[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF HOUSE RESOLUTION 579, AMENDING THE RULES 
                    OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

  Mr. MOAKLEY, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
privileged resolution (H.R. 579), which was referred to the House 
Calendar and ordered to be printed:

                              H. Res. 579

       Resolved, That House Resolution 578 is hereby adopted.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 579 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read the resolution.
  Mr. SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House now consider House 
Resolution 579?
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 579.
  The text of House Resolution 578 is as follows:

                              H. Res. 578

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN LAWS TO THE HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       The Rules of the House of Representatives are amended by 
     adding at the end the following new rule:

                              ``Rule LII.


                     ``application of certain laws.

       ``1. There is established an Office of Compliance which 
     shall have a Board of Directors consisting of 5 individuals 
     appointed jointly by the Speaker and the minority leader. 
     Appointments of the first 5 members of the Board of Directors 
     shall be completed not later than 120 days after the 
     beginning of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
       ``2. (a) The Office of Compliance shall carry out the 
     duties and functions set forth in sections 2 through 16 of 
     House Resolution ____, One Hundred Third Congress, including 
     the issuance of regulations, to implement the requirements of 
     the following laws to the House of Representatives:
       ``(1) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 
     et seq.), effective at the beginning of the second session of 
     the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
       ``(2) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e et seq.), effective at the beginning of the second 
     session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
       ``(3) The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), effective at the beginning of the 
     second session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
       ``(4) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 
     U.S.C. 621 et seq.) (including remedies available to private 
     employees), effective at the beginning of the second session 
     of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
       ``(5) Titles I and V of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
     1993 (29 U.S.C. 2611 et seq.), effective at the beginning of 
     the second session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
       ``(6) The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (other 
     than section 19) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) (subject to 
     paragraph (c)), effective at the beginning of the One Hundred 
     Fifth Congress.
       ``(7) Chapter 71 (relating to Federal labor management 
     relations) of title 5, United States Code, effective at the 
     beginning of the One Hundred Fifth Congress.
       ``(8) The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 
     U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), effective at the beginning of the 
     second session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress, 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 at the beginning of the 
     second session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress.
       ``(10) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791), 
     effective at the beginning of the second session of the One 
     Hundred Fourth Congress.
       ``(b) 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 House in 
     accordance with this rule.
       ``(c) The House 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, subject to the availability of funds 
     appropriated for that purpose after the receipt of the 
     citation.
       ``3. (a)(1) The Chairperson of the Board of Directors of 
     the Office 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 rule 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 clause 2. The appointment of the first 
     executive director shall be completed no later than 120 days 
     after the initial appointment of the Board of Directors.
       ``(2) 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 
     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. The term of office of the executive 
     director shall be a single term of 5 years.
       ``(b)(1)(A) 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 Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk shall be considered 
     eligible for appointment to, or service on, the Board of 
     Directors.
       ``(B) No member of the Board of Directors 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 or Senate, or may have held such a position 
     within 4 years of the date of appointment.
       ``(2) If during a term of office a member of the Board of 
     Directors engages in an activity described in subparagraph 
     (1)(A), such position shall be declared vacant and a 
     successor shall be selected in accordance with paragraph 
     (a)(1).
       ``(3) A vacancy in the Board of Directors shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       ``(c)(1) Except as provided in subparagraph (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) Of the members first appointed to the Board of 
     Directors--
       ``(A) 1 shall have a term of office of 3 years,
       ``(B) 2 shall have a term of office of 4 years, and
       ``(C) 2 shall have a term of office of 5 years,
     as designated at the time of appointment by the persons 
     specified in paragraph (a)(1).
       ``(3) Any member of the Board of Directors may be removed 
     from office by a majority decision of the appointing 
     authorities described in paragraph (a)(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.
       ``(d) The Chairperson of the Board of Directors shall be 
     appointed from the members of the Board of Directors by the 
     members of the Board.''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in sections 2 through 16:
       (1) The term ``employee of the House'' means any individual 
     (other than a Member) whose pay is disbursed by the Director 
     of Non-legislative and Financial Services or any individual 
     to whom supervision and all other employee-related matters 
     were transferred to the Sergeant at Arms pursuant to 
     direction of the Committee on Appropriations in House Report 
     103-517 of the One Hundred Third Congress, and such term 
     includes an applicant for the position of employee and a 
     former employee.
       (2) The term ``employing authority'' means, with respect to 
     an employee, the Member of the House of Representatives or 
     elected officer of the House of Representatives, or the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office, with the power 
     to appoint the employee.
       (3) The term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' 
     means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to, the Congress.
       (4) The term ``elected officer of the House of 
     Representatives'' means an elected officer of the House of 
     Representatives (other than the Speaker and the Chaplain).
       (5) The term ``Office'' refers to the Office of Compliance 
     established by rule LII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF LAWS.

       (a) The laws set forth in clause 2 of rule LII of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives shall apply, as prescribed by 
     that rule, to the House of Representatives.
       (b) The laws referred to in rule LI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives which apply on December 31, 1994, to 
     House employees shall continue to apply to such employees 
     until the effective date such laws are made applicable in 
     accordance with this resolution.

     SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS RELATING TO THE OFFICE OF 
                   COMPLIANCE.

       (a)(1) 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) 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.
       (b) The executive director may appoint and fix the 
     compensation of such staff, including hearing officers, as 
     are necessary to carry out this resolution.
       (c) 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.
       (d) 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) The Board of Directors shall conduct a study of the 
     manner in which the laws referred to in clause 2(a) of rule 
     LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives should apply 
     to the House of Representatives. The Board of Directors shall 
     complete such study and report the results to House of 
     Representatives not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     first appointment of the first executive director.
       (b) On an ongoing basis the Board of Directors--
       (1) shall determine which of the laws referred to in clause 
     2(b) of rule LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     should apply to the House of Representatives and if it 
     should, the manner in which it should be made applicable;
       (2) shall study the application to the House of provisions 
     of Federal law referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
     clause 2 of rule LII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives that are enacted after the date of adoption 
     of this resolution;
       (3) may propose regulations with respect to such 
     application in accordance with subsection (c); and
       (4) may review the regulations in effect under subsection 
     (e)(1) and make such amendments as may be appropriate in 
     accordance with subsection (c).
       (c)(1)(A) 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 to implement the 
     requirements of the laws referred to in clause 2(a) of rule 
     LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Board 
     of Directors shall provide a period of at least 30 days for 
     comment on the proposed regulations.
       (B) 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) When proposing regulations under subparagraph (A) to 
     implement the requirements of a law referred to in clause 
     2(a) of rule LII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives, the Board of Directors shall recommend to 
     the House of Representatives changes in or repeals of 
     existing law to accommodate the application of such law to 
     the House.
       (D) 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)(A) 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 House of Representatives. The 
     Board of Directors shall provide a period of at least 30 days 
     for comment on the proposed regulations.
       (B) 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) When proposing regulations under subparagraph (A) 
     specifying which of the provisions of Federal law referred to 
     in clause 2(b) of rule LII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives shall apply to the House of Representatives, 
     the Board of Directors shall recommend to the House of 
     Representatives changes in or repeals of existing law to 
     accommodate the application of such law to the House.
       (D) 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) 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 House of 
     Representatives, including portions relating to remedies.
       (4) If a regulation is disapproved by a 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.
       (d) A final regulation issued under subsection (c) shall be 
     transmitted to the House of Representatives for consideration 
     under paragraph (e).
       (e)(1) 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 House of Representatives by 
     resolution.
       (2) A resolution referred to in paragraph (1) may be 
     introduced in the House of Representatives within 5 
     legislative days after the date on which the Board of 
     Directors issues the final regulation to which the resolution 
     applies. The matter after the resolving clause of the 
     resolution shall be as follows: ``That the House of 
     Representatives disapproves the issuance of final regulations 
     of the Office of Compliance as issued on ____________ (the 
     blank space being appropriately filled in).''.
       (3) A resolution referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     referred to the appropriate committee. If no resolution is 
     reported within 15 legislative days after the Board of 
     Directors issues final regulations under subsection (c)(1)(D) 
     or (c)(2)(D), the committee to which the resolution was 
     referred shall be discharged from further consideration of 
     the first such resolution introduced and the resolution shall 
     be placed on the appropriate calendar. Any meeting of a 
     committee on a resolution shall be open to the public. Within 
     5 legislative days after the resolution is reported or 
     discharged, it shall be in order as a privileged matter to 
     move to proceed to its consideration and such motion shall 
     not be debatable. The resolution shall be debatable for not 
     to exceed 4 hours equally divided between proponents and 
     opponents and it shall not be subject to amendment.
       (f) 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.

