[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cohen, 
        Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2069. A bill to grant consent of Congress to the Northeast 
Interstate Dairy Compact; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


         NORTHEAST INTERSTATE DAIRY COMPACT CONSENT ACT OF 1994

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today with all 11 of my colleagues 
from New England to introduce the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact.
  This interstate compact has already been approved by the six New 
England State legislatures and signed into law by the Governors of New 
England. As with all interstate compacts, it must be approved by 
Congress before it takes effect. I commend the New England Governors 
for sending this compact to Congress for approval. I would like to make 
special note of the leadership of Governor Howard Dean, State senator 
Francis Howrigan and State representative Bobby Starr, chairmen of the 
agriculture committees in the Vermont legislature, and the efforts of 
Dan Smith of the Northeast Interstate Compact Committee.
  This compact is a model of cooperation--it is a partnership between 
the States and the Federal Government, between dairy processors and 
cooperatives, and most importantly, between dairy farmers and 
consumers. It can help preserve our family dairy farms. I hope it will 
be approved at the appropriate time by the Senate and by the House.
  The compact will form a commission made up of representatives from 
each State in New England. The commission will be made up of both 
farmers and consumers and explore ways to improve the marketing of milk 
within the region. This commission will also have authority to set 
prices--above the minimum prices set by the New England Federal milk 
marketing order--for beverage, or fluid milk, in the New England 
region.
  Currently, fluid milk prices in New England are set through the 
complicated Federal milk marketing order system, and are subject to 
wide swings throughout the year. These swings occur despite the stable 
demand for fluid milk. The compact would allow the commission to 
stabilize fluid milk prices--giving dairy farmers a more equitable 
return for their work. The State legislatures of New England want to 
use this compact to improve the way these prices are set.
  A recent USDA study demonstrates how price stability can help 
consumers. The USDA study shows that when farm prices rise, retail 
prices rise by an equal amount. But that when farm prices fall--as they 
always do--the retail prices do not fall by an equal amount. The 
commission could act to stabilize the wide swings in fluid milk prices.
  The beauty of this compact is that the commission will be allowed to 
set the fluid milk price while leaving in place the regulatory 
functions of the Federal milk marketing order. The Commission will not 
replace the Federal milk marketing order, and the movement of milk into 
and out of the region will occur just as it does now.
  This compact is supported by not only the New England Governor's 
Conference, but by the National Association of State Departments of 
Agriculture, the National Grange, and the National Farmers Organization 
as well.
  Each State legislature in New England has passed this compact and all 
12 Senators from the region are original cosponsors of the bill. The 
New England States want more say in how fluid milk products are priced. 
The Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact addresses these concerns. In 
addition, it could serve as a model for solving other problems on a 
regional basis. I ask my colleagues to support New Englanders in this 
effort.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 2070. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
increase the deductibility of business meal expenses for individuals 
who are subject to Federal hours of limitation; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                       BUSINESS MEAL FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
repeal an unintended tax on hardworking, middle-income Americans--
truckers, long-haul bus drivers, train conductors, and other people 
regulated by the Department of Transportation.
  As my colleagues know, last year's budget lowered the deductible 
portion of business meals and entertainment expenses from 80 percent to 
50 percent. This was intended to raise money primarily from those 
people who spend their lunchtimes in luxury restaurants and their 
nighttimes on luxury yachts. But, contrary to popular belief, the 
business meal deduction is not only used by lobbyists and fat cats for 
three-martini lunches. Due to the length of trips, and regulations 
limiting travel hours, many middle-income transportation workers must 
act out.
  Madam President, the bill I am introducing today repeals the 
unintended tax created last year, by restoring the business meal 
deduction to 80 percent for truckers, long-haul bus drivers, train 
conductors, and others regulated by the Department of Transportation. 
This legislation is simple, straightforward, and most importantly, 
fair.
  Madam President, I would like to remind my colleagues of a smaller 
bill we worked on to correct another mistake which hurt tens of 
thousands of hardworking, middle-income Americans. As my colleagues 
remember, the 1990 Deficit Reduction Bill imposed a surtax on specific 
luxury items. At the time, it was argued that the surtax would only 
affect the wealthiest segment of society. However, after it went into 
effect, if became clear that, instead of paying the tax, many wealthy 
people decided not to buy the new boat, the diamond ring, or the fur 
coat. And as a result, the middle- and lower-income Americans producing 
and selling those luxury items ended up bearing the burden of the tax 
through the loss of their jobs.
  Once it was apparent that the luxury tax was not achieving its 
intended goal, we repealed it. Unfortunately, far too many people were 
hurt by this mistake because we did not correct it quickly enough. We 
cannot let that happen again. Therefore, I am requesting the support 
and assistance of my colleagues to ensure that the bill I am 
introducing today becomes law.
  Thank you, Madam President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
my legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2070

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASED DEDUCTIBILITY OF BUSINESS MEAL EXPENSES 
                   FOR INDIVIDUALS SUBJECT TO FEDERAL HOURS OF 
                   SERVICE.

       (a) In General.--Section 274(n) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
     entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule for individuals subject to federal hours 
     of service.--In the case of any expenses for food or 
     beverages consumed by an individual during, or incident to, 
     the period of duty subject to the hours of service 
     limitations of the Department of Transportation, paragraph 
     (1) shall be applied by substituting `80 percent' for `50 
     percent'.''
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     1994.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Campbell, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Cohen, Mr. DeConcini, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kohl, Mr. 
        Metzenbaum, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Riegle, Mr, 
        Robb, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Wofford, Mr. Kerrey, and Mr. Glenn):
  S. 2071. A bill to provide for the application of certain employment 
protection and information laws to the Congress and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                    congressional accountability act

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join my colleague 
from Iowa, Senator Grassley, in introducing the Congressional 
Accountability Act of 1994. This builds on the Congressional 
Accountability Act of 1993, which I introduced, along with a companion 
measure in the other body, cosponsored by a broad bipartisan group led 
by Congressman Chris Shays, from Connecticut, and Congressman Dick 
Swett, a Democrat from New Hampshire.
  I should add, noticing the presence in the Chamber of the Senator 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], we are joined in this introduction by a 
broad bipartisan group including Senator Nickles, who had introduced 
legislation of his own on this subject, and has graciously joined with 
us and the other cosponsors in introducing this bill.
  Mr. President, the other Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren] spoke 
earlier in a very moving address, which touched me personally. I have 
known the Senator from Oklahoma since we were at college together. When 
I was elected to the Senate, I was thrilled to be able to join my old 
friend as a colleague here. He served admirably and very constructively 
and productively. He has now made a very sincere and important decision 
about moving on to the world of education. I wish him well. I will miss 
him, but I know he has made the right decision for himself and for his 
State of Oklahoma and its education system.
  But I was drawn by what he said about the importance of moving on 
this process of reform of Congress and to do so because it is right, 
but also to do so to repair and reconstruct the bonds of trust between 
those of us who have the honor and privilege of serving in Congress and 
those whom we serve, the people of America, whose attitude towards us, 
unfortunately, is at an all time low.
  There are many reasons why that is so. A lot of them have to do with 
the state of change in the world, the drop in values in our country, 
and yet a lot of it has to do, unfortunately, with parts of our own 
behavior. I must say in that regard, one fact that I continue to hear 
about from people in Connecticut is, how can you, Members of Congress, 
not apply to yourselves the same laws that you pass and apply to us. 
That is, in my opinion, a question without an adequate answer. That is 
why I have joined with Senator Grassley and the others in introducing 
this legislation.
  But I must say that there is more at stake here, although it is 
significant, than the public's respect for Congress or the fairness of 
having Congress abide by the laws that it passes. We are talking here 
also about the lives of real people who work for us, who work with the 
Congress of the United States, and their rights.
  Let me give an example. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970 was passed to prevent people from being injured or even killed on 
the job. Congress' failure to meet OSHA's workplace safety standards 
means that it is putting the health, perhaps even the lives, of our 
employees at risk. And the proof here, unfortunately, is in the 
statistics.
  Over the years, from July 1992 to June 1993, the last for which most 
statistics are available, the workers coming under the Architect of the 
Capitol in their compensation claim rate had the second highest such 
rate in the entire Federal Government, second only to the Peace Corps, 
which obviously sends its workers abroad to live in parts of the world 
where they are exposed to hazards and diseases that our workers 
fortunately are not. This is a real problem. Let me cite another 
example.
  Just last week, the GAO issued a report on employment policies of the 
Architect of the Capitol. The study found grievances, complaints, and 
concerns there. But notably I want to point out that in a survey of the 
employees, only 34 percent said that they would definitely seek relief 
at the Architect's Fair Employment Practices Office set up by the 
Architect of the Capitol. Thirty-nine percent said that they were 
hesitant about seeking such relief, and only 13 percent said that they 
were more likely to do so than not. But the point here is that far too 
many employees of the Capitol do not feel comfortable seeking relief 
for workplace discrimination through the in-house means provided for 
them. That is why we need an independent Office of Compliance where 
employees of the U.S. Capitol can know that they can seek relief in 
confidence and without any fear of retaliation.
  Mr. President, the GAO report does, unfortunately, raise questions 
about whether our employees may have some real grievances that they 
have reason to want to take to an independent compliance office. For 
instance, among the top level of administrative positions in the 
Architect's Office, only 23 percent of those jobs are held by women, 
while in the rest of the Federal Government, women hold 36 percent of 
the jobs. In the private sector in similar jobs, women hold an average 
of 52 percent. Certain categories of workers--high-voltage 
electricians, woodcrafters--100 percent are white males. In the rest of 
the Federal Government, those figures in similar categories are about 
65 percent.
  That raises questions. It may raise complaints by individual 
employees, and we ought to give them a place fairly and independently 
to take those complaints.
  Our employment discrimination laws--the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Fair Labor Standards 
Act--all similarly contain important safeguards for public and private 
employees. Collective bargaining has been the cornerstone of our labor-
management laws since the Great Depression. Our employees don't deserve 
to be treated as second class citizens simply because they work for us. 
They deserve equal treatment and protection under the law.
  The bill Senator Grassley and I are here to introduce is an updated 
version of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1993, which I 
sponsored in the Senate and which was first introduced in the House by 
Congressmen Chris Shays and Dick Swett. I wouldn't be here today if not 
for Senator Grassley, who has been out front on this problem for years, 
and I would also like to mention the efforts of Senator Nickles, who 
has been a leader on this issue and has graciously offered to cosponsor 
this bill.
  Our bill establishes an Office of Compliance for the entire 
legislative branch. The role of the Office is to function as a 
legislative-branch equivalent of the executive enforcement agencies, 
ensuring congressional compliance with all the major Federal employment 
laws.
  The bill will also build on the dispute resolution procedures created 
in the Government Employees Rights Act of 1991. Individual complaints 
of discrimination or harassment, denial of minimum wage, overtime pay, 
family or medical leave, or unfair labor practices will be handled by a 
three step administrative process: counseling, mediation, and the 
choice of either an administrative hearing convened by the Office of 
Compliance or a civil action in Federal District Court with a jury 
trial.
  Mr. President, the bill that Senator Grassley and I are here to 
introduce is one that establishes an Office of Compliance for the 
entire legislative branch. It builds on the dispute resolution 
procedures created in the Government Employees Rights Act of 1991.
  The Office of Compliance will be allowed to seek the assistance of 
executive branch enforcement authorities to conduct inspections or 
audits in the offices required to use the services of the Department of 
Labor on a periodic basis to conduct OSHA investigations and 
inspections.
  This is the surest way to protect our employees from any unsafe work 
conditions that may result. For clarity, this bill takes the approach 
of specifying the laws which are meant to be applied to Congress.
  For clarity, our bill takes the approach of specifying the laws which 
will apply to Congress. There are, of course, many more laws that we 
have passed. If we identify other laws that should apply, we can expand 
this list. But it is possible that, try as we might, we will miss some 
laws that should apply. The Office of Compliance is required, 
therefore, to survey all other laws and to report back within 2 years 
with recommendations of any additional laws that should also be applied 
to Congress.
  Mr. President, I would like to note that this bill will implement 
many of the recommendations or consider the exhortations of the Senate 
Members of the Joint Committee on Reorganization of Congress.
  Specifically, the Senate Members of the joint committee recommended 
that the Senate should ``adopt procedures for applying to itself, to 
the maximum extent possible, laws regarding employment discrimination, 
working conditions, and health and safety matters.'' And this bill does 
just that.
  Senate Members wrote, ``The enforcement office and its procedures 
should be as independent as practicable and (Senate) employees should 
have a right of judicial review comparable to the private sector.'' 
This bill does just that.
  Senate Members recommended, ``There should be a single enforcement 
office, it should be as independent as practicable, and the employees 
of such instrumentalities should have a right of judicial review equal 
to or greater than that currently enjoyed.'' And this bill would do 
just that.
  Mr. President, this bill also respects our constitutional system of 
checks and balances and separation of powers. But the concepts of 
separation of powers and checks and balances can no longer be used as 
an excuse for a double standard which deprives our employees of the 
same rights enjoyed by employees throughout America, rights of equal 
protection, and due process.
  This bill does have in it and respects the separation of powers by 
creating an Office of Compliance as an agency of the legislative branch 
but assuring its independence and giving it the power to enforce 
employment and information laws in Congress.
  And, significantly, the judicial branch of our Government is enabled 
to review those decisions only to the extent it reviews claims against 
the executive branch that have been administered or adjudicated by an 
executive branch enforcement authority.
  The bottom line is this: It is time to move forward and eliminate 
what the American people perceive as special treatment by us for 
ourselves--of this anomaly that is just hard to explain. For me it is 
impossible to explain why we can pass laws and apply them to the rest 
of America but not apply them to ourselves.
  Mr. President, Senator Grassley and I urge the Senate to incorporate 
the Congressional Accountability Act into any internal reform measurers 
we act on this year.
  At this time, Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the summary of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2071

