Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 4, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H90-H104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as the designee of the majority leader and
pursuant to section 108 of House Resolution 6, I call up the bill (H.R.
1) to make certain laws applicable to the legislative branch of the
Federal Government, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 1 is as follows:
H.R. 1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Congressional Accountability
Act of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

The laws referred to in this subsection which apply now to
congressional employees shall continue to apply to such
employees until the effective date such laws are made
applicable in accordance with this subsection.
(b) Laws Which May Be Made Applicable.--Any provision of
Federal law shall, to the extent that it relates to the terms
and conditions of employment (including hiring, promotion or
demotion, salary and wages, overtime compensation, benefits,
work assignments or reassignments, termination, protection
from discrimination in personnel actions, health and safety
of employees, and family and medical leave) of employees
apply to the legislative branch of the Federal Government in
accordance with this Act.
(c) Compliance With OSHA.--The legislative branch of the
Federal Government shall comply with the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 as follows: If a citation of a
violation of such Act is received, action to abate the
violation shall take place as soon as possible, but no later
than the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
citation is issued.
SEC. 4. OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the legislative
branch an Office of Compliance (hereinafter in this Act
referred to as the ``Office'').
(b) Composition.--
(1) Board of directors.--The Office shall have a Board of
Directors. The Board of Directors shall consist of 8
individuals appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Majority Leader of the Senate, and the
Minority Leaders of the House of Representatives and the
Senate. Appointments of the first 8 members of the Board of
Directors shall be completed not later than 120 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Executive director.--
(A) In general.--The Chairperson of the Board of Directors
shall appoint, may establish the compensation of, and may
terminate, subject to the approval of the Board of Directors,
an Executive Director (referred to in this Act as the
``executive director''). The compensation of the executive
director may not exceed the compensation for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code. The executive director shall be an individual
with training or
[[Page H91]] expertise in the application of the laws
referred to in section 3 to employment. The appointment of
the first executive director shall be completed no later than
120 days after the initial appointment of the Board of
Directors.
(B) Office.--The executive director may not be an
individual who holds or may have held the position of Member
of the House of Representatives or Senator. The executive
director may not be an individual who holds the position of
employee of the House of Representatives or the Senate but
the executive director may be an individual who held such a
position at least 4 years before appointment as executive
director. The term of office of the executive director shall
be a single term of 5 years.
(c) Board of Directors Qualifications.--
(1) Specific qualifications.--
(A) Lobbying.--No individual who engages in, or is
otherwise employed in, lobbying of the Congress and who is
required under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act to
register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives or
the Secretary of the Senate shall be considered eligible for
appointment to, or service on, the Board of Directors.
(B) Office.--No member of the Board of Directors appointed
under subsection (b)(1) may hold or may have held the
position of Member of the House of Representatives or
Senator, may hold the position of employee of the House of
Representatives or Senate, or may have held such a position
within 4 years of the date of appointment.
(2) Holding office.--If during a term of office a member of
the Board of Directors engages in an activity described in
paragraph (2)(A), such position shall be declared vacant and
a successor shall be selected in accordance with subsection
(b)(1).
(3) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Board of Directors shall
be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was
made.
(d) Board of Directors Term of Office.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
membership on the Board of Directors shall be for 5 years. A
member shall only be eligible for appointment for a single
term of office.
(2) First appointments.--Of the members first appointed to
the Board of Directors--
(A) 2 shall have a term of office of 2 years,
(B) 2 shall have a term of office of 3 years,
(C) 2 shall have a term of office of 4 years, and
(D) 2 shall have a term of office of 5 years,

as designated at the time of appointment by the persons
specified in subsection (b)(1).
(3) Removal.--Any member of the Board of Directors may be
removed from office by a majority decision of the appointing
authorities described in subsection (b)(1) and only for--
(A) disability that substantially prevents the member from
carrying out the duties of the member,
(B) incompetence,
(C) neglect of duty,
(D) malfeasance, or
(E) a felony or conduct involving moral turpitude.
(e) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Board of Directors
shall be appointed from the members of the Board of Directors
by the members of the Board.
(f) Compensation of Members.--
(1) Per diem.--Each member of the Board of Directors shall
be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Board.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Board of
Directors shall receive travel expenses, including per diem
in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of
agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day the member is engaged in the
performance of duties away from the home or regular place of
business of the member.
(g) Office Staff.--The executive director may appoint and
fix the compensation of such staff, including hearing
officers, as are necessary to carry out this Act.
(h) Detailees.--The executive director may, with the prior
consent of the Government department or agency concerned, use
the services of any such department or agency, including the
services of members or personnel of the General Accounting
Office Personnel Appeals Board.
(i) Consultants.--In carrying out this Act, the executive
director may procure the temporary (not to exceed 1 year) or
intermittent services of individual consultants or
organizations thereof.

SEC. 5. STUDY AND REGULATIONS.

