[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 112 (Friday, August 12, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

                                 ______


                               speech of

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 10, 1994

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4822) to 
     make certain laws applicable to the legislative branch of the 
     Federal Government.

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor as a former chair of the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission and as a Member who served on the 
Joint Committee for the Reorganization of Congress. I administered most 
of the laws that are the subject of H.R. 4822.
  I offer an amendment to strengthen the bill by more closely meeting 
the standard we have set for ourselves to apply the laws we pass to 
ourselves as they are applied to other Americans.
  I have worked closely with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Shays], and the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett], and with the 
staff of the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], as well. My 
amendment seeks to incorporate their concerns in addition to my own by 
meeting the goal of equivalent compliance by Congress.
  I feel compelled to offer an amendment because without a change, 
House employees will be deprived of redress and appeal long available 
to other Americans. My amendment is not inconsistent with the 
comparable provision currently in the bill. Rather it strengthens the 
bill's provisions, coming closer to the existing law that now governs 
other Americans.
  The bill, as it now stands, takes away an entire forum that is 
available to Federal, State and private sector employees. Under H.R. 
4822, House employees would have to make a most difficult choice: To go 
either to the Federal district court or an administrative hearing board 
before a three-member board. Other Americans enjoy the right to a cost-
free forum to resolve their complaints, and thereafter may still go to 
Federal district court. Neither Federal, State nor private sector 
employees give up their right to make their case before an 
administrative agency where neither a lawyer nor court costs are 
necessary.
  The bill before us, however, requires House employees to give up 
their right to cost-free administrative resolution altogether if they 
desire a de novo district court hearing. Thus the bill goes to the 
expense of setting up a free administrative forum for everyone else but 
then denies House employees its use unless they give up the right to a 
court hearing afterwards. However, private sector, Federal and State 
employees may go to the EEOC and, if they lose there, may go to 
district court.
  My amendment allows House employees a cost-free hearing before the 
independent three-member hearing board without depriving the employees 
of their right to a de novo hearing before a Federal district court, if 
desired, after a hearing board decision.

  Why does my amendment allow both the administrative hearing and the 
court hearing? To conform to the fact that two forums are provided to 
other Americans. The members of the hearing board are not selected by 
the House, but rotate off a list of professionals recommended by the 
Administrative Conference of the United States and a Federal Mediation 
and Conciliation Service. In light of the fact that the review board is 
independent, my amendment offers an incentive to appeal rather than 
repeat the fact finding process, but to conform to the rules for other 
Americans, preserves the right of every employee to repeat the fact 
finding process if she pleases. Thus, the Office of Compliance would 
defend the hearing board's decision in the court of appeals and thus 
would in effect provide the employee counsel if the defendant appeals 
to the court of appeals. Employees who do not prevail before the 
hearing board but have nonfrivolous appeals would have similar 
representation if they appeal to the court of appeals.
  Every House employee would retain the option of going to the Federal 
district court de novo, regardless, at her expense, just like other 
Americans.
  Reliance upon a cost-free, independent administrative hearing is the 
key feature of the Shays-Swett bill, the Schroeder-Snowe Congressional 
Employees Fairness Act and the Joint Committee on the Organization of 
Congress's proposal.
  My amendment takes away nothing from these bills but uses them as a 
guide while giving no less to House employees than what other Americans 
can claim. Do not sell House employees short by taking away their cost-
free administrative hearing or their right to a de novo hearing in 
district court.

                          ____________________