[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3891-S3903]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 548. A bill to provide quality standards for mammograms performed 
by the Department of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.


         the women veterans' mammography quality standards act

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, for a number of years, I have 
been active--both through legislation and oversight activity--in 
seeking to improve VA's response to women veterans. While there has 
been some progress, much remains to be done. During the last Congress, 
we were poised to make some significant improvements, particularly in 
defining which services VA must furnish to women veterans. 
Unfortunately, that legislation, along with other vital measures, died 
in the closing hours of the Congress. While those issues may still be 
brought into play on legislation later on this year, one element of our 
prior effort can clearly be separated out at this time and dealt with 
on its own merits--and that's what the bill I am introducing today will 
do.


                               background

  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing, which is cosponsored by 
Senators Akaka, Jeffords, Mikulski, Moseley-Braun, and Murkowski, would 
ensure that women veterans will receive safe and accurate mammograms. 
Under this measure, VA facilities that furnish mammography would be 
required to meet quality assurance and quality control standards that 
are no less stringent than those to which other mammography providers 
are subject under the Mammography Quality Standards Act. VA facilities 
that contract with non-VA facilities would be required to contract only 
with facilities that comply with that act. I will now highlight briefly 
the provisions contained in this legislation.


                         summary of provisions

  Mr. President, this legislation would establish quality standards for 
mammography services furnished by VA which would:
  First, require that all VA facilities that furnish mammography be 
accredited by a private nonprofit organization designated by the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
  Second, require the Secretary to designate only an accrediting body 
that meets the standards for accrediting bodies issued by the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services for purposes of accrediting mammography 
facilities subject to the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992--
Public Law 102-539.
  Third, require the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, to issue quality assurance and quality 
control standards for mammography services furnished in VA facilities 
that would be no less stringent than the Department 
[[Page S3892]] of Health and Human Services regulations to which other 
mammography providers are subject under the Mammography Quality 
Standards Act of 1992.
  Fourth, require the Secretary to issue such regulations not later 
than 120 days after enactment of this legislation.
  Fifth, require the Secretary to inspect mammography equipment 
operated by VA facilities on an annual basis in a manner consistent 
with requirements contained in the Mammography Quality Standards Act 
concerning annual inspections of mammography equipment by the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services, except that the Secretary of Veterans' 
Affairs would not have the authority to delegate inspection 
responsibilities to a State agency.
  Sixth, require VA health care facilities that provide mammography 
through contracts with non-VA providers to contract only with 
mammography providers that comply with the Department of Health and 
Human Services' quality assurance and quality control regulations.
  Seventh, require the Secretary, not later than 180 days after the 
Secretary prescribes the mammography quality assurance and quality 
control regulations, to submit a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Veterans' Affairs on the implementation of those 
regulations.


                               conclusion

  Mr. President, in closing, I emphasize just how vital improving VA 
health services for women veterans is to VA's future. Regardless of the 
outcome of national health care reform efforts, progress on health care 
reform at the State level dictates that VA must compete directly with 
non-VA providers. In addition, the State plans probably will provide 
veterans entitled to VA care, many of whom are presently uninsured, a 
wider range of health care choices. Under this scenario, VA would have 
to furnish a full continuum of health services, including quality 
mammography, in order to compete successfully for women veteran 
patients.
  This bill would hold VA to the mammography standards required of 
other providers. Anything less would deny the great debt we owe to the 
courageous women who have sacrificed themselves in service to our 
Nation.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with the chairman of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Senator Simpson, the cosponsors of this 
bill, and the other members of the committee to gain prompt action on 
it in our committee and the Senate. 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. 548

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Women Veterans' Mammography 
     Quality Standards Act''.

     SEC. 2. MAMMOGRAPHY QUALITY STANDARDS.

       (a) Performance of Mammograms.--Mammograms may not be 
     performed at a Department of Veterans Affairs facility unless 
     that facility is accredited for that purpose by a private 
     nonprofit organization designated by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs. The organization designated by the 
     Secretary under this subsection shall meet the standards for 
     accrediting bodies establishing by the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services under section 354(e) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263b(e)).
       (b) Quality Standards.--(1) Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs shall prescribe quality assurance and 
     quality control standards relating to the performance and 
     interpretation of mammograms and use of mammogram equipment 
     and facilities by personnel of the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs. Such standards shall be no less stringent than the 
     standards prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services under section 354(f) of the Public Health Service 
     Act.
       (2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall prescribe 
     standards under this subsection in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       (c) Inspection of Department Equipment.--(1) The Secretary 
     of Veterans Affairs shall, on an annual basis, inspect the 
     equipment and facilities utilized by and in Department of 
     Veterans Affairs health-care facilities for the performance 
     of mammograms in order to ensure the compliance of such 
     equipment and facilities with the standards prescribed under 
     subsection (b). Such inspection shall be carried out in a 
     manner consistent with the inspection of certified facilities 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services under section 
     354(g) of the Public Health Services Act.
       (2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may not delegate the 
     responsibility of such secretary under paragraph (1) to a 
     State agency.
       (d) Application of Standards to Contract Providers.--The 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall ensure that mammograms 
     performed for the Department of Veterans Affairs under 
     contract with any non-Department facility or provider conform 
     to the quality standards prescribed by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services under section 354 of the Public 
     Health Service Act.
       (e) Report.--(1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives a report on the quality 
     standards prescribed by the Secretary under subsection 
     (b)(1).
       (2) The Secretary shall submit the report not later than 
     180 days after the date on which the Secretary prescribes 
     such regulations.
       (f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``mammogram'' 
     shall have the meaning given such term in section 354(a)(5) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 263b(a)).

                                 ______

      By Mr. EXON:
  S. 550. A bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the 
Railway Labor Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in 
labor disputes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                       Labor dispute legislation

  Mr. EXON.
   Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which I hope--and I 
emphasize ``I hope''--will serve as a common ground for the two warring 
factions very prominent in our society today.

  My bill amends the Federal labor law by providing a short-term ban on 
permanent replacement workers for the first 60 days of a strike. Then 
permanent replacements could be gradually phased in over a 12-month 
period so that an employer could hire 100 percent of their work force 
as permanent replacements by the end of a year.
  I believe that those two warring factions--management and labor--need 
to focus more on what is in our Nation's long-term best interests and 
less on getting and keeping an upper hand. I caution either side from 
thinking that crushing blows or complete victories are within reach. 
They are not. I have proposed my idea before but neither side wanted to 
take the first step.
  To management I say you have leveraged a rarely used practice into 
what is now the sledgehammer of negotiations. The right to strike hangs 
by the thread that separates the difference between being fired and 
being permanently replaced. To labor I say the global economy has 
remade the rules. International competitiveness may mean that labor 
will have to settle for less than the whole loaf sometimes.
  I voted against NAFTA and against GATT for various reasons, but some 
of the most important involved my concern that our chase for cheap 
labor would erode the ground under our workers and the standard of 
living in America. But that is over and done with. We can shore up as 
best we can, but I fear the erosion may continue, not subside.
  The two old bulls, labor and management, are still at it, with their 
horns locked, straining. The harmful effects of that intransigence can 
be seen in the festering sore of professional baseball. They often 
threaten to pull the Senate into the trenches and seem to have done so 
once again.
  Mr. President, I make this appeal: Congress has the power to step in 
and set some ground rules instead of being pushed this way and pushed 
that. Let us take this opportunity to impose some order, set some 
rules, then hopefully set this issue aside and see if such a resolution 
works.
  Under my bill, management is barred from simply replacing workers 
permanently the day after the strike. Certainly management can keep the 
plant open, if they choose, with temporary workers. Labor knows, 
however, that the meter is running under my bill and that the effect of 
the strike is diminished with time.
  For example, after 60 days, the employer can hire 10 percent of the 
work force as replacements, permanent replacements; after 90 days, 20 
percent; 
[[Page S3893]] after 4 months, 30 percent; after 5 months, 40 percent; 
after 6 months, 50 percent; after 9 months, 75 percent; and after 1 
year, 100 percent, if that is the desire of management.
  Management will say that the 60-day ban is too long, while labor will 
say that a year before being completely replaced is too short. I say 
that sounds like the start of a good compromise.
  Congress can break this logjam, and I think it should. I do not 
believe this is a matter to be resolved by Executive order but, rather, 
by law. I think this proposal can satisfy well-meaning and well-
intentioned people on both sides of the issue and may help us to look 
forward in both the Senate and this country to something better.
  Mr. President, I suggest that we look ahead to the 21st century. Let 
us quit sticking our heads in the sand with meaningless gestures. 
Anyone who is looking beyond next year or the next election, who truly 
believes in collective bargaining, should recognize that international 
competition in the 21st century demands labor/management cooperation 
and not war.
  I submit it is not fair or reasonable to expect a union worker to 
strike for economic grievances when he or she could lose their job the 
very first day that they dare walk the picket line. Some collective 
bargaining. With just a little bit of backbone and a little bit of 
reason and a little bit of understanding, we could properly correct 
this situation that continues to tear American labor and management 
apart.
  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. 550

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

     SEC. 1. PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION DURING AND AT THE 
                   CONCLUSION OF LABOR DISPUTES.

       Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting ``: or''; and
       (B) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) subject to subsection (h), to promise, threaten, or 
     take other action--
       ``(A) to hire a permanent replacement for an employee who--
       ``(i) at the commencement of a labor dispute was an 
     employee of the employer in a bargaining unit in which a 
     labor organization was the certified or recognized exclusive 
     representative. or, on the basis of written authorizations by 
     a majority of the employees, was seeking to be so certified 
     or recognized; and
       ``(ii) in connection with the dispute has engaged in 
     converted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining 
     or other mutual aid or protection through that labor 
     organization; or
       ``(B) to withhold or deny any other employment right or 
     privilege to an employee, who meets the criteria of clauses 
     (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) and who is working for or 
     has unconditionally offered to return to work for the 
     employer, out of a preference for any other individual that 
     is based on the fact that the individual is performing, has 
     performed, or has indicated a willingness to perform 
     bargaining unit work for the employer during the labor 
     dispute.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h)(1) An employer may not hire a permanent replacement 
     for an employee described in subsection (a)(6) unless the 
     employer compiles with the requirements under paragraph (2).
       ``(2)(A) An employer may hire a permanent replacement for 
     an employee described in subsection (a)(6)(A) during the 
     period beginning 61 days after the date of the commencement 
     of a dispute described in subsection (a)(6) and ending 90 
     days after the date of such commencement. The total number of 
     replacements made under this subsection during such period 
     shall not exceed 10 percent of the total number of employees 
     who were in the bargaining unit described in subsection 
     (a)(6)(A)(i) on the date of the commencement of the dispute.
       ``(B) An employer may hire a permanent replacement for an 
     employee described in subsection (a)(6)(A) during the period 
     beginning 91 days after the date of the commencement of a 
     dispute described in subsection (a)(6) and ending 120 days 
     after the date of such commencement. The total number of 
     replacements made under this subsection during such period 
     shall not exceed 20 percent of the total number of employees 
     who were in the bargaining unit described in subsection 
     (a)(6)(A)(i) on the date of the commencement of the dispute.
       ``(C) An employer may hire a permanent replacement for an 
     employee described in subsection (a)(6)(A) during the period 
     beginning 121 days after the date of the commencement of a 
     dispute described in subsection (a)(6) and ending 150 days 
     after the date of such commencement. The total number of 
     replacements made under this subsection during such period 
     shall not exceed 30 percent of the total number of employees 
     who were in the bargaining unit described in subsection 
     (a)(6)(A)(i) on the date of the commencement of the dispute.
       ``(D) An employer may hire a permanent replacement for an 
     employee described in subsection (a)(6)(A) during the period 
     beginning 151 days after the date of the commencement of a 
     dispute described in subsection (a)(6) and ending 180 days 
     after the date of such commencement. The total number of 
     replacements made under this subsection during such period 
     shall not exceed 40 percent of the total number of employees 
     who were in the bargaining unit described in subsection 
     (a)(6)(A)(i) on the date of the commencement of the dispute.
       ``(E) An employer may hire a permanent replacement for an 
     employee described in subsection (a)(6)(A) during the period 
     beginning 181 days after the date of the commencement of a 
     dispute described in subsection (a)(6) and ending 270 days 
     after the date of such commencement. The total number of 
     replacements made under this subsection during such period 
     shall not exceed 50 percent of the total number of employees 
     who were in the bargaining unit described in subsection 
     (a)(6)(A)(i) on the date of the commencement of the dispute.
       ``(F) An employer may hire a permanent replacement for an 
     employee described in subsection (a)(6)(A) during the period 
     beginning 271 days after the date of the commencement of a 
     dispute described in subsection (a)(6) and ending 360 days 
     after the date of such commencement. The total number of 
     replacements made under this subsection during such period 
     shall not exceed 75 percent of the total number of employees 
     who were in the bargaining unit described in subsection 
     (a)(6)(A)(i) on the date of the commencement of the dispute.
       ``(G) An employer may hire a permanent replacement for an 
     employee described in subsection (a)(6)(A) effective 361 days 
     after the date of the commencement of a dispute described in 
     subsection (a)(6).''.

     SEC.   . PREVENTION OF DISCRIMINATION DURING AND AT THE 
                   CONCLUSION OF RAILWAY LABOR DISPUTES.

       Paragraph Fourth of section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 
     U.S.C. 152) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Fourth.'';
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(b) Subject to subsection (c), no carrier, or officer or 
     agent of the carrier, shall promise, threaten or take other 
     action--
       ``(1) to hire a permanent replacement for an employee who--
       ``(A) at the commencement of a dispute was an employee of 
     the carrier in a craft or class in which a labor organization 
     was the designated or authorized representative or, on the 
     basis of written authorizations by a majority of the craft or 
     class, was seeking to be so designated or authorized; and
       ``(B) in connection with that dispute has exercised the 
     right to join, to organize, to assist in organizing, or to 
     bargain collectively through that labor organization; or
       ``(2) to withhold or deny any other employment right or 
     privilege to an employee, who meets the criteria of 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) and who is working 
     for or has unconditionally offered to return to work for the 
     carrier, out of a preference for any other individual that is 
     based on the fact that the individual is employed, was 
     employed, or indicated a willingness to be employed during 
     the dispute.
       ``(c)(1) A carrier, or an officer or agent of the carrier, 
     may not hire a permanent replacement for an employee under 
     subsection (b) unless the carrier or officer or agent 
     complies with the requirements under paragraph (2).
       ``(2)(A) A carrier, or an officer or agent of the carrier, 
     may hire a permanent replacement for an employee described in 
     subsection (b) during the period beginning 61 days after the 
     date of commencement of a dispute described in subsection (b) 
     and ending 90 days after the date of such commencement. The 
     total number of replacements made under this subsection 
     during such period shall not exceed 10 percent of the total 
     number of employees who were in the craft or class described 
     in subsection (b).
       ``(B) A carrier, or an officer or agent of the carrier, may 
     hire a permanent replacement for an employee described in 
     subsection (b) during the period beginning 91 days after the 
     date of commencement of a dispute described in subsection (b) 
     and ending 120 days after the date of such commencement. The 
     total number of replacements made under this subsection 
     during such period shall not exceed 20 percent of the total 
     number of employees who were in the craft or class described 
     in subsection (b).
       ``(C) A carrier, or an officer or agent of the carrier, may 
     hire a permanent replacement for an employee described in 
     subsection (b) during the period beginning 121 days after the 
     date of commencement of a dispute described in subsection (b) 
     and ending 150 days after the date of such commencement. The 
     total number of replacements made under this subsection 
     during such period shall not exceed 30 percent of the total 
     number of employees who were in the craft or class described 
     in subsection (b).
       ``(D) A carrier, or an officer or agent of the carrier, may 
     hire a permanent replacement for an employee described in 
     subsection (b) 
     [[Page S3894]] during the period beginning 151 days after the 
     date of commencement of a dispute described in subsection (b) 
     and ending 180 days after the date of such commencement. The 
     total number of replacements made under this subsection 
     during such period shall not exceed 40 percent of the total 
     number of employees who were in the craft or class described 
     in subsection (b).
       ``(E) A carrier, or an officer or agent of the carrier, may 
     hire a permanent replacement for an employee described in 
     subsection (b) during the period beginning 181 days after the 
     date of commencement of a dispute described in subsection (b) 
     and ending 270 days after the date of such commencement. The 
     total number of replacements made under this subsection 
     during such period shall not exceed 50 percent of the total 
     number of employees who were in the craft or class described 
     in subsection (b).
       ``(F) A carrier, or an officer or agent of the carrier, may 
     hire a permanent replacement for an employee described in 
     subsection (b) during the period beginning 271 days after the 
     date of commencement of a dispute described in subsection (b) 
     and ending 360 days after the date of such commencement. The 
     total number of replacements made under this subsection 
     during such period shall not exceed 75 percent of the total 
     number of employees who were in the craft or class described 
     in subsection (b).
       ``(G) A carrier, or an officer or agent of the carrier, may 
     hire a permanent replacement for an employee described in 
     subsection (b) effective 361 days after the date of 
     commencement of a dispute described in subsection (b).''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
  S. 552. A bill to allow the refurbishment and continued operation of 
a small hydroelectric facility in central Montana by adjusting the 
amount of charges to be paid to the United States under the Federal 
Power Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


             flint creek hydroelectric facility legislation

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
allow for the orderly transfer of a license for the operation of a 
small hydroelectric facility in my State of Montana. This operation is 
no longer generating electricity. The utility that owns it, Montana 
Power, no longer finds it economical to continue to do so. Montana 
Power would like to turn the operation and ownership of the dam over to 
someone else. And there is a potential buyer, the county of Granite. 
The county would like to buy the facility, refurbish it, and continue 
to generate low-cost electricity for itself and its neighbors.
  However, FERC, the agency that must approve the license request is 
demanding that the buyer pay for the rent of Forest Service land that 
lies under the lake that was created by the dam. The Forest Service 
gets no benefit from the land. It's under several feet of water. And 
the Federal Government already owns one-third of my State of Montana.
  I believe that this bill, which will defer the rental costs for 5 
years which will allow the county to get its repair work done and get 
the generation on-line, is an equitable solution to the problem posed 
by FERC. I hope that they will support the bill.
                                 ______

      By Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN:
  S. 553. A bill to amend the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 
1967 to reinstate an exemption for certain bona fide hiring and 
retirement plans applicable to State and local firefighters and law 
enforcement officers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor 
and Human Resources.


        the age discrimination in employment amendments of 1995

 Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I introduce the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1995, legislation designed 
to give State and local governments the same right to set mandatory 
retirement ages and maximum hiring ages for their police and 
firefighters that the Federal Government currently enjoys.
  Throughout the 104th Congress, there has been a great deal of 
discussion about the need for those of us in this body to hold 
ourselves accountable to the same standards other Americans have to 
meet.
  We have debated and passed congressional coverage legislation, which 
will apply to Congress a number of laws that have already been applied 
to the private sector. We have also debated and passed unfunded 
mandates legislation in order to ensure that the Federal Government 
does not impose mandates on State and local governments without the 
funding necessary to cover the cost of those mandates.
  The legislation I am introducing today is based on this same basic 
theme. Currently, the Federal Government enjoys a permanent exemption 
from the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that allows it to set 
mandatory retirement ages and maximum hiring ages for its public safety 
officers. In effect, this exemption authorizes Federal public safety 
agencies to use mandatory retirement ages and maximum hiring ages for 
their police officers and firefighters including:
  The U.S. Park Police; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Department 
of Justice Law Enforcement personnel; District of Columbia 
firefighters; U.S. Forest Service firefighters; the Central 
Intelligence Agency; the Capitol Police; and Federal firefighters.
  However, this same exemption from the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act is not available to State and local governments.
  My legislation corrects this disparity by allowing State and local 
governments the right to set mandatory retirement and maximum hiring 
ages if they so choose.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize that last point. This legislation 
merely allows State and local governments to set mandatory retirement 
and maximum hiring ages if they so choose.
  The bill does not set national, mandatory retirement and maximum 
hiring ages for police and firefighters. It does not require State 
local governments to create their own mandatory retirement and maximum 
hiring ages. It does not even encourage them to do so. It merely grants 
State and local governments the same rights in this area which are 
currently being enjoyed by the Federal Government.
  As a general rule, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits 
employers from discriminating against workers solely on the basis of 
age, and generally prohibits the use of mandatory retirement and 
maximum hiring ages.
  Prior to Congress enacting an exemption in 1986, the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act allowed State and local governments to 
use mandatory retirement and maximum hiring ages for their public 
safety officers only if they could prove in court that these rules were 
bona fide occupational qualifications [BFOQ's] reasonably necessary for 
the normal operation of the business.
  Although this approach sounds reasonable, courts in some 
jurisdictions ruled limits permissible while identical limits were held
 impermissible in other jurisdictions. For example, the Missouri 
Highway Patrol's maximum hiring age of 32 was upheld while Los Angeles 
County Sheriff's maximum hiring age of 35 was not. East Providence's 
mandatory retirement age of 60 for police officers was upheld while 
Pennsylvania's mandatory retirement age of 60 was struck down.