(a) Initial Action.--
(1) In general.--The Board of Directors shall conduct a
study of the manner in which the laws made applicable to the
legislative branch of the Federal Government under section
3(a) should apply. The Board of Directors shall complete such
study and report the results to Congress not later than 180
days after the date of the first appointment of the first
executive director.
(2) Instrumentalities.--The Board of Directors shall
include in its study under paragraph (1) an examination of
the procedures used by the instrumentalities to enforce the
application of laws applicable to the legislative branch of
the Federal Government and a determination as to whether to
direct the instrumentality to make improvements in its
regulations and procedures so as to assure that procedures as
effective as the procedures set forth in sections 7 through
12 will apply. If the instrumentality has no such regulations
and procedures, the Board may direct the instrumentality to
adopt the requisite regulations and procedures, or, if deemed
necessary, in lieu thereof may itself adopt regulations
pursuant to this section or authorize use of the procedures
pursuant to sections 7 through 12.
(b) Continuing Action.--On an ongoing basis the Board of
Directors--
(1) shall determine which of the laws referred to in
section 3(b) should apply to the legislative branch of the
Federal Government and if it should, the manner in which it
should be made applicable;
(2) shall study the application to the legislative branch
of the Federal Government of provisions of Federal law
referred to in section 3 that are enacted after the date of
the enactment of this Act;
(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) Regulations.--
(1) Laws made applicable.--
(A) General rule.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the completion of the study under subsection (a), the
Board of Directors shall, in accordance with section 553 of
title 5, United States Code, propose regulations to implement
the requirements of the laws made applicable to the
legislative branch of the Federal Government under section
3(a). The Board of Directors shall provide a period of at
least 30 days for comment on the proposed regulations.
(B) Congressional notice.-- In addition to publishing a
general notice of proposed rulemaking under section 553(b) of
title 5, United States Code, the Board of Directors shall
concurrently submit such notice for publication in the
Congressional Record.
(C) Amendments and repeals.--When proposing regulations
under subparagraph (A) to implement the requirements of a law
referred to in section 3(a), the Board of Directors shall
recommend to the Congress changes in or repeals of existing
law to accommodate the application of such law to the
legislative branch of the Federal Government.
(D) Final regulations.--The Board of Directors shall, in
accordance with such section 553, issue final regulations not
later than 60 days after the end of the comment period on the
proposed regulations.
(2) Continuing action.--
(A) General rule.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the completion of the study or a determination under
subsection (b), the Board of Directors shall, in accordance
with section 553 of title 5, United States Code, propose
regulations that specify which of the provisions of Federal
law considered in such study shall apply to the legislative
branch of the Federal Government. The Board of Directors
shall provide a period of at least 30 days for comment on the
proposed regulations.
(B) Congressional notice.-- In addition to publishing a
general notice of proposed rulemaking under section 553(b) of
title 5, United States Code, the Board of Directors shall
concurrently submit such notice for publication in the
Congressional Record.
(C) Amendments and repeals.--When proposing regulations
under subparagraph (A) specifying which of the provisions of
Federal law referred to in section 3(b) shall apply to the
legislative branch of the Federal Government, the Board of
Directors shall recommend to the Congress changes in or
repeals of existing law to accommodate the application of
such law to the legislative branch of the Federal Government.
(D) Final regulations.-- The Board of Directors shall, in
accordance with such section 553, issue final regulations not
later than 60 days after the end of the comment period on the
proposed regulations.
(3) Regulation requirements.--Regulations under paragraphs
(1) and (2) shall be consistent with the regulations issued
by an agency of the executive branch of the Federal
Government under the provision of law made applicable to the
legislative branch of the Federal Government, including
portions relating to remedies.
(4) Action if disapproval.--If a regulation is disapproved
by a concurrent resolution considered under subsection (e),
not later than 60 days after the date of the disapproval, the
Board of Directors shall propose a new regulation to replace
the regulation disapproved. The action of the Board of
Directors under this paragraph shall be in accordance with
the applicable requirements of this subsection.
(d) Transmittal.--A final regulation issued under
subsection (c) shall be transmitted to the Congress for
consideration under subsection (e).
(e) Taking Effect of Regulations.--
(1) General rule.--Subject to subsection (f), a final
regulation which is issued under subsection (c) shall take
effect upon the expiration of 60 days from the date the final
regulation is issued unless disapproved by the Congress by
concurrent resolution.
(2) Concurrent resolution.--A concurrent resolution
referred to in paragraph (1) may be introduced in the House
of Representatives or the Senate within 5 days of session
[[Page H92]] after the date on which the Board of Directors
issues the final regulation to which the concurrent
resolution applies. The matter after the resolving clause of
the resolution shall be as follows: ``That Congress
disapproves the issuance of final regulations of the Office
of Compliance as issued on ____________ (the blank space
being appropriately filled in).''.
(3) Procedure.--A concurrent resolution referred to in
paragraph (1) shall be referred to the appropriate committee
of the House involved. If no concurrent resolution is
reported within 15 days of session after the Board of
Directors issues final regulations under subsection (c)(1)(D)
or (c)(2)(D), the committee to which the concurrent
resolution was referred shall be discharged from further
consideration of the first such concurrent resolution
introduced and the concurrent resolution shall be placed on
the appropriate calendar of the House involved. Any meeting
of a committee on a concurrent resolution shall be open to
the public. Within 5 days of session after the concurrent
resolution is reported or discharged, it shall be in order as
a matter of highest privilege to move to proceed to its
consideration and such motion shall not be debatable. The
concurrent resolution shall be debatable for not to exceed 4
hours equally divided between proponents and opponents and it
shall not be subject to amendment. If, prior to the adoption
of a concurrent resolution by one House, that House receives
a concurrent resolution of the other House with respect to
the same regulations, then the procedure in that House shall
be the same as if no concurrent resolution had been received
from the other House, but vote on final adoption shall be on
the concurrent resolution of the other House. If a concurrent
resolution is received by a House in which no identical
concurrent resolution has been introduced, it shall be
referred to the appropriate committee and the same procedures
and 20-day period for action shall apply to the consideration
of the concurrent resolution by that House as would apply to
an introduced concurrent resolution.
(f) Rulemaking Power.--The provisions of subsection (e) of
this section are enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such
they shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,
respectively, or of that House to which they specifically
apply, and such rules shall supersede other rules only to the
extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such
House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same
extent as in the case of any other rule of such House.
(g) Open to the Public.--Any meeting of the Board of
Directors held in connection with a study under subsection
(a) or (b) shall be open to the public. Any meeting of the
Board of Directors in connection with a regulation under
subsection (c) shall be open to the public.

