[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 128 (Thursday, August 3, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11324-S11329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Heflin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
        Grassley, and Mr. D'Amato):
  S. 1115. A bill to prohibit an award of costs, including attorney's 
fees, or injunctive relief, against a judicial officer for action taken 
in a judicial capacity; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                 THE JUDICIAL IMMUNITY RESTORATION ACT

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senators 
Heflin, Hatch, Grassley, and D'Amato, to introduce the Judicial 
Immunity Restoration Act of 1995 to protect judges from lawsuits filed 
against them for acts taken in their judicial capacity. This bill is 
nearly identical to legislation considered in the 100th Congress, the 
101st Congress, and most recently in the 102d Congress.
  This legislation is needed to restore the doctrine of judicial 
immunity by correcting the decision of the United States Supreme Court 
in Pulliam v. Allen, 456 U.S. 522 (1984). In a 5 to 4 decision, the 
Supreme Court held that judicial immunity does not bar injunctive 
relief or an award of attorneys' fees against State court judges acting 
in their judicial capacity. The Court recognized the possible chilling 
effects its decision might have on a judge's ability to exercise 
independent judgment. But the Supreme Court held that the Congress 
should determine the extent of judicial immunity.
  It is important for the Congress to clarify the extent of judicial 
immunity to ensure that judges are free to make appropriate decisions 
in their judicial capacity without fear of reprisal. This legislation 
prohibits the award of costs or attorneys' fees against judges, both 
State and Federal, for performing the judicial functions for which they 
were elected or appointed. In addition, this legislation removes the 
threat of injunctions against judges for acts performed in their 
judicial capacities, except in rare circumstances when a judge refuses 
to respect a declaratory judgment.
  Few doctrines are more important or more firmly rooted in our 
jurisprudence than the notion of an independent judiciary. Judicial 
immunity has been a fundamental tenet of our common law since 
distinguished jurist Lord Coke held in the case of Floyd and Barker, 77 
Eng. Rep. 1305 (1607), that a judge who presided over a murder trial 
was immune from subsequent conspiracy charges brought against him by 
the murder defendant. Judicial independence is no less critical today, 
and remains essential to ensure justice.
  It is time to restore the judicial immunity protections that were 
weakened by the Court's decision in Pulliam. In the 10 years since 
Pulliam, thousands of Federal cases have been filed against judges and 
magistrates. The overwhelming majority of these cases are without merit 
and are ultimately dismissed. The record from our previous hearings on 
this issue is replete with examples of judges having to defend 
themselves against cases that should never have been brought. The very 
process of defending against those actions constitutes harassment, and 
subjects judges to undue expense. More importantly, the very real risk 
to our judges of burdensome litigation creates a chilling effect that 
may impair the judiciary's day-to-day decisions in close and 
controversial cases.
  Mr. President, an independent judiciary is a vital component in any 
democracy, and cannot be compromised. This bill will restore the 
independence of all justices, judges, and judicial officers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1115

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST AWARDS OF COSTS, INCLUDING 
                   ATTORNEY'S FEES, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST 
                   A JUDICIAL OFFICER.

       (a) Nonliability for Costs.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no judicial officer shall be held liable 
     for any costs, including attorney's fees, in any action 
     brought against such officer for an act or omission taken in 
     such officer's judicial capacity, unless such action was 
     clearly in excess of such officer's jurisdiction.
       (b) Proceedings in Vindication of Civil Rights.--Section 
     722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended 
     by inserting before the period at the end thereof ``, except 
     that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an 
     act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity 
     such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, 
     including attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in 
     excess of such officer's jurisdiction''.
       (c) Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights.--Section 1979 
     of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1983) is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end of the first sentence: 
     ``, except that in any action brought against a judicial 
     officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's 
     judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted 
     unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory 
     relief was unavailable''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. EXON:
  S. 1116. A bill entitled ``The Broadcast and Cable Voluntary 
Standards and Practice Act''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.


