Spencer Abraham

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. My time has expired.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum and seek unanimous consent that the time not be charged to either side.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, can I inquire as to how much time we have remaining at this point?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Right.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield myself such time as I may have remaining. I may use all of it; I may not. Mr. President, I think it is important for us in this discussion of the nursing home standards to emphasize several points that are part of the Senate-passed reconciliation bill which is going to conference because some allusions have been made that would suggest that there is an interest in that package in backing away from Federal standards that have been created here in the Congress. I just would say this: I think that part of that attitude or that sentiment is also suggesting that somehow the States and local communities of our country are lacking in the compassion and the concerns that we have here in Washington. I cannot speak for what might have been the conditions in the 1950's or 1960's that were referenced, but I believe that in the 1990's Governors and State legislators have every bit as much concern and compassion about these issues as we do here in Washington. I also think it is the case that a lot of States had these concerns before we did here in Washington. Proponents of the Federal standards have suggested that what this legislation does, as passed over here, is to eliminate these standards altogether. But the bottom line, Mr. President, is that the Senate bill does include the Federal nursing home standards. States, however, have complained about the administrative burdens associated with implementing these Federal standards since the very beginning. Obviously, there is inevitably some tug of war that goes on between Federal and State governments over the rules and regulations. We do not in the legislation we passed propose in any sense to back away from the Federal standards that are out there, but we do acknowledge sometimes the implementation of a Washington-knows-best, one- size-fits-all approach does not translate into efficiency in government at the State and local level because of the diversity between the 50 States. Therefore, what we have done in the bill that passed the Senate is not back away from Federal standards. We have retained them in the legislation. What we have done, however, is include a provision that only allows States with nursing home standards that are equal to or stricter--or stricter--than the Federal standards to seek a waiver from the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Let me just go over that again, Mr. President. We are not talking about less stringent standards. We are talking about States that have equal or more strict standards may seek a waiver from the Secretary of HHS to be able to use their standards and to supplant Federal standards with the stricter standards that they may have at the State level. We are talking here about seeking a waiver, Mr. President. We are not talking about anything that happens automatically. The Secretary of Health and Human Services must reach the conclusion that the State standards are equal to or stricter than the Federal standards before the waiver will be granted. If the Secretary does not believe that the State nursing home standards are equal to or stricter than the Federal standards, no waiver will be granted. That seems to me to be the best way, Mr. President, to preserve the tough standards that I think all of us here at the Federal level want to see maintained across this country. I just say that the comments of the Senator from North Dakota struck home with me, as I am sure they did with many others, because I would bet virtually every Member of this body has had a loved one at one time or another confined to some type of care facility, a nursing home or other similar care-providing facility. We want those tough standards. But we also recognize, and I think this compromise is the way to achieve it, that sometimes the States can do it better, the States can do it less expensively, and the States can have tougher standards. Obviously, different States have had different experiences. But my State, I think, is a good example of one which was ahead of the curve on these issues. Michigan was interested in quality nursing homes long before the Federal Government established its standards in 1990. Indeed, the Michigan Nursing Home Reform Act was passed and signed in 1978. And it was a much tougher law than anything that existed at the time. It still contains some of the strongest penalties in the country for poor performance. In fact, recently an effort to test the standards of our nursing homes found that our State government did its tests. Only one nursing home it went into failed to meet the tough standards Michigan imposed. We are proud of the way we oversee these facilities. I think other States are, too. I think this waiver system is the way to balance Federal concerns with State flexibility. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. Let me today respond in part at least to some of the issues that were raised by our colleague from West Virginia in presenting his motion to instruct conferees. What I would like to begin with is a discussion of the numbers themselves. The Senator from West Virginia and others on the Democratic side of the aisle have contended in recent weeks that if we only reduced the growth of Medicare spending by $89 billion, somehow this alone would be enough to make the Medicare Program solvent, to preserve and protect and strengthen it. That is simply not the case. The $89 billion number which has floated around here for some time is a number which at least many of us consider to be a number in great dispute. Once again, it is a number that comes not from the Congressional Budget Office, the office that I would assume Members of Congress would look to for accurate information, but, rather, comes from the Office of Management and