SEC. 6. OTHER FUNCTIONS.

(a) Rules of the Office.--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, the Legal Counsel of the Senate, and the
General Counsel of the House of Representatives on the
adoption of rules.
(b) Investigative Authority.--The executive director shall
have authority to conduct such investigations as the
executive director requires to implement sections 8 through
10 and section 12.
(c) Duties.--The Office shall--
(1) carry out a program of education for Members of
Congress and other employing authorities of the legislative
branch of the Federal Government respecting the laws made
applicable to them and a program to inform individuals of
their rights under laws applicable to the legislative branch
of the Federal Government and under sections 7 through 12,
(2) in carrying out the program under paragraph (1),
distribute the telephone number and address of the Office,
procedures for action under sections 7 through 12, and any
other information the executive director deems appropriate
for distribution, distribute such information to Members of
Congress and other employing authorities of the legislative
branch of the Federal Government in a manner suitable for
posting, provide such information to new employees of the
legislative branch of the Federal Government, distribute such
information to the residences of congressional employees, and
conduct seminars and other activities designed to educate
employers and employees in such information,
(3) compile and publish statistics on the use of the Office
by congressional employees, including the number and type of
contacts made with the Office, on the reason for such
contacts, on the number of employees who initiated
proceedings with the Office under sections 7 through 12 and
the result of such proceedings, and on the number of
employees who filed a complaint under section 10, the basis
for the complaint, and the action taken on the complaint, and
(4) within 180 days of the initial appointment of the
executive director and in conjunction with the Clerk of the
House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate,
develop a system for the collection of demographic data
respecting the composition of the congressional employees,
including race, sex, and wages, and a system for the
collection of information on employment practices, including
family leave and flexible work hours, in Congressional
offices.
(d) Report.--Within one year of the date the system
referred to in subsection (c)(4) is developed and annually
thereafter, the Board of Directors shall submit to Congress a
report on the information collected under such system. Each
report after the first report shall contain a comparison and
evaluation of data contained in the previous report.
SEC. 7. PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS.

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

A congressional employee may elect the procedure described in
paragraph (3) or (5) but not both procedures.
SEC. 8. STEP I: COUNSELING.

(a) In General.--A congressional employee alleging a
violation of a law made applicable to the legislative branch
of the Federal Government under this Act may request
counseling through the Office. The Office shall provide the
employee with all relevant information with respect to the
rights of the employee. A request for counseling shall be
made not later than 180 days after the alleged violation
forming the basis of the request for counseling occurred.
(b) Period of Counseling.--The period for counseling shall
be 30 days unless the employee and the Office agree to reduce
the period. The period shall begin on the date the request
for counseling is received.

SEC. 9. STEP II: MEDIATION.

(a) In General.--Not later than 15 days after the end of
the counseling period under section 8, the employee who
alleged a violation of a law made applicable to the
legislative branch of the Federal Government under this Act
may file a request for mediation with the Office. Mediation--
(1) may include the Office, the employee, the employing
office, and individuals who are recommended by organizations
composed primarily of individuals experienced in adjudicating
or arbitrating personnel matters, and
(2) shall be a process involving meetings with the parties
separately or jointly for the purpose of resolving the
dispute between the employee and the employing office.
(b) Mediation Period.--The mediation period shall be 30
days beginning on the date the request for mediation is
received and may be extended for an additional 30 days at the
discretion of the Office. The Office shall notify the
employee and the head of the employing office when the
mediation period has ended.