     SEC. 6. OTHER FUNCTIONS.

       (a) The executive director shall adopt rules governing the 
     procedures of the Office, subject to the approval of the 
     Board of Directors, 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 and the 
     General Counsel of the House of Representatives on the 
     adoption of rules.
       (b) The executive director shall have authority to conduct 
     such investigations as the executive director requires to 
     implement sections 7 through 10.
       (c) The Office shall--
       (1) carry out a program of education for Members of the 
     House of Representatives and other employing authorities of 
     the House of Representatives respecting the laws made 
     applicable to them and a program to inform individuals of 
     their rights under laws applicable to the House of 
     Representatives and under sections 7 through 10,
       (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 10, and any 
     other information the executive director deems appropriate 
     for distribution, distribute such information to Members and 
     other employing authorities of the House in a manner suitable 
     for posting, provide such information to new employees of the 
     House, distribute such information to the residences of 
     employees of the House, 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 employees of the House, 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 10 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, develop 
     a system for the collection of demographic data respecting 
     the composition of employees of the House, including race, 
     sex, and wages, and a system for the collection of 
     information on employment practices, including family leave 
     and flexible work hours, in House offices.
       (d) 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 the House of 
     Representatives 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.

     SEC. 7. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

       The procedure for consideration of alleged violations of 
     laws made applicable to the House of Representatives under 
     this rule consists of 3 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.

     SEC. 8. STEP I: COUNSELING.

       (a) An employee of the House alleging a violation of a law 
     made applicable to the House of Representatives under rule 
     LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 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) 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) 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 House of Representatives 
     under rule LII of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     may file a request for mediation with the Office. Mediation--
       (1) may include the Office, the employee, the employing 
     authority, 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 authority.
       (b) 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 authority when the mediation period has ended.

     SEC. 10. STEP III: FORMAL COMPLAINT AND HEARING.

       (a) Not later than 30 days after receipt by the employee of 
     the House of notice from the Office of the end of the 
     mediation period under section 9, the employee of the House 
     may file a formal complaint with the Office against the head 
     of the employing authority 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) A board of 3 independent hearing officers (hereinafter 
     in this resolution referred to as a ``hearing board''), who 
     are not Members, officers, or employees of the House, 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) Prior to a hearing under subsection (d), a hearing 
     board may dismiss any claim that it finds to be frivolous.
       (d) 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) Reasonable prehearing discovery may be permitted at the 
     discretion of the hearing board.
       (f)(1) A hearing board may authorize subpoenas, which shall 
     be issued by the presiding hearing officer on behalf of the 
     hearing board under the seal of the House of Representatives 
     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) If a person refuses to obey a subpoena issued under 
     paragraph (1), the hearing board may report the refusal to 
     the Committee on Rules which may take any action it deems 
     appropriate, which shall be authorized by the Chairman and 
     ranking minority member acting jointly. Such action may 
     include--
       (A) a referral to the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct if the refusal is by a current Member of the House of 
     Representatives or officer or employee of the House of 
     Representatives, or
       (B) a report to the House of Representatives of a 
     resolution to certify a contempt pursuant to sections 102 and 
     104 of the Joint Resolution of June 22, 1938 (2 U.S.C. 192, 
     194) if the failure is by someone other than a current Member 
     of the House of Representatives or officer or employee of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (3) 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) 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) 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) 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 of the House and 
     the employing authority. 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 House of Representatives under 
     this rule 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) If the decision of the hearing board under subsection 
     (g) is that a violation of a law made applicable to the House 
     of Representatives under rule LII of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives, it shall order the remedies under such 
     law as made applicable to the House of Representatives under 
     that rule, except that no Member of the House of 
     Representatives or any other head of an employing authority, 
     or agent of such a Member shall be personally liable for the 
     payment of compensation. The hearing board shall have no 
     authority to award punitive damages.
       (i)(1) A House employee or an employing authority may 
     request the Board of Directors to review a decision of the 
     hearing board under subsection (g) (including a decision 
     after a remand under paragraph (2)(A)). Such a request shall 
     be made within 30 days of the date of the decision of the 
     hearing board. Review by the Board of Directors shall be 
     based on the record of the hearing board.
       (2) The Board of Directors shall issue a decision not later 
     than 60 days after the date of the request under paragraph 
     (1). The decision of the Board of Directors may--
       (A) remand to the hearing board the matter before the Board 
     of Directors for the purpose of supplementing the record or 
     for further consideration;
       (B) reverse the decision of the hearing board and enter a 
     new decision and order in accordance with subsection (h); or
       (C) direct that the decision and order of the hearing board 
     be considered as the final decision.
       (j) There shall be established in the House of 
     Representatives a fund from which compensation (including 
     attorney's fees) may be paid in accordance with an order 
     under subsection (h) or (i). 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. RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINT.

       If, after a formal complaint is filed under section 10, the 
     employee and the employing authority 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. 12. PROHIBITION OF INTIMIDATION.

       Any intimidation of, or reprisal against, any employee of 
     the House by any Member, officer, or employee of the House of 
     Representatives because of the exercise of a right under this 
     resolution constitutes an unlawful employment practice, which 
     may be remedied in the same manner under this resolution as 
     is a violation of a law made applicable to the House of 
     Representatives under rule LII of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 13. CONFIDENTIALITY.

       (a) All counseling shall be strictly confidential except 
     that the Office and the employee may agree to notify the head 
     of the employing authority of the allegations.
       (b) All mediation shall be strictly confidential.
       (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), the hearings and 
     deliberations of the hearing board shall be confidential.
       (d) At the discretion of the executive director, the 
     executive director may provide to the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct 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.
       (e) The executive director shall coordinate the proceedings 
     with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to ensure 
     effectiveness, to avoid duplication, and to prevent 
     penalizing cooperation by respondents in their respective 
     proceedings.

     SEC. 14. POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

       (a) It shall not be a violation of a law made applicable to 
     the House of Representatives under rule LII of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives to consider the--
       (1) party affiliation,
       (2) domicile, or
       (3) political compatibility with the employing authority,

     of an employee of the House with respect to employment 
     decisions.
       (b) For purposes of subsection (a), the term ``employee'' 
     means--
       (1) an employee on the staff of the House of 
     Representatives 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,
       (4) an officer or employee of the House of Representatives 
     elected by the House of Representatives or appointed by a 
     Member of the House of Representatives, 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. 15. EXCLUSIVITY OF PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES.

       The procedures and remedies under rule LII of the Rules of 
     the House of Representatives are exclusive except to the 
     extent that the Rules of the House of Representatives and the 
     rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
     provide for additional procedures and remedies.

     SEC. 16. STUDY.

       (a) The Office shall conduct a study--
       (1) of the ways that access by the public to information 
     held by the House of Representatives may be improved and 
     streamlined, and of the application of section 552 of title 
     5, United States Code to the House of Representatives; and
       (2) of the application of the requirement of section 552a 
     of title 5, United States Code, to the House of 
     Representatives.
       (b) 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 House of 
     Representatives;
       (2) information held by the nonlegislative offices of the 
     House of Representatives, including--
       (A) the Director of Non-legislative and Financial Services,
       (B) the Clerk,
       (C) the Inspector General,
       (D) the Sergeant at Arms,
       (E) the Doorkeeper,
       (F) the United States Capitol Police, and
       (G) the House Commission on Congressional Mailing 
     Standards;
       (3) financial expenditure information of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (4) provisions for judicial review of denial of access to 
     information held by the House of Representatives.
       (c) The Office shall conduct the study prescribed by 
     subsection (a) and report the results of the study to the 
     House of Representatives not later than one year after the 
     date of the initial appointment of the Board of Directors.

     SEC. 17. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TRANSITION RULES.

