[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 20 (Tuesday, March 1, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1330
 
                CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klein). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] is recognized for 
60 minutes.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Speaker, I am continuing a conversation that I started 
a couple of weeks ago that I hope will, among other things, bring about 
a greater sense of cooperation among my colleagues here in the House of 
Representatives and the American public and will act in a constructive 
way towards developing a greater relationship between the people of 
this country and their Government. I started talking 2 weeks ago about 
some basic values that I felt were necessary in order to bring about 
this relationship or this new paradigm that will help this country go 
into the 21st century, not working at odds on with another between 
communities and between individuals but, rather, as a team, recognizing 
that we have a lot of differences among our diverse population but we 
had darned better decide that there are some common values and common 
ground and common elements that we could all agree upon as we discuss 
our differences that ultimately will lead us to some very productive 
resolutions. I would like to start just by reading a quote that Abraham 
Lincoln gave back in 1838, where he says, and I quote: ``All the armies 
of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined with all the treasures of the 
Earth, our own excepted, in their military chest, with a Bonaparte as a 
commander, could not be force take a drink from the Ohio nor make a 
track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. If destruction 
be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation 
of free men, we must live through all time or die by suicide.''
  That has stuck with me ever since I first heard that quote, because I 
sense right now that we are very successfully accomplishing a death by 
suicide in this Nation because we are unable to understand the 
important elements of agreement and commonness between us.
  I hope over these next few minutes to carry on this conversation with 
some colleagues of mine from both sides of the aisle, and I am proud 
and pleased to have with me today a good partner in a piece of 
legislation that is a very important part of this constructive act, 
Congressman Chris Shays of Connecticut, who will be speaking in a few 
moments about his perspective with regard to the congressional 
accountability legislative that he and I are coauthoring.
  But before I get to that point, I just want to continue 
reestablishing and affirming the foundation upon which this dialogue is 
going to be carried out. There are some very basic principles I think 
we as Members of Congress and as Americans ought to set forth and 
hopefully agree should be followed.
  The first is that our society is based on a profound respect for 
individuals and the sacredness of the human being. The second is that 
good government serves the greater good by balancing the needs of the 
few with the many through the needs of pragmatic, reasonable 
decisionmaking and consensus. Third, that in a free society, as 
individual freedoms increase, so do individual responsibilities. And 
fourth, that the Government's role is to provide the policy tools to 
increase individual freedom, prosperity, and common values such as the 
need for strong families, and that elected officials are the public 
servants who fulfill the will of the public for the public good.

                              {time}  1340

  I don't think that either extreme, on the right or the left, can 
truly claim these four principles. A whole new paradigm, a whole new 
way of thinking, has to be established, in order for us to bring forth 
the solutions that this country, and probably this planet, so 
desperately need.
  It is important for us to talk. It is important for public officials 
to talk, but not for the sake of talking. Rather, we must make examples 
of ourselves by stating forth the plan, and then moving forward and 
accomplishing that plan. That is a very important element of the 
discussion today, because we are talking about not only basic 
principles, but actions and plans that we can implement that begin to 
rebuild that bridge of trust between the Government and the American 
public, maybe between Republicans and Democrats to the extent that that 
is necessary, but certainly between people, so that we understand in 
Government what the plight of people's lives and problems that they 
face in those lives might be out in the neighborhoods.
  Today we are going to be talking about the congressional 
accountability legislation that Congressman Shays and I have authored 
and are very fortunate now to have over 245 cosponsors on board 
supporting.
  I think what is most important to begin in this discussion is the 
understanding that this is not just a symbolic piece of legislation. 
This is a piece of legislation that, if and when implemented, and we 
assume that it will be probably by mid-April this year, that it is 
going to take that bridge that has decayed and fallen between the 
people and the Congress, and start to rebuild that span so that 
communication, and, most importantly, trust, will begin to traverse 
across in both directions.
  The trust that needs to exist between people of a democracy and their 
government is so important, because without it, any action that we take 
in this body, either speaking from the well of the House or working in 
committees, will fall not only on deaf ears, but will fall on minds 
that feel that it is only to their detriment and their destruction that 
we work.
  We are trying to reestablish a positive relationship, so that that is 
not the problem.
  Now, it seems almost unbelievable that Congress would pass laws that 
it exempted itself from while it required the rest of the country to 
follow. Why is this noncompliance so? Why is it wrong that we do it? I 
think these are very simple questions that can be so easily answered. 
But for the Record, let us explore momentarily what the answers might 
be.
  They are obvious I think to everyone who listens in or engages in 
this debate. Ordinary people just do not understand why Congress does 
not comply with its own laws. What is good for the goose ought to be 
good for the gander.
  Why should Congress be a class apart or a privileged group, who 
people seem to see them as, set above the citizenry it is supposed to 
be representing?
  Whenever I am out talking to my constituents, I make it a point of 
always, whether I am talking to children or adults, of reinforcing in 
their minds the fact that I know who pays my salary, and I know who I 
represent. And in that, I am the servant or the employee and the 
electorate or the taxpayer is the employer.
  Two centuries ago James Madison in the Federalist Papers called for 
Congress to be subjected to its own laws. Now, over 200 years later, we 
have an opportunity to make his expressed hope a reality.
  So what this is really is a reality check. It gives Members of 
Congress an opportunity to prove to the public that we understand their 
plight, we know what they are going through as they deal with the 
regulations, and we obviously, through our direct connection, 
hopefully, will begin to legislate better laws, more sensitive 
requirements, that not only may free up some people in the public to 
conduct their lives with a little more dignity and a little more 
respect, but gives them a sense that the Government trusts them to do 
exactly that. It doesn't mean that we would want to put anyone in a 
position that they could get away with irresponsible or undesirable 
behavior. But we do want the American public to believe and to behave 
as though the Government trusts them. Hopefully, in return Government 
will regain their trust as well.
  These bridges of trust between Congress and the people we serve will 
be rebuilt as an understanding begins to develop between people in the 
neighborhoods and people inside the beltway.
  This step must be taken or else we will continue to see the erosion 
of our community as we continue to fight, one with another, rather than 
to begin to work cooperatively, in bringing about a better society for 
all Americans.