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

(a) Formal Complaint and Request for Hearing.--Not later
than 30 days after receipt by the congressional employee of
notice from the Office of the end of the mediation period
under section 9, the congressional employee may file a formal
complaint with the Office against the head of the employing
office involved. No complaint may be filed unless the
employee has made a timely request for counseling and has
completed the procedures set forth in sections 8 and 9.
(b) Hearing Board.--A board of 3 independent hearing
officers (hereinafter in this Act referred to as a ``hearing
board''), who are not Members of the House of
Representatives, Senators, or officers or employees of the
House of Representatives or Senate, chosen by the executive
director (one of whom shall be designated by the executive
director as the presiding hearing officer) shall be assigned
to consider each complaint filed under subsection (a). The
executive director shall appoint hearing officers from
candidates who are recommended by the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service or the Administrative Conference of the
United States. A hearing board shall act by majority vote.
(c) Dismissal of Frivolous Claims.--Prior to a hearing
under subsection (d), a hearing board may dismiss any claim
that it finds to be frivolous.
(d) Hearing.--A hearing shall be conducted--
(1) in closed session on the record by a hearing board; and
(2) no later than 30 days after filing of the complaint
under subsection (a), except that the Office may, for good
cause, extend up to
[[Page H93]] an additional 60 days the time for conducting a
hearing.
(e) Discovery.--Reasonable prehearing discovery may be
permitted at the discretion of the hearing board.
(f) Subpoena Power.--
(1) In general.--A hearing board may authorize subpoenas,
which shall be issued by the presiding hearing officer on
behalf of the hearing board for the attendance of witnesses
at proceedings of the hearing board and for the production of
correspondence, books, papers, documents, and other records.
The attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence
may be required from any place within the United States.
(2) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to
obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the hearing board
may apply to a United States district court for an order
requiring that person to appear before the hearing board to
give testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the
matter under investigation. The application may be made
within the judicial district where the hearing is conducted
or where that person is found, resides, or transacts
business. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be
punished by the court as civil contempt.
(3) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the hearing
board shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas
issued by a United States district court under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States district
courts.
(4) Service of process.--All process of any court to which
application is to be made under paragraph (2) may be served
in the judicial district in which the person required to be
served resides or may be found.
(5) Immunity.--The hearing board is an agency of the United
States for the purpose of part V of title 18, United States
Code (relating to immunity of witnesses).
(g) Hearing Board Decision.--As expeditiously as possible,
but in no case more than 45 days after the conclusion of the
hearing, the hearing board shall make a decision in the
matter for which the hearing was held. The decision of the
hearing board shall be transmitted by the Office to the
employee and the employing office. The decision shall state
the issues raised by the complaint, describe the evidence in
the record, and contain a determination as to whether a
violation of a law made applicable to the legislative branch
of the Federal Government under this Act has occurred. Any
decision of the hearing board shall contain a written
statement of the reasons for the hearing board's decision. A
final decision of the hearing board shall be made available
to the public by the Office.
(h) Remedy Order.--If the decision of the hearing board
under subsection (g) is that a violation of a law made
applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal
Government under this Act has occurred, it shall order the
remedies under such law as made applicable to the legislative
branch of the Federal Government under this Act, except that
no Member of the House of Representatives, Senator, any other
head of an employing office, or any agent of such a Member,
Senator, or employing office, shall be personally liable for
the payment of compensation. The hearing board shall have no
authority to award punitive damages. The entry of an order
under this subsection shall constitute a final decision for
purposes of judicial review under section 11.
(i) Funds.--There shall be established in the House of
Representatives and in the Senate a fund from which
compensation (including attorney's fees) may be paid in
accordance with an order under subsection (h) or as a result
of judicial review under section 11 or a civil action under
section 12. From the outset of any proceeding in which
compensation may be paid from a fund of the House of
Representatives, the General Counsel of the House of
Representatives may provide the respondent with
representation.