      the broadcast and cable voluntary standards and practice act

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, a license to use the public airwaves to 
broadcast or use the public rights-of-way to provide cable service is a 
tremendous privilege. To many, it is almost a license to print money. 
The recent purchases of television networks reveal the extraordinary 
value of this privilege.
  With a broadcast or cable license a company gains a key to every 
household its signal can reach and access to the most intimate and 
memorable moments of people's lives.
  Broadcast television and radio as well as cable programming are key 
elements of our Nation's culture.
  With this privilege should come responsibility. Some of that 
responsibility is statutory or regulatory, for example, the 
requirements that broadcasters and cable operators refrain from 
transmitting obscenity; that broadcasters restrict indecency to hours 
when children are unlikely to be awake; and that broadcasters serve the 
public interest.
  Some of that responsibility comes from the marketplace, broadcasters 
and cable companies which offend American families lose their audience. 
Grassroots efforts have both saved programs from cancellation and 
quickened the demise of others.
  Some of that responsibility comes from the ethics of broadcasters and 
cable companies as leading corporate citizens of this country. Some of 
these corporate entities have been more responsible than others. Long 
before Presidential candidates have tried to shame the media, the 
Senate Commerce Committee on which I serve has attempted to focus 
attention on the destructiveness of certain trends in the popular 
culture.
  Some of those who have not been responsible about what they put into 
American homes blame the marketplace. They claim that in spite of their 
desires to be more family friendly, the competitive environment forces 
them to test the limits of taste and decency in the quest for viewers 
and listeners.
  To be effective, the law, the market, and individual ethics must work 
together. There are some examples of success such as Senator Simon's 
legislation which encouraged and allowed joint efforts to reduce the 
amount of violent programming. But more remains to be done on all 
fronts.
  Few can deny that there is a crisis in America. Parents, churches, 
schools are having more and more difficulty conveying values to their 
children. The electronic emperors of the modern age are increasingly 
replacing parents and families as the primary source of values.
  This is a crisis which goes deeper than violence on television it is 
also about sex and family values in popular culture.
  Today, sex sells everything from soft drinks to blue jeans. Daytime 
commercial television talk shows have become 