  As a result, no State or local government could be sure of the 
legality of its hiring or retirement policies. They could, however, be 
sure of having to spend scarce financial resources to defend their 
policies in court.
  The 1986 amendment to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 
authorized State and local governments to set maximum hiring ages and 
mandatory retirement ages until January 1, 1994. It also ordered the 
EEOC and the Department of Labor to conduct a study to determine:
  Whether physical and mental fitness tests can accurately assess the 
ability of police and firefighters to perform the requirements of their 
jobs; which particular types of tests are most effective; and what 
specific standards such tests should satisfy.
  Finally, the 1986 amendment directed the EEOC to promulgate 
guidelines on the administration and use of physical and mental fitness 
tests for police and firefighters.
  Despite the very clear mandate in the 1986 amendment, neither the 
EEOC nor its researchers complied with that mandate.
  While the Penn State researchers who conducted the study concluded 
that age was a poor predictor of job performance, they failed to 
evaluate which particular physical and mental fitness tests are most 
effective to evaluate public safety officers and 
[[Page S3895]] which specific standards such tests should satisfy.
  Nor did the EEOC promulgate guidelines to assist State and local 
governments in the administration and use of such tests, as Congress 
directed. As a result, State and local governments find themselves 
without a public safety exemption from the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act, and also without any guidance as how to test their 
employees.
  I firmly believe that, as a rule, Congress should avoid exempting 
whole classes of employees from the protection of civil rights laws. We 
should not carve out exemptions merely because an employer finds civil 
rights compliance to be too costly or inconvenient. Exemptions must be 
made only when there is a strong compelling need to do so and there is 
no other reasonable alternative.
  That is the situation here. State and local fire and police agencies 
must be exempt from ADEA in order to protect and promote the safety of 
the public. This is literally a life or death matter; if police 
officers and firefighters cannot adequately perform their duties, 
people die and people get hurt.
  Numerous medical studies have found that age directly affects an 
individual's ability to perform the duties of a public safety officer. 
This is not a stereotype. This is not ageism. This is a medical fact.
  Consider the facts the American Heart Association found that clearly 
demonstrate the increased risk of heart attack and death in older 
individuals. One in six men and one in seven women between the ages of 
45-64 has some form of heart disease. The ratio soars to one in three 
at age 65 and beyond. For people over age 55, incident of stroke more 
than doubles in each successive decade.
  The diminishing of physical capabilities can also be seen in 
statistics in the field of public safety. For example, although 
firefighters over 50 comprise only one-seventh of the total number of 
firefighters, they account for one-third of all firefighter deaths
  Now, you may ask why State and local governments cannot just develop 
tests to screen out those individuals who may still retain their 
strength at the age of 60 or 70. However, there is no adequate test 
that can simulate the conditions that firefighters and police officers 
face in the line of duty.
  The fact that an individual passes a fitness test one day does not, 
in and of itself, mean that the individual is capable of performing the 
sustained, strenuous, constant, physical activity required of a public 
safety officer. If a 75-year-old walks in and takes a test, and happens 
to be healthy on that particular day, a State or local government would 
have to hire that individual, even though that individual may not, day 
in and day out, be capable of physically performing his or her job.
  Mr. President, as many of you in this body know, I come from a law 
enforcement background. My father was a police officer. My uncle was a 
police officer. My brother still is a police officer. I feel very 
strongly that we in Congress need to do everything we can to ensure 
that our rank and file officers have everything they need to do their 
jobs.
  The legislation I offer here today is widely supported by rank and 
file public safety officers. In fact, my office has been besieged by 
calls and letters and visits from police officers and firefighters who 
want to see a permanent exemption enacted into law. I would like to 
read a list of organizations that support this legislation:
  The Fire Department Safety Officers Association; the Fraternal Order 
of Police; the International Association of Firefighters; the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police; the International 
Brotherhood of Police Officers; the International Society of Fire 
Service Instructors; the International Union of Police Associations, 
AFL-CIO; the National Association of Police Organizations; The National 
Sheriffs Association; the National Troopers Coalition; the American 
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the National 
Public Employer Labor Relations Association; the New York State 
Association of Chiefs of Police; and the City of Chicago Department of 
Police.
  This legislation is also supported by the following State and local 
governmental organizations:
  The National League of Cities; the National Association of Counties; 
the National Conference of State Legislatures; and the U.S. Conference 
of Mayors.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support and quickly 
enact this carefully drawn, greatly needed legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 553
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Age Discrimination in 
     Employment Amendments of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. AGE DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT.

       (a) Repeal of Repealer.--Section 3(b) of the Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1986 (29 U.S.C. 
     623 note) is repealed.
       (b) Exemption.--Section 4(j) of the Age Discrimination in 
     Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 623(j)), as in effect 
     immediately before December 31, 1993--
       (1) is reenacted as such section; and
       (2) as so reenacted, is amended in paragraph (1) by 
     striking ``attained the age'' and all that follows through 
     ``1983, and'' and inserting the following: ``attained--
       ``(A) the age of hiring or retirement, respectively, in 
     effect under applicable State or local law on March 3, 1983; 
     or
       ``(B) if an age of retirement was not in effect under 
     applicable State or local law on March 3, 1983, 55 years of 
     age; and''.
     SEC. 3. STUDY AND GUIDELINES FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS.

       (a) Study.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission (referred to in this section as ``the 
     Chairman'') shall conduct, directly or by contract, a study, 
     and shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a 
     report based on the results of the study that shall include--
       (1) a list and description of all tests available for the 
     assessment of abilities important for the completion of 
     public safety tasks performed by law enforcement officers and 
     firefighters;
       (2) a list of the public safety tasks for which adequate 
     tests described in paragraph (1) do not exist;
       (3) a description of the technical characteristics that the 
     tests shall meet to be in compliance with applicable Federal 
     civil rights law and policies;
       (4) a description of the alternative methods that are 
     available for determining minimally acceptable performance 
     standards on the tests;
       (5) a description of the administrative standards that 
     should be met in the administration, scoring, and score 
     interpretation of the tests; and
       (6) an examination of the extent to which the tests are 
     cost effective, safe, and comply with the Federal civil 
     rights law and regulations.
       (b) Advisory Guidelines.--Not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Chairman shall develop and 
     issue, based on the results of the study required by 
     subsection (a), advisory guidelines for the administration 
     and use of physical and mental fitness tests to measure the 
     ability and competency of law enforcement officers and 
     firefighters to perform the requirements of the jobs of the 
     officers and firefighters.
       (c) Consultation Requirement; Opportunity for Public 
     Comment.--
       (1) Consultation.--The Chairman shall, during the conduct 
     of the study required by subsection (a), consult with--
       (A) the Deputy Administrator of the United States Fire 
     Administration;
       (B) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency;
       (C) organizations that represent law enforcement officers, 
     firefighters, and employers of the officers and firefighters; 
     and
       (D) organizations that represent older individuals.
       (2) Public comment.--Prior to issuing the advisory 
     guidelines required in subsection (b), the Chairman shall 
     provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposed 
     advisory guidelines.
       (d) Development of Standards for Wellness Programs.--Not 
     later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Chairman shall propose advisory standards for wellness 
     programs for law enforcement officers and firefighters.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) General Effective Date.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), this Act and the amendments made by this Act 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Special Effective Date.--The repeal made by section 
     2(a) and the reenactment made by section 2(b)(1) shall take 
     effect on December 31, 1993.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
   [[Page S3896]] S. 554. A bill to amend the provisions of titles 5 
and 28, United States Code, relating to equal access to justice, award 
of reasonable costs and fees, hourly rates for attorney fees, 
administrative settlement offers, and for other purposes, to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


