Judd Gregg: “As to this amendment, on March 23, Senator Byrd rose and said: `` . . . I am 100 percent behind the substitute by Mr.…”

“As to this amendment, on March 23, Senator Byrd rose and said: `` . . . I am 100 percent behind the substitute by Mr. Daschle, and I ask unanimous consent that my name may be added as a cosponsor.'' This amendment is essentially what I have offered as the second-look-at-waste amendment. In fact, I will be honest, I would be willing to probably modify my amendment to basically track the Daschle amendment exactly. I have some differences with the Daschle amendment. I do not think in some places it is constructed as well as mine because it has 13 shots from the President. I happen to think that is a mistake. And it is not referred to committees, which I think is a mistake. I would be willing to offer it. If that is what it takes to mute the argument that this is a line-item veto amendment, then I will do that because this is not a line-item veto amendment. So my immense respect for the Senator from West Virginia and my very high regard for his arguments as to why he opposes the line-item veto remain. I continue to have enthusiasm in both those accounts for him. But I have to say I think for him to characterize this amendment as a line-item veto amendment is incorrect. This amendment is much better characterized as being close to, in fact, the child of, the Daschle amendment of 1995, which had broad support on the other side of the aisle, as I have already mentioned. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.”