[[Page S 11325]]
a virtual freak show of abuse, addiction, and alternative lifestyles. 
And prime time television regularly tests the limits of taste and 
propriety.
  Year after year the situation seems to get worse. Parents try to 
teach the values of ``Mayberry'' and are overruled by the values of 
``Beverly Hills 90210.''
  The entire premise of commercial television is that a 30- or 60-
second advertisement will affect a substantial portion of an audience 
to do things which they would not otherwise do--that is, to buy a 
particular product or service. It should be no mystery that 30- and 60-
minute programs on television or radio have a profound effect on the 
views and values of audiences, especially young audiences.
  The three areas of entertainment industry responsibility--legal, 
market, and ethical--are ripe for careful review and discussion.
  The legislation I introduce today attempts to empower the industry to 
bolster its ethical commitments and to take responsible self-initiated 
steps to improve the contemporary entertainment industry. It picks up 
where Senator Simon's TV violence initiative left off.
  During the so-called golden age of television, broadcasters had a 
voluntary, but well followed, code of ``standards and practices'' known 
as the Television Code. Many of America's most memorable television 
series from the black and white era of the fifties and sixties proudly 
displayed the Television Code Seal at the conclusion of each show. It 
is ironic that those moments recognized as some of television's finest 
are devoid of the coarseness, vulgarity and unpleasantness of today's 
programming.
  Antitrust prosecutions in the late 1970's related to the advertising 
provisions of the television code led to its eventual total demise in 
the early 1980s.
  The legislation I introduce today would allow the television and 
cable industry to revise a voluntary code of standards and practices. 
Such private sector empowerment may be useful in reducing the crudity 
and coarseness in the modern entertainment industry.
  While the Congress reviews ways to strengthen the legal 
responsibility of television and cable industry through legislation to 
limit violent programming and to strengthen the market forces through 
the public disclosure of violence report cards, I ask my colleagues to 
give serious consideration to the legislation I introduce today. The 
Broadcast and Cable Voluntary Standards and Practices Act will at least 
empower the entertainment industry to strengthen its ethical commitment 
to the American family.
  I urge my colleagues to review and support this important 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Ford, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Bryan, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 1117. A bill to repeal AFDC and establish the Work First plan, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                   the work first welfare reform plan
   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, with my 
colleagues Senator Breaux and Senator Mikulski, the Work First plan. We 
are joined today by Senators Rockefeller, Reid, Bob Kerrey, Ford, 
Dorgan, Dodd, and John Kerry, our entire Democratic leadership, as well 
as Senators Lieberman, Conrad, Bingaman, and Bryan.
   We are gratified to have the broad bipartisan support of State and 
local leaders across the country. The bipartisan U.S. Conference of 
Mayors unanimously endorsed the Work First plan last month. The bill 
also has the support of the National Council of Elected County 
Executives, the Democratic Governors' Association, and many State 
legislators. The President has also endorsed our plan.
   Our bill has four fundamental goals. First, we emphasize work. Our 
bill is designed to move welfare recipients from welfare to work. To 
put work first in priority. Second, our bill protects children. We do 
not punish children to pay for the mistakes or circumstances of their 
parents. Third, we do all we can to break the cycle of dependency. 
Fourth, we want to give States maximum flexibility.
   The welfare system cannot be fundamentally changed without 
fundamentally changing the welfare culture.
   Under the Work First plan, welfare offices are turned into 
employment offices. Welfare staff are retrained to focus on employment 
first. Gone are the micromanaging rules of today. We encourage states 
to consolidate and streamline their efforts to simplify administration 
and to restore common sense to a system that has become too 
bureaucratic.
   Under the Work First plan, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, 
[AFDC] is eliminated. We do not modify it or revamp it. We do not ship 
it off to the States. We terminate it outright.
   In its place, we create a conditional entitlement of limited 
duration. Referred to as ``Temporary Employment Assistance,'' this new 
program is a dramatic change from AFDC.
   There must be no more unconditional assistance. Everyone must 
contribute to the effort to change the welfare culture.
   Toward that end, all recipients of Temporary Employment Assistance 
must sign a contract. This contract, called a Parent Empowerment 
Contract, is based on the Iowa model. Essentially it is a blueprint for 
employment. It spells out what each welfare recipient is expected to do 
to become employed and to be a responsible parent.
   To obtain assistance, applicants must sign the contract. Those who 
do not sign, who are unwilling to accept personal responsibility for 
improving their situation--will not get assistance. The contract is a 
commitment, and those who do not abide by the contract will have their 
benefits reduced and ultimately terminated.
   All able-bodied recipients are required to work. Even those who are 
not able-bodied, those who might be disabled or caring for a disabled 
child, must do something in return for assistance. States will decide 
what they will be required to do. It could be volunteering at their 
child's school, or ensuring that their children are properly immunized, 
or some other task or responsibility the State determines is fair and 
reasonable.
   Again, there must be no more unconditional assistance.
  Temporary Employment Assistance is temporary. There is a 5 year 
lifetime limit for Temporary Employment Assistance that may be waived 
only to protect children, disabled individuals, or other special cases. 
Applicants will know from day one that help will be available for a 
finite period.
   Temporary Employment Assistance is flexible. States set their own 
rules for eligibility. States set their own maximum benefit levels. 
States set their own resource limits, asset limits, and income 
disregard policies.
   All we require is that if a family meets those eligibility criteria 
set by the State, that family must receive assistance. That is one of 
the basic differences between our plan and the Republican plans. We all 
provide flexibility. We all let States set their own benefits. But, we 
say that families of similar income, or lack of income, ought to 
receive assistance based on their degree of poverty, not their place in 
line, or the time of year they applied.
   A block grant, like the one approved by the Senate Finance 
Committee, is a first-come, first-served policy. What matters most is 
your place in line--not your level of need. We believe that is wrong.
   As part of the effort to change the welfare culture and put welfare 
recipients to work, the Work First plan terminates the current JOBS 
program. Gone are the micromanaging rules under JOBS. We recognize that 
some welfare recipients made modest gains under JOBS. But, we believe 
that States ought to have far more flexibility to put welfare 
recipients to work.
   Therefore, we replace the current JOBS program with a Work First 
Employment Block Grant. Under Work First, the focus is on job creation 
and employment in the private sector.
   Once an individual receives Temporary Employment Assistance, she 
would spend up to two months in intensive job search activities to be 
designed by the States. At that point, we hope 