         the equal access to justice reform amendments on 1995
 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce a bill to amend the 
Equal Access to Justice Act.
  This legislation makes some needed improvements to the act to speed 
up the process of awarding attorney's fees to private parties who 
prevail in certain suits against the United States.
  Mr. President, there has been considerable attention paid in the past 
few weeks to legislation such as regulatory reform, tort reform, and 
various pieces of the Republican contract which claim to address the 
concerns of many Americans that substantial change needs to take place 
in many areas.
  My bill deals with some aspects of these concerns by assisting 
ordinary citizens who face legal conflicts with their Federal 
Government and prevail. The basic premise of EAJA is about giving 
individuals and small businesses the ability to confront the Government 
on a more equal footing. It is another step toward getting Government 
off the backs of the average citizen and small business owner.
  I am convinced the improvements I have proposed will make the Equal 
Access to Justice Act work better and reduce the overall costs to 
taxpayers.
  Mr. President, this is an area in which I have worked for several 
years before coming to this body.
  My interest in this issue arises from my experience both as a private 
attorney and a member of the Wisconsin Senate.
  When I was in private practice, I was aware of how attorneys' fees 
and the other costs associated with litigation could be a burden to a 
plaintiff with limited resources, even if the claim was just.
  Once I entered the State senate, I authored legislation modeled on 
the Federal law. The State law, found in section 814.246 of the 
Wisconsin statutes, was enacted in 1985.
  It seemed to me then, and does now, that we should do what we can to 
remove this burden to plaintiffs who need their claims reviewed and 
decided by an impartial decisionmaker.
  When I joined the U.S. Senate, I began looking at how these two 
Federal statutes operate and whether change was needed. I was 
particularly interested in how we could make the system work better.
  I am convinced change is necessary and that we can bring the system 
up to date to reflect 14 years worth of experience.
  Mr. President, the Equal Access to Justice Act was enacted in 1980 
and made permanent in 1985. The original intent of the act was to make 
the task of suing the Federal Government less daunting for small 
business owners. It was perceived that these owners suffered onerous 
Government regulation and other indignities rather than sue for relief 
because of the prohibitive costs of litigation.
  Much of the work of this original Federal legislation was done by 
then-Representative Robert Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, who represented my 
home town of Middleton with distinction and served on the House 
Judiciary Committee for many years.
  By giving prevailing parties in certain kinds of cases the right to 
seek attorney's fees and other costs from the United States, the act 
sought to prevent business owners from having to risk their companies 
in order to seek justice. It was, in effect, a way to give David 
another rock for his sling.
  And it is the Davids, not the Goliaths, who benefit from this act.
  Although I have reservations about the general concept of loser-pays 
rules, when a citizen faces the overpowering resources of the Federal 
Government, it is only fair that, when that citizen wins in court, the 
Government ought to reimburse the costs.
  An individual with a net worth greater than $2 million may not 
request fees under EAJA, nor may a business or other organization with 
a net worth greater than $7 million and which employs more than 500 
people, unless it qualifies either as a nonprofit under certain Federal 
tax laws or as an agricultural cooperative.
  Collaterally, the act sought to provide a deterrence to excessive 
Government regulation, a subject in which we all share an interest.
  Some would certainly argue that latter goal has not been achieved. 
But the Equal Access to Justice Act has been successful in other areas, 
although perhaps not quite as planned, Mr. President.
  For one thing, the cost has been much smaller than originally 
anticipated. The Equal Access to Justice Act was originally estimated 
to cost at least $68 million per year, but according to the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, annual EAJA awards from 1988 
to 1992 generally hovered around $5 to $7 million.
  This is despite the fact that litigants are winning more cases than 
anticipated.
  A study conducted by Prof. Susan Gluck Mezey of Loyola University at 
Chicago and Prof. Susan M. Olson of the University of Utah found that 
plaintiffs have been more successful than original estimates believed.
  Professors Mezey and Olson examined 629 Federal district and 
appellate court decisions involving EAJA claims during the 1980's.
  The Mezey-Olson study, published in the July-August 1993 edition of 
Judicature magazine, pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office 
originally assumed plaintiffs would receive fees under the act in about 
25 percent of the claims filed against the Government.
  However, the professors found in their sample that about 36 percent 
of litigants other than those suing the Department of Health and Human 
Services have won fees. Plaintiffs suing HHS, many of them seeking 
Social Security disability benefits, have a success rate most lawyers 
would envy, about 69 percent.
  The Mezey-Olson study shows that most successful plaintiffs who seek 
fees have been these Social Security disability benefits applicants.
  Another study, prepared in 1993 by Prof. Harold Krent of the 
University of Chicago law school for the Administrative Conference of 
the United States, found that, while the original intent of the Equal 
Access to Justice Act was supposed to make things a little easier on 
the applicants for fees, as currently written, it ``probably creates a 
perverse incentive to litigate'' on the part of Government attorneys.
  This is because the act gives the government a chance to avoid paying 
fees, even when it loses its case, to the small business owner or 
individual who would otherwise see their costs paid. The Government can 
do this by showing it had substantial justification for its actions, 
despite the fact that those actions proved onerous to that small 
business owner or individual.
  Professor Krent argues that the issues of whether fees should be 
awarded or whether the Government had substantial justification to act 
as it did can be nearly as exhaustive to litigate as the original 
complaint. This despite the fact that the substantial justification 
argument is successful in a relatively small number of cases.
  We can fix that. We can bring the administrative costs of the Equal 
Access to Justice Act down.
  My bill amends the act in several ways, and it is intended to make 
use of the act's provisions more acceptable to its original 
beneficiaries, the small business owners.
  First, my bill raises the current $75-per-hour fee award cap to $125 
per hour. It keeps the cost-of-living increase as a possible factor in 
setting the award, but it eliminates language which permits further 
increasing the award due to some special factor, defined by example in 
the existing statute as ``the limited availability of qualified 
attorneys or agents for the proceedings involved.''
  This brings the fee cap more closely into line with current hourly 
rates charged by attorneys. It also makes these suits more attractive 
to attorneys, which in turn means prospective plaintiffs will have a 
larger pool of attorneys from which to choose. This, I think, obviates 
the need for the special factor language. I also believe eliminating 
that provision simplifies the process.
  Second, my bill makes more specific the method of computing cost-of-
living increases to fee awards. Under existing 
[[Page S3897]] law, courts have been forced to make these 
determinations without adequate statutory guidance. Professor Krent 
notes in his study that ``courts have split as to when the cost-of-
living increase is applicable--for instance, whether it should be 
calculated as of the date of the work performed, or as of some later 
date.''
  My bill states that a cost-of-living adjustment should be calculated 
from the date of final disposition. In other words, if the work was 
performed in 1988 but the final disposition occurred in 1994, we should 
base the fee calculation on 1994.
  Third, my bill eliminates language in the act that allows the 
Government to escape paying attorney's fees even if it loses a suit if 
it can show substantial justification for its actions.
  I believe that if an individual or small business owner go up against 
the Federal Government and win, they win. If you are successful in your 
suit against the Government or in your defense against Government 
enforcement, and the law provides for Government payment of your fees, 
the government should pay the fees.
  Further, Professor Krent's study indicates that fee awards were 
denied in only a small percentage of EAJA cases because of the 
substantial justification defense.
  It may sound as though we're actually increasing the cost of this 
act, but these steps may well have the opposite effect. Even though fee 
awards may go up somewhat, the time and cost of litigation to the 
government will be reduced, and we should have a more cost-effective 
system.
  Let me refer again to Professor Krent's study for guidance as to 
possible increased efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
  Professor Krent noted that it is probably impossible to make an exact 
determination of the expense of litigating the substantial 
justification issue.
  It is his opinion, based on a study of cases between June 1989 and 
June 1990, that the substantial justification defense may save some 
money in awards, but not enough to justify the cost of litigating the 
issue.
  In short, this has not proven cost effective, except in a few Social 
Security cases involving large awards, unless you count some deterrent 
effect, which Professor Krent believes is impossible to quantify.
  Fourth, the bill would set up a process to encourage settlement of 
the fee issue without litigation.
  The legislation will provide the government the opportunity, similar 
to the process described in rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, to make an offer of settlement up to 10 days prior to a 
hearing on the fee claim. If that offer is rejected and the party 
applying for reimbursement later wins a smaller award, that party shall 
not be entitled to receive attorney's fees or other expenses incurred 
after the date of the offer.
  This, I think, will speed up the process, thereby reducing the time 
and expense of litigation.
  Finally, Mr. President, my bill also requires review of the act and 
looks ahead to possible future expansion.
  Expanding the coverage of the Equal Access to Justice Act to 
additional areas of litigation is not directly addressed, but it is an 
issue on which I hope there can be future discussion.
  My bill requires the Justice Department to submit a report to 
Congress within 180 days that provides an analysis of the variations in 
the frequency of fee awards paid by specific Federal districts under 
EAJA and include recommendations for extending the application of the 
act to other Federal judicial proceedings.
  According to the Administrative Conference of the United States, it 
remains unclear ``whether EAJA covers all litigation against the United 
States in article I courts, even though such proceedings are often 
directly analogous to those covered by the act in article III courts.''
  Congress has taken some steps. In 1985, for example, EAJA was amended 
to cover the U.S. Claims Court. The Court of Veterans Appeals, which 
had decided in 1992 it was not covered by EAJA, is now covered by 
legislation.
  Likewise, my bill requires the Administrative Office of the U.S. 
Courts to submit a report to Congress within 180 days that provides an 
analysis of the variations in the frequency of fee awards paid by 
applicable Federal agencies under EAJA and include recommendations for 
extending the application of the act to other Federal agencies and 
administrative proceedings.
  The United States Supreme Court, in a 1991 decision, Ardestani versus 
INS, held that EAJA fees are available only in cases where hearings are 
required by law to conform to the procedural provisions of section 554 
of the Administrative Procedure Act.
  However, Congress had already created a statutory exception. In 1986, 
Congress extended EAJA's coverage to include the Program Fraud Civil 
Remedies Act.
  It is reasonable, I believe, to investigate whether certain agency 
proceedings, such as deportation cases, that are nearly identical to 
proceedings covered by section 554 should be likewise covered by EAJA.
  It may be appropriate to expand EAJA to cover certain cases subject 
to proceedings which are substantially the same as, but not 
specifically covered by, the Administrative Procedure Act.
  The study provision is also meant to be responsive to recommendations 
made by members of a business advisory group with whom I meet on a 
regular basis. It was suggested that there was a need to examine why 
some agencies have had fee judgments awarded against them at a higher 
rate than others.
  Let me here acknowledge the work of the Administrative Conference of 
the United States, which has been very helpful by conducting research 
into this issue, making recommendations that helped form the basis of 
this bill and providing valuable assistance to me in preparing this 
legislation.
  We all know the small business owner has a rough row to hoe and that 
unnecessary or overburdening Government regulation is sometimes an 
obstacle to doing business. The Equal Access to Justice Act was 
conceived to help overcome that obstacle, and my amending bill is 
submitted to make the act work better.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 554
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE REFORM.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Equal 
     Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 1995''.
       (b) Award of Costs and Fees.--
       (1) Administrative proceedings.--Section 504(a)(2) of title 
     5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``(2)'' 
     the following: ``At any time after the commencement of an 
     adversary adjudication covered by this section, the 
     adjudicative officer may ask a party to declare whether such 
     party intends to seek an award of fees and expenses against 
     the agency should it prevail.''.
       (2) Judicial proceedings.--Section 2412(d)(1)(B) of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``(B)'' 
     the following: ``At any time after the commencement of an 
     adversary adjudication covered by this section, the court may 
     ask a party to declare whether such party intends to seek an 
     award of fees and expenses against the agency should it 
     prevail.''.
       (c) Hourly Rate for Attorney Fees.--
       (1) Administrative proceedings.--Section 504(b)(1)(A)(ii) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out 
     all beginning with ``$75 per hour'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``$125 per hour unless the agency determines by 
     regulation that an increase in the cost-of-living based on 
     the date of final disposition justifies a higher fee.);''.
       (2) Judicial proceedings.--Section 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out all 
     beginning with ``$75 per hour'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``$125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase 
     in the cost-of-living based on the date of final disposition 
     justifies a higher fee.);''.
       (d) Offers of Settlement.--
       (1) Administrative proceedings.--Section 504 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (f) and (g), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e)(1) At any time after the filing of an application for 
     fees and other expenses under this section, an agency from 
     which a fee award is sought may serve upon the applicant an 
     offer of settlement of the claims made in the application. If 
     within 10 days after service of the offer the applicant 
     serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either 
     party may then file the offer and notice 
     [[Page S3898]] of acceptance together with proof of service 
     thereof.
       ``(2) An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn. The 
     fact that an offer is made but not accepted shall not 
     preclude a subsequent offer. If any award of fees and 
     expenses for the merits of the proceeding finally obtained by 
     the applicant is not more favorable than the offer, the 
     applicant shall not be entitled to receive an award for 
     attorneys' fees or other expenses incurred in relation to the 
     application for fees and expenses after the date of the 
     offer.''.
       (2) Judicial proceedings.--Section 2412 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (f) and (g), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(e)(1) At any time after the filing of an application for 
     fees and other expenses under this section, an agency of the 
     United States from which a fee award is sought may serve upon 
     the applicant an offer of settlement of the claims made in 
     the application. If within 10 days after service of the offer 
     the applicant serves written notice that the offer is 
     accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of 
     acceptance together with proof of service thereof.
       ``(2) An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn. The 
     fact that an offer is made but not accepted shall not 
     preclude a subsequent offer. If any award of fees and 
     expenses for the merits of the proceeding finally obtained by 
     the applicant is not more favorable than the offer, the 
     applicant shall not be entitled to receive an award for 
     attorneys' fees or other expenses incurred in relation to the 
     application for fees and expenses after the date of the 
     offer.''.
       (e) Elimination of Substantial Justification Standard.--
       (1) Administrative Proceedings.--Section 504 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1) by striking out all beginning with 
     ``, unless the adjudicative officer'' through ``expenses are 
     sought''; and
       (B) in subsection (a)(2) by striking out ``The party shall 
     also allege that the position of the agency was not 
     substantially justified.''.
       (2) Judicial proceedings.--Section 2412(d) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A) by striking out ``, unless the 
     court finds that the position of the United States was 
     substantially justified or that special circumstances make an 
     award unjust'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(B) by striking out ``The party shall 
     also allege that the position of the United States was not 
     substantially justified. Whether or not the position of the 
     United States was substantially justified shall be determined 
     on the basis of the record (including the record with respect 
     to the action or failure to act by the agency upon which the 
     civil action is based) which is made in the civil action for 
     which fees and other expenses are sought.''; and
       (C) in paragraph (3) by striking out ``, unless the court 
     finds that during such adversary adjudication the position of 
     the United States was substantially justified, or that 
     special circumstances make an award unjust''.
       (f) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Administrative proceedings.--No later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrative Conference of the United States shall submit a 
     report to the Congress--
       (A) providing an analysis of the variations in the 
     frequency of fee awards paid by specific Federal agencies 
     under the provisions of section 504 of title 5, United States 
     Code; and
       (B) including recommendations for extending the application 
     of such sections to other Federal agencies and administrative 
     proceedings.
       (2) Judicial proceedings.--No later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Department of Justice 
     shall submit a report to the Congress--
       (A) providing an analysis of the variations in the 
     frequency of fee awards paid by specific Federal districts 
     under the provisions of section 2412 of title 28, United 
     States Code; and
       (B) including recommendations for extending the application 
     of such sections to other Federal judicial proceedings.
       (g) Effective Date.--The provisions of this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act shall take effect 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply only to 
     an administrative complaint filed with a Federal agency or a 
     civil action filed in a United States court on or after such 
     date.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Frist):
  S. 555. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to consolidate 
and reauthorize health professions and minority and disadvantaged 
health education programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Labor and Human Resources.