SEC. 11. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
(a) In General.--
(1) Types of review.--Following any hearing under section
10 on a complaint relating to a provision of law described in
section 3, any congressional employee aggrieved by a
dismissal of a claim under section 10(c), a final decision
under section 10(g), a final order under section 10(h), or
any head of an employing office aggrieved by a final decision
under section 10(g) or a final order under section 10(h), may
petition for review by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit in accordance with paragraph (2).
(2) Provisions applicable to review.--The following
provisions apply to a review under paragraph (1):
(A) Law applicable.--Chapter 158 of title 28, United States
Code, shall apply--
(i) with respect to section 2344 of title 28, United States
Code, service of the petition shall be on the House or Senate
Legal Counsel, or the appropriate entity of an
instrumentality, as the case may be, rather than on the
Attorney General;
(ii) the provisions of section 2348 of title 28, United
States Code, on the authority of the Attorney General, shall
not apply;
(iii) the petition for review shall be filed not later than
90 days after the entry in the Office of a final decision
under section 10(g), an order under section 10(h); and
(iv) the Office shall be an ``agency'' as that term is used
in chapter 158 of title 28, United States Code.
(B) Standard of review.--To the extent necessary for
decision and when presented, the court shall decide all
relevant questions of law and interpret constitutional and
statutory provisions. The court shall set aside a dismissal
under section 10(c), a final decision under section 10(g), or
an order under section 10(h) if it is determined that the
dismissal, decision, or order was--
(i) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not consistent with law;
(ii) not made consistent with required procedures; or
(iii) unsupported by substantial evidence.
(C) Record.--In making determinations under subparagraph
(B), the court shall review the whole record, or those parts
of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the
rule of prejudicial error. The record on review shall include
the record before the hearing board, the decision of the
hearing board, and the order of the hearing board.
(b) Attorney's Fees.--If a congressional employee is the
prevailing party in a proceeding under this section,
attorney's fees for the judicial proceeding may be allowed by
the court in accordance with the standards prescribed under
section 706(k) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e-5(k)).

SEC. 12. CIVIL ACTION.

(a) In General.--
(1) Civil action.--A congressional employee may, within 30
days after receipt of notice from the Office of the end of
the mediation period under section 9 for a violation of a law
made applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal
Government, bring a civil action in a district court of the
United States seeking relief from the alleged violation of
law if such a civil action may be brought by an employee
under such law. In any such civil action, any party may
demand a jury trial.
(2) Exhaustion requirement.--No civil action may be filed
under paragraph (1) unless the employee has made a timely
request for counseling and has completed the procedures set
forth in sections 8 and 9.
(3) Court order.--If a court determines that a violation of
law occurred, the court may only enter an order described in
section 10(h).
(b) Attorney's Fees.--If a congressional employee is the
prevailing party in a proceeding under this section,
attorney's fees may be allowed by the court in accordance
with any standards prescribed under Federal law for the award
of such fees in the event of a violation of such provision.
SEC. 13. RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINT.

If, after a formal complaint is filed under section 10, the
employee and the head of the employing office resolve the
issues involved, the employee may withdraw the complaint or
the parties may enter into a written agreement, subject to
the approval of the executive director.

SEC. 14. PROHIBITION OF INTIMIDATION.

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

SEC. 15. CONFIDENTIALITY.

(a) Counseling.--All counseling shall be strictly
confidential except that the Office and the employee may
agree to notify the head of the employing office of the
allegations.
(b) Mediation.--All mediation shall be strictly
confidential.
(c) Hearings.--Except as provided in subsections (d) and
(e), the hearings and deliberations of the hearing board
shall be confidential.
(d) Release of Records for Judicial Action.--The records of
hearing boards may be made public if required for the purpose
of judicial action under section 9.
(e) Access by Committees of Congress.--At the discretion of
the executive director, the executive director may provide to
the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House
of Representatives and the Select Committee on Ethics of the
Senate access to the records of the hearings, including all
written and oral testimony in the possession of the hearing
boards, concerning a decision under section 10(g). The
executive director shall not provide such access until the
executive director has consulted with the individual filing
the complaint at issue in the hearing, and until the hearing
board has issued the decision.
(f) Coordination.--The executive director shall coordinate
the proceedings with the Committee on Standards and Official
Conduct of the House of Representatives and the Select
Committee on Ethics of the Senate to ensure effectiveness, to
avoid duplication, and to prevent penalizing cooperation by
respondents in the respective proceedings.

SEC. 16. POLITICAL AFFILIATION AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

(a) In General.--It shall not be a violation of a law made
applicable to the legislative branch of the Federal
Government under this Act to consider the--
(1) party affiliation,
(2) domicile, or
(3) political compatibility with the employing office,
[[Page H94]] of a congressional employee with respect to
employment decisions.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term
``employee'' means--
(1) an employee on the staff of the House of
Representatives or Senate leadership,
(2) an employee on the staff of a committee or
subcommittee,
(3) an employee on the staff of a Member of the House of
Representatives or Senate,
(4) an officer or employee of the House of Representatives
or Senate elected by the House of Representatives or Senate
or appointed by a Member of the House of Representatives or
Senate, other than those described in paragraphs (1) through
(3), or
(5) an applicant for a position that is to be occupied by
an individual described in paragraphs (1) through (4).

SEC. 17. ENFORCEMENT; OTHER REVIEW PROHIBITED.