       (a) The amendments made by section 1 shall take effect on 
     November 1, 1994.
       (b) Effective at the beginning of the second session of the 
     One Hundred Fourth Congress, rule LI of the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives is repealed and rule LII of such 
     Rules is redesignated as rule LI and all references to rule 
     LII in sections 2 through 16 of this resolution are deemed to 
     be references to rule LI of such Rules.
       (c) Notwithstanding subsection (b), until the beginning of 
     the second session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress, the 
     functions under rule LI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives that are the responsibility of the Office of 
     Fair Employment Practices shall continue to be the 
     responsibility of that Office.
       (d) Any formal complaint filed under rule LI of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives before the close of the first 
     session of the One Hundred Fourth Congress which has not been 
     finally disposed of shall be transferred to the Office of 
     Compliance for completion of all pending proceedings relating 
     to that complaint. The Office of Compliance may make 
     regulations to provide for the orderly transfer and 
     disposition of such complaints.
       (e) In appointing staff under section 4(b), the executive 
     director should give full consideration to employees of the 
     Office of Fair Employment Practices.
       (f) Sections 1 through 16 and subsections (a) through (e) 
     of this section shall have no force or effect upon the 
     enactment by the One Hundred Third Congress of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act, whether by enactment of the 
     bill H.R. 4822, by incorporation of the text of that bill in 
     another measure, or otherwise.
       Sec. 18. The Chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on House Administration, acting jointly, shall 
     study and report recommendations to the Speaker and minority 
     leader, no later than January 3, 1995, for changes in House 
     Rule LII to be adopted by the House to reconcile such rule 
     with the existing jurisdiction of the Committee on House 
     Administration.
       Sec. 19. The General Counsel of the House shall conduct a 
     study to be submitted to the Speaker, Minority Leader, and 
     the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committees 
     on House Administration and Rules no later than January 3, 
     1995 on further changes in House rules to provide to 
     employees of the House (as defined in section 2) the ability 
     to bring a civil action in Federal district court against an 
     employing authority (as defined in section 2) for an alleged 
     violation under Federal law to the extent that such violation 
     relates to the terms and conditions of employment, until the 
     statutory provisions contained in H.R. 4822, as passed by the 
     House, are enacted.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for the 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. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to dispel the image 
that it is above the laws it makes for others. Members of Congress 
should be as accountable for their actions in the workplace as private 
citizens and other public officials are in their workplaces, and 
congressional employees should be assured fair, efficient review of 
their complaints.
  On August 2, 1994, the Rules Committee reported H.R. 4822, the 
Congressional Accountability Act, which would assure legislative branch 
employees the same employment protections currently enjoyed by private 
sector and executive branch employees. On August 10, the House passed 
the measure by a vote of 427 to 4, and since then has been awaiting 
Senate action on the bill.
  With adjournment impending, it is unlikely the Senate will take 
action on the measure. The House must therefore take alternative action 
to ensure, at the very least, that House employees will receive the 
broad protections under the laws designated in H.R. 4822.
  House Resolution 578 accomplishes by House Rule what H.R. 4822 would 
do by public law. While narrower in scope--applicable only to the 
House--the provisions in this resolution are nonetheless similar to 
those in H.R. 4822, as passed by the House: The constitution of the 
Office of Compliance and the policies and procedures that this Office 
would follow are largely the same.
  The resolution extends to House employees the same 10 employee 
protection and antidiscrimination laws outlined in H.R. 4822, and 
provides for the continual review of other laws that should apply. A 
new House Office of Compliance would study and propose regulations 
prescribing how these laws should apply. The procedure for review and 
adoption of the regulations are similar to those in H.R. 4822. With the 
exception of judicial review, the consideration of employee complaints 
would be the same.
  Since access to Federal courts requires statutory authorization, 
House Resolution 578 does not provide House employees with the 
opportunity to seek judicial review of their complaints. Instead, the 
resolution allows dissatisfied parties to request review of a hearing 
board decision by the Board of Directors.
  Statutory authorization is also required for judicial enforcement of 
subpoenas affecting employees, officers or Members of the House. The 
resolution therefore confers such enforcement authority upon the 
chairman and ranking member of the House Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, it is indefensible that congressional employees 
currently do not receive the same protections under the law as private 
sector or executive branch employees. House Resolution 578 will rectify 
this inequity, at least in the House.
  Given the late hour, and the dim hope that the Senate will complete 
action on H.R. 4822 before we adjourn, I urge my colleagues to support 
House Resolution 579. The Senate's failure to act on H.R. 4822 should 
not deprive House employees of the protections they deserve.

                              {time}  2020

  Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is little more than the 
culmination of a year-long effort by the Democrat leadership to kill 
any meaningful congressional reform. Although the joint committee 
failed to address the fundamental problems that undermine deliberation 
and accountability, such as proxy voting, an archaic committee system, 
closed rules, erratic scheduling and over-dependence on staff, even the 
very modest reforms proposed by our committee were seen as too much of 
a threat to the status quo.
  Mr. Speaker, in testimony before the Committee on House 
Administration and in a June 30 letter to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Moakley], my colleague, the former chairman of the 
joint committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] opposed 
separating off the application of laws section from the larger reform 
bill and predicted that it would kill the rest of the package. Despite 
assurances from the Speaker that the reform package would receive floor 
consideration in September, the predictions of the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] were right on target. In fact, the Speaker's 
divide and conquer strategy for congressional reform succeeded in 
killing both comprehensive reform and the statutory compliance bill 
itself.
  What we are left with is a resolution to essentially recreate, for 
all practical purposes, the Office of Fair Employment Practices, an 
experiment that virtually everyone agrees has come to a complete and 
utter failure.
  By continuing to allow the employing authority to control which laws 
shall apply and how they will be enforced, the rights provided to 
employees cannot be guaranteed, and those same employees will not be 
able to file complaints with any confidence of impartiality.
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect we will take up the full hour of debate on 
this. If we cannot enact a statutory compliance bill before we adjourn, 
I believe that we should stop this charade and admit to ourselves what 
the American people have come to realize, that the so-called reform 
Congress has been a complete failure. I believe that we should go home, 
face the consequences with the voters, and come back next year to do 
the job right.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following correspondence:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas Foley,
     Speaker's Office, The Capitol, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We would like to thank you again for your 
     invaluable role in securing passage of H.R. 4822, the 
     Congressional Accountability Act, which the House approved by 
     a vote of 427-4 on August 10th.
       Today, we are writing to express our strong concern at the 
     prospect that a weakened version of the Congressional 
     Accountability Act may be brought to the floor for 
     consideration as a privileged resolution later this week.
       We understand this step is being contemplated because of a 
     judgement that Senate action on H.R. 4822 is increasingly 
     unlikely. We appreciate that some members believe the House 
     should do what it can to move ahead on its own if, in fact, 
     the Senate does not take action. Nonetheless, we have come to 
     the firm conclusion that this course of action would be a 
     mistake and detrimental to the cause of genuine Congressional 
     accountability.
       As you know, access to court cannot be implemented through 
     a House resolution. After considerable thought and 
     discussion, we have concluded that a measure which fails to 
     secure this basic right for House employees is not worth 
     pushing through the House in the waning hours of the 103rd 
     Congress. In fact, we fear such a half-way measure would 
     actually undermine efforts to do the job right in the 104th 
     Congress next January.
       Should the Senate fail to act, we are both committed to 
     taking up this fight again in January should we be returned 
     to office. We believe our job will be harder, not easier, if 
     the contemplated resolution is brought before the House this 
     week. It would be our strong preference and recommendation 
     that the energies that are going into that effort be 
     redirected, instead, toward convincing the Senate to act on 
     H.R. 4822 in the little time remaining to the 103rd Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views on this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
     Dick Swett.
     Christopher Shays.
                                  ____



                                     HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas S. Foley,
     H204 Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Tom: Thank you for meeting on Wednesday afternoon with 
     Dick Gephardt, Joe Moakley, and me to discuss the process of 
     Congressional reform. I appreciated receiving your strong 
     assurance that a comprehensive congressional reform package 
     will be considered on the House floor in September.
       I recognize that many Members want to vote on the proposal 
     to apply laws to Congress before the August recess and that 
     scheduling such a vote might require that the congressional 
     compliance proposal be separated from the rest of the package 
     and moved first. As you know, I have been concerned that 
     separating off the application of laws section of the reform 
     bill might kill the rest of the package, including the 
     important procedural and structural recommendations that 
     constitute most of the Joint Committee's mandate.
       However, your assurance that the rest of the reform package 
     will receive floor consideration in September goes a long way 
     toward addressing my concerns. I also appreciate your 
     suggestion that even if the compliance proposal is considered 
     separately, it might eventually be merged back into the 
     larger reform package, perhaps in the form of House rules 
     changes.
       Clearly, for a comprehensive reform package to be 
     considered by the full House in September, steps need to be 
     taken to prepare for a markup in the Rules Committee. I would 
     appreciate hearing from you or Joe Moakley about how the 
     reform effort will proceed over the next few weeks. I am 
     willing to do whatever I can to be helpful.
       Again, thank you for meeting with me about the important 
     issue of congressional reform. I have appreciated your advice 
     and leadership throughout the reform process and look forward 
     to working with you further.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Lee H. Hamilton.
                                  ____


  Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on the Markup of H. Res. 571, 
        Congressional Accountability, Wednesday, October 5, 1994

       1. Dreier Amendment on Congressional Reform--Amendment to 
     add new section to bill providing for the consideration on 
     the next legislative day of a resolution containing the 
     House-related provisions from Title I of H.R. 3801, the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994 under an open 
     amendment process. Rejected: 3-6. Yeas: Solomon, Dreier, 
     Goss. Nays: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Hall, Wheat, Quillen.
       2. Solomon Amendment on Proxy Voting--Amendment to add new 
     section to bill amending clause 2 of House rule XI ban proxy 
     voting in all House committees. Rejected: 3-6. Yeas: Solomon, 
     Dreier, Goss. Nays: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, 
     Gordon, Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Hall, Wheat, Quillen.

