[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 110 (Wednesday, August 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
                    CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 514 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 514

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4822) to make certain laws applicable to the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made in 
     order by this resolution and shall not exceed one hour, with 
     thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules and 
     thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the committee amendments now printed in the bill, it shall 
     be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
     of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 4892 
     modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in part 2 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules. Each amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against amendments printed 
     in part 2 of the report are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  House Resolution 514 is the rule providing for the consideration of 
H.R. 4822, the Congressional Accountability Act. The resolution 
provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Rules and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  For purposes of amendment, the rule makes in order as the original 
bill the text of H.R. 4892 with technical and clarifying amendments, as 
printed in part I of the report accompanying this resolution (House 
Report 103-691).
  The rule makes in order the 14 amendments which are listed in part II 
of the report accompanying this resolution. Each amendment, which is to 
be offered in the order printed in the report, by the Member designated 
in the report, shall be debatable for 10 minutes. The amendments shall 
not be subject to further amendment or to demand for a division of the 
question. All points of order against the amendments are waived.
  The amendments which are made in order address several issues 
concerning the way the new system of applying laws to Congress will 
operate. These include such matters as the qualification of, and 
requirements for, the Board of Directors and the Executive Director of 
the new Office of Compliance; the timing of the steps involved in 
applying the specified laws; requirements for reporting by the Office 
of Compliance; and the legal recourse aggrieved employees will have. 
Additional amendments address the issue of health care benefits 
provided for Members of Congress, and Members' use of frequent-flier 
mileage awards which accrue from official travel.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill which this rule makes in order, the 
Congressional Accountability Act, is a long-overdue reform which will 
finally bring Congress under the same laws that apply to other 
Americans in a credible and effective manner. H.R. 4822 will ensure 
that congressional employees have the same employment rights and 
protections that other American workers have, and it will also ensure 
that Members of Congress are no longer insulated from the impacts and 
effects of the operation of these laws.
  Briefly, H.R. 4822 would explicitly apply 10 employment-related laws 
to Congress:
  The Fair Labor Standards Act;
  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
  The Americans with Disabilities Act;
  The Age Discrimination in Employment Act;
  The Family and Medical Leave Act;
  The Occupational Safety and Health Act;
  The Federal Labor Management Relations Act;
  The Employee Polygraph Protection Act;
  The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act; and
  The Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
  The laws would be applied and enforced for the entire legislative 
branch by a new Office of Compliance. This office, which would replace 
the Office of Fair Employment Practices in the House as well as its 
Senate counterpart, would be overseen by an 8-member Board of Directors 
which would be appointed by the leadership of both parties in the House 
and Senate, and would be run by an executive director chosen by the 
Board.
  The Board would conduct a study of the way in which the laws should 
be applied to the legislative branch, and then follow that study with 
proposed regulations prescribing the application of the laws to 
Congress. Unless Congress rejects the regulations by resolution of 
disapproval, those regulations will take effect. If they are rejected, 
the Board will reissue new regulations.
  The Office will study and recommend additional laws to be applied on 
a continuing basis, and will be specifically required to study the 
possible application of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy 
Act.
  The bill also provides a four-step process to resolve alleged 
violations of the law: counseling; mediation; formal complaint and 
hearing; and judicial review.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many people who deserve to be recognized for 
their efforts in bringing forth this legislation, but chief among them 
are the two original sponsors of the Congressional Accountability Act, 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Swett]. These two Members have worked tirelessly to get 
this legislation to the point where it is today.
  I also want to recognize the work of the gentlewoman from Colorado 
[Mrs. Schroeder], the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. Snowe], and the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], who made many 
contributions to the development of this legislation.
  And, I want to praise the Members of the freshman class, particularly 
their four leaders on reform issues, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Fingerhut], the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Shepherd], the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Torkildsen]. These Members made the application of laws to Congress a 
top priority among reform issues and were instrumental in bringing 
about our consideration of this legislation. Several of the freshman 
Members will be offering amendments today which will further refine 
this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the charge that Congress exempts itself from laws it 
passes for everyone else is one of the most frequently heard criticisms 
of Congress, and understandably so. It is simply wrong to deny to 
congressional employees the same kinds of employment protections we 
grant to other employees, and it is wrong to insulate ourselves from 
the effects of these laws.
  To our credit, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have 
attempted to apply employment-related laws to Congress. It has been a 
difficult endeavor because we have had to construct a way to do so 
without breaching the separation of powers doctrine under the U.S. 
Constitution, which could occur if the executive branch enforced these 
laws.
  For the last 6 years, the House has applied several 
antidiscrimination measures and other protections to House employees 
through an internal enforcement system. And, as Congress has passed new 
laws, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, we have applied those 
new measures to the House under the same system.
  However, it has become quite clear that neither the range of laws we 
have applied to the House of Representatives, nor the manner in which 
they are applied, has been comparable to the private sector. Not all 
the laws that apply to the private sector apply to Congress, and our 
internal enforcement process does not provide adequate recourse for 
aggrieved employees. In addition, there are wide variations in the 
coverage of laws among different groups of legislative branch 
employees.
  Establishing a new system for applying and enforcing these laws, and 
expanding and making uniform the range of laws covering the legislative 
branch, was one of the key recommendations of the Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress. The Joint Committee, drawing from the 
original bill authored by Mr. Shays and Mr. Swett, recommended applying 
five laws to Congress, with the possibility of applying more, and 
establishing a new, more politically insulated entity, the Office of 
Compliance, which would be responsible for applying employment laws to 
the entire legislative branch. It also recommended new procedures, 
rights, and remedies for aggrieved employees.
  Following hearings on this legislation by the Subcommittee on the 
Rules of the House last spring, and with further efforts by 
Representatives Shays and Swett, and others, the Joint Committee's 
recommended legislation was revised in several respects. The result is 
that the bill before us--the bill reported by the House Administration 
Committee and the Rules Committee--is a much stronger version of the 
application of laws legislation included in H.R. 3801, the Joint 
Committee's bill.
  This bill, H.R. 4822, is stronger in the following respects:
  It explicitly provides for the application of 10 laws--twice as many 
laws as H.R. 3801 provided for. One of those additional laws is the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act [OSHA], whose omission by the Joint 
Committee was criticized by a number of witnesses at our subcommittee 
hearings, and which is probably the most visible example of laws which 
private-sector employers must comply with, but from which Congress has 
exempted itself.
  This bill also ensures coverage of all employees of the legislative 
branch. H.R. 3801 simply provided for a study of the coverage of 
employees of the Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, 
and other congressional instrumentalities.
  It makes the Office of Compliance a more independent entity by 
providing that the Executive Director shall be appointed by the Board 
of Directors, rather than by the House and Senate Leadership, as H.R. 
3801 provided.
  This bill ensures that congressional employees will continue to be 
covered under the various laws we already apply here in the House until 
the new regulations developed by the Office of Compliance take effect. 
H.R. 3801 left continuation of coverage in question.
  It gives more authority to the Office of Compliance to apply the laws 
to Congress by providing that the regulations they issue will 
automatically take effect unless Congress rejects them by a resolution 
of disapproval. H.R. 3801 required Congress to act to approve the 
regulations before they could take effect.
  Again, to emphasize--particularly for those Members who have 
criticized the delay in action on the Joint Committee's proposals--the 
bill we are considering today is a much stronger, and much more 
effective, version of the Joint Committee's proposal. And, the 
improvement is due in large part to the fact that we took the time over 
the last few months to hold several days of hearings on this 
legislation and to engage in many informal discussions on ways the 
Joint Committee's proposal could be strengthened.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Accountability Act is aptly named; it 
will in fact make Members of Congress significantly more accountable 
for our actions as employers of the thousands of legislative branch 
employees. Perhaps just as importantly, it will give us a better 
understanding of the effects of laws every private sector employer must 
live under and, hopefully, lead to more diligence and care and 
accountability for the laws we pass.
  I urge the adoption of House Resolution 514 so that the House can 
proceed with consideration of this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker. I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time I might consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, adoption of this rule will mark the death of 
congressional reform. Yes, we all heard about the agreement between the 
Speaker and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]. It called for 
separating off the application of laws section from the report of the 
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, which has happened 
here with this rule, and holding a floor vote on the rest of the reform 
package sometime in September.
  That agreement, like past agreements to allow the full House to 
debate congressional reform, was written in fool's ink. There is no way 
the Democrat leadership is going to allow an effective reform bill onto 
this House floor. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] was right 
the first time in referring to H.R. 3801 when he said, ``Separating off 
the compliance proposal will kill the rest of the package.''
  Sure enough. Democrats on the Committee on Rules are upstairs now 
planning to gut H.R. 3801. Biennial appropriations, gone. Committee and 
subcommittee assignment limitations, gone. The de minimis rule to 
abolish unpopular committees, gone. The publication of committee 
attendance and voting records, gone. Allowing independent factfinders 
to investigate ethics violations, gone.
  When the Committee on Rules gets done with the Joint Committee's 
recommendations, it will consist of just two provisions: The budget 
control bill that the House passed last month, and pay raises for House 
committee staff.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. Speaker, adoption of this rule will complete the Democrat 
leadership's divide and conquer strategy. It will allow them to kill 
two congressional reform birds with one stone. It is well known that 
the Joint Office of Compliance, which is contained in the Shays-Swett 
bill, is not popular with the other body. So there is little likelihood 
that Congress will have an effective compliance and enforcement law 
this year.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleagues do not have to go along with this reform 
charade. If we defeat the previous question on this rule, I intend to 
offer an amendment to the rule that would allow for an amendment to the 
Shays-Swett bill consisting of H.R. 3801, the recommendations of the 
Joint Committee, which would be open to further amendment under the 5-
minute rule.
  In addition, if the previous question is defeated, my amendment also 
provides for an open rule--the ultimate congressional reform--for 
consideration of the Shays-Swett bill. An open rule would allow the 
gentleman from Loveland, CO [Mr. Allard] to offer his amendment to 
require congressional compliance with all of the laws, not just those 
that relate to the terms and conditions of employment.
  An open rule would allow the gentleman from West Chester, OH [Mr. 
Boehner] to offer his amendment to apply the Freedom of Information Act 
to the nonlegislative offices of the Congress. It would allow the 
gentleman from Jacobus, PA [Mr. Goodling] to offer his very thoughtful 
amendment on personal liability and punitive damages. It would allow 
the gentleman from Oklahoma City [Mr. Istook] to offer his amendment to 
allow congressional employees to bring administrative and civil actions 
to enforce the application of laws.
  Finally, an open rule would allow the gentleman from Shrewsbury, MA 
[Mr. Blute] to offer his amendment to require that all of the elements 
of any health care reform bill passed by Congress apply to all Members 
of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, many of these amendments, obviously, are controversial, 
but they deserve to be debated here on the House floor so that the 
American people will know who's serious about applying the laws to 
Congress, and who's not. More important, by voting to defeat the 
previous question, the American people will be able to distinguish 
between those who are serious about ending institutional inertia, and 
those who are only interested in reform as a public relations gimmick.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information.

Roll Call Votes in the Committee on Rules During Mark-up of H.R. 4822, 
         Congressional Accountability Act Friday, July 29, 1994

       1. Dreier Motion to Postpone to Date Certain--It is moved 
     to postpone consideration of H.R. 4822 to the day on which 
     the committee considers H.R. 3801, the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act of 1994. Rejected: 3-4. Yeas: Solomon, 
     Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost and 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon 
     and Quillen.
       2. Dreier Amendment--An amendment to clarify that 
     committees may not amend bills implementing compliance 
     regulations and that the process for considering implementing 
     bills cannot be waived, altered or suspended by special rule, 
     order, motion or unanimous consent. Rejected: 3-4. Yeas: 
     Solomon, Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson 
     and Frost. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Gordon. Slaughter 
     and Quillen.
                                  ____


  Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Rule for 
 H.R. 4822 Congressional Accountability Act of 1994 Tuesday, August 9, 
                                  1994

       1. Substitute Open Rule Plus--The substitute rule would 
     provide for two-hours of general debate divided between the 
     Rules and House Administration Committee. Following an open 
     amendment process on H.R. 4822 it would be in order for Reps. 
     Hamilton or Dreier to offer a further amendment at the end of 
     the bill consisting of the text of H.R. 3801, the Legislative 
     Reorganization Act. All points of order against the amendment 
     are waived. It would first be in order for Reps. Hamilton and 
     Dreier to offer one amendment each in 8 specified subject 
     areas of the bill. Any amendment adopted would become base 
     text for the purpose of further amendment under the five-
     minute rule. If Rep. Hamilton offers an amendment as an 
     alternative to an amendment by Rep. Dreier, both would be 
     voted on and if both were adopted the one receiving the most 
     votes would be considered the one adopted and would become 
     base text for the purpose of amendment. Following the 
     disposition of the Hamilton and Dreier amendments, the bill 
     would be open to further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. (Vote: Defeated 3-6) Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. 
     Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Quillen.
       2. Open Rule--Two-hour general debate divided between the 
     Rules and House Administration Committees with an open 
     amendment process. (Vote: Defeated 3-6) Yeas--Solomon, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, 
     Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Quillen.
       3. Dreier Amendment--Amendment #1 submitted by Rep. Dreier 
     would be made in order in addition to the other amendments 
     provided for in the rule and would be considered under the 
     procedures described in #1 above. All points of order are 
     waived against the amendment. (Vote: Defeated 3-6) Yeas--
     Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, 
     Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Gordon, 
     Quillen.
       4. Allard (CO)--Amends section 3(b) to require the Office 
     of Compliance to study all laws from which Congress is exempt 
     (not just those that relate to the terms and conditions of 
     employment), and determine whether they should be applied to 
     Congress. (Vote: Defeated 3-6) Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss. 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. 
     Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Quillen.
       5. Boehner (OH)-- Applies the Freedom of Information Act to 
     the nonlegislative offices of the Legislative branch. (Vote: 
     Defeated 3-6) Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Quillen.
       6. Blute (MA)--Requires that any health reform bill passed 
     by Congress may apply to all Members of Congress. (Vote: 
     Defeated 3-6) Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Quillen.
       7. Goodling (PA)--Authorizes hearing board to award 
     punitive damages of up to $50,000; makes head of employing 
     office (Including Members) personally liable. (Vote: Defeated 
     3-6) Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, Derrick, 
     Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, 
     Gordon, Quillen.
       8. Istook (OK)--Substitute allows congressional employees 
     to bring administrative and civil actions to enforce 
     application of certain laws; permits the House and Senate to 
     promulgate regulations governing indemnification. (Vote: 
     Defeated 3-6) Yeas--Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Nays--Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Not Voting: 
     Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Quillen.
       9. Adoption of Rule--(Vote: Adopted 6-3) Yeas--Moakley, 
     Derrick, Beilenson, Frost, Wheat, Slaughter. Nays--Solomon, 
     Dreier, Goss. Not Voting: Bonior, Hall, Gordon, Quillen.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           89      24         27       65         73 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Aug. 9, 1994.                                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994).                          
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994).    
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  A: VV (May 19, 1994).            
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  A: 369-49 (May 18, 1994).        
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
H. Res. 431, May 20, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   ................  100 (D-80; R-20)..........  A: Voice Vote (May 23, 1994).    
                                           1995.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 440, May 24, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4385: Natl Hiway System   16 (D-10; R-6)..  5 (D-5; R-0)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 25, 1994).    
                                           Designation.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 443, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4426: For. Ops. Approps,  39 (D-11; R-28).  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 233-191 A: 244-181 (May 25,  
                                           FY 1995.                                                                     1994).                          
H. Res. 444, May 25, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4454: Leg Branch Approp,  43 (D-10; R-33).  12 (D-8; R-4).............  A: 249-177 (May 26, 1994).       
                                           FY 1995.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 447, June 8, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4539: Treasury/Postal     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 236-177 (June 9, 1994).       
                                           Approps 1995.                                                                                                
H. Res. 467, June 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4600: Expedited           N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 240-185 A:Voice Vote (July   
                                           Rescissions Act.                                                             14, 1994).                      
H. Res. 468, June 28, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4299: Intelligence        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 19, 1994).   
                                           Auth., FY 1995.                                                                                              
H. Res. 474, July 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3937: Export Admin. Act   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 14, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 475, July 12, 1994....  O         H.R. 1188: Anti. Redlining in  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 20, 1994).   
                                           Ins.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 482, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3838: Housing & Comm.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 21, 1994).   
                                           Dev. Act.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 483, July 20, 1994....  O         H.R. 3870: Environ. Tech. Act  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 26, 1994).   
                                           of 1994.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 484, July 20, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4604: Budget Control Act  3 (D-2; R-1)....  3 (D-2; R-1)..............  PQ: 245-180 A: Voice Vote (July  
                                           of 1994.                                                                     21, 1994).                      
H. Res. 491, July 27, 1994....  O         H.R. 2448: Radon Disclosure    N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 492, July 27, 1994....  O         S. 208: NPS Concession Policy  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (July 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 494, July 28, 1994....  MC        H.R. 4801: SBA Reauth &        10 (D-5; R-5)...  6 (D-4; R-2)..............  PQ: 215-169 A: 221-161 (July 29, 
                                           Amdmts. Act.                                                                 1994).                          
H. Res. 500, Aug. 1, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4003: Maritime Admin.     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 336-77 (Aug. 2, 1994).        
                                           Reauth..                                                                                                     
H. Res. 501, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         S. 1357: Little Traverse Bay   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Bands.                                                                                                       
H. Res. 502, Aug. 1, 1994.....  O         H.R. 1066: Pokagon Band of     N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 3, 1994).    
                                           Potawatomi.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 507, Aug. 4, 1994.....  O         H.R. 4217: Federal Crop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 5, 1994).    
                                           Insurance.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 509, Aug. 5, 1994.....  MC        H.J. Res. 373/H.R. 4590: MFN   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Aug. 9, 1994).    
                                           China Policy.                                                                                                
H. Res. 513, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4906: Emergency Spending  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Control Act.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 512, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4907: Full Budget         N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Disclosure Act.                                                                                              
H. Res. 514, Aug. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 4822: Cong.               33 (D-16; R-17).  16 (D-10; R-6)............  .................................
                                           Accountability.                                                                                              
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett], one of the 
cosponsors of this bill.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the members of the 
Committee on Rules and particularly the members who are here 
officiating floor debate, the gentlemen from California, Mr. Beilenson 
and Mr. Dreier, for the very good effort that they have put into this 
legislation. I understand the concerns of the member from the minority 
side. I certainly have privately and will publicly pledge my support to 
him in those things that he talked about achieving.
  I believe September is a month in which we can accomplish the other 
half of H.R. 3801 that has not been brought forward with this piece of 
legislation, but today I want to speak about this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. The Rules 
Committee has produced a good rule that brings a strong bill to the 
floor--a bill this body can be proud of and which we should pass.
  The rule makes 14 amendments in order, almost all of which are 
strengthening amendments. It enables us to consider a comprehensive, 
even historic, bill that will bring Congress under 10 important laws 
from which we are now exempt, either wholly or in part. This is a long 
overdue step for the legislative branch, and this rule will enable us 
to take it.
  There are amendments that were not made in order which Congressman 
Shays and I asked the Rules Committee to make in order. Application of 
FOIA was in our bill, for instance, and we asked the Rules Committee to 
make Mr. Boehner's amendment in order. The committee didn't do so. But 
the House Administration Committee did include study language in the 
bill on FOIA. So Mr. Boehner and the rest of us will live to fight that 
battle again another day. When that day comes, I may well be by his 
side. But, in my judgment, there is not a single amendment which has 
not been made in order which justifies torpedoing this rule and, by 
extension, this bill.
  No structured rule will meet with everyone's approval. But we should 
not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Against all expectations and 
odds, a strong congressional compliance bill has reached the floor and 
is now before us. I urge my colleagues not to throw away this 
opportunity to keep faith with our constituents and bring Congress into 
full compliance with our Nation's laws.
  Let us get this job done. Please support the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the ranking Republican on the Committee 
on Rules, a very hard-working member of the now defunct Joint Committee 
on the Organization of Congress.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, who is the vice 
chairman of the now defunct joint committee, which seems to be going 
nowhere.
  I join my colleague in urging defeat of the previous question so that 
we can consider this bill and a congressional reform amendment under an 
open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, here we are again, taking another piece 
out of the congressional reform bill on which our joint committee 
worked so long and so hard last year. This is the second attempt to gut 
this important bill and move it to the bottom of everybody's priority 
around here. I think it is ironic that the leadership inaction on 
congressional reform has brought us full circle to what gave birth to 
this joint reform committee back in 1992.
  That committee was formed in the wake of scandals in this House and 
also in the other body. It had the full backing of the bipartisan and 
bicameral leadership in this House. And now the Democrat leadership is 
fully backing away from the modest set of reform proposals reported 
from that committee.
  In so doing it is creating a new scandal in this House, a new scandal 
in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the scandal of trying to sweep 
reform under the rug and avoid doing what needs to be done to overhaul 
the legislative structures and practices of this Congress is a shame.
  In the joint committee's opening hearing, January 26 of last year, I 
want Members to listen to this, Mr. Speaker, listen to this, we had the 
unprecedented panel of the Speaker of the House and the majority and 
minority leaders of the House, of both houses appear before our joint 
committee. The Speaker did. And at that time the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Foley], and I quote, said this:
  ``I did take a strong position in support of this bipartisan, 
bicameral joint committee last year.'' He went on to say, ``I have come 
to believe that this is a process that not only can work but must 
work.''
  Those are the Speaker's words. And the Speaker concluded his 
statement by saying, ``I pledge to you my willingness to support you in 
any way that I can, and I wish you well.''
  Well, thanks a lot, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, that congressional reform bill has been languishing in 
committees for the last 6 months. Where, Mr. Speaker, has that support 
gone? Deadline after deadline for House action has slipped from last 
fall to last spring, now to the late summer. How far can it slip?
  Now we are told we may get to a token vote on this package sometime 
in September before we adjourn, when, of course, Mr. Speaker, it is too 
late to get anything through the conference and signed into law.

                              {time}  1340

  So much for congressional reform. That is a scandal. The rule before 
us will allow us to consider just one piece of that comprehensive 
reform package, the so-called Congressional Accountability Act, under a 
modified closed rule. Members are being gagged. Legitimate amendments, 
filed from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, have 
been shut out of this process today, while a nongermane Democrat 
amendment has been allowed.
  Mr. Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me how the majority leadership, 
with a straight face, can jam so-called reform bills through this House 
under undemocratic procedures. Whose idea of reform is it to 
disenfranchise Members of this House from representing their 
constituents, and exercising their constitutional rights to make the 
rules of the House?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is entitled the Congressional Accountability 
Act of 1994. It is a meritorious proposal and it is long overdue. We 
are going to vote for it. We should have brought ourselves under the 
laws we impose on others long ago. That is what Madison had in mind in 
the Federalist Paper No. 57 when he said, and think about this, almost 
200 years ago, he said, ``One of the strongest bonds'' that can connect 
the rulers with the people and restrain rulers from ``oppressive 
measures'' is that ``they can make no law that will not have its full 
operation on themselves,'' that means us, ``that will not have its full 
operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass 
of society.''
  Mr. Speaker, how far we have strayed from that principle. But we have 
other steps to take if we truly want to restore the kind of 
congressional accountability that will again bind us to our 
constituents and earn their respect and their approval of the Members 
and I in this Congress.
  We need to act now on comprehensive congressional reform. That is why 
every man and woman in this body ought to vote down the previous 
question and bring this bill back on the floor under an open rule, so 
that each and every one of the 435 Members can represent their 
constituency on the floor of this House. I dare you to do that. You 
would be proud of yourselves.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, as I am listening to this debate, I 
thought of something I heard on television this morning. One of the 
commentators said ``The bad news is the baseball folks are going on 
strike, and the even worse news is that Congress cancelled recess.'' If 
we listen to this debate, I think we would really believe it.
  What we are doing here today, Mr. Speaker, is very historic, and 
people have been waiting for this a long time. I do not think there are 
very many people in the Chambers who have more scars than I do from 
waiting for this for such a long time.
  Way back in 1976 a group of us tried to do this with the House Fair 
Employment Practices Act, because I think one of the things the 
American people wanted the most was to make sure we lived under the 
same laws we passed, very simple.
  It was like we had worn a bathing suit to church. There were about 
100 Members who signed up, and there were, obviously, a lot of Members 
who did not sign up, but we tried to run that year after year after 
year. We were not given space, we had to run it out of our own office, 
we had to run it through our own phone numbers, and every other such 
thing.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Lynn Martin and I were able to 
get another office created that made it a broader base, but we had 
great suspicion that it had been weakened so much that it was not 
working very well. Last year when we asked the Government Accounting 
Office to look at that, they found that they agreed with us.
  Here today we have the great ability to form this Office of 
Compliance that once and for all is going to end this issue, and be 
under some independent boards, and let us do that. I really, really 
salute the gentlemen from Connecticut, Mr. Shays and Mr. Swett, and the 
gentlemen from California, Mr. Beilenson and Mr. Dreier, who sat 
through all those hearings, too.
  All of us want reform. We have to get this reform, which is first and 
foremost, I think, done.
  If you are the American people listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, 
it gets very confusing. When we come to health care reform, everybody 
says ``We cannot do that. It is too broad.'' Today we are trying to do 
this reform, and everybody is saying ``No, we cannot do that, it is not 
enough. It ought to be bigger.''
  This is a chance to do some very important reform that many of us 
have thought was long overdue, and it is now here. Mr. Speaker, I would 
hope we would all join together, get this done, bring this to closure, 
put the employees here on the Hill under the laws that we pass for 
everyone else, and that we can move on and do other reforms as they 
come forward.
  However, this is not something that just popped up and it is just one 
little piece. This one is further developed. We have a much longer 
track record on it. We know the problems of what we have in place, and 
why it needs to be changed.
  Mr. Speaker, many of the people sitting here listening to this debate 
sat through incredible long hearings understanding that, so we now have 
a real basis to make a change the American public has never understood 
was not there. So I urge everyone to vote for the rule and get on with 
it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Jacobus, PA [Mr. Goodling], the ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Education and Labor, who has a very thoughtful 
amendment that unfortunately was denied under this rule.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, long before 70 percent of the Members in the House at 
this point came to the Congress of the United States, I was pushing for 
congressional accountability. In the Committee on Education and Labor, 
on which I have served the entire time, on every piece of labor 
legislation which has come before us, I said ``What about us? What 
about those of us who are writing the law? Shouldn't we be covered?''
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, as the Committee on 
Rules has offered it. I very much regret that the proposed rule does 
not allow me to offer an amendment, an amendment which was passed 
unanimously in the Committee on Education and Labor, the only committee 
that has dealt with the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no good reason in the world why Members of 
Congress and other legislative branch employers should be treated any 
differently than other employers. Nonetheless, without my amendment, 
while any private sector employer in any of our districts faces the 
possibility not only of being sued by an employee for back pay, 
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, in some cases, and 
punitive damages under civil rights laws, apparently the leadership of 
the House wants to shield us from that liability.