  Congress certainly will pass better laws if it has to anticipate what 
living under them might be like. There is an important educative 
function served by making Congress obey the laws that it passes for 
others. If the institution must live by the laws that it enacts, 
Members of Congress will learn firsthand how their actions affect the 
lives of others.
  I happen to be an architect, so this is something that I often like 
to refer to when I talk about this legislation. We are designing a 
piece of legislation hopefully that gives me and my colleagues an 
opportunity to empathize and to be sensitive to the plight of Americans 
as they go through their lives on a daily basis.
  Only this isn't a house, this isn't a building that is being 
designed; this is hopefully a relationship that helps us better design 
those legislative houses or legislative buildings that are an ongoing 
business of the Congress.
  It is a matter of simple equity. How can we deny our own employees 
the legal rights and remedies that we extend to others? Are our own 
employees less deserving of those rights than workers in other 
enterprises? Even though we often stress the need to move forward on 
this issue in terms of rehabilitating the reputation of Congress, we 
must never lose sight of the fact that the most basic reason for ending 
the congressional exemption from various labor and employment laws is 
to provide our employees with the same protections that we have decided 
that others deserve.
  This is not a small matter. It is not a simple symbolic gesture. It 
has very deep and fundamental ramifications that I think belie and 
speak of the values that are so important to making the Congress 
operate at a high level of quality and responsiveness.
  There is, I think, a need for going through the chronology of this 
legislation just very briefly to give a history of what has been done, 
at least from the perspective that Chris Shays, a Republican from 
Connecticut, and I have been engaged.
  It was introduced back in January of 1993, the first day after we got 
back from our reelection campaigns, and a month later we testified for 
the first time before the joint committee. That was testimony that put 
forward the congressional accountability legislation before a committee 
or task force that was established to try and look at now we can make 
the Congress operate better.
  In May, we passed the 218 cosponsors mark, and this means that a 
majority of the House had signed on as cosponsors to the legislation. 
When a simple majority signs on, that means the legislation is very 
easily passed when it is brought to a vote, provided all of those 
cosponsors remain loyal to the legislation.
  In August, Speaker Foley endorsed the concept of H.R. 349, the 
legislation that we had brought forward for congressional 
accountability, and in a letter, he stated so, that he asked 
Congressman Shays and myself to work with the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress to implement the proposal.
  In September, on the 23rd, Speaker Foley in a speech on congressional 
reform given at the National Press Club, reiterated his support for 
bringing Congress under the laws that we pass for the rest of the land.

                              {time}  1350

  This is very important because, as one moves legislation through the 
body, it is imperative that we have the support of both Members on 
either side of the aisle and the leadership in order to demonstrate to 
the country that we are unified and understand the need for this 
legislation, but also for expediting the process as well.
  Skipping over a few dates, we now have just recently, today, I will 
start by going back to last week. Last week Chris and I took part in a 
press conference held on the Senate side of the Capitol, where Senators 
Grassley and Lieberman endorsed and put forward their companion piece 
of legislation, in some respects even an improvement over what we had 
initially drafted, that we are working with them in getting through the 
Senate side of the Congress.
  And then today, just this morning, the Employment Policy Foundation 
announced a release, their release of a study called Above The Law. I 
have a copy of it right here, ``Above The Law,'' in which they cite our 
legislation as well as the efforts of others in Congress who are trying 
to deal with this. And they applaud the work that Chris and I and our 
colleagues have been engaged in and are working with us to see that 
this legislation moves forward as expeditiously as possible. I will 
quote out of their document on page 100, where it says:

       Representative Shays, a Republican from Connecticut, and 
     Representative Swett, a Democrat from New Hampshire, along 
     with 246 original cosponsors, recently introduced broad-based 
     legislation to end congressional exemptions. Their bill, H.R. 
     349, entitled ``the Congressional Accountability Act,'' would 
     apply the following major Federal employment laws to all 
     legislative entities in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as they applied to the private sector and the 
     executive branch.

