Connie Mack: “I think, rather than to address myself to the specifics and the issues within the bill, and I am really addressing my…”

“I think, rather than to address myself to the specifics and the issues within the bill, and I am really addressing my comments to the Senator from Massachusetts, there is the potential for an impasse to develop here. It was my hope we were going to work our way towards a compromise. There is disagreement on both sides as to whether people are acting in good faith or whether they are not. I was under the impression we were going to meet at noon, the three principals--the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Bond, and myself-- to see if we could find a way to come together. I was under the impression the amendment would not be offered until after the three principals got together, in essence to try to find out whether there really was room to compromise or whether there was not. I must say, from our perspective, this seemed like a preemptive strike, that the message was: I am going to move forward. The amendment offered is not the amendment on which we have been talking about compromise. It goes back to the position of denial of insurance and increasing premiums. And I must say to the Senator from Massachusetts, if that is the amendment he wants to go forward with, we are prepared to debate it, and debate it to the full extent necessary. I feel confident it will be defeated. In our discussions, I think both of us have agreed the two areas we know must be dealt with are the issues of mitigation and increasing participation.”