  Every time we have had a debate on whether Congress should be covered 
or not, any time we have had a debate on we should have punitive 
damages and compensatory damages in all the legislation that we have 
passed, people get up and say ``Yes, you must have it. Yes, you must 
have it. If you don't, no one will pay any attention to the law.''
  However, when it comes to us, that is a different story. We will pay 
attention to the law, because we are Members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, 
it will not work, and we positively need my amendment in this 
legislation.
  If this bill's prohibition on punitive damages, which is what I am 
offering, remains, then let us not go home and tell our constituents, 
especially our employer constituents, that we are being treated the 
same way they are being treated. That is the farthest thing from the 
truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly an abuse by the Committee on 
Rules to try to prevent my amendment when, as I said, it was passed 
unanimously in the Committee on Education and Labor, the only committee 
that dealt with the issue.
  When we were discussing my amendment before the Committee on Rules, 
and the kind of liability and damages that every private sector 
employer faces every day, the suggestion was made by one of the members 
of the Committee on Rules that perhaps, instead of extending punitive 
damages and personal liability to the legislative branch, we ought to 
remove such damages from the employment laws as they apply to the 
private sector.
  Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. All I can say is that I hope 
that those who vote for the rule, and therefore against the inclusion 
of the same remedies and damages that private employers face, will 
indeed join me in seeking to repeal the same provisions as they apply 
against employers in our district. I would hope that we would have that 
open rule so we can treat ourselves just the same way we treat every 
private employer in this country.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 6 
minutes to our friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not see the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] 
still in the Chamber. I must say that the gap between his rhetoric and 
reality was unusually large today, even for him.
  I was struck by the theatrical force of his addressing Speaker Foley 
time and again as ``Mr. Speaker'' in the full knowledge that, of 
course, Speaker Foley was nowhere in the room, and that someone else 
was serving as Speaker. I am not surprised that the absent Speaker 
Foley was not able to respond to the gentleman's forceful invocation of 
his name.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], if 
he would like, since he has returned, unlike Speaker Foley.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to quote my good 
friend, the Speaker, the gentleman from Washington [Tom Foley], because 
he meant what he said. Now I want him to follow through on it. I thank 
the gentleman for allowing me to say that.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, thank the gentleman. My 
point was that the gentleman was, with great theatrical flare, 
addressing remarks to a Speaker Foley who was absent, and unless the 
gentleman's eyesight has also deteriorated very substantially, he would 
have known that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I 
think the Speaker was watching it on TV, though.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman, of course, has no more 
idea about that than he has about the rest of what he said.
  The point, Mr. Speaker----
  Mr. SOLOMON. Be careful. You could have your words taken down.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that saying 
that someone has no clear idea of what he is talking about can be taken 
down. Factual discussions about the gap between reality and rhetoric 
are fully in order.
  I do want to concede to the gentleman error can be instructive.

                              {time}  1350

  Why did we get this kind of gap? Because we now know that there is 
something that makes Republicans angrier than Congress not applying the 
laws to itself. What is that? It is when Congress applies the laws to 
itself. Because what we are hearing is the desperately unhappy cry of 
people who see themselves losing an issue.
  We are daring today to do the right thing, and that confounds my 
friends. I think it was Mark Twain who said, ``Tell the truth. You will 
confound your enemies and astound your friends,'' something like that. 
He said it better.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing today in a bipartisan way, this is the 
Swett-Shays bill, it is primarily offered by the gentleman from 
Connecticut, a Republican, and the gentleman from New Hampshire, a 
Democrat. It will contrary to what James Madison did, because the 
gentleman misunderstood James Madison, James Madison wrote into the 
U.S. Constitution precisely the sorts of exemptions the gentleman takes 
exception to.
  The reason why the laws do not apply here, the reason we have some 
exemption from arrests, they were written into the Constitution by 
James Madison. We are changing hundreds of years of British and 
American parliamentary tradition by subjecting this institution to the 
laws. That is a drastic breakthrough for which all of us should be 
taking credit. But my Republican friends are terrified that someone 
might think that Congress did something good, and that would, of 
course, ruin their day. So they will denigrate unfairly this 
extraordinarily important achievement which will give the employees, 
and by the way, we are not on the whole talking about our individual 
congressional employees but the employees of the Architect and the 
police and those other people, but it will apply to everybody, they 
will get rights they have not previously gotten, thanks to the efforts 
of the gentleman from Connecticut, the gentleman from New Hampshire, I 
was glad to be able to help, and the Speaker agreed with that. That is 
where we are today. We are in fact changing hundreds of years.
  The argument goes back to Queen Elizabeth and King Henry, when people 
felt that the executive would use the enforcement power to coerce the 
legislative branch. That is an outdated idea. It should be changed. By 
the way, enthusiasm for changing it is not always uniform.
  A few years ago when the restaurant employees sought the right to 
organize and bargain collectively, myself, the gentleman from Missouri 
who chairs the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the 
gentleman from California who chairs the Subcommittee on Civil and 
Constitution Rights, and others, we tried to give them that right. We 
got no help on the Republican side. I approached Republicans, and they 
said, ``Well, that's labor law, we don't agree with that. We're not 
going to support it.'' We pushed hard for it and we got no support. I 
am glad we are doing what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, the question now is, are we doing something terrible 
because we are doing something good, but we are not doing something 
else the gentleman wants. And here is the argument. By separating 
whether or not the laws should apply to Congress as an institution, 
regarding discrimination and safety and health, et cetera, is that a 
terrible thing because we are not at the same time and in the same bill 
reforming committee procedure and voting? No, I think we are doing the 
right thing. In fact, it is the people on the other side who are trying 
to join two things which in my judgment have a great degree of 
separation. One question: Should the laws apply to people who work 
here? The answer to that, it seems to me, is clearly yes.
  The second question: How many committees should we have? Should there 
be proxy voting? Et cetera. Those are not the same questions. To insist 
that we not extend the rights that we are now extending to thousands of 
people unless we simultaneously can achieve a consensus on how many 
committees there ought to be and whether or not there is proxy voting 
is in fact to denigrate those rights. And in fact I predict if we had 
done it the other way, we would have heard the same complaints, in fact 
more loudly. ``How dare you hold up their rights until you solve the 
other problem.'' We are doing the right thing for once and my friends 
on the other side cannot stand it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend by saying that the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] made it very clear, dividing up 
the issue of congressional compliance would kill congressional reform. 
That is what the chairman on the Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress said in his statement.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. We do not have much more time on this side because there 
are so many Members who want to celebrate the victory on this.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yielded to the gentleman from New York. 
The gentleman will not yield to me?
  Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] would 
yield to the gentleman, I would be happy to engage the gentleman in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yielded on my time to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. That is because the gentleman has very few requests 
because this is something that Members on this side are genuinely more 
concerned about it seems than the other side.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman will not yield to me?
  Mr. DREIER. Possibly the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] 
might yield.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time.
  I am impressed by the gentleman from California's example of openness 
by alluding to me and then refusing to yield to me as I had yielded to 
the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. DREIER. I was confident my friend the gentleman from California 
would yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. This is my time. I would ask the 
gentleman to withhold because I do want to use the time well.
  The point that the chairman of the joint committee said something 
does not seem to me to be conclusive. I have as the gentleman from 
California has from time to time voted against the chairman. The 
invocation of authority is a poor logical argument. In fact what the 
gentleman is saying is do not extend the rights to these workers unless 
we can also come to an agreement on the unrelated complicated subject 
of committee procedure and structure. I think that is unfair to these 
workers.
  They are entitled to have these rights, they should have had them a 
long time ago. And to say that they cannot get them until we and the 
Senate can come to another set of agreements on another set of issues 
is unfair to them.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we hope very much 
that we can deal with the issue of congressional compliance and all the 
other items that have been brought before us, and I would say that I 
did not hear the gentleman from Massachusetts testify before the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress along with 130 some odd 
Members who did agree to testify before the joint committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston], a hard-working member of the Committee 
on House Administration.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if I could paraphrase what I heard a 
minute ago, the question was whether there should be congressional 
accountability and reform over the way Congress does business, and the 
answer was yes, but not too much.
  I rise today to urge the defeat of the previous question. Yet I 
support the underlying concept of H.R. 4822, the Congressional 
Accountability Act.
  This bill will ultimately--we hope, and in a more improved fashion, 
if the previous question is defeated--force Congress to obey the same 
Federal employment labor laws that Congress has applied to the the 
private sector. American businesses face enormous challenges, securing 
an establishment, maintaining inventory, selling products, hiring 
employees, and complying with the Federal, State, and local 
regulations. While most of these challenges are expected, I think no 
business individual is ever adequately prepared for the devastating 
impact of Government regulations which seem to become ever more 
burdensome with each passing year. To legally operate a business, an 
entrepreneur must comply with literally thousands of Federal 
regulations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Employment 
Opportunity Act of 1972, the Equal Pay Act, the Equal Labor Standards 
Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, and the list goes on and on. 
Complying with these and other Federal mandates is no small endeavor. 
However, the Congress overlooking its own 40,000 employees, 
conveniently and routinely exempts itself from its own laws.
  It pains me deeply to listen to entrepreneurs describe the tremendous 
burdens we place on them, costing the American people greatly in 
productivity and jobs. Perhaps some Members of Congress functioning 
under the same laws which they deem necessary for the private sector 
may learn firsthand what businesses have been experiencing for years.
  I commend the various Members who have contributed so much to the 
issue of congressional compliance. However, I was very disappointed 
with the Democrat leadership's decision to separate the issue of 
congressional compliance from the Joint Committee on the Organization 
of Congress' comprehensive reform bill. This action has greatly 
jeopardized the passage of a complete JCOC reform package.
  While H.R. 4822 is a significant step forward, the leadership has 
missed a tremendous opportunity to address some very important 
institutional reform matters. Let us defeat the previous question, 
allow the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Allard], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Istook], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute], and perhaps 
others to offer their reformation amendments under a fully open rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Naperville, IL [Mr. Fawell], another hard-working members of the 
Committee on Education and Labor.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in opposition to the rule, but I am in strong support of the 
Congressional Accountability Act. We have all heard the old phrase that 
Congress would exempt itself from the law of gravity if we thought we 
could get away with it. We have tried to get away with it for a long, 
long time. We have a chance here, however, to go in the right 
direction. I am not so sure that this will survive over in the Senate, 
I think it will pass the House, and we shall be quite happy about that.

                              {time}  1400

  It is not perfect. It can be taking too great a first step in 
attempting to actually apply 10 separate labor law statutes at the same 
time, especially when we combine with the Senate and put them under the 
same administrative rules and under the same judicial remedies. But I 
repeat, it is in the right direction.
  But also, we have to remember that at this time we do not know the 
specifics as to the manner in which these statutes will be made 
applicable to the Congress. We did not put that in the legislation. 
That has to be determined at a later date by the Office of Compliance.
  But we do know at least that the employees will have the right to 
sue, the right to use the same remedies as authorized in the private 
sector when a Member of Congress may violate the provisions of any of 
these 10 statutes. That would include even the right of an aggrieved 
employee to sue a Member of Congress in Federal court before a jury, 
and compensatory damages, attorneys fees, et cetera, if the underlying 
statute allows this in the private sector.
  But the bill, however, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling] pointed out, exempts Members of Congress from punitive 
damages. In addition, I ask Members to think about this, in addition, 
it has the taxpayers indemnifying Members of Congress whenever a 
compensatory damage, pain, and suffering judgment may be brought 
against them, or whenever they are obligated under a court order to pay 
for the attorneys fees of the employee who brings the lawsuit. The 
Members are also allowed to use the general counsel with nothing coming 
out of their own pockets in order to defend themselves. That does not 
exist in the private sector, but I rejoice yet in this bill because we 
can always come back and, I think, try to take care of those matters. 
We are not going to fool the public. They will understand, of course, 
that we are protecting ourselves by fully indemnifying ourselves from 
all damages which Members may incur--at taxpayer expense.
  But I repeat, this is a very important day, and certainly the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Swett] should be congratulated. They bipartisanly faced 
this problem, and they have done quite a job. I repeat, I do not think 
it probably will make it through the Senate, but next year we will have 
an even stronger case.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Coppersmith). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson] has 13 minutes remaining, and the other 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Westchester, OH [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier] for yielding the time on this very 
important debate.
  Virtually 3 years ago today, I and the other 42 Members of my class, 
elected in 1990 and taking office in 1991, stood on the lawn of the 
Capitol with two very important Members of this body at that time, the 
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hamilton, a Democrat, and Mr. Gradison from 
Ohio, a Republican, pledging our support for this concept of creating a 
Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress. We had been here a 
mere 7 months and understood at that time pretty clearly that Congress 
is broken and something needs to happen.
  What happened when we stood there on the lawn that day, several weeks 
later the House bank scandal came along, the House restaurant scandal 
came along, the post office scandal came along, a debate about the 
Ethics Committee on whether we were going to have full disclosure on 
what happened in the bank, and finally in June 1992, under heat, 
Congress passed a resolution setting up the joint committee.
  We spent a year in the joint committee, held numerous hearings, 
hundreds of Members of Congress coming and testifying, over 40 
different issues that we all know have to be addressed. And what 
happened? Nothing.
  Today we are going to take one small part of that, an important part 
of that, but only one small part of that, and we are going to debate it 
in the Congressional Accountability Act, which I support.
  One of the issues we were dealing with during that discussion was 
deliberation on the floor and Members' ability to come here with their 
ideas and to offer those ideas for the Members to vote on if they liked 
them. I was denied an amendment in this bill that would require 
Congress to adopt FOIA for the nonlegislative areas of this body. It 
was not made in order. And why should Congress come under FOIA? Because 
if we had the Freedom of Information Act like we have downtown in the 
executive branch we would have never had a House bank scandal, we would 
have never had a post office scandal, we would have never had a scandal 
in the House restaurant system. If the American people and the press 
could ask what happens here, if they could see how we spend our money 
day in and day out, Members might be little more careful. But because 
we do not have FOIA, those things have happened, and that is history. 
But to not allow me to offer the amendment on the floor today is 
exactly what is wrong with this body.
  We should defeat the previous question and bring up real 
congressional reform today.
  Mr. DRIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman 
from Loveland, CO [Mr. Allard], another member of the Joint Committee 
on the Reorganization of Congress.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Drier] for yielding me the time, and compliment him for his fine 
leadership on this particular issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I strongly support the 
concept that we need to change the way that Congress does business. I 
served in the Colorado State Legislature, as many Members here did, and 
having seen the way they do business, we come to the Congress and find 
many things we did in the State legislature that had accountability, 
that made citizens feel good about what was happening in the State 
legislature. Then we come to Congress and we find that things are not 
near as open as that; there is not near as much accountability.
  I serve on the Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress, and 
I like the idea and pushed the concepts of making Congress live under 
the same laws as everybody else has to live under. I think it is in the 
concept of a citizen legislature, and something we need to preserve. I 
think we are losing that.
  So I think this is a very important issue we have coming up, and 
there are a number of amendments that would address that. But our 
committee was set up on the reorganization of Congress, and I see a lot 
of issues that are not going to be addressed today. That is why I am 
opposed to the rule.
  I think we ought to give our Members more opportunity to bring up 
issues that deal with how we are going to do business in the Congress. 
We are not talking that much about committee numbers, but what we are 
going to do to reduce the number committees with proxy voting. The 
Ethics Committee--we took a lot of testimony on the Ethics Committee 
and what are we going to do about improving the management of the 
Congress. There is duplication of efforts on both the Senate and House 
side, and we do not have any means of looking at that in a serious 
manner to try and have some accountability.
  What about the budget process and the floor process itself? These are 
all issues Members should have an opportunity to bring to the floor and 
talk about, but because of the modified open rule, many Members are not 
going to have an opportunity to do that.
  We took hours and hours of testimony in the Committee on the 
Reorganization of Congress discussing these issues. So I just rise in 
opposition because I think we ought to have more opportunity to bring 
about really true, meaningful change in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. DRIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Bellevue, WA [Ms. Dunn], another member of the Joint Committee on the 
Reorganization of Congress, and a member of the House Administration 
Committee as well, a hardworking freshman.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the previous question with the 
hope that the third time is the charm. This is the third time I have 
risen to ask my colleagues to deliver on what they promised: 
comprehensive congressional reform.
  By this time we all know the story. The well-publicized Joint 
Committee on the Reorganization of Congress was created as a response 
to the internal crisis that wracked the House of Representatives. The 
bipartisan promise was for bold reforms to address a variety of 
shortcomings. The result would be a Congress that was more responsive, 
more deliberative in its lawmaking.
  Now, as Paul Harvey would say, comes the rest of the story. The joint 
committee, of which I was a member, fizzled, but it still put forth a 
product that would at least be a proper starting point for debate on 
real congressional reform. The Congressional Accountability Act was a 
crucial component of that product.
  Now, in a conscious effort to derail other crucial reforms, we are 
asked to consider the Congressional Accountability Act in splendid 
isolation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Accountability Act is splendid, but it 
should not be considered in isolation. It should be considered as part 
of a complete overhaul of this institution: Scheduling reform to end 
the mindless and frenetic back and forth around this place, committee 
reforms to end the useless turf battles between committees, proxy 
reform to force Members to show up at committee meetings to hear the 
debate and maybe learn a thing or two and to vote on the topic.

                              {time}  1410

  And lastly, Mr. Speaker, sunshine to end the defenseless practices of 
passing laws behind closed doors.
  I urge my colleagues, and most especially my fellow freshmen Members 
who wrapped themselves in the mantle of reform, defeat the previous 
question, and bring to the floor the joint committee's entire bill, 
including congressional accountability, so we can reform this embattled 
institution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], a real reformer, a hard worker in this House, my 
friend from Casper, WY.
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I am disappointed that 
reform could not have taken more change. We are absolutely certain we 
need to do more change here.
  Almost everything has been said about the benefits of this bill. I 
support it.
  I feel strongly about it and, therefore, I want to add my voice to 
that.
  Let me say simply there is absolutely no justification for the 
Congress not to live under the same set of rules established for 
everyone else. One of the principles of good and fair governance is 
that those making the rules should live under them, and I strongly 
support the passage of this bill and again express my disappointment 
that it cannot be broader in terms of the reform mechanism.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma City, OK [Mr. Istook], a freshman Member who unfortunately was 
denied an opportunity to offer his amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  I think it is important to mention what is really going on here, 
because frequently it has not been pointed out. On a scale of 1 to 10 
this bill may merit a 3, but a lot of people are talking about it as 
though it is a 10.
  They say this subjects Congress to the same rules that everybody else 
lives under. That is not true. This bill says, when it comes to labor 
and employment laws, that Congress will have an Office of Compliance 
set up by the Congress that will decide how things will apply to us. 
Everyone else in the country, Mr. Speaker, has to go before the Labor 
Department, and the bureaucrats. They have to go through thousands of 
pages of Federal regulations. They have to deal with the EEOC, the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Under this legislation, 
Congress would remain exempt. It continues a special, preferred status 
for Members of Congress.
  Yes, the bill does have a good point where it does provide that a 
Member of Congress ultimately could be sued for violating labor 
standards as interpreted not by the same bureaucrats that interpret it 
for everyone else but by our internal Office of Compliance. It 
maintains special treatment.
  Now, if you look at any businessman who has to deal with things, the 
problem is not just the law. The problem is also dealing with the 
administrative agencies, and Members of Congress would not have to do 
so under this bill.
  I offered an amendment which the Committee on Rules refused to permit 
that would have said Members of Congress not only are covered by the 
same laws but by the same interpretations, no special Office of 
Compliance to filter out those laws for us, and we would have to be 
accountable before the same administrative agencies as everyone else.
  Let me give you just one example which is in the bill: OSHA, 
Occupational Safety and Health Act, if there is a violation of OSHA 
under the interpretation of the Office of Compliance, instead of having 
to do something immediately, the bill says you get until the end of the 
fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the violation occurred, 
which means you have 2 years. Give a businessman that same break.
  Congress will never respond to the problem of overregulation until we 
have to deal with the same laws and the same procedures, and if they 
scare us, imagine how they are scaring the businessmen.
  I urge you to oppose the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and classmate, 
the gentleman from Cape Girardeau, MO [Mr. Emerson], a member of the 
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, who probably attended 
more hearings than any other member, who has been involved in the issue 
of reform for a long period of time, having started out as a page here 
on the House floor.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I rise to urge defeat of the previous question so that H.R. 3801 can 
be made in order. We need to consider H.R. 3801 in its totality, 
because reform has many facets that really need attention, not just 
that which the Democratic leadership with its protective agenda deigns 
to allow.
  I am somewhat puzzled as to why we are not permitting H.R. 3801 in 
its totality to be considered. As a matter of fact, it was six 
Democrats and two Republicans that voted to report out of the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress; it is the substance of their 
recommendations that is contained in H.R. 3801.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and I split with the other 
members of our party to report the recommendations of the committee so 
that we could get a full package before the House, because the 
chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], optimistically 
indicated he thought we could achieve so that it would be considered 
under a generous rule and so that the House could work its will on many 
of the reform issues that I believe the House wants to work its will 
on.
  So I urge all of my colleagues, particularly our more junior 
colleagues who ran on a reform platform in 1992, to join us in 
defeating the previous question.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Stamford, CT [Mr. Shays], who has worked long and hard 
on the issue of congressional compliance.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding and say to you that I have such ambivalent feelings because I 
know what it feels like to be in the minority and the frustrations of 
not having opportunities to offer amendments, and I have a sense of 
what it is like to be in the majority in the process of working on this 
legislation.
  I have just been in awe during this process of how Republicans and 
Democrats have worked together to this point. It has been something 
that I get down on my knees mentally in gratitude for, and I wish the 
American people could have seen the House Administration work on this 
bill, the Committee on Rules work on this bill, the various Members 
from both sides of the aisle work on this bill.
  I see the American flag behind me, and the American people love the 
American flag. It is cloth; it means so much, but my honest hope is 
that they will love the institution of Congress as much as they love 
the American flag, this institution that was established by our 
Founding Fathers.
  We may come to some conclusion that 40 years of one-party rule is a 
process that needs to be changed, and we can talk about all of these 
things. But I have to say for the record that when it comes to the 
Congressional Accountability Act, Mr. Foley, Mr. Michel, Mr. Gingrich 
have been so supportive, Mr. Rose, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Moakley, Mr. 
Solomon, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Dreier. We would not be here, ironically, 
with the congressional accountability bill if it were not for the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Dreier, and others, Members on the 
Committee on House Administration, Mr. Goodling, who has fought long 
and hard for this day that has come before us, the gentleman from 
Illinois, Mr. Fawell, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, who 
helped move this bill along when there were certain points that did not 
move forward, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Boehner, in the work he did. 
I look at this, and I see 250 cosponsors for this legislation, 100 
Members of the freshman class. We would not have this bill before us if 
it were not for the 100 Members of the freshman class, both parties. 
They have made all the difference in the world.
  Now we come to this point. I look up there, and I see the cameos of 
the various philosophers, the legislators, and one looks at us straight 
on, and it is Moses. It is the only one. I see Moses look at us head 
on, and I cannot say to you that this is a perfect bill, and I 
certainly cannot say that I do not want my colleagues' amendments 
offered, because I ask that they be, but there is a point now where we 
have to decide whether we kill the rule and move forward or we take 
this rule.
  Everyone is going to have to come to their own conclusion. On my side 
of the aisle, I would hate it if any member was blamed for voting 
against the rule because they did not want congressional 
accountability. We will need some Members on our side of the aisle, in 
my judgment, to support this rule and move the debate forward.
  I say to you, when I hear the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], I 
would have loved to have had that debate. I would have loved to have 
confronted him at every point along the way, when he says the laws will 
not apply. Section 3 says, ``The following laws shall apply,'' and it 
goes down all 10 of those laws. ``They shall apply.'' The difference is 
we took into account we are a separate body. We established an Office 
of Compliance much like the EEOC. That Office of Compliance is 
independent, more independent than I ever dreamed.
  The leadership, both sides, have to appoint it. They are given one 
term. They cannot be reappointed. They have to have experience, but 
they cannot be reappointed.
  They will draft regulations that will conform to the law, and 
Congress only gets to reject them in a concurrent resolution. Those 
regulations will apply unless Congress, House and Senate, reject them 
both.

                              {time}  1420

  I urge my colleagues to trust your heart, do what you think is right. 
I look forward to the debate on the 14 amendments that will make this a 
better bill.
  I will conclude by saying Mr. Swett and I have learned one grand 
lesson: We do not own his bill, it is the House's bill. We have seen 
Members come forward with amendments that we did not know if we liked 
or not. We listened to the debate. We realized that they made the bill 
better.
  This bill has been amended about 20 times. It is a better bill in the 
process.
  This bill is your bill. I hope today we get to vote on it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yielded myself the balance of my time. I 
will say very simply that anyone who votes for the previous question on 
this issue is voting to kill congressional reform. There is a wide 
range of proposals that were debated in the joint committee.
  We are attempting to mark up H.R. 3801 in the Committee on Rules, and 
amendment after amendment is being killed. We have a chance on this 
vote right here to make H.R. 3801 in order. If we can defeat the 
previous question, I plan to do that, which would include the Shays-
Swett language and other items.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Members should know that the members of the Committee on 
Rules this very week started markup on the remainder of H.R. 3801 and 
there will be a further and broader reform bill brought before Members 
before this session ends.
  This particular rule, as Members have heard, makes in order an 
excellent and long-overdue change in the law, a bill that would finally 
apply to Congress those laws which for too many years we have applied 
to other people but not to ourselves. I want to make it clear to 
Members who happen to be listening but have not understood all of the 
discussion that this is in fact a bipartisan bill. The principal 
cosponsors are from both parties.
  I also want to make clear the fact that more than half of the 
amendments that were made in order here under this particular rule, 
which we will be voting on in a very short time, are sponsored by 
either members of the minority party or by bipartisan coalitions of 
majority and minority members.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground of a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  This 15-minute vote may be followed by a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247, 
nays 185, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 386]

                               YEAS--247

     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--185

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meek
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Herger
     Washington
       

                              {time}  1446

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio and Messrs. GREENWOOD, FISH, SMITH of Texas, TAYLOR 
of Mississippi, and ABERCROMBIE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois and Messrs. STENHOLM, STOKES, CLAY, and 
LAUGHLIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House rule XI, in clause (l)(2)(A) reads: 
``No measure or recommendation shall be reported from any committee 
unless a majority of the committee was actually present, which shall be 
deemed the case if the records of the committee establish that a 
majority of the committee responded on a rollcall vote on that 
question.''
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that the rule goes on to say a point of order 
will lie in the House that a quorum was not present unless it was first 
made in the committee.
  But my question is this: If the records of the committee show a 
quorum was not present on a rollcall vote to report a measure, can a 
committee still claim in its report that a quorum was present?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has correctly stated the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. I know I have correctly stated the rule. I wonder if the 
committee can still claim in its report that a quorum was present?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is giving the gentleman credit for 
stating the rule properly. In response to the gentleman's first 
inquiry, the Chair would state that, while it may not be accurate or 
proper for a committee to state in its report that a quorum was present 
if its records show a quorum was not actually present, that is an issue 
which must first be raised and preserved in the committee by a 
committee member for a point of order to survive in the House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, continuing my parliamentary inquiry, can a 
committee report a measure without a quorum being present, even when 
there is a rollcall vote, or must the committee then utilize a rolling 
quorum until an actual majority of the members respond to their names?

                              {time}  1450

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). In response to the gentleman's 
second inquiry, the Chair would state that if a point of no quorum is 
raised by a committee member when the measure is ordered reported, then 
the chairman of the committee must either await the appearance of a 
quorum if there is not to be a rollcall vote, or a rollcall vote must 
reveal a majority of the committee having responded at some point in 
time before the measure is ordered reported.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could pose one final question on my 
parliamentary inquiry, if a committee can order a measure reported with 
less than a majority being present, can the committee report a bill 
with just the chairman present as long as he does not make a point of 
order against himself?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In response to the third inquiry, the Chair 
would state that it would be the responsibility of any and all 
committee members, at a properly convened meeting of the committee, to 
remain available to assure that at the time the measure is ordered 
reported a point of order is made that a quorum is not present in order 
to preserve that point of order in the House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for that very cogent 
explanation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 514 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4822.