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Congressional Accountability Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Application of Federal laws.
Sec. 3. Office of Compliance.
Sec. 4. Board functions.
Sec. 5. Procedure for consideration of alleged violations of civil 
              rights and personnel requirements.
Sec. 6. Step I: Counseling.
Sec. 7. Step II: Mediation.
Sec. 8. Step IIIA: Formal complaint and hearing.
Sec. 9. Step IV: Judicial review.
Sec. 10. Step IIIB: Civil Action.
Sec. 11. Procedures for consideration of alleged violations relating to 
              information requirements.
Sec. 12. Procedures for consideration of alleged violation relating to 
              labor management and occupational health and safety 
              requirements.
Sec. 13. Information requirements.
Sec. 14. Resolution of complaint.
Sec. 15. Prohibition of intimidation.
Sec. 16. Confidentiality.
Sec. 17. Inspections.
Sec. 18. Collection of information.
Sec. 19. Political affiliation and place of residence.
Sec. 20. Other review.
Sec. 21. Severability.
Sec. 22. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 23. Definitions.

     SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS.

       (a) Employment.--The following provisions shall apply, 
     except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, to 
     each employing office and each congressional employee, in 
     accordance with section 4:
       (1) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et 
     seq.).
       (2) Chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code (relating to 
     labor-management relations).
       (3) Section 5 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
     1970 (29 U.S.C. 654).
       (4) Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-16).
       (5) Section 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 
     of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 633a).
       (6) Sections 102 through 104 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112-12114).
       (7) Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 791).
       (8) Sections 101 through 105 of the Family and Medical 
     Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
       (9) The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 
     U.S.C. 2001 et seq.).
       (10) The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.).
       (b) Information.--Section 552 of title 5, United States 
     Code (commonly known as the ``Freedom of Information Act''), 
     and section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Privacy Act of 1974''), shall apply, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided in this Act, to each office 
     of the legislative branch of the Federal Government and the 
     information in the possession of such office, in accordance 
     with section 4.
       (c) Accommodations.--
       (1) In general.--Sections 201 through 203 (except as such 
     section refers to procedures) of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131-12133), shall 
     apply, except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, 
     to each entity of the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government that owns, leases, or operates a place of public 
     accommodation (as defined in section 301(7) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 12181(7))), and to each client or customer of the 
     covered public accommodation who is a qualified individual 
     with a disability (as defined in section 201(2) of such Act), 
     in accordance with section 4.
       (2) Application.--For purposes of the application of such 
     sections under this Act--
       (A) references in this Act to an employing office shall be 
     deemed to include such an entity; and
       (B) references in this Act--
       (i) to an employee of the House of Representatives shall be 
     deemed to include references to such a client or customer of 
     such an entity of the House of Representatives;
       (ii) to an employee of the Senate shall be deemed to 
     include references to such a client or customer of such an 
     entity of the Senate; and
       (iii) to an employee of an instrumentality shall be deemed 
     to include references to such a client or customer of such an 
     entity of the instrumentality.
       (d) Employment Under Federal Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (29 U.S.C. 793) shall apply, except as otherwise 
     specifically provided in this Act, to each party contracting 
     with an entity of the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government and to each applicant for employment, employee, or 
     former employee, of such party, in accordance with section 4.
       (2) Application.--For purposes of the application of such 
     sections under this Act--
       (A) references in this Act to an employing office shall be 
     deemed to include such a party; and
       (B) references in this Act--
       (i) to an employee of the House of Representatives shall be 
     deemed to include references to such an applicant, employee, 
     or former employee of a party contracting with an entity of 
     the House of Representatives;
       (ii) to an employee of the Senate shall be deemed to 
     include references to such an applicant, employee, or former 
     employee of a party contracting with an entity of the Senate; 
     and
       (iii) to an employee of an instrumentality shall be deemed 
     to include references to such an applicant, employee, or 
     former employee of a party contracting with the 
     instrumentality.

     SEC. 3. OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the legislative 
     branch for the Congress an Office of Compliance (referred to 
     in this Act as the ``Office'').
       (b) Board of Directors.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Appointment.--There shall be a Board of Directors in 
     the Office (referred to in this Act as the ``Board of 
     Directors''). The Board of Directors shall consist of 8 
     individuals, of which 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, 2 shall be appointed by the 
     Majority Leader of the Senate, 2 shall be appointed by the 
     Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, and 2 shall 
     be appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate. The 
     members first appointed to the Board of Directors shall be 
     appointed not later than 120 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) Removal.--Any member of the Board of Directors may be 
     removed by a majority decision of the appointing authorities 
     described in subparagraph (A), only for--
       (i) disability that substantially prevents the member from 
     carrying out the duties of such a member;
       (ii) incompetence;
       (iii) neglect of duty;
       (iv) malfeasance; or
       (v) a felony or conduct involving moral turpitude.
       (2) Qualifications.--
       (A) In general.--The Board of Directors shall be composed 
     of individuals with training or expertise related to the 
     provisions referred to in section 2, and the application of 
     the provisions referred to in section 2.
       (B) Specific qualifications.--
       (i) Lobbying.--No individual who engages in, or is 
     otherwise employed in, lobbying of the Congress shall be 
     considered eligible for appointment to, or service on, the 
     Board of Directors.
       (ii) Office.--No current, or former, Member of the House of 
     Representatives or Senator may be appointed as a member of 
     the Board of Directors. No congressional employee may be so 
     appointed within 6 years of any employment by any office of 
     the legislative branch of the Federal Government.
       (3) Vacancies.--Any vacancy occurring in the membership of 
     the Board of Directors shall be filled in the same manner as 
     the original appointment for the position being vacated. The 
     vacancy shall not affect the power of the remaining members 
     to execute the duties of the Board of Directors.
       (c) Authority.--The members of the Board of Directors shall 
     have the authority to carry out the functions described in 
     subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e) of section 4, and the 
     functions described in sections 8(f), 11, and 12.
       (d) Term of Office.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     member of the Board of Directors shall be appointed for 1 
     term of 5 years.
       (2) First appointments.--Of the members first appointed to 
     the Board of Directors--
       (A) 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives and 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader 
     of the Senate shall be appointed to a term of 1 year;
       (B) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the House 
     of Representatives and 1 member appointed by the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate shall be appointed to a term of 2 years;
       (C) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the House 
     of Representatives and 1 member appointed by the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate shall be appointed to a term of 3 years;
       (D) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate 
     shall be appointed to a term of 4 years; and
       (E) 1 member appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives shall be appointed to a term of 5 years.
       (e) Chairperson.--The Board of Directors shall elect a 
     Chairperson from among the members of the Board.
       (f) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Board of 
     Directors shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 
     5, United States Code, for each day (including travel time) 
     during which such member is engaged in the performance of the 
     duties of the Board.
       (g) Travel Expenses.--Each member of the Board of Directors 
     shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, for each day the member is engaged in the performance 
     of duties away from the home or regular place of business of 
     the member.
       (h) Executive Director.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Board of Directors 
     shall appoint and may terminate, subject to the approval of 
     the Board of Directors, an executive director (referred to in 
     this Act as the ``executive director'').
       (2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Board of 
     Directors may fix the compensation of the executive director. 
     The rate of pay for the executive director may not exceed the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (3) Duties.--Except as otherwise specified in this Act, the 
     executive director shall carry out the responsibilities of 
     the Office under sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 
     18.
       (i) Staff.--
       (1) In general.-- The executive director shall appoint and 
     may terminate such other additional staff as may be necessary 
     to enable the Board to perform its duties.
       (2) Compensation.--The executive director may fix the 
     compensation of the staff. The rate of pay for the staff may 
     not exceed the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (j)  Detailees.--The executive director may, with the prior 
     consent of the Government department or agency concerned, use 
     on a nonreimbursable basis the services of any such 
     department or agency, including the services of members or 
     personnel of the General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals 
     Board.
       (k)  Consultants.--In carrying out the functions of the 
     Office, the executive director may procure the temporary (not 
     to exceed 1 year) or intermittent services of individual 
     consultants, or organizations thereof.

     SEC. 4. BOARD FUNCTIONS.

       (a) Initial Action.--
       (1) Regulations.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     appointment of the executive director, the Board of Directors 
     shall, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code, issue such regulations as are necessary to 
     implement the provisions referred to in section 2.
       In addition to publishing a general notice of proposed 
     rulemaking under section 553(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code, the Board of Directors shall concurrently submit such 
     notice for publication in the Congressional Record, prior to 
     issuing such regulations.
       (B) Requirements.--Such regulations--
       (i) shall be consistent with the regulations issued by an 
     agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government with 
     respect to such provisions, including portions relating to 
     remedies, except as otherwise specifically provided;
       (ii) may specify specific dates for the application of 
     specific provisions and may specify specific means for the 
     application of such provisions; and
       (iii) in specifying the manner in which the provision 
     described in section 2(a)(3) shall apply to the offices or 
     employees described in section 2(a), shall take into account 
     the costs associated with the application of such provision 
     to the offices or employees.
       (C) Information regulations.--In proposing regulations for 
     the application of any provision referred to in section 2(b) 
     to offices of the legislative branch and information in the 
     possession of such offices, the Board of Directors shall be 
     guided by judicial decisions under such provision.
       (2) Amendments and repeals.--When proposing regulations 
     under paragraph (1) to apply a provision described in section 
     2 to employees and offices described in section 2, the Board 
     of Directors shall recommend to the Congress any necessary 
     changes in or repeals of existing law to accommodate the 
     application of such provision to the employees and offices.
       (b) Continuing Action.--Two years after the date on which 
     the first executive director is appointed under section 3(h), 
     and every 2 years thereafter, the Board of Directors shall--
       (1) study provisions of Federal law relating to employment, 
     personnel actions, or availability of information to the 
     public, that are similar to the provisions described in 
     section 2 and that do not apply to some or all congressional 
     employees, employing offices, or offices of the legislative 
     branch of the Federal Government; and
       (2) recommend to the Congress whether any of the provisions 
     should be applied to employees or offices described in 
     paragraph (1).
       (c) Congressional Disapproval.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) House of representatives.--
       (i) In general.--Regulations issued by the Board of 
     Directors under subsection (a) that relate to the House of 
     Representatives shall take effect, and shall apply to each 
     employee of the House of Representatives, and each office of 
     the House of Representatives described in section 2, on the 
     date of issuance of such regulations unless disapproved by 
     the Congress by concurrent resolution.
       (ii) Introduction and content requirements.--Such 
     resolution shall be introduced after the date on which the 
     Board of Directors publishes the general notice of proposed 
     rulemaking relating to the regulations. The matter after the 
     resolving clause of the resolution shall be as follows: 
     ``That Congress disapproves the issuance of regulations of 
     the Office of Compliance as proposed on ____________ (the 
     blank space being appropriately filled in).''.
       (B) Senate.--Regulations issued by the Board of Directors 
     under subsection (a) that relate to the Senate shall take 
     effect, and shall apply to each employee of the Senate, and 
     each office of the Senate described in section 2, on the date 
     of issuance of such regulations unless disapproved by the 
     Congress by concurrent resolution. Such resolution shall 
     comply with the requirements of subparagraph (A)(ii).
       (C) Instrumentalities.--Regulations issued by the Board of 
     Directors under subsection (a) that relate to the 
     instrumentalities shall take effect, and shall apply to each 
     employee of an instrumentality, and each office of such an 
     instrumentality described in section 2, on the date of 
     issuance of such regulations unless disapproved by the 
     Congress by joint resolution. Such resolution shall comply 
     with the requirements of subparagraph (A)(ii).
       (2) Rulemaking.--The provisions of this subsection are 
     enacted by the Congress, and regulations issued by the Board 
     of Directors are so issued--
       (A) with respect to the application of this subsection, and 
     regulations issued by the Board of Directors, to regulations 
     affecting employees or offices of the House of 
     Representatives, as an exercise of the rulemaking power of 
     the House, with full recognition of the constitutional right 
     of the House to change its rules (so far as the rules relate 
     to the procedure of the House), in the same manner, and to 
     the same extent, as in the case of any other rule of the 
     House; and
       (B) with respect to the application of this subsection, and 
     the regulations issued by the Board of Directors, to 
     regulations affecting employees or offices of the Senate, as 
     an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate, with full 
     recognition of the constitutional right of the Senate to 
     change its rules (so far as the rules relate to the procedure 
     of the Senate), in the same manner, and to the same extent, 
     as in the case of any other rule of the Senate.
       (d) Rules of the Office.--
       (1) In general.--The Board of Directors shall, in 
     accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
     issue rules governing the procedures of the Office, including 
     the procedures of hearing boards. The Board of Directors may 
     issue amendments to the rules in the same manner. In addition 
     to publishing a general notice of proposed rulemaking under 
     section 553(b) of title 5, United States Code, the Board of 
     Directors shall concurrently submit such notice for 
     publication in the Congressional Record, prior to issuing 
     such regulations.
       (2) Meetings and voting.--Such rules shall require that the 
     Board of Directors meet not less often than 4 times annually 
     in the District of Columbia, and shall ban voting by proxy by 
     members of the Board.
       (3) Consultation.--The Board of Directors may consult with 
     the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United 
     States on the proposal of such rules.
       (e) Information Program.--The Board of Directors shall 
     carry out such an information program as may be appropriate 
     to inform Members of the House of Representatives, Senators, 
     congressional employees, and heads of employing offices as to 
     the provisions, including provision relating to remedies, 
     made applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government under this section.