  Those laws are the National Labor Relations Act, something that in 
the Joint Committee on Congressional Organization, Chris and I hope 
that we can convince them it needs to be strengthened, but it is being 
taken care of on the Senate side. The Fair Labor Standards Act, I am 
sorry. That is the one that we are looking to be strengthened. The 
former is, in fact, imparted in our legislation.
  Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil 
Rights Act of 1991; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, from 
1967; Occupational Safety and Health Act, that is something that we are 
going to have to address more succinctly on the House side, but we are 
working as well with the Senate to make sure that it is in there. And 
it is a part of the legislation.
  We also have the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990. There are any number of groups besides the 
group that put together ``Above The Law,'' who have endorsed this 
legislation. I have letters from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, eastern 
region, endorsing the legislation. I have a letter from Citizens 
Against Government Waste, endorsing this legislation. Common Cause has 
recently endorsed this legislation. And I have spoken with Ralph Nader 
and have gained his favorable inclination toward this legislation and 
hope to receive an endorsement at some point as well.
  The most important thing, I think, that I can say, before I turn over 
some time to my colleague from Connecticut, is that this is a piece of 
legislation that goes way beyond symbolism. The beauty of it is that it 
costs taxpayers no money initially.
  I say ``initially'' to be perfectly honest, because as you look 
around the Chamber here, you will notice there are no sprinkler heads 
in the ceiling. One of the problems that this legislation would cause 
is a need to look closely at OSHA and its requirements to determine 
where those deficiencies on Capitol Hill might need to be adjusted and 
met. But we are not looking at this only from where can we spend money 
to bring us under the requirements of regulation. I hope this opens up 
a whole new creative attitude toward legislative effort, where we are 
looking at what we might be able to do to reasonably restructure 
regulations and requirements so that some people might gain a little 
more breathing room, without incurring any negative impact on their 
fellow citizens.
  I think that is a very important and creative approach that needs to 
be brought into the legislative process.
  I am going to conclude for now and ask my good friend from 
Connecticut to stand and give us a few moments of his time in talking 
about this very important piece of legislation, and I will conclude my 
remarks after any number of colleagues have had their opportunity to 
speak. Thank you for coming. The time is yours.
  Mr. SHAYS. I appreciate your yielding the floor to me. I think about 
how incredible a discussion like this must be to so many people, when 
we talk about Congress having to live under the same laws that the rest 
of the country has to live under. It seems pretty logical and kind of 
basic. It is unfortunate that we are having this kind of discussion 
that we even need to.
  It is very appropriate that it is happening today, because as the 
gentleman from New Hampshire points out, the employment policy 
foundation came out with their 3-year study done by Thomas Reed and 
Bradley Cameron, and they entitle it, appropriately, ``Above the Law.'' 
And it is incredible to think that the U.S. Congress, in a sense, acts 
as if it is above the law by simply not having the law apply to itself 
the same way it applies to people in the private sector and in the 
executive branch.
  So this is an appropriate day, given the fact that this 3-year study 
has finally come out. But as you went through the history, I would love 
to just make mention of a few people, because for years, people like 
Bill Gradison and Bill Goodling in particular and Harrison Fawell in 
the House have spoken out about this issue and an individual who is no 
longer here, Bill Dannemeyer. Bill Dannemeyer was the first to 
introduce the Congressional Accountability Act. But he regretfully 
sought to make it more of a partisan issue and, therefore, we have the 
very needed benefit of both sides on this issue.
  You also and the Senate had people like Senator Grassley who have 
spoken out on it for years. What has happened is, I think, a very 
important evolution where we had these individuals who were speaking 
continually on this issue and very few people paid attention.
  In fact, even the press hardly paid much attention to it either. It 
is almost like, what do you expect, this is Congress. This is the way 
it happens.
  When we introduced the bill jointly, Representative Swett and I, when 
we introduced this, we introduced it with two Republicans, Jay Dickey 
and Roscoe Bartlett and with David Mann on the Democratic side, with 
you, Dick Swett and Paul McHale. And it was introduced by six Members 
of Congress. Then we had the added boost of having the freshman class 
endorse it, over 100 Members of the new class of Congress, Republicans 
and Democrats. And Eric Fingerhut and Karen Shepherd on the Democratic 
side and Tillie Fowler and Peter Torkildsen on the Republican side. So 
it had an active 10 Members of Congress, 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats. 
And then, as you point out, the Speaker as well.
  What I think is significant is that, as you point out, we have more 
than a majority of Congress supporting it.
  It does not take a brain surgeon to know that if we apply laws to 
someone else, they should apply to us. As you mentioned, you make 
reference to the fact that Congress has exempted itself using 
separation of powers as a reason or the speech and debate clause. But 
really a misuse of those two powers.
  There is also the power of checks and balances. One branch making 
sure that it keeps account of what the other branch is doing to make 
sure that that branch never gets above the law, that it is never above 
the law. So I would wager to say that the separation of powers takes a 
back step to the whole issue of checks and balances and also that the 
speech and debate clause, which was intended to prevent a Member from 
being sued in court for actions they took as Members of Congress, was 
never intended to protect a Member of Congress for abuse that they 
might heap upon an employee.