Budget. We have talked on numerous occasions here on the floor of how, when the President was first elected, he came to Congress and said, ``It's time to end the games of rosy scenarios and administration politicking by using executive branch numbers. Let's all use the same numbers. Let's all use the CBO.'' But now when the crisis hits, when the crunch time comes, we are back using OMB numbers. And $89 billion simply will not get the job done. In fact, it is interesting to note, Mr. President, that the President himself in his proposals to bring the budget into balance has suggested a number in the range of $127 billion as the amount of dollars that need to be reduced in Medicare spending over the next few years in order to bring the budget into balance. That $127 billion is also an OMB number. If it was calculated by the CBO, using the assumptions we have made here, it would be much higher. In fact, I think it would be closer to $190 billion, using CBO kinds of assumptions, to get the job done. But the $89 billion proposed by this motion really only covers part of Medicare. That is the second thing that needs to be put into perspective. That covers part A of the trust fund. Let us look at that trust fund. Part A of the trust fund will go into deficit this year for the first time in its history. We have heard a lot of talk during the debate about the Medicare Program, from the beginning when the trustees' report was released, that, in fact, the trustees' report should not be taken too seriously. After all, for years and years the trustees have prophesied that at some date in the future Medicare part A would go bankrupt. Now we are hearing a different story. Now maybe there is a need to adjust it. I say that $89 billion is not enough. There is a very serious need because part A, for the first time, in 1996 will run a deficit. And at this point there is no foreseeable stage in the future when it will not run on an annual basis deficits that will grow larger and larger and larger. That is because the structure of the program, the way it is currently set up, absolutely guarantees that the deficits in part A will continue to grow. It will grow faster, faster, and even faster in about 15 years as people in the so-called baby-boom generation reach an age when they become consumers of entitlements rather than people providing revenue to these trust funds. Reductions of $89 billion in spending in Medicare represents business as usual, represents the approach that has been taken for too long here in the Congress of the United States, the kind of piecemeal, one-step- at-a-time approach to Medicare that has caused the program to continue to run at growth rates that are far greater than what the private sector sees in health care provider increases. It is time to end that approach and play by the real numbers and time to play by the CBO numbers. The $89 billion is a stopgap solution; we need a longer solution. We need not only a solution for part A, we need to solve the problems of part B, because part B is growing too fast as well. That is what we have attempted to do in this budget reconciliation package. Mr. President, the allusions that have been made suggest that the changes we are talking about are ones that are simply designed to cause people hardship and difficulty. That is not the case. Let me just review for the Congress today some of the changes that are incorporated in our reconciliation package. First, as was alluded to by the Senator from West Virginia, we intend to means test beneficiaries so that upper income citizens are not on the same level as those in greater need and, in fact, do pay their fair share. It is suggested that before we move in that direction, we should have a long-term study and commission or some other form of assessing whether or not to move toward the pay-your-fair-share approach. I think we should put the commissions out of commission. I think this is an approach that is needed now. We do not need to delay in making that decision. Second, what we have tried to do in our plan is try to provide those people who are in the Medicare Program with the right to choose a program that is best for them. The Senator from West Virginia made a comment or two that I was struck by. He talked about how Medicare does not provide for pharmaceuticals. It does not provide, as you also know, Mr. President, for things like new eyeglasses. That is because we have a one-size- fits-all Medicare plan. If you are a senior citizen in this country, you do not have a choice, you are in Medicare and you only get one approach. If you are not, if you are in the younger age category, you have a lot of choices. What we want to do and one of the ways we intend to bring down the growth of Medicare is by giving our seniors the right to choose different options. I know seniors who say, ``What I would like is a system where I do not have to pay for pharmaceuticals, where we have a break on drugs like a lot of private health care plans have.'' We want to give seniors that right. We do not want to take away their choices. We want to expand them. [[Page S 16958]] I know seniors who say, ``I would like to have a situation where I can get my eyeglasses changed and not have to be hit in the pocketbook by the excessive costs of new eyeglass prescriptions.'' We want to give them that choice, not diminish their choice; expand it. Finally, what we want to do is eliminate the waste and the fraud and the mismanagement in the Medicare Program. One of the ways we intend to reduce the growth of Medicare is by enforcing tough standards to deal with fraud and abuse. Indeed, Mr. President, this Senator offered an amendment which was adopted to provide the beneficiaries of Medicare with an opportunity to obtain rewards for ferreting out the waste and fraud and bringing it to the attention of Federal officials or finding ways to make the program run more efficiently. There are a lot of ways we can address these problems. Every way does not include, as was suggested earlier, simply more hardship for people. We are trying to be innovative and broaden the choices for people. And what we are trying to do is offer a long-term solution to