       3. Beilenson Motion to Report Resolution, as Amended--
     Motion to report resolution to House on congressional 
     compliance with the laws together with an amendment adopted 
     limiting the use of travel awards in the House. Adopted: 6-3 
     Yeas: Moakley, Beilenson, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. 
     Nays: Solomon, Dreier, Goss. Not Voting: Derrick, Hall, 
     Wheat, Quillen.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I, too, served on the joint committee and 
while I also regret that more of its work did not come to the floor, I 
am particularly pleased that this measure has come to the floor because 
it is the most important of the measures voted by the committee in my 
view.
  The reason that this measure is so important, I believe, is because 
it will restore greater confidence in this body because this body will 
live by its own words, by its own laws.
  The Senate has not acted, but I think this House should be proud that 
is has not used that as an excuse for ourselves not acting. The 10 
laws, including the one I administered at the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission, should indeed apply to this body but, in fact, 
they already apply to this body.
  What is most important about the improvement embodied in this 
resolution is that it goes not to application but to enforcement by an 
independent body, not House employees as today.
  Indeed, this resolution would bring to Members and staff tougher 
enforcement than is afforded to private sector employees because they 
have no independent hearing. They had only conciliation and must then 
go to court.
  The feature of this resolution that is worth noting is that there are 
hearings by a three-person hearing board entirely independent of this 
body, appointed by a list recommended by the Federal Mediation and 
Conciliation Service or the Administrative Conference of the United 
States.
  The application of our own laws to ourselves is the hallmark of our 
credibility. I am proud that we have not been deterred by the Senate 
not having acted and that we are moving forward on what I regard as the 
most important provision of the work of the joint committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Glens Falls, NY, Mr. Solomon, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules and a member of the now defunct Joint Committee on 
the Organization of Congress.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the former vice-chairman of the 
Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to commend him on his dedication, his diligence, and his 
tireless efforts over the last 2 years to bring a truly bold and 
sweeping set of reform proposals to the floor of this House.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former member of that committee myself, it is more 
in sadness, then in anger, that I rise on this resolution that writes 
the epitaph for any meaningful congressional reform in this Congress.
  When we were considering this resolution on Wednesday, we asked the 
chairman of the Rules Committee why we had not been allowed to complete 
action on that comprehensive congressional reform bill reported from 
our joint committee last November.
  The Rules Committee held just two brief markup sessions on that bill, 
one in August, and one in September, during which we were able to 
dispose of just 1 of 29 pending amendments.
  That markup was abruptly suspended several weeks ago--without 
explanation--during the consideration of my amendment to ban proxy 
voting in committees.
  The Rules Committee chairman responded to our question by saying 
that, while the leadership talked about bringing the comprehensive 
reform package to the floor, in his words, ``This is what we came up 
with''--referring to the resolution before us, which is only a tiny and 
diluted piece, taken from that omnibus reform package.
  This little rule on House compliance with the laws, is the democrat 
leadership's idea of all that needs to be done to reform this 
institution. Never mind that we already have a very similar House rule 
and that it is not working. ``This is what we came up with'' in the way 
of reform, says the Democrat leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, forget about the hundreds of hours of hearings and 
deliberations of the bipartisan joint committee.
  Forget about its volumes of studies and findings and recommendations.
  Forget about the Speaker's commitment to the House co-chairman of the 
joint committee, to give the House a chance to debate and vote on that 
comprehensive reform package in September under a generous amendment 
process.
  Instead, the joint reform committee that was conceived in 1992 to 
great fanfare under the proud parentage of a bipartisan leadership has 
now been abandoned by the Democrat-half of that family, like an 
unwanted child.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take the time of Members to discuss just 
why we have been led down this trail of broken promises, commitments, 
hopes and dreams for meaningful reform.
  Suffice it to say, it was through no fault of the joint committee--
nor of its House chairman, Mr. Hamilton--who, if anything, erred on the 
side of caution in his final recommendations after extensive 
consultations with his leadership.
  No, the joint committee did not skewer itself on the sword of bold 
and radical reform proposals. What it reported was actually very modest 
and minimal. But the chairman of the joint committee, to his credit did 
promise to fight for our right, to offer strengthening amendments on 
the floor, and even said he would probably vote for some.
  Nevertheless, even the modest bill we reported ran into difficulty 
with certain interest groups in the House, that wanted to really gut it 
further, or, better yet, make sure it never came to a vote. Well, 
apparently once again the narrow turf interests have prevailed over the 
broader interests of this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, as we indicated in our additional views in the report on 
this resolution, we had intended to urge defeat of the previous 
question to make in order a separate resolution containing the joint 
committee's title I House reform proposals under an open amendment 
process.
  We wanted to at least give the House a chance to overhaul the broken 
down legislative process in this body by cutting committees, 
subcommittees, Member assignments, staff, and the joint referral of the 
same bills to two or more committees.
  We wanted to give Members a chance to vote on a three-term limit for 
committee chairmen and ranking members; to restore majority quorums, 
and open hearings and meetings to the public.
  However, despite our noble intentions for a full-fledged reform 
debate, the scheduling of this resolution on the final day of this 
session prevents us from pursuing that ambitious amendment process. 
That is too bad, but in about 90 days we will convene the new 104th 
Congress with a lot of new faces and we can start all over again.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I find the previous remarks 
hard to reconcile with a meeting I was at in the Speaker's office just 
a little while ago. The gentleman said all we are doing is a rule and 
we already have a bill on the subject.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I spoke of what the bill contained. It was 
explained by our good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley]. I am sorry that we could not have the meaningful reforms we 
had reported in H.R. 3801 by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], 
the respected chairman.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, apparently I did not 
misquote the gentleman. I heard him say, ``Gee, what are we doing with 
this? We already have a bill.'' We have a bill which the Senate would 
not pass. My understanding was that there were many on the Republican 
side who said that compliance with the law is very important, and since 
the Senate has not passed the bill, we should try very hard to do the 
best we can.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule is second best, but it is a second best which I 
had understood to be a bipartisan request. I was, frankly, surprised to 
hear so partisan a speech about what I thought was a bipartisan effort.
  I was just at a meeting when the Minority Whip said, ``Let us have a 
closed rule. Let us bring this out and do the most we can to get 
compliance.'' That is what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why that became the occasion for 
this particular partisan speech. We are in a situation with regard to 
compliance, and when people said, ``This is not the most important part 
of it,'' in my view, Mr. Speaker, the noncompliance of Congress with 
the laws that apply to others was the single most glaring problem we 
had.
  If we were going to take one piece of the reform package, that seems 
to me to be by far the most important. Mr. Speaker, to denigrate this 
and say that the other parts were more important I think is quite 
reversed. The number of committees we have and the number of 
subcommittees we can be on seems to me to be trivial compared to 
whether or not we get compliance, and that is what we are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I gather there is just this insistence on denigrating 
anything that we try to do to improve the situation. We passed the bill 
to require compliance. The Senate would not act on it. We then worked 
out in a bipartisan way a rule which was agreed on by both sides and 
changed by both sides to do it. That seems to me to be an occasion on 
which we ought to be feeling good about what we are doing. The Minority 
Whip and others on both sides worked this out.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the previous speech talking about 
somebody not having the opportunity to do something seems to me 
completely at variance with what is happening here. This is a further 
effort to deal with the important compliance issue, taken because the 
Senate frustrated our effort to do more. It was done in a completely 
bipartisan way, and it is, to me, the single most important aspect of 
reform. I regret very much what I think was an unduly partisan 
distortion of this operation.
  Mr. SOLOMON. If the gentleman will yield further, I would say to him 
that I am going to vote for this bill. It is only one-tenth of what we 
wanted, and I was pointing out what is missing from the bill. Banning 
proxy voting and cutting the committees in this Congress to a third is 
very important. It is not in the bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, it is not in the bill 
because there are other problems, but it was an unfortunately typical 
response to spend all of the gentleman's time denigrating what had not 
happened, rather than referring to the positive parts of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, in terms of the 
quantification, I think having Congress comply with the law that it 
passes is more than one-tenth of this package. I think that that is a 
lot more important than the number of committees we have, and I think 
what we have here is just one more effort to denigrate the institution, 
to try and deny credit when a responsible bipartisan effort goes 
forward.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that we spent nearly 2 
years when we formed this committee, going through 37 hearings, 243 
witnesses. That has led to a very high level of frustration for those 
of us who have been trying to bring about congressional reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Bakersfield, California [Mr. Thomas], the ranking Republican on the 
Committee on House Administration.
  (Mr. THOMAS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS of California. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor not as a 
member of the joint committee. I come as a member of one of our policy 
committees, the Committee on House Administration. Mr. Speaker, I do 
not come here talking about H.R. 3801. I come talking about H.R. 4822.
  Mr. Speaker, frankly, I want to take a moment to congratulate the 
gentleman from Connecticut, Chris Shays, and the gentleman from New 
Hampshire, Dick Swett, two of our colleagues who, despite all of the 
roadblocks that had been placed in front of them, both partisan and 
substantive, were able to actually move through committee and off this 
floor an excellent piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4822 was the Congressional Accountability Act. I 
said ``was'', because it is almost dead. It was not dead when it was in 
the Committee on House Administration, and on a very positive, 
bipartisan, 19-0 vote we amended and passed out the Congressional 
Accountability Act. It was not moribund on the floor of the House when 
we discussed and then voted 427 to 4 to pass the Congressional 
Accountability Act, but somewhere between this Chamber and that 
Chamber, congressional accountability died.
  Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives did its job. We wanted to 
pass, by statute, and provide court remedies, to conform us to the laws 
that everybody else has to follow. The Senate has decided not to act. 
Maybe they will act tomorrow, maybe they will act on Sunday. Frankly, 
we have given them all the time that we can to act. Changing the Rules 
is decidedly secondary to changing statute.
  However, Mr. Speaker, when all we have left is changing the Rules, 
then at least we have decided to change the Rules, not in a partisan 
manner to snipe, but frankly, in the best way that we could.
  Mr. Speaker, is this really the work product that anybody in this 
House wants? No. Is this the work product that the Senate has forced us 
to? Yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to leave tonight knowing that what we have 
done on a bipartisan basis is to agree to change the rules, which does 
not trample on any committee's jurisdiction, does not provide the kind 
of court remedy that statute reform would make, but does what we can at 
least do to show the commitment to require Congress to conform to the 
laws that everybody else does.
  Mr. Speaker, we already said we wanted to do it by statute, by a vote 
of 427 to 4. We would even be willing to accept the slightly inferior 
product that the Senate proposes, but they will not send it over to us. 
Therefore, as we leave tonight, with probably what is going to be the 
last recorded vote, I think everybody has to understand that what we 
have in front of us, Mr. Speaker, is, frankly, probably the best we can 
do, because when we try to write laws or make changes and only one 
house of a bicameral legislature is willing to move, all we can do is 
what we have in front of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there is a high degree of frustration here right 
now, because we put on the line fundamental reform and we were honest 
about it in a bipartisan way. We may have taken a sidetrack here and 
there to reach this point tonight, but despite the failure to do broad 
reform that my friends are so concerned and upset about, and I agree 
with them, but in this one limited, narrow area, let us leave with our 
heads up, and understand that this time it was not our fault. We have 
done a good job.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] would engage in a brief colloquy with me 
regarding the educational duties of the Office of Compliance as spelled 
out by this resolution. I would greatly appreciate it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that 
under this resolution, the Office of Compliance in required to 
implement a program to educate Members and other House employees of 
their rights and duties under applicable laws extended to them. Am I 
correct in my understanding?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentlewoman from Illinois is correct.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, am I correct in my 
understanding that, the charging the Office of Compliance with the 
aforementioned duties, it is the clear intent of the House that the 
Office provide individual Members of this body and other House 
employees with essential information regarding their rights and 
responsibilities under the laws extended to them in the most timely 
manner possible, on an orderly and regular basis, and through those 
means that ensure the widest possible dissemination of such 
information?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentlewoman from Illinois is again correct.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Finally, am I also correct in my 
understanding that it is the view of the House that the educational 
duties placed upon the Office of Compliance are of paramount importance 
in assisting Members of Congress and other House employees in their 
efforts to understand and conform with the terms of this resolution and 
the laws contained within it?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The gentlewoman from Illinois is correct.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I thank the gentleman.