  Now, we are moving forward with this legislation and it is, in the 
course of working on it, we had the added benefit of the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress. And this committee was 
looking at many issues, including the Congressional Accountability Act. 
It is exciting that they have made it a centerpiece of the bill to come 
out before the House, regretful that other parts beyond congressional 
accountability were not included.
  Also, it is regretful that one part, the whole issue of OSHA, is 
exempted from this law as they have brought it forth, at least, and 
presented it to the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules is now 
debating it.
  As the Members know, we need to get the Committee on Rules to put 
OSHA back into the bill, and do what Senators Lieberman and Grassley 
have advocated in their bill, that it also includes the whole issue of 
collective bargaining.
  When I was in the State House we gave State employees the right to 
collective bargaining in the State House in Connecticut, and we had an 
exemption, that the general assembly in Hartford, the Connecticut 
General Assembly, would not be under collective bargaining. The 
executive branch would be but we would not be. The private sector was 
already in it.
  I remember speaking to my minority leader and saying, ``We should 
come under the law.'' He looked at me very incredulously and said, ``We 
could not function.'' That really gets us to the whole point. There are 
some people who do not want Congress to be under the law because they 
did not vote for it for the executive branch or the private sector. 
There are some, particularly, who are not great fans of OSHA, so their 
argument might be that we should not come under the law, because they 
never wanted the law to pass in the first place.
  The bottom line to this whole discussion is that we will write better 
laws if we come under the law. As the gentleman points out, there are 
certain parts of OSHA that may cost money, a sprinkler system, and some 
Members are reluctant on a fiscal matter to have us come under OSHA, 
but that could be phased in.
  But as a Member pointed out today in the press conference he and I 
attended, what about the work rules OSHA has and certain equipment that 
you cannot ride, that carrier large reams of paper to various offices 
and so on? He noticed, for instance, an employee riding that when it 
was not intended to be ridden.
  If in the private sector, as he pointed out, that was noted by OSHA, 
an employer could be fined $7,000. So even this whole issue of having 
to conform to OSHA, as it relates to the physical reconstruction of 
buildings and so on, there is also the other aspect, that there are 
OSHA laws that would not cost a penny.
  Now I notice that we have Mr. Fingerhut and we have Jay Dickey, a 
Democrat and a Republican, both cosponsors of this legislation, and 
there is more I could say, but I would like to just end my part now and 
just emphasize that Congress cannot be above the law, that we will 
write better laws when we have to live by the same laws everyone else 
has to live by, and that as a centerpiece in the discussion, the 10 
primary cosponsors of this bill, we basically decided this: If it 
applies to the executive branch and it applies to the private sector, 
it should apply to us. That is the test.

  So when we debate this bill on the floor of the House, if we have 
left out OSHA, then we are going to be very outspoken in our effort to 
put OSHA back in. We do not want to say, ``We have done 90 percent of 
it, and it is not like we are not willing to compromise, but we defeat 
the whole purpose of the bill if in the end we leave out something and 
we are still above the law in some areas.
  So I thank my friend for yielding to me. I notice that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] is here as well. This bill has 245 
cosponsors.
  Mr. SWETT. Two hundred and forty-six now.
  Mr. SHAYS. That is nice to know. I guess I would also say that the 
public can have a tremendous amount of impact. They may have made 
assumptions that we are under all the laws. It may not have occurred to 
them that we are not. It never did to me until I was elected.
  We need their help, as well, in helping move forward this legislation 
so when it is finally drafted it does everything we intend it to do. I 
welcome, along with the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett], I 
welcome my colleagues here and thank them deeply, particularly the 
freshman Members. Because just as there were the Grassley's and the 
Harris Fawell's and the Bill Goodling's who came before, what has 
really made a difference in this legislation, absolutely, are the 90-
plus out of 100-plus Members of the freshman class, 90 have cosponsored 
this legislation. It would go nowhere without their support, so I am 
deeply grateful to my colleagues, the new Members of this Chamber.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SWETT. I thank the gentleman. I really appreciate those words he 
has given us. I think the best thing to do at this point in the 
remaining 25 minutes is to let as many of our colleagues speak to this 
legislation as possible, and I will ask their deference in my 
recognizing people in the order that they came. I yield to the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett]. I 
want Members to know that I am a small business person in Pine Bluff, 
AR. My businesses are not gigantic. The volume of sales is not such 
that we can go around making corrections and additions and having 
inspections all the time, but yet in one summer's time I had an 
inspection from OSHA, EPA, the fire department, local fire department, 
the Americans With Disabilities Act inspection team came in, the health 
department, and a building inspector.
  What I am saying is this: That I am hoping, and I am listening 
carefully, if someone were to come and say, ``We cannot have these 
things applied to Congress because the wheels of justice would come to 
a grinding halt,'' I'm going to say, ``I know that, because that is 
what exactly happens to small businesses.''
  I want to go over one particular instance. I built a store in 1987, a 
restaurant in 1987, and the architects provided in that a ramp for us 
to have off-center, away from the front door. That ramp was kind of 
convoluted. It was kind of neat. It had the post for the light there, 
for the parking light, parking lot light, and then it went up and back 
around. It was a neat little deal. It came right back up and then you 
are on the walkway.