     SEC. 5. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 
                   CIVIL RIGHTS AND PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The procedure for consideration of alleged 
     violations (except as provided in sections 11 and 12 and 
     including violations of section 11(c) of the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 660(c)) consists of 
     the following:
       (1) Step I, counseling, as set forth in section 6.
       (2) Step II, mediation, as set forth in section 7.
       (3) At the election of the employee alleging the 
     violation--
       (A)(i) step IIIA, formal complaint and hearing by a hearing 
     board, as set forth in section 8; and
       (ii) step IV, judicial review of a hearing board decision 
     by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 
     Circuit, as set forth in section 9; or
       (B) step IIIB, a civil action in a district court of the 
     United States, as set forth in section 10.
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit inspections under section 17.

     SEC. 6. STEP I: COUNSELING.

       (a) In General.--A congressional employee alleging a 
     violation described in section 5(a) may request counseling by 
     the Office. The Office shall provide the employee with all 
     relevant information with respect to the rights of the 
     employee. A request for counseling shall be made not later 
     than 180 days after the alleged violation forming the basis 
     of the request for counseling occurred.
       (b) Period of Counseling.--The period for counseling shall 
     be 30 days unless the employee and the Office agree to reduce 
     the period. The period shall begin on the date the request 
     for counseling is received.

     SEC. 7. STEP II: MEDIATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 15 days after the end of 
     the counseling period under section 6, the employee who 
     alleged a violation described in section 5(a) may file a 
     request for mediation with the Office, which mediation--
       (1) may include the Office, the employee, the employing 
     office, and individuals who are recommended to the executive 
     director by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service or 
     by the Administrative Conference of the United States; and
       (2) shall be a process involving meetings with the parties 
     separately or jointly for the purpose of resolving the 
     dispute between the employee and the employing office.
       (b) Mediation Period.--The mediation period shall be 30 
     days beginning on the date the request for mediation is 
     received and may be extended for an additional 30 days at the 
     discretion of the Office. The Office shall notify the 
     employee and the head of the employing office when the 
     mediation period has ended.

     SEC. 8. STEP IIIA: FORMAL COMPLAINT AND HEARING.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Formal complaint.--A congressional employee may, within 
     30 days after receipt of notice from the Office of the end of 
     the mediation period under section 7, file a formal 
     administrative complaint with the Office as provided in this 
     section.
       (2) Exhaustion requirement.--No administrative complaint 
     may be filed unless the employee has made a timely request 
     for counseling and has completed the procedures set forth in 
     sections 6 and 7.
       (b) Hearing Board.--A board of 3 independent hearing 
     officers (referred to in this Act as a ``hearing board''), 
     who are not Members of the House of Representatives, 
     Senators, heads of employing offices, or congressional 
     employees, chosen by the Office (one of whom shall be 
     designated by the Office as the presiding hearing officer) 
     shall be assigned to consider each complaint filed under 
     subsection (a). The Office shall appoint hearing officers 
     after considering any candidates who are recommended to the 
     executive director by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation 
     Service, the Administrative Conference of the United States, 
     or organizations composed primarily of individuals 
     experienced in adjudicating or arbitrating personnel matters. 
     A hearing board shall act by majority vote.
       (c) Dismissal of Frivolous Claims.--Prior to a hearing 
     under subsection (d), or at any time prior to the issuance of 
     a decision under subsection (g), a hearing board may dismiss 
     any claim that it finds to be frivolous.
       (d) Hearing.--A hearing shall be conducted--
       (1) in closed session on the record by a hearing board;
       (2) no later than 30 days after filing of the complaint 
     under subsection (a), except that the Office may, for good 
     cause, extend up to an additional 60 days the time for 
     conducting a hearing; and
       (3) except as specifically provided in this Act and to the 
     greatest extent practicable, in accordance with the 
     principles and procedures set forth in sections 554 through 
     557 of title 5, United States Code.
       (e) Discovery.--Reasonable prehearing discovery may be 
     permitted at the discretion of the hearing board.
       (f) Subpoena Power.--
       (1) In general.--At the request of a hearing board, the 
     Chairperson of the Board of Directors, acting at the 
     direction of a majority of the Board of Directors, may issue 
     subpoenas on behalf of the hearing board, for the attendance 
     of witnesses at proceedings of the hearing board and for the 
     production of correspondence, books, papers, documents, and 
     other records. The attendance of witnesses and the production 
     of evidence may be required from any place within the United 
     States.
       (2) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to 
     obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the Chairperson 
     of the Board of Directors, acting at the direction of a 
     majority of the Board of Directors, may apply to a United 
     States district court for an order requiring that person to 
     appear before the hearing board to give testimony, produce 
     evidence, or both, relating to the matter under 
     investigation. The application may be made within the 
     judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where 
     that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as civil contempt.
       (3) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the hearing 
     board shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas 
     issued by a United States district court under the Federal 
     Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States district 
     courts.
       (4) Service of process.--All process of any court to which 
     application may be made under paragraph (2) may be served in 
     the judicial district in which the person required to be 
     served resides or may be found.
       (5) Immunity.--The hearing board is an agency of the United 
     States for the purpose of part V of title 18, United States 
     Code (relating to immunity of witnesses).
       (g) Decision.--The hearing board shall issue a written 
     decision as expeditiously as possible, but in no case more 
     than 45 days after the conclusion of the hearing. The written 
     decision shall be transmitted by the Office to the employee 
     and the employing office. The decision shall state the issues 
     raised by the complaint, describe the evidence in the record, 
     and contain a determination as to whether a violation 
     described in section 5(a) has occurred.
       (h) Remedy Order.--If the hearing board determines that a 
     violation described in section 5(a) has occurred, it shall 
     order such remedies as are authorized under the regulations 
     promulgated under section 4. The hearing board shall have no 
     authority to award punitive damages. The entry of an order 
     under this subsection shall constitute a final decision for 
     purposes of judicial review under section 9.
       (i) Precedents and Interpretations.--A hearing board that 
     conducts such a hearing relating to the protections of an Act 
     referred to in section 2 shall be guided by judicial 
     decisions under such Act.

     SEC. 9. STEP IV: JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Court of Appeals.--
       (1) In general.--Following any administrative hearing 
     convened under section 8(d), any congressional employee or 
     any head of an employing office aggrieved by a dismissal 
     under section 8(c), a final decision under section 8(g), or 
     an order under section 8(h), may petition for a review by the 
     United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
       (2) Law applicable.--Chapter 158 of title 28, United States 
     Code, shall apply to a review under paragraph (1) except 
     that--
       (A) with respect to section 2344 of title 28, United States 
     Code, service of the petition shall be on the House or Senate 
     Legal Counsel, or the appropriate entity of an 
     instrumentality, as the case may be, rather than on the 
     Attorney General;
       (B) the provisions of section 2348 of title 28, United 
     States Code, on the authority of the Attorney General, shall 
     not apply;
       (C) the petition for review shall be filed not later than 
     90 days after the entry in the Office of a final decision 
     under section 8(g) or an order under section 8(h);
       (D) the Office shall be an ``agency'' as that term is used 
     in chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code; and
       (E) the Office shall be the respondent in any proceeding 
     under paragraph (1).
       (3) Standard of review.--To the extent necessary to 
     decision and when presented, the court shall decide all 
     relevant questions of law and interpret constitutional and 
     statutory provisions. The court shall set aside a final 
     decision under section 8(g) or an order under section 8(h) if 
     it is determined that the decision or order was--
       (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not consistent with law;
       (B) not made consistent with required procedures; or
       (C) unsupported by substantial evidence.
       (4) Record.--In making determinations under paragraph (3), 
     the court shall review the whole record, or those parts of it 
     cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule 
     of prejudicial error. The record on review shall include the 
     record before the hearing board, the decision of the hearing 
     board, and the order of the hearing board.
       (b) Attorney's Fees.--If a congressional employee is the 
     prevailing party in a proceeding under this section relating 
     to a provision referred to in section 2, attorney's fees may 
     be allowed by the court in accordance with any standards 
     prescribed under Federal law for the award of such fees in 
     the event of a violation of such provision.

     SEC. 10. STEP IIIB: CIVIL ACTION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Civil action.--An employee may within 30 days after 
     receipt of notice from the Office of the end of the mediation 
     period under section 7 for violations described in section 
     5(a) bring a civil action in a district court of the United 
     States seeking relief from the alleged violation of law. In 
     any such civil action, any party may demand a jury trial.
       (2) Exhaustion requirement.--No civil action may be filed 
     under paragraph (1) unless the employee has made a timely 
     request for counseling and has completed the procedures set 
     forth in sections 6 and 7.
       (3) Court order.--If a court determines that a violation of 
     law occurred, the court may only enter an order described in 
     section 8(h).
       (b) Attorney's Fees.--If a congressional employee is the 
     prevailing party in a proceeding under this section relating 
     to a provision referred to in section 2, attorney's fees may 
     be allowed by the court in accordance with any standards 
     prescribed under Federal law for the award of such fees in 
     the event of a violation of such provision.

     SEC. 11. PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 
                   RELATING TO INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Procedures for violations relating to information 
     requirements.--In proposing regulations under section 4 for 
     the application of provisions described in section 2(b), the 
     Board of Directors shall propose regulations that specify the 
     procedure for consideration by the Office of alleged 
     violations of the provisions. Such regulations shall provide, 
     at a minimum, for procedures similar to the procedures 
     described in section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Court Review.--Any petitioner seeking information from 
     an office of the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government, or any such office, that is aggrieved by a final 
     decision of the Office under the procedures described in 
     subsection (a), may petition for review of the decision by 
     the District Court of the United States for the District of 
     Columbia. Such review shall be conducted in accordance with 
     subparagraphs (B), (C), (E), (F), and (G) of section 
     552(a)(4) of title 5, United States Code.
       (c) Attorney's Fees.--If a congressional employee is the 
     prevailing party in a proceeding under this section relating 
     to a provision referred to in section 2(b), attorney's fees 
     may be allowed by the court in accordance with any standards 
     prescribed under Federal law for the award of such fees in 
     the event of a violation of such provision.