                              {time}  1451


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
4822) to make certain laws applicable to the legislative branch of the 
Federal Government, with Mr. Inslee in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] will be 
recognized for 15 minutes; the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
will be recognized for 15 minutes; the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Rose] will be recognized for 15 minutes; and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Accountability Act, which is before 
us, is a strong and a good bill which deserves Members' support and 
vote. I pointed out earlier in the discussion on the rule itself that 
it, in fact, is a much stronger version of the application of laws 
legislation than that which was included originally in H.R. 3801, the 
reform bill of the joint committee.
  This bill is stronger, may I reiterate, in the following respects:
  First, it explicitly provides for the application of 10 laws, twice 
as many laws as H.R. 3801 provided for. One of those additional laws is 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act or OSHA, whose omission by the 
joint committee was criticized by a number of witnesses at our 
subcommittee hearings and which is probably the most visible example of 
laws which private-sector employers must comply with but from which 
Congress has heretofore exempted itself.
  This bill also ensures coverage of all employees of the legislative 
branch, whereas the original bill, H.R. 3801, simply provided for a 
study of the coverage of employees of the various instrumentalities of 
the Congress.
  Third, it makes the Office of Compliance a more independent entity 
than would H.R. 3801 by providing that the Executive Director be 
appointed by the Board of Directors rather than by the House and the 
Senate leadership.
  The bill also ensures that congressional employees will continue to 
be covered by the various laws we already apply here in the House until 
the new regulations developed by the Office of Compliance take effect, 
whereas the original bill, 3801, left continuation of coverage in 
question.
  Finally, it gives more authority to this new Office of Compliance to 
apply the laws to Congress by providing that the regulations they issue 
will automatically take effect unless Congress rejects them by a 
resolution of disapproval. The original bill, 3801, required Congress 
to act to approve the regulations before they could take effect.
  Again, to emphasize, particularly for those Members who may have 
criticized the delay in action on the proposals of the joint committee, 
the bill that we are considering today is a much stronger, much more 
effective version than the original proposal of the joint committee. 
That improvement is due in large part to the fact that we have taken a 
few weeks. We have had some hearings. We have had a lot of help and 
input not only from the Committee on Rules but particularly from the 
Committee on House Administration, from a good many Members on both 
sides of the aisle. We have before us, this Member thinks, a bill of 
which we can be very, very proud and which will make a real difference.
  Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 6 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett], one of the cosponsors of the 
bill along with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], to whom we 
owe credit for this bill before us today.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Rose for 
recognizing me and, more importantly, I want to thank him for all he 
and his staff have done to help get this legislation to the floor. Both 
the Committee on House Administration, and the Rules Committee under 
Chairman Moakley, have reported out a strong bill for our 
consideration. This day could not have dawned without the support of 
both committees, and I and Congressman Shays want to express our 
appreciation to both the chairmen and ranking members of each.
  Mr. Chairman, the bipartisan Congressional Accountability Act is 
simple in concept and broad in scope.
  The simple concept behind the Congressional Accountability Act is 
that what's good for the private sector and executive branch is good 
for us here in Congress. Legislative branch employees deserve the same 
protections under the law as those enjoyed by their counterparts in the 
private sector or executive branch. As an employee, the legislative 
branch should bear the law's burdens just as other employers do.
  This principle is as straightforward as it is just. That is why over 
250 of our colleagues joined as cosponsors of an earlier version of the 
bill we will be voting on today.
  H.R. 4822 applies, by statute, 10 employee protection and 
antidiscrimination laws to the legislative branch. These laws, by and 
large, are landmark pieces of legislation that Congress thought it 
important to pass; affording protections to employees that Congress 
thought it important they have. Today, if H.R. 4822 is approved, the 
House will go on record as supporting the full application of these 
same laws to our own employees. This step is a matter of simple 
fairness, and we should take it.
  Our constituents expect that Congress will obey these laws just as 
they and their employees must. In the past, some have cited 
constitutional separation of power concerns as a reason for not 
extending the full protections of these laws to our own employees. 
Constitutional scholars differ on the validity of these concerns, but 
the bill before us today addresses them nonetheless by setting up a new 
and independent Office of Compliance within the legislative branch to 
enforce the laws on Congress. There will not be executive branch 
enforcement under this bill. What there will be, and ought to be, is 
the full and effective application of the protections afforded by these 
laws to legislative branch employees. No longer will Members of 
Congress sit in judgment of their colleagues on these matters. Outside 
hearing board officers will now determine when a violation of law has 
occurred and what the remedy for that violation should be.
  Importantly, under the bill before us today aggrieved employees will 
be able to sue Members in district court where that right exists for 
private sector employees in the underlying statutes being applied. The 
right to a trial in district court is a fundamental step forward for 
congressional employees--one that empowers them and one that will keep 
the new internal process honest and effective.
  Mr. Chairman, the Founders of our Constitution never intended that 
Congress should be exempt from laws enacted for the rest of the Nation. 
In Federalist Paper No. 57, James Madison made clear that the Founders 
fully understood the salutary benefits that would flow from having 
legislators join the public in conforming to the laws Congress would 
enact: he called it a guard against oppression and ``one of the 
strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the 
people together.'' The Founders intuitively understood the case we make 
here today: Congress will pass better laws if it knows it will be fully 
subject to them.
  Mr. Chairman, everyone in this Chamber understands that a great deal 
of work needs to be done to repair the link between Congress and the 
people we represent, to close the gap that has opened up in recent 
years. The Congressional Accountability Act can be a key building block 
in that effort--a foundation from which a new span can be thrown across 
the chasm of mistrust which lies between all of us and the American 
people.
  Congressman Shays and I have marveled at the bipartisan effort this 
bill represents. There are many colleagues and contributors, from the 
freshman class in Congress to constitutional experts in the think tanks 
to concerned constituents and citizens--all have shared in the shaping 
of this legislation. I, for one, am deeply grateful for the privilege 
of participating in such an effort and I thank all for their 
constructive contributions.
  We have already begun building a bridge of cooperation and trust, 
modest as it might be, across the isle here in the House of 
Representatives. Passage of this legislation will extend that span from 
across the isle to across the beltway to the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support final passage of 
the Congressional Accountability Act today.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, as I stated during the debate on the rule, 
I have strong reservations about whether this legislation to apply the 
laws to Congress will, in fact, ever become law. Nevertheless, I want 
to express my strong support for H.R. 4822, as amended by the Rules 
Committee and the House Administration Committee.
  Given the inclinations of the Democratic leadership to gut and kill 
this and other legitimate congressional reform initiatives, it is no 
small accomplishment that we are considering a strong compliance bill 
here today.
  Credit also needs to be given to several of our colleagues for their 
contributions to this legislation.
  They include, just to name a few: Chris Shays, Bill Goodling, and 
Harris Fawell on judicial review and OSHA compliance; Olympia Snowe on 
the integrity of the Office of Compliance; John Boehner on the timely 
application of all employment laws; and Wayne Allard, who played an 
instrumental role on the Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, since the joint committee reported its reform 
recommendations last November, our colleagues have had an opportunity 
to review those recommendations dealing with congressional compliance, 
and they have raised genuine concerns that were not totally evident to 
the joint committee during our deliberations.
  Most of those concerns, I believe, have been addressed in H.R. 4822.
  For example, while the bill explicitly applies 10 laws to Congress, 
it also implicitly applies all other laws that relate to the terms and 
conditions of employment. The bill creates a Joint Office of 
Compliance, which will make it harder for either body to alter their 
internal rules if the application of laws becomes too burdensome.
  More important, the bill provides for a ``de novo'' trial in district 
court in those cases where the de novo option would be available to 
employees in the private sector. Congress would not be complying with 
the laws if we are not subject to the same enforcement provisions 
available in the private sector.
  I regret that the Democratic leadership will not allow us to debate a 
number of important amendments dealing with punitive damages, personal 
liability, and applying the Freedom of Information Act to Congress.
  However, a number of good amendments are made in order that will 
improve an already strong bill. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, a 
freshman Member, the gentleman from Shrewsbury, MA [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional 
Accountability Act. Next week we will be embroiled in a debate over how 
our future health care system will affect every American. In the past 
we have undertaken legislative tasks, comfortable in the acknowledge 
that we in the Congress were not affected by our own actions. When 
Members of Congress are not directly affected by the laws they pass, 
there is logically less incentive to pass rational legislation that 
works in the real world.
  Our Founding Fathers envisioned a citizen Congress where Members 
would have to go home after their service and live under the laws that 
they have just passed. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, serving in Congress 
has become a career for many that has insulated them from the 
ramifications of their actions. Health care reform should not be 
developed in this insulated environment.
  I have introduced legislation which would express our desire to see 
health care legislation applied to Congress. In fact, 90 bipartisan 
Members have cosponsored my bill and agree that health care reform 
should not be developed without congressional accountability.
  While, unfortunately, that language is not part of this debate, it is 
imperative that we support the bill in front of us today, the 
Congressional Accountability Act. My New England neighbors, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Swett], have drafted legislation that will create a 
better environment for legislating and a better Congress for the 
American people. I strongly support its passage.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
  (Mrs. THURMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1510

  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 4822, 
the Congressional Accountability Act. I congratulate my colleagues, Mr. 
Shays and Mr. Swett for their diligent work on this bill. I also want 
to recognize Mr. Klink's efforts on behalf of this important issue.
  I came to this House with a mandate from my constituents to change 
the way that Congress conducts its business. This bill is another vital 
step in the drive to make Congress accountable to the American people. 
I believe it will bring greater integrity and accountability to this 
House.
  It is important that we show the American people that we are in no 
way above the law and that we are not afraid to live under the same 
laws we impose on the public.
  My constituents constantly tell me that we here in Washington must be 
most responsive to them. If a law is good enough for our citizens, then 
it is good enough for us. This is the great benefit of this 
legislation: since we will now have to live under the statutes we 
approve, we will be more sensitive to the impact of our actions on the 
American people.
  With passage of the Congressional Accountability Act, we will place 
ourselves under 10 existing laws to protect our employees. This is long 
overdue: we will now be covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act; the 
Family and Medical Leave Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act; OSHA and five other important 
worker protection and anti-discrimination laws.
  I want to briefly mention another important issue contained in this 
bill. During committee consideration, legitimate constitutional 
concerns were raised about executive branch intrusion into legislation 
branch affairs. The separation of power doctrine, the very foundation 
of our Government, must be preserved. A conflict has been avoided 
through the creation of the independent Office of Compliance governed 
by a board of directors. This new office, not the executive branch, 
will enforce the laws that we will have to follow with passage of this 
bill. The members of board of directors will be independent from the 
influence of current and former Members and lobbyists.
  This bill is just the first step in the reform process. Before the 
103d Congress adjourns, I look forward to consideration of the other 
proposals of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Our 
work on lobbying and campaign finance reform must also be completed. 
The time has come to expand accountability to every part of the 
legislative branch. Our constituents deserve nothing less.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the 
gentleman from Aston, PA [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Chairman, 7 years is not a long time inside the 
beltway. It is a long time to most people. Corporate America would love 
to have 7 years to comply with Federal regulations that we have imposed 
over the course of the history of this institution. It was 7 years ago, 
my first term in Congress, when I had to offer a privileged resolution 
on the floor of the House to get the attention of my colleagues at that 
time that the buildings we were operating in were fire traps. They were 
unsafe for the people who live and work here every day. This had 
followed a devastating fire in the office of then Speaker of the House 
Jim Wright. The buildings had no alarm systems, no detection systems, 
no automatic recall of elevators and would violate any building code in 
any city in America.
  Mr. Chairman, it has taken us 7 years to bring the Federal 
legislative branch into compliance with OSHA regulations and I say it 
is about time.
  Over the past 7 years that I have been here, we have tried on every 
occasion to include Members of Congress in the legislative branch in 
these various Federal regulations that we apply to corporate America. 
It has taken us 7 years to get to this point in time.
  I am happy to rise in support of this bill. I say it is long overdue, 
but I say we could have done better. If we would have agreed with the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and defeated the motion that 
previously was voted upon, we could have adopted the entire package of 
congressional reform, including 2 items that I had approved by the 
joint commission, a measure to establish a citizen ethics panel to 
oversee ethics issues within the Congress and targeted tax relief that 
would prohibit Members from anonymously putting in targeted tax relief 
in tax bills for specific constituents or corporations.
  I am very happy that one of my third initiatives that I introduced in 
two previous sessions of Congress dealing with frequent flier mileage 
will, in fact, be offered later on today by our colleagues, the 
gentleman from Arizona and I plan to support that.
  Mr. Chairman, I will support this piece of legislation. I think it is 
a long time coming. I say to my colleagues and to our constituents 
across the country, we could have done much better.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Andrews].
  Mr. ANDREWS of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, these cards provide to me and my wife the guarantee of 
quality health care, guaranteed. The question that this Congress will 
be facing today and in the next few weeks is whether or not the 
Congress of the United States should provide to the families of America 
the same guarantee of health care coverage that the hard-working 
families of America provide to Members of Congress. We can say yes to 
that question by supporting universal coverage in the debate over 
health care reform, and we can say yes to that question today by 
supporting this legislation and by supporting the Byrne amendment to 
this legislation, which will establish in this statute the principle 
that the Congress of the United States in voting for health care for 
hard-working Americans will be voting for health care for their 
families at home.
  Mr. Chairman, to too many Americans across this country, 
congressional accountability is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. 
I believe very strongly that taking the step in passing this bill and 
providing to the families of America the same guaranteed health care 
coverage that the families of America provide to Members of Congress 
will be an important step in reversing that perception, restoring faith 
to this institution, and providing to the families of this country the 
guarantee of health care that they want and the guarantee of health 
care that their families deserve.
  I urge Members to support this legislation and to support the Byrne 
amendment when it comes to the floor.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Ocala, FL [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from 
California very much, and I commend him for all he is doing on this 
bill and for his constant effort in bringing to the public's attention 
what has to be done in terms of congressional reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been a long-time supporter of passing 
legislation making the laws Congress passes for the rest of the Nation 
apply to itself, and am pleased we have the opportunity to vote on this 
bill today.
  I regret, however, that this minimal reform appears to be all we are 
going to get out of Congress this year. When the leadership of the 
House separated this part of the overall reform package from vital 
organizational, procedural and budgetary reforms, it ensured that 
public skepticism about the intentions of Congress would rise, not 
fall, by our actions today.
  The bipartisan Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress 
proposed sweeping changes in the way we do business here in the House, 
but the leadership of the House has refused to consider their 
recommendations as a package.
  So, Americans watching this debate today are faced with a confusing 
anomaly. The bill we are debating is called the Congressional 
Accountability Act, but there is very little of the accountability the 
public is demanding in this bill.
  Let me give two examples. I offered an amendment to this bill to 
provide for the ultimate accountability. It said that members of 
Congress could not raise their own pay in a year following a budget 
deficit. It was not allowed under this rule. Check with your 
constituents if that is the type of accountability they want.
  I also offered an amendment to require the House to take a recorded 
vote whenever we raise the debt ceiling, rather than doing so by 
stealth tactics. That also is real accountability, but it was not 
allowed.
  We should not go home and tell our constituents that we passed the 
Congressional Accountability Act. Instead, to be accurate, we should 
say we passed the Very, Very Limited Congressional Accountability Act. 
See if that will make our constituents happy.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. I thank the distinguished gentleman from California 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Congressional 
Accountability Act. As so many have talked so eloquently, I think we 
are very much moving in the right direction, but I guess at the cost of 
some political peril and with an attempt at wit to say that perhaps it 
is irrational for me to be making such a statement as I am about to 
make or pointing this out, it is definitely impolitic and I have the 
utmost regard for the gentleman from Maine and his concern to bring 
universal health care and health equity to all Americans.
  I would counsel for some thought at least as to the Byrne amendment 
as we rush to in essence give ourselves less rights than other 
Americans similarly situated have. Under the Byrne amendment, there 
would be a uniform minimum package as passed for all Americans but in 
essence singling out the Congress, just Members of the Congress, as 
distinct from all other Federal employees to have in essence less 
benefits, less choice, less rights in regard to their employer. I think 
this should at least pose some thought for the long run.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Indiana [Ms. Long].
  (Ms. LONG asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LONG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for this 
measure which will hold Congress to the same employment standards that 
we have imposed on businesses and other employers for years.
  The process of coming to grips with this legislation has been 
cumbersome. A major stumbling block has been the issue of separation of 
powers between the legislative and the executive branches of 
Government.

  Mr. Chairman, the Constitutional principle of separation of powers 
should be preserved to ensure that Congress--as a coequal branch of 
Government--can operate independently of any influence by the executive 
branch. A provision in this bill addresses that very real concern by 
establishing an independent enforcement arm within the legislative 
branch to guarantee compliance. The Members who worked on this 
provision have developed a thoughtful and independent mechanism--
specifically the Office of Compliance--to promulgate regulations and 
respond to employee complaints. The Office of Compliance will be free 
from partisan politics and any influence from the executive branch.
  Mr. Chairman, many have said that this bill is about fairness--that 
Congress has uniquely--and wrongly--preserved itself from the laws of 
the land. While I agree with that statement, it is my hope that the 
practical impact of passing this legislation will actually resonate 
more with Members of Congress than with the public at large. It is my 
hope that Members will, as a result of this legislation, pass laws 
which are more thoughtful in the future.

  Congressional offices are not at all unlike small businesses. And 
what Member of Congress has not heard the regulatory concerns of small 
businesses? By holding ourselves to the same employment standards to 
which we hold American businesses, I am hopeful that all of us will 
better understand the laws we create, and have created already.
  Mr. Chairman, now that a thoughtful mechanism which preserves the 
independence of the legislative branch has been developed--it is time 
to pass this legislation.
  I commend all of the Members who worked so hard on this measure and 
urge my colleagues to vote for the bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield a full and generous 3 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a hard-working 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
greater San Dimas, CA for yielding me the full 3 minutes. I appreciate 
the full measure.
  Mr. Chairman, in the very first weeks of this Congress I introduced 
House Concurrent Resolution 18, which stated that ``Congress [should 
not be] exempt from the laws that it enacts and should govern itself 
according to the laws that apply to the private sector and other 
branches of the Federal Government.''
  The American people have long suspected that lawmakers in Washington 
treat themselves better than the people they represent. This image is 
not helped by the fact that Congress under Democratic leadership 
routinely exempts itself from legislation it expects other to live by. 
Congress is not, and should not be, above the law. I am pleased that we 
will finally address this issue today, although I am sorry we are 
prevented from debating a comprehensive reform package. Yes, it is a 
good start to abide by the laws we pass--but, we cannot lose sight of 
changing the way we do all of our business here on the Hill, as Mr. 
Dreier has so articulately stated. As long as Congress plays by a 
different set of rules than the private sector, the credibility of the 
institution and the confidence in the laws it passes will continue to 
suffer. We are not above the law. Just ask any American.
  I think everyone realizes that by splitting apart the package crafted 
by the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress--a product of 
many hours of hearings and deliberations--we are scuttling the 
possibility of enacting overall congressional reform. I am afraid the 
leadership is engaged in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of 
the American public, which has demanded comprehensive reform of the 
House and Congress. By splitting off a few of the more popular measures 
and passing them with great fanfare, the leadership hopes that 
Americans will forget about the rest of the package. This is a very 
shortsighted strategy, one that is doomed to failure because we leave 
so much necessary reform undone.

                              {time}  1520

  The distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts in the debate on the 
rule said, ``Well, we're getting off here to a great start.'' After 
Chairman Hamilton and the ranking member, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] proposed the whole loaf of reform, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts indicated that we should be satisfied with not half the 
loaf, not even a few slices, but just one thin slice.
  Why are we always settling for just one thin slice of reform when we 
could be doing the whole loaf, which has been so beautifully presented 
to us by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton]?
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4822, the Congressional 
Accountability Act.
  I am delighted that we are considering a bill today that enlarges 
provisions I originally included in the Americans with Disabilities Act 
4 years ago, to include the Congress in the law's scope.
  The Congressional Accountability Act accomplishes something we need, 
it assures that Congress will comply with laws we have made for 
American businesses. I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from New 
Hampshire and the gentleman from Connecticut to bring this important 
legislation to the floor.
  I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the complaint from my 
constituents in town hall meetings and chamber of commerce luncheons of 
commerce luncheons that Congress makes laws from which it exempts 
itself. I look forward to assuring them that is no longer the case.
  This is an opportunity to change the perception in the country that 
there are two sets of laws: one for Congress, and one for everybody 
else. We need to show that we do live up to the standards we have set 
for our business owners, and also afford our employees the same 
protections that every other worker in the United States has.
  From OSHA to Fair Labor Standards to a variety of other workplace 
related laws, this legislation will complete the work of bringing 
Congress into line with the rest of America.
  While the bulk of this bill deals with laws that apply only to the 
private sector, let me touch on a different kind of compliance issue 
that is also addressed. Although the Freedom of Information Act does 
not apply to the private sector, it does currently apply to the 
executive branch.
  I believe that the unique complexities of this matter, pertaining to 
privacy laws and the difficulties in applying FOIA to the legislative 
process, requires further study.
  Therefore, I am pleased the committee adopted a bipartisan amendment 
which provides for the board of directors to study the issue and make 
recommendations regarding future implementation. We must ensure that 
while appropriate documents are available to the public, and I believe 
most already are, that the privacy of our constituents is respected and 
protected.
  The Congressional Accountability Act will not only make the U.S. 
Congress a better employer, but more important, it will give us an 
enhanced understanding of the implications of the workplace laws we 
make.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Auburn, ME [Ms. Snowe], a Member who has spent a great 
deal of time dealing with the issue of reform before both the Joint 
Committee on the Reorganization of Congress and the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my appreciation and thanks to 
Congressman Dreier, the co-vice-chairman of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress, and to Congressmen Shays and Swett, whose 
efforts have done so much to bring the Congressional Accountability Act 
to the floor of the House today.
  In the elections of November 1992, the American people sent a loud 
and clear message to Congress that the status-quo has simply got to go. 
But this message was more of a ``wake-up'' call to a ``Rip Van 
Winkle''-type institution that has slept through years of change and 
reform around the world. Just think about it--while the House has been 
dominated by one-party rule for almost 40 years, democracy came to the 
former Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev came and went as leader of the 
Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall was built and torn down, peaceful dialog 
came to the Middle East and South Africa, and Mick Jagger and the 
Rolling Stones became grandads. The tide of openness, reform, and 
progress has swept across the world--and yet our House of 
Representatives stands as a monument to the status-quo, to perks and 
privileges, and to the fear of change. Our great Nation used to be at 
the forefront of openness and accountability; now, it appears that we 
lag far behind.
  But, in 1994, Americans are angry. They are impatient. They want a 
different kind of Congress. The American people believe that Congress 
is out of touch with the lives of ordinary Americans. And people will 
no longer tolerate Congress setting itself above the law. And it's now 
time for us to meet their higher expectations.
  Mr. Chairman, the time for serious reform of Congress has long since 
arrived. Given the clear mandate for change and accountability sent by 
the American people 2 years ago, I simply cannot understand why 
Congress has waited this long to tackle reform. By refusing to debate 
and consider congressional reform legislation prior to today, Congress 
showed that it was not serious about policing and reforming itself. 
Because of congressional inaction, the American people hold Congress in 
an historically low regard.
  And who can blame them. What kind of message does Congress send to 
Americans when it sets itself above the law? What kind of message does 
Congress send to America when it believes it is beholden to different 
ethical or moral standards? And how can Congress claim to pass laws in 
the best interest of the American people if Congress refuses to abide 
by those very same laws?

  This is not what James Madison, one of our Founding Fathers, had in 
mind when he said that Congress ``can make no law which will not have 
its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the 
great mass of society.'' Congress desperately needs to pass this bill 
as the first step of many toward regaining its credibility as a law-
making, and law-abiding, institution.
  The application of laws to Congress has been a chief objective of 
mine for many years. I have long been concerned about this issue, 
having spoken out on several occasions against the policy of Congress 
exempting itself from the laws it passes affecting the American people; 
in fact, almost 10 years ago, in 1985, I testified before the House 
Post Office and Civil Service Committee about the need for Congress to 
treat its employees the way it requires private businesses to treat 
their employees. In addition, I introduced legislation in the last two 
Congresses to extend coverage for House employees under the Civil 
Rights Act and the Age Discrimination Act, and to require the Committee 
on House Administration to make recommendations on extending coverage 
under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
  In the 103d Congress, the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, 
which I cochair with my colleague, Representative Pat Schroeder, has 
aggressively pursued the issue of applying Federal laws to Congress. We 
introduced the Congressional Employees Fairness Act, on behalf of the 
caucus to ensure that Congress is covered under five major civil rights 
laws, and to provide broad new protections for employees of the House 
and Senate. The major provisions of this bill were adopted by the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress, which was established last 
year to review and improve the legislative process. The JCOC's broad 
recommendations, which included congressional compliance, committee 
reform, changes to floor procedures, budget process reforms, among 
others, were packaged as H.R. 3081.
  I am dismayed that we are not considering H.R. 3081 today, or that 
the major provisions of H.R. 3081 will be considered separately by this 
Chamber. I strongly believe that the reform package should have been 
considered in its entirety, with a rule providing ample opportunities 
for perfecting amendments on the floor. However, I do believe that the 
reform Americans want most from Congress is congressional compliance 
with Federal laws. The bill we are considering today, H.R. 4822, will 
accomplish that for the American people.
  This bill is an excellent bill. It is a timely bill. And it is a 
necessary bill. Like the Caucus bill, it would apply the Civil Rights 
Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
the Family Medical Leave Act, and the Age Discrimination Act to 
Congress. H.R. 4822, however, would also extend protection to the 
entire legislative branch, and would apply five additional laws, 
including OSHA, the Federal Labor Management Act, the Employee 
Polygraph Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining 
Notification Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has shown great skill over the last 20 years 
in passing laws barring discrimination. Unfortunately, Congress has 
shown even greater skill in avoiding these same laws. But no 
institution should be above the law--especially Congress. No 
institution should be exempted from the law--especially Congress. And 
no one should ignore the law--especially Congress. That is why passage 
of this bill is an absolutely critical first step to giving this 
institution the reform it desperately needs and the reform the American 
public so clearly desires. Let us put the faith back into Congress. Let 
us put the ``Representative'' back into the House of Representatives. 
And let us show the American people that, yes, we do listen. Let us 
pass this bill today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentlewoman from Bellevue, WA [Ms. Dunn], one of the hardest working 
members of our Joint Committee on the Reorganization of Congress.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier today in the debate on the rule, 
disservice to the Congress and to our constituents to disregard 
bipartisan advice and bring this bill to the floor absent the remainder 
of the congressional reform legislation
  Nevertheless, I support the provisions of a Congressional 
Accountability Act that will finally force Congress and Members to obey 
the laws that are passed for every American outside of the Capitol. 
This bill is important because current laws will not be applied to 
Congress. But, it is the future for which this bill offers the greatest 
promise, for now, a precedent has been established--Congress will 
follow the law.
  From today forward, every piece of legislation will be considered 
with the knowledge that the included provisions will apply to Congress. 
This will be the great legacy of this bill. No more will Congress pass 
bills saying, ``Great idea, but sorry, it's too expensive for 
Congress.'' No more will Congress say, ``Good, good point, but, no, 
sorry, it's not practical for Congress.'' From now on, if it is the 
right law for the American people, it will be the right law for 
Congress.
  I commend the efforts of the Congressmen Shays and Swett. You've 
rectified a past inequity, but more importantly, you have set a new 
path for the Congress for the future.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Osseo, WI [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation, 
and I do so not only because, as the gentleman from Maryland indicated 
earlier, this gives protection to the employees. Equally important I 
would suggest is this does begin to give credibility to this 
institution, and whether we are talking deficit reduction or we are 
talking heath care reform or we are talking entitlement reform or other 
important issues in front of this Congress and this Nation, this 
Congress will never be able to make the tough decisions until we have 
credibility in the eyes of the people, something that does not exist 
today, but something this bill takes a small step in the right 
direction.

