Charles W. Stenholm: “Mr. Chairman, the Stenholm-Spratt amendment that I offer at this time is the same amendment that passed the House of…”

“Mr. Chairman, the Stenholm-Spratt amendment that I offer at this time is the same amendment that passed the House of Representatives July 14, 1994, with a 342 to 69 vote, basically the same amendment in my judgment. We offer it today and it is the same amendment we offered last week as a substitute, but the will of the House was we should not substitute majority override for one-third plus one override and I respect the will of the House. Today we offer this amendment not as a substitute but as a supplement, amendment to, and I will make the argument to my friends on the other side that this does not weaken H.R. 2. In fact it strengthens H.R. 2, because in the words of the gentleman from Florida a moment ago when he was arguing against the Tauzin amendment, when he was saying we need to be able to get rid of wasteful spending at any time in any circumstance, regardless of glide path, I happen to agree with that statement. That is precisely why we offer our amendment today as a supplement to H.R. 2, because as everyone I know understands by now, under H.R. 2 it is only during that window of opportunity of 10 days after an appropriation bill is signed and sent to the President do we have the opportunity to rescind spending. Under the modified rescission process that the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and I offer today, the President will have the opportunity to rescind spending at any time during the year.”