(a) Enforcement.--This Act shall not be construed to
authorize enforcement by the executive branch of any of the
laws made applicable to congressional employees under this
Act.
(b) Review.--No congressional employee may commence a
judicial proceeding to redress practices prohibited under
section 5, except as provided in this Act.

SEC. 18. STUDY.

(a) Study.--The Office shall conduct a study--
(1) of the ways that access by the public to information
held by the Congress may be improved, streamlined, and made
consistent between the House of Representatives and the
Senate and of the application of section 552 of title 5,
United States Code to the legislative branch of the Federal
Government; and
(2) of the application of the requirement of section 552a
of title 5, United States Code, to the legislative branch of
the Federal Government.
(b) Study Content.--The study conducted under subsection
(a) shall examine--
(1) information that is currently made available under such
section 552 by Federal agencies and not by the legislative
branch of the Federal Government;
(2) information held by the non-legislative offices of the
legislative branch of the Federal Government, including--
(A) the instrumentalities,
(B) the Architect of the Capitol,
(C) the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives,
(D) the Clerk of the House of Representatives,
(E) the Secretary of the Senate,
(F) the Inspector General of the House of Representatives,
(G) the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives
and the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate,
(H) the United States Capitol Police, and
(I) the House Commission on Congressional Mailing
Standards;
(3) financial expenditure information of the legislative
branch of the Federal Government; and
(4) provisions for judicial review of denial of access to
information held by the legislative branch of the Federal
Government.
(c) Time.--The Office shall conduct the study prescribed by
subsection (a) and report the results of the study to the
Congress not later than one year after the date of the
initial appointment of the Board of Directors.
{time} 0030

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thomas). Pursuant to the provisions of
section 108 and title I of House Resolution 6, it is now in order to
consider H.R. 1, the Congressional Accountability Act.
The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will be recognized for 30
minutes, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] will be recognized
for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume,
and say to the Members of this Chamber that the Congressional
Accountability Act is not one person's bill, it was authored 2 years
ago by a colleague of mine, Dick Swett. There were four original
cosponsors, Roscoe Bartlett, Jay Dickey, David Mann, and Paul McHale.
The cochairman of the Freshman Bipartisan Task Force on Congressional
Reform Tillie Fowler, Peter Torkildsen, Karen Shepherd, Eric Fingerhut
and 100 freshmen cosponsored this bill. The presidents of the freshman
class last year, Eva Clayton and Buck McKeon, cosponsored this bill.
The Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress headed by Lee
Hamilton and David Dreier, Republicans and Democrats throughout,
championed this bill through their committee. The chairmen and ranking
members of the Committee on House Administration and Committee on Rules
that marked up H.R. 4822 on which this bill is based, Republicans and
Democrats, were essential to its work: Charlie Rose, Bill Thomas, Joe
Moakley, Jerry Solomon. Other leaders who have been working on this
issue for years and years and years, Bill Goodling and Harris Fawell
and others, in particular Barney Frank, who encouraged the Speaker of
the House in this past time to move forward with this bill, was
essential to its passage last time with John Boehner.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has had bipartisan support. It moved forward
in this Chamber last year with bipartisan support. Republicans and
Democrats have made their mark on this bill.
I also want to thank the former Speaker Tom Foley for guaranteeing a
vote and moving it to the Senate and for Newt Gingrich, our present
Speaker, for championing this bill wherever he went, and to thank Steny
Hoyer for his work. The bottom line to this is that this is our bill,
it belongs to all of us, and it is a strong bill. It includes all the
laws that we are presently exempted from. It covers all the
instrumentalities, the Library of Congress, the GAO, it gives them the
protection, and it allows employees for the first time to go to court,
civil action if they choose to, de novo, or to have a court appeal.
In the whole process of deliberation on this bill, Mr. Speaker, we
had 3 guiding principles that Dick Swett and I worked on with so many
other Members. If a law is right for the private sector, it is right
for Congress. Congress will write better laws when it has to live by
the same laws it imposes on the private sector and the executive branch
and we must as well respect the separation of powers embodied in the
Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I do not quite know how long this bill will take in
debate, it may be a full hour, but it is truly our bill. It passed this
Chamber with overwhelming support, and it is my hope that the Senate
will act shortly on this legislation, maybe tomorrow, and that we will
have a conference and finalize this bill possibly by next week.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastert). The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1.
I want to at the outset congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut
[Chris Shays] and Dick Swett from New Hampshire. Dick is no longer with
us. Chris is obviously here. They worked very hard on this issue in the
last Congress. They raised the visibility of this issue, but more
importantly than that, they worked with all the Members of this House
on both sides of the aisle to try to reach agreement on the very
difficult question as to how we include the House and the Senate and
the instrumentalities of Congress under the provisions of 10 specific
bills which we have passed over the last six decades and apply those so
that our employees will enjoy the same protection as the employees of
other entities in this country.
It is important that we are moving forward on this bill. It has been
blocked frankly for too long. The House passed this bill essentially
twice in the last Congress, only to see our efforts thwarted by
Republican-led efforts in the Senate, unfortunately. The Democratic and
Republican Members of this House want this bill and as has been said
earlier in the day voted to approve it 427-4 back in August of last
year.
We have gone a long way toward making sure that the Congress lives
under the same laws as any other Americans. Most pieces of legislation
we have passed apply to Congress. The Americans with Disabilities Act
which I proudly cosponsored specifically applies to Congress, as did
the Civil Rights Act, the Minimum Wage Act, the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, all apply now. The House has
also had in place since 1988 prohibitions against employment
discrimination.
H.R. 1 will ensure that all Members of the Congress, not just House
Members, live under all the laws we pass and do so permanently, not
just as internal House rules which are now on the books adopted by this
House in October of last year, but as a statute, a part of statutory
law.
I cannot tell you how many times I have had business men and women,
men and women in every walk of life complain that Congress passes laws
[[Page H95]] and then simply exempts itself. Every one of us on this
House floor has heard that criticism, which was legitimate, by our
publics. Most of my constituents did not know frankly that the
Congressional Accountability Act passed the House last year by that
vote of 427-4. In fact the discussions that I have heard in debates
sometimes on this floor and during the course of this election, you
would not know that the House had acted. You would not know that it was
in our rules. That perhaps served the purposes of some, but the fact is
we did act. But the other body did not. And the instrumentalities are
not covered. Furthermore, the mechanisms for appeal and hearing process
are not provided for adequately in the rules because they could not be
provided for adequately in the rules.
The American people deserve something more than the internal House
rule that we have. But as importantly our employees deserve better than
that. That really is the crux of this issue, so that we can protect
them as we have protected others throughout this country.
I want to go home and tell those constituents that have talked to me
and to all of you that we have answered their plea. I want to tell them
that we meet the same requirements that they do, that we follow the
same laws that we ask them to, from OSHA to Fair Labor Standards. I
want to tell them that our employees have the same protections theirs
do, from anti-age discrimination to family and medical leave. Perhaps
the shared experience will help us, as some of you believe, write
better, more careful laws.
{time} 0040