                              {time}  2040

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from East 
Petersburg, Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], another member of the Joint 
Committee on the Organization of Congress and our chief deputy whip.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I was fascinated a few moments ago to listen to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts describe this as the most important thing 
we would do as part of the congressional reform effort. It is indeed an 
important aspect of what we attempted to do and it is very important 
that Congress does come up with rules that would assure that we comply 
with all the laws of the land. It is a little sad that Congress has to 
pass rules that says that we are going to comply with the laws that we 
pass for everybody else, but since we do not, it is an important reform 
to suggest that that is possible. However, to suggest that somehow this 
is the be-all and end-all of Congressional reform I think is as little 
much.
  This bill is a little like hiring a quarterback for a football team 
who completes one pass in the year. It is a beautiful pass. It goes 60 
yards and the guy goes for a touchdown and everybody praises him and so 
on and it is the one magnificent thing, except he completes no other 
passes in the entire year. My guess is that that is a football team 
that would not be very successful.
  Here we are completing one very beautiful pass. We are in fact 
getting compliance and that is a good thing. However, we did nothing 
else. I do not think that most people will think that this is a very 
successful record. We could have done a number of things that would 
have been very important. It would have been very successful to pass 
proxy reform and make certain that people are in the committee casting 
their votes instead of sending someone else with a sheaf of papers in 
to cast their votes. That would have been an important reform. It could 
have been done. It did not need to be approved by the Senate. It is 
something we can do to modify our own rules and make the change here. 
We did not do it because we could not do it.
  We could also modify the committee structure. Nearly everybody who 
testified before the Joint Committee admits that the committee 
structure is broke. Members are spending too much time on too many 
subcommittees and as a result cannot get any of the work done. The 
legislative schedule is fractured because of the kind of committee 
structures that we have in the Congress. We could have fixed that. That 
is something we could have done. It does not involve the Senate 
responding. We could have done it ourselves, modified our rules. We 
could be here tonight doing it. We did not do it because we could not 
and we would not.
  In my view, that failure is a deep, dark failure, because we had 
plenty of testimony about what this House could accomplish if only we 
would. We in fact met, we had a number of votes on major reform 
measures. In fact, many of the amendments that failed before the 
committee failed on a 6-6 tie. We were hoping to bring those matters 
before the House of Representatives because we felt that the House of 
Representatives ought to reflect on the matters that we tried to 
complete as a part of the committee. We have lost that opportunity. 
Tonight what we will do is we will take up one measure, a good measure, 
most of us will vote for it, and I would urge everyone to vote for it, 
because it takes us one step. But it is one very small step toward 
congressional reform. We need to do the bigger things to make this into 
a more workable body.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to make it 
clear that the notion that this should come out under a closed rule to 
my recollection was first suggested by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Gingrich], the minority whip. So the fact that this is before us now 
under a closed rule, it was the suggestion of the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], agreed on by everybody in that office, that 
that is the way we should do it. It was agreed that this would come up 
under a closed rule as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] had 
suggested.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for that explanation. I do not 
think it has anything to do with what I just said. The point is that 
what we could have had is a deliberation about congressional reform, 
not tonight, not last week. We should have had this months ago. The 
Committee on Reform did in fact report its product a year ago. We 
should have been debating this in the spring. We did not and it is a 
doggone shame.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Fingerhut].
  (Mr. FINGERHUT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FINGERHUT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in somewhat sad support of this rule tonight. I 
recall that early in my term of office, the distinguished Speaker of 
the House told me that in another context on another issue that when an 
overwhelming majority of the Members of Congress want to do something, 
then it will happen because the process will not stop an overwhelming 
majority from accomplishing their will.
  Well, on the question of passing a law that makes all of the laws 
that this body has passed apply to Congress, an overwhelming majority 
of this body, led by Members such as the gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Sweet] and others 
did speak their mind and did act their will, but unfortunately an 
overwhelming majority of both Houses did not. That is regrettable, Mr. 
Speaker, because an overwhelming majority of the public does want this 
to be a law. There is no higher priority in their mind, there is no 
greater symbol of what has come to be wrong with this institution than 
this issue.
  Nevertheless, we will come back to this issue again in the next 
Congress. I suggest to the voters as they approach the polling booths 
this year, do not just ask whether a candidate or a Member of Congress 
supports this law. Ask them whether, they will work for it, ask them 
whether they will agitate for it, ask them whether they will take risks 
for it, because that is what we need in order to pass this law in the 
104th Congress.
  One final point. This is a good rule. Thanks to the committee, I have 
been able to read it through, and the provisions on enforcement are 
strong. But because it is a rule of this House, ultimately it is up to 
us to make it work. If we treat our employees right under this, them it 
will be to our credit. But if we fail to live up to it, it will be to 
our shame.
  Let us pledge on a bipartisan basis to make every provision of this 
rule work on behalf of the employees of this body.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the the gentleman from 
Stamford, Connecticut [Mr. Shays], author of the congressional 
compliance legislation; I guess it is called congressional 
accountability.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not usually make it a practice to speak on the last 
day of a session because there is not a person in this Chamber who is 
not angry about some bill that was killed during some time of our labor 
over 2 years and there is no a person in this Chamber who does not want 
to get home and get to interact with his constituents. But I wanted to 
take this time to personally thank the gentleman from Washington [Mr. 
Foley], the Speaker of the House, for what he has done to bring 
congressional accountability before this Chamber. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt]. I particularly want to thank 
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] on that side of the aisle 
for what he did to bring this forward to the chamber and others on that 
side of the aisle.
  This is totally and completely bipartisan. No one party can claim 
congressional accountability. It was the interaction between leaders on 
both sides of the aisle, our minority leader, our whip, the ranking 
members of the Committee on House Administration and the Committee on 
Rules, what they have done to move this process forward, however they 
are disappointed that it did not go far enough. What the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Rose] did. It is sad that we cannot unite on the last day and feel like 
we have joined together to save this institution.
  The American people look at this American flag and revere it. I want 
them to look at Congress and have the same appreciation. It is what our 
founding fathers established, this Congress of the United States, and 
we should be under the laws.
  When we passed this bill and sent it to the Senate, we did our job in 
a way I was so proud. It was not partisan, it was substantive law, and 
we gave the Senate time to act.