                              {time}  1530

  I would point out the reason it takes that step in the right 
direction is because it creates an Office of Compliance, and it allows 
every one of those employees who is the victim of this discrimination 
not only to seek internal recourse but, most importantly, to take that 
to the courts when and if it is necessary.
  And so this, along with some of the amendments we are going to 
reconsider in terms of programs making us subject to the same health 
plan of everybody else, will be another step in the right direction of 
credibility in the eyes of the public, and I encourage your support
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor, my friend from Jacobus, 
PA.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will compliment those who have brought this 
legislation to the floor. We have come a long, long way since I have 
seen some of the other pieces of legislation earlier on.
  We could have gone the whole way had my amendment been made in order, 
because my amendment merely said that we will treat Members of Congress 
and employers in the legislative branch as we treat the private sector; 
in other words, we can be taken to court as employers, and we can have 
punitive damages brought against us up to a cap of $50,000.
  I chose the $50,000 because that is the cap that we have for small 
businesses. There is no reason why we should not receive the same 
punishment for our misdeeds as the private sector, and had we included 
that, then I think we would have an ideal piece of legislation.
  I do want to make sure our taxpayers back home understand that this 
could be a very, very, very expensive piece of legislation for 
taxpayers, very expensive because if the Members or if the person who 
is bringing the suit decides to go to court, and naturally, they will 
drift to court rather than through the internal process, if they do go 
to court then, of course, and are successful, the taxpayer is the 
employer. So it is the taxpayer who picks up all of their expenses, the 
expenses for their attorneys, the damages, et cetera, and it is unclear 
in the legislation whether that is not also true for Members of 
Congress, that the taxpayer may pick up our expenses if we lose.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 4822, the Congressional Accountability Act was unanimously 
reported from the Committee on House Administration on July 28. This 
act marks a historic step in two ways.
  I would certainly stop at this point and pay a special thanks to our 
colleagues, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] and the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], for the work that they have 
done together in a very bipartisan way to bring this part of the 
legislation before our committee.
  Our committee was not given jurisdiction over the whole of this 
congressional reform effort, but simply that part that was mainly 
called the Shays-Swett portion of the bill, and we started actually in 
June holding hearings on this legislation. We asked Members to testify 
in June and to talk about why they thought it was necessary. We held 
two hearings, and then a markup in July.
  We had congressional scholars, separation-of-powers scholars, people 
from OSHA actually show us what they had discovered about our office 
buildings, people from the Library of Congress, and then our leadership 
decided that they wanted this to move forward and we moved it to a 
markup on the 28th and as I said it passed unanimously.
  First, the act grants legislative branch employees the same 
protections and legal rights as employees of the private sector. 
Second, it makes Congress subject to the same laws as the private 
sector.
  This act applies 10 existing employee protection and 
nondiscrimination laws to Congress. These include the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and parts of the 
Civil Rights Act. The legislation establishes a new, and independent, 
Office of Compliance within the legislative branch. And I want the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] on our side in a few moments 
to discuss this with me. Many people have questions about this Office 
of Compliance.
  The Office will issue regulations, and respond to employee 
grievances, just as occurs in the private sector. This new Office of 
Compliance will replace the existing Offices of Fair Employment 
Practices, in both the House and Senate.
  The Office will convene hearing boards, made up of three independent 
hearing officers. These hearing officers will be from the Federal 
Mediation and Conciliation Service, or the Administrative Conference of 
the United States, which will ensure their qualifications and their 
independence. And the Office itself will be independent of 
Representatives, Senators, and legislative branch agency heads. This 
independence will avoid possible or perceived conflicts in resolving 
congressional employee grievances.
  Furthermore, if an aggrieved employee wants to go beyond the new 
hearing board process, the employee can proceed to the Federal district 
court. If the right is available to a private sector employee, it will 
be available to a congressional employee under this act, and the 
aggrieved employee will also have the right of appellate review by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals.
  When implemented effectively, this act will have a salutary impact on 
Congress' relationships--not only with congressional employees--but 
also with the American people.
  Several basic principles guided the formation of this act: First, 
fairness requires that Congressional employees be accorded the same 
rights and protections as other employees; second, if a law is right, 
it should apply to the Congress as well as the private sector; third, 
if Congress lives by the same laws it applies elsewhere, it will write 
better laws; and fourth, the Constitutional separation of powers 
doctrine must be respected.
  While some Members believe that executive branch enforcement must go 
hand-in-hand with these 10 laws, constitutional scholars do not speak 
with one voice on the issue. The objective of this act is to ensure 
effective enforcement--but not at the expense of the constitutional 
separation of powers doctrine.
  Overall, the arguments against executive branch enforcement where 
compelling. An executive branch, armed with such enforcement powers, 
might attempt to manipulate the Congress.
  This act clearly goes a long way toward closing the credibility gap, 
which exists between Congress and the American public regarding 
congressional compliance with laws. It also goes a long way in giving 
our employees the protections they deserve by law. It is an excellent 
start, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  The constitutional balance requires that the legislative branch be 
free from such potential initmidation--real or perceived--in both the 
execution of its constitutional role, and as a coequal branch of the 
Federal Government. I do not believe that Congress has ever 
purposefully abdicated its constitutional rights and responsibilities.
  So the structure of the New Office, and the procedures in this act 
preserve the constitutional separation of powers, while empowering 
congressional employees with strong new protections against 
discrimination and harassment, and providing for a safer congressional 
working environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to rise in support of H.R. 4822, 
despite the failure to look at fundamental congressional reform in all 
of the areas that the joint committee examined. At least in this one 
particular area, I am pleased to say that it has been marked singularly 
by bipartisanship.
  Clearly the two authors of the bill, the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett], have 
labored long and hard to make sure bipartisanism was the way in which 
they moved forward with their legislation.
  I am pleased to say that on July 28 in the Committee on House 
Administration it was bipartisanism that was governing the discussion, 
the offering of amendments, and the acceptance of 14 amendments.
  The bill was considered a positive change, and the amendments were 
offered in the context of a positive contribution to try to make the 
bill better. I was very pleased with the more than 4 hours of 
discussion that occurred over the bill and pleased with the unanimous 
vote at the end of the committee hearing to move this bill forward.
  I believe that this is the beginning of a two-stage process. This is 
the first stage, and the first stage is getting Congress to understand 
what is actually going on out there in the real world.
  After George McGovern left the U.S. Senate, he purchased a small 
hotel and restaurant in Statford, CT. On June 1, 1992, in a Wall Street 
Journal article entitled ``A Politician's Dream is a Businessman's 
Nightmare,'' former Senator McGovern wrote,

       I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I 
     had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties 
     business people face every day. That knowledge would have 
     made me a better United States Senator and a more 
     understanding Presidential contender.

  We are in stage 1. We need to get the U.S. Congress to understand 
what it has been doing to the private sector. I hope we will then move 
to stage 2.

                              {time}  1540

  Stage 2 is not to put us under the same laws; that is in Stage 1. The 
purpose of putting us under the same laws is to get us to realize how 
stupid and foolish we have been in many, many instances.
  Stage 2 will be the redefining, restructuring, and repealing of a 
number of laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to Stage 2.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Cooper].
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress should be passing comprehensive reform 
legislation today. I voted, in fact, 3 times to force Congress to 
consider comprehensive reform legislation, but the least we can do is 
pass by overwhelming numbers today the Congressional Accountability 
Act.
  It is high time Congress lives by the laws it passes for the people. 
It is high time that we end congressional hypocrisy when Congress, so 
often in the past, has passed special rules applying only to Congress. 
It is high time Congress lived by the Golden Rule, to do unto others as 
we would have done to ourselves.
  It is my hope that we will, as the gentleman from California has 
pointed out, pass fewer laws, repeal had laws once we feel the burden 
in our offices of these many laws.
  If you walk a mile in the shoes of small business, you will find it 
is very, very good exercise for this Congress.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], a very valued member of the 
committee who has labored in this field.
  (Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, although I rise in support of 
H.R. 4822, the Congressional Accountability Act, it is not the bill we 
should be debating today. If the leadership was truly committed to real 
reforms, H.R. 3801, put forth by the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress, would be the bill under consideration today.
  Nevertheless, I do want to commend Mr. Shays and Mr. Swett for their 
hard work on H.R. 4822. Their efforts help force this issue to the 
floor, and they were more than helpful in working with our House 
Administration Committee to draft a comprehensive compliance bill.
  Having been a small businessman for more than 30 years, I know full 
well the overregulation and the endless bureaucratic hoops through 
which private businesses are forced to jump. And when I travel my 
district, the burden of Government regulation is always--always--the 
major complaint from today's small businessmen and women.
  H.R. 4822 will hopefully make Members more receptive to these 
challenges that small businesses encounter. By bringing congressional 
operations under the full force of laws that we selectively applied to 
ourselves, and by applying others, like OSHA, for the first time, 
perhaps the alarm will finally go off and wake Members up from 
dreamland.
  Once our offices and support operations have to decipher, understand, 
comply with, and pay for the cost of these laws, then maybe we'll be 
more realistic in our approach to law-making. And wouldn't it be a 
miracle in la-la land if we discovered Congress had made a mistake in 
the past--that the Federal Government was being too heavy-handed, too 
paranoid about business operations--and we decided to repeal some 
regulations. I'd bet the ranch to be here for that.
  Having said that, I want to stress again my disappointment that we 
aren't considering H.R. 4822 as part of the larger, more comprehensive 
reform package.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that the people who watch our 
activities on C-SPAN don't understand how we get anything done around 
here.
  The real issue here isn't congressional compliance--as there is 
broad, bipartisan support for that portion of congressional reform. The 
bitter pill to swallow is the change in how this House functions in its 
committees, on this floor, and when it goes behind closed doors and out 
of public view.
  The system of rules we presently have in place always fixes the 
fight. It's a shootout at the OK Corral day after day, but the minority 
doesn't get to bring so much as a knife. It's more like the minority 
party is supplied with plastic forks and knives to defend themselves, 
while the majority party is supplied with all of the assault weapons 
banned under the crime bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4822, and I look forward to 
additional reforms that will provide for a less combative, less 
partisan environment under which this House could move forward 
legislation--even legislation as complex and controversial as health 
care reform and a crime bill--in a fair and open manner that is 
befitting the integrity of this Chamber.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  (Mr. KLINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina 
for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that H.R. 4822 is a fine piece 
of legislation. It has been crafted over a year and half and had the 
input of dozens of reform-minded Members. It is my belief, however, 
that this legislation can be perfected today. I believe that we can 
make certain that Congress comes into complete compliance with labor 
laws, in exactly the same way our constituents in the private sector 
must comply.
  When I was running for Congress, only 2 short years ago, I listened 
to public discontent over the issues of congressional ethics and the 
inside-the-beltway, out-of-touch-with-the-mainstream perception. The 
public is very aware that Congress passes laws without any practicable 
knowledge of the problems inherent in implementing these laws, 
especially labor and civil rights laws. Why is that? Because we do not 
have to comply with the laws that we pass.
  Some laws do not explicitly exclude coverage of Congress--some 
Members of Congress even attest that we do comply with laws like the 
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act. But 
there is no enforcement of our compliance. Effective enforcement of 
compliance is the only true way to restore integrity to Congress.
  In May of last year, I sponsored my first piece of legislation. The 
title of the bill is the Equity for Congress Act. Simultaneous to the 
introduction of my congressional compliance bill, I was a cosponsor of 
H.R. 349, the first Congressional Accountability Act, sponsored by Mr. 
Swett and Mr. Shays. I have worked diligently over the past year and a 
half to ensure that the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress were refined, especially to include the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act. In addition, I have successfully 
offered an amendment H.R. 1280, the OSHA Revisions Act, to guarantee 
our employees are afforded the same standards of health and safety as 
employees in the private sector.
  The bill that is before us today is the culmination of the efforts of 
all Members who believe Congress must be treated like the private 
sector. H.R. 4822 complements present practice in this House in the 
following ways: All instrumentalities of the Congress will have to 
abide by civil rights and labor laws; Congress will be accountable for 
the remedies that private citizens fear for not being in compliance; 
there is a provision that ensures the independence of the Board of 
Directors of the Office of Compliance by not allowing Members, former 
Members, nor staff or former staff of Members from serving as Board 
members; and, most significantly, there is a provision that allows 
employees aggrieved by Congress to seek retribution in the courts.
  H.R. 4822 is not the end, however. It is jut the beginning. In excess 
of 30 amendments were offered to the Rules Committee. What is important 
now is that we all commit to further refining this legislation in 
future Congresses to make certain that Congress comes into complete 
compliance with labor laws, in exactly the same way our constituents in 
the private sector must comply.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich], a member of the committee and the minority whip.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Let me just say that I rise with very mixed emotions. 
First of all, I am very strongly supportive of the general bill. I 
think that as a general bill this is something I have talked about 
everywhere in the country, and as I have said, it is something we 
should pass and it is something I hope that the other body will take 
up.
  I think the concept of applying the laws that apply to the rest of 
the country to the Congress is very, very important. James Madison was 
correct in the Federalist Papers in saying that one of our protections 
against Congress doing foolish things ought to be to require the 
Congress--the knowledge that the Congress ought to obey the same laws 
and Congress, therefore, would not do dumb things because congressmen 
would be under the same rules.
  In the last 30 years that has been less and less true and it has been 
bad. So, on the one hand I really strongly support the general 
direction of this bill. I think it is generally right.
  On the other hand I think that the rule that was adopted and the way 
this has been approached is profoundly wrong; that many efforts to 
reform the system at large are being blocked and that it is unfortunate 
that the Democratic leadership in a sense is using this bill as a 
screen behind which to hide from the fact that there are other key 
provisions. And I refer specifically to Mr. Dreier's efforts on 
reforming the committee structure which are not going to be made in 
order, which are not going to come to the floor. That makes me sad.
  But then in addition to that, I must say that the Democratic 
leadership has made two amendments in order that I think are just silly 
and that I think demean the whole process.
  Let me be blunt: I think to have an amendment made in order on behalf 
of two different freshmen as a reelection public relations device just 
demeans the whole system. The one, basically, would in a bizarre move 
eliminate Members from the Federal employee health benefits plan in a 
way that would worry me if I were a Federal employee. I would wonder if 
that amendment means that that Member is now going to be or ought to be 
willing to have any member of the Federal employees health benefit plan 
subjected to the lowest possible health standards.
  And it is a very strange amendment. It does not say that the Congress 
should participate in general health reform; it does not say if we pass 
medical savings accounts, if we pass catastrophic insurance, if we pass 
group insurance, that we should be eligible. It says, instead, that the 
Congress would only provide the most minimum possible health care 
offered anywhere.
  Let me tell you why that worries me. It does not worry me for Jay 
Rockfeller; he is a millionaire. He will laugh at it, vote ``yes,'' and 
then buy whatever he wants. It does not worry me about Teddy Kennedy. 
You can go down the list of Senators. There are more and more Senators 
who are millionaires because there are more and more seats being 
bought. They can afford it.
  Then go out and you try to recruit an average middle-class citizen 
with two or three children, a normal person who understands normal 
life, and you say, ``Hi, why don't you come to the Congress? By the 
way, we are now going to artificially restrict you to the lowest 
possible denominator of health.''

                              {time}  1550

  Now what this will do is drive this place into two groups: 
millionaires that do not care, and they can laugh, or they demagog, 
because they are just going to pay for it out of their personal 
account, and people who will suffer any burden to have power, who will 
give up anything to have power. I think the amendment is pernicious. I 
hope Members have the courage to vote against it. I think it is, 
frankly, silly and makes no sense in its current form, and, if my 
colleagues read it carefully, I do not think any Member would seriously 
apply that to the others.
  There is a second amendment being offered by a Member who wants to 
make sure they can go out and say, ``I'm for reform'' and it refers to 
frequent flyer trips. Now I do not think frequent flyer trips are a big 
deal either way. I do note that in the private sector if one flies 
often enough, they get some frequent flyer miles. But let me note for 
that Member that Member does not say, ``Let's block Members from paying 
with the taxpayers' money for first class.'' They just say, ``You can't 
use your frequent flyer miles to upgrade.'' So, presumably they are 
willing to build a bias into the system that, as long as one is willing 
to charge directly to the taxpayer, one can fly first class because 
they certainly do not block that. They do not say to Members, ``Let's 
list next to each name every trip you take in an Air Force plane so we 
can see how much you spend.''
  And by the way, Mr. Chairman, I have gone to Russia at the 
President's request, and I do not mind listing it. I can defend 
traveling officially as a member of a U.S. delegation, but one cannot 
find those documents very easily.
  What this Member has done is found a great public relations gesture, 
an interesting little device to say, ``Oh, I'm tough on reform,'' and I 
think it is sad because quite frankly the rest of this bill is a good 
bill. It is a serious bill. It does serious things. It does not play 
games. It gives the House a real effort to put the House and hopefully, 
if the other body will go along, to put the Congress under the same 
laws as the rest of the country.
  Those two efforts, in the interest of public relations, those two 
efforts demean the institution. They are public relations gestures, and 
they have no real reform meaning.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich]. I agree with him totally in both instances. They are 
merely efforts at bashing this Congress.
  We on the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service have worked day 
and night to fashion a piece of legislation to go into the health bill 
that will open up the Federal employees health plan to all American 
citizens, and for somebody to get up here and give the impression that 
Congress is getting something that the American people are not getting 
either has not read what is in that legislation, but she has read it 
because she is on the committee, and she was there when we voted for 
it, so she knows that, if the health bill passes, as we have designed 
the legislation, that Members of Congress will have the same health 
benefits as other people who choose to come into the plan that we are 
opening up for them.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend, ``I commend what you 
have done.''
  I want to protect the Federal employee benefits health plan. I do not 
want to see it undermined. I do not want to see it used for public 
relations purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend what the gentleman has been trying to do. 
Many of us are trying to do the same thing. I just hope the Members of 
this House have the courage occasionally, and I say this as somebody 
who has fought very hard for reform and is fighting very hard for this 
bill: I hope we have the courage occasionally to say enough is enough, 
no public relations gestures, no demagoguery.
  My colleagues, let us pass real reform.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich] for having yielded to me.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale].
  Mr. McHALE. Mr. Chairman, I too, want to join in commending the 
courageous independence and consistent dedication of my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Swett], in bringing this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, 20 years ago, when I was a student at Georgetown Law 
School, I would routinely walk by the entrance to the U.S. Supreme 
Court where above that entrance I would read the phrase: ``Equal 
justice under law.''
  Today, with the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act, we 
bring that ideal a bit closer to reality. I believe this Chamber today 
will act wisely and in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion bring the 
Congress of the United States under the equal justice of law applicable 
to all other American citizens.
  I urge an affirmative vote.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill before us, 
the Congressional Accountability Act.
  By all predictions, this was to have been the Congress that rewrote 
the laws and rules governing congressional operations. With the end of 
the 103d Congress rapidly approaching, it appears that those 
predictions will fall far short of the mark.
  In fact, the only reform initiative given much of a chance of 
becoming law is contained in the bill before us today. Enactment of the 
Congressional Accountability Act would, as I see it, help Congress meet 
two important goals. First, it would end the hypocritical practice of 
telling the private sector to ``do as I say, not as I do.'' Every day 
that we carry on this double standard is a day that our moral authority 
to govern is brought into question by good people all across this 
Nation.
  Second, in the process of complying with the laws currently governing 
the private sector, Congress will have to face the same difficulties as 
those confronting every other employer. Consequently, we will know 
firsthand the money and, perhaps even more precious, the time that 
every other employer must part with in order to comply with Federal 
law. This experience can only make us better lawmakers.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would extend my congratulations to the 
sponsors of this measure, Chris Shays of Connecticut and Dick Swett of 
New Hampshire. Were it not for their diligence and hard work, it is 
unlikely that this measure would have been progressed through the 
legislative maze to this point.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], a Member who has worked diligently 
in committee on a number of very positive amendments.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I stand here today in 
support of the legislation that we have before us, and I want to 
commend the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Rose], and our ranking member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], for the efforts that they put into this bill 
and the manner in which it was considered in the Committee on House 
Administration.
  Now we have had a lot of partisan battles in that committee, as 
Members well know, but I have to say that this piece of legislation, 
and the hearings that we had leading up to it, and the markup we had, 
was exemplary, and we have before us a piece of legislation that is 
good .
  During that consideration I found it rather interesting, as we went 
through the legislation that should apply to Congress, that many 
Members around the table on both sides of the aisle decided that this 
was not a very smart law and why do we want to abide by it, and it is 
the real point of why we have the bill before us, because until the 
full weight of the law applies to all of us here in this Chamber, our 
willingness to be careful, our willingness to pursue the details of 
legislation we pass on the floor for the private sector, will never 
quite be there.
  So I say to my colleagues, we have done a good job. The bill deserves 
the support of all of us, and again to the gentleman from North 
Carolina [Mr. Rose] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] I 
say, Thank you very much.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, as we all well know, one of the 
criticisms of Congress is that we are out of touch with the American 
people. You and I know that this is not true--this body is made up of 
some of the finest Americans who work incredibly long hours and make 
tremendous efforts to give their neighbors a voice in this institution.
  But it is true that Congress is exempted, from some laws, from many 
employment discrimination laws and health and safety laws by which the 
private sector and executive branch must abide. Laws such as the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act and the Federal Labor/Management 
Relations Act were put into place to protect Americans from unfair 
employment practices and to ensure their safety on the job, and it is 
in all fairness to our own legislative branch employees that Congress 
should now apply these to itself.
  As a member of the Committee on House Administration and as a 
cosponsor of the original Shays-Swett bill, I strongly support H.R. 
4822, the Congressional Accountability Act. It is important that 
Congress comply with these laws for the sake of accountability and 
fairness.
  All of the laws and enforcement procedures would originate through 
the Office of Compliance, an independent body within the legislative 
branch created to implement all aspects of compliance, from rulemaking 
to enforcement, and created to be efficient, timely and fair.
  However, before this legislation is passed, and I sincerely hope it 
will be, we must realize that complete compliance cannot take place 
without the necessary appropriations. For example--OSHA compliance 
could require costly abatement procedures such as asbestos removal. We 
must be prepared to pay for it, and I sincerely hope that all those who 
will vote so enthusiastically today will be just as enthusiastic when 
we have to foot the bill.
  If we are serious about reform, we must pass this bill. I commend my 
colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, and my colleague from New 
Hampshire, Mr. Swett, on the effort to bring this important legislation 
to the floor before August recess. When we go back to our districts, we 
want to be able to say to our constituents that we have taken the 
necessary steps toward reform by passing compliance legislation and 
that we in Congress are no longer above the law.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman form Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, one of my first acts when I 
came to the Congress was to submit legislation to reform the Congress, 
and so of course of am pleased that this bill is before us today. But I 
hope that the Members of the House and the American people understand 
that this bill is just a first small step down the road that we need to 
take to complete reform.
  This Congress, this body, is held in ever-lower esteem by the 
American people, and a very large part of that is because of the 
congressional reform that is needed. I hope we accept this as just a 
down payment, just a first step on to true reform that is needed, so we 
can regain the stature we need with the American people so that we can 
effectively legislate so this Government can effectively govern.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional Accountability 
Act, H.R. 4822, and I wish to congratulate the gentleman from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Swett], and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] 
for their yeoman's work on this matter. Without their persistent 
leadership, we would not be on the House floor today preparing to pass 
this vital legislation.
  Applying to ourselves the laws we in Congress impose on the private 
sector is the right thing to do and it is long, long overdue. Several 
years ago while I was a member of the Committee on Education and Labor 
I suggested that as we increased the minimum wage, extended family and 
medical leave laws, considered civil rise protections and reformed 
OSHA, that we simply apply these same laws to the Congress.
  Those of us who supported and sponsored these amendments were told 
repeatedly that the Congress was special; that the constitutional 
separation of powers dictated that we should not be governed by the 
executive branch; and that we would be opening the Congress to numerous 
lawsuits.
  Out point was this is a matter of accountability and trust. The 
American people cannot be expected to trust the Congress to do the work 
of the Nation if we exempt ourselves from the laws we apply to the rest 
of the Nation. Mr. Shays and Mr. Swett have provided leadership on this 
issue. This legislation is long overdue. The bill deserve our support.
  Mr. THOMAS. of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to once again commend the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. 
Swett]. Without them, we would not be where we are today. As is usually 
the case, it is someone who takes an inordinate interest and involves 
and invests an inordinate amount of time to bring us to the position 
that we are at today.
  I want to underscore once again the very positive, bipartisanship 
that was obtained in the Committee on House Administration when we 
reviewed 14 amendments.
  The rule, that made in order this bill, makes in order a number of 
amendments, and I would ask the Members to listen to the debate, pro 
and con, on most of these amendments. Frankly, the call could go either 
way on a number of these, and I may have my opinion, but other Members 
may have theirs. And clearly they are amendments that have merit. And 
whether they are voted into this bill or not, they are not pernicious. 
They are not there as Trojan horses. They are not their with a second 
agenda involved.
  I have a personal concern about the amendment dealing with the court 
process, because it was brought up in committee, and I will discuss 
that when that amendment is made in order.
  But I want to underscore the gentleman from Georgia's comments and 
the response of the gentleman from Missouri. I believe that this 
process is demeaned by the way in which the Committee on Rules made in 
order amendments that were clearly not designed to improve the 
underlying bill in terms of placing the Congress under those 10 laws 
that the private sector has to be placed under. I know arguments will 
be made as we come to the floor that these are in fact similar to the 
other amendments that are going to be offered. They are not.
  I invite the Members' attention to the serious amendments, and that 
we should discuss them and make the House's will known, including or 
not including those. But I do hope the House makes it known that the 
kind of amendments that were made in order, that clearly I think are 
political and pernicious, should be given the faith that they deserve, 
and that is that they should be rejected.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins.].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would be so 
kind as to address a particular concern of mine regarding the duties of 
the Office of Compliance with respect to educating Members of this body 
as well as their staffs on their rights and responsibilities under the 
laws which will apply to them under this act, I would appreciate it.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would be glad 
to do so.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
long overdue legislation and strongly urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  I am extremely pleased that under section 6 of the bill the Office of 
Compliance is charged with carrying out educational programs so that 
Members, their staffs, and other legislative branch employees and 
agencies become informed of their duties under this legislation. The 
bill also broadly lays out ways in which the Office could implement 
educational initiatives, such as through mass mailings to Members and 
employees as well as through instructional seminars. Prior to learning 
that such provisions were included in the bill, I was planning to offer 
a similar amendment.
  Nevertheless, it is my understanding that the bill does not 
specifically stress what I believe to be a vital component of the 
success of such educational efforts by the Office of Compliance, and 
that is the timeliness and regularity of these efforts, as well as any 
particular assurances that these educational efforts will be widely 
publicized and disseminated. In addition, I do not believe the bill 
offers the Office or the Board of Directors any real detailed 
suggestions as to how best to meet its educational requirements. I 
personally think that, if allowable, the Office of Compliance would be 
well served by a partnership with the Library of Congress for the 
purposes of carrying out its educational duties under this bill. It 
might also be beneficial for the Office of Compliance to ask each 
Member's office to designate a staffer responsible for oversight of the 
Office of Compliance activities, if the Member and their offices are so 
inclined.
  My overall concern, Mr. Chairman, is that we don't end up learning 
about rules and regulations with which we must comply after the fact. 
The educational component of this bill is key to ensuring that this 
does not happen.
  If the distinguished Chairman from North Carolina agrees with me on 
this merit of my concerns, I would be more than happy and willing to 
work with him and your staff in ensuring that the general thoughts I 
have just enunciated are conveyed through the proper channels, such as 
in possible report language to the bill, or through other means the 
gentleman may deem appropriate. I believe this would serve to clarify 
important congressional intent in this area.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  (Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support of this 
legislation.
   Mr. Chairman, the concept of applying the laws of the land to 
Congress has been one which I have been fighting for since I first came 
to Congress. This is why I am pleased to finally see a bill on the 
floor of the House which attempts to achieve this goal. The bill before 
us today, H.R. 4822, the Congressional Accountability Act, has been a 
long time in coming.
  The Hypocrisy of Congress in exempting itself from the very laws it 
imposes on others is so obvious, that one wonders how the practice so 
long managed to escape wide criticism. In the last few years, however, 
we have seen a change in the long-standing attitude that Congress is so 
unique and so different that it simply must be afforded special 
exemptions, even from employment laws, or it could not function; and 
those of us who once felt alone in the wilderness in urging 
congressional coverage now have welcome company. The reality is that 
the public is fed up, and Congress has been reacting.
  In my years in the House, it has become increasingly clear that 
Congress, in its imperial wisdom, too cavalierly and too eagerly, 
continues to place layer upon layer of regulatory requirements on the 
private sector--without any deep understanding for what it is doing. 
Congressional coverage is vitally important because it will help 
Congress to adopt credible, effective, and workable laws which affect 
everyone else in the United States and will allow Congress to truly 
feel the pain of the impact of these laws. If the statutes don't apply 
to us, how in the world are we supposed to know how they will work in 
the real world outside of the beltway?
   Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4822 sets up a congressional Office of Compliance 
which would be required to issue regulations to implement the 
application of 10 laws to Congress. I am pleased that the committee 
report language accompanying this bill directs that the Compliance 
Office should implement the specific provisions of the laws listed in 
the act to the greatest extent possible, and that it is not the act's 
intent that existing law be reinterpreted. I appreciate the fact that 
the authors of this bill, Mr. Shays and Mr. Swett, agree with me on 
this point.
  I am also heartened by the fact that the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act is one of the statutes which will be applied to Congress. 
Last year, I introduced the Congressional Safety and Health Act (H.R. 
3458) to extend OSHA protections to employees of the House and its 
instrumentalities. The report language suggests an approach which is 
modeled after my bill, to ensure that OSHA enforcement mechanisms are 
applied to Congress that mirror, as closely as possible, those found in 
the private sector.
  With regard to remedies available to aggrieved employees, H.R. 4822 
copies the private sector process in allowing private law suits in 
court, with jury trials, where the underlying law allows for such law 
suits. In my view, this is a very important provision in the bill, 
because congressional employees should be entitled to the same type of 
damages as private sector employees under the relevant laws.
  I must emphasize that if Members of Congress and Senators are not 
subjected to the same employee remedies which exist under many of the 
laws of the land, especially in the area of place-of-employment labor 
law, then we will not have true congressional coverage of these laws. 
This is not very well known, because Members are currently exempt from 
the most important aspect of many private sector laws, the right of 
employees to sue the employer in trial court for damages. In this day 
and age, these employee rights are what put the ``teeth'' into many of 
our private sector labor laws--and in ever increasing frequency, 
Congress is expanding these rights.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to one of the laws included in H.R. 4822, 
the Family and Medical Leave Act, I am pleased today to see that 
Members will be supporting the correct position on its application to 
Congress--a position which was not accepted when I offered my motion to 
recommit the FMLA bill when it was considered by the House last year. 
My motion would have allowed Congressional employees to use judicial 
remedies in the FMLA's enforcement and would have allowed Members to be 
sued in Federal court for violations of the Act. H.R. 4822 does, with 
the exception of allowing punitive damages and Member liability for 
wrongdoing, achieve the same result that I attempted to accomplish with 
my motion last year.
  H.R. 4822, however, although it provides major improvements in terms 
of employee rights, it is still very deficient in the area of employer 
accountability. Under this bill, all Members of Congress, Senators, and 
heads of employing offices are totally shielded from any financial 
liability resulting from wrongdoing, even in proven cases of egregious 
violations of the law. This is a step back from the current procedures 
of the existing House Office of Fair Employment Practices, which 
provide for award payments for Members' office accounts. The bill also 
sets up a separate fund and provides for government-paid attorney 
representation, no matter how outrageous the behavior or allegations in 
question. In addition, H.R. 4822 expressly excludes awards of punitive 
damages. Where is the sting here? If only private sector companies were 
lucky enough to have this arrangement!
  In the final analysis, the lack of employer accountability in this 
legislation will likely result in additional litigation against 
Congressional employers, because the deep pocket of the Government--the 
taxpayers--will pay for any damages of attorney fees which are awarded.
  Mr. Chairman, despite these defects in the bill, it is still an 
improvement over the current situation. I would also hope that the 
shortcomings I mentioned can be addressed in conference with the 
Senate. There are many Members who should be thanked for their work on 
this issue, but I would like to specifically recognize several of my 
colleagues: Mr. Shays and Mr. Swett for their perseverance in promoting 
their legislation; Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Dreier for their work in the 
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, on which H.R. 4822 is 
based; and Mr. Goodling, the ranking Member on the House Education and 
Labor Committee who introduced legislation last year which guided the 
authors of H.R. 4822 and ensured that we have a better product before 
us today. I only hope that the Senate will follow our lead and will 
pass similar legislation in the near future so that we may go to 
conference and send a bill to the President this year--one that 
provides a real and workable mechanism for making Congress subject to 
the same laws it mandates on the private sector.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, to close debate on our side, I yield the 
balance of our time to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett], 
who has done the yeoman's task of bringing this legislation to the 
point we are at today.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Hampshire is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, I want to first thank the gentleman for the 
opportunity to close debate. I am somewhat humbled by all the numerous 
references to both myself and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays]. I think that I can speak for the gentleman in saying that this 
is not our legislation. This is legislation that has been in this House 
for now 7 years, maybe longer. We have heard many people talk about 
different aspects of that, that they have worked on long before the 
gentleman or I made it into Congress.
  We came into Congress recognizing in many respects the problems that 
this body faced because of the efforts of these people who came before 
us. We owe a great debt of gratitude to their efforts. They have 
educated us. We have taken what they have done and tried to expand upon 
it, include them in that expansion, and it has been certainly a great 
privilege to work with them.
  First of all, what is this bill really about? This bill is about 
building back trust and confidence in a government that seems to have 
become the last plantation, that has no real sensitivity toward what is 
happening in the private sector. That is something that the gentleman 
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I and all the other people that have 
worked on this bill have tried time and time again to incorporate.
  How do we overcome these problems? How do we build this trust back 
in? How do we rebuild confidence in the Government? We do that by an 
open process. Every point on this bill was openly negotiated. It was a 
rule that we felt was important and had to be adhered to at all times, 
constructive dialog versus adversarial opposition. We negotiated with 
an unusual element that you rarely find in discussions in this country, 
let alone in this town of Washington, DC. That element was a 
fundamental adherence that there needed to be a basic building block of 
trust in everything that we discussed, trust that we could move forward 
to overcome our differences, trust to understand that we could 
ultimately agree on some kind of legislation that would help this body 
become more sensitive to the problems that people in this country face 
on a day-in and day-out basis.
  We have brought Congress under the laws of the land. We have done it 
in a way that we feel protects the powers of separation. The 
constitutionalists have found satisfaction with what we have done. We 
have done it in a way that we hope will build some kind of community in 
this body that will enable us to go from here after this first step is 
taken and build upon it, as has been requested by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas].

