[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


         Appropriation for Employee/Management Relations Office

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few moments 
on a provision in the bill that is before us, which, compared to the 
billions of dollars in the bill, is a very small provision that is 
tucked away in this emergency supplemental. It happens to be $1.05 
million to fund lawyers retained by the Senate to defend Senators in 
employment discrimination cases.
  First and foremost, it can hardly be characterized, in my judgment, 
as an emergency. Second, it seems to me that, even if there is a need 
for some money in this area, $1.05 million is an excessive amount of 
money.
  In 1991, I worked very closely with Senator Mitchell on an amendment 
to cover the Senate under the civil rights laws, and I thank Senator 
Mitchell for that. Without his cooperation, it would not have been 
possible for us to make this breakthrough of starting to cover Congress 
under laws that it previously has exempted itself from.
  Our amendment in 1991 created a Fair Employment Office to hear 
discrimination cases and also to hear complaints. It set out a four-
step process to resolve these charges. It allowed for an appeal to the 
Federal appellate court.
  The amendment was enacted, and in the summer of 1992, the Fair 
Employment Office opened its doors. This represented the first time the 
Senate would be governed by the same laws--in this case the civil 
rights laws of our Nation--as businesses of America.
  The enforcement mechanism, however, was quite a bit different from 
the system that governed the private sector. The different enforcement 
mechanism was one of the compromises that I made to get the process of 
congressional coverage under way.
  Sometime last year, there was a decision, I believe at the leadership 
level, that the Senate should have some lawyers on the staff to defend 
Senators and other employing units, such as the Sergeant at Arms, the 
Secretary, and other branches of the Senate, in any discrimination 
cases. After all, it was too expensive to hire private lawyers to 
represent the employer's interests every time a charge might be filed.
  For the first time, in a very real sense, since this decision had to 
be made, we found ourselves as a body--maybe not individually yet--
experiencing the burdens and the pressures felt by businesses, 
businesses of every size across America--the cost of hiring lawyers.
  The Senate can handle it, of course, by simply appropriating money to 
hire lawyers in-house. Although I believe there is too much money 
contained in this bill for that purpose, that can be done.
  But American businesses, large or small, cannot just appropriate more 
money to hire lawyers. These businesses have to earn it. So it means 
that these businesses may forego investing in new equipment or may not 
give employees a needed raise. Here in the Senate, though, we can just 
appropriate money. We can do it by calling it an emergency.
  I hope no one mistakes what I am saying here. I am not suggesting 
that we do away with the civil rights laws. I fought too hard applying 
them to the Senate. And there is now justice not only for the average 
citizen in America, but for employees of this body, as well. But it 
seems to me that we have to find a way to make these important laws 
less costly and less burdensome to enforce, both here in the Congress 
and in the private sector.
  I am hopeful that we will have a chance to consider all-encompassing 
congressional coverage sometime later this year. I hope we have an 
opportunity to do that when the Senate considers the legislative reform 
package. If we do not consider that package, then I hope we have an 
opportunity to consider it as a separate item so that all of the laws 
that Congress has exempted itself from--going back to the 1930's, I 
believe--will now cover Congress so that our employees will have the 
same protections that employees in the private sector have. And, since 
we are all individual employers in the Senate when we hire our 
respective staffs, I hope we also will then know the burdens that small 
and large businesses in America endure to comply with laws passed by 
this body.
  Now, there are going to be costs. You cannot deny there are going to 
be some costs associated with congressional compliance with all these 
labor and enforcement laws.
  I hope we have a chance to consider the need for hiring lawyers. I 
believe it would have been better to consider that need in the context 
of the hearings that come out of that process, as opposed to putting 
this $1.05 million in this emergency bill. The bottom line, whether it 
is for this bill or something we do in the future about congressional 
coverage, is that we must consider the subject of hiring 
lawyers. Because once we in Congress understand and experience 
firsthand what these costs are, maybe then we will be able to devise 
more efficient ways for all Americans to meet the responsibilities of 
these laws. We will sense it firsthand.

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to proceed 
for 3 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 3 minutes.

                          ____________________