                              {time}  2050

  And everything we have done has failed to move the Senate. Whether it 
was with the majority party in the Senate or the minority party, both 
fingers were connected in killing this bill.
  We did our job. It is sad that we have to do it by rule. But to my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle I say that is part of our contract 
with the American people. We said if it was not done by law we were 
going to step forward and do it by rule.
  When we do it by rule it does not include the courts. When we do it 
by rule it does not include the instrumentalities. When we do it by 
rule it ends at the end of this year. But this rule will start tonight, 
it will start November 1. It locks us in for 2 months. It starts an 
Office of Compliance. It gets us to move forward in this process, and 
it puts tremendous shame where shame belongs, in the Senate of this 
institution of Congress.
  I know we want to get home, but for anyone to think that one party 
can claim this or another, they are wrong. We are in this together. We 
worked together. It was bipartisan. We can be tremendously disappointed 
that there were other parts of it that were not done.
  I look to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], and I know that 
he spent his blood, sweat and tears to get this done, and it was not 
then brought up for a vote. He has every right to complain about that, 
and I totally understand it. But this is congressional compliance. It 
gets us in the right direction, and I just hope and pray when we come 
back, if we are fortunate enough to come back in January, that we work 
on this legislation, we try to get it into the statute, and we have the 
American people someday look at the flag, and look at Congress and say 
they are one and the same.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 578 
which would apply 10 employment-related laws to the House of 
Representatives and establish an Office of Compliance to administer 
those laws.
  I want to take a moment to commend the remarks of my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], in recent remarks, and 
especially the remarks of our friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, 
[Mr. Shays], who along with our friend, the gentleman from New 
Hampshire, [Mr. Swett], is very, very much responsible for bringing us 
as far as we have been able to get this year.
  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.
  As Members are aware, the House of Representatives is in overwhelming 
agreement that we should apply these laws to Congress, which was 
demonstrated by our vote of 427 to 4 on favor of passing H.R. 4822, the 
Congressional Accountability Act, 2 months ago. Those of us who are 
strong supporters of this legislation were hopeful--right up until the 
last moment--that the momentum generated by our strong showing on the 
vote would galvanize the other body to follow suit.
  Unfortunately, that did not happen, leaving us with no choice but 
either to implement as much of the Congressional Accountability Act as 
possible by a Rule of the House, or to maintain the status quo, which 
would mean continuing to be exempt from many of the laws other 
Americans are subject to.
  Despite the shortcomings of applying these laws by House Rule rather 
than by statute, taking this approach is better than doing nothing at 
all at this point. By adopting this resolution, we will improve the 
application of laws to the House in two ways:
  First, we will be covered by all the work place laws that the private 
sector is covered by--not just some of them, as we are now--and
  Second, those laws will be administered by a more independent 
authority than the one that currently administers anti-discrimination 
laws in the House.
  Mr. Speaker, to briefly review the background on this legislation: As 
Members are aware, in recent years, 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 six years, the House has applied the Fair 
Labor Standards Act and other antidiscrimination measures to House 
employees through the Rules of the House, enforced by an internal 
system. As Congress has passed new laws, such as the Family and Medical 
Leave Act, we have enforced those new measures to the House under the 
same system.