       Health Professionals Consolidation and Reauthorization Act

  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Frist, and myself, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed at 
improving the supply and distribution of health professionals for our 
Nation's underserved communities.
  The Health Professions Consolidation and Reauthorization Act of 1995 
would consolidate over 44 different health professions programs 
administered by the U.S. Public Health Service. Furthermore, this 
legislation would target Federal health professions funding to support 
training initiatives designed to improve the health of citizens in our 
Nation's underserved areas.
  For three decades, through the Public Health Service and Medicare, 
the Federal Government has funded the training of health professionals. 
Once perceived to be in undersupply, physicians are now in oversupply 
as a result of this Federal intervention. However, the uneven 
distribution of physicians still leaves many areas underserved. 
Furthermore, many believe the Nation now has too many subspecialist 
physicians and too few primary care providers. To correct these 
problems, a better targeted Federal health professions strategy is 
needed.
  Currently, through titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health 
Service Act, the Federal Government provides over $400 million for 44 
separate initiatives. When the title VII and VIII programs were last 
reauthorized in 1992, the General Accounting Office [GAO] was requested 
to review their effectiveness in: First, increasing the supply of 
primary care providers and other health professionals; second, 
improving their representation in rural and medically underserved 
areas; and third, improving minority representation in the health 
professions.
  GAO recommended that Congress or the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services should establish:
  First, national goals for the title VII and VIII programs.
  Second, common outcome measures and reporting requirements for each 
goal;
  Third, restrictions limiting the use of funds to activities whose 
results can be measured and reported against these goals; and
  Fourth, criteria for allocating funding among professions based on 
relative need in meeting national goals.
  The Health Professions Consolidation and Reauthorization Act of 1995 
builds on GAO's recommendations and is based on defined goals for these 
programs. In addition, all programs would include a strong evaluation 
component to ensure that they are really improving national, regional, 
and State work force goals.
  The act targets Federal funding based on the following goals:
  First, Federal health professions education programs and distribution 
programs should assure health through: improvements in the distribution 
of and quality of health professionals needed to provide health 
services in underserved areas; and enhancement of the production and 
distribution of public health personnel to improve the State and local 
public health infrastructure.
  Second, the bureaucracy required to administer the current 44 
independent programs should be simplified and reduced.
  Under this proposal, future Federal support for health professionals 
programs would be targeted to: primary and preventive care; minorities 
and the disadvantaged; community-based training in underserved areas; 
advanced degree nursing; and the National Health Service Corps. In 
recognition of the need for fiscal restraint, funding for these 
programs would be decreased by 10 percent at the end of 4 years.
  Mr. President, the Health Professions Consolidation and 
Reauthorization Act of 1995 maintains the traditional goal of Federal 
health professions programs, which is to improve the supply and 
distribution of health professionals in underserved areas. I believe, 
however, that it offers a more effective and targeted approach by 
moving away from small, narrowly defined categorical programs toward 
broad areas of focus. In addition, my proposal places an emphasis on 
outcomes measurement--a feature sadly lacking in our current efforts.
  As discussion of these issues develops, I would welcome any 
suggestions my colleagues or others may have for improving this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  [[Page S3899]] There being no objection, the summary was ordered to 
be printed in the Record, as follows:
     Summary of the Health Professions Education Consolidation and 
                      Reauthorization Act of 1995


                               background

       Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act 
     authorize 45 different programs. The goal of these programs 
     is to improve the supply and distribution of a variety of 
     types of health professionals and to improve the 
     representation of minorities and disadvantaged individuals in 
     the health professions.
       The focus of Title VII programs is on the training of 
     physicians, general dentists, physician assistants, allied 
     health personnel, public health professionals, and 
     veterinarians. Title VIII provides for nurse training. Title 
     III deals with the National Health Service Corps, which helps 
     to place providers in underserved areas. These Titles include 
     programs for direct student assistance, such as loans and 
     scholarships, loan repayments programs, and expansion and 
     maintenance of training programs.


                                summary

            I. Primary care and preventive medicine training

       Under this provision, funds for family physician, general 
     pediatrician, general internists, preventive medicine 
     physician, and physician assistant training would be 
     authorized. These providers are generally needed to fill both 
     rural and underserved health professional shortage areas and 
     to help improve staffing in public health departments. 
     Generally, priority would be given to programs which have a 
     history of training health professionals who eventually enter 
     practice in rural and urban underserved areas.

                II. Minority and disadvantaged training

       Under this provision, the Secretary would have broad 
     discretion to fund projects which improve the number and 
     quality of minority and disadvantaged health professionals. 
     Many believe that an increased number of minority and 
     disadvantaged providers would result in improvements of 
     services in underserved areas, because such individuals are 
     more likely to practice in those areas than are others. 
     Generally, most minorities are currently under-represented in 
     the health professions relative to their representation 
     within the entire U.S. population.

           III. Community-based training in underserved areas

       This authority would be similar to the current Area Health 
     Education Center program. These centers are located in 
     underserved areas. They train medical students and other 
     health professionals to provide services in rural and 
     underserved areas. Exposure to these settings is generally 
     recognized as a determinant in whether a health professional 
     would return to practice in such settings. In addition, these 
     centers help support practicing providers in such areas 
     through continuing medical education support.

                  IV. Consolidated student assistance

       This section would have a few authorities, but only one 
     appropriation. This proposal would combine most of the 
     current scholarship and loan programs into the current 
     National Health Service Corps Scholarship and Loan Repayment 
     program. As such, individuals would receive financial support 
     only in return for service provided in primary care 
     underserved areas. This would help to eliminate the 4,000 
     positions currently available in underserved areas. In 
     addition, transfer of the current funding for scholarship 
     programs to the Corps would help it fund more applications. 
     Currently the National Health Service Corps is only able to 
     provide scholarships in return for service to one out of 
     every 10 applicants.
       In addition, the current scholarship programs for minority 
     and disadvantaged individuals would be consolidated into a 
     single scholarship program for disadvantaged students.
       The authorities which would be left in place from current 
     law are those which do not require appropriations, but rather 
     are revolving loan funds which currently exist at schools.

                               V. Nursing

       The provisions of this proposal would be similar to those 
     included in the Nursing Education Act reauthorization which 
     was approved by the Senate last year. Under it, six current 
     nursing programs would be consolidated into three to 
     emphasize primary care nursing and the production of minority 
     and disadvantaged nurses.

                        VI. Other priority areas

       The Secretary could fund any number of other projects for 
     health professionals training which meet national workforce 
     needs to improve health services in underserved areas. For 
     instance, under this provision, the Secretary could fund 
     projects to train allied health professionals.
VII. Other provisions from last year's Minority Health Improvement Act 
                           Conference Report

                       Office of Minority Health

       The authority for the office would be extended through FY 
     1999. Furthermore, the provision assures that the office is 
     only coordinating services--not conducting its own services 
     and research program. The authorization would be $19 million 
     for each fiscal year through FY 1999. This would be a 10% 
     reduction from the current appropriation of $20.668 million. 
     (This is consistent with the general reductions in 
     authorizations throughout the health professions bill).

