John Spratt: “I rise to support the Stenholm-Spratt amendment, and I want to stress from the start what this amendment does not do: It…”

“I rise to support the Stenholm-Spratt amendment, and I want to stress from the start what this amendment does not do: It does not replace H.R. 2, the bill before us. It does not even weaken H.R. 2. It adds to that bill extra rescission powers, and broadens the timeframe for the use of those powers, and gives the President a plus, an option, that H.R. 2 does not give him, the option of entering any spending saved from any rescission into a so-called locked box or deficit reduction account. So, Mr. Chairman, this expedited rescission lock-box amendment is a supplement and not a substitute to H.R. 2. It would not conflict with, or weaken, or change one whit the powers that are delegated to the President under H.R. 2. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and I offer this amendment for several reasons: First, I am genuinely concerned that the courts may hold the line-item veto power which we confer upon the President here under a novel interpretation of law unconstitutional, unconstitutional because it is a broad, broad, sweeping delegation of authority with very scant standards to govern the use of that authority.”