  However, neither the range of laws we have applied to the House, or 
the manner in which they are applied, is 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, which reported those recommendations last 
November. the Joint Committee, drawing from the original bill authored 
by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], and the gentleman from 
New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] recommended applying 5 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 laws to the House, the Senate, and other 
legislative branch entities. 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 in the 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 H.R. 4288 as considered (and further amended) by the House on 
August 10 was a much stronger, much improved version of the compliance 
legislation included the Joint Committee's bill. It applied twice as 
many laws; ensured full coverage of all employees of the legislative 
branch; made the Office of Compliance a more independent entity and 
gave it more authority in the promulgation of regulations; and ensured 
that employees would 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 took effect.
  As a result, the resolution before us, which reflects many of those 
improvements, provides for the following:
  First, there are 10 employment-related laws that will be applied to 
the House of Representatives. They are:
  the Fair Labor Standards Act;
  Title VI 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.
  Only four of these laws specifically apply to the House at this time; 
applying these six additional laws will more than double the number of 
laws under which the House is covered. And I would like to point out 
that one of those additional laws is OSHA, which is probably the most 
visible example of laws which private-sector employers must comply 
with, but from which Congress has exempted itself.
  These laws will be administered by a new Office of Compliance, which 
would replace the Office of Fair Employment Practices. The Office of 
Compliance would be governed by a five-member Board of Directors, all 
of whom would be appointed jointly by the Speaker and the minority 
leader. The Office would consist of an Executive Director who is 
appointed by the Board, and other staff. To help ensure the 
independence of this new office, the Rule prohibits appointing to the 
Board of Directors current and former Members, current and former House 
employees (unless their employment in the House was more than four 
years previous to their appointment), and lobbyists; the same 
restrictions, except for lobbyists, will also apply to the Executive 
Director.
  The Board will 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 the 
House of Representatives. Unless the House rejects the regulations by 
resolution of disapproval, those regulations will take effect. If they 
are rejected, the Board would re-issue new regulations. However, 
regardless of the status of regulations, eight of these laws will be 
applied at the beginning of 1996, and the remaining two (OSHA and the 
Federal Labor Relations Act) will be applied at the beginning of 1997.
  The Rule also establishes a process for resolving alleged violations 
of the law: first, counseling; then, mediation; and, then, formal 
complaint and hearing. An independent hearing board will review 
employee complaints, and upon a finding of liability, prescribe 
remedies consistent with those that are available to private-sector 
employees under the relevant law. Parties dissatisfied with the outcome 
of the hearing would have the opportunity to have a decision reviewed 
by the Board of Directors.
  Laws which currently apply to House employees shall continue to apply 
until the laws made applicable under this resolution are in effect.
  This resolution also requires the Office of Compliance to study and 
recommend additional laws to be applied on a continuing basis, and 
specifically to review the availability of information in the House and 
study the possible application of the Freedom of Information Act and 
the Privacy Act. The Office would also be responsible for educating 
Members, Officers, and employees about their rights and 
responsibilities under the applicable laws. And, the Office would be 
required to compile and publish statistics on the use of the Office by 
House employees, and to develop a system for collecting information on 
demographic data of employees, and on employment in House offices.
  Mr. Speaker, although Members should be proud of moving ahead with 
this long-overdue effort to apply to ourselves the laws that apply to 
other Americans, there are flaws and disadvantages to adopting this 
legislation by House rule--an approach we are taking, as I mentioned 
earlier, only because of the failure of the other body to act on the 
legislation the House approved two months ago.
  The most obvious deficiency in applying laws by House rule is that it 
covers only House employees, not the thousands of other legislative 
branch employees. Many of these other employees have some coverage and 
some system of enforcement, but one of the most important objectives of 
the Congressional Accountability Act was to ensure that all legislative 
employees were covered under all applicable laws, and that the laws 
were applied to everyone in a credible and effective manner. Clearly, 
this rule will not meet that objective.
  Furthermore, by failing to cover all employees, inequities are 
certain to become apparent. We know, for example, that because half of 
the Capitol Police officers are paid by the House and half by the 
Senate, half will be covered under this rule and half will not be. That 
is not fair.
  We also know that, although we are applying OSHA to the House, the 
workers for whom OSHA is most relevant--the employees of the 
Architect's office--will not be covered. Safety codes for our buildings 
will have to conform to OSHA standards, but workers who make the 
buildings safe will continue to be exempt from the law. That makes no 
sense.
  Another weakness in this approach is that aggrieved employees will 
not have recourse to the courts if they are dissatisfied with a hearing 
board decision and the Board's review of that decision, as private-
sector employees have. That is because access to the federal courts can 
only be conferred by statute.
  Mr. Speaker, I share the disappointment of so many of our colleagues 
who have worked tirelessly on compliance legislation that we are here 
today considering this rule. We had hoped, right until now, that our 
last action on the Congressional Accountability Act during this 
Congress would be the final approval of a conference report.
  However, adopting this rule will in no way preclude or hinder action 
in the next Congress on a statutory approach to compliance. It is my 
hope that as we adopt this resolution, we will do so resolving to 
redouble our efforts on this issue in the next Congress, so that we can 
achieve full application of the laws, in a credible and effective 
manner, for the entire legislative branch of government.
  In the meantime, however, adoption of House Resolution 578 will make 
Members of the House significantly more accountable for our actions as 
employers. 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Naperville, IL [Mr. Fawell] one of our porkbusters.
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we first ought to ask ourselves as we look 
at this legislation is whether we can say that this hasty redraft of 
the Shays-Swett Congressional Accountability Act, this time via rules 
of the House, requires Congress to be bound by the 10 laws listed in 
the bill as our constituents are bound. Are we actually in compliance 
as a practical matter with how our constituents must comply?
  I think when we ask that question we have to come back and say no, we 
are not. Granted, we have to go by rules at least until such time as in 
the next session we can move to a statutory scheme, and that is what 
real compliance is all about.
  But I note that even here, even here when we are forced to use rules 
in order to have congressional coverage, we come through with a real 
flunking score on the test.
  Basically what we have here is a private, in-house kind of a hearing. 
It is a private hearing before hearing officers. Apparently we have 
reached the conclusion that we cannot allow for judicial remedies of a 
trial de novo, bench or a jury trial and judicial appeal, though I 
notice that the Senate does allow a judicial appeal. But again, we say 
no punitive damages, for instance, are allowed, even in a civil rights 
case where sexual discrimination may be alleged of a willful type. 
Still we will not allow that.
  Then we should ask ourselves would we ever suggest that this type of 
compliance should be followed, for instance, by any of our Fortune 500 
companies or anybody out there in the private sector. I do not think we 
would ever. In fact, I would say it is unthinkable that we would 
suggest that let us say AT&T could have a kind of a cozy arrangement 
for handling a tough, let us say sex discrimination or race 
discrimination case. It would be unthinkable. Yet we here, when we 
could make those changes, and at least make sure we have compliance 
there, we fail to do that when we are dealing with ourselves.
  And then what do we do? We say the taxpayers will hold us harmless in 
regard to all of the damages which we may sustain. Yet if some of our 
employees should sue us for violations, let us say, of the Civil Rights 
Act, we get free legal fees, and the taxpayers will subsidize us there, 
and the court costs and these sorts of things, expert witnesses, we are 
all covered, and we cannot possibly lose. Of course, as I said, even in 
the most vicious case of discrimination, in no way are we going to 
suffer punitive damages.
  So I would ask the question: Would we grant these kinds of compliance 
to private employers? Of course we would not. This is not the way these 
laws are enforced in the private sector when employers are sued in 
civil rights cases, nor do we treat private sector employees like we 
treat congressional employees.
  Well, I guess it is some kind of an improvement, but boy, it ain't 
much.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the adoption of this rule. 
The previous speaker lamented the shortcomings of this rule. He was 
correct.
  This House passed a statute which could have effected the same kind 
of coverage of which the gentleman speaks. Unfortunately, however, that 
statute, like campaign finance reform and lobbying disclosure, has been 
stopped in the United States Senate. It would be, I think, not honest 
of us to say that having stopped in the United States Senate beyond the 
control of anybody in this House that we, therefore, said it could not 
be done. In point of fact, as I stated in the Committee on House 
Administration with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] present, the fact of the 
matter is what this legislation is all about is not politics, it is not 
about the private sector, it is very much about protecting our 
employees, protecting people who deserve protection similar to that 
which they would have if they worked in the private sector. That is 
what this is all about, and that is why it is so right to do.
  This rule will, in fact, have an effect.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, this will probably be the last 
rule that the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts will handle 
during this Congress. All of us on this floor owe him a great debt of 
gratitude for the wisdom and the patience that he brings to the 
consideration of the rules of this House. They are obviously one of the 
most contentious acts that occur. We have very heated debates sometimes 
about the substance and provisions in those rules, and I want to, on 
behalf of all of us, thank the very distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts for the gentle, yet firm, way that he leads the Committee 
on Rules and leads this House.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, congressional compliance is something that is obviously 
very important to what I believe is a strong majority of this House. 
Since 1993, when I had the privilege of being asked to joint as co-vice 
chairman of the Joint Committee on the Organization of congress, I have 
been very optimistic about the chance for us to bring about meaningful 
reform of this institution. A very important part of that has been 
congressional compliance.
  I would like to share with my colleagues a letter that was sent to 
Speaker Foley just about 3 months ago by my counterpart, the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and I would just like to read a few 
sentences from it. He said,

       As you know, I have been concerned that separating off the 
     application-of-laws section of the reform bill might kill the 
     rest of the package including the important procedural and 
     structural recommendations that constitute most of the joint 
     committee's mandate. However, your assurance that the rest of 
     the reform package will receive floor consideration in 
     September goes a long way toward addressing my concerns. I 
     also appreciate your suggestion that even if the compliance 
     proposal is considered separately, it might eventually be 
     merged back into the larger reform package, perhaps in the 
     form of House rules changes.