[[Page S 11326]]
that the most job-ready of welfare recipients will have found a job and 
begun the transition out of welfare.
   For those who have not found a job after 2 months, States can offer 
a variety of options under the Work First Employment Block Grant: 
placement services or vouchers; microenterprise or self-employment 
activities; work supplementation; grant diversion; workfare; community 
service; something like the GAIN program in Riverside County, CA; 
something like the JOBS Plus program in Oregon that provides clients 
with on-the-job training by cashing out AFDC and Food Stamps in return 
for wages; something like the Family Investment program in Iowa that 
moves families off welfare and into self-sufficient employment; or any 
other work-related option to employ welfare recipients.
  For States that exceed the work performance rates under the Work 
First plan, we will provide bonuses on a per-person basis to the State. 
The bonuses are based on job retention. After the first 3 months, a 
State will receive one-third of the bonus. After 6 months, a State will 
receive another third. And, after 9 months of work, States will receive 
the final third.
   As I said before, the objective of our plan is work first. That is 
the name of our bill, and that is our absolute goal. We not only want 
to move welfare recipients into the workforce. We want to keep them 
there.
   As we consider welfare reform, there will undoubtedly be vigorous 
debate about various facts and statistics. But there is no denying one 
fact. And, that is that the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients 
are women, mothers raising children alone.
   That is why it is no surprise that the greatest barrier for moving 
welfare recipients from welfare to work is the lack of child care, the 
inability to afford child care, and the anxiety about leaving one's 
child in the care of another.
   We believe that the linchpin between welfare and work is child care. 
We believe that if we help mothers afford child care and help 
communities expand child care opportunities, we will tear down that 
barrier.
   An investment in child care today pays off in two ways tomorrow. 
First, it enables welfare recipients to go to work. And second, quality 
child care provides a positive environment for children to better 
prepare for school and a life free of welfare.
   If we are serious about putting welfare recipients to work, then we 
need to be equally serious about providing child care assistance.
   To date, the focus of welfare reform has been on work. An essential 
part of that debate ought to be about child care assistance.
   To leave her house, to get a job, to keep that job, a mother first 
must be able to find and afford child care. If we are going to retain 
women, particularly single women, in the workforce, then we need to 
invest in child care.
   Another barrier to employment is the lack of health coverage. For 
many child care if has not become an insurmountable problem, then 
health care coverage has.
   It is well know that many low wage jobs, often the only jobs 
available to welfare recipients, do not come with health care coverage. 
And we all know of stories of women who left welfare for work only to 
face a health care crisis and realize that welfare with Medicaid 
coverage is their only viable option. The incentives under the current 
system are all wrong. We have to make work pay.
   That is why under Work First, we provide for 2 years of Medicaid 
coverage for those transitioning from welfare to work.
   I know that, ideally, this problem should be considered within the 
context of overall healthcare reform. But, until that happens, through 
transitional Medicaid coverage, we have provided an incentive to keep 
women in the workforce.
   Another critical issue in the welfare debate is teen pregnancy. I 
have talked to many experts throughout the country and in South Dakota 
about teen pregnancy. No one has come up with the perfect solution.
   Under the Work First plan, mothers are required to live at home or 
in an adult-supervised environment. They are required to stay in 
school. States are free to reduce benefits to those who do not and 
provide bonuses to those who do.
   Because there is no one-size-fits-all answer to reducing teen 
pregnancy, the Work First plan offers grants to States to work with 
communities to develop their own innovative approaches to reduce teen 
pregnancy.
   With regard to absent parents and child support enforcement, our 
message is clear. The Work First plan includes the Bradley-Snowe 
provisions to improve child support enforcement and bring about 
uniformity to interstate cases so that they will no longer be 
impossible to enforce.
   The Work First plan also goes one step further. Noncustodial parents 
with overdue support orders are required to pay up, enter into a 
repayment plan, or choose between community service and jail.
   No longer will deadbeat parents be able to escape their financial 
responsibility. It is a crime that the default rate on used cars is 
about 3 percent, while the default rate on child support orders hovers 
around 50 percent. No longer. Not under the Work First plan.
   The Work First plan is really about priorities. It is a priority for 
us to fundamentally change the welfare system to put welfare recipients 
to work--not to put them on someone else's doorstep.
   We cut existing welfare and welfare-related programs and invest 
those savings in efforts to promote work and child care. Beyond the 
investments we make, we have savings of about $15 billion so that we 
not only put welfare recipients to work, but we reduce the deficit at 
the same time.
   The time has come for fundamental change. The Work First plan is a 
pragmatic approach that focuses on work--private sector work.
   We are told that the Senate will begin debating welfare reform on 
Saturday. I look forward to reviewing the revised Republican plan and 
comparing it to our plan. And I continue to urge my colleagues, on both 
sides of the aisle, to review the Work First plan.
   Welfare reform should not be a partisan issue. It is time to put 
politics aside and get down to the business we were sent here to do. If 
we do that, there is no doubt in my mind that we can develop a welfare 
reform package that garners a large consensus in the Senate.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud today to join with the 
Democratic leader in introducing the work first bill. It is the 
Democratic leadership's welfare reform bill.
  We Democrats believe that welfare should not be a way of life but a 
way to a better life. The people on welfare agree that it is a mess. 
The taxpayers who pay for welfare agree that it is a mess. All agree 
that the current system does not work, and all agree that it needs to 
be replaced. It discourages work and economic self-sufficiency.
  Therefore, the Democratic work first bill addresses these concerns. 
That is why we are absolutely firm on work. That is why the Democratic 
bill that we introduce today not only moves people off of welfare but 
helps them stay off.
  The Republican welfare bill simply pushes people off welfare and 
pushes them into poverty. The Democrats have a work first plan. It 
focuses on ending the cycle of poverty and the culture of poverty. How 
do we do it? Our bill ends AFDC and creates a temporary employment 
assistance program. We require job readiness assessments of each adult 
job placement, job search, and on-the-job work activity. We require 
them to sign a parent empowerment contract that requires them to take 
the steps they need to go to work and be responsible parents. Then we 
expect the individuals to go to work.
  But while being firm on work, we provide these individuals with the 
tools they need to get a job and keep a job. We also provide a safety 
net for children. That means quality day care for 2 years as parents go 
to work, the extension of health care protection, and making sure that 
a child has health care while their mothers are moving to work and 
self-sufficiency. This also means we look out for the food and 
nutrition programs.
  The Democratic bill also brings men back into the family. Sure, we 
are very tough on child support. We strengthen the child support rules. 
But we do not look at men only as a child support check. We want men 
back into the family. We want to remove the barriers to 