  These are the milestones that make for effective government, and we 
are, today, accomplishing a milestone that was set out for the public 
by our predecessors nearly a decade ago.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SWETT. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ROSE. One of our colleagues asked, will this bill prohibit me 
from asking an employee that wants to go to work in my office, are you 
a Democrat, are you pro-life, are you pro-choice? Could you comment 
briefly on that?
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, Members will have the latitude to inquire of 
their employees on political grounds, domicile grounds. They have the 
opportunity to determine in those spectrums what is advantageous to 
their service.
  I urge my colleagues to continue in this bipartisan spirit and to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 4822, the Congressional Accountability Act. This long overdue 
reform would force Congress to abide by some of the same laws that it 
imposes on the private sector. I have no doubt this legislation will 
cause Congress to think twice about the impact new legislation will 
have on others and question the wisdom of previously passed laws as 
well. It's just common sense.
  I am particularly pleased that we will be considering an amendment 
today to require that any standard benefits package approved as a part 
of health care reform apply to Members of Congress. On this subject, I 
have sponsored my own resolution that expresses the sense of Congress 
that any law pertaining to the reform of our Nation's health care 
system should apply to Members of Congress and all Federal employees. 
If Congress is to pass health care reforms that will affect the lives 
of every American, it's only fair that they should apply to Members of 
Congress, their staff, and all other Federal employees as well.
  Regardless of what we do in Congress on health care reform or any 
other issue, there is no reason why laws should not apply to Congress. 
The likely outcome of such long overdue reform is that Members of 
Congress, by swallowing some of their own painful medicine, will become 
better lawmakers and begin to lead by example, not exemption. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Congressional Accountability Act.
  Mrs. LLOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4822, the 
Congressional Accountability Act, which applies 10 existing employee 
protection and antidiscrimination laws to the employees of Congress and 
other legislative branch agencies.
  I have long maintained that Congress should also abide by the laws we 
pass for our citizens. H.R. 4822 specifies the following laws would 
apply to Congress: Fair Labor Standards Act, title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, Americans With Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination 
in Employment Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, Occupational Safety 
and Health Act, Federal Labor Management Relations Act, Employee 
Polygraph Protection Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification 
Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
  This legislation avoids potential separation of powers conflicts by 
allowing Congress to promulgate its own rules and regulations, provided 
they are consistent with existing law, and administer the execution of 
these laws internally, through an Office of Compliance. This 
legislation establishes a process by which violations of these statutes 
may be remedied, including the option of judicial review.
  I firmly believe that Congress needs to be held accountable for the 
laws it passes. This legislation is a solid, bipartisan step in the 
right direction and I will continue further efforts in the 103d 
Congress that promote legislative accountability.
  Mr. BARCA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly support the 
amendment by Representative Byrne to require that if Congress passes a 
health care plan with a standard health care benefits package that 
Congress will have the same benefits as the rest of the people in our 
country.
  This amendment parallels House Concurrent Resolution 156 which I 
introduced last September. The resolution states that Members of 
Congress should participate on an equal basis with all other Americans 
in any health care system legislated by Congress.
  During the past year I have conducted townhall meetings on health 
care reform throughout the First Congressional District of Wisconsin. 
The people attending these meetings had diverse opinions on the range 
of health care issues, but there was one unifying factor.
  They unanimously supported my position that Members of Congress 
should have the same health care plan that is offered to the American 
people.
  I am very pleased that we are acting today to pass a bill on 
congressional accountability to ensure that Congress will live by the 
laws we pass. This is a good addition to that act.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of passage of H.R. 4822, 
the Congressional Accountability Act.
  It is my preference that Congress would consider congressional reform 
as a whole, rather than as a piecemeal approach. Nonetheless, H.R. 4822 
is a first step in the right direction.
  It should be no surprise to anyone in this Chamber that Congress does 
not stand in high esteem among the general public. The public perceives 
an institution beset by privilege. This legislation, H.R. 4822, will 
help to put Congress on the same footing as the rest of the Nation.
  The Congressional Accountability Act will apply 10 laws to Congress 
from which it is for the most part currently exempt. The bill creates a 
bicameral Office of Compliance to apply these laws to Congress and to 
enforce them. This office surmounts the separation of powers 
constitutional difficulty. The 10 laws under which Congress will now 
fall include:
  Fair Labor Standards Act--governing minimum wage and overtime pay, as 
well as other labor standards as equal pay protections. Compliance time 
for Congress--1 year from enactment.
  Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act--prohibiting employment 
discrimination based on race, religion, sex, or national origin. 
Compliance time--1 year from enactment.
  Americans With Disabilities Act--prohibiting employment 
discrimination against a qualified, but disabled individual. Compliance 
time--1 year from enactment.
  Age Discrimination in Employment Act--prohibiting employment 
discrimination based on age. Compliance time--1 year from enactment.
  Titles I and V of the Family and Medical Leave Act--title V of this 
act applied it to Congress. This bill revises the provisions to conform 
to the new procedures of compliance. It requires employers to provide 
up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for the birth or adoption of a child or 
the illness of a close family member. Compliance time--1 year from 
enactment.
  Occupational Safety and Health Act--governs workplace safety 
standards. Compliance time--2 years from enactment.
  Chapter 71 of title 5 United States Code--permits Federal workers the 
right to unionize and bargain, but prohibits striking. Compliance 
time--2 years from enactment.
  Employee Polygraph Protection Act--prohibits using lie detector tests 
on employees or job applicants with some exemptions, notably national 
security agencies. Compliance time--1 year, except the Capitol Police 
which are exempt.
  Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act--requires 60 days 
notice for plant closings that would cause 50 or more employees to lose 
their jobs and layoffs of longer than 6 months. Compliance time--1 year 
from enactment.
  Rehabilitation Act--requires affirmative action plans for hiring 
disabled persons and prohibits discrimination on the basis of 
disability. Compliance time--2 years from enactment.
  The Congressional Accountability Act sets forth a counseling and 
mediation process through which employees must attempt to seek redress 
of grievances. However, employees can bring civil suit in Federal 
district courts. The bill also establishes a fund to pay compensation 
if a violation has occurred and a monetary remedy is found to be 
appropriate.
  Congress must live by the laws it passes for the rest of America. As 
a cosponsor of H.R. 349, originally introduced by Mr. Shays, I am 
pleased to support this legislation to improve the accountability of 
Congress.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4822, the 
Congressional Accountability Act. This important legislation would 
apply ten employee-protection laws to the employees of Congress.
  H.R. 4822 fulfills our responsibility to grant the same protections 
and workplace standards that all other working Americans enjoy to our 
own employees in Congress. The Congressional Accountability Act 
continues the recent trend of Congress living by the rules we ask the 
rest of America to live by.
  In recent years, we have enacted several major employee protection 
laws--the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 
and the Family and Medical Leave Act. In each case, we applied the 
requirements of these laws to Congress just like they applied to the 
private sector. In addition, House rules provide House employees with 
protections afforded under the Fair Labor Standards Act and specify 
that House personnel actions shall be made ``free from discrimination 
based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex--including marital 
or parental status--disability, or age.''
  H.R. 4822 continues our efforts to bring Congress into compliance 
with other significant employee protection statutes. The Congressional 
Accountability Act will also require Congress to comply with the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Federal Labor Management 
Relations Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the Worker 
Adjustment and Retraining Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
  This legislation establishes a four-step complaint process, including 
counseling, mediation, formal complaint and hearing and judicial 
review, to deal with alleged violations of these laws. In short, it 
affords congressional employees a formal process to air their 
grievances, including access to the courts.
  This Act represents a positive change in how Congress treats its own 
employees. I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues 
to vote for this landmark congressional reform bill.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Congressional 
Accountability Act, H.R. 4822, which I'm pleased to be cosponsoring. 
This bill, which applies to congressional employees the basic 
protections against discrimination, unsafe working conditions and 
unfair labor practices which are guaranteed to other American workers, 
is a long overdue reform. For many decades, Congress routinely exempted 
itself for laws which it passed to apply to the rest of America--a 
double standard which increased the contempt which most citizens have 
justifiably held for this institution. Capitol Hill was the last 
bastion of arbitrary bosses, long after the struggles of working men 
and women gained basic human and economic rights for workers in most of 
our Nation.
  Finally, a few years ago, Congress finally started to get the 
message. The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act of 
1991, and the Family and Medical Leave Act were applied to the 
legislative branch when they were passed, as well as to the executive 
branch and private employers. Now, with this bill 10 basic employee 
protection laws, including those dealing with family and medical leave, 
nondiscrimination, privacy, occupational safety and health, and fair 
labor standards, will be applied to employees of the legislative 
branch.
  I realize that the separation of powers among the legislative, 
executive and judicial branches is an important constitutional issue in 
terms of this bill. But the authors of the bill, and the committees 
which are bringing it to the floor, have worked long and hard to devise 
enforcement mechanisms which respect both the Constitution's provisions 
and the rights of workers, and I believe that they have succeeded. 
While an office of compliance in the legislative branch will develop 
the regulations and resolve complaints, this will not supersede the 
rights of workers to take their cases to court for judicial review. The 
constitutional separation of powers is respected, but not at the 
expense of workers' rights.
  Mr. Speaker, the laws which are applied to the legislative branch by 
this bill were major victories for the civil rights and labor movements 
in this country. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents 
discrimination by employers, was one of the most significant milestones 
in the struggle against racism in the 1960's. The Occupational Safety 
and Health Act, although still not strongly enforced, recognizes the 
right of all workers to be protected against injuries and occupational 
diseases. The American with Disabilities Act prevents discrimination 
against people with disabilities, and establishes that workers have the 
right to be judged based on their real abilities to do the job. And the 
Family Medical Leave Act, while still falling short of what other 
industrialized countries guarantee, at least makes it possible for 
workers to take time off to care for an injured child or a sick parent, 
without losing their jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill extends protection only to a few thousand more 
workers, but its symbolic importance goes far beyond that. It is a 
recognition that Congress can no longer maintain a double standard on 
workers' rights, applying them to everyone but itself. It is a strong 
statement that every worker in America has the right to a safe 
workplace, to family and medical leave, and to protect against 
discrimination. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, and finally 
bring Capitol Hill into the 20th century.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4822, 
the Congressional Accountability Act. I believe this measure is long 
overdue and much needed. The bill would apply 10 existing employee 
protection and antidiscrimination laws to the employees of Congress and 
other legislative branch agencies. I am especially pleased to note that 
H.R. 4822 extends coverage to the brave and dedicated men and women of 
the U.S. Capitol Police.
  I'd like to focus in on one of the ten employee protection measures 
the bill extends to the legislative branch: the Federal Labor 
Management Relations Act [FLMRA]. Under this bill, the FLMRA would 
apply to the legislative branch within 2 years of the date of 
enactment--regardless of whether final regulations are issued.
  The end result of applying FLMRA to the legislative branch will be to 
allow the rank and file of the U.S. Capitol Police to organize and form 
a union. This is a basic right that most of the more than 500,000 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers across the country 
have.
  For the past 2 years, I have been working to address the serious 
morale problems that exist on the Capitol Police. I have been pushing 
for adoption of a resolution creating an Ad Hoc Joint Congressional 
Committee to review the current labor relations policy for the U.S. 
Capitol Police and recommend changes to the Congress. H.R. 4822, by 
allowing the Capitol Police officers to unionize will--in the long 
run--help address the current problems on the force. However, I still 
believe that approval of my resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 84, 
would go a long way in addressing the current problems on the force.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with a number of officers about the 
force. Without question, there is a serious morale problem. The rank 
and file feel they have no rights, that they are treated like children. 
I have found instances of age, sex and racial discrimination. I have 
found that in all too many instances management is petty, unsympathetic 
and incompetent. The bill before us today will go a long way in 
addressing these serious problems.
  The Sergeant at Arms and the Capitol Police Board have made some 
important changes, but has done nothing to address the fundamental 
structural problems that exist. For example, the ombudsperson they 
established to hear complaints and grievances reports directly to 
management, and is perceived by the rank and file as a tool of 
management and not as an objective third party who can resolve 
problems.
  If the rank and file could organize and establish a union, they could 
work cooperatively with management and create a grievance procedure 
that will have teeth, and one that everyone can have confidence in as 
being fair and objective.
  The 3-day demonstration on the steps of the Capitol last February is 
proof positive that the morale problem is widespread and is not simply 
a matter of a few disgruntled officers making a lot of noise. There is 
a serious problem and Congress can't ignore it. Today, Congress is 
stepping up to the plate and addressing this problem, and other 
problems associated with its 200-year-old practice of exempting itself 
from the laws it passes for the rest of the country.
  In conclusion, I applaud the distinguished gentleman from North 
Carolina, Mr. Rose, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Swift, and the 
gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, for their excellent work in 
moving this important legislation forward. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Capitol Police and vote for H.R. 4822.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, the concept of applying the laws of the 
land to Congress has been one which I have been fighting for since I 
first came to Congress. This is why I am pleased to finally see a bill 
on the floor of the House which attempts to achieve this goal. The bill 
before us today, H.R. 4822, the Congressional Accountability Act, has 
been a long time in coming.
  The hypocrisy of Congress in exempting itself from the very laws it 
imposes on others is so obvious, that one wonders how the practice so 
long managed to escape wide criticism. In the last few years, however, 
we have seen a change in the long-standing attitude that Congress is so 
unique and so different that it simply must be afforded special 
exemptions, even from employment laws, or it could not function; and 
those of us who once felt alone in the wilderness in urging 
congressional coverage now have welcome company. The reality is that 
the public is fed up, and Congress has been reacting.
  In my years in the House, it has become increasingly clear that 
Congress, in its imperial wisdom, too cavalierly and too eagerly, 
continues to place layer upon layer of regulatory requirements on the 
private sector--without any deep understanding for what it is doing. 
Congressional coverage is vitally important because it will help 
Congress to adopt credible, effective and workable laws which affect 
everyone else in the United States and will allow Congress to truly 
feel the pain of the impact of these laws. If the statutes do not apply 
to us, how in the world are we supposed to know how they will work in 
the real world outside of the beltway?
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4822 sets up a Congressional Office of Compliance 
which would be required to issue regulations to implement the 
application of 10 laws to Congress. I am pleased that the committee 
report language accompanying this bill directs that the Compliance 
Office should implement the specific provisions of the laws listed in 
the act to the greatest extent possible, and that it is not the act's 
intent that existing law be reinterpreted. I appreciate the fact that 
the authors of this bill, Mr. Shays and Mr. Swett, agree with me on 
this point.
  I am also heartened by the fact that the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act is one of the statutes which will be applied to Congress. 
Last year, I introduced the Congressional Safety and Health Act (H.R. 
3458) to extend OSHA protections to employees of the House and its 
instrumentalities. The report language suggests an approach which is 
modeled after my bill, to ensure that OSHA enforcement mechanisms are 
applied to Congress that mirror, as closely as possible, those found in 
the private sector.

  With regard to remedies available to aggrieved employees, H.R. 4822 
copies the private sector process in allowing private law suits in 
court, with jury trials, where the underlying law allows for such law 
suits. In my view, this is a very important provision in the bill, 
because congressional employees should be entitled to the same type of 
damages as private sector employees under the relevant laws.
  I must emphasize that if Members of Congress and Senators are not 
subjected to the same employee remedies which exist under many of the 
laws of the land, especially in the area of place-of-employment labor 
law, then we will not have true congressional coverage of these laws. 
This is not very well known, because Members are currently exempt from 
the most important aspect of many private sector laws, the right of 
employees to sue the employer in trial court for damages. In this day 
and age, these employee rights are what put the teeth into many of our 
private sector labor laws--and in ever increasing frequency, Congress 
is expanding these rights.
  Mr. Chairman, with regard to one of the laws included in H.R. 4822, 
the Family and Medical Leave Act, I am pleased today to see that 
Members will be supporting the correct position on its application to 
Congress--a position which was not accepted when I offered my motion to 
recommit the FMLA bill when it was considered by the House last year. 
My motion would have allowed congressional employees to use judicial 
remedies in the FMLA's enforcement and would have allowed Members to be 
sued in Federal court for violations of the act. H.R. 4822 does, with 
the exception of allowing punitive damages and Member liability for 
wrongdoing, achieve the same result that I attempted to accomplish with 
my motion last year.
  H.R. 4822, however, although it provides major improvements in terms 
of employee rights, is still very deficient in the area of employer 
accountability. Under this bill, all Members of Congress, Senators, and 
heads of employing offices are totally shielded from any financial 
liability resulting from wrongdoing, even in proven cases of egregious 
violations of the law. This is a step back from the current procedures 
of the existing House Office of Fair Employment Practices, which 
provide for award payments from Members' office accounts. The bill also 
sets up a separate fund and provide for Government-paid attorney 
representation, no matter how outrageous the behavior or allegations in 
question. In addition, H.R. 4822 expressly excludes awards of punitive 
damages. Where is the sting here? If only private sector companies were 
lucky enough to have this arrangement.
  In the final analysis, the lack of employer accountability in this 
legislation will likely result in additional litigation against 
congressional employers, because the deep pocket of the Government--the 
taxpayers--will pay for any damages or attorney fees which are awarded.
  Mr. Chairman, despite these defects in the bill, it is still an 
improvement over the current situation. I would also hope that the 
shortcomings I mentioned can be addressed in conference with the 
Senate. There are many Members who should be thanked for their work on 
this issue, but I would like to specifically recognize several of my 
colleagues: Mr. Shays and Mr. Swett for their perseverance in promoting 
their legislation; Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Dreier for their work in the 
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, on which H.R. 4822 is 
based; and Mr. Goodling, the ranking member on the House Education and 
Labor Committee who introduced legislation last year which guided the 
authors of H.R. 4822 and ensured that we have a better product before 
us today. I only hope that the Senate will follow our lead and will 
passs similar legislation in their near future so that we may go to 
conference and a send a bill to the President this year--one that 
provides a real and workable mechanism for making Congress subject to 
the same laws it mandates on the private sector.
  Mr. RIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I believe by passing H.R. 4822, the 
Congressional Accountability Act, today, the House took the first step 
in bringing reform to this body. This bill applies 10 laws to Congress 
to which businesses in the private sector must already abide. It also 
provides a detailed process for congressional employees to raise 
allegations of violations to these laws. The intention of the bill is 
to provide legislative branch employees with the same employment rights 
and protections that are available to employees of the private sector 
or Federal branch of Government.
  This legislation is long overdue. It is a privilege and honor to 
serve in Congress and this privilege should not be abused. Congress 
should hold themselves to at least the same standards that they enforce 
on others.
  There is no reason that Congress should be exempted from laws such as 
the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, the Age 
Discrimination Act, and the American with Disabilities Act. These laws 
have been enacted to ensure that discrimination does not occur in the 
work place. Members of Congress should take the lead on such issues; 
not pass legislation which, in essence, ensures they do not even have 
to follow the rules they impose on other employers.
  It is time that we, as Members of Congress, start acting as servants 
of those who elected us. We must stop placing ourselves above laws that 
we feel are necessary for others. Until we do--and to some degree 
rightly so--this institution's reputation with the American people will 
continue to erode.
  I hope this is just a first step in reforming Congress. The Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress, which was established to 
make recommendations on how Congress can operate more efficiently and 
effectively, has made many other recommendations that need to be 
considered by this body. Only when the entire reform proposal is 
debated and passed will credibility begin to be truly restored to this 
body.
  It is time for us to send a message to our constituents that we do 
not believe that we are above the laws we create.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4822, 
the Congressional Accountability Act. This is one of the most 
significant reforms this Congress can make to help break down barriers 
of government. It is illogical, and bad policy, for Congress to set a 
different standard for itself. We've heard the phrase over and over 
today, but it bears repeating: Congress will definitely write better 
laws if it has to live under the laws it passes.
  When I came to Congress last year, the original Congressional 
Accountability Act was one of the first--and most important--reform 
measures I sponsored. The good work of my friends Mr. Shays and Mr. 
Swett deserves recognition for making the bill before us today a 
reality. Because I came to Congress to change the way business is done, 
I urge all my colleagues to support this long overdue opportunity to 
bring citizens and their Government closer together, and vote for H.R. 
4822, the Congressional Accountability Act.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 4822, the 
Congressional Accountability Act. Dick Swett and Chris Shays and many 
other Members have worked long and hard to bring this legislation 
before the House. As the chairman of the DSG Task Force on 
Congressional Reform, I appreciate the time and effort that's gone into 
it. The chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Dreier, also deserve 
much credit, and I thank them for all their work.
  The DSG Task Force spent a great deal of time considering reform 
recommendations to make to the Joint Committee. We focused on five 
principal areas: the committee system; the budget process; floor 
deliberation and scheduling; ethics and institutional integrity; and 
staffing of Congress. These are important parts of the whole, and they 
are critical to true reform.
  While some of these issues pertain exclusively to the operation of 
the House, others affect national policy. For example, could Members be 
more active in their committees if assignments were further limited? 
Would committee participation improve with a 4-day week? Would a 2-year 
budget process be more efficient, or just substitute many supplemental 
appropriations bills every other year?
  These questions, and they're difficult ones, have been tackled by 
groups of Members, but not by the body as a whole. To function 
successfully, any organization has to periodically evaluate its 
operations and make appropriate changes. The evaluations have been 
made. We need to move on and make the corrections.
  The package the Joint Committee put together is a good one because 
it's comprehensive. I believe we ought to be considering it in its 
entirety, and I regret that we aren't. But I in no way want to diminish 
the scope of the bill which we are considering today which requires 
congressional compliance with Federal workplace laws.
  Quite simply, Congress should be subject to the same standards it 
applies to everyone else. And if we're going to pass laws that set 
rules for business, we ought to have to comply with them ourselves to 
the maximum extent practicable. That prospect no doubt will add a 
different and useful perspective to our deliberations on such laws.
  With this bill, we will apply to Congress the Federal Labor 
Management Relations Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act and six other employee-protection laws. Further, under this bill, 
Congress will be covered by other Federal laws relating to the terms 
and conditions of employment.
  To ensure that Congress actually polices fair employment practices, 
and to respect the constitutional separation between the legislative 
branch and the executive branch, the DSG Task Force called for an 
independent enforcement agency within the legislative branch, with the 
right of appeal to the courts. The bill does this by establishing an 
Office of Compliance, made up of an eight-member Board of Directors and 
an Executive Director to develop regulations and to resolve complaints. 
Through a four-step process, legislative branch employees will be able 
to seek redress for alleged violations. A judicial review by the U.S. 
Court of Appeals can be requested, and, following a mediation stage, 
the employee can bring a civil suit in U.S. District Court. This 
complaint process is an effective way to ensure that Congress complies 
with the letter and spirit of workplace laws without violating the 
principle of separation of powers.
  While this bill clearly demonstrates that the House is serious about 
congressional reform, a comprehensive reform package should be 
considered by the House this session. We've come too far not to 
complete the process, and I encourage the leadership to bring the rest 
of the Joint Committee's package to the full House for consideration. 
In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4822, the Congressional Accountability Act.
  The goal of H.R. 4822 is to better align public perception with 
reality. Although some Members may characterize this as a historic 
move, I would remind my colleagues that the reality is that Congress 
already adheres to the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave 
Act, among others.
  Congress is not your typical workplace, it is a unique political 
institution. However, it is not above the law, and this legislation 
should clarify this point once and for all. The bill achieves the 
necessary balance between maintaining the legislative branch's 
independence and authority, and proving to taxpayers that this is an 
open and accountable body. It will lead to uniform enforcement between 
the two Chambers and among our support agencies like the Architect of 
the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, and the General 
Accounting Office.
  The Congressional Accountability Act recognizes that Congress is 
already complying with the overwhelming majority of employment and 
labor laws. Yet, the bill upgrades existing congressional structures 
and creates an office of compliance to ensure that this institution 
continues to do so on an ongoing basis.
  During consideration of this bill by the House Administration 
Committee, on which I serve, there was healthy debate on whether this 
bill should include the Freedom of Information Act. The committee 
decided that the Freedom of Information Act should not be included in 
this package because the bill compels compliance with labor and 
employment laws currently applicable to the private sector. As we all 
know, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to the private 
sector, only to executive branch agencies.
  In addition, I want to make it clear that the legislative branch is 
already the most open, most accountable branch of Government. The 
American people already have access to our debates, votes, speeches, 
testimony, salaries, investments, and official expenses. Moreover, with 
the arrival of the information age, just about everything we do and say 
is open to public scrutiny. Most of all, everyone in this Chamber must 
be reelected every other year. What could be more accountable than 
that?
  Mr. Chairman, The Congressional Accountability Act is not a bill that 
will dramatically alter what is already an open, accountable 
institution. What it will go along way toward doing is to improve the 
perception of this institution in the eyes of our taxpayers, which is 
something we could all use in this day and age.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 4892, modified by the amendments printed 
in part 1 of House Report 103-691, shall be considered as an original 
bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, 
is as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Accountability 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act:
       (1) Congressional employee.--The term ``congressional 
     employee'' means--
       (A) an individual on the payroll of an employing office of 
     the House of Representatives;
       (B) an individual on the payroll of an employing office of 
     the Senate;
       (C) an individual on the payroll of an employing office of 
     the Architect of the Capitol; and
       (D) an individual on the payroll of an employing office of 
     an instrumentality.
       (2) Employee in the house of representatives.--The term 
     ``individual on the payroll of an employing office in the 
     House of Representatives'' means--
       (A) an individual who is covered under rule LI of the House 
     of Representatives, as in effect on the day before the date 
     of enactment of this Act;
       (B) any applicant for a position 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 individual's employment.
       (3) Employee in the senate.--The term ``individual on the 
     payroll of an employing office in the Senate'' means--
       (A) any employee whose pay is disbursed by the Secretary of 
     the Senate;
       (B) any applicant for a position 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 individual's employment.
       (4) Employee of the architect of the capitol.--The term 
     ``individual on the payroll of an employing office of the 
     Architect of the Capitol'' means--
       (A) an employee of the Architect of the Capitol or an 
     individual within the administrative jurisdiction of the 
     Architect of the Capitol if such employee or individual is 
     paid from funds under a law providing appropriations for the 
     legislative branch;
       (B) any applicant for a position that is to be occupied by 
     an employee or individual described in subparagraph (A); or
       (C) any individual who was formerly an employee or 
     individual described in subparagraph (A) and whose claim of a 
     violation arises out of the individual's employment.
       (5) Employee of an instrumentality.--The term ``individual 
     on the payroll of an employing office of an instrumentality'' 
     means--
       (A) any individual on the payroll of an instrumentality of 
     the legislative branch of the Federal Government;
       (B) any applicant for a position 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 individual's instrumentality employment.
       (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 
     an employee.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF LAWS.