     SEC. 12. PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION 
                   RELATING TO LABOR MANAGEMENT AND OCCUPATIONAL 
                   HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Procedures for Violations Relating to Labor Management 
     Requirements and Occupational Safety and Health 
     Requirements.--
       (1) Procedures for violations relating to labor-management 
     relations.--In proposing regulations under section 4 for the 
     application of provisions described in section 2(a)(2), the 
     Board of Directors shall propose regulations that specify the 
     procedure for consideration by the Office of alleged 
     violations of the provisions. Such regulations shall 
     prescribe, at a minimum, for procedures similar to the 
     procedures described in sections 7118, 7119, 7121, and 7122 
     of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Procedures for violations relating to occupational 
     safety and health requirements.--In proposing regulations 
     under section 4 for the application of provisions described 
     in section 2(a)(3), the Board of Directors shall propose 
     regulations that specify the procedure for consideration by 
     the Office of alleged violations of the provisions. Such 
     regulations shall provide, at a minimum, for procedures 
     similar to the procedures described in sections 8, 9, 10, and 
     17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
     U.S.C. 657, 658, 659, and 666).
       (b) Court Review.--
       (1) In general.--Any congressional employee or head of an 
     employing office aggrieved by any dismissal, order, or 
     decision issued after procedures described in subsection (a) 
     relating to a provision described in paragraph (2) or (3) of 
     section 2(a), may petition for review by the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
       (2) Law applicable.--Chapter 158 of title 28, United States 
     Code, shall apply to a review under paragraph (1) except 
     that--
       (A) with respect to section 2344 of title 28, United States 
     Code, service of the petition shall be on the House or Senate 
     Legal Counsel, or the appropriate entity of an 
     instrumentality, as the case may be, rather than on the 
     Attorney General;
       (B) the provisions of section 2348 of title 28, United 
     States Code, on the authority of the Attorney General, shall 
     not apply;
       (C) the petition for review shall be filed not later than 
     90 days after the entry in the Office of any decision or 
     order issued after procedures described in subsection (a);
       (D) the Office shall be an ``agency'' as that term is used 
     in chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code; and
       (E) the Office shall be the respondent in any proceeding 
     under paragraph (1).
       (3) Standard of review.--To the extent necessary to 
     decision and when presented, the court shall decide all 
     relevant questions of law and interpret constitutional and 
     statutory provisions. The court shall set aside any decision 
     or order issued after procedures described in subsection (a), 
     if it is determined that the decision or order was--
       (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not consistent with law;
       (B) not made consistent with required procedures; or
       (C) unsupported by substantial evidence.
       (4) Record.--In making determinations under paragraph (3), 
     the court shall review the whole record, or those parts of it 
     cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule 
     of prejudicial error. The record on review shall include the 
     record before any decisionmaker under the procedures 
     described in subsection (a), the decision of the 
     decisionmaker, and the order of the decisionmaker.
       (c) Attorney's Fees.--If a congressional employee is the 
     prevailing party in a proceeding under this section relating 
     to a provision referred to in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 
     2(a), attorney's fees may be allowed by the court in 
     accordance with any standards prescribed under Federal law 
     for the award of such fees in the event of a violation of 
     such provision.
       (d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit inspections under section 17.

     SEC. 13. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Exemption.--The provisions referred to in section 2(b) 
     shall not apply to the offices described in subsection (b), 
     or any information in the possession of the offices described 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Offices.--The offices referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall consist of the following:
       (1) The personal offices of Members of the House of 
     Representatives or of Members of the Senate.
       (2) The offices of standing, select, special, joint, and 
     other committees of Congress.
       (3) The offices of the President pro tempore of the Senate, 
     the President of the Senate, or the Majority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (4) The offices and support organizations of the other 
     leaders of the House of Representatives or of the Senate.
       (5) The offices of any caucus or partisan organization 
     related to the Congress.
       (6) The offices of the Legislative Counsel of the House of 
     Representatives or of the Senate.
       (7) The Office of Legislative Operations of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (8) The office of the Parliamentarian of the House of 
     Representatives or of the Senate.
       (9) The offices of the Doorkeepers of the House of 
     Representatives or of the Senate.
       (10) The offices of the Clerks of the House of 
     Representatives or of the Senate.
       (11) The office of the General Counsel of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (12) The Office of Legislative Information of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (13) The offices of the Legal Counsel of the House of 
     Representatives or of the Senate.
       (14) The offices of the Attending Physicians of the House 
     of Representatives or of the Senate.
       (15) The escort assistance division of the Capitol Police.
       (16) Any staff organization.
       (17) Any other office to which the Board of Directors 
     determines, by regulation issued in accordance with section 
     4, that the provisions described in section 2(b) shall not 
     apply.

     SEC. 14. RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINT.

       (a) Employment.--If, after a formal complaint is filed 
     under section 8 or in accordance with the procedures 
     described in section 12(a), the employee and the head of the 
     employing office resolve the issues involved, the employee 
     may withdraw the complaint or the parties may enter into a 
     written agreement, subject to the approval of the executive 
     director.
       (b) Information.--If, after a formal complaint is filed in 
     accordance with the procedures described in section 11(a), 
     the office of the legislative branch and the petitioner 
     seeking information from the office resolve the issues 
     involved, the petitioner may withdraw the complaint or the 
     parties may enter into a written agreement, subject to the 
     approval of the executive director.

     SEC. 15. PROHIBITION OF INTIMIDATION.

       Any intimidation of, or reprisal against, a congressional 
     employee by any Member or officer of the House of 
     Representatives or of the Senate, any head of an employing 
     office, or any congressional employee, as the case may be, 
     because of the exercise of a right under this Act relating to 
     a provision described in section 2, constitutes an unlawful 
     employment practice, which may be remedied, except as 
     provided in section 5(a), in the same manner under this Act 
     as is a violation relating to such provision.

     SEC. 16. CONFIDENTIALITY.

       (a) Counseling.--All counseling conducted under this Act 
     shall be strictly confidential except that the Office and the 
     employee may agree to notify the head of the employing office 
     of the allegations.
       (b) Mediation.--All mediation conducted under this Act 
     shall be strictly confidential.
       (c) Hearings.--Except as provided in subsections (d) and 
     (e), the hearings and deliberations of hearing boards 
     (including any decisionmaker under procedures described in 
     section 11(a) or 12(a)) shall be confidential.
       (d) Release of Records for Judicial Review.--The records of 
     such hearing boards may be made public if required for the 
     purpose of judicial review under section 9, 10, 11, or 12.
       (e) Access by Committees of Congress.--At the discretion of 
     the executive director, the executive director may provide to 
     the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House 
     of Representatives and the Select Committee on Ethics of the 
     Senate access to the records of the hearings and decisions of 
     the hearing boards, including all written and oral testimony 
     in the possession of the hearing boards, concerning a 
     decision under section 8(g) or any decision or order issued 
     after procedures described in section 11(a) or 12(a). The 
     executive director shall not provide such access until the 
     executive director has consulted with the individual filing 
     the complaint at issue in the hearing, and until the hearing 
     board has issued the decision.

     SEC. 17. INSPECTIONS.

       (a) In General.--On a regular basis, and at least once 
     during each Congress, the Office shall request that the 
     Secretary of Labor and the Architectural and Transportation 
     Barriers Compliance Board detail to the Office such personnel 
     as may be necessary to inspect the facilities of the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government in order to 
     ensure compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
     of 1970, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and title II 
     of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
       (b) Date and Scope of Inspections.--The Office shall 
     determine the dates and scope of such inspections, in 
     accordance with regulations issued in accordance with section 
     4.
       (c) Report.--After conducting such an inspection, the 
     Office shall prepare and submit for publication in the 
     Congressional Record a report containing information on the 
     results of the inspection.

     SEC. 18. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Collection.--The executive director shall collect 
     information with respect to complaints filed under section 8 
     or under procedures described in section 11(a) or 12(a), 
     including--
       (1) the total number of such complaints;
       (2) the number of such complaints that allege--
       (A) discrimination on the basis of race or color;
       (B) discrimination on the basis of sex;
       (C) discrimination on the basis of religion;
       (D) discrimination on the basis of national origin;
       (E) discrimination on the basis of disability;
       (F) discrimination on the basis of age;
       (G) a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938;
       (H) a violation of chapter 71 of title 5, United States 
     Code;
       (I) a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
     of 1970;
       (J) a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
     1993;
       (K) a violation of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 
     1988;
       (L) a violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining 
     Notification Act; or
       (M) a violation of section 552 of title 5, United States 
     Code (commonly known as the ``Freedom of Information Act''), 
     or section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Privacy Act of 1974'');
       (3) the number of such complaints that were resolved by--
       (A) settlement;
       (B) a decision following a hearing under section 8 or under 
     procedures described in section 11(a) or 12(a); or
       (C) withdrawal of the complaint, or other means; and
       (4) for each category of allegations described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (M) of paragraph (2)--
       (A) the aggregate amount of monetary compensation 
     (including damages, equitable monetary relief, and interest) 
     awarded as a result of settlement;
       (B) the aggregate amount of such monetary compensation 
     awarded as a result of a decision described in paragraph 
     (3)(B); and
       (C) the aggregate amount of such monetary compensation 
     awarded as a result of withdrawal of the complaint or other 
     means.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and every year thereafter, the 
     executive director shall prepare and submit for publication 
     in the Congressional Record a report containing the 
     information described in subsection (a).
       (2) Presentation of information in the aggregate.--In 
     preparing the reports described in paragraph (1), the 
     executive director shall not identify by name parties 
     participating in actions resulting from complaints described 
     in subsection (a). The reports shall present information 
     collected under subsection (a) in the aggregate.

     SEC. 19. POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be a violation to consider 
     the--
       (1) party affiliation;
       (2) domicile; or
       (3) political compatibility with the employing office,

     of an employee with respect to employment decisions issued 
     under this Act.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     ``employee'' means--
       (1) a congressional employee on the staff of the leadership 
     of the House of Representatives or the leadership of the 
     Senate;
       (2) a congressional employee on the staff of a committee or 
     subcommittee of--
       (A) the House of Representatives; or
       (B) the Senate;
       (3) a congressional employee on the staff of a Member of 
     the House of Representatives or on the staff of a Senator;
       (4) an officer of the House of Representatives or Senate, 
     or a congressional employee, who is elected by the House of 
     Representatives or Senate or is appointed by a Member of the 
     House of Representatives or by a Senator, other than an 
     employee described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3); or
       (5) an applicant for a position that is to be occupied by 
     an individual described in any of paragraphs (1) through (4).

     SEC. 20. OTHER REVIEW.

       No congressional employee may commence a judicial 
     proceeding to redress practices prohibited under section 2 or 
     4, except as provided in this Act.

     SEC. 21. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or the application of such 
     provision to any person or circumstance is held to be 
     unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the 
     application of the provisions of such to any person or 
     circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

     SEC. 22. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     Act such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995 and 
     each subsequent fiscal year.

     SEC. 23. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Congressional employee.--The term ``congressional 
     employee'' means--
       (A) an employee of the House of Representatives;
       (B) an employee of the Senate; and
       (C) an employee of an instrumentality.
       (2) Employee of an instrumentality.--The term ``employee of 
     an instrumentality'' means--
       (A) an employee of the Architect of the Capitol (except an 
     employee described in paragraph (3) or (4)), the 
     Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office, 
     the Government Printing Office, the Library of Congress, the 
     Office of Technology Assessment, or the United States Botanic 
     Garden;
       (B) with respect to the application of a provision 
     described in paragraph (4), (5), (6), or (7) of section 2(a), 
     section 2(c), or section 2(d), any applicant for a position 
     that will last 90 days or more and that is to be occupied by 
     an individual described in subparagraph (A); or
       (C) any individual who was formerly an employee described 
     in subparagraph (A) and whose claim of a violation arises out 
     of the employment of the individual by an instrumentality 
     described in subparagraph (A).
       (3) Employee of the house of representatives.--The term 
     ``employee of the House of Representatives'' means an 
     individual who was eligible to file a formal complaint with 
     the Office of Fair Employment Practice of the House of 
     Representatives under clause 6 of rule LI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives, as in effect on the day before the 
     date of enactment of this Act. Such term shall only include 
     an applicant for employment with an entity of the House of 
     Representatives with respect to the application of a 
     provision described in paragraph (4), (5), (6), or (7) of 
     section 2(a), section 2(c), or section 2(d).
       (4) Employee of the senate.--The term ``employee of the 
     Senate'' means--
       (A) any employee whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of 
     the Senate;
       (B) any employee of the Architect of the Capitol who is 
     assigned to the Senate Restaurants or to the Superintendent 
     of the Senate Office Buildings;
       (C) with respect to the application of a provision 
     described in paragraph (4), (5), (6), or (7) of section 2(a), 
     section 2(c), or section 2(d), any applicant for a position 
     that will last 90 days or more and that is to be occupied by 
     an individual described in subparagraph (A) or (B); or
       (D) any individual who was formerly an employee described 
     in subparagraph (A) or (B) and whose claim of a violation 
     arises out of the individual's Senate employment.
       (5) Employing office.--The term ``employing office'' means 
     the office headed by a head of an employing office.
       (6) Head of an employing office.--The term ``head of an 
     employing office'' means the individual who has final 
     authority to appoint, hire, discharge, and set the terms, 
     conditions, or privileges of the congressional employment of 
     a congressional employee.
       (7) Instrumentality.--The term ``instrumentality'' means an 
     entity described in paragraph (2)(A).
       (8) Violation.--The term ``violation'' means a violation of 
     a provision listed in section 2 or a regulation that takes 
     effect under section 4(c).
                                  ____


