Connie Mack

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

Mr. MACK. I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.

Mr. MACK. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. MACK. How much time is remaining on the Democratic side?

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I thank the Chair.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I had initially come to participate in the debate on Whitewater, but there was a speech of some 45 minutes or so by Senator Byrd a little bit earlier that made reference to some comments I made in the Chamber of the Senate last Friday. The Senator referred to my use of the word ``guts'' and drew from that that I was implying that a number of Senators maybe did not have the guts to present an alternative proposal. It would be easy for me to come here with a sense of defensiveness and anger, but I do not. I come to the floor to speak--I am not quite sure how long, and I am not quite sure what about, other than it was clearly not my intention to impugn the integrity or the intentions of my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. I really have been, I think, driven to come to the floor this afternoon, as I said, not out of anger but, frankly, out of love. I have strived in my life to try to make civility one of my No. 1 concerns. And when I heard civility being talked about, and I heard it being talked about with reference to words that I had said last Friday, it made me take notice, it made me think about that impassioned speech that I gave last Friday. Let me say that I feel very strongly about what I had to say about what was going on with respect to the budget and the failure to get a balanced budget and the importance of getting a balanced budget and what that means for this country, for America, for future generations, for children, for my grandchildren. I felt that very deeply. But since I apparently--maybe I should take out the word ``apparently'' so there would be no question--since I have been charged with breaking rule IXX, I apologize to my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. I am driven to do this even though I know there are those who would say, ``Oh, you should never apologize, never engage in a defense of your actions because, you know, that brings too much attention to what you've done.'' But I come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to once again say to my friend and colleague, and somebody whom I respect tremendously, Senator Daschle, who in essence is kindness, that in no way did I attempt or did I mean to challenge the minority leader. I have no ill-feelings toward Senator Byrd. He is right to remind us of the rules of the U.S. Senate. But I hope that we would all take notice of that, Democrat and Republican alike. For me to stand here on the floor of the U.S. Senate and imply or allow others to conclude that I am the only one that might have pushed the envelope with respect to words used would, in fact, be a tragic mistake. So I hope that we would all listen to what Senator Byrd had to say. If my coming forward today to react to Senator Byrd's comments will help reduce the rhetoric and allow us to return to a time of greater civility, then my coming to the floor will have been worth it. I do not know how many times I thought of how we could begin the process of bridging the differences between us, of truly understanding how the other side truly believes the policies, the ideas, and the principles they put forward instead of always questioning the motive. And so I welcome those on the other side of the aisle who want to be engaged in discussions about how we bridge that divide, how we could begin the process of really truly finding out how it is that we can satisfy your concerns and at the same time satisfy ours, instead of there always having to be one winner. If I did not mention it, again I will mention M. Scott Peck's book ``The World Waiting To Be Born'' and some of the other books that he has written, ``People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil,'' his discussion about evil in America. His initial book, at least the one that most of us are familiar with is ``The Road Less Traveled.'' We do need more civility and more grace in our lives in America today. So, Mr. President, I could not allow this situation to develop without again responding from my heart and from my soul to say that if my words the other day, in fact, have heightened or have increased the lack of civility, I apologize to my colleagues. But I ask you as I do this that you be honest with yourselves, ask yourself about your actions and about your rhetoric. Ask yourselves the question, How, in fact, can we find a way to work together? Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. D'Amato). The Senator from Illinois.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. The President agreed to scoring budgets through CBO. OMB is well aware of CBO's----

Mr. MACK. I understand what he is talking about.

Mr. MACK. I will say to my distinguished colleague, it is my understanding that what we are dealing with here is a budget resolution that covers the 7-year period. It is my understanding, according to CBO's estimate of that, that it would be in balance in the year 2002, which is the timeframe that we have established. Yes, you can make the reductions in spending, reduce the rate of growth in entitlement programs, balance the budget, produce a bonus as a result of balancing the budget that will pay for the tax proposals. So, I am of the opinion that, in the year 2002, that is correct.

Mr. MACK. They offered a plan about which they then could say to the American people, ``according to the OMB it balanced the budget.'' It did not balance according to CBO. And that is the whole point. The last plan presented by the President of the United States is $116 billion short in year number 7. I think it ought to be pretty obvious that that is the case. So, again, we have been debating this. We will have an opportunity, I believe, tomorrow to deal with this resolution because I am under the impression that there will be an agreement to add the additional language, which is important, I understand from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The additional language in there is very important to us as well, especially the tax cut for America's families and the reduction in the capital gains tax rate to spur economic growth. That language in essence will be included if there is an amendment tomorrow. It is interesting to note that what seems to be creating some angst here this evening is a resolution that was supported without any amendment by 133--I think 133 Democrats in the other body in yesterday's vote. So it seemed fairly obvious to me that we could push this forward without any major controversy. What we hope to accomplish, once again, is to get from the President of the United States a budget that is balanced in 7 years, scored by CBO, which is to say using real numbers. I do not think that is unrealistic. I am hopeful, after what has occurred in the meetings at the White House earlier this evening. But I have been hopeful before. So I hope my colleagues will excuse me for some degree of skepticism on my part. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MACK. If the Senator will allow me to respond? I have no problem in saying it took 10 days, 12 days, 14 days. But my point is, the administration clearly had the ability to put together a budget based on the economic assumptions it knew CBO would produce. They refused to do that.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, if I may respond, it is the opinion of this Senator that, again, if we can keep a very significant component of the tax proposal intact--that is, the lowering of the capital gains tax rate--that when we hit the years numbered 8, 9, and 10, that we are going to see that the revenues that are going to be projected in fact will increase beyond that because having freed up capital that is now locked into old investments, old technologies, it will create the jobs and the opportunity in the years ahead to, in fact, create the balanced budget in year 8, year 9, and year 10.