                     State Offices of Rural Health

       There would be ``such sums as necessary'' authorized 
     through FY 1997. The cumulative appropriations would be 
     capped at $20 million. In FY 1998, after these offices have 
     been established in every state, the program would be 
     repealed. The current appropriation for this program is 
     $3.875 million.

                             Birth Defects

       An enhanced program for an intramural program on birth 
     defects at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     (CDC) would be authorized. Through this program, research 
     centers would be established, epidemiologic review of data 
     would occur, and a national information clearing house would 
     be established. This program is consistent with current CDC 
     plans in this area. No funds would be authorized specifically 
     for this program, but funding would occur under the general 
     CDC program authority.

                         Traumatic Brain Injury

       This provision is identical to that in the conference 
     report. It would provide for the National Institutes of 
     Health (NIH) to conduct research on traumatic brain injury 
     without an authorization for a separate appropriation. It 
     would also authorize $5 million a year for a demonstration 
     program to be administered through the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, subject to the availability of 
     funding, for the development of state systems of care for 
     persons with traumatic brain injury. Finally, the provision 
     would authorize a consensus conference at NIH regarding the 
     treatment of individuals with this illness.

                 Health Services for Pacific Islanders

       This would extend the Pacific Islanders initiative, with 
     technical changes only. The program would be authorized at $3 
     million in FY 1996 and in each year through FY 1999. Finally, 
     a study would be authorized to determine the usefulness of 
     this initiative.

          Demonstration Projects Regarding Alzheimer's Disease

       There would be $5 million authorized in each of the fiscal 
     years from FY 1996 through FY 1999. There are many technical 
     revisions.

  Miscellaneous Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Provisions

       Epidemiologic Intelligence Service officers, funded through 
     state and local governments, would not count in FTE 
     determinations of CDC. Current fellowship programs at CDC 
     would be authorized.
                  minority and disadvantaged training

       Purposes: (1) Provide for the training of minority and 
     disadvantaged health professionals to improve health care 
     access in underserved areas and to improve representation in 
     the health professions; and (2) Provide administrative 
     flexibility and simplification.
       General Description: Under this provision, the Secretary 
     would have broad discretion to fund projects which improve 
     the number and quality of minority and disadvantaged health 
     professionals. Many believe that an increased number of 
     minority and disadvantaged providers would result in 
     improvements of services in underserved areas because such 
     individuals tend to practice in those areas more than others. 
     Generally, most minority groups are currently under-
     represented in the health professions relative to their 
     representation within the entire U.S. population.
       Current Law Authorities Consolidated: (The numbers before 
     each program are keyed to the Labor Committee document: 
     ``Health Professions Education: Summary of Federal Training 
     Programs.''
       9. Centers of Excellence in Minority Health
       10. Health Careers Opportunity Program
       11. Minority Faculty Fellowships
       12. Faculty Loan Repayment
       Summary of Provisions:

                           Eligible entities

       Schools of medicine, osteopathic medicine, dentistry, 
     pharmacy, podiatric medicine, optometry, veterinary medicine, 
     public health, allied health professions schools; schools 
     offering graduate programs in clinical psychology; state or 
     local governments; a consortia of health professions schools; 
     or other public or private nonprofit entities could apply.

                               Activities

       Grants and contracts would be made, as appropriate, to 
     plan, develop, or operate:
       1. Demonstrative programs.
       2. Minority faculty development and loan repayment 
     programs.
       3. Programs to develop the pipeline for individuals from 
     disadvantaged backgrounds to enter and remain in health 
     professions schools.
       4. Programs of excellence in the health professions 
     education for minority individuals, including centers of 
     excellence at certain historically black colleges and 
     universities.
       5. For the provision of technical assistance, work force 
     analysis, and information dissemination.
       Any grant which is funded could incorporate one or all of 
     these activities. In addition, a preference would be given to 
     projects which involve more than one health profession 
     discipline or training institution and, beginning in fiscal 
     year 1999, for centers of excellence at certain historically 
     black colleges and universities.
       [[Page S3900]] The Secretary would fund grant applications 
     which have the greatest chance of improving minority 
     representation in the health professions and which have an 
     above average record of retention and graduation of 
     individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.

                          Outcomes evaluation

       Each program would be required to set performance outcomes 
     and would be held accountable for meeting such outcomes. The 
     performance outcome standards would be consistent with state, 
     local, and national work force development priorities.

                          Non-Federal matching

       The Secretary would have discretion to require 
     institutional or state and local government matching grants 
     to ensure the continuation of the project once federal aid 
     ends.

                               Transition

       Current grantees would continue to operate under existing 
     authorities through the remainder of their funding cycles. 
     The new provisions would apply only to new grants.

                             Authorization

       There would be $51 million authorized for fiscal year 1996 
     and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 1999. Combined 
     funding for these authorities in fiscal year 1995 is $50.806 
     million. For fiscal years 1996 through 1998, there would be a 
     4.25% setaside for the centers of excellence at certain 
     historically black colleges and universities.
             primary care and preventive medicine training

       Purposes: (1) Provide for the training of primary care 
     providers and preventive medicine public health personnel to 
     improve access to and quality of health care in underserved 
     areas and to enhance state and local public health 
     infrastructure; (2) Provide administrative flexibility and 
     simplification.
       General Description: Under this provision, funding for 
     family physician, general pediatrician, general internist, 
     preventive medicine physician, and physician assistant 
     training would be authorized. These providers are generally 
     needed to fill both rural and underserved health professional 
     shortage areas and to help improve staffing in public health 
     departments. Generally, priority would be given to programs 
     which have a history of training health professionals who 
     eventually enter practice in rural and urban underserved 
     areas.
       Current Law Authorities Consolidated: (The numbers before 
     each program are keyed to the Labor Committee document: 
     ``Health Professions Education: Summary of Federal Training 
     Programs.'')
       1. Family Medicine Training
       2. General Internal Medicine and General Pediatrics 
     Training
       3. Physician Assistant Training
       5. Preventive Medicine and Dental Public Health
       12. Geriatric Medicine and Dentistry Faculty Development
       Summary of Provisions:

                           Eligible entities

       Health professions schools, academic health centers, or 
     other public or private nonprofit entities could apply.

                               Activities

       Grants and contracts would be made as appropriate to 
     develop, operate, expand, or improve:
       1. Departments (or academic administrative units) of family 
     medicine.
       2. Residency training programs in family medicine, general 
     internal medicine, general pediatrics, or preventive 
     medicine.
       3. Physician assistant training programs.
       4. Faculty development initiatives in primary care, 
     including geriatrics.
       5. Medical school primary care training initiatives.

                     Departments of Family Medicine

       Departments of family medicine would be funded. Such units 
     lead to a greater number of medical students choosing careers 
     in primary care.

                      Residency Training Programs

       Family medicine, general internal medicine, and general 
     pediatrics residency programs would compete with one another 
     for funding. Two outcome standards would be established to 
     determine a funding preference. First, those programs with 
     the highest percentage of providers who enter primary care 
     practice upon the completion of training would receive a 
     priority. In addition, programs which successfully produce 
     professionals who go on to provide service in underserved 
     areas would receive a preference.
       Preventive medicine residencies would not compete for 
     funding with family medicine, general internal medicine, or 
     general pediatrics. Rather, they would receive an appropriate 
     amount of funding, as determined by the Secretary. A 
     preference would be given to those programs which train a 
     high percentage of individuals who enter practice in state 
     and local public health departments.

                 Physician Assistant Training Programs

       Physician assistant training programs would receive an 
     appropriate amount of funding, as determined by the 
     Secretary, from the appropriation for this section. Those 
     programs which have a higher output of providers who 
     eventually enter practice in underserved areas would receive 
     a preference for funding.

                          Faculty Development

       The Secretary would determine which type of faculty 
     development projects to fund based on national and state work 
     force goals. Geriatric fellowships and faculty development 
     could be funded.

                  Medical School Primary Care Training

       Primary care training activities at medical schools would 
     be funded through departments (or administrative units) of 
     family medicine, general internal medicine, or general 
     pediatrics. Applications from general internal medicine and 
     general pediatrics administrative units would be required to 
     demonstrate their institution's commitment to primary care 
     education by: (1) A mission statement which has a primary 
     care medical education objective; (2) faculty role models and 
     administrative units in primary care, and general pediatrics; 
     and (3) required undergraduate community-based medical 
     student clerkships in family medicine, internal medicine, and 
     pediatrics.

                          Outcomes evaluation

       Each program would be required to set performance outcomes 
     and would be held
      accountable for meeting such outcomes. The performance 
     outcome standards would be consistent with state, local, 
     and national work force development priorities.

                          Non-Federal matching

       The Secretary would have discretion to require 
     institutional or state and local government matching grants 
     to ensure the continuation of the project once federal aid 
     ends.

                               Transition

       Current grantees would continue to operate under existing 
     authorities through the remainder of their funding cycles. 
     The new provisions would apply only to new grants.