   Summary of the Lieberman-Grassley Congressional Accountability Act

       Makes Congress subject to the following laws:
       The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938;
       The Federal Labor-Management Relations Statute of 1978;
       The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970;
       The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 Amendments;
       The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967;
       The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990;
       The Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
       The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993;
       The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988;
       The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 
     1988;
       Applies the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act 
     to administrative offices of the House and Senate such as the 
     disbursing offices, and non-political support agencies such 
     as the Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget 
     Office, and the Library of Congress; and
       Establishes an independent Office of Compliance to enforce 
     laws throughout the legislative branch and adjudicate 
     complaints and violations.
       An 8 person Board of Directors, composed of individuals 
     with expertise in employment laws, will oversee the 
     administration of The Office of Compliance. Members of the 
     Board will be appointed by the House and Senate leadership.
       Board members may not be lobbyists, current or former 
     members of Congress, or employees of Congress within the last 
     six years. Narrow grounds for removal and limit of one term 
     of service ensure independence of Board members.
       The Board will issue final procedural regulations 
     implementing these laws within 180 days after the appointment 
     of the Executive Director. The Board will be guided by the 
     same regulations issued by federal agencies under these laws.
       Before the Board issues final regulations, there will be a 
     public comment period of 30 days. Once issued, the 
     final regulations are binding unless Congress passes a 
     concurrent resolution of disapproval.
       Board members will be paid per diem rate prescribed for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule (approx. $105,000 per 
     annum).
       The Board will appoint an Executive Director and necessary 
     staff. Executive Directors may not earn more than pay for 
     level V of Executive Schedule.
       Detailees from executive branch agencies, as well as the 
     Government Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board, may be 
     employed in order to assist the Office in its duties.
       On a regular basis, at least once every Congress, the 
     Office will request the services of the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Administration and the Americans With Disabilities 
     Access Board in order to inspect the offices of Congress to 
     ensure compliance with OSHA and ADA. The Board will determine 
     the dates and the scope of the inspections. The Office may 
     also order additional OSHA inspections when it deems 
     necessary, or in response to a complaint.
       Aggrieved employees will have a right to file a complaint 
     with the Office of Compliance. Where the law authorizes an 
     action in Federal court, the Congressional employee will also 
     have a right to sue in Federal Court.
       Individual complaints of discrimination, harassment, denial 
     of minimum wage or overtime pay, denial of family or medical 
     leave, violation of equal pay standards, or unfair labor 
     practices will be handled by a 3-step administrative process:
       1. Counseling;
       2. Mediation;
       3. At the election of complainant, formal administrative 
     complaint and hearing or civil action in Federal District 
     Court where the underlying law permits such action.
       Administrative hearing board members are chosen by the 
     Executive Director of the Office from candidates recommended 
     by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the 
     Administrative Conference of the United States.
       When a violation is found, remedies appropriate under 
     existing laws will be issued, except punitive damages. 
     Administrative hearing boards will be guided by judicial 
     decisions under these laws. This decision is final unless 
     appellate review is sought.
       Congressional employees may also state a claim for 
     intimidation or retaliation for exercising their rights under 
     these laws.
       Office of Compliance may provide House and Senate Ethics 
     Committees records of hearing boards for additional review 
     after a decision is issued by a hearing board, but no Ethics 
     Committee proceeding may substitute for the functions of the 
     office or a hearing board.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman 
in introducing the Congressional Accountability Act. The time is long 
overdue for Congress to follow the laws it prescribes for everyone 
else. Our bill will correct the longstanding practice of Congress 
exempting itself from labor and employment laws, as well as good 
Government laws, such as the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts.
  The American people are frustrated with Congress. They don't respect 
the institution. The citizenry finds Congress to be out of touch with 
the real world. Well, one part of the real world is the host of laws 
Congress has enacted to protect workers. Those laws include--wage and 
hour laws, collective bargaining laws, anti-discrimination and anti-
harassment laws, as well as laws protecting a safe workplace.
  But for too long, Congress has said--``OK for you America, but not 
for Capitol Hill.'' This bill says, ``no more.''
  It's time for Congress to get serious, to hear the American people 
and to act.
  Our bill applies 10 laws to all of Congress and the 
instrumentalities, such as the Library of Congress and the General 
Accounting Office. It establishes an Office of Congressional Compliance 
to administer and enforce these laws.
  Any employee who has a complaint under one of these laws--from Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act to the Fair Labor Standards Act--may bring 
it to the Office. The first efforts to resolve the complaint will be 
less formal--counseling and mediation. Then, if the employee is not 
satisfied, he or she can take the complaint to a hearing.
  Under those laws which allow an employee in the private sector to sue 
in Federal court, a congressional employee will, likewise, be able to 
pursue the claim in a Federal trial court. But if the employee wants a 
more efficient and expeditious resolution of the complaint, he or she 
may opt for an independent hearing conducted before three hearing 
officers selected from outside the Congress. Then, the employee who 
chooses an administrative hearing will be entitled to appellate review 
in our Federal court system.
  And, for those laws which do not provide a private sector employee 
with a right to a Federal trial--and that includes collective 
bargaining and occupational safety and health claims--the employee will 
be entitled to pursue an independent administrative hearing, with 
appellate review in a Federal court.
  So, let me illustrate with an example. An employee believes she 
should receive overtime compensation for work over 40 hours each week. 
She will, under this bill, take her complaint to the Office of 
Congressional Compliance where the staff will, in the first instance, 
attempt to counsel the parties involved. If that is not successful, the 
employee will be entitled to mediation. If the employee is still not 
satisfied, she has a choice. Since, the Fair Labor Standards Act 
entitles private sector employees to pursue their claims directly in 
Federal court, she--the congressional employee--will have the same 
opportunity--will have the same opportunity--to sue the Congress in 
Federal court for overtime violations.
  But, if she does not want to wait a couple of years in Federal court, 
she can seek an administrative hearing with appellate review if she's 
not satisfied with the hearing officers' decision.
  If this bill becomes law, Congress will finally understand how these 
laws actually work. There can be no better substitute for Congress' 
living under the laws. A congressional committee can hold hearings to 
examine how a law will work; we can hear from witnesses about this 
impact or that effect. But until we are prepared to live under the 
laws, Congress has no business imposing them on anyone else.
  Now, this bill is not everything I want in congressional coverage. It 
does not provide for the executive branch agencies to enforce these 
laws. Instead we are creating a separate congressional agency to 
enforce the laws. But I know a majority of my colleagues will say that 
the Constitution does not permit Labor Secretary Robert Reich to 
enforce OSHA or the Fair Labor Standards Act against Congress. I 
disagree, but I am not, as the saying goes, going to let the perfect be 
the enemy of the good.
  And, the bill does not cover Congress under the National Labor 
Relations Act--the private sector collective bargaining law. Since 
there is no experience of the NLRA covering a governmental entity, we 
chose to extend the Federal Management-Labor Relations Act--the 
collective bargaining law which applies to the executive branch 
agencies--to Congress and the instrumentalities. But congressional 
employees, under this bill, will have the right to join unions and 
engage in collective bargaining. That is an important breakthrough for 
Congress.
  This is a solid bill. It will make Congress subject to all the laws 
from which it is now exempt. It builds on the 1991 Mitchell-Grassley 
amendment to the civil rights bill by expanding the coverage and 
strengthen the enforcement mechanism. It meets, in my view, James 
Madison's directive in Federalist No. 57, that [Congress] can make no 
law will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, 
as well as on the great mass of society.''
  I look forward to working with Senator Lieberman on the bill, to 
hearings in the Government Affairs Committee, and to moving this bill 
into law this year.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President. thank you very much.
  I want to say that I am a cosponsor of Senator Lieberman's bill that 
he is sending to the desk and am happy to be such.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to compliment my colleagues, 
Senator Grassley, and Senator Lieberman, for introducing the 
legislation which I am happy to cosponsor, to provide for congressional 
coverage of several laws, and which coverage Congress, going back to 
1935, has exempted itself from.
  I might mention that I was with some of my colleagues yesterday, and 
some of my constituents, in addition, and we happened to be in the 
basement of the Capitol, and I showed them several areas that just 
would not comply with the OSHA inspection. I hope we will be able to 
pass this legislation.
 Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor 
legislation being introduced today, the Congressional Accountability 
Act.
  Traditionally, Congress has exempted itself from the very laws which 
were to apply to the other two branches of Government as well as the 
private sector. This bill will force Congress to comply with those 
laws.
  This legislation is long overdue. The U.S. Senate should practice 
what we preach. We should go by the same rules that we establish for 
everyone else.
  Public opinion of Congress is very low. Americans are wondering about 
the integrity of an institution which exempts itself from the rules it 
places on the rest of the country. In Maryland, we call this a double 
standard.
  I think when we make ourselves subject to the same legal framework 
that we do every other American, we will be taking an important step 
forward toward restoring confidence in this institution. We need to let 
Americans know that we are not above the law.
  But Mr. President, it's more than just a question of perception. It's 
a question of right and wrong. It's a question of basic fairness and 
decency. This legislation will put Congress squarely under the law. It 
will also put congressional support offices and legislative branch 
offices under the law.
  The critical need for this legislation has recently been demonstrated 
by the management practices at the Architect of the Capitol. For years, 
I and my staff have heard shocking complaints from dozens of 
constituents employed in the offices of the Architect. In 1991, I asked 
the General Accounting Office to investigate.
  The findings of the GAO report are outrageous. The Architect of the 
Capitol has no fair and independent complaint process of employee 
grievances. There is no affirmative action plan, no agency-wide merit-
based hiring or promotion plan. Minorities and women are 
underrepresented, and promotions and other decisions are not shown to 
be based on performance. I could go on.
  Mr. President, this is a serious situation. There is no question that 
we need to act on this legislation today to apply labor and workplace 
safety statutes to Congress and its support offices across the board. I 
am cosponsoring this legislation, and I strongly encourage my 
colleagues to join in support.
  But in the meantime, I will also be introducing separate legislation 
which will specifically target the operations of the Architect of the 
Capitol. There is a demonstrated, urgent need to address the workplace 
environment at the Architect of the Capitol. Because of the findings of 
the GAO report, it is likely that we will be able to move more quickly 
with legislation isolating the situation there.
  This only adds to my strong support for legislation being introduced 
today to bring Congress and the legislation branch as a whole under the 
same laws that already apply to the general public and the executive 
branch of Government.
                                 ______

      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 2072. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 
facilitate the immigration to the United States of certain aliens born 
in the Philippines or Japan who were fathered by United States 
citizens; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


            The Amerasian Immigration Act Amendments of 1994

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I introduce legislation 
which amends Public Law 97-359, the Amerasian Immigration Act, to 
include Amerasian children from the Philippines and Japan as eligible 
applicants. This legislation also expands the eligibility period for 
the Philippines until the completion of the last United States military 
base closure and until the date of enactment of the proposed 
legislation for Japan.
  Under the current Amerasian immigration law, only children born in 
Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam after December 31, 1950, 
and before October 22, 1982, who were fathered by United States 
citizens, are allowed to immigrate to the United States. When this 
legislation was first introduced in the 97th Congress, it included 
Amerasian children born in the Philippines and Japan with no time 
limits concerning their births. The final version of this bill, 
however, included only areas where the United States had engaged in 
active military combat from the Korean war onward, and hence, excluded 
both the Philippines and Japan.
  Although the Philippines and Japan were not considered a war zone 
from 1950 to 1982, the extent and nature of United States military 
involvement in both countries were quite similar to the involvement of 
the United States military in other Asian countries during the Korean 
and Vietnam wars. As a result, interracial marriages in both countries 
were common, thereby leading to a significant number of Amerasian 
children fathered by U.S. citizens. There are now over 50,000 Amerasian 
children in the Philippines and 6,000 Amerasian children in Japan born 
between 1987 and 1992.
  These children face similar problems to the Amerasian children 
provided for under Public Law 97-359. Due to the illegitimate or mixed 
ethnic make-up, they are often ostracized within their home countries. 
This stigmatization, in turn, leaves many without viable opportunities 
of employment, education, or family life. As a result, Amerasian 
children are subjected to conditions of severe poverty and prejudice, 
with very little hope of escaping their plight.
  Public Law 97-359 was passed in hopes of redressing the situation of 
Amerasian children in Korea, Laos, Kampuchea, Thailand, and Vietnam. 
Now is the time for the Senate to recognize our responsibilities to 
Amerasian children in the Philippines and Japan, and pass legislation 
that would lessen the severity of their impoverished lives.
  Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of my bill 
be placed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2072