[[Page S 11327]]
family, the barriers to marriage, because we believe the way the family 
is going to move out of poverty is the way people move to the middle 
class, with two-parent wage earners. That is why we will eliminate the 
man-in-the-house rule and other barriers to men being in the family.
  The Democratic plan also tackles the growing problem of teenage 
pregnancy. Under our bill, teen mothers must stay in school and stay at 
home as a condition of receiving benefits. If they stay in a home that 
is not desirable, where they are a victim of abuse, or where there is 
alcoholism or drug abuse, we create a network of second-chance homes. 
The work first plan also gives broad flexibility to States, 
administrative simplification and helps with those issues that 
Governors have complained about.
  Finally the Democratic welfare bill saves money and lowers the 
deficit. Through a series of reforms in the current system and the 
elimination of fraud and waste, our bill will have a net savings of $21 
billion over a 7-year period.
  This work first bill is an act of tough love. Sure it is tough, but 
we have a lot of love in it. As we approach welfare reform, we ask 
people to take charge of their lives and go to work. In exchange for 
that, we give them the tools to stay at work, the opportunity for a 
better life, enable them to marry. And I believe that our bill brings 
about real reform because we do not have requirements, we have results 
and resources.
  I hope that this bill will attract bipartisan support and we can 
truly end welfare as we know it.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor to the Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Maryland 
for the excellent job she has done. As a former professional social 
worker, when Barbara Mikulski speaks about welfare reform, she does not 
speak from having read a book about it; she speaks from having led a 
life of trying to improve the conditions of lives of people who have 
had the great misfortune of being on welfare.
  Mr. President, I will be very brief. Today is an important day 
because today the Democratic leadership, with a number of cosponsors, a 
majority of all Democrats, have introduced our Work First welfare 
reform bill. It is a major document. It is a major document because it 
makes major changes in the current welfare system that we, as 
Democrats, and I think most Republicans would agree welfare as we know 
it today simply does not work.
  I know of only a few people who may stand up anywhere and say the 
system we have is a good system. It does not work well for the people 
who are on it and it does not work well for the people who are paying 
for it.
  I think there is a general consensus that we have to make major 
changes. How we make those changes is the subject, I think, of 
legitimate debate. There are a lot of different suggestions about what 
should be done to make it work better than it has worked in the past. I 
suggest that any program that is tough on work, any program that is 
good for children, is a movement in the right direction as to what we 
as a Congress should be doing.
  It was an issue at the last Presidential campaign. I hope it will not 
be an issue in the next Presidential campaign, because I hope by that 
time we will have adopted a real bipartisan program that is good for 
all Americans.
  We, as Democrats, could not do this by ourselves. I suggest that our 
Republican colleagues, by themselves, cannot do it either.
  Therefore, this is a subject that will have to have bipartisan 
agreement. We are going to bring a real welfare reform bill to the 
President's desk, one that he can sign in this Congress. That should be 
the goal of all of us, Republicans or Democrats.
  Let me just suggest that the bill that we are introducing today, the 
Democratic Work First Program, is an excellent vehicle. I wish all of 
our colleagues would join and we could pass it unanimously. I know that 
that is not likely.
  I do think that it presents a document in a package of principles 
that we can all agree on and then tinker around the edges to make it a 
politically acceptable document to all of our colleagues.
  Our bill starts off by recognizing that the current system does not 
work. We abolished the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the 
AFDC program, which has been around for so long. We are saying that in 
the 1990's it does not work. Not only does it have to be changed a 
little bit, it has to be changed a lot. Not only does it have to be 
changed, it should be abolished, and start off with a new program.
  That is what we have in our document. We replace Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children with a temporary employment system that requires 
people, when they walk into the welfare office, to sign a contract. 
That contract is going to get them starting to look for a job from the 
first day. If they do not follow the terms of the contract, their 
benefits can be reduced.
  I think that is something that is incredibly important. They start 
from the first day they walk in the office looking for a job. The best 
social program that this Congress can pass is a good job, not another 
Federal program, but a good job for someone who currently is under 
welfare assistance in their particular State.
  The program that we are offering abolishes the current system, starts 
over with a temporary employment program from the very first day. There 
are penalties and there are time limits. We are saying that people 
cannot be on welfare assistance forever. There is a 2-year time limit, 
and a total of 5 years in a person's life that they would be eligible 
for welfare assistance.
  We also, I think, protect children. We also say to States that we are 
not going to give you an unfunded mandate to do things without helping 
you pay for those programs.
  One of my concerns about the bill that came out of the Finance 
Committee was that we froze the amount of money going to the States at 
1994 levels, yet we are telling States they have to do a lot more with 
a lot less. That is not real reform.
  I suggest that plan is like putting all the welfare problems in a box 
and then mailing that box to the States and say, ``Here, it is yours. 
We are washing our hands of the problem. You take it. We will give you 
less money to fix it.''
  That is not reform. That is passing the buck. That is not what we 
should be doing in this Congress.
  Our program is real reform. We should not be arguing, I suggest, as 
to whether the Federal Government should do it or the State should do 
it. The fact is we both should do it. The Federal Government should 
work with the States and give them more flexibility, and the Federal 
Government should be there as a partner--not as a supervisor, not as a 
big heavy hand from Washington, but as a partner--with the States to 
work on what is best for a particular State.
  Our bill does that. It gives great flexibility to the States to 
devise the proper system that works in their State, to design what is 
best for the State of Mississippi, the State of Louisiana, Maryland or 
California, or whatever State is involved. Let the States design the 
program.
  We, as Federal officials who raise the money to pay for those 
programs, should not be unconcerned with how those funds are spent. 
There should be some national standards. There should be some national 
parameters.
  We, for instance, feel that States should not be able to tell 
children who are innocent victims, who did not ask to be born, that 
they somehow will lose any benefits that they have to live because of 
the mistakes of their parents. We think that is hard. We think that is 
cruel. We think that should not be the policy of this country.
  We think, however, parents should be penalized when they make 
mistakes. We think parents who refuse to work should be penalized for 
not wanting to work. Our bill does that by reducing the benefits to 
adults who refuse to live by the terms of their contract. I think that 
is good.
  We do not say in our bill to an innocent baby who did not ask to be 
born that because your parent is a teenager, we are going to penalize 
your life and make it more difficult for you to be a functioning 
citizen in this society.
  Mr. President, our bill may not be perfect. We are not saying it is. 
We are not saying that perhaps it cannot be improved by amendments, 
because perhaps it can be. What we are saying is that our Work First 
Program is a solid package that is going to arrive out 

