a simple limitation and the breadth of activities that are expected to go on on an ongoing basis in terms of the discharge of the responsibilities of this regulator and this Comptroller's responsibility. I think that this amendment certainly is very expansive in terms of its use of this particular limitation.”