this problem, because it is not going to get better, Mr. President, it is going to get worse. If you are in Medicare now or if you are approaching Medicare age, we are facing insolvency in the Medicare system. And the motion to instruct, if it were to be implemented, would not offset that potential insolvency because, Mr. President, in just a few years, as the entitlement commission indicated just last summer, we are talking about a day in this country, if we do not slow the rate of growth of these programs, when entitlement spending and spending on the interest on the national debt will together consume all of the revenues of Government. That would mean no national security, no law enforcement, no spending on education, training, highways, or anything else unless we started borrowing money at a level that this country's economy could not sustain, which means we have to address these problems now, early in the process, not much later on. That is what the Republican plan intends to do. Finally, I would like to just address another point or two with regard to the Medicare issue. Today, it is being suggested that the lines are clearly drawn, that there is a side that cares about seniors and a side that does not. The majority party cares about seniors of this country. It was not the majority party that increased the tax on the earnings of Social Security beneficiaries. In fact, every Member of the majority party voted against those tax hikes in 1993. It was the other side who imposed those higher taxes. It was not the majority party that just last week wanted to give the President the ability to tap into the Social Security trust funds to deal with our debt limit. We want to protect those Social Security trust funds. And that is why our short-term debt ceiling bill would keep those trust funds sacred. Finally, it was not the majority party that introduced a balanced budget plan that would dramatically change the CPI without any consideration of those issues. It was the balanced budget plan offered on the other side. Mr. President, we see a lot of polls. We see polls that were alluded to by the Senator from West Virginia that say, ``Gee, these plans may or may not be popular today.'' But, Mr. President, every day the polls change. If there is a new TV ad attacking a plan, that will change the polls. If there is a story in the newspaper or on the news, that will change the polls. We did not come here, Mr. President, to change our philosophies, to change our objectives, to change what we were sent here to do based on the intermittent polls conducted by various pollsters whether for the media or on a partisan basis. We came here to fulfill promises that were made. And those promises, just so I can bring them back to the foreground, which underlie what we are trying to do across the board with this budget, were to, first, end the red ink in Washington, 25 years of deficit spending. That is what our budget does. It brings the budget into balance. And what does that mean? It means lower interest rates. It means the Federal Government finally operating the way we have to operate in our families and many State and local governments have to operate. That is by spending no more than you take in. Second, we have an obligation and a promise and a commitment to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare, not through next year's election but into the future. And that is what our plan accomplishes. Finally, we have a commitment, a promise, to let people keep more of what they earn. We heard a lot of talk about this tax cut already. I do not want to get into great detail about it here again today. The motion to instruct suggests that somehow we would offset any budget impact of this reduction in the change in the rate of growth of Medicare by reducing so-called tax breaks for upper income taxpayers and corporations. Mr. President, the tax cuts that are part of this reconciliation package, just to go over them one more time, fall to families, fall to small businesses in great degree. Over $140 billion of the $245 billion--actually a $225 billion net tax cut--is the family tax credit, and 83 percent of that, under the current version, goes to families who make less than $100,000 a year and over 70 percent to families making less than $75,000 a year. Another major part of that tax cut is the spousal IRA; another part is ending the marriage penalty; another part is to allow family farmers and small business people to pass on their assets to their children without facing huge Federal taxes at the time somebody passes away. The only way we are going to offset the change that would be suggested in this motion through tax changes would be to hit families and undermine the tax cuts which we have developed for them. That is not the way, I think, we should do business, Mr. President. So, for all of these reasons, we stand strong, I think, in support of the original reconciliation package of the past. At this time, I yield such time as we may have remaining to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be recognized at 4:30 p.m. today to make a motion to instruct conferees with respect to the reconciliation bill, and that the House message on H.R. 2491 be laid aside until that time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need just to enter a few additional comments into the Record that I would like to make after the fine address by the Senator from Idaho. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida, in explaining his motion, at the conclusion of his remarks, commented on the issues that pertain to the short-term debt bill which we voted on here last Thursday night and expressed puzzlement that in that short-term debt bill the Republican Members here who supported it included a provision that would limit the ability of the President to raid those Social Security trust funds that are in fact the subject of his motion today. He said he is puzzled because of the Roth amendment, which his motion specifically addresses, to change the number that is employed for calculation of Consumer Price Index changes. I guess I have sort of the reverse puzzlement. I am puzzled that people who, on the one hand, argue that they are concerned about the Social Security and other trust funds' integrity were willing to vote against the short-term debt limit issue, a bill that we passed last Thursday night, because if this is the issue that they hold as so vital and important, I would think they would have joined us in calling for those various trust funds to be off limits and to prevent the President from having the ability to raid those trust funds. During the debate on the debt limit, the Democrats supported an amendment offered, I believe, by the Senator from New York, which would have given the administration the authority to raid Federal workers' retirement trust funds, the elderly's trust funds, Social Security benefits, and the pensions of our country's veterans. The amendment would have essentially stricken all language pertaining to all of those trust funds from the short-term debt bill. Now, I understand that on final passage people might have found some of the provisions, in addition to those trust fund provisions, objectionable. But I was amazed that no effort was made at the time of consideration of the Moynihan amendment to limit that amendment to the areas that did not pertain to these trust funds, but rather to include them. In short, the Democrats had the opportunity to make the strong statement, which this motion to instruct suggests they wish to make, regarding the integrity of these trust funds by either voting against that Moynihan amendment, as we did on our side, or by offering a smaller version of the Moynihan amendment that would have only focused on those aspects of the short-term debt bill that were unrelated to the trust funds. And yet that did not happen. The President, of course, has said he needs the extension of the debt limit. He has now vetoed that extension. The administration now says that they can raid the $1.3 trillion in pension funds of Federal workers and the Social Security trust fund in order to keep the Government from defaulting. This does not seem to me, Mr. President, consistent with the concerns that are certainly embodied in this motion and that the Senator from Florida has spoken about many times here to us, the concern that relates to the integrity of these trust funds. And I find that far more puzzling--far more puzzling--than the issues that were raised by the Senator from Florida with regard to the Republican position regarding the Moynihan amendment. One of the reasons this Senator voted against the Moynihan amendment was because it would have provided that kind of basically unlimited credit card option to the President and to his economic advisers to tap into those trust funds in order to address these issues pertaining to the payment of U.S. obligations. I would like to now turn briefly to address some of the issues that were raised by the Senator from South Carolina with reference to the various ways by which the budget deficit is calculated. The fact is that ever since the Budget Act of 1974, every budget has calculated the budget on a unified basis. Now, I am not at great odds with the Senator from South Carolina in the concerns that have been expressed that we need to go further, that we are not going far enough in terms of reducing the growth of Federal spending. On those points I am in agreement. In fact, I was sort of, I have to say, surprised and pleased to hear his concerns as expressed today because we have had numerous opportunities before the Senate over the last few months to vote to tighten the belt further, and all too infrequently have we heard support for those gestures on the other side of the aisle. But the fact is, Mr. President, both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office use the unified budget to calculate the deficit. When the Democrats were in charge here in Congress, they calculated the deficit including the Social Security trust funds. Both budgets submitted by President Clinton this year included the Social Security surplus in their calculations. And, indeed, some of the changes in the level of the deficit that have been pointed to, with pride, by the President are, in fact, changes that were in large part obtained because of these Social Security trust fund surpluses that the President uses in his calculations. In short, Mr. President, I guess I would be more sympathetic to the case that is being made if the same fervor had been used here on the floor to criticize the President's budget when it came down here as is now being employed to criticize our budget. The fact is that there seems to be a certain priority here. When the Republicans come forth using the same unified budget that has been used every year since 1974, suddenly the issue of using the trust funds is of great concern. When the President comes forward using those same surpluses, the issue seems to not be on the front burner. I guess I have to draw a conclusion from that discrepancy that this is more of a partisan attack than it is one of a substantive sort. Let me talk about the broader question that was raised by the Senator from South Carolina, at least as it pertains to the deficits, because he makes the point that in the 7-year period we are talking about, at the end of that period of time, according to the unified budget, we will have eliminated the [[Page S 16966]] Federal deficit, but because of the Social Security surplus' effects, there will still be that deficit to contend with. I have good news for the Senator from South Carolina. The good news is that not only is the Republican budget which we have been voting on here in recent months the only budget that achieves balance using the Social Security trust funds in the year 2002 according to CBO scoring, but the Republicans are also the only people here who have a budget that achieves balance without using the Social Security trust funds. And that will be achieved in the year 2005. Indeed, Mr. President, according to the Senate Budget Committee, the surplus from our balanced budget plan will exceed the surplus in the Social Security trust fund in the year 2005. In other words, we are not only on the way to achieving balance in the year 2002 under the unified budget, but the