[[Page S 11328]]
with a lot of debate, a lot of discussion, where liberals and moderates 
and conservatives within our party have been able to come together and 
join hands and introduce this as a work first welfare package, which I 
think makes a great deal of sense.
  We encourage our Republican colleagues, we challenge our Republican 
colleagues, to introduce your bill, to start the debate --not in an 
adversarial relationship, because this is something that truly should 
not be Republican or Democrat. We should be looking for an American 
solution to a uniquely American problem.
  We all agree it does not work today. We all agree it needs to be 
fixed. We should come together and work together and get the type of 
program that this President is willing to sign and that we all can be 
proud of the ultimate results. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues 
today to introduce our Work First welfare reform legislation. This 
Congress has an historic opportunity to address the welfare crisis. The 
primary welfare program--Aid to Families With Dependent Children 
[AFDC]--is viewed by those participating in it and those paying for it 
as a failure. It is failing at its most important task--moving people 
into the work force. Worse yet, it is contributing to the cycle of 
poverty. By rewarding single parents who don't work, don't marry, and 
have children out of wedlock, the current system demeans our most 
cherished values and deepens society's most serious problems.
  The Work First plan repeals the failed AFDC Program and replaces it 
with a temporary employment assistance program focused on putting 
people to work. It gives States the flexibility and incentives they 
need to successfully move people into private sector jobs. And it 
addresses two key causes of welfare dependency through tough new child 
support enforcement laws and provisions to reduce out-of-wedlock births 
to teenagers.
  The Work First Program ends unconditional benefits that foster 
dependency. Each person receiving assistance will sign an
 individualized contract for achieving self-sufficiency. If recipients 
do not comply with the plan, then they will lose some or all of their 
benefits. While the plan may include some training or education, the 
emphasis will be squarely on work experience; all recipients will be 
required to search for a job from day one.