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I thought I would take a few moments to review the resolution that was offered by the distinguished majority leader and objected to by the distinguished minority leader, because I frankly did not think it was all that controversial. The joint resolution is stated as follows: Affirming that budget negotiations shall be based on the most recent technical and economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office and shall achieve a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 based on those assumptions. Whereas on November 20 the President signed legislation (Public Law 104-56) committing Congress and the President to ``enact legislation in the first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office; Whereas Congress has approved legislation that achieves a balanced budget in fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Whereas congressional Democrats have offered alternative budgets in the House and Senate which also achieve balance in fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office; Whereas the commitment to enact legislation in the first session of Congress requires action now in negotiations; Whereas the negotiations have no preconditions on levels of spending or taxation, except that the resulting budget must achieve balance by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office; Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has updated its technical and economic assumptions following a thorough consultation with government and private experts; and Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has begun consultation and review with the Office of Management and Budget: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the current negotiations between Congress and the President shall be based on the most recent technical and economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office, and that the Congress is committed to reaching an agreement this year with the President on legislation that will achieve a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Now, as I understand it, the minority leader objected to this resolution being brought up because it did not include, I guess, the full text of the language that was passed a month ago, and I must say that at this point I do not think I can speak for every Member on our side of the aisle, but I think that we are perfectly willing to put the complete text in the resolution. Again, I do not want to bore everybody, but let me read what the additional text would be: And the President and the Congress agree that the balanced budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans and the environment. Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to help working families and to stimulate future economic growth. Now, that is the full text. So again, we are at a point now where we really do not know how this will play out tomorrow. The majority leader indicated that he certainly was willing to accept the full text. I suspect that one of the reasons the full language was not included was because, again, it required us to adopt tax policies to help working families and to stimulate future economic growth. These two requirements may have caused some problems for some people. We thought that, by offering the single question about endorsing the use of Congressional Budget Office numbers, it would frankly be supported easily by both sides of the aisle. Yesterday in the House, 133 Democrats, in fact, supported this language. So maybe tomorrow we will be able to work out this apparent disagreement, add the additional language, and be able to come to closure, again and finally. We think these negotiations, which may begin tomorrow in fact, will be done on a basis in which the Congressional Budget Office will be scoring. Everything that will be dealt with will be done so by using the Congressional Budget Office numbers. So, I would say again, in context with what has happened today, I have a greater sense of hope that maybe we might be moving towards some agreement. Or maybe, without being too hopeful, maybe the way to say it is I am under the impression that serious negotiations will begin tomorrow. I do not see how this would be harmful in stating, once again, the commitment that both the Congress and the President of the United States made 1 month ago to have a balanced budget, scored by CBO, in 7 years. So I think that is a fairly reasonable position for us to take.

Mr. MACK. I will be delighted to yield to my friend.

Mr. MACK. I would pick up on that. It may be that we are, in fact, moving towards times where there will be more agreement as opposed to disagreement. I think all of us hope that that day will come. The other comment you made, that we might again hammer a point we have made before, I guess, maybe for the last several days, is a fair. Frankly, yes, we do want to make the point that it has now been 1 month since the Congress passed a continuing resolution which had, in that language, a requirement for CBO to score a budget that balanced in 7 years and which contained the other items I spoke about a moment ago. For 1 month, frankly, the President of the United States has failed to produce a proposal that balances the budget in 7 years. The closest the President has come is a proposal that came out, I believe a week ago-- actually this past Friday. Actually, I think it was a week prior to that, which was scored by the Congressional Budget Office, which said-- let me just finish--

Mr. MACK. I will yield.

Mr. MACK. It was scored by CBO as being $116 billion short of balancing the budget in the 7th year. I do not know what the total amount would be over the 7-year period, or what our differences were, but it was $116 billion over the mark. So, yes, I must admit that one of the reasons we do want to have a little discussion about this resolution is to make the point that in 30 days the President has utterly failed to come forward with a plan that balances the budget.

Mr. MACK. If I can respond?

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. I rise today to extend my heartfelt condolences to the family of Rev. Richard Halverson. In his position as the U.S. Senate Chaplain for the past 14 years, Reverend Halverson acted as spiritual leader to me personally, as well as to the entire Senate. His unwavering devotion, knowledge, and guidance have been a powerful example of living by one's convictions. It is an example from which we should derive inspiration as we search for the true meaning in our lives. I will keep the family of Reverend Halverson in my thoughts and prayers during their time of grief.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 280, S. 1228.

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, the bill be deemed read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 1468, the Peanut Program Improvement Act, introduced by Senator Heflin, be star printed to reflect the changes I now send to the desk.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 228, Senate Joint Resolution 38.

Mr. MACK. I ask unanimous consent that the joint resolution be deemed read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the joint resolution be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. MACK

Mr. MACK. Madam President, for the information of all Senators, under the unanimous-consent agreement if all debate is used, a rollcall vote will occur on the adoption of the DOD authorization conference report at approximately 5:25 tomorrow. We are also hoping that we will be able to proceed to the consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill; if not, a cloture vote is still scheduled at a time to be determined by the two leaders on tomorrow. It may be the intention of the majority leader to further postpone that cloture vote.