This is about common sense, trust and accountability. That is why we
are all here late into the evening finishing the work which began the
last Congress. I hope all of my colleagues will join me in moving
forward on H.R. 1.
Again I want to congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr.
Shays and Mr. Swett for their leadership and their tenacious support of
this very important piece of legislation.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, there are speakers on both sides. There will
not be a vote right this second. I yield myself 30 seconds to correct
one point that was made during the debate on the rule and now here on
the issue of Republicans killing it in the Senate. To correct the
Record, Mr. Speaker, this bill passed with bipartisan support in this
Chamber. It died in the Senate with bipartisan support.
The Senate Government Affairs Committee held a hearing on June 29.
They then reported out and marked up the bill on September 20, after
the break. They reported the bill out on the third and filed their
report. The report was not printed until October 6, the day it was to
be voted on. So any Member could object to it being brought up.
I say to the House it passed here with bipartisan support; it died
there with bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Economic and Educational Opportunity
Committee, who is truly the father of this legislation.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, on the last day Congress met on October 7,
I recorded my serious concerns with the rule on congressional coverage
then before the House. While I realized the rule was made necessary by
the Senate's failure to act, I felt compelled to note the absence of an
employee right to go to court, for full trial, where the underlying law
provided that right to private sector employees, rendered the proposal
fundamentally defective and I am gratified that the bill now before us
extends that right by statute to Hill employees.
It also extends 10 major employment laws to Congress, and it is my
understanding that we will also add court enforcement under the
Veterans Reemployment Act through negotiations with the Senate to the
bill that ultimately goes to the President.
Let us send a bill to the President soon. I am pleased that after the
last several years where many of us have felt alone in trying to bring
attention to this issue that it now appears certain we are on the verge
of enactment of true congressional coverage. Yes, let us welcome the
moment, but let us also admit that this is a step that should have been
taken long ago.
We will never be as careful as we should be in passing, changing, and
drafting laws until we ourselves are forced to comply with those laws
and the fundamental unfairness of a double standard is obvious in any
case. So let us not pat ourselves on the back too eagerly tonight. It
is long overdue.
I also want to acknowledge the bipartisanship here in these late
hours and am pleased effective congressional coverage will become law
on the Republican watch.
Politics, of course, is not a perfect process. This bill is not a
perfect process either. Punitive damages have not been included, and
personal liability is excluded.
Prior bills I have introduced provided for such liability, but I will
leave that battle to another day, recognizing its controversial nature,
and not wishing to jeopardize the passage of the legislation.
This is a new beginning that will go a long way in restoring the
confidence of the American people in this great institution.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the leadership of my colleagues, the
gentleman from Connecticut, Chris Shays, and the gentleman from
Illinois, Harris Fawell, on this issue and that of key staffers such as
Randy Johnson, Gary Visscher, Peter Carson, and Rob Green.
Mr. Speaker, let us work out whatever difference we have with the
Senate and get this legislation to the President this month.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], who cochaired the bipartisan reform commission.
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the Congressional
Accountability Act. Let me acknowledge that there have been many
Members in both Chambers who deserve credit for the passage of this
bill tonight, and I commend especially the gentleman from Connecticut
and the gentleman from Maryland for their outstanding leadership.
I think there are three reasons why it is important for Members of
Congress to follow the same laws that cover the private sector. First,
the widespread perception that Members have exempted themselves from
many laws significantly undermines the confidence of the American
people in this institution. We lose credibility and legitimacy when
people believe that Members are somehow above the law.
Second, more fully applying laws to Congress will improve the quality
of legislation that we pass. A number of Members have made that point
this evening. It can be difficult for Members to understand completely
the practical implications of the legislation that we pass when we are
not forced to confront these implications in our own place of work.
Third, and this point I think has not been mentioned, it is simply
unfair to congressional employees not to extend to them the same rights
and protections available to those who work elsewhere.
May I also add just a word of caution. House passage of this
Congressional Accountability Act is not the final process or hurdle in
the process of bringing this legislation to enactment. The Senate, I
know, has promised very quick consideration of a bill to apply laws to
Congress. My information is, however, that the bill that the Senate
will pass is going to be very different from the bill that we pass, and
then we will have to agree on a single consensus package. We still have
got a lot of work to do on this package. I hope Members will continue
to follow it very carefully until we bring it to the point of
enactment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Harris Fawell, who has really been a champion of this
legislation for years.
(Mr. FAWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for
yielding me this time. He has been the leader and has brought this
bipartisan
[[Page H96]] group together, but the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] and so many others, have been also in the ranks. As has been
stated, many Members have had a part to play.
We have all heard the old phrase that Congress would exempt itself
from the law of gravity if it thought it could get away with it. And,
indeed, Congress has tried to get away with it for a long time.
But that is changing now. And I compliment the new leadership in the
House for having a Congressional Accountability Act as the first bill
to be presented to the 104th Congress.
We know this bill is not perfect. And the full specifics as to the
exact manner in which the 10 ``place of employment'' labor laws shall
be applied to congressional employers will be fully determined by the
passage of regulations by the Office of Compliance.
But the bill does establish the standard that congressional employees
will have the right, in instances of violations of these labor laws by
Members of Congress, to the same basic employee protections as
possessed by employees in the private sector. This will include the
right of congressional employees to seek a full de novo jury trial in
Federal court against their congressional employers, complete with
general damages, court costs and recovery of attorney's fees.
The bill does now allow for such employees to obtain punitive damages
against their congressional employers. In addition, Members of Congress
are indemnified for any damages, costs, or legal fees to which a
prevailing employee may be found entitled. Private sector employers can
generally be held personally liable for those types of damages under
civil rights law, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the
Americans With Disabilities Act.
What is most important, however, is that our Leadership in Congress
is now committed to place this long overdue type of legislation on the
front burner, indeed, as the very first bill to be considered in this
104th Congress. The Senate is doing likewise and doubtless both the
House and Senate in conference will soon agree on a final law--not a
set of rules which can be waived at the will of this House--for early
presentation to the President to sign. That's what happens when
leadership is really dedicated to moving legislation.
Once Congress has established the standard that the place of
employment labor laws its passes shall also apply to Congress, these
laws will then tend to be more equitable and flexible in the treatment
of employees and employers generally within both the private and public
sectors. And that is a better employment policy for America in the 21st
century.
{time} 0050