       (a) Laws Which Will Apply.--The following laws shall apply, 
     as prescribed by this subsection, to the legislative branch 
     of the Federal Government:
       (1) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et 
     seq.), effective on the earlier of the effective date of 
     applicable regulations of the Office of Compliance under 
     section 5 or 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e et seq.), effective on the earlier of the effective 
     date of applicable regulations of the Office of Compliance 
     under section 5 or 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (3) The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12101 et seq.), effective on the earlier of the effective 
     date of applicable regulations of the Office of Compliance 
     under section 5 or 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (4) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 
     U.S.C. 621 et seq.) (including remedies available to private 
     employees), effective on the earlier of the effective date of 
     applicable regulations of the Office of Compliance under 
     section 5 or 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (5) Titles I and V of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
     1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611 et seq.), effective on the earlier of 
     the effective date of applicable regulations of the Office of 
     Compliance under section 5 or 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (6) The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (other 
     than section 19) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) (subject to 
     subsection (c)), effective on the earlier of the effective 
     date of applicable regulations of the Office of Compliance 
     under section 5 or 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (7) Chapter 71 (relating to Federal labor management 
     relations) of title 5, United States Code, effective on the 
     earlier of the effective date of applicable regulations of 
     the Office of Compliance under section 5 or 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (8) The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 
     U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), effective on the earlier of the 
     effective date of applicable regulations of the Office of 
     Compliance under section 5 or 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, except that this Act shall not apply 
     to the United States Capitol Police.
       (9) The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.), effective on the earlier of the 
     effective date of applicable regulations of the Office of 
     Compliance under section 5 or 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (10) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), 
     effective on the earlier of the effective date of applicable 
     regulations of the Office of Compliance under section 5 or 1 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     The laws referred to in this subsection which apply now to 
     congressional employees shall continue to apply to such 
     employees until the effective date such laws are made 
     applicable in accordance with this subsection.
       (b) Laws Which May Be Made Applicable.--Any provision of 
     Federal law shall, to the extent that it relates to the terms 
     and conditions of employment (including hiring, promotion or 
     demotion, salary and wages, overtime compensation, benefits, 
     work assignments or reassignments, termination, protection 
     from discrimination in personnel actions, health and safety 
     of employees, and family and medical leave) of employees 
     apply to the legislative branch of the Federal Government in 
     accordance with this Act.
       (c) Compliance With OSHA.--The legislative branch of the 
     Federal Government shall comply with the Occupational Safety 
     and Health Act of 1970 as follows: If a citation of a 
     violation of such Act is received, action to abate the 
     violation shall take place as soon as possible, but no later 
     than the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the 
     citation is issued.

     SEC. 4. OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the legislative 
     branch an Office of Compliance (hereinafter in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Office'').
       (b) Composition.--
       (1) Board of directors.--The Office shall have a Board of 
     Directors. The Board of Directors shall consist of 8 
     individuals appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the 
     Minority Leaders of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate. Appointments of the first 8 members of the Board of 
     Directors shall be completed not later than 120 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Executive director.--The Chairperson of the Board of 
     Directors shall--
       (A) appoint,
       (B) establish the compensation of, and
       (C) terminate,

     an executive director (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``executive director''), subject to the approval of the Board 
     of Directors. The compensation of 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.
       (c) Board of Directors Qualifications.--
       (1) In general.--The members of the Board of Directors 
     shall be individuals with training or expertise in--
       (A) the application of the laws referred to in section 3 to 
     employment, and
       (B) employment in the Congress.
       (2) Specific qualifications.--
       (A) Lobbying.--No individual who engages in, or is 
     otherwise employed in, lobbying of the Congress and who is 
     required under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act to 
     register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives or 
     the Secretary of the Senate shall be considered eligible for 
     appointment to, or service on, the Board of Directors.
       (B) Office.--No member of the Board of Directors appointed 
     under subsection (b)(1) may hold or may have held the 
     position of Member of the House of Representatives, Senator, 
     or employee of the House of Representatives or the Senate.
       (3) Holding office.--If during a term of office a member of 
     the Board of Directors engages in an activity described in 
     paragraph (2)(A), such position shall be declared vacant and 
     a successor shall be selected in accordance with subsection 
     (b)(1).
       (4) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Board of Directors shall 
     be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was 
     made.
       (d) Board of Directors Term of Office.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     membership on the Board of Directors shall be for 5 years. A 
     member shall only be eligible for appointment for a single 
     term of office.
       (2) First appointments.--Of the members first appointed to 
     the Board of Directors--
       (A) 2 shall have a term of office of 2 years,
       (B) 2 shall have a term of office of 3 years,
       (C) 2 shall have a term of office of 4 years, and
       (D) 2 shall have a term of office of 5 years,

     as designated at the time of appointment by the persons 
     specified in subsection (b)(1).
       (e) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Board of Directors 
     shall be appointed from the members of the Board of Directors 
     by the members of the Board.
       (f) Compensation of Members.--
       (1) Per diem.--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.
       (2)  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.
       (g) Office Staff.--The executive director may appoint and 
     fix the compensation of such staff, including hearing 
     officers, as are necessary to carry out this Act.
       (h)  Detailees.--The executive director may, with the prior 
     consent of the Government department or agency concerned, use 
     the services of any such department or agency, including the 
     services of members or personnel of the General Accounting 
     Office Personnel Appeals Board.
       (i)  Consultants.--In carrying out this Act, the executive 
     director may procure the temporary (not to exceed 1 year) or 
     intermittent services of individual consultants or 
     organizations thereof.

     SEC. 5. STUDY AND REGULATIONS.

       (a) Initial Action.--
       (1) In general.--The Board of Directors shall conduct a 
     study of the manner in which the laws made applicable to the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government under section 
     3(a) should apply. The Board of Directors shall complete such 
     study and report the results to Congress not later than 180 
     days after the date of the first appointment of all the 
     members of the Board of Directors.
       (2) Instrumentalities.--The Board of Directors shall 
     include in its study under paragraph (1) an examination of 
     the procedures used by the instrumentalities to enforce the 
     application of laws applicable to the legislative branch of 
     the Federal Government and a determination as to whether to 
     direct the instrumentality to make improvements in its 
     regulations and procedures so as to assure that procedures as 
     effective as the procedures set forth in sections 7 through 
     12 will apply. If the instrumentality has no such regulations 
     and procedures, the Board may direct the instrumentality to 
     adopt the requisite regulations and procedures, or, if deemed 
     necessary, in lieu thereof may itself adopt regulations 
     pursuant to this section or authorize use of the procedures 
     pursuant to sections 7 through 12.
       (b) Continuing Action.--On an ongoing basis the Board of 
     Directors--
       (1) shall determine which of the laws referred to in 
     section 3(b) should apply to the legislative branch of the 
     Federal Government and if it should, the manner in which it 
     should be made applicable;
       (2) shall study the application to the legislative branch 
     of the Federal Government of provisions of Federal law 
     referred to in section 3 that are enacted after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act; and
       (3) may propose regulations with respect to such 
     application in accordance with subsection (c).
       (c) Regulations.--
       (1) Laws made applicable.--
       (A) General rule.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the completion of the study under subsection (a), the 
     Board of Directors shall, in accordance with section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code, propose regulations that specify 
     the manner in which the laws made applicable to the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government under section 
     3(a) shall apply. The Board of Directors shall provide a 
     period of at least 30 days for comment on the proposed 
     regulations.
       (B) Congressional notice.-- 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.
       (C) Amendments and repeals.--When proposing regulations 
     under subparagraph (A) specifying the manner in which a law 
     referred to in section 3(a) shall apply to the legislative 
     branch of the Federal Government, the Board of Directors 
     shall recommend to the Congress changes in or repeals of 
     existing law to accommodate the application of such law to 
     the legislative branch of the Federal Government.
       (D) Final regulations.--The Board of Directors shall, in 
     accordance with such section 553, issue final regulations not 
     later than 60 days after the end of the comment period on the 
     proposed regulations.
       (2) Continuing action.--
       (A) General rule.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the completion of the study or a determination under 
     subsection (b), the Board of Directors shall, in accordance 
     with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, propose 
     regulations that specify which of the provisions of Federal 
     law considered in such study shall apply to the legislative 
     branch of the Federal Government. The Board of Directors 
     shall provide a period of at least 30 days for comment on the 
     proposed regulations.
       (B) Congressional notice.-- 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.
       (C) Amendments and repeals.--When proposing regulations 
     under subparagraph (A) specifying which of the provisions of 
     Federal law referred to in section 3(b) shall apply to the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government, the Board of 
     Directors shall recommend to the Congress changes in or 
     repeals of existing law to accommodate the application of 
     such law to the legislative branch of the Federal Government.
       (D) Final regulations.-- The Board of Directors shall, in 
     accordance with such section 553, issue final regulations not 
     later than 60 days after the end of the comment period on the 
     proposed regulations.
       (3) Regulation requirements.--Regulations under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) shall be consistent with the regulations issued 
     by an agency of the executive branch of the Federal 
     Government under the provision of law made applicable to the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government, including 
     portions relating to remedies.
       (d) Transmittal.--A final regulation issued under 
     subsection (c) shall be transmitted to the Congress for 
     consideration under subsection (e).
       (e) Taking Effect of Regulations.--
       (1) General rule.--Subject to subsection (f), a final 
     regulation which is issued under subsection (c) shall take 
     effect upon the expiration of 60 days from the date the final 
     regulation is issued unless disapproved by the Congress by 
     concurrent resolution.
       (2) Concurrent resolution.--A concurrent resolution 
     referred to in paragraph (1) may be introduced in the House 
     of Representatives or the Senate within 5 days of session 
     after the date on which the Board of Directors issues the 
     final regulation to which the concurrent resolution applies. 
     The matter after the resolving clause of the resolution shall 
     be as follows: ``That Congress disapproves the issuance of 
     final regulations of the Office of Compliance as issued on 
     ____________ (the blank space being appropriately filled 
     in).''.
       (3) Procedure.--A concurrent resolution referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be referred to the appropriate committee 
     of the House involved. If no concurrent resolution is 
     reported within 15 days of session after the Board of 
     Directors issues final regulations under subsection (c)(1)(D) 
     or (c)(2)(D), the committee to which the concurrent 
     resolution was referred shall be discharged from further 
     consideration of the first such concurrent resolution 
     introduced and the concurrent resolution shall be placed on 
     the appropriate calendar of the House involved. Within 5 days 
     of session after the concurrent resolution is reported or 
     discharged, it shall be in order as a matter of highest 
     privilege to move to proceed to its consideration and such 
     motion shall not be debatable. The concurrent resolution 
     shall be debatable for not to exceed 4 hours equally divided 
     between proponents and opponents and it shall not be subject 
     to amendment. If, prior to the adoption of a concurrent 
     resolution by one House, that House receives a concurrent 
     resolution of the other House with respect to the same 
     regulations, then the procedure in that House shall be the 
     same as if no concurrent resolution had been received from 
     the other House, but vote on final adoption shall be on the 
     concurrent resolution of the other House. If a concurrent 
     resolution is received by a House in which no identical 
     concurrent resolution has been introduced, it shall be 
     referred to the appropriate committee and the same procedures 
     and 20-day period for action shall apply to the consideration 
     of the concurrent resolution by that House as would apply to 
     an introduced concurrent resolution.
       (f) Rulemaking Power.--The provisions of subsection (e) of 
     this section are enacted by the Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House, 
     respectively, or of that House to which they specifically 
     apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the 
     extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.

     SEC. 6. OTHER FUNCTIONS.

       (a) Rules of the Office.--The executive director shall 
     adopt rules governing the procedures of the Office, including 
     the procedures of hearing boards, which shall be submitted 
     for publication in the Congressional Record. The rules may be 
     amended in the same manner. The executive director may 
     consult with the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of 
     the United States, the Legal Counsel of the Senate, and the 
     General Counsel of the House of Representatives on the 
     adoption of rules.
       (b) Investigative Authority.--The executive director shall 
     have authority to conduct such investigations as the 
     executive director requires to implement sections 8 through 
     10 and section 12.
       (c) Duties.--The Office shall--
       (1) carry out a program of education for Members of 
     Congress and other employing authorities of the legislative 
     branch of the Federal Government respecting the laws made 
     applicable to them and a program to inform individuals of 
     their rights under laws applicable to the legislative branch 
     of the Federal Government and under sections 7 through 12,
       (2) in carrying out the program under paragraph (1), 
     distribute the telephone number and address of the Office, 
     procedures for action under sections 7 through 12, and any 
     other information the executive director deems appropriate 
     for distribution, distribute such information to Members of 
     Congress and other employing authorities of the legislative 
     branch of the Federal Government in a manner suitable for 
     posting, provide such information to new employees of the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government, distribute such 
     information to the residences of congressional employees, and 
     conduct seminars and other activities designed to educate 
     employers and employees in such information,
       (3) compile and publish statistics on the use of the Office 
     by congressional employees, including the number and type of 
     contacts made with the Office, on the reason for such 
     contacts, on the number of employees who initiated 
     proceedings with the Office under sections 7 through 12 and 
     the result of such proceedings, and on the number of 
     employees who filed a complaint under section 10, the basis 
     for the complaint, and the action taken on the complaint, and
       (4) within 180 days of the initial appointment of the 
     executive director and in conjunction with the Clerk of the 
     House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate, 
     develop a system for the collection of demographic data 
     respecting the composition of the congressional employees, 
     including race, sex, and wages, and a system for the 
     collection of information on employment practices, including 
     family leave and flexible work hours, in Congressional 
     offices.

     SEC. 7. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

       The procedure for consideration of alleged violations of 
     laws made applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government under this Act consists of 4 steps as follows:
       (1) Step I, counseling, as set forth in section 8.
       (2) Step II, mediation, as set forth in section 9.
       (3) Step III, formal complaint and hearing by a hearing 
     board, as set forth in section 10.
       (4) Step IV, judicial review if a congressional employee is 
     aggrieved by a dismissal of a claim under section 10(c), a 
     final decision under section 10(g), or an order under section 
     10(h) or if a head of an employing office is aggrieved by a 
     final decision under section 10(g) or would be subject to an 
     order issued under section 10(h).
       (5) Step V, as an alternative to steps III and IV, a civil 
     action in a district court of the United States in accordance 
     with section 12.

     A congressional employee may elect the procedure described in 
     paragraph (3) or (5) but not both procedures.

     SEC. 8. STEP I: COUNSELING.

       (a) In General.--A congressional employee alleging a 
     violation of a law made applicable to the legislative branch 
     of the Federal Government under this Act may request 
     counseling through 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. 9. STEP II: MEDIATION.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 15 days after the end of 
     the counseling period under section 8, the employee who 
     alleged a violation of a law made applicable to the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government under this Act 
     may file a request for mediation with the Office. Mediation--
       (1) may include the Office, the employee, the employing 
     office, and individuals who are recommended by organizations 
     composed primarily of individuals experienced in adjudicating 
     or arbitrating personnel matters, 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. 10. STEP III: FORMAL COMPLAINT AND HEARING.

       (a) Formal Complaint and Request for Hearing.--Not later 
     than 30 days after receipt by the congressional employee of 
     notice from the Office of the end of the mediation period 
     under section 9, the congressional employee may file a formal 
     complaint with the Office against the head of the employing 
     office involved. No complaint may be filed unless the 
     employee has made a timely request for counseling and has 
     completed the procedures set forth in sections 8 and 9.
       (b) Hearing Board.--A board of 3 independent hearing 
     officers (hereinafter in this Act referred to as a ``hearing 
     board''), who are not Members of the House of 
     Representatives, Senators, or officers or employees of the 
     House of Representatives or Senate, chosen by the executive 
     director (one of whom shall be designated by the executive 
     director as the presiding hearing officer) shall be assigned 
     to consider each complaint filed under subsection (a). The 
     executive director shall appoint hearing officers from 
     candidates who are recommended by the Federal Mediation and 
     Conciliation Service or the Administrative Conference of the 
     United States. A hearing board shall act by majority vote.
       (c) Dismissal of Frivolous Claims.--Prior to a hearing 
     under subsection (d), 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; and
       (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.
       (e) Discovery.--Reasonable prehearing discovery may be 
     permitted at the discretion of the hearing board.
       (f) Subpoena Power.--
       (1) In general.--A hearing board may authorize subpoenas, 
     which shall be issued by the presiding hearing officer 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 hearing board 
     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 is to 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) Hearing Board Decision.--As expeditiously as possible, 
     but in no case more than 45 days after the conclusion of the 
     hearing, the hearing board shall make a decision in the 
     matter for which the hearing was held. The decision of the 
     hearing board 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 of a law made applicable to the legislative branch 
     of the Federal Government under this Act has occurred. Any 
     decision of the hearing board shall contain a written 
     statement of the reasons for the hearing board's decision. A 
     final decision of the hearing board shall be made available 
     to the public by the Office.
       (h) Remedy Order.--If the decision of the hearing board 
     under subsection (g) is that a violation of a law made 
     applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government under this Act, it shall order the remedies under 
     such law as made applicable to the legislative branch of the 
     Federal Government under this Act, except that no Member of 
     the House of Representatives, Senator, any other head of an 
     employing office, or agent of such a Member or Senator, shall 
     be personally liable for the payment of compensation. 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 11.
       (i) Funds.--There shall be established in the House of 
     Representatives and in the Senate a fund from which 
     compensation (including attorney's fees) may be paid in 
     accordance with an order under subsection (h) or as a result 
     of judicial review under section 11 or a civil action under 
     section 12. From the outset of any proceeding in which 
     compensation may be paid from a fund of the House of 
     Representatives, the General Counsel of the House of 
     Representatives may provide the respondent with 
     representation.

     SEC. 11. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Types of review.--Following any hearing under section 
     10 on a complaint relating to a provision of law described in 
     section 3, any congressional employee aggrieved by a 
     dismissal of a claim under section 10(c), a final decision 
     under section 10(g), a final order under section 10(h), or 
     any head of an employing office aggrieved by a final decision 
     under section 10(g) or a final order under section 10(h), may 
     petition for review by the United States Court of Appeals for 
     the Federal Circuit in accordance with paragraph (2).
       (2) Provisions applicable to review.--The following 
     provisions apply to a review under paragraph (1):
       (A) Law applicable.--Chapter 158 of title 28, United States 
     Code, shall apply--
       (i) 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;
       (ii) the provisions of section 2348 of title 28, United 
     States Code, on the authority of the Attorney General, shall 
     not apply;
       (iii) the petition for review shall be filed not later than 
     90 days after the entry in the Office of a final decision 
     under section 10(g), an order under section 10(h); and
       (iv) the Office shall be an ``agency'' as that term is used 
     in chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code.
       (B) Standard of review.--To the extent necessary for 
     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 dismissal 
     under section 10(c), a final decision under section 10(g), or 
     an order under section 10(h) if it is determined that the 
     dismissal, decision, or order was--
       (i) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not consistent with law;
       (ii) not made consistent with required procedures; or
       (iii) unsupported by substantial evidence.
       (C) Record.--In making determinations under subparagraph 
     (B), 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, 
     attorney's fees for the judicial proceeding may be allowed by 
     the court in accordance with the standards prescribed under 
     section 706(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-5(k)).

     SEC. 12. CIVIL ACTION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Civil action.--A congressional employee may within 30 
     days after receipt of notice from the Office of the end of 
     the mediation period under section 9 for a violation of a law 
     made applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government bring a civil action in a district court of the 
     United States seeking relief from the alleged violation of 
     law if such a civil action is available under such 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 8 and 9.
       (3) Court order.--If a court determines that a violation of 
     law occurred, the court may only enter an order described in 
     section 10(h).
       (b) Attorney's Fees.--If a congressional employee is the 
     prevailing party in a proceeding under this section, 
     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. 13. RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINT.

       If, after a formal complaint is filed under section 10, 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.

     SEC. 14. PROHIBITION OF INTIMIDATION.

       Any intimidation of, or reprisal against, any employee by 
     any Member of the House of Representatives, Senator, or 
     officer or employee of the House of Representatives or 
     Senate, by the Architect of the Capitol or anyone employed by 
     the Architect of the Capitol, or by an instrumentality of the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government because of the 
     exercise of a right under this Act constitutes an unlawful 
     employment practice, which may be remedied in the same manner 
     under this Act as is a violation of a law made applicable to 
     the legislative branch of the Federal Government under this 
     Act.

     SEC. 15. CONFIDENTIALITY.

       (a) Counseling.--All counseling 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 shall be strictly 
     confidential.
       (c) Hearings.--Except as provided in subsections (d) and 
     (e), the hearings and deliberations of the hearing board 
     shall be confidential.
       (d) Release of Records for Judicial Action.--The records of 
     hearing boards may be made public if required for the purpose 
     of judicial action under section 9.
       (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 10(g). 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.
       (f) Coordination.--The executive director shall coordinate 
     the proceedings with the Committee on Standards and Official 
     Conduct of the House of Representatives and the Select 
     Committee on Ethics of the Senate to ensure effectiveness, to 
     avoid duplication, and to prevent penalizing cooperation by 
     respondents in the respective proceedings.

     SEC. 16. POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

       (a) In General.--It shall not be a violation of a law made 
     applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government under this Act to consider the--
       (1) party affiliation,
       (2) domicile, or
       (3) political compatibility with the employing office,
     of a congressional employee with respect to employment 
     decisions.
       (b) Definition.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     ``employee'' means--
       (1) an employee on the staff of the House of 
     Representatives or Senate leadership,
       (2) an employee on the staff of a committee or 
     subcommittee,
       (3) an employee on the staff of a Member of the House of 
     Representatives or Senate,
       (4) an officer or employee of the House of Representatives 
     or Senate elected by the House of Representatives or Senate 
     or appointed by a Member of the House of Representatives or 
     Senate, other than those described in paragraphs (1) through 
     (3), or
       (5) an applicant for a position that is to be occupied by 
     an individual described in paragraphs (1) through (4).

     SEC. 17. OTHER REVIEW PROHIBITED.

       No congressional employee may commence a judicial 
     proceeding to redress practices prohibited under section 5, 
     except as provided in this Act.

     SEC. 18. STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Office shall conduct a study--
       (1) of the ways that access by the public to information 
     held by the Congress may be improved, streamlined, and made 
     consistent between the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate and of the application of section 552 of title 5, 
     United States Code to the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government; and
       (2) of the application of the requirement of section 552a 
     of title 5, United States Code, to the legislative branch of 
     the Federal Government.
       (b) Study Content.--The study conducted under subsection 
     (a) shall examine--
       (1) information that is currently made available under such 
     section 552 by Federal agencies and not by the legislative 
     branch of the Federal Government;
       (2) information held by the non-legislative offices of the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government, including--
       (A) the instrumentalities,
       (B) the Architect of the Capitol,
       (C) the Director of Non-Legislative and Financial Services 
     of the House of Representatives,
       (D) the Clerk of the House of Representatives,
       (E) the Secretary of the Senate,
       (F) the Inspector General of the House of Representatives,
       (G) the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives 
     and the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate,
       (H) the Doorkeeper of the House of Representatives,
       (I) the United States Capitol Police, and
       (J) the House Commission on Congressional Mailing 
     Standards;
       (3) financial expenditure information of the legislative 
     branch of the Federal Government; and
       (4) provisions for judicial review of denial of access to 
     information held by the legislative branch of the Federal 
     Government.
       (c) Time.--The Office shall conduct the study prescribed by 
     subsection (a) and report the results of the study to the 
     Congress not later than one year after the date of the 
     initial appointment of the Board of Directors.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the substitute shall be in order except 
the amendments printed in part 2 of the report. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  Debate time on each amendment will be equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part 2 of 
House Report 103-691.


                     amendment offered by mr. rose

  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rose: Page 21, insert after line 
     24 the following:
       (d) Report.--Within one year of the date the system 
     referred to in subsection (c)(4) is developed and annually 
     thereafter, the Board of Directors shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the information collected under such system. Each 
     report after the first report shall contain a comparison and 
     evaluation of data contained in the previous report.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Rose] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple amendment to section 
6 of the bill. It was not the amendment offered in my absence in the 
full committee markup, I would say to my colleague from California, Mr. 
Thomas. This amendment does nothing more than require annual reporting 
to the Congress of the information required to be gathered under 
section 6 of the bill.