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States in Congress assembled, That section 
     204(f)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1154(f)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(I)'' after ``born''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``subsection,'' the following: 
     ``(II) in the Philippines after 1950 and before November 24, 
     1992, or (III) in Japan after 1950 and before the date of 
     enactment of this subclause,''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Gregg):
  S. 2073. A bill to designate the U.S. courthouse that is scheduled to 
be constructed in Concord, NH, as the ``Warren B. Rudman United States 
Courthouse'', and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


                      warren b. rudman courthouse

 Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Gregg and 
myself, I rise today to introduce a bill to name the new U.S. 
courthouse that is scheduled to be constructed in Concord, NH, in honor 
of our distinguished former colleague, Senator Warren B. Rudman.
  It is fitting that the new Federal courthouse in concord should be 
named for former Senator Rudman because he is a distinguished lawyer. 
After leaving the Senate at the end of his second term in 1992, Senator 
Rudman joined the prestigious international law firm of Paul, Weiss, 
Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison. He maintains offices with the law firm 
in both Washington and New York. Senator Rudman also has a law office 
of his own in New Hampshire.
  After earning his undergraduate degree at Syracuse University and 
serving as a combat platoon leader and company commander with the U.S. 
Army during the Korean war, Warren Rudman graduated from the Boston 
College School of Law in 1960. He then began his career practicing law 
in his hometown of Nashua, NH.
  Warren Rudman left the private practice of law to enter public 
service in 1970, when he was appointed as the attorney general of New 
Hampshire. In 1975, he brought distinction to our State when he was 
elected as the president of the National Association of Attorneys 
General. Upon completing his service as attorney general of our state 
in 1976, Warren Rudman returned to private law practice.
  Four years later, in 1980, Warren Rudman answered the call of public 
service again when he ran for the U.S. Senate. He was elected that year 
as part of the large class of 1980 that swept the Republican Party to 
control of the Senate for the first time in nearly 30 years.
  Perhaps Senator Rudman's most noteworthy accomplishment during his 12 
years of service in the Senate was his co-authorship of the Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law. He also distinguished himself by 
his service as the vice chairman of the Senate select committee that 
investigated the so-called Iran-Contra affair.
  In addition, Senator Rudman served as the chairman, and later the 
vice chairman, of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. For many 
years, he also was the ranking Republican member on the Senate 
Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, State, and the 
Judiciary.
  Even though he decided in 1992 to leave the Senate and to return to 
the private practice of law, Senator Rudman continues to serve the 
public interest through his leadership of the Concord coalition. Along 
with former Senator Paul Tsongas and former Commerce Secretary Peter 
Peterson, Senator Rudman was a cofounder of that organization. The 
Concord coalition is a grassroots, nonprofit group that was established 
to alert the American people to the gravity of our Nation's budget 
deficit crisis and to propose bold an innovative ways in which to 
resolve it.
  Beyond his work with the Concord coalition, Senator Rudman also 
serves as a member of President Clinton's Foreign Intelligence Advisory 
Board and as the Deputy Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  It was a privilege to serve with Warren Rudman as a member of the New 
Hampshire delegation in the U.S. Congress for 8 years and as his junior 
colleague in the Senate for 2 years. I am pleased to have this 
opportunity to play a role in giving Senator Rudman's distinguished 
career the lasting recognition that it merits.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2073

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

     SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF WARREN B. RUDMAN UNITED STATES 
                   COURTHOUSE.

       The United States courthouse that (as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act) is scheduled to be constructed in 
     Concord, New Hampshire, shall be known and designated as the 
     ``Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse''.

     SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES.

       Any reference in a law, regulation, document, record, map, 
     or other paper of the United States to the courthouse 
     referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to 
     the ``Warren B. Rudman United States Courthouse''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 2074. A bill to increase the special assessment for felonies and 
improve the enforcement of sentences imposing criminal fines, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                crime victim assistance improvement act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I'm introducing a bill to aid 
victims of crime by making needed improvements in the Federal crime 
victims fund. This fund, financed by mandatory criminal fines, provides 
vital assistance to victims through special programs, such as recovery 
services for battered women and children, and direct financial aid to 
cover medical bills and other crime related expenses such as medical 
bills.
  Crime, particularly violent crime, continues to plague our nation. 
The unmet need for victim compensation and assistance services is 
enormous and has grown significantly in the past 5 years.
  In my home State of Arizona, at a time when serious crime is 
increasing, we are receiving less crime victim assistance. We must 
enhance collections and improve administration of the fund to keep pace 
with the needs of crime victims and to let criminals know that fine 
payment is not an option, it is an obligation that they must and will 
meet.
  The Crime Victim Assistance Improvement Act would help us meet our 
responsibility to care for those who have been victimized by crime as 
follows:
  One, the bill would double the crime victim fund by increasing fines 
imposed on federal felons, and establish the new amount as a minimum 
rather than a fixed assessment.
  Two, the bill would increase the statute of limitations for fine 
collections from 5 to 20 years so that criminal debtors can't evade 
their responsibilities by outwaiting the current five year term.
  Three, it would require the courts to impose enforceable fine payment 
schedules for criminals fines and restitution. Under current law, 
payment schedules are discretionary. Making the mandatory will improve 
the fine collection rate.
  Four, delinquent criminal debtors would be prohibited from receiving 
crime victim fund compensation, and other Federal benefits including 
grants, contracts, loans, and other assistance programs.
  Five, the bill would authorize the courts to require delinquent 
criminal debtors to conduct community service in lieu of interest on 
outstanding debt. This provision will enable indigent criminal debtors 
to meet their obligations pending payment of their fine.
  Six, the bill would create a crime victim reserve fund and authorize 
the director of the crime victim fund to carry over unspent crime 
victim revenue from 1 year to the next to assure consistent funding 
from year to year. Crime victim appropriations can fluctuate annually 
with collection rates. A more consistent level of funding would better 
serve the needs of all victims.
  Seven, all Federal felons would be required to forfeit to the crime 
victim fund all media and commercial revenues earned as a result of 
their crime.
  Eight, the bill would ensure that compensation to a victim will not 
be considered as income for purposes of eligibility for Federal 
assistance programs. Some individuals have actually been denied 
Medicaid assistance because temporary crime victim compensation for 
living expenses was considered as income. This is not right and it must 
be changed.
  Mr. President, in addition, the Crime Victim Assistance Improvement 
Act contains provisions to ensure that all victims of crime, including 
those who reside in the most remote and underserved areas of this 
Nation, receive the services to which they are entitled. It 
accomplishes this by providing Indian tribal governments with 5 percent 
of the fund to establish victim assistance programs at the local 
level--programs which are literally nonexistent today.
  Currently, all victims of crime, whether they reside in or outside of 
Indian communities, must apply to a State administered program for 
victim's compensation. These victims must also drive many hours and 
many miles to receive victim assistance services. Many victims forgo 
these services because they are either inaccessible or the victims are 
unaware that the programs exist. While many States make a conscientious 
effort to properly serve people on the reservation, I believe allowing 
tribal governments to manage their own programs can only improve access 
to services for all crime victims.
  As sovereign nations, tribal governments currently administer most 
Federal programs and have the ability to manage local victim's 
assistance program. This legislation is fully consistent with the 
government-to-government relationship that exists between the Federal 
Government and the individual tribes, and it is an important bench mark 
in the ongoing effort to promote the policy of tribal self-governance 
and self-determination.
  I'm sure that some may be concerned that the Indian set-aside could 
take funding away from State programs. I would like to make an 
important point to address that issue. This bill, taken as a whole, 
would double the size of the current crime victim's fund. This will 
ensure significantly more resources for all victims' programs, both 
State and tribal. Everyone will benefit.
  Mr. President, on the reservation and off, crime is taking an 
alarming toll on our Nation. According to the FBI uniform crime 
reports, every day, 65 Americans are murdered, nearly 3,000 Americans 
are raped, 2,000 people are robbed and 3,000 people are assaulted. In 
1992, 6.6 million Americans were affected by violent crimes. These are 
alarming numbers, but they are much more. They are human beings.
  In many areas, particularly in large cities, Americans are afraid to 
walk the streets. Simply put, crime is a national disgrace, and the 
single greatest threat to the welfare of our society.
  Congress continues to work on the long-awaited crime bill. We need a 
strong bill. Much can and must be done to prevent and control crime and 
criminals. But, let's not forget about the victims--the innocent 
Americans to whom crime is not a discomfiting statistic or a disturbing 
segment on the nightly news, it's reality. As we seek more effective 
means to control the criminal, a just society has an obligation to aid 
and comfort the victim.
  Violent crime annually costs victims $1.5 billion in medical bills 
and lost property. In many cases, these are uninsured losses. According 
to the Bureau of Justice statistics low-income families who are less 
likely to be insured are more likely to be affected by violent crime. 
The number of claims for compensation from the crime victim fund has 
increased by nearly 15 percent over the past 5 years.
  Today, State compensation boards are struggling to keep pace with the 
need. In my home State of Arizona, last year, 16 agencies were denied 
crime victim assistance grants due to the lack of funds. The applicants 
included programs for domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual 
assault among others.
  The compensation program is overburdened. Families with limited 
financial resources who are victimized, must face the trauma of crime, 
but they must also deal with the added concern over medical expenses, 
funeral bills or other crime related losses. In Arizona, where caps are 
in place, victims can only received $130 per week for lost wages, 
regardless of whether they have dependents or how many.
  In other States, including New Mexico and California, victims must 
wait for up to a full year just to have their applications reviewed. 
Many of these victims do not have the financial resources to pay 
medical bills and other expenses in the meantime.
  Victims of violent crimes, particularly those in financial distress, 
need and deserve full compensation on a timely basis. We need more 
resources to do the job, and the Crime Victim Assistance Improvement 
Act will see that we get them.
  As I stated, criminal fines finance the crime victim fund. Under 
current law, Federal felons are liable for a fixed special crime victim 
assessment of $50 while a fine of $200 is imposed on criminal 
organizations. The new amounts prescribed by this bill, $100 for 
individuals and $400 for organizations, would be established as a 
minimum. Judges will be given the discretion to impose higher amounts.
  I think it might be instructive at this point to explain the 
sentencing process in which special assessments play only a part. After 
a Federal conviction, the judge is required to impose the special crime 
victim assessment. Next, in priority is any order for restitution the 
judge may impose to directly compensate the victim of the crime for 
which the conviction was made. Third, the judge may impose an 
additional fine depending on the circumstances of the case.
  Doubling the primary assessment as called for in this bill is in no 
way intended to take away from the mandatory restitution provision in 
the Senate crime bill.
  First, the primary fine is not large enough to substantially impede a 
criminal's ability to pay restitution. Second, it's important to 
understand that, in many violent crime cases no conviction is reached. 
The victim has no chance of obtaining restitution, and must rely on the 
aid of the crime victim fund. This makes it imperative that we maintain 
a strong and viable fund to assist these individuals.
  I would also like to comment on the increase in the statute of 
limitations. The current limitation is 5 years. This is simply too 
short. Criminal debtors should not be permitted to wait out the 
limitation period and skate free. Expanding the statute of limitations 
and requiring judges to impose an enforcement due date will show 
criminals that criminal debt is not an option. It is an obligation tht 
will be met.
  A criminal fine is a serious matter. That's why the bill contains 
provisions to ensure the delinquent criminal debtors will be ineligible 
for Federal benefits, including crime victim payments, until the debtor 
works out an achievable payment schedule or agrees to perform community 
service in lieu of interest on their debt.
  This provision will not take effect until the National Fine Center, 
which was conceived to track criminal debt and integrate with other 
programs, is fully operational. On the crime bill, the Senate adopted a 
similar benefit suspension provision for delinquent restitution 
payments. This bill will extend the suspension to all delinquent 
criminal debt and a wider array of Federal benefit programs. The 
National Fine Center will be critical in making this provision 
effective. I will have more to say about the center at the conclusion 
of my remarks.
  Mr. President, I would like to comment on one other vital provision 
in this bill. Federal law currently prohibits criminals from profiting 
from their crimes. However, the current forfeiture statute extends only 
to violent criminals and spies, and applies only to revenues derived 
from media rights to criminal stories. White collar criminals should be 
included in the forfeiture statute. The bill I have introduced will 
expand the law to all Federal felons and require forfeiture into the 
crime victim fund any commercial revenues derived from a Federal 
felony.
  Finally, Mr. President, I'm very pleased that this bill includes a 
provision to provide more resources for crime victim assistance on the 
reservation. There is a great need for victim programs to serve native 
Americans and, we have a trust responsibility to see that they receive 
that assistance through programs operated by tribal governments and 
organizations.
  As I said, Mr. President, I applaud efforts to pass a strong crime 
bill, and I am afraid that Congress will disappoint. I don't believe 
that either the House or the Senate passed measure does enough to help 
victims. This week is National Crime Victims Week. The best way 
Congress can honor and assist victims is to enact this bill. I urge 
conferees to consider these provisions for inclusion in the conference 
report on the crime legislation.
  Mr. President, to conclude, I want to say a few words about the 
National Fine Center.
  In 1987, Congress acknowledged the need for a centralized database in 
order to track criminal debt. This was the genesis of the National Fine 
Center concept. Such an integrated data-base to track and manage 
criminal debt seemed like a promising idea then and it still does, 
particularly when Justice Department officials can only estimate that 
outstanding criminal debt is somewhere between $1 and $6 billion.
  Since 1990, $19 million have been appropriated and expended from the 
crime victims fund to develop the center. I've been greatly disturbed 
to learn that today we have almost nothing to show for those 
expenditures. I greatly fear that we have taken $19 million that could 
have been used to aid crime victims and wasted it for no good public 
purpose.
  A new director was appointed this year to manage the project and he 
is still trying to determine the requirements such a system must meet. 
I've written Mr. Richard Hankinson, the Department of Justice inspector 
general, to investigate and report on what happened to the National 
Fine Center money. Moreover, I've asked the inspector general to report 
on what steps will be taken to ensure that the $6.2 million authorized 
to be spent on this vital database in the coming fiscal year, will be 
used to efficiently and effectively meet the goals and purposes of the 
project, and the needs of crime victims.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters from various crime victims 
groups and tribes, as well as a resolution from the Nez Perce Tribal 
Executive Committee be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                             Arizona Department of