                             Authorization

       There would be $76 million authorized for fiscal year 1996 
     and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 1999. Combined 
     funding for these authorities in fiscal year 1995 is $75.285 
     million. Family medicine departments would receive no less 
     than 12 percent of the overall funding. This is consistent 
     with the current set-aside that such departments receive.


             community-based training in underserved areas

       Purposes: (1) Provide support for training centers remote 
     from health professions schools to improve and maintain the 
     distribution of health providers in rural and urban 
     underserved areas; (2) Provide the Secretary the option of 
     funding geriatric training centers; (3) Provide 
     administrative flexibility and simplification.
       General Description: This authority, most similar to the 
     current Area Health Education Center (AHEC) program, would 
     enhance the community-based training in underserved areas of 
     various health professionals. This goal would be achieved 
     through greater flexibility in the design of such programs 
     and through the leveraging of state and local resources. 
     AHECs are generally located in underserved areas remote from 
     academic health centers. They train health professionals to 
     provide services in rural and underserved areas. Exposure to 
     these settings is generally recognized as a determinant in 
     whether a health professional returns to practice in such 
     settings. In addition, these centers help support practicing 
     providers in such areas through continuing medical education 
     programs. Finally, the current program for funding geriatric 
     training centers could continue at the discretion of the 
     Secretary.
       Current Law Authorities Consolidated: (The numbers before 
     each program are keyed to the Senate Labor Committee 
     document: ``Health Professions Education: Summary of Federal 
     Training Programs.'')
       40. Area Health Education Centers
       41. Health Education and Training Centers
       42. Geriatric Education Centers
       43. Rural Health Interdisciplinary Training
       Summary of Provision:

                           Eligible entities

       Health professions schools, academic health centers, state 
     or local governments, or other appropriate public or private 
     nonprofit entities.
                               Activities

       Grants and contracts would be made as appropriate to plan, 
     develop, operate, expand, conduct demonstration projects, and 
     to provide trainee support, for projects which:
       1. Improve the distribution, supply, quality, utilization, 
     and efficiency of personnel providing health services in 
     urban and rural underserved populations.
       2. Encourage the regionalization of educational 
     responsibilities of the health professions schools into urban 
     and rural underserved areas.
       3. Are designed to prepare individuals effectively to 
     provide health services in underserved areas through: 
     preceptorships, the conduct or affiliation with community-
     based primary care residency programs, agreements with 
     community-based organizations for the delivery of education 
     and training in the health professions, and other programs.
       4. Conduct interdisciplinary training of the various health 
     professions.
       5. Provide continuing medical and health professional 
     education to professionals practicing in the underserved 
     areas served by the grantee.
       A preference would be given to projects which involve one 
     or more health professions discipline or training 
     institution, train individuals who actually enter practice in 
     underserved areas, and have a high output of graduates who 
     enter primary care practice.
       [[Page S3901]] In addition, the Secretary may fund 
     geriatric training centers if the Secretary determines such 
     entities are needed to improve the geriatric skills of health 
     providers.

                          Outcomes evaluation

       Each program would be required to set performance outcomes 
     and would be held accountable for meeting such outcomes. The 
     performance outcome standards would be consistent with state, 
     local, and national work force development priorities.

                          Non-Federal matching

       The Secretary would have discretion to require 
     institutional or state and local government matching grants 
     to ensure the continuation of the project once federal aid 
     ends.

                               Transition

       Current grantees would continue to operate under existing 
     authorities through the remainder of their funding cycles. 
     The new provisions would apply only to new grants.

                             Authorization

       There would be $39 million authorized for fiscal year 1996 
     which would be reduced to $25 million by fiscal year 1999. 
     Combined funding for these authorities in fiscal year 1995 is 
     $39.159 million. The $14 billion in funding reductions over 
     the three-year period is equivalent to the current combined 
     appropriations for the Health Education and Training Centers, 
     Rural Health Interdisciplinary Training Programs, and the 
     geriatric training centers. Funding will be phased down to 
     allow for the completion of current project funding periods.
               health professions work force development

       Purpose: Provide support to strengthen capacity for the 
     education of individuals in certain health professions which 
     the Secretary determines to have a severe shortage of 
     personnel and for improving the care of underserved 
     populations and other high-risk groups.
       Current Law Authorities Consolidated: (The numbers before 
     each program are keyed to the Labor Committee document: 
     ``Health Professions Education: Summary of Federal Training 
     Programs.'')
       4. Public Health Special Projects
       6. Health Administration Traineeships and Special Projects
       13. Geriatric Optometry Training
       14. General Dentistry Training
       15. Allied Health Advanced Training and Special Projects
       16. Podiatric Primary Care Residency Training
       17. Chiropractic Demonstration Projects
       45. AIDS Dental Services
       Summary of Provisions:

                           Eligible Entities

       Schools of medicine, osteopathic medicine, public health, 
     dentistry, allied health, optometry, podiatric medicine, 
     chiropractic medicine, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, or 
     graduate programs in mental health practice.

                               Activities

       Grants and contracts would be made as appropriate to plan, 
     develop, or operate programs to strengthen the capacity for 
     health professions education and practice. The Secretary 
     shall have broad discretion to fund projects, but shall give 
     priority to projects which would improve care for underserved 
     populations and other high-risk groups and which would 
     increase the number of practitioners in any health 
     professions field for which the Secretary determines there is 
     a severe shortage of professionals.
       In general, funds under this section could be used to 
     provide for faculty development, model demonstrations, 
     trainee support, technical assistance, or work force 
     analysis.

                          Outcomes evaluation

       Each program would be required to set performance outcomes 
     and would be held accountable for meeting such outcomes. The 
     performance outcome standards would be consistent with state, 
     local, and national work force development priorities.

                          Non-Federal matching

       The Secretary would have discretion to require 
     institutional or state and local government matching grants 
     to ensure the continuation of the project once federal aid 
     ends.

                               Transition

       Current grantees would continue to operate under existing 
     authorities through the remainder of their funding cycles. 
     The new provisions would apply only to new grants.

                             Authorization

       There would be $20 million authorized for fiscal year 1996 
     which would be reduced to $5 million by fiscal year 1999. 
     Combined funding for these authorities in fiscal year 1995 is 
     $20.264 million. The three-year period to phase down this 
     funding would allow for the completion of current project 
     award periods.
                     NURSING WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT

       Purposes: (1) Provide for the training of advanced degree 
     nurses and other nurses to improve access to and quality of 
     health care in underserved medical and public health areas; 
     and (2) Provide administrative flexibility and 
     simplification.
       General Description: This proposal would provide for the 
     training of advanced degree nurses, including nurse 
     practitioners, nurse midwives, nurse anesthetists, and public 
     health nurses. In addition, projects to improve nursing work 
     force personnel diversity and to expand the training of 
     nurses in certain priority settings would occur. The 
     Secretary would have broad discretion to determine which 
     projects to fund. Generally, projects which would ultimately 
     lead to a greater number of nursing providers for rural and 
     underserved areas, including local and state public health 
     departments, would receive a funding preference.
       Current Law Authorities Consolidated: (The numbers before 
     each program are keyed to the Labor Committee document: 
     ``Health Professions Education: Summary of Federal Training 
     Programs.'')
       18. Nursing Special Projects
       19. Advanced Nurse Education
       20. Nurse Practitioner/Nurse Midwife Education
       21. Nurse Anesthetist Training
       22. Nursing Education Opportunities for Individuals from 
     Disadvantaged Backgrounds
       32. Professional Nurse Traineeships
       Summary of Provisions:

                           Eligible entities

       Schools of nursing (collegiate, associate degree, diploma), 
     nursing centers, state or local governments, and other public 
     or nonprofit private entities.

                               Activities

       Grants and contracts would be made, as appropriate, to 
     plan, develop, or operate:
       1. Advanced practice nurses training programs including 
     programs for nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, nurse 
     anesthetists, and public health nurses.
       2. Programs to increase nursing work force diversity.
       3. Projects to strengthen the capacity for basis nurse 
     education in certain priority areas.
       Amounts provided under any one of these areas could be used 
     for faculty development, demonstrations, trainee support, 
     work force analysis, technical assistance, and dissemination 
     of information.
       In determining which projects to fund under each of these 
     areas, the Secretary would give priority to those projects 
     which would substantially benefit rural or underserved 
     populations, including public health departments. Generally, 
     those programs which tend to produce nurses for these areas, 
     including primary care nurses, would receive funding 
     priority. In addition, the Secretary would have broad 
     discretion to distribute the appropriation among these 
     different activity areas. Funds would be allocated among 
     these activities to meet the priority for underserved areas 
     and to meet relevant national and state nursing work force 
     goals.
       The National Advisory Council on Nurse Education and 
     Practice would continue to advise the Secretary regarding 
     nursing issues. Funding for this council would be provided 
     through the appropriations under this section.

                    Advance Practice Nurses Training

       Projects that support the enhancement of advanced practice 
     nursing education and practice would be funded. In addition, 
     a grantee could use a portion of the funds to provide for 
     traineeships. Such traineeships would provide stipends to 
     students to help cover the costs of tuition, books, fees, and 
     reasonable living expenses. Programs which could receive 
     support under this authority are those which train nurse 
     practitioners, nurse midwives, nurse anesthetists, public 
     health nurses, and other advanced degree nurses.

           Programs To Increase Nursing Work Force Diversity

       Projects to increase nursing education opportunities for 
     individuals who are from disadvantaged racial and ethnic 
     backgrounds under-represented among registered nurses would 
     be funded. Such projects could provide student stipends or 
     scholarships, pre-entry preparation, or retention activities.

              Projects To Strengthen Basic Nurse Education

       Funding priority would be given to basic nurse education 
     programs designed to: (1) improve nursing services in schools 
     and other community settings; (2) provide care for 
     underserved populations and other high-risk groups such as 
     elderly, individuals with HIV-AIDS, substance abusers, 
     homeless, and battered women; (3) provide skills needed under 
     new health care systems; (4) develop cultural competencies 
     among nurses; (5) and serve other priority areas.

                          Outcomes evaluation

       Each program would be required to set performance outcomes 
     and would be held accountable for meeting such outcomes. The 
     performance outcome standards would be consistent with state, 
     local, and national work force development priorities.
                          Non-Federal matching

       The Secretary would have discretion to require 
     institutional or state and local government matching grants 
     to ensure the continuation of the project once federal aid 
     ends.

                               Transition

       Current grantees would continue to operate under existing 
     authorities through the remainder of their funding cycles. 
     The new provisions would apply only to new grants.