                              {time}  1610

  The committee supported the information-gathering provisions in 
section 6 of the bill. My amendment simply requires that this 
information be transmitted to the Congress. I believe this should help 
us in the conduct of our oversight responsibilities.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, having looked at this 
amendment, the chairman is correct. This is not the amendment that was 
presented in the Committee on House Administration, and we have no 
objection to this amendment.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Rules members also say 
to the distinguished chairman that we have looked at the amendment of 
the gentleman and are supportive of it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-691.


                     amendment offered by mr. klink

  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, lines 8, 13, 18, and 24, strike ``1 year'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``120 days''.
       Page 6, lines 5 and 22, strike ``1 year'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``120 days''.
       Page 7, lines 5 and 10, strike ``1 year'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``120 days''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Klink] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. KLINK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today to the 
Congressional Accountability Act changes the timeframe under which the 
Congress will comply with certain labor and civil rights laws listed in 
H.R. 4822 from 1 year to 120 days.
  According to section 5 of the bill, the newly designed Office of 
Compliance will conduct a study of the manner in which the laws made 
applicable to the legislative branch should apply.
  Once this bill is enacted, there will be a 120-day timeframe for the 
Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to be appointed. The 
Board then has to appoint an Executive Director. The Board has another 
180 days to review and study the laws that Congress has already seen 
fit to impose on the private sector. At the end of this review period--
we are close to a year gone by already--the Board will promulgate 
regulations for our future compliance. These regulations must be 
printed in the Congressional Record and there is a 30-day comment 
period. Final regulations will be issued no later than 60 days after 
the comment period ends. And finally--yes, ladies and gentlemen, 
finally 60 days from the date the final regulations are issued, we have 
to abide by the laws in this bill.
  I would like to note at this point that comments have already been 
received collectively over the past 25 years on all of these laws. If 
employers an employees in the private sector do not have the privilege 
of revising the guidelines set forth in the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
the Family and Medical Leave Act, and all the laws we are discussing 
here today, why is Congress being given 450 days--the equivalent of 1 
year and 3 months--to review and comment on laws that we have already 
seen fit to pass for our constituents?

  It is my understanding that during the markup of H.R. 4822 at the 
House Administration Committee, Mr. Boehner, successfully offered an 
amendment to make Members of Congress comply with the laws contained in 
this bill no later than 1 year after enactment of this legislation, 
even if the Office of Compliance has not issued specific regulations on 
each law. I applaud the gentleman from Ohio and the House 
Administration Committee for acknowledging that there was a flaw in 
this provision of the bill and adopting the 1 year timeframe. However, 
much can happen in 1 year. It is possible--perhaps not probable, but 
possible--that an applicant for a position at the Library of Congress 
could be rejected based on his or her race or gender. It is possible 
that in 1 year--not probable, but possible--that the House could amend 
certain labor laws to explicitly exempt us from compliance or 
enforcement, just because we cannot figure out just how to apply these 
laws for our employees. You get the picture. A lot can happen in 1 
year.
  My amendment changes the date of Congress' mandatory compliance with 
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the 
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, 
the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 
title VII of the Civil Rights Act to 120 days after enactment of H.R. 
4822. That would bring those of us voting on this law--assuming it 
passes in the Senate relatively quickly--into compliance before the end 
of this calendar year, before the end of our elected term of office. 
Each of us here today would very quickly be responsible for the vote we 
each make today.
  I believe H.R. 4822 is a fine piece of legislation. It was crafted 
over 1\1/2\ a year and had the input of dozens of reform-minded 
Members. It is my belief, however, that we can perfect this legislation 
and make certain that Congress comes into complete compliance with 
labor laws, in exactly the same way our constituents in the private 
sector must comply.
  My amendment would assure that congressional compliance does not get 
lost in a quagmire while the Board of Directors of the Office of 
Compliance are studying laws that we have already approved and drafting 
regulations and receiving comment on them.
  My amendment would almost immediately restore integrity to and public 
faith in the Congress.
  My amendment would perfect an imperfection in this fine piece of 
legislation.
  I urge your support.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLINK. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania in his amendment.
  The point I would like to make is this. We pass a lot of these labor 
laws and before there is time for the Departments to actually issue the 
regulations explaining to the private sector how they must comply, the 
law is already in effect in the private sector. So if we truly want to 
mirror what is going on in the private sector, we ought to adopt the 
amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It will put the 
regulations on top of this institution in 120 days after the board is 
set up, even though the regulations may not in fact be issued. We 
should understand clearly what those in the private sector that we deal 
with day in and day out have to deal with when they have got a law in 
front of them and yet have no regulations so that they understand how 
to comply.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania and urge the adoption 
of his amendment.
  Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Ohio for his work 
in the committee and for his fine comments on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] opposed 
to the amendment?
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in rather gentle opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, only to point 
out that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has stated that he wants this 
legislation in force 120 days after the bill is passed. Even his 
friendly speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner], observed it 
would be 120 days after the Board is set up. That may be much longer 
than 120 days.
  We wrestled with this at great length in the committee. I personally 
believe, and I think the majority of the committee believe, that we 
should get it passed, get the Board set up as quickly as possible, and 
then urge the Board to very, very quickly put all the laws into place.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  The chairman rises with some reluctance, as do I. The bill states 
that the members of the Board of Directors, in their selection process, 
shall be completed not later than 120 days after the date of the 
enactment of this act. So it means that at the same time the Board is 
completing its membership, these decisions will have had to have been 
made. It simply is not real world.
  I understand the point of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because 
oftentimes the laws that are passed are not real world.
  If this amendment passes, it will, in fact, choke this bill. I am 
highly desirous of chocking certain things, but not this bill. What I 
want this bill to do is to chafe so that we begin to examine the 
ridiculous things we do as exemplified from the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania's amendment, so that we will not do it anymore, and we 
will review the various areas and change them.
  So I am in reluctant opposition because he has clearly pointed out, 
very graphically, joined by the gentleman from Ohio, that what we do to 
the private sector, we ought to do it to ourselves. If we do, we cannot 
get the chafing effect involved which will bring about real change and, 
therefore, I reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, the heart and head of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania are clearly in the right place on this amendment. I 
compliment him for his initiative. I, too, reluctantly ask that we not 
adopt the amendment at this time. In conference, I would certainly be 
willing to work with my colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas], and I, in conference to see if we could speed this up in some 
way, more in line with the thinking of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Klink].
  However, Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, I believe we should not adopt 
this amendment.

                              {time}  1620

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman form Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-691.


                    amendment offered by mrs. byrne

  Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mrs. Byrne: Page 7, line 25, insert 
     before the period the following: ``or, to the extent that it 
     relates to any standard benefits package approved as part of 
     the national health care reform enacted by Congress in the 
     103d Congress, apply to Members of Congress, as defined in 
     section 2106 of title 5, United States Code, in accordance 
     with this Act''.

  Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, as we speak on the floor today about 
congressional accountability, we take an important step toward forcing 
Congress to live under the same laws it passes for others.
  My amendment addresses one area that remains untouched in this bill--
health care. The amendment is quite simple: it requires Congress to 
live under any health care reform bill we pass. As we embark on health 
care reform, it is neither wise nor prudent for Congress once again to 
excuse itself from a system it requires the rest of Americans to live 
with. The adoption of this amendment, lets us state up-front to our 
constituents that we are truly in this together.
  From the onset of the debate over health care reform, we have heard 
from thousands of our constituents and read countless newspaper 
editorials that rightly charge Congress with being out of touch with 
the issues involved with health care reform. These charges stem from 
the perception that Members of Congress are sheltered from the current 
system because of the high quality of care and guaranteed benefits they 
receive.
  When it comes time to debate health care reform, we have a choice: 
either keep the status quo for ourselves, regardless of what the public 
will have; or give Congress and the American people the exact same 
benefits. Providing the Nation's political leaders the same benefits 
will let them serve as canaries in the coal mine, experiencing the 
problems of shortfall in the benefits package first hand so that they 
will quickly address them.
  It just makes sense to include this language in the Congressional 
Accountability Act, which is a long-overdue effort to ensure that 
Congress lives by the laws it passes. Today, we have a historic 
opportunity to finally apply laws, some over half a century old, to the 
legislative branch. However, our actions today will be even more 
historic if we stop being merely reactive, but begin to act 
proactively.
  I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the House has already 
shown widespread support to ensure that Members of Congress are not 
sheltered from the effects of health care reform. In fact, nearly 200 
Members have signed onto various resolutions calling for a health care 
bill that covers Congress in the same manner that the private sector is 
covered.
  If we do not apply to Congress one of the most important pieces of 
legislation it has addressed in decades, I am afraid that we will fall 
short of what we set out to accomplish with the Congressional 
Accountability Act. More important, it will make passage of any health 
care reform bill a hollow effort, since we will not be a part of it. 
The result will be a plan which lacks credibility, and a Congress which 
lacks accountability.
  Let us make it clear to the American people before the debate gets 
underway that Members of Congress are ready, willing, and able to abide 
by the benefits package established under health care reform. I want to 
be able to tell my constituents in northern Virginia that when health 
care reform takes place, it will affect me the same way if affects 
them. The Byrne amendment will make that possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Byrne amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, by default, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay].
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment in itself is divisive. 
There is absolutely no need for us to even consider the amendment. Next 
week we are going to be considering national health care. Our 
committee, the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, has reported 
out a piece of legislation that took us house and hours of meetings 
with the Committee on Ways and Means, with the leadership, with the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, with the Committee on Education and 
Labor, to construct.
  In that piece of legislation that we constructed, which was 
comprehensive, it sets up a procedure for American citizens to join 
into the Federal Employees Health Benefit package. People who work for 
employers of 100 or less, those who work part-time, and other kinds of 
employees will be eligible to join the Federal employees plan, the same 
plan that Members of Congress are under now.
  Mr. Chairman, I see no legislative reason whatsoever for considering 
or passing this amendment. There may be a political reason, I am not 
sure. In essence, what this is doing, Mr. Chairman, this amendment 
would override the jurisdiction of our committee. We have been working 
on this issue for many, many weeks. The gentlewoman who was offering 
the amendment is a member of the committee. She was there when we voted 
for the construct that has been accepted by the Democratic leadership, 
and is part of the overall health care plan. She supported it. If she 
wanted to offer this amendment, she should have offered it in committee 
and we would have had time to reasonably discuss it.
  However, Mr. Chairman, to come forth without any hearings on it or 
whatever, without any knowledge of what damage it may or may not do to 
the total package of health insurance, health care, in my opinion, Mr. 
Chairman, is not worthy of our considering favorably on this floor.
  Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Swett].
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state that I was, and rightfully 
so, a cosponsor of the amendment that the gentlewoman from Virginia 
[Mrs. Byrne] had offered prior to putting together this amendment, and 
it is my hope and expectation, Mr. Chairman, that as we in the Congress 
become more accountable to the laws and regulations that we put on the 
rest of the country, that we might also make sure that there is a 
consistency between the Congress and the rest of the country with 
regard to health care.
  It is my concern that we not go through the process in an 
inappropriate fashion, Mr. Chairman, in a fashion that is contrary to 
the rules and regulations established in the House. If there are 
inconsistencies in this language with that process, I hope that they 
will be resolved in the conference committee report. It is 
philosophically something that I can agree with, and I will support 
this amendment.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a statement to make, and then I have a series of 
questions to ask the gentlewoman from Virginia, because as the ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, we have been spending some time on the health care question, 
both in the subcommittee and in the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, currently the split on the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits package and the Federal Government share is roughly a 75-25 
split. That is, the individuals and Members of Congress pay 25 percent 
of the health care costs. In the bill offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], if it in fact reflects the Committee on Ways 
and Means structure, it is a 20-80 split. That is, individuals have to 
only pay 20 percent, so if in fact we conform to what goes on out 
there, that is a 5 percent break for Members of Congress and Federal 
employees. More importantly, it goes to the language of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the gentlewoman from Virginia 
understands that the term ``standard benefits package'' refers to a 
very specific set of benefits, as opposed to a high deductible policy, 
as opposed to a Medisave concept, which is contained in the Committee 
on Ways and Means provision.
  The question I would ask of the gentlewoman from Virginia [Mrs. 
Byrne] is in the reference to ``standard benefits package,'' does she 
mean by that that the Members of Congress would be offered only the 
standard benefits package, as understood in the health care area, in 
the way in which it is defined in the legislation, or does she mean a 
standard benefits package to include all of the permutations that may 
be offered in the area of general health packages, including a high 
deductible policy, a Medisave concept, a catastrophic concept, or the 
myriad of policies that are offered?

                              {time}  1630

  Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia.
  Mrs. BYRNE. I would say the gentleman that the standard benefits 
package that is referred to in the amendment is whatever we come out 
with in this body. If we say that women over 65 can only have one 
mammogram a year, then Members of Congress who are 65 years old and 
female cannot have more than one. It is a very simple concept when 
boiled down to its essence, which is why should we be able to have a 
better benefits package than we are willing to enforce on the American 
people? I would also say to the gentleman that it has nothing to do 
with deductibility or anything else. It talks about the benefits 
package that is available to citizens through health care reform and 
that is what we are addressing in this amendment. Not the split, not 
anything else. If private employers can offer other packages, then we 
will be able to offer other packages, too. If they want to have a 
maintenance of effort, we will be able to offer a maintenance of 
effort, also. If the package says that we can have an 80-20 or a 75-25, 
it does not have anything to do with the benefits, which is clear in 
the language of this amendment, that is offered to the American people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Virginia [Mrs. Byrne] has 15 
seconds remaining to close her portion of debate.
  Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the concept here is one 
that fits perfectly with this bill. In congressional accountability, we 
are going to be talking in the next few weeks about the most important 
issue of the decade, which is how we deal with health care in this 
country, the benefit packages that people are going to be offered, and 
it makes sense that we offer those same benefit packages to Congress, 
no better, no worse, so we know what is going on with the health care 
system of the United States.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, in the bill, we have the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, very specific; title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 
very specific; Americans with Disabilities Act, very specific; Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act, very specific.
  What we have here is the phrase ``standard benefits package.'' The 
gentlewoman from Virginia has described a number of options that may or 
may not be available under a number of standards. It seems to me if we 
are going to do this, we should be precise in what we do. I have to 
tell Members that standard benefits package means standard benefits 
package. It does not mean the Medisave concept, it does not mean the 
high deductible. It means Members of Congress will be getting less than 
whatever everyone else gets because of this language.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey] to close the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McCloskey] is 
recognized for 30 seconds.
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, and this has been 
discussed extensively, but this is not in essence a small ``d'' 
democratic package. It is a package really to diminish the status of 
elected officials in relation to all other people similarly situated. 
That includes staff, people in the Pentagon, Soil and Water 
Conservation Service, people working for IBM, et al. Why do we have to 
diminish ourselves to the point where we say we cannot have equal 
rights with the mailman? Let us be able to be in there with all our 
Federal employees and bring those who want into the Federal system.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia [Mrs. Byrne].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Evidently a quorum is not present. Pursuant to the 
provisions of clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair announces that he will 
reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote 
by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the pending question 
following the quorum call. Members will record their presence by 
electronic device.
  The call was taken by electronic device.
  The following Members responded to their names.

                             [Roll No. 387]

                       ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--428

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     de Lugo (VI)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                              {time}  1655

  The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred twenty-eight Members have answered to 
their names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its 
business.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand of the gentlewoman 
from Virginia [Mrs. Byrne] for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 374, 
noes 57, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 388]

                               AYES--374

     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--57

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baker (LA)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bliley
     Borski
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeLay
     Edwards (CA)
     Flake
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Gingrich
     Gonzalez
     Grandy
     Hansen
     Hastings
     Houghton
     Hyde
     King
     Klink
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Manton
     Martinez
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McDade
     McMillan
     Meek
     Michel
     Mink
     Murtha
     Oxley
     Packard
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Smith (OR)
     Swift
     Thomas (CA)
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Watt
     Waxman
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     Brown (FL)
     Kaptur
     Norton (DC)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Herger
     Molinari
     Obey
     Valentine
     Washington

                              {time}  1704

  Mr. ROSE and Mr. SWIFT changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. McDERMOTT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  Ms. NORTON changed her vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4, printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-691.


                   amendment offered by mr. beilenson

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Beilenson: Page 8, strike out line 
     22 and all that follows through line 7 on page 9 and insert 
     the following:
       (2) Executive director.--
       (A) In general.--The Chairperson of the Board of Directors 
     shall appoint, may establish the compensation of, and may 
     terminate, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors, 
     an Executive Director (referred to in this Act as the 
     ``executive director''). The compensation of the executive 
     director may not exceed the compensation for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code. The executive director shall be an individual 
     with training or expertise in the application of the laws 
     referred to in section 3 to employment. The appointment of 
     the first executive director shall be completed no later than 
     120 days after the initial appointment of the Board of 
     Directors.
       (B) Office.--The executive director may not be an 
     individual who holds or may have held the position of Member 
     of the House of Representatives or Senator. The executive 
     director may not be an individual who holds the position of 
     employee of the House of Representatives or the Senate but 
     the executive director may be an individual who held such a 
     position at least 4 years before appointment as executive 
     director.
       Page 9, strike lines 9 through 14, in line 15 on page 9 
     strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)'', and redesignate paragraphs 
     (2), (3), and (4) as paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), 
     respectively.
       Page 9, strike line 24 and all that follows through line 4 
     on page 10 and insert the following:
       (B) Office.--No member of the Board of Directors appointed 
     under subsection (b)(1) may hold or may have held the 
     position of Member of the House of Representatives or 
     Senator, may hold the position of employee of the House of 
     Representatives or Senate, or may have held such a position 
     within 4 years of the date of appointment.
       Page 12, strike line 22 and insert ``the first executive 
     director''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering would make several changes 
in the qualifications of the Board of Directors and the Executive 
Director of the Office of Compliance, and in the timing of the 
implementation of the bill's provisions. These changes are needed and 
intended to establish a more sensible and practicable process for 
achieving the bill's objectives and we believe they will strengthen the 
bill and make it work better.
  These proposed changes developed from discussion about this 
legislation which followed the 5 days of hearing that the Subcommittee 
on Rules of the House held on H.R. 3801, the recommendations of the 
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. Our subcommittee's 5 
days of hearings on that bill included testimony from many Members of 
the House and public witnesses specifically on the portion of H.R. 3801 
dealing with the application of laws to Congress.
  First, the amendment removes the requirement that the eight members 
of the Board of Directors have expertise or training in the laws to be 
applied to Congress, as well as in congressional employment. This 
requirement would severely limit the pool of potential Board members 
from which the House and Senate leadership will have to choose.
  We hope and we expect that the leadership will appoint individuals to 
the Board who are knowledgeable about the applicable laws and about 
congressional employment, but if they are unable to consider appointing 
anyone who does not have true expertise in these areas, their task will 
be next to impossible, and the result might well be a major delay in 
the whole process of applying laws that this bill sets up.
  The amendment also eliminates the prohibition on Board service by all 
former House or Senate employees, substituting, instead, a prohibition 
on individuals who have been congressional employees during the 4 years 
previous to their appointment. It maintains the bill's prohibition on 
service by current and former House and Senate Members, current 
congressional employees, and lobbyists.
  This change, too, is intended to broaden the pool of potential 
candidates for the Board. Our concern is that, if every person who has 
ever served as a staff member of the House or Senate at any point in 
his or her life is ineligible to serve on the Board, a great many 
knowledgeable, capable individuals will automatically be disqualified.
  Second, the amendment establishes qualifications for the Executive 
Director of the Office of Compliance--a subject the bill as reported is 
silent on. As this legislation has developed, it has become evident 
that the Executive Director is going to play a more fundamental and 
important role in applying laws to Congress than perhaps was originally 
envisioned, so we ought to provide some guidance on the kind of person 
who should be chosen for this role.
  The amendment requires the Executive Director to have expertise or 
training in the application of laws to be applied to Congress. Because 
it is the Executive Director, rather than the Board, who will have 
principal authority and responsibility for determining how laws will be 
applied to Congress and for the day-to-day operations of the Office of 
Compliance, it makes more sense for that individual, rather than for 
the Board members, to be required to have such expertise or training.
  Third, the amendment requires that the Board hire an Executive 
Director within 120 days after the Board itself is chosen. It then 
requires the study of the manner in which laws are to be applied to 
Congress to be completed 180 days after the Executive Director is 
hired.

                              {time}  1710

  The bill, as reported, lacks a time frame for hiring the first 
Executive Director and requires the Board to complete the study 6 
months after initial Board members are appointed. This amendment will 
give the Board 4 months to hire an Executive Director before the 6-
month period for conducting the study begins.
  We would note that since the bill gives the Executive Director the 
authority to hire other staff for the Office of Compliance, the Board 
will not even be able to hire clerical help until the Executive 
Director is chosen. Practically speaking, the work required of the 
Board will not be able to get under way until the Executive Director is 
chosen, so it makes sense to build time into this process for that 
step.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe strongly that all of these provisions will 
help the process of applying laws to Congress function more smoothly, 
and I urge adoption of the amendment.


  amendment offered by mr. fingerhut to the amendment offered by mr. 
                               beilenson

  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fingerhut as an amendment to the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Beilenson: 
       In paragraph 4(b)(2) proposed to be inserted by the 
     amendment, amend subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) Office.--The executive director may not be an 
     individual who holds or has held the position of Member of 
     the House of Representatives or Senator or the position of 
     employee of the House of Representatives or the Senate, or 
     who engages in, or is otherwise employed in, lobbying of the 
     Congress and is required under the Federal Regulation of 
     Lobbying Act to register with the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Fingerhut] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed to 
the amendment to the amendment will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, let me add my words of thanks to all 
those that have been involved in this very important piece of 
legislation, to the two principal sponsors, the gentleman New Hampshire 
[Mr. Swett] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], who have 
labored tirelessly, to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Rose] and also to the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], and 
to my colleagues in the freshman reform task force, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. 
Fowler] as well as the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Shepherd], all of 
whom worked diligently on this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I do believe this is a historic piece of legislation 
and responds to one of the principal concerns about the Congress that I 
hear from my constituents.
  Let me also say that the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson] I believe is appropriate in that it 
understands that the success of the Office of Compliance is critical to 
the success of this legislation because it is the Office of Compliance 
that will see to it that the Congress indeed does abide by the laws in 
the same manner as that which the rest of the public abides by the 
laws.

  The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] is also correct in 
noting that the position of the Executive Director is critical to the 
success of the Office of Compliance, and he is correct in pointing out 
that the Executive Director must be as independent as possible.
  My amendment though would go one step further. My amendment would 
clarify and, in one sense, go one step further than the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] with respect 
to the qualifications of the Executive Director.
  First, it would clarify that the Executive Director may not be 
someone who is currently a registered lobbyist. That may or may not be 
clear under the language of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California. It is clarified in this secondary amendment.
  Second, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] would allow a former staff member of the Congress to serve 
as Executive Director if that staff member has ceased employment with 
the Congress for a period of 4 years. In efforts to make clear that the 
Executive Director is totally independent of the Congress, totally 
independent of the function of their employment, we believe it is 
necessary to say that not only can a former Member not serve, not only 
can a lobbyist not serve, but a former staff member of the Congress may 
not serve as an Executive Director. This amendment would clarify that, 
and I believe in this case, if the amendment is adopted together with 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
there would be no question as to the independence of the Executive 
Director of the independent Office of Compliance.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express general reservations 
about the gentleman's amendment. I understand where he is coming from. 
I commend him for his interest in all these matters. He has done a 
yeomanlike job along with the others, some of whom he mentioned.
  If our experience with the House Director of Financial and 
Nonlegislative Services is any indication, it is likely that the 
executive director position is going to be a very difficult one to fill 
even without any restrictions. I think it is going to be a very 
difficult position to fill even without any restrictions on who can 
serve, and I think it is reasonable to exclude Members, and former 
Members and staff, as we would under either gentleman's proposal, and 
also staff members who have been employed on the Hill in recent years. 
But I am concerned that by eliminating everyone who has ever served as 
a staff member of the House or the Senate at any time in his or her 
life that we may be automatically disqualifying literally thousands of 
potential candidates, some of whom might make potentially excellent 
prospects as executive director. The same may be true of eliminating 
all lobbyists, although I support the gentleman's provision in that 
regard. If we cannot fill the position of executive director, the whole 
process of applying these laws, as the gentleman well understands and 
has just said, are making the enforcement aspect of it something that 
is going to break down. I think we can trust the board to choose an 
executive director who is not biased toward the staff without imposing 
what may be an unreasonable and onerous eligibility requirement for 
that position, and I would ask the gentleman also to remember, and 
colleagues to remember, that the bill, as originally reported, as 
developed by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] themselves, does not contain 
any qualifications or requirements for the executive director, and with 
the amendment which I am offering, the base amendment, we are, in fact, 
imposing some new exacting qualifications for that position. With that, 
with Mr. Fingerhut's well-intentioned offering of an amendment, those 
qualifications may be unreasonably difficult to find in a particular 
individual, so I do raise those qualms about the gentleman's proposal.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Beilenson], and would briefly say in response that I believe there 
are many qualified individuals all over the country who have knowledge 
of these laws and can serve well. I do not believe that we would be 
unfairly limiting ourselves, but he is correct that his qualifications 
of the executive director position are well taken.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me and just weigh in on both amendments. I 
congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for making 
an improvement to our amendment. We totally overlooked the 
qualifications of the executive director, a major flaw, but I think we 
go in the wrong direction if we in this one most powerful position 
allow either former Members, which is not being proposed, or a former 
staff person to be the executive director. I think that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] is far better, 
and I just hope we can have his amendment pass with the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut], and I hope that the 
body will concur.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Swett].
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Fingerhut] for the time to clarify.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague from Connecticut. This is an 
important amendment to an important amendment. We have got to keep a 
wall of separation between this office of compliance and its members 
and those people who serve on the board, and especially the executive 
director, and the rest of the congressional activity. I believe that 
the gentleman from Ohio's amendment does that clearly by keeping former 
staff, former Members and lobbyists out of that position, and I support 
his amendment wholeheartedly.

                              {time}  1720

  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply reiterate that we support the terms of 
the Beilenson amendment. But because he has correctly identified for 
this body the importance of the Office of Compliance, the importance of 
the executive director to the success of this bill, we urge that we go 
one step further and make very clear that the executive director is 
independent of the Congress by guaranteeing it is not a lobbyist, not a 
former Member of Congress, and not a former staff Member of Congress. I 
ask for a positive vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, before this love feast reaches its 
conclusion, take a good look at what this amendment does. Before all of 
us rush off into the reform sunset, make sure you understand what it is 
doing.
  We lost whoever the director of, whatever it is that we set up, 
whenever we did, a year ago. They brought in some general. He did not 
know anything. That was his primary consideration. Let us make sure we 
get somebody in here that is as ignorant of the operation of the House 
of Representatives as possible. Let us make sure we get somebody in 
here who does not know the first thing about what is going on. Then we 
will be all right. Then we can go back to our constituents and say, 
``We finally did the right thing. We were able to bring somebody in who 
doesn't know anything.''
  What an insult to the staff. There is nobody on this floor that can 
scarcely walk from their office over here and know how to get here 
without their staff. What do you mean, you want to throw out people who 
had staff work, that had all the years of experience.
  I notice none of you are worried about how much money is being spent 
by the lobbyists to keep us from having an employer mandate or anything 
else.
  Defeat the amendment. I would be proud to have somebody in this 
position who has been with the staff of this House. Don't vote for this 
phony-baloney of never having anybody in here who never knew what was 
going on.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Does the gentleman withdraw his request for a quorum?
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I withdraw my point of order, Mr. Chairman, .
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
  A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I object. There was no 25 standing. I object. I 
appeal the ruling of the Chair. Let us get an honest count, or get 
somebody in the chair that can give us one.
  The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Does the gentleman 
from Ohio insist on his point of order that a quorum is not present?
  Mr. FINGERHUT. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.