  Eligibility for benefits will be limited to 5 years, although 
children whose parents reach this time limit will still be eligible for 
assistance. We must continue to meet our responsibility to our Nation's 
poorest children.
  States must focus their program directly on placing people in private 
sector jobs. The bill requires States to have at least 50 percent of 
their caseload working by the year 2001. It moves away from telling 
States how to succeed and instead rewards results--States that have 
high private sector job placement rates will receive a financial bonus.
  Our work requirements are tough and funded. We understand that child 
care assistance is the critical link between welfare and work and, 
unlike Republican welfare proposals, our bill gives States the child 
care funding they need to put people in jobs and move them off of 
welfare. In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that, 
under the Republican proposal, only 6 States could afford to put 50 
percent of people on welfare to work.
  The legislation also tackles the critical problem of teen pregnancy. 
Unmarried teen parents are particularly likely to fall into long-term 
welfare dependency. More than one-half of welfare spending goes to 
women who first gave birth as teens. This legislation, among other 
things, requires teen mothers to live at home and helps communities 
establish supervised group homes for single teen mothers.
  Finally, the bill incorporates strong child support enforcement 
legislation Senator Bradley introduced, and I cosponsored, earlier this 
year. The legislation will make it easier for States to locate absent 
noncustodial parents; establish paternity; establish a court order; and 
enforce payment of court orders. A tough child support enforcement 
system will help keep millions of children out of poverty and off of 
welfare. And tougher laws will send a message of responsibility to 
would-be dead-beat parents. In an era of skyrocketing out-of-wedlock 
births and rising teen pregnancy rates, child support enforcement 
payments must become a well-known and unavoidable fact of life for 
absent fathers and mothers.
  The work first plan is true welfare reform. It demands responsibility 
from parents while providing continued protection for children. It 
addresses two of the key causes of welfare dependency--teen pregnancy 
and unpaid child support. It gives States the incentives and funding 
they need to put people back to work--and it holds States accountable 
for results.
                                 ______

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Glenn):
  S. 1118. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of bone mass measurements for certain individuals 
under part B of the Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.


         the bone mass measurement standardization act of 1995

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Bone Mass 
Measurement Standardization Act of 1995. A companion bill is being 
introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative 
Connie Morella.
  Millions of women in their post-menopausal years face a silent killer 
* * * a stalker disease we know as osteoporosis. This unforgiving bone 
disease afflicts 25 million Americans; causes 50,000 deaths each year; 
1.5 million bone fractures annually; and the direct medical costs of 
osteoporosis fracture patients are $10 billion each year, or $27 
million every single day. This cost is projected to reach $60 billion 
by the year 2020 and $240 billion by the year 2040 if medical research 
has not discovered an effective treatment.
  The facts also show that one out of every two women have a lifetime 
risk of bone fractures due to osteoporosis, and that it affects half of 
all women over the age of 50 and an astounding 90 percent of all women 
over 75. Perhaps the most tragic consequences of osteoporosis occur 
with the 250,000 individuals annually who suffer a hip fracture. Twelve 
to 13 percent of these persons will die within 6 months following a hip 
fracture, and of those who survive, a 20 percent will never walk again, 
and 20 percent will require nursing home care--often for the rest of 
their lives.
  We all know that osteoporosis cannot be cured, although with a 
continued commitment to research in this area I remain hopeful that we 
will find one. We also know that once bone mass is lost, it cannot be 
replaced. Therefore, early detection is our best weapon because it is 
through early detection, that we can thwart the progress of the disease 
and initiate preventative efforts to stop further loss of bone mass.
  Bone mass measurement can be used to determine the status of a 
person's bone health and to predict the risk of future fractures. These 
tests are safe, painless, accurate and quick. Our expanding technology 
is adding new methods to determine bone mass and we need to keep up 
with this technology. The most commonly used test currently is DXA dual 
energy x ray absorptiometry.
  In order to ensure that we detect bone loss early, we need to ensure 
that older women have coverage for bone mass tests. According to the 
National Osteoporosis Foundation, only about one half of private 
insurance policies cover these tests for diagnostic purposes, and the 
Federal Medicare coverage is inconsistent in its coverage depending on 
where an individual resides. For example, Medicare currently covers the 
DXA test in 42 States--including my home State of Maine. But it is not 
covered in 4 States and the District of Columbia, and it is covered 
only in parts of 4 additional States, some of which are our most 
populous, including New York.
  This patchwork coverage means that on older women who lives in 
Florida will be covered, but if she moves to Pennsylvania, she will not 
be. And a Medicare beneficiary living in Baltimore will be covered, but 
if she moves to Rockville, Medicare will not cover the test.
  Mr. President, a woman shouldn't have to change zip codes to obtain 
coverage for a preventive test, especially when early intervention is 
the only action we can take right now to slow the 