  Unfortunately, that has not happened, Mr. Speaker, and I am very 
concerned with that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Marietta, GA [Mr. Gingrich], the very distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, let me say, first of all, I appreciate my 
friend, the gentleman from California, yielding to me.
  I realize that in some ways there is disappointment that the other 
body tied up the legislation we would like to have passed. I realize 
and sympathize with my good friend from California who put so much time 
and effort into a dramatically more complete overhaul of the House 
which was bottled up in the Committee on Rules and never had a chance 
to come to the floor, and yet here on the last night of this particular 
session I think it is important for all of our colleagues to realize 
just how far the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the 
gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Swett] have carried us, that this is 
a genuinely bipartisan effort, that a great deal of integrity has gone 
into the effort to get us to this point, that with the amendments made 
during the evening that make this rule applicable virtually immediately 
as soon as the rules can be developed with the effort made to ensure 
that we will have lawyers reporting back by the beginning of the next 
Congress to ensure that we can, in fact, make it possible for 
constitutional cases to go straight to court, with the kind of changes 
that are involved and with the guarantee of bipartisanship by reshaping 
the rule from the way it came out last night so that one member of each 
party is involved in overseeing the application, I think this is a 
serious and a sincere first step.
  I feel very, very comfortable in asking for a yes vote, and while it 
is not all we wanted, I would say to my many friends who would like 
more reform faster, it is a first step, it is significant, it does move 
us in the right direction. And I think it is worthy of a yes vote.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Neal].
  Mr. NEAL of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to just take a moment to say what a fabulous institution I 
think this is. I think the overwhelming majority of our colleagues here 
are decent, honest, hard-working, dedicated people providing a fabulous 
service to the American people.
  And, you know, this institution works essentially as our Founding 
Fathers meant it to work. This bill is a good example.
  We see a problem. We cannot solve the problem immediately, overnight, 
but in due course the problem gets solved, and because of this system 
and because it really does work, this country has produced a level of 
freedom and prosperity that is the envy of the world.
  This is the most fabulous system of government in the world, and 
those people who, for their own purposes, for power or money or 
whatever, who smear the Congress, people like the radio talk-show hosts 
or Common Cause or Ross Perot or others who smear this institution 
insult our Constitution.
  So I really want to thank all of you for the outstanding service you 
provide to your country. It has been a great honor and privilege to 
serve with you, and I thank you for your outstanding service.
  Thank you.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Swett].
  Mr. SWETT. Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I come before 
you tonight to close out the debate on this important piece of 
legislation. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I have 
worked for 2 years with many people, and we are greatly indebted to 
many more for helping to move this forward, from the freshman class who 
have been a constant source of support and energy to the original 
cosponsors to the Speaker of the House; I want to thank the minority 
leadership for the kind words that they have had this evening; the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] has played a very important 
role in this; and I am very grateful for that as well.
  On August 10 there was a vote of 427 to 4 supporting this legislation 
in statute, and it was passed on, as we waited anxiously for the Senate 
to pass the same legislation so that we could bring this body, the U.S. 
Congress, under the laws of the land.

                              {time}  2100

  That is an arrogance that we cannot continue.
  Everyone that has spoken to that effect I think has spoken to the 
heart of mainstream America, and that is what this country asks for.
  Mr. Speaker, I sat in the front row just 3 hours ago wondering if 
this legislation would make it to the floor or not, and I came to the 
realization that this legislation was only meaningful if we would act 
in unison as we had on August 10 to either pass this bill or kill it. 
And I think that is important because if we divide on this where we 
once had been unified, we would show to the American people that our 
commitment was shallow and that we were easily done in by the deeds of 
the other body.
  Mr. Speaker, I went to the leadership on both sides with Chris Shays, 
and we worked out a compromise that although it was detrimental to one 
or two Members--about whom I feel very badly--it allowed for us to 
protect the integrity to the best of our ability under the rule, the 
integrity of the Congressional Accountability Act. That is the best we 
can do. That is the only thing that we are allowed to do because of 
what the other body had done or, more importantly, because of what the 
other body has not done.
  There is no mistake, this is not the endgame; we have not finished 
reform. We do not go into the fall claiming that we have done 
everything that there can be to be done, but this is, I hope, a new 
beginning for this Congress, that it can demonstrate to the American 
people that it has the ability to negotiate within its body, to eke out 
and bring out those changes that will increase American's faith in 
their Congress and in their Government, and I pray that we move into 
the 104th session a new and invigorated body ready to accomplish the 
problems that face Americans and not continue the bickering and the 
partisanship that has only perpetuated the ill feelings on both sides 
of the aisle and between the American people and this Government.
  I ask you to support this rule. I ask you to do it with a heavy heart 
but with a strong and firm commitment that we come back in 1995 and 
commit this to statute and get the Senate to do the same.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a hard time dignifying the proposal 
before us by calling it a congressional coverage proposal. What it 
largely is, is a trip down memory lane that I don't like--a trip back 
to the past when this institution still thought it was above the laws 
it passed and expected others to comply with although it contains some 
small improvements. Unfortunately, the failure of the Senate to act on 
strong congressional coverage has forced the House to consider a rule 
approach.
  Back in 1988, the House adopted House Rule 51 applying certain 
prohibitions to House employers and creating an internal office for 
hearing complaints, the Office of Fair Employment Practices. No one any 
longer defends that rule with a straight face, yet the proposal before 
us today is simply more of the same. Why? Because it still keeps the 
entire enforcement process locked into an internal process within the 
House itself--there is no access to the courts at all. An employee 
cannot take his or her case to court and can't even appeal a decision 
by the proposed Office of Compliance. The few improvements over the 
existing Office of Fair Employment Practices, does not alter or 
ameliorate this fundamental defect.
  Even the Senate, as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, allowed its 
employees to appeal decisions by its Office of Compliance to the Court 
of Appeals for review. And on August 4, just 2 months ago, this body 
overwhelmingly passed the Congressional Accountability Act which 
allowed both court trials and court review, depending on the underlying 
law. The Senate, however, has failed to take this act up and the 103d 
Congress is now coming to a close.
  And why is access to the courts so important? Well, for one reason, 
employees are not going to view an internal process as one being fair 
and objective--it will simply be distrusted. Second, almost all the 
laws which will supposedly be applied to the House under this new rule 
allow employees to go to court for full trials of their cases on the 
merits. Examples? Well, how about Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights 
Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
the Polygraph Protection Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the 
Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 
Again, this proposed rule allows no court actions whatsoever.
  Oh yes, let me also note that this rule has no statutory basis. It 
can therefore be changed by the House, the very employer it purports to 
regulate, in any manner and at any time. This convenient arrangement 
truly gives new meaning to the phrase ``fox guarding the chicken 
coop.''
  I am, of course, disappointed that the Senate did not take up the 
Congressional Accountability Act, so we could get a bill to the 
President this year, but this rule simply does get us to real 
congressional coverage; at best it is a very small improvement over the 
status quo. Let's come back next year, do it right, and pass a strong 
congressional compliance bill as H.R. 1 in the earliest days of the 
104th Congress.
  Ms. ENGLISH of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, the protectors of perks and the 
guardians of privilege have won another battle. As the result of yet 
another back-room deal, the House will allow its Members to continue 
enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayers of this Nation.
  Until just a very few minutes ago, legislation I authored to end the 
practice of making personal use of frequent-flier travel awards earned 
through taxpayer-funded travel was contained in the legislation now 
before this House.
  As I argued when the House overwhelmingly endorsed my frequent-flier 
bill, airline tickets cost money. Taxpayers pay for our tickets. The 
frequent-flier miles and the free airline tickets these miles earn 
belong to the taxpayers. It's that simple.
  But by the time H. Res. 571 arrived here on the floor for our 
consideration, somehow, mysteriously, the frequent-flier language was 
gone. It's been stripped out of the resolution. The protectors of perks 
strike again.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 
don't think they expect me to get a bunch of free plane tickets as a 
result. And your constituents don't want that either. Maybe it's 
because we all know that's the view of the people we represent that 
this deal was made behind closed doors.
  It's little wonder that Congress is held in such ill repute. I ask my 
colleagues, is there anything that could be more clear than the desire 
of the American people for the elimination of special perks and 
privileges for their elected representatives in this body?
  Is there anyone here who questions the fact that the American people 
simply don't want their member of Congress to capitalize on their 
position to enrich themselves? But the opposite is happening here 
tonight, and its happening because there are those among us who want to 
shun perks in public but will do anything to cling to those same perks 
behind closed doors.
  We could have easily reversed the 1991 rule change that gave members 
and staff the discretion to personally profit from frequent-flier 
travel awards earned from official, taxpayer-funded travel. We could 
have ended the practice by which members of this body take advantage of 
their position to enrich themselves.
  Instead, out of the public's view, the protectors of perks quietly 
stripped the frequent-flier provisions from the bill. And so this perk 
will live on a little while longer.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The Previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sharp). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 348, 
nays 3, not voting 84 as follows:

                             [Roll No. 505]

                               YEAS--348

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foley
     Ford (MI)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Grams
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hall (OH)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     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
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--3

     Crane
     Dreier
     Goss

                             NOT VOTING--84

     Ackerman
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baker (LA)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Boehlert
     Brown (CA)
     Bunning
     Callahan
     Chapman
     Clay
     Collins (MI)
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Edwards (CA)
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Grandy
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Johnston
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McMillan
     Meehan
     Molinari
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Packard
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Pickett
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Rose
     Roukema
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Smith (OR)
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Sundquist
     Taylor (NC)
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Walsh
     Washington
     Waxman
     Whitten

                              {time}  2132

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________