                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, did the Chair rule that a 
sufficient number had arisen for a vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes; if the Chair may clarify it for the benefit of the 
Members, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut] made the point of 
order that a quorum was not present. The gentleman from Ohio, the Chair 
believes, under the recognition of these rules, assumed that a recorded 
vote would be ordered. The gentleman withdrew his point of order.
  Under the rules of the House and general recognition of comity 
established by this House, the Chair is asking the gentleman from Ohio 
whether or not he seeks to insist on his point of order.
  The gentleman did insist. The Chair was just about to announce that a 
quorum is not present.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, a further parliamentary 
inquiry. If the gentleman from Ohio were now to withdraw his point of 
order, would there be a record vote without a quorum call?
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the current 
state of affairs, we are either going to have a quorum call or we are 
going to have a vote on appealing the decision of the Chair, and I 
think the quorum call is the preferable vote.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I do not 
believe there is an appeal pending.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not recognize an appeal from the Chair's 
count. Having recognized no appeal of the Chair, the decision to order 
a recorded vote stands. A sufficient number having a recorded vote 
stands. A sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. 
Those in favor of the amendment will vote aye, those opposed will vote 
no. Members will record their vote by electronic device.
  Pursuant to rule XXIII, the subsequent recorded vote, if ordered on 
the Beilenson amendment will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 220, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 389]

                               AYES--216

     Allard
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Blute
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Carr
     Castle
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Nadler
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Penny
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Applegate
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Darden
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastings
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     King
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kopetski
     LaFalce
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Mann
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mfume
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Quillen
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Roberts
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Underwood (GU)
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Herger
     Molinari
     Washington

                              {time}  1746

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD and Messrs. VOLKMER, GREENWOOD, SCHUMER, and 
SLATTERY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. LANTOS, NADLER, ARMEY, and UPTON changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  Mr. CRANE changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed 
in Part 2 of House Report 103-691.


                    amendment offered by mrs. fowler

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Fowler: Page 9, insert after the 
     period in line 7 the following: ``The term of office of the 
     executive director shall be a single term of 5 years.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Florida 
[Mrs. Fowler] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a member opposed 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1750

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today on behalf of myself and 
Representatives fingerhut, Shepherd, and Torkildsen is very simple, yet 
very significant.
  My amendment would stipulate that the Executive Director of the 
Office of Compliance is appointed for a term of 5 years. The way the 
bill is currently written, he or she, once appointed, serves until 
resignation or termination.
  The Office of Compliance will be a major office in this institution, 
and the person who runs it will be on a par with the Clerk, the 
Doorkeeper and the Sergeant at Arms. If those appointments are reviewed 
and renewed on a regular basis, so should that of the Executive 
Director.
  My amendment requires the Executive Director be reviewed every 5 
years. If he or she is doing a great job, then the board can vote to 
reappoint.
  The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McDADE. Would it be in order to ask the Chair to put a muffler on 
his gavel?
  The CHAIRMAN. That would be out of order. But the Chair would seek 
order in the committee.
  Mr. McDADE. It may not be, Mr. Chairman. I suggest the Chair lighten 
the gavel.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his suggestion. It 
is always appreciated. The Chair would request Members to give the 
gentlewoman the respect of the House and allow her to continue.
  Mrs. FOWLER. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, the integrity of this entire process of congressional 
accountability hinges on the integrity of the board and Executive 
Director. That is why this amendment, and all the amendments offered by 
our bi-partisan freshman coalition, seek to strengthen the integrity of 
the board and Executive Director.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  While I have the time, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on final passage.
  The coauthors of my amendment and I serve as co-chairs of our 
respective freshman class reform task forces. Early last year we began 
a series of meetings to identify areas of reform where there was bi-
partisan agreement.
  First on that list was congressional accountability. One of the 
reasons our freshman class is the largest in four decades is the fact 
that the American people have lost confidence in this institution and 
are desperate for change.
  Nothing drives a bigger wedge between this, the ``People's House,'' 
and the people themselves than the practice of exempting Congress from 
laws it passes for everyone else.
  As freshmen, we made it our top priority to end that practice and 
begin the process of restoring the confidence of the American people. 
Ninety-seven of us signed on as cosponsors of the original Shays-Swett 
Congressional Accountability Act. Our bi-partisan freshman group 
testified before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 
the Rules Committee, and the House Administration Committee to show our 
class' support.
  While I would much prefer that we were considering this bill as part 
of a more comprehensive reform package, I think its passage today will 
be a major victory for the reform effort.
  Passage of this bill will result in much more than just ensuring we 
run Congress under the same laws as private business. The significant 
long-term impact of this bill will be that we pass better laws. Knowing 
that what we pass applies to ourselves will surely make us more 
vigilant, more pragmatic and maybe more cautious when adding to the 
statute books.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4822.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment number 7 
printed in part 2 of House Report 103-691.


                   amendment offered by ms. shepherd

  Ms. SHEPHERD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Shepherd: Page 11, insert after 
     line 4 the following:
       (3) Removal.--Any member of the Board of Directors may be 
     removed from office by a majority decision of the appointing 
     authorities described in subsection (b)(1) and only for--
       (A) disability that substantially prevents the member from 
     carrying out the duties of the member,
       (B) incompetence,
       (C) neglect of duty,
       (D) malfeasance, or
       (E) a felony or conduct involving moral turpitude.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. 
Shepherd] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Utah [Ms. Shepherd].
  Ms. SHEPHERD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering today is silent on 
conditions under which a member of the Board of Directors can be 
removed from the Board.
  This amendment lays out specific conditions under which a member of 
the Board can be removed. It simply states that they can only be 
removed by a majority decision of the joint leadership, and then only 
for cause.
  The intent of the amendment is to ensure members of the Board are not 
removed simply because they may make politically tough decisions on 
compliance provisions.
  The amendment specifies the following reasons for dismissal: 
Incompetence; neglect of duty; malfeasance, or a felony or conduct 
involving moral turpitude.
  This ``good cause'' standard has been used in the executive branch. 
It is currently applied to the chair of the Merit System Protection 
Board as well as for the Director of the Office of Government Ethics.
  Mr. Chairman, this is, I believe a noncontroversial amendment. I am 
joined by my fellow freshman colleagues Eric Fingerhut, Tillie Fowler, 
and Peter Torkildsen in offering this amendment. We have worked 
together with the bipartisan sponsors of this landmark legislation, Mr. 
Shays and Mr. Swett, in crafting this amendment and we have their 
support.
  I urge my colleagues to join with us in supporting this 
noncontroversial but important amendment and in providing strong 
bipartisan support for passage of this critical legislation.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SHEPHERD. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I support the 
gentlewoman's amendment and have no objection to it.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SHEPHERD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Chairman, we, too, support the amendment, and we 
urge its adoption.
  Ms. SHEPHERD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply, then, conclude by saying this is an 
insurance that mirrors what is done in the executive branch. It is 
exactly the same rule that is used by the Merit System Protection 
Board, and it would be used by the Office of Compliance.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition to speak in opposition 
to the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Utah [Ms. Shepherd].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-691.


                    amendments offered by mr. shays

  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendments 8, 9, 
and 10, all of which are Shays-Swett amendments, be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendments made in order under 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendment number 8 offered by Mr. Shays: Page 13, strike 
     ``and'' at the end of line 23, strike the period at the end 
     of line 25 and insert ``; and'', and after line 25 insert the 
     following:
       (4) may review the regulations in effect under subsection 
     (e)(1) and make such amendments as may be appropriate in 
     accordance with subsection (c).

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Shays: Page 14, line 8, 
     strike ``that specify the manner in which'' and insert ``to 
     implement the requirements of'' and in line 10 strike ``shall 
     apply''.
       Page 14, line 22, strike ``specifying the manner in which'' 
     and insert ``to implement the requirements of'' and beginning 
     in line 23 strike ``shall apply to the legislative branch of 
     the Federal Government''.

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Shays: Page 16, insert 
     after line 24, the following:
       (4) Action if disapproval.--If a concurrent resolution is 
     considered under subsection (e) and is disapproved, not later 
     than 60 days after the date of the disapproval, the Board of 
     Directors shall propose a new regulation to replace the 
     regulation disapproved with the disapproval of such 
     concurrent resolution. The action of the Board of Directors 
     under this paragraph shall be in accordance with the 
     applicable requirements of this subsection.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].


        modification to amendment number 10 offered by mr. shays

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment 
number 10 be modified pursuant to the technical amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment number 10, as modified, offered by Mr. Shays:
       Page 16, insert after line 24, the following:
       (4) Action if disapproval.--If a regulation is disapproved 
     by a concurrent resolution considered under subsection (e), 
     not later than 60 days after the date of the disapproval, the 
     Board of Directors shall propose a new regulation to replace 
     the regulation disapproved. The action of the Board of 
     Directors under this paragraph shall be in accordance with 
     the applicable requirements of this subsection.

  Mr. THOMAS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the modification to the amendment be considered 
as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not 
object, we have examined the amendment, it is a very technical change, 
and it is perfectly acceptable to us.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSE. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Committee on House 
Administration.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have examined the 
amendment, it is technical in nature, it is perfecting, and we have no 
objection to the amendment.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut for the modification?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on amendment Number 8, the bill is silent about the 
ability of the board to review and amend as necessary regulations which 
it has already promulgated.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of amendment number 9, a technical 
amendment, is to emphasize that the board of directors in fulfilling 
its responsibilities to write regulations applying to statutes 
specified in section 3(a) of the bill is to ensure that all the rights 
and protections of these laws are to apply.
  The amendment is meant to make clear that the office may not simply 
pick and choose which provisions of these laws the regulations will 
affect but at the same time provide the necessary flexibility for the 
board of directors to write these regulations in such a way as to 
accommodate the application of these laws consistent with the 
separation of powers, to the unique structure, organization and 
procedures of the House and Senate.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just add the amendment is meant to make clear 
that this office may not issue regulations that are inconsistent with 
the statute's language or intent.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, we have looked at these 
amendments. They are not technical in nature, they are substantive, but 
they do perfect the bill, they are a valuable addition to the bill, and 
we think they should be adopted.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the conclusion of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas] and have no objection.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and 
to thank my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Connecticut, 
and commend him for the tremendous time and effort he has put into this 
bill.
  The idea behind this legislation is simple and straightforward. In 
fact, many Americans could be forgiven for wondering why this didn't 
happen a long, long time ago. Making Congress subject to the laws it 
passes is just common sense.
   For years, public trust in this institution has been eroding. People 
no longer believe we understand them, understand their problems, listen 
to their concerns. Part of that is because they see us as isolated by 
the beltway, cut off from the lives they lead.
  The fact that we pass laws which apply to them but not to us is 
compelling evidence of the gulf between us. We struggle daily to close 
that gap. We could take no greater step to improve our credibility with 
ordinary Americans than to pass this bill. To live by the standards we 
set for others.
  It is high time. It is long overdue. And it is a matter of our 
credibility and, in the long term, our ability to govern. Adlai 
Stevenson said that ``Public confidence in the integrity of government 
is indispensable to faith in democracy.'' This legislation will do no 
less than help to restore that faith.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition to speak in opposition 
to the amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendments, as modified, offered by 
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  The amendments, as modified, were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-691.


                    amendment offered by mr. zimmer

  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order under 
the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Zimmer: Page 18, insert after the 
     period in line 7 the following: ``Any meeting of a committee 
     on a concurrent resolution shall be open to the public.''.
       Page 19, insert after line 18 the following:
       (g) Open to the Public.--Any meeting of the Board of 
     Directors held in connection with a study under subsection 
     (a) or (b) shall be open to the public. Any meeting of the 
     Board of Directors in connection with a regulation under 
     subsection (c) shall be open to the public.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to rule, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Zimmer] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment. It would require 
that any meeting of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance 
be open to the public. It would also require that any meeting of a 
committee which is considering a concurrent resolution disapproving a 
recommendation of the Office of Compliance be open to the public.
  This legislation is about accountability. This legislation is about 
restoring credibility to this Congress. One way to accomplish these 
objectives is to make sure that our deliberations and the deliberations 
of the Office of Compliance are held in full public view. No back room 
deals. No smoke filled rooms. No smokeless rooms. Everything in full 
view so that the public will have confidence that we are applying to 
ourselves the laws that apply to them in a straightforward and honest 
way.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ZIMMER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey for yielding. The only concern that anyone might have is the 
requirement that a meeting of a committee in dealing with this 
information be open to the public whereas the rules of the House allow 
under certain circumstances that committee meetings be closed.
  That is not a conflict. Very clearly you could have a portion of the 
meeting dealing with this issue open, and then other portions, if the 
committee felt it necessary to close it, you could close it. There is 
no reason that these should ever be held in a closed session, and we 
support this amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 printed 
in House Report 103-691.


                  amendment offered by mr. torkildsen

  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order 
under the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Torkildsen: Page 19, insert at the 
     end of line 21 the following: ``subject to the approval of 
     the Board of Directors,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Torkildsen] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed 
will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Torkildsen].
  Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of an amendment offered by 
myself, Mrs. Fowler, Mrs. Shepherd, and Mr. Fingerhut. This amendment 
will strengthen the original form of H.R. 4822, the Congressional 
Accountability Act.
  This amendment would subject the rules of the Office of Compliance to 
the approval of the Board of Directors and ensure greater 
accountability of the Executive Director. Because the Board of 
Directors is, in fact, the heart of the Office of Compliance, it is 
important that the Executive Director answer to the Board to ensure 
that no individual have extended control over the functions or rules of 
the Office. This change is essential to creating a viable, effective 
Office of Compliance.
  Though far from perfect, H.R. 4822 is a strong bill. As cochair of 
the Freshmen Republican Reform Task Force, I and many of my colleagues 
have been working hard to make Congress live by the laws it passes for 
the rest of the country. This bill is a great example of bipartisan 
cooperation working to restore public confidence in the U.S. Congress. 
Congressmen Shays and Swett deserve great credit for initiating this 
bill. The freshmen Democrats and Republicans were instrumental in 
advancing this legislation to the floor.
  I know there is hesitation by some to make all private sector laws 
apply to Congress. The American people do not have the luxury of 
determining what laws apply to them; we do. Yes, laws like OSHA and the 
Fair Labor Standards Act are expensive to implement, but that never 
stopped Congress from passing them. And if any law is too expensive for 
Congress to comply with, then shouldn't we ask if it is too expensive 
for private citizens to comply with?
  For over 50 years, Congress has been exempting itself from the very 
laws that almost every American must follow. This is done in direct 
contradiction to what the Framers of the Constitution intended. In the 
57th Federalist, Madison wrote, the House of Representatives ``can make 
no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their 
friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always 
been one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the 
rulers and the people together.''
  What Madison saw as one of the strongest bonds connecting the rulers 
and the people is missing in the United States today. We can restore 
some confidence in congressional decisionmaking by simply requiring 
that Members of Congress obey laws that every other citizen must 
follow.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure to make 
Congress comply with many laws that almost every American must comply 
with every day.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-691.


                    amendment offered by ms. norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Norton: Page 22, strike lines 20 
     through 24.
       Page 28, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 9 
     on page 32.
       Page 28, insert after line 17 the following:

     SEC. 11. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Types of review.--Following any hearing under section 
     10 on a complaint relating to a provision of law described in 
     section 3, any congressional employee aggrieved by a 
     dismissal of a claim under section 10(c), a final decision 
     under section 10(g), a final order under section 10(h), or 
     any Member of the House of Representatives or Senator 
     aggrieved by a final decision under section 10(g) or a final 
     order under section 10(h), may--
       (A) bring a civil action in a district court of the United 
     States for a de novo review of such dismissal or of the 
     alleged violation of law with respect to which such decision 
     or order was issued if the law applicable to such dismissal 
     or violation authorizes such a civil action, or
       (B) petition for review by the United States Court of 
     Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

     If in an action brought under subparagraph (A) a court 
     determines that a dismissal was not authorized or a violation 
     of law occurred, the court may only enter an order described 
     in section 10(h). Bringing a civil action under subparagraph 
     (A) with respect to a matter in which an order was issued 
     under section 10 shall vacate such order.
       (2) Provisions applicable to review by court of appeals.--
     The following provisions apply to a review under paragraph 
     (1)(B):
       (A) Law applicable.--Chapter 158 of title 28, United States 
     Code, shall apply--
       (i) 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;
       (ii) the provisions of section 2348 of title 28, United 
     States Code, on the authority of the Attorney General, shall 
     not apply;
       (iii) the petition for review shall be filed not later than 
     90 days after the entry in the Office of a final decision 
     under section 10(g), an order under section 10(h);
       (iv) the Office shall be an ``agency'' as that term is used 
     in chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code;
       (v) the Office shall be the respondent in any proceeding 
     under subparagraph (A); and
       (vi) the Office of Compliance may provide legal 
     representation to the employee in such appellate proceedings 
     under subparagraph (A) if the employee was a prevailing party 
     in the hearing or if the employee has a nonfrivolous ground 
     of appeal. Rules for providing representation for the 
     employee shall be established by the executive director, 
     subject to the approval of the Board of Directors.
       (B) Standard of review.--To the extent necessary for 
     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 dismissal 
     under section 10(c), a final decision under section 10(g), or 
     an order under section 10(h) if it is determined that the 
     dismissal, decision, or order was--
       (i) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or 
     otherwise not consistent with law;
       (ii) not made consistent with required procedures; or
       (iii) unsupported by substantial evidence.
       (C) Record.--In making determinations under subparagraph 
     (B), 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, 
     attorney's fees may be allowed by the court in accordance 
     with any standards prescribed under Federal law for the award 
     of such fees.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia [Ms. Norton] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member 
opposed will be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
[Ms. Norton].
  [Ms. NORTON addressed the Committee. Her remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, do I understand that what the gentlewoman's 
amendment does is it requires an employee to exhaust administrative 
remedies first?
  Ms. NORTON. Yes, without depriving that employee of the right to then 
go to Federal district court as in the private sector.
  Mr. HUGHES. But it requires an employee to exhaust all administrative 
remedies before they can file in the district court?
  Ms. NORTON. That is right, where the resolution may well occur.
  Mr. HUGHES. If the gentlewoman will yield further, does the 
gentlewoman envision that then there would be a de novo review, as I 
understand it, in the Federal district court once they have exhausted 
those remedies before the Office of Compliance?
  Ms. NORTON. I would. That is so, because that is what happens in the 
private sector.
  Mr. HUGHES. Then you envision if, in fact, a district court renders 
an adverse decision, there would be an appeal to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals?
  Ms. NORTON. As in the private sector, yes. In other words, I have 
tried to track as closely as possible what happens in the private 
sector.
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we have to understand that if this bill is an 
attempt to place Congress under the laws as the private sector has 
them, you need to know that the Norton amendment is a step back from 
that position. The committee, after much discussion, unanimously 
accepted an amendment which, in fact, puts Congress and its employees 
closer to what occurs in the private sector. The question that was just 
asked by the gentleman from New Jersey goes directly to the heart of 
the question.
  In the Fair Labor Standards Act employees have the right to an 
administrative proceeding or going to the court. In the Civil Rights 
Act they have that choice. In the Americans with Disabilities Act they 
have that choice. In the Age Discrimination in Employment Act they have 
that choice. In the Workers' Adjustment and Retraining Act they have 
that choice. In the committee version of the bill they have that 
choice.
  They do not have that choice under the Norton amendment. In addition 
to that, in the private sector there is no inducement to get you to 
give up your right to go to a trial court and take the administrative 
proceeding, and then go to the appeals court. In the Norton amendment, 
if you go to the appeals court, your attorney is provided by the Office 
of Compliance.
  It is an attempt not to have you go to the district court, not to 
have that right that is available to the private sector in every other 
of these laws.
  We argued this in committee. The amendment accepted by the gentlemen 
who are the cosponsors of this bill, unanimously supported by the 
committee, says the employee has the right to take the administrative 
remedy or, at their choice, go to the district court.
  It seems to me that if we are going to place Congress and the Federal 
employees more under the private sector laws, the committee procedure 
is closer to that than the Norton amendment, and I would ask that you 
oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia [Ms. Norton] has expired. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Thomas] has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I regret I did not have the opportunity of 
hearing the arguments. I have been entranced to be here.
  But it does seem to me that there is no good reason to deprive 
employees of their right to go directly to court and to bypass the 
administrative procedures. I know that, for instance, in the civil 
rights laws, especially in regard to gender discrimination, that the 
employees made it very clear while we were considering that recent 
legislation that they felt very definitely that they wanted to have 
their right to their day in court before a jury so they could set their 
full case in regard to gender discrimination and, indeed, when you look 
at the EEOC and the procedures that would be utilized, when you look at 
civil rights laws, I think one has to recognize that what we have in 
this statute as it is very much in accord with what the EEOC has in 
reference to the Civil Rights Act or the ADA. You have conciliation, 
you have mediation, and then the party has a right to go directly to 
court.
  I think it is good that they have the right to use an administrative 
procedure hearing here, but it is very, very important that we try to 
have the law as close to existing law as possible.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat sympathetic with the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, because that would make 
the whole process of labor law a lot easier for the private sector and 
for us, because if the private sector did not have their employees 
running into court but would, rather, have to go through an 
administrative procedure first, we could unclog a lot of the problems 
we have in the courts today.
  But that is not what the private sector has to do. And so as 
sympathetic as I am with what she wants to do, it would make a lot more 
sense, we need to go back and change the laws that apply to the private 
sector, and then we could live under that same application.
  But in the meantime, I think that we should provide out employees 
with the same rights and privileges as the private sector employees 
have, and that means that the committee version is the right version in 
order to maintain that integrity.
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
is well intentioned in her amendment. But, I believe that the 
committee, in the discussion, in the amendment, and in the committee 
product, moves us closer to conformance on the model of the Shays-Swett 
legislation, and I would ask that we oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed 
in part 2 of House Report 103-691.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. English of Arizona

  Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Ms English of Arizona: Page 37, after 
     line 12, add the following new section:

     SEC. 19. LIMITATION ON USE OF TRAVEL AWARDS IN THE HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any rule, regulation, or other authority, any travel award 
     that accrues by reason of official travel of a Member, 
     officers or employee of the House of Representatives may be 
     used only with respect to official travel.
       (b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration of 
     the House of Representatives shall have authority to 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
       (c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``travel award'' means any frequent flier 
     mileage, free travel, discounted travel, or other travel 
     benefit, whether awarded by coupon, membership, or otherwise; 
     and
       (2) the term ``official travel'' means, with respect to the 
     House of Representatives, travel performed for the conduct of 
     official business of the House of Representatives.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Arizona [Ms. 
English] will be recognized for 5 minutes, and a Member opposed will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona [Ms. English].
  Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, the legislation now before the 
House deals with applying to Congress the laws that we impose on the 
rest of the Nation.
  The amendment I offer today would apply to the House the rule 
covering the use of frequent-flier tickets that the rest of the entire 
Federal Government--including the Senate--already lives under.
  My amendment would reverse a 1991 House rule change that gave Members 
and staff the discretion to personally use frequent-flier travel awards 
earned from official, taxpayer-funded travel. Under the current rules, 
every four trips I take to my district on the same airline earns me a 
free airline ticket.
  I can either use that ticket to conduct official business, saving a 
little taxpayer money, or I can use it to fly myself, friends, and 
family most anywhere in the country for free.
  When the taxpayers of my district pay to fly me back and forth 
between Arizona and Washington so that I can do my job, I just do not 
think they expect me to get free plane tickets as a result.
  I have established a policy in my office--as many of my colleagues 
have--that says free frequent-flier plane tickets are only to be used 
for official business.
  I think that should be the policy for the House as a whole, and 
that's what my amendment would accomplish.
  This amendment rests on one simple premise. Airline tickets cost 
money. Taxpayers pay for them. The frequent-flier miles belong to the 
taxpayers. It is that simple.
  In these times of very tight budgetary constraints, when we are 
trying--legitimately--to cut waste and save money wherever we can, this 
rule change makes sense. Given the amount of travel that Members of 
Congress undertake, the value of these awards can be substantial.
  For Members lucky enough to represent a Western district, as I do, 
the value of these free tickets reaches into the thousands of dollars a 
year. We should not pass by this opportunity to save money and improve 
the cost-effectiveness of our congressional operations.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me restate the premise that my 
amendment is built on. Airline tickets cost money. Taxpayers pay for 
them. The frequent-flier miles belong to the taxpayers.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for this amendment and return the 
House to its original, commonsense treatment of this issue. This is the 
practice followed by our colleagues in every other part of the Federal 
Government.
  It should be our policy as well.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. Chairman, for purposes of debate only, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Strickland].
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, when I first came to Congress, a friend 
back home asked me, ``What's it like in Washington? How does it feel to 
serve in Congress? What are other Members of Congress really like?''
  I told him I was surprised to learn how hard people work in 
Washington. I said there's a strong, and for the most part, 
unrecognized work ethic among Members of Congress and their staff.
  Yet, despite this work ethic, the approval rating of Congress 
languishes at around 30 percent. Many of our constituents feel that we 
are out of touch. Some say we are completely out of touch. Such 
negative feelings are unwarranted--however, there are steps we can take 
to move us closer to the people we represent.
  Stopping the personal use of frequent flier miles acquired through 
tax-payer financed official travel is certainly a step in the right 
direction.
  Will this decision to do away with the personal use of frequent flier 
miles increase the public's approval rating of Congress? Perhaps not, 
but it is a modest reform which may go a long way in demonstrating to 
the public that we don't consider ourselves special.
  I hope my colleagues will agree with this commonsense reform and 
support the efforts of the gentlewoman from Arizona [Ms. English].
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition to speak in opposition 
to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona [Ms. English]?
  Mr. ROSE. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I take that time, but not for any other 
reason than to have the time to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentlewoman from Arizona, and, if she will allow me to do that, I would 
like to ask her a few questions about this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does gentleman seek the time in opposition?
  Mr. ROSE. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I seek to control the opposition time so 
that I may have a colloquy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina 
[Mr. Rose] for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that the gentlewoman from 
Arizona [Ms. English] has written says the Committee on House 
Administration shall have authority to prescribe regulations to carry 
out this section.
  Now, if this comes to the committee, and I would recommend to all my 
colleagues in the House, I would like to ask my colleagues for a 
birthday present. This is my birthday today. I am 55 years old; do my 
colleagues want to vote on that?
  I say to my colleagues, ``Let's don't have a recorded vote on this. I 
really wish we could just accept this amendment. I'm willing to work 
within the committee to do what I believe it is the gentlewoman is 
after.''
  The gentlewoman's main concern is that frequent flyer points not be 
used in any way for personal use. Is that not correct?
  Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROSE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. ROSE. And that they be used for the official things that we do 
around here that are the official business of the House; is that 
correct?
  Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. That is correct.
  Mr. ROSE. OK.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Murtha). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona [Ms. English].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore being in doubt, 
the Committee divided, and there were--ayes 57, noes 2.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, as modified as amended.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the 
chair, Mr. Murtha, Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having 
had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4822) to make certain laws 
applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal Government, 
pursuant to House Resolution 514, he reported the bill back to the 
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole?
  If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of 
the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 427, 
nays 4, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 390]

                               YEAS--427

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--4

     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Ford (MI)
     Gonzalez

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gallo
     Herger
     Molinari
     Washington

                              {time}  1849

  Mr. MOORHEAD, Mr. ARCHER, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________