                                                Public Safety,

                                      Phoenix, AZ, April 29, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for providing us the 
     opportunity to respond to the proposed Victims of Crime Bill.
  The Arizona Department of Public Safety administers the Federal 
Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) grant which supports private non-profit and 
government agencies who serve victims of crime. Because of decreasing 
collections, Arizona will receive a $38,000 decrease of VOCA during 
federal fiscal year 94. This decrease will create a reduction of victim 
services during a time when victim services should be significantly 
increased.
       The Arizona Department of Public Safety supports the 
     Victims of Crime bill to:
       Increase financial penalties and strictly enforce the 
     collection of fines and restitution.
       Clarify the ``Son of Sam'' laws to deny offenders financial 
     benefit derived from the notoriety gained as the result of 
     their criminal acts.
       Allow the Department of Justice-Office for Victims of Crime 
     to directly administer VOCA funded programs available for 
     Indian tribes and tribal organizations.
       Modify VOCA law to provide funding to improve victim 
     services on Indian reservations. It is recommended that the 
     method being used to determine the proposed 2.5 percent 
     allocation for tribal victim assistance should be carefully 
     evaluated. it is inconsistent to determine tribal 
     organization allocations based upon percentage of land mass, 
     while State and Territory allocations of VOCA assistance 
     funds are based upon population.
       These changes, if approved will have a lasting effect on 
     improving services for our nation's victims of crime. Thank 
     you for your efforts on behalf of crime victims.
           Sincerely,
                                             Lt. Col. R. Aguilera,
                                                  Deputy Director.
                                  ____



                                            Hopi Indian Tribe,

                                   Kykotsmovi, AZ, April 25, 1994.
     Senator John McCain,
     Longworth Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: This letter is in support of the bill 
     that you will be proposing to Congress to provide direct 
     funding to Indian Tribes in the establishment of Victim 
     Assistance Programs in Indian Country.
       As you are aware, there is a critical need for Indian 
     Tribal Judicial Systems to meet the increased needs of crime 
     victims and child abuse victims in Indian country. It should 
     be apparent to Congress that crime has been on the increase 
     in Indian country. It should be apparent to Congress that 
     crime has been on the increase in Indian country but no 
     direct help has been given to the Indian Tribes without 
     special funding requests. We believe that as crime bills and 
     funding are being made for the cities and rural areas of the 
     country, Indian Tribes should be supported in developing an 
     effective judicial system that will protect victims rather 
     than the criminals.
       Therefore, we support your efforts to establish direct 
     funding for tribes in meeting the rights of the victims. We, 
     on the Hopi Reservation, need protection just as much as 
     other Americans in this great country and we will work with 
     your office to see that your efforts will have positive 
     results.
       If further information is needed, please feel free to 
     contact Mr. Le Roy Shingoitewa, Executive Assistant of my 
     office at (602) 734-2441.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Ferrell Secakuku,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____



                                         Cocopah Indian Tribe,

                                     Somerton, AZ, April 26, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: We are very pleased to hear that you will be 
     presenting a bill to the Congress to provide for direct 
     funding to Tribes under the Victim Assistance program.
       The only funds available to Tribes in this area are under 
     special competitive funding that has a ten day or less 
     submission date attached. Clearly, Tribes have the same, or 
     worse, problems than other rural areas and our ability to 
     compete with them for funds is very limited.
       We are working very hard to improve our total justice 
     system and the bulk of the funding necessary to do so is 
     coming directly from Tribal funds. Victims are everywhere, 
     including the reservation, and we would greatly appreciate 
     any assistance that would come from the passage of your 
     proposed legislation. Without such efforts, we will continue 
     to be served last behind the other local governments.
       Thank you for your continued support of Indian people.
           Sincerely,


                                                Dale Phillips,

                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____


                               Resolution

       Whereas, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee has been 
     empowered to act for and in behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe, 
     pursuant to the Revised Constitution and By-Laws, adopted by 
     the General Council of the Nez Perce Tribe, on May 6, 1961 
     and approved by the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs on 
     June 27, 1961; and
       Whereas, the Nez Perce Tribe has a growing concern for the 
     protection of its elders, children and families; and
       Whereas, the Nez Perce Tribe is seeking relief from the 
     victimization process that many face on the Nez Perce 
     Reservation which falls under the concurrent state, federal 
     and tribal jurisdiction; and
       Whereas, the Nez Perce Tribe is concerned for the timely 
     process involved in obtaining relief for its victims through 
     the federal and state judicial systems: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Nez Perce Tribe joins in the support of 
     all federally recognized Native American Indian Tribes 
     throughout the United States in establishing a more effective 
     and immediate response to victims of crime, and proposes the 
     following remedies to eliminate the continued victimization 
     of a race of people. from major crimes including, Child 
     Abuse, Elderly Abuse, and Domestic Violence:
       (1) that consideration be given to native American Indian 
     Tribal Police, nationwide, to assess and validate felony 
     cases of abuse and crimes committed against tribal members on 
     their reservations and refer to the U.S. Attorney's office of 
     their respective states for resolution
       (2) that a ``Native American Indian Law Division ' be 
     created within each U.S. Attorney's office to specifically 
     administer the judicial processing of crimes committed on 
     Native American Indian Reservations to reduce the prolonged 
     traumatization and in so doing, building empathy, cultural 
     awareness and assessability of resources for victim relief of 
     federal crimes committed against Native American Indian 
     People
       (3) that more funds are made available directly to native 
     American Indian Tribes through the Department of Justice/
     Office for Victims of Crime for Native American Indian Victim 
     Assistance Programs throughout the Nation
       (4) that improved communication between State, Tribal and 
     Federal judicial systems/law enforcement/and victim services 
     groups be made on an annual basis to evaluate the progress of 
     a systems reform in Indian Country.
       Be it further resolved, That the Nez Perce Tribe joins in 
     the efforts with other Native American Indian Nations to 
     sound out a voice for the need of State, Tribal and Federal 
     systems reform, direct funding support for Native American 
     Indian Victims of Crime Services, and improved communication 
     to eliminate the victimization of Native American Indian 
     people nationwide.
                                  ____



                                                Navajo Nation,

                                  Window Rock, AZ, April 28, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I understand you may be introducing 
     language in a bill to provide a total of five percent set-
     aside funding for Indian tribes in the allocation of grant 
     funds in the crime victim compensation and crime victim 
     assistance of the Crime Victims Fund. I urge you to introduce 
     the language to provide a set-aside funding in the Crime 
     Victims Fund for Indian tribes.
       The Navajo Office of Victim/Witness Program under the 
     Navajo Department of Law Enforcement currently receives 
     funding from the Office of Victims of Crime in Arizona and 
     New Mexico, but we need more adequate federal funding to 
     provide more services to Navajo crime victims. Currently, the 
     Navajo Office of Victim/Witness Program provides minimal 
     support, counseling, information and assistance to victims of 
     domestic violence, elder abuse and sexual abuse because of 
     inadequate funding.
       It is a burden for the Navajo Office of Victim/Witness 
     Program to apply for great monies through our states because 
     of administrative problems. The Navajo Nation is not part of 
     any state governmental system and should not be subject to 
     state authority in the administration of the Crime Victims 
     Fund. The Navajo Nation would like to administer and operate 
     its own crime victim program. Therefore, our grant 
     applications should not be submitted through our states. I 
     believe it would be much easier for the Navajo Nation and 
     other Indian tribes to apply directly to the U.S. Department 
     of Justice.
       The Navajo Office of Victim/Witness Program would like to 
     provide more comprehensive services to Navajo crime victims 
     in an efficient manner, and as such, needs additional 
     resources than what is provided to the Navajo Nation under 
     our current contracts with Arizona and New Mexico. Program 
     services to Indian crime victims can be improved if a five 
     percent set-aside for Indian tribes is included in the Crime 
     Victims Fund.
       If you have any questions, please call Geri Singer, Deputy 
     Director at the Navajo Nation Washington Office, at (202) 
     775-0393.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Peterson Zah,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                                 Crime Strike,

                                         Fairfax, VA, May 2, 1994.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: I am writing to commend you for 
     introducing the Crime Victims Assistance Improvement Act, and 
     to express strong support for the important goals of this 
     legislation.
       Your advocacy on behalf of victims in this country is once 
     again demonstrated by your willingness to fight, not only for 
     increases in criminal fines used to fund victims' programs, 
     but just as importantly for tougher enforcement provisions to 
     make sure these fines are collected.
       While I understand you are still reviewing the exact 
     funding distribution, your proposal to ensure that Native 
     American crime victims receive fair treatment is equally 
     sound. Twenty years ago, along with my friend and colleague 
     Frank Carrington, I drafted legislation which established the 
     Navajo Victims' Rights Commission. I know first hand that 
     Native American crime victims need the support and assistance 
     your legislation seeks to provide.
       Once again, I commend you for your fight for the rights of 
     all crime victims and I urge your colleagues to support the 
     important goals of your new legislation.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Steven J. Twist,

                                                 Director.

                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2075. A bill to amend the Indian Child Protection and Family 
Violence Prevention Act to reauthorize and improve programs under the 
Act; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


       indian child protection and family violence prevention act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to amend Public Law 101-630, the Indian Child Protection and Family 
Violence Prevention Act. I am pleased that Senator Daniel K. Inouye has 
joined me as a cosponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. President, throughout 1988 and 1989 I cochaired the Special 
Committee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. 
For over 2 years the Special Committee on Investigations held hearings 
which exposed widespread corruption and mismanagement on the part of 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the handling of the Federal 
Government's trust responsibility to tribes. Perhaps the most heart-
wrenching findings were the reports of Federal employees who abused 
Indian children. To this day, I carry those vivid reports with me.
  I recall listening to the parents of Indian children who had been 
sexually abused by Bureau of Indian Affairs employees. I listened as 
the BIA acknowledged hiring practices that allowed child abuse 
perpetrators to have access to Indian children. I listened as social 
workers told of child abuse victims being repeatedly traumatized by 
multiple interviews conducted by the very Federal agencies which were 
charged with enforcing child protection laws. And finally, I listened 
as child therapists and social workers told of their inability to 
provide psychological treatment and therapy to families and children 
due to long waiting lists and inadequate Federal resources.
  This national tragedy lead me to introduce the Indian Child 
Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act. The Act was intended to 
give the Federal Government every opportunity to meet its 
responsibility to Indian child victims and their families by providing 
treatment and to enact policies which would prevent the tragedies of 
the past. The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention 
Act created the first mandatory Federal child abuse reporting law, 
encouraged information sharing between tribal, State and Federal law 
enforcement agencies, and directed the BIA to cooperate with the Indian 
Health Service to provide comprehensive local treatment programs for 
Indian child abuse and family violence victims.
  The response to this legislation throughout Indian country was 
overwhelming. Indian communities, for the first time, believed that 
they would begin to recover from the psychological trauma, stigma, and 
the private shame of victimization. For the first time, tribes felt 
empowered to implement culturally sensitive Indian child abuse and 
family violence programs close to home. And it was my belief that the 
BIA would wholeheartedly embrace the opportunity to correct the 
mistakes of the past and meet the mandates of the Act. Unfortunately, 
the implementation of this law has proven to be another broken promise.
  On October 28, 1993, the Committee on Indian Affairs held an 
oversight hearing on the Federal implementation of P.L. 101-630. The 
results were appalling. The law which was enacted in 1990 had yet to be 
implemented. Neither the Bureau of Indian Affairs nor the Indian Health 
Service had actively sought funding under the Act. In fact, the BIA 
reported that they were just starting to draft regulations to implement 
a key provision in the Act, to provide tribes with base support funding 
for onreservation programs. The IHS stated that child abuse is a high 
priority, but then opposed an amendment offered in the Senate to 
provide appropriations for grants for child abuse treatment programs.
  At the same time, the committee heard from tribes who advised us that 
due to their efforts to provide child abuse education at the local 
level, reports of child abuse are on the increase. Unfortunately, 
Indian parents, social workers, and tribal communities which were once 
hopeful about combating this problem, are now critical and full of 
doubt.
  The testimony of Wilma Mankiller, principle chief of the Cherokee 
Nation, perhaps best summarizes the feelings of tribes:

       When Congress adopted P.L. 101-630, the Indian Child 
     Welfare and Family Violence Prevention Act, it made a promise 
     to provide resources to prevent child abuse and treat its 
     victims in Indian country. Sadly, that promise remains 
     largely unfulfilled. The welfare of Indian children is at 
     risk because the very agencies responsible for implementing 
     the law are failing to coordinate interagency efforts and 
     develop necessary federal regulations.
       Public Law 101-630 authorized funding for various 
     strategies to combat child abuse and child sexual abuse and 
     to treat its victims. Since the law was enacted in 1990, no 
     funds have been provided by Congress to implement its 
     provisions. Due to their lethargy the BIA and IHS have 
     sacrificed federal funding for important Indian Child abuse 
     prevention activities for the coming year. For failure to 
     develop regulations in a timely manner, the Congress refused 
     to fund grants to tribes for child abuse prevention programs. 
     . . .
       Now our urgently needed funding for child abuse prevention 
     programs is canceled--essentially forfeited because BIA/IHS 
     regulations were not timely developed. Congress also has 
     noted a need for improved interagency coordination. This 
     situation is a disgrace. Indian children are in jeopardy and 
     Congress wants to help them.

  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today proposes to do 
just that--once again try to help Indian children and victims of family 
violence.
  The legislation reinforces the intent of the original Act--to 
establish onreservation child abuse prevention and treatment programs 
and to hold the Federal Government accountable to Indian children and 
families. This will be accomplished by transferring functions and 
authority from the BIA and imposing greater accountability on one 
agency, the Indian Health Service, and by streamlining the 
appropriations process accordingly. The IHS was chosen, not because of 
its superior record in implementing the law, but because of their 
expertise in mental health treatment issues.

  The components of the original law essentially remain the same. 
However, the proposed amendment no longer requires the BIA and IHS to 
enter into a memorandum of agreement to implement provisions of the 
Act. It leaves this to the discretion of the IHS Director. In my view, 
this approach will eliminate the excuse of the BIA waiting for the IHS 
to act first, and vice-versa. The BIA will continue to carry out its 
trust obligations by reporting and investigating allegations of child 
abuse and by conducting employee background checks in cooperation with 
tribal, State and other Federal agencies. The BIA may also complete the 
central registry feasibility study, participate in the 
multidisciplinary teams, and continue their child abuse and family 
violence public awareness campaigns.
  All other ongoing activity within the BIA, such as the development of 
Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Program 
guidelines and the drafting of regulations for base support funding 
will be transferred to the IHS. The IHS would be fully responsible for 
providing tribes with child abuse treatment grants, establishing the 
Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers, and establishing the 
Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Program within 
the IHS.
  It is my sincere hope, that this change to the Indian Child 
Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, along with President 
Clinton's commitment to American families, will be a step toward a cure 
to what has been a dreadful chapter in this Nation's history of its 
treatment of Native American children and families.
  Mr. President, there is also another issue for which I have great 
concern and which many experts state is a prevalent factor in child 
abuse and family violence--the problem of alcohol and substance abuse. 
The Congress has passed legislation to address this problem, including 
the Indian Alcohol and Substance Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986 
and the Indian Health Amendments of 1992. Each of these statutes 
outline specific responsibilities of both the Indian Health Service and 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  In an effort to provide Indian communities with comprehensive alcohol 
and substance abuse prevention and treatment, these laws call for 
cooperation and coordination between the IHS and the BIA. However, I 
fear that as is the case in the area of child abuse prevention, both 
the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are spending 
too much time in drafting memorandums of agreement and agreeing to 
cooperate and not enough time combating the problem of alcohol and 
substance abuse or delivering services. For example, just look to the 
BIA budget. The BIA proposed to reduce the fiscal year 1995 alcohol and 
substance abuse budget by 57 percent while tribes continue to make the 
prevention and treatment of alcohol and substance abuse a high 
priority. Consequently, I will be introducing legislation soon in an 
attempt to propose a solution to this problem and I call upon all 
interested parties, especially those most affected by this legislation, 
to provide me with their input.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATFIELD:
  S. 2077. A bill to provide for waivers of the requirements of the 
Davis-Bacon Act with respect to certain Federal programs as such 
requirements relate to volunteers, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


            the community improvement volunteer act of 1994

 Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, in the few years before the 
Revolutionary War, volunteers were organized into military companies 
and trained to bear arms. These volunteers were called minutemen 
because they were ready to fight at a minute's notice. Although 
minutemen regiments were eventually dissolved when regular armies were 
formed, the defense of the United States still depends on an All-
Volunteer Army.
  I mention the minutemen of the Revolutionary War because the idea of 
voluntarism has been ingrained in our psyche before our country's 
inception. The ethic of civic responsibility, the spirit of community 
and the belief in voluntarism have all been fundamental principles that 
have helped guide our country's evolution. Today, one only needs to 
visit the local soup kitchen, homeless shelter, hospital, or literacy 
center to find people who give of themselves daily, so that others may 
enjoy better and more fulfilling lives.
  Americans persist in their desire to affirm their sense of humanity 
and shared values and I believe that most would agree that voluntarism 
plays a vital role in helping us meet these mores. That is why I am 
introducing the Community Improvement Volunteer Act of 1994.
  As my colleagues know, the Davis-Bacon Act requires that those who 
work on federally assisted construction projects must receive the local 
prevailing wage. I support the Davis-Bacon Act and its protection of 
the working men and women of our country, however, over the years, I 
have been worried that it's application in certain instances has been 
overly zealous.
  For example, in 1990 a local Kiwanis Club in Portland contributed 190 
hours of free, voluntary labor to build an antipoverty center. 
Unfortunately, the Departments of Housing and Urban Development as well 
as Labor determined that, because of the Davis-Bacon Act, those 
volunteers should have been paid a total of approximately $3,000. 
Essentially, what the two departments were saying at that time was that 
members of the Kiwanis Club could not volunteer their labor or make a 
contribution for the needs of the poor. Because of this situation, I 
offered an amendment to the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable 
Housing Act that permitted volunteers to work on projects authorized 
under the Community Development Block Grant Program and the Public 
Housing and Section 8 Assistance Programs. I was pleased that the 
managers on both sides of the aisle sympathized with my concern and the 
amendment became public law.
  However, more recently, another example emerged regarding the same 
issue. The small Oregon timber dependent town of Philomath which has 
been devastated by the timber crisis, came up with a very innovative 
project. For years, this town of 3,000 people, had a city library that 
was dreadfully small and inadequate to meet the needs of the public.
  When the community decided to build a new library, they estimated 
that if they put out bids for the facility and used store-bought 
materials, the cost of the building would have been in the neighborhood 
of $870,000. Asking the citizens of the ailing timber dependent town to 
raise taxes to finance the construction of the library was simply not a 
serious option. But the city fathers knew they had to breathe new life 
into their town and show the community that they were willing to invest 
in themselves and their children's future.
  Eventually, they came up with a magnificent idea. They decided to 
offset the prohibitive costs of the library by doing an old fashioned 
barn raising. And the way to accomplish this was to use volunteers. 
Regrettably, the Department of Labor informed the town that because the 
Federal Government provided $112,000 under a library construction 
grant, the Davis-Bacon Act applied to the project and all volunteers 
had to be paid prevailing wages.
  To make a long story short, after several inquiries from city leaders 
and myself, the Department of Labor eventually determined that; because 
the volunteers were being supervised by the city rather than a paid 
contractor or subcontractor, the volunteers could continue to work on 
the library. Mr. President, I do not think anybody ever intended that 
the prevailing wage requirements of the Davis-Bacon Act were to be 
applied to volunteers who, by their own volition, and without the 
expectation of payment, contribute their services for community or 
humanitarian needs. Without volunteer help, many worthwhile community 
projects simply will not happen.

  As a result, in 1992, I asked the Comptroller General of the United 
States to review the effect of the Davis-Bacon Act and its implementing 
regulations on the use of volunteers on federally financed or assisted 
construction projects. The study identified approximately 43 Davis-
Bacon-related acts, of which five currently permit either the Secretary 
of Labor or the Secretary of Housing and urban Development to waive the 
prevailing wage requirements for volunteers. However, the study also 
identified a number of other related acts for which there was no 
specific authority for the use of volunteers.
  Mr. President, having reviewed both the Comptroller General's report 
and the types of construction permitted under the identified related 
acts, I believe there are additional construction programs that should 
ahve specific authority for the use of volunteers as a consequence of 
the confusion created in Philomath.
  The programs I have chosen to include in this bill lend themselves to 
wide participation by local citizens and have a very precise and 
significant social or humanitarian effect on a community. The bill I am 
introducing today will give this authority to an additional four 
related acts that permit the construction of libraries, health clinics, 
schools, and housing. Furthermore, I introduce this legislation without 
the intention of undermining the needed protections of the prevailing 
wage requirements.
  The legislation makes it clear that projects that would not be 
otherwise possible without the use of volunteers, can utilize 
volunteers for the construction of that project. Specifically, the 
purpose is to promote and provide more opportunities for people who 
wish to volunteer their services for humanitarian, civic or community 
purposes.
  For the last several months, I have devoted a great deal of time to 
provide what I believe are the necessary protections in this bill. Few 
would dispute my support for the Davis-Bacon Act and I have no interest 
in undermining its basic intent. However, I do believe that some of the 
Davis-Bacon-related acts need to recognize or have some flexibility in 
order to permit nonprofit or similar entities to overcome some of the 
fiscal constraints that many of our urban and rural areas face.
  The bill defines a volunteer in very narrow terms. A volunteer would 
be one who performs a service for a public or private entity for civic, 
charitable, or humanitarian reason, without the promise or expectation 
of compensation. Furthermore, a volunteer must not be pressured or 
coerced by any employer, and the volunteer's service cannot be done for 
the benefit of any contractor.
  Although the bill would permit reasonable expenses like protective 
gear, out-of-pocket expenses and meals, it would prohibit these 
expenses from being tied to productivity. Furthermore, the bill would 
only allow volunteers to work on certain types of projects--those that 
would not otherwise be possible without the use of volunteers.
  The bill would only provide this exemption for four specific types of 
federally authorized construction programs: The Library Services and 
Construction Act, the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
Assistance Act, as well as community health centers and migrant health 
centers under the Public Health Service Act. Finally, the bill would 
require that the Secretary of Labor report to Congress on the impact of 
this legislation, if enacted, at the end of 1997 and make further 
recommendations with respect to other Davis-Bacon-related acts that 
meet the spirit of the bill.
  Although the days of British colonialism and the need for minutemen 
are long over, there still are incalculable numbers of pressing issues 
that face our country. Daily, we hear of the nearly 37 million people 
who are uninsured or have little or no access to health care. By simply 
walking the street of any town or city in America, one can see people 
who have lost their way and have become homeless. We may be the freest, 
we may be the luckiest, and we may be the most prosperous country on 
the face of the Earth, but throughout the United States, there are 
continuing and pressing unmet public needs.
  Few would dispute the fact that if we, as a government, can make it 
easier for the public or local communities to address some of these 
unmet needs, the American people will be able to better serve members 
of their own community. By making it easier for an organization or 
local community to build a community or migrant health center, a 
library, a school or housing for those who may not be as fortunate as 
we, we can continue to validate our shared values. Through this 
legislation, we can help to resuscitate in communities the breath of 
fresh air that comes with hard work and community spirit forged 
together to realize an otherwise impossible dream.

                          ____________________