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly], the vice chairman of the Democratic
Caucus.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that once again this body
has taken up the Congressional Accountability Act as it did twice last
year, and I am particularly proud of my colleague from Connecticut [Mr.
Shays], who joined with a former Member, Mr. Swett from New Hampshire,
and did yeoman service to bring about this reform.
As some of us might remember as we read back in history, exempting
Congress from various laws began because we thought we would not have
the enforcement power that we should have if executive branches had
administrative powers over us, so we would not be a coequal branch of
government.
As you know, we went too far, and the laws did not apply to Congress.
This is unacceptable to the public. I think this is excellent
legislation. I think it demonstrates the best sense of what we can do
together, Members of both parties working together.
Once again, may I compliment the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Shays]. He has done an excellent job.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], an original cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 1, the Congressional Accountability Act.
In the 103d Congress, I was an original sponsor of this legislation
along with my colleague Mr. Shays and am proud to be speaking on the
House floor after 2 years of diligent work. This bill is, quite
frankly, long overdue.
H.R. 1 is simple and straightforward--it makes us comply with the
same laws we impose on the private sector including the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Family and
Medical Leave Act, and OSHA.
It is my view that Member of Congress should be treated the same as
our laws treat the American people. If the laws we pass are good enough
for our constituents, then they should be good enough for their