[[Page S 11329]]
loss of bone mass. Once it is lost, it cannot be replaced.
  The Medicare Bone Mass Measurement Standardization Act will clarify 
the Medicare coverage policy for DXA testing to make it uniform in all 
States. It also will provide an expanded definition of the types of 
tests covered for bone mass measurement in order to keep up with the 
expanding technology in this area.
  We all know that ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure''. 
This bill will ensure that older women, regardless of where they live, 
will have access to bone mass measurement technology that will help 
detect bone loss and allow preventive steps to be taken. It is our only 
weapon right now in the fight against osteoporosis.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this bill.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 1119. A bill to define the circumstances under which earthquake 
insurance requirements may be imposed by the Federal Home Loan Mortage 
Corporation on a specifically targeted State or area; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


           the earthquake insurance availability act of 1995

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I introduce the Earthquake 
Insurance Availability Act of 1995.
  The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that all 50 States in 
our Nation are treated equally by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 
Corporation with respect to special insurance requirements, 
specifically earthquake insurance.
  The legislation I am introducing today specifies that earthquake 
insurance requirements targeted to a specific state, by the Federal 
Home Loan Mortage Corporation, may be imposed only after the State 
insurance commissioner for the affected State certifies in writing 
that: First, reasonable insurance capacity exists in the State; and, 
second, compliance would not cause undue hardship for citizens of the 
State.
  Mr. President, nobody in this Chamber is more aware of the threat of 
earthquakes than I am. I have seen the devastation they can cause, and 
I know of the terrible hardships, loss of life, and loss of property 
they leave behind.
  Let me begin by saying that I believe everyone should have adequate 
insurance on their home to protect against hazards--including natural 
disasters.
  The problem is, however, that adequate insurance is not always 
available. This is especially true, in California, with respect to 
earthquake insurance.
  The truth is no region of our country is immune to natural disasters. 
In the last decade, different parts of our Nation have been hit by 
hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, volcanic 
eruptions, and firestorms, and I believe that it is essential that 
Congress enact natural disaster legislation as quickly as possible.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of the Natural Disaster Protection and 
Insurance Act recently introduced by the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska, Senator Stevens, and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, 
Senator Inouye.
  In the interim, however, my State of California which has experienced 
significant earthquakes in recent years--the Loma Prieta earthquake in 
1989; and the Northridge earthquake in 1994--has experienced a sharp 
drop in the availability of earthquake insurance.
  Simply stated, since the Northridge earthquake, many major insurers 
have pulled out of the California market. Many others have increased 
their premiums to such a point that they are beyond the reach of many 
homeowners, and even then there are very steep deductibles.
  Recently the situation became much worse, for owners of California 
condominiums, when the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Company--commonly 
known as Freddie Mac--issued a policy requiring earthquake insurance, 
only for California condominiums, as a condition of purchase of 
mortgages.
  I believe this policy, which targets only one State, is inappropriate 
for a federally chartered corporation which was created by Congress in 
1970 to ensure a stable flow of mortgage funds for the entire Nation.
  This policy which, in a way, redlines my State, is designed to 
minimize Freddie Mac's loss in the event of a future earthquake in 
California.
  I can understand why the corporation feels the need to protect its 
shareholders from potentially lower dividends. But Freddie Mac, while a 
stockholder-owned corporation, enjoys considerable tax benefits by 
virtue of its Federal charter.
  I believe that those benefits are provided by the American taxpaying 
public--which includes, I might add, many Californians--to assist 
Freddie Mac in accomplishing its mission of helping more Americans 
become homeowners.
  California still lags the Nation in its recovery, and the economy 
there is very fragile. In implementing its new policy, Freddie Mac, in 
effect, is reducing the number of options for California homeowners, 
and this will have a direct impact on the value of their homes. I 
believe this sets a dangerous precedent for other parts of the country 
which are prone to natural disaster.
  I am not unsympathetic to Freddie Mac's position, and I have 
indicated a willingness to sit down with them and work out a solution. 
But that solution must take into consideration the underlying problem--
which is the lack of earthquake insurance availability.
  In addition, the solution must take into consideration not only the 
protection of Freddie Mac's investors. It must also include the 
protection of the homeowners of my State, for it is they whom I was 
elected to represent.


                          ____________________