[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.
____________________