[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       THE EQUITY IN REMEDIES ACT

                                 ______


                        HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 30, 1994

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill that I am 
introducing today, the Equity in Remedies Act, is quite simple. 
Congress should abide by the same rules and be subject to the same 
damages as it chooses to impose on private-sector employers. If 
congressional employers are not subject to punitive damages, private-
sector employers should not be subject to punitive damages. The Equity 
in Remedies Act would achieve that goal.
  Under title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1990 Americans 
with Disabilities Act [ADA], only private-sector employers are subject 
to awards of punitive damages. Executive branch employers and State and 
local government employers are not subject to punitive damages. Under 
the Congressional Accountability Act--H.R. 4822--passed by the House on 
August 10, 1994, by a vote of 427-4, Members of Congress are also not 
subject to punitive damages. Some version of congressional coverage 
legislation may soon be passed by the Senate, but none of those under 
serious consideration include punitive damages.
  The Equity in Remedies Act will subject private-sector employers to 
the same damages as proposed under H.R. 4822, and those applicable to 
executive branch and State and local government, by eliminating 
punitive damages under title VII and the ADA. Unfortunately, the 
amendment that I submitted to the Rules Committee to provide for 
punitive damages under H.R. 4822 was not made in order, even though an 
earlier bill--H.R. 2721--reported by the Education and Labor Committee 
on congressional coverage allowed for such damages. Since the House was 
precluded from debating this important issue and the bill excludes 
punitive damages, it is only appropriate that legislation be introduced 
to bring private-sector laws concerning punitive damages in line with 
the bill passed by the House.
  Hopefully, this vehicle will engender a useful debate--a debate 
denied by the Rules Committee--as to the appropriateness of exempting 
Congress from the same damages as imposed on the private sector.
  We take this step with some hesitancy, as we recognize the 
controversial nature of eliminating punitive damages under title VII 
and the ADA. However, if the Congress wishes to exempt itself from 
these damages, its seems only appropriate that it should similarly 
exempt the private sector.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that time is now short in the session, but I 
hope we will revisit the issue in the next Congress.

                          ____________________