  The inspection we had said ``no,'' you have to have that in the front 
door. You have to have that right in the front door. So we had 
constructed all of this for that particular ramp. We lost a parking 
place in doing that. We put a parking lot ramp right there. We then had 
to move this ramp over to the front door and we virtually lost in 
essence a full parking place, and lost the best parking places on the 
whole lot, because we had this constructed over here and those two 
there.
  If those very things would happen in this body, and someone would 
say, ``This is absolutely ridiculous,'' then I could say, ``Yes, that 
is what is happening. I hope that we do not bring those regulations 
into this House, I mean into this body, because it will bring it to a 
grinding halt.'' I hope they will say, ``Maybe we ought to reconsider 
some of the effects of these things, so we have a cost-effective 
reference.'' That is what I hope. I think I am speaking for every small 
business person in the United States, because what we are doing out 
there is, we somehow are giving jobs to people who are inspectors, who 
are coming and trying to find that something is wrong, and we are 
sitting there trying to bite the bullet on bottom lines, we are trying 
to please customers, we are trying to satisfy everybody else, and these 
inspectors come in and give us a list of things we have to do, and then 
sometimes they do not even come back to inspect.
  Here is in essence what I think we ought to do. We ought to adopt the 
plan, this Congressional Accountability Act. We should adopt the slogan 
that, ``Congress ought to do unto itself what it has done for others.'' 
If we will do that, then we will encourage people to get into business, 
we will not accuse them of something by sending out these inspectors, 
and we will lead interference for people to take chances, to take 
risks, and to provide a service to this country and our economy, and we 
will all be better off.
  I am for this bill. I want to thank those of the Members who have 
been on the cutting edge, and I hope we can succeed in getting this 
across and giving the peace of mind to the people of America.
  Mr. SWETT. I thank the gentleman very much. I might say as an 
architect you might have hired the wrong individual. The ADA is such 
that there is reasonableness in that. What we have to do is bring that 
sense of reasonableness into the rest of government, because we do not 
have to put ourselves under such restrictive, mistrusting 
circumstances. I think there is a real need to evaluate the creative 
options that any of these issues and solutions or obstacles that we 
come up against might impose.
  Once we have a chance of seeing that we, in Congress, have to deal 
with the same thing that you as a small businessman, or I, as a small 
businessman, had to deal with when we were out in the private sector, 
and what all of the other Americans across the country are dealing 
with, I think we would all of a sudden have a willingness to be a 
little more reasonable and to start addressing those issues in a way 
that holds everyone harmless and safe and yet allows everyone also to 
get their lives moving along at a productive clip.
  I thank the gentleman very much.
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut], a really good 
friend of mine, one of the new Members in Congress.
  I have to make mention that as this special order goes forward, more 
and more people filter into the Chamber. So far it is fun to notice 
that everybody that comes in happens to be of the younger set. We are 
all the kids in Congress, but I think that is partly because we 
recognize there is a real need for this kind of activity.
  I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to 
say that as a new Member of this body, one of the things I tried to do 
was find those people, young or old, who shared similar views and 
similar values, and finding the gentleman as a colleague has really 
been a special pleasure for me, as well as the cosponsor of this 
legislation, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  It is an all too infrequent occurrence, frankly, in this body to see 
Republicans and Democrats working together on an issue of such major 
importance. I really appreciate the gentleman's leadership.
  I also want to acknowledge my freshman colleague, the gentleman from 
Arkansas, Jay Dickey, who spoke, as usual, very eloquently, and the 
gentleman who will soon speak, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Peter 
Torkildsen, Peter and his colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida, 
Tillie Fowler, cochaired the Republican Freshman Task Force on Reform. 
I, together with my colleague, our friend, Karen Shepherd, the 
gentlewoman from Utah, cochaired the Democratic Freshman Class Task 
Force on Reform. Together, we have been working with the gentleman on 
this legislation from the beginning.
  Mr. SWETT. The gentleman might just talk to the unusual quality of 
what the freshmen, both on the Democratic and Republican sides of the 
aisle, the unusual quality of that relationship, and how that came 
about.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I appreciate that question. As I think the gentleman 
knows, this is one of the largest freshman classes in history, 
certainly the largest since World War II, and I think there was a 
unifying theme to our election.
  That was the sense that we had to restore the public's faith in the 
operations of this institution.
  Very quickly, we realize that we could not do that if we stayed in 
our separate corners and did not work together. So when the Democrats 
reached out to the Republicans and the Republicans reached out to the 
Democrats and we said, ``How can we build some confidence to work 
together,'' this question, the question of the accountability of 
Congress to the laws it passes for others, rose to the top of the list. 
This is such an obvious point, this is something so desperately needed, 
something that the public wants so badly that if we can work together 
and be successful on this issue, then we can build the confidence to 
work together on other issues.