                             Authorization

       There would be $62 million authorized for fiscal year 1996, 
     which would be reduced to $59 million for fiscal year 1999.


       consolidated financial assistance and other loan programs

       Purposes: (1) Provide consolidation of current loan 
     repayment, scholarship, and scholarship payback programs into 
     a flexible National Health Service Corps program requiring 
     service payback in underserved areas in return for federal 
     financial assistance; (2) 
     [[Page S3902]] Continue certain loan programs which do not 
     require federal appropriations or that guarantee the 
     availability of loan sources in the market for health 
     professions students; (3) Consolidate scholarship programs 
     for the disadvantaged; and (4) Provide administrative 
     flexibility and simplification.
       General Description: This proposal would combine most of 
     the current targeted scholarship and loan repayment programs 
     into the existing National Health Service Corps Scholarship 
     and Loan Repayment program. As such, individuals would only 
     receive ``free'' financial support in return for service 
     provided in underserved areas. This would help to eliminate 
     the shortage of over 4,000 positions in primary care 
     underserved areas and in underserved public health positions 
     in state and local health departments.
       The three scholarship programs for minorities and 
     disadvantaged students would also be consolidated into a 
     single scholarship program for disadvantaged students.
       The authorities which would not be consolidated are those 
     which do not require appropriations but, rather, are 
     revolving loan funds which currently exist at schools. In 
     addition, the current Health Education Assistance Loan 
     Guarantee program would also be left in place.
       (This consolidated program is meant to complement and other 
     federal financial assistance programs for which health 
     professional and public health professional students qualify. 
     Generally, the funds provided under the Perkins and Stafford 
     Loan programs, administered through the Department of 
     Education, provide sufficient resources to allow anyone the 
     opportunity to pursue a career in any health professions 
     training program. For instance, medical students may qualify 
     for $23,500 annually in loans under these two programs--more 
     than enough to finance the average medical school education.)
       Current Law Authorities Consolidated: (The numbers before 
     each program are keyed to the Labor Committee document: 
     ``Health Professions Education: Summary of Federal Training 
     Programs.''
       23. Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students
       25. Exceptional Financial Need Scholarships
       26. Financial Assistance to Disadvantaged Health 
     Professions Students
       28. State Loan Repayment Program
       29. Community Based Scholarship Program
       30. Nursing Loan Repayment Program
       36. National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program
       37. National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program
       39. Public Health Traineeships
       Current Law Authorities Continued Without Consolidation: 
     (These are revolving loan funds administered by schools which 
     do not require appropriations.)
       33. Nursing Student Loan
       34. Primary Care Loan Program
       35. Health Professional Student Loans
       36. Loans for Disadvantaged Students
       Current Law Authority Requiring a Separate Appropriation:
       38. Health Education Assistance Loans
       Summary of Provisions:

              Part I. Consolidated Scholarships and Loans

     A. National Health Service Corps Scholarship and Loan Payback

                           Eligible entities

       Health professionals and public health professionals (for 
     loan payback only).

                               Activities

       The Secretary would have broad authority to offer the 
     following scholarship or loan repayment options to persons 
     who agree to provide services through the National Health 
     Service Corps in underserved areas. This consolidated 
     authority would be patterned after the existing National 
     Health Service Corps Scholarship and Loan Repayment programs.
       1. Provide scholarships to health professional students in 
     return for a commitment for such students to practice in the 
     National Health Service Corps in underserved areas once their 
     education is completed.
       2. Provide loan repayment to:
       a. Health professionals and public health personnel in 
     return for a commitment from such persons to practice in the 
     National Health Service Corps designated underserved sites 
     or, in the case of public health personnel, state and local 
     health departments with public health professional shortages.
       b. Nurses for an amount no greater than 85 percent of their 
     debt for persons who agree to practice in National Health 
     Service Corps designated underserved areas.
       3. Provide funding to states to operate their own loan 
     repayment or scholarship programs. States could designate 
     their own underserved areas utilizing their own criteria if 
     such criteria are approved by the Secretary.
       The Secretary would determine how much to provide for each 
     activity to meet the goals of providing service to 
     underserved areas and retaining providers in underserved 
     areas. States applying for grant funding to run their own 
     programs would receive priority.

                             Authorization

       There would be $90 million authorized for fiscal year 1996 
     and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 1999. This 
     amount of funding is consistent with the combined current 
     appropriations for these programs.

               B. Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students

                           Eligible entities

       Health professions schools.

                               Activities

       The Secretary would award grants to health professions 
     schools for the awarding of scholarships to disadvantaged 
     students. Eligible entities would receive a preference based 
     on the proportion of graduating students going into primary 
     care, the proportion of minority students, and the proportion 
     of graduates working in medically underserved areas.

                             Authorization

       There would be $32 million authorized for fiscal year 1996 
     through 1999. This amount of funding is consistent with the 
     combined current appropriation for these programs.

   Part II. Current Loan Authorities Continued Without Appropriations

                               Activities

       The current Nursing Student Loan (NSL) program, Primary 
     Care Loan (PCL) program, Health Professions Student Loan 
     (HPSL) program, and the Loans for Disadvantaged Students 
     (LDS) programs would continue. These programs would continue 
     using the revolving funds which remain at health professions 
     schools.

                             Authorization

       There would be $8 million authorized in each of fiscal 
     years 1996 through 1998 for the LDS program. For fiscal year 
     1999, the authority for appropriations would be repealed 
     after the revolving funds begin to be paid back by current 
     loan recipients.
       The NSL, PCL, and HPSL programs, which do not currently 
     receive appropriations, would not be authorized to receive 
     appropriations.

                          Part III. HEAL Loans

                               Activities

       The HEAL loan program would continue in its current form.

                             Authorization

       This program would continue to be authorized at such sums 
     as necessary to guarantee sufficient funds for the insurance 
     pool for loan defaulters. The current premiums provided by 
     borrowers are insufficient to meet the needs of this fund. As 
     a result of reforms made in this program in fiscal year 1992, 
     HHS is improving its loan collection and the insurance fund 
     is growing. Over time, this program may not require 
     appropriations. The current appropriation is $24.972 million.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 556. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to improve the 
provisions of trade readjustment allowances during breaks in training, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


              trade adjustment assistance improvement act

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last October I received a letter from a 
Mrs. Myra Hoey of Blandford, MA. Mrs. Hoey detailed a problem that her 
husband, David, was having with the Trade Adjustment Assistance program 
which oversees the benefits provided to workers displaced by the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement. David Hoey was an employee at the 
Westfield River Paper Co. in Massachusetts. Along with over 100 other 
employees, David lost his job when the paper company moved to Canada 
after Congress approved NAFTA.
  When we passed NAFTA in 1993, we recognized the importance of 
assisting those working families, like the Hoeys, who might be 
displaced by this agreement in obtaining gainful employment in another 
field through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. For many years 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been very helpful to the 
citizens of this Nation by helping them to seize an opportunity for a 
second chance--for another career or further education. However, Mr. 
President, occasionally some Federal guidelines fall behind the times 
and need to be adjusted in order to continue to be effective. Mrs. Hoey 
and the other workers in Westfield, MA, discovered--the hard way--that 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has problems that need to be 
fixed.
  Workers displaced because of import-related movement of companies are 
eligible for trade adjustment assistance [TAA]. Workers displaced 
specifically because of NAFTA related movement are eligible for trade 
readjustment allowances [TRA]. TAA and TRA provide 52 weeks of 
unemployment insurance-like payments to these workers and pay for 
approved training programs to train these workers.
  Because their employer moved to Canada, the Westfield River Paper Co. 
employees were eligible for TRA, and a number of them began a 
retraining program at Springfield Technical Community College during 
the fall of last year. These workers dedicated themselves to the task 
of learning new skills so that they could support their families. 
However, during Christmas 
[[Page S3903]] break from their training, these hard-working former 
employees found out that their benefits were cut off for a full month.
  This is because the law that created TAA includes a provision that 
limits TAA and TRA payments during scheduled breaks in training to the 
first 14 days of these breaks.
  Consequently, those workers who are out of work and are training for 
new jobs and who are enrolled in programs with 6-week winter breaks 
lose a month of benefits, even though they are willingly participating 
in good faith in a training program and have no other source of income. 
The missed weeks of benefits are tacked on to the end of the displaced 
workers' benefit year so that a total of 52 weeks of TRA is still 
provided.
  The motivation behind this provision is to encourage workers to chose 
training
 programs with shorter breaks so that the workers will be moved into 
the workforce with greater speed. In addition, workers are implicitly 
encouraged to select programs that train them quickly because benefits 
only last 1 year.

  However, not all workers have a plethora of programs from which to 
choose. Some are limited to only those programs offered by their local 
community college. Most colleges and universities have winter breaks 
longer than what is allowed by TRA, and as a result, benefits are 
temporarily suspended to those people enrolled in this program at those 
colleges.
  Extending to 45 calendar days the period of a break in training 
through which TAA and TRA benefits can be paid would be helpful to 
displaced workers. It would be very nearly cost-neutral, because no 
additional weeks of benefits would be provided, and it would eliminate 
inequities in the existing system. And at the risk of redundancy, 
workers would still be encouraged to choose programs with smaller 
breaks, because the total amount of time that they will receive 
benefits will still be only a year. Finally, a 45 calendar day training 
break limitation would encourage workers to engage in summer programs 
if their period of retraining overlaps summer recess.
  The bill I am introducing today, the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program Improvement Act, provides this increase in the training break 
during which benefits may continue to be paid. It also would clear up 
another problem as well, one that touches only on TRA's. I welcome my 
distinguished senior colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, as 
an original cosponsor.
  In order to qualify for a TRA, the law currently requires a displaced 
worker to enroll in training by the end of the 16th week after his or 
her initial unemployment compensation benefit period. the rationale for 
the time limit is that adjustment assistance is generally more 
effective if adjustment decisions are made relatively early in the 
unemployment period. However, the current language creates some 
inequities because the initial benefit period is triggered by initial 
lay offs and continues to run even if a worker is recalled.
  For example, if a worker is recalled 4 weeks after an initial layoff, 
then is laid off a second time after 12 weeks of employment, that 
worker would not qualify for TRA even if the worker immediately 
enrolled in training because the 16 weeks of his initial benefit period 
would have expired.
  It makes a lot more sense to allow the worker 16 weeks from his or 
her most recent separation in order to determine whether retraining is 
needed. This would provide the worker an opportunity to conduct a job 
search and to explore other options before making an enrollment 
decision, while at the same time encouraging the person to make a 
decision at a point early enough to promote effective adjustment.
  Therefore, this bill takes into account situations involving recalls 
and would require that in order to qualify for TRA, a worker must 
enroll in training by the end of the 16th week after his or her most 
recent separation from the impacted firm.
  These two changes, one to both TAA and TRA, and one only to TRA, 
would improve the entire TAA system in small but tangible ways, and at 
slight additional cost enable these programs more effectively to help 
the people they were designed to aid. People like David and Myra Hoey, 
and other workers in Michigan, Tennessee, Washington, Pennsylvania, and 
around the Nation will get the assistance they need to get back on 
their feet and into the work force.
  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. 556

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     program Improvement act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. PROVISION OF TRADE READJUSTMENT ALLOWANCES DURING 
                   BREAKS IN TRAINING.

       Section 233(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2293(f)) 
     is amended by striking ``14 days'' and inserting ``45 days''.

     SEC. 3. TRANSITIONAL ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Section 250(d)(3)(B)(i) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2331(d)(3)(B)(i)) is amended by striking 
     ``of such worker's initial unemployment compensation benefit 
     period'' and inserting ``after such worker's most recent 
     qualifying separation''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to workers covered under a 
     certification issued on or after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
     

                          ____________________