plan which we have been fighting for here in the Senate, the plan that is responsive to citizens across this country who have said it is time to put the Federal fiscal house in order will achieve balance even if you do not use a unified budget by the year 2005. In other words, it continues the job that we were sent here to do, to bring about the kind of fiscal integrity in Washington that every family in my State of Michigan from Sanilac County in the thumb all the way over to St. Joseph, MI, and Berrien County in southwest Michigan has to do in their own home, that is, to bring about balance. We will achieve that in the year 2005 under anybody's calculus. That is what is critical, because nobody else, Mr. President, even comes close to achieving this balance. According to the CBO, the President's so-called balanced budget would still have a $200 billion deficit in the year 2002. And that $200 billion or so deficit will continue as far as the eye can see. So, Mr. President, I guess what I will just say in closing, one last point just to follow up on the concerns that have been expressed relative to the CPI, is that there was another balanced budget proposal brought before the Senate which Senator Craig alluded to. It was brought by Senators Simon and Conrad during our reconciliation debate. It was brought and supported, I believe, exclusively by folks on the other side of the political aisle. In that budget, they brought about balance by very substantially tapping into the Social Security trust funds by making a very substantial adjustment in the CPI, not an adjustment based on this year's actual inflation numbers, as was the case with the Roth amendment, but by simply on an across-the-board basis, adjusting at an adequate level to bring about a balanced budget. In short, they used the Social Security changes, a reduction, in fact, Mr. President, of some $41.1 billion in Social Security payments, to bring their budget into balance. In total, they reduced Federal outlays from the various trust funds, and so on, including Social Security, by over $73 billion over 7 years, all of it because of changes in the Consumer Price Index in order to make their budget stand the challenge of reaching balance. Mr. President, I will say, $73 billion is considerably more than $13 billion, and it was not achieved based on an actual number, but rather on a number that was needed to reach balance. So if there is a plan before the Senate that should be critically analyzed and, I believe, scrutinized very closely for having addressed the Social Security trust fund numbers improperly by making changes in the CPI that were very substantial, it was that amendment offered on the other side. I suggest if there are concerns about the CPI that they should be directed at those who proposed that approach, not the approach that was used on our side where the real inflation number was employed. In summary, Mr. President, the fact is that we came here to balance the budget. The Republican plan will put us in balance in the year 2002 using the unified-budget approach that has been used by Presidents and Congresses since the 1974 Budget Act. The Republican plan will put us into balance, regardless of whether you use a unified budget, by the year 2005. It is the only plan in town that will accomplish those objectives. It is the only plan in town that will begin to bring down the interest rates that people pay across this country for student loans, new cars, new homes and various other things they need for their families. It is the only plan that will restore fiscal integrity to the Government of the United States, and that is why we feel so strongly that it is the right plan for America. I yield back whatever time remains. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield at this time such time as he may need to the Senator from Idaho.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are debating today the current focus of the reconciliation debate, which is the bill that passed the Senate. I believe in the perfecting amendment the Finance Committee brought to us, the concerns that were raised about standards being below Federal standards were addressed in such a way that the only waivers that will be permitted are those which would be offered for States that have standards that are equal to or stricter than.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Right now, my understanding is States are free to set their standards today. The issue of whether to comply with their own standards or to be held to a higher or Federal standard is going to be determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services who would be empowered to decide whether or not those State standards that they might set were equal to or stricter than the Federal standards. If they are not, then they cannot be used. That is my understanding of the way this would work. I believe right now the legislature of Michigan or the legislature of West Virginia could pass legislation that would have standards of their own choosing. The issue of whether or not those would be preempted by Federal standards, I think, would be determined, under our bill, by the Secretary of HHS who might decide the Michigan standards, as has been the case for many years, are tough standards; tougher, in fact, in many cases than Federal standards.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Just in summary, my impression and understanding of what we attempted to accomplish here was to create a Federal standard that would be a floor rather than a ceiling, and if States wanted to have more strict standards, they would be permitted waivers to do so, but they would not be permitted waivers if they had standards less strict. That is my impression of the legislation.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record as part of this debate, since our time has expired, a report.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I just ask that maybe we keep track of the time because we are on a time limit. So this time might be assigned to the block of time which will be used for consideration of this motion, if that is part of the agreement.