                              {time}  1410

  I thank the gentleman for that question.
  I just wanted in my few minutes to tell a couple of stories actually. 
Congressman Swett and Congressman Shays have outlined the need for the 
legislation. You have outlined the contents of the legislation. But 
maybe yet, because it has been 1\1/2\ years into this session of 
Congress, and you have had this now for two sessions of Congress, maybe 
yet the urgency of it has not sunk in to every nook and cranny of this 
building, and if it has not, let me try and tell you why it should be.
  I held in my district, the 19th District of Ohio, since September 26 
town hall meetings on the subject of health care reform. Ever since the 
President made his speech to the joint session of Congress in September 
and introduced his call for universal health care legislation, I have 
been meeting with my constituents, as I know many other Members of 
Congress have been doing the same. And in every meeting, after I gave a 
brief presentation of what it was we were going to talk about, I would 
then open the floor to questions. And the first question that was asked 
in every single town hall meeting, the first question that was asked 
was, ``Congressman, are the Members of Congress going to live by the 
health care bill that they pass for everybody else, or are you just 
going to exempt yourselves from this like you have from every other 
law?'' And I have to say that I was stunned by the frequency of the 
question, and also I was really saddened by it.
  Mr. SWETT. If the gentleman will yield, that is exactly what came 
across when I was out in the district over the holidays and more 
recently in the last few weeks in my district, and obviously it is 
right there at the surface. People want that accountability.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Without any question. And what really gets me about 
this experience I had in my district was if you are asked about it here 
in Washington they will say oh, this is just a bunch of Members of 
Congress who are trying to get publicity by running against the 
institution, or by trashing the institution. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. I am not making this up; you are not making up this 
issue. This is the first question asked by my constituents at every 
health care town hall meeting. And it really made me sad, because the 
fact is that this is like a ton of bricks that is on our shoulders, 
that is weighing us down as we try and address every other substantive 
issue that is out there.
  How are we going to get the public's confidence that the very 
difficult compromises that are going to need to be made on health care, 
and on our budget deficit, on welfare reform, or on any of the other 
major issues that we want to address in this Congress, how are we going 
to get their confidence that we are making the decisions in the right 
manner with the public interest in mind, with only thinking about what 
is right if we cannot get over that threshold of credibility that they 
know that we are willing to live by what we do to them? It is 
maddening, and it is saddening that that is what we confront.
  I will tell one other quick story and then yield back my time. The 
very first time this question came on the floor this year was in the 
debate over the Family and Medical Leave Act. As I recall, that 
legislation came to the floor maybe 3 weeks into our term, so that the 
new Members of Congress were really new, really fresh, and there was a 
debate on this subject. I recall there being a very somewhat serious 
debate on this floor over whether the separation of powers would 
prevent Congress from including itself in the laws and having courts 
enforce laws against us the same way they would against a businessman 
in my district. And I left this floor thinking well, jeez, this is a 
serious constitutional argument. So I said what the heck, and I picked 
up the phone and I called some noted constitutional scholars in 
congressional districts, some noted constitutional lawyers and some 
constitutional professors who teach constitutional law and I asked 
should I be concerned about the separation of powers. And they just 
started laughing, and they said, ``What are you talking about? Congress 
is subject to criminal laws. If you take a bribe, if you rob or steal, 
God forbid, you are going to be prosecuted by the authorities. Why 
shouldn't you be subject to the civil laws that we pass that carry 
penalties with them that every other American citizen has to be 
subjected to?''
  So out there there is no question that we need to do this. And I just 
want to make a plea to the gentleman, not just for the substance of the 
bill because I know you understand that as well as anybody, and 
Congressman Shays does as well as anybody, but the urgency. We have got 
to pass this bill. This is the threshold credibility test for all of 
the other important issues that this Congress needs to address on 
behalf of the American people.
  So I thank the gentleman for his initiative, and I am at your 
disposal, as I know are many others, new Members of this body who want 
to see this legislation passed, passed in the strongest possible form, 
not get watered down, and passed now.
  Mr. SWETT. I thank the gentleman very much. The urgency of this issue 
is very much apparent. I appreciate your bringing that point in, and I 
hope that is what my good colleague from Massachusetts, Representative 
Torkildsen, will continue to press. I yield to my friend who pushed 
forward on this very theme.
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. I thank my friend from New Hampshire for yielding and 
want to thank both Congressman Swett and Congressman Shays for taking 
the initiative on this. I know a number of Members have. Also I 
appreciate your mentioning that the freshman class has made a 
difference. As the cochairman of the Republican Freshman Task Force I 
have worked with many freshman Members such as Tillie Fowler and also 
the Democratic freshman class, Eric Fingerhut and Karen Shepherd, and I 
think the freshmen really have made a difference on this. I think it is 
a key point where you have a large group of Members, of new blood, that 
you can tackle some problems that really have not been addressed in the 
past.
  I did have a prepared statement and I would like to go over some 
points as time allows. But I just say look around and you see a body 
that will say it knows the evils of discrimination, of an over-secret 
government and of a dangerous workplace. But the same body passed laws 
to address all of those wrongs, but look around you and you will also 
see a Congress that has not been willing to live by any of those 
remedies that it has offered for everyone else.
  Many people say Congress is out of touch with the American people. 
The refusal of Congress to obey many of its own laws is one reason why 
many people do not have confidence in the decisions that are made here.