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need to speak more generally on the reconciliation bill that is going to be dealt with later this week. Earlier, when this issue regarding motions to instruct was being talked about, there were several I was considering bringing. Because of the unanimous-consent agreement that was entered into, these are precluded from being brought here today, but I would like to speak responsive to those because I think it is important, as our conferees begin to meet, that they focus on some of the issues of difference that existed between the Senate package and the package that passed the House. In particular, as you will note, Mr. President, back during the final hours of debate on the reconciliation bill, the so-called Byrd rule was invoked to remove from the Senate reconciliation bill a number of provisions which related to the welfare reform proposals that are in the reconciliation bill. I had considered bringing back some of those in the form of instructions to our Senate conferees to accede to what the House has attempted to do in these areas, because I think it was a huge mistake for the Senate to remove some of these things from our package. Specifically, during the final hours of that debate we removed part of the welfare reform bill that would have provided States with an incentive, in the form of additional dollars, to those States that were able to reduce the rate of illegitimate births, of out-of-wedlock births, through various programs they might enact so long as they did not simultaneously increase the abortion rate as a way they might accomplish the reduction in the out-of-wedlock births. This was a topic we debated at great length here in the Senate when the topic of welfare reform was before us. It is one that really had quite a bit of consensus support on both sides of the aisle. In fact, an amendment relating to it was defeated, an effort to take it out of our welfare bill, with more than 60 Senators voting to retain this so-called illegitimacy bonus language in the bill. I think we have heard, from both sides of the aisle and across America, great concern expressed in an ongoing basis over the problem of rising numbers of illegitimate births in our country. Indeed, we have even heard percentages that are projected to be as high as 40 percent of all children born in this country by the year 2000 will be born out of wedlock. The social indicators are that children born under these circumstances typically have higher rates of dropout from school, higher drug abuse rates, higher likelihood of becoming, themselves, involved in some type of criminal activity. It is a problem that spans the entire country and it is one which we in the Congress, I think, have responsibility to address. The one and only way in which we attempted to address this very specifically in the welfare reform bill was through this provision, which would have provided States with the incentive to reduce the number of illegitimate births. For that reason, I was stunned when the Byrd rule was invoked, to try to remove--and in fact it did remove-- this provision from the bill. In my judgment it was a terrible statement to make at the time when people from all political perspectives are arguing this is a problem of national concern and a problem we must address. I can understand there were politics involved in the invocation of the Byrd rule with regard to the reconciliation bill on a number of fronts. But this statement was a mistake. I think making this statement sent the wrong signal. I think in many ways it was a repudiation of the concerns of average men and women, citizens across this country, who have been focusing on what we are doing here and asking, hoping the Congress will be responsive to a serious problem. So, Mr. President, I say again, even though it is not in the form of an instruction, it is this Senator's hope the conferees will work to make sure the provisions in the reconciliation bill which addressed out-of-wedlock births in the form of providing States with financial incentives to address these problems locally will keep such language in whatever package returns to us. Another provision which was likewise removed was the provision which would have capped the amount of time that people could be recipients of welfare benefits to 5 years. As I have traveled throughout my State, one of the concerns I hear expressed constantly by people is the notion that they do not want to see welfare become a way of life. The best and surest way to address that, I think, was the approach which we took here in the Senate in the welfare bill we did consider. It was overwhelmingly adopted. Approximately 87 Senators joined together to support the bill. In that bill we had a 5-year limit on the benefits that people would be allowed to receive from the welfare system. That, too, was a provision that was struck during the debate on the reconciliation package, again, I think sending absolutely the worst possible signal the Congress of the United States could send to people in this country who look to us to set rules that are fair and responsive to their concerns. As I talk to the hard-working men and women of my State, who pay their bills and pay the taxes and are genuinely compassionate toward those in need, what I hear them say is, ``Fine, we want to provide a safety net. We want to be helpful. But we think there are certain points at which enough is enough. Five years seems like a reasonable period of time for them.'' For that reason, I sincerely hope, again, the conferees on the reconciliation package, whether or not it is in the form of an instruction from us, will be responsive to these concerns and retain the sort of language which we had [[Page S 16948]] in the Senate bill prior to the invocation of the Byrd rule during the last hours of debate. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business until 3 p.m. today, during which Senators may speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ABRAHAM

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, could I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield as much time as he may need to the Senator from Delaware.