                              {time}  1420

  While Congress has conveniently decided it should not have to follow 
laws ranging from the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the Freedom of 
Information Act, today I would like to talk about one specific area: 
OSHA regulations.
  Why does Congress enforce standards in almost every workplace in 
America and then decide congressional employees do not deserve similar 
protection? Congressional employees deserve those protections, and 
equally important, American employers deserve a Congress that is 
willing to practice what it preaches, or perhaps more to the point, 
will only preach what it is willing to practice.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an area I am particularly sensitive about, 
because prior to being elected to Congress, I served as commissioner of 
the Department of Labor and Industries for the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts. I knew Congress had exempted itself from most labor law, 
but an incident soon after I arrived here drove the point home. I was 
walking through one of the underground tunnels that connect the House 
offices with the Capitol when a worker drove by on an electronic 
forklift that was not designed to carry human beings. Was this act 
illegal? Not in Congress, but it would have been illegal if it had 
happened in any private workplace in the United States. If an OSHA 
inspector had seen that incident, the worker's employer could have been 
fined up to $7,000 even if no accident had happened. That fine of 
$7,000 is a very serious punishment when no accident occurs.
  Yet in Congress not only was there no fine, it was not even illegal, 
because Congress had exempted itself from OSHA.
  If we are to reearn the confidence of the American people, we can 
start with simple commonsense actions like following the same laws the 
rest of America obeys, laws that we as Members of Congress write.
  There is talk about a watered-down version of this legislation coming 
to the floor. This would be a mistake. A double standard is still a 
double standard.
  We need to pass the Congressional Accountability Act to make all laws 
apply to Congress.
  I commend the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] and the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and all other Members who have 
taken the lead on this issue and say let us not lose focus of what we 
have to do. We have to hold Congress accountable, and only when 
Congress must follow all laws will the American people begin to believe 
that we are willing to accept the same responsibility we put on other 
people.
  Mr. SWETT. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Again, it appears that we are all here patting each other on the 
back, but the real issue is that we have to make sure that all of our 
colleagues, and everyone out there in the entire country, is aware that 
this is happening so that we can bring this legislation to some kind of 
successful conclusion.
  I think one person who probably has more to do with that than anyone 
who has spoken so far today is the ranking member of the Joint 
Committee on Congressional Organization, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier]. I appreciate the gentleman being here, and the time is 
his to speak as he sees fit on the topic.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my good friend for yielding. I congratulate him 
for taking out this special order and the leadership he and my friend, 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], have shown on this issue of 
congressional compliance.
  Obviously as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] has 
said, there has been a wide range of support which has emanated from 
the 115 newly elected Members of the Congress on this issue of 
congressional reform, and obviously compliance is an important part of 
it.
  My friend mentioned earlier the fact that James Madison in the 57th 
Federalist talked about the importance of having a legislature comply 
with the laws that it imposes on the people, and if it does not, then 
it is no longer responsive to the will of the people.
  It seems to me that we need to realize, and this report ``Above the 
Law'' which we unveiled this morning at the news conference is very 
important, because what we are doing is we are taking a step toward 
congressional compliance.
  Now, I should say that this issue of congressional compliance is only 
part, and with all due respect, a small part of the overall issues of 
reform. My friend mentioned the fact that I spent calendar year 1993 
along with our colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], 
cochairing this first committee in nearly half a century, since 
actually 1946, that has been put together in a bipartisan, bicameral 
way to deal with overall reform of the institution, and while we are 
pleased that many aspects of the legislation that my two friends from 
New Hampshire and Connecticut have introduced, and important parts of 
it are incorporated in our report, frankly, one of the most important 
aspects of the legislation in the Shays-Swett bill is this issue of 
OSHA compliance.

  One of the things that I have found is that, as I have talked with 
many people in California and in other parts of the country, they are 
enraged at the fact that we are not only exempted from the litany of 
items which are addressed in your legislation, but also another item 
which you have, and unfortunately is not included in the final report 
from the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, is this issue 
of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
  Many of the regulations promulgated by the Federal Government onto 
the American people, onto the backs of the private sector, will 
continue to be exempted under the report that came out. Congress will 
continue to be exempted under the report that came out from our Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress.
  So I think one of the things we need to realize as we look at this 
issue of congressional reform is it is going to be critically important 
for us to get the committee on which I sit, the Committee on Rules, to 
grant a rule which will allow for the important amendments that I know 
my friend will want to have incorporated in this issue of congressional 
reform.
  I also have found, from having talked to people around the country, 
that this issue of reform does hit a very important note. They were 
talking, several of my friends, and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays] I think earlier mentioned, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Fingerhut], this issue of compliance with the health care legislation. 
Congress should be required to comply with it.
  One of the things that hit me, and I have said this throughout our 
hearings, on this issue of congressional compliance was that in the 
1992 campaign, I talked about the need for Congress to comply with the 
laws that it imposes on the American people. My father happened to be 
in the audience when I talked about congressional compliance. He came 
up to me and said, ``David, you are wrong. What you should do is 
anytime you in Washington are considering promulgating a regulation on 
those of us who are small businessmen,'' of which my father is one, 
``you should have to live with it for 1 year, and only after you decide 
that it is a very helpful, beneficial regulation, only then should you 
impose it on the rest of us.''
  And that gets to the point which I was making earlier this morning. I 
think, as we look at this issue of congressional compliance with the 
laws that we impose on the private sector, my goal is to finally get to 
the point where we realize that much of what we impose on the private 
sector of our economy is extraordinarily onerous.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] at the news conference 
this morning was referring to the fact that they look at OSHA reform, 
it will get to the point where it could conceivably obliterate those 
who have still survived in the private sector today. So it is my hope 
that much of what we impose on the private sector, when we realize how 
onerous it is, we will possibly reduce that regulatory burden so the 
private sector will have an opportunity to have a greater opportunity 
to succeed, and it seems to me that is going to be a very important 
thing.
  I congratulate both of my friends here for the hard work they have 
put into this effort of congressional compliance.
  As was said earlier, we are not simply patting ourselves on the back. 
We have a long way to go. The process has just begun, and I should say 
that if we do not get a rule which will allow for the kinds of 
amendments which we need and the American people want us to implement 
on the issue of congressional reform, I believe that the weak package 
which has come out of our joint committee so far could turn out to be a 
very, very sad commentary on congressional reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I would simply say to my colleague, the gentleman from 
New Hampshire, and others that I hope there will be a bipartisan effort 
to ensure an opportunity for all of our colleagues to participate in 
the issue of reform when it does finally hit the floor.
  Mr. SWETT. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I will 
appreciate your help in that effort that is coming up on March 23. That 
is when we are going to be talking to the Committee on Rules about the 
procedure for this legislation.
  I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me 
before the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett] speaks.
  I just wanted to make reference to one area I had not spoken to, and 
that was the whole concept of the public's opinion about this.
  Obviously it is very supportive. But it was documented in a piece 
that we received from Ross Perot last year from United We Stand. In 
March they did a survey, the first national referendum of government 
reform, and in it Ross Perot's organization, United We Stand, did this 
and asked a number of questions. They asked 17 questions to get the 
public's opinion about the budget and so on. One of the questions was, 
``Do you believe that Congress should not exclude itself from 
legislation it passes for us and should correct this discrepancy 
immediately?'' Ninety-nine point four percent of the people said, 
``Yes.'' Now, admittedly using the word ``discrepancy'' was a bias in 
his question. Ross Perot knew he was stating the question this way.
  He asked that an organization, the Gordon Black Co., do a scientific 
poll on the same questions that his organization had asked, and when 
they did it in a scientific poll, ``Congress must comply with its own 
laws,'' 87 percent of the American public said ``yes''; that beat out 
the balanced-budget amendment, which was 71; elimination of foreign 
lobbyists, which was 67 percent; reducing the role of domestic 
lobbyists, 78; eliminating political action committees, 69; no special 
campaign money, 70 percent; giving the President line-item veto, 61 
percent; 87 percent of the American people said that we should comply 
with our own laws.

                              {time}  1430

  That was done in a scientific way. In an unscientific way, 99 percent 
of the million people that Ross Perot's organization polled. It is just 
very clear from the moral ground, from a very practical ground, that we 
write better laws. I wanted to put this into the record before my 
colleague [Mr. Bartlett] proceeds, who was one of the original six 
Members who actually joined in this bill and actually introduced his 
own bill. He, like the rest of us, feel that Congress cannot be above 
the law.
  Mr. SWETT. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Bartlett].
  Mr. BARTLETT. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I made a number of promises to my constituency when I 
was running for Congress, and one of those promises was that I was 
going to submit a bill to apply the laws to Congress, all the laws and 
regulations that they apply to everyone else but exempt themselves 
from.
  I did that on the first day, and I mean to keep that promise.
  From what I hear about the district, they are not going to be 
interested in an application of regulations that permit us to police 
ourselves. I heard that if we had OSHA come in to apply to us the rules 
they apply to everyone else, they must shut us down.
  Two good things would happen if they did that: No. 1, we would do no 
further harm to the Republic while we were shut down; and, second, we 
would very quickly change those laws that shut us down. We need to live 
by the laws and regulations that are applied to everyone else.
  Also, there are some irritants out there that may be important to us, 
but I will tell you the harm they do us far outweighs the good they do 
us. One of those irritants is free parking at the airports. Our 
constituents lug their luggage in from the back 40, they get up there 
to the terminal all tired and sweaty in the summertime, frozen in the 
wintertime, and they see those free parking spaces not used up close, 
and they remind themselves, ``I really do hate Congress.''
  We really need to change that. We do not need those irritants out 
there that give us the reputation that we do not deserve. We need to 
work to remove those irritants so that we can have the reputation that 
the Congress did have, the reputation that the Congress deserves, so 
that we can be effective in legislating, so that we can be effective in 
governing this great country.
  We have an enormous percentage of our constituents behind us. We just 
have to have the courage to do the right things that our constituents 
are demand of us.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SWETT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the urgency is there. This is a very 
important piece of legislation. It is very important really from very 
basic perspectives. The foundation that we create by putting forth this 
legislation is that our actions do speak louder than our words. The 
days that we spend as Representatives here in Washington are spent in 
direct contact with the legislation that we know we are providing for 
the people around the country. That is something that is going to 
connect us much more closely to the people we serve than anything else 
that we do:
  It does not cost the country any money except as we evaluate what the 
problems are here. And even then we have the ability to be creative in 
finding solutions that are not necessarily financially oriented but may 
be oriented more toward the spirit of cooperation, toward a spirit of 
bringing the community together.
  This is the kind of communication, the kind of cooperation that we 
are going to have to bring forth in this country if we are going to 
solve these problems. It is an urgent problem. It is one that needs to 
be solved today.
  We have seen people from both sides of the aisle come down in the 
last hour talking about the need for bringing forward congressional 
accountability, not so that we have sprinkler heads in Congress, not so 
that we do not ride on machinery that is not supposed to be ridden on 
by our staff, but because we have to bring back the trust that this 
country deserves to have in its Government.
  If we cannot build that bridge, we ultimately will see the remaining 
stalwarts, the remaining piers and foundations erode and dissolve and 
be washed away with the last tide. That is something that I would hope 
we can avoid in this country.
  That is something that President Lincoln certainly tried to avoid 
when he spoke those prophetic words about national suicide back in 
1838. He certainly did everything in his power, including giving his 
life, to preserve the Union during the Civil War. These are not 
overemphasized nor melodramatic statements; these are very subtle and 
very important foundation values upon which we can build a better and 
stronger country if we only but recognize that they must be adhered to.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of my colleagues for their very good 
words that they gave regarding congressional accountability. This is 
not the end of the debate or the discussion; we will be doing this 
again in the future. We need to bring this message to the Members of 
Congress and to the American public because without it we are but 
talking to empty chairs and hollow walls.
  I appreciate, once again, all of the thoughts and commitments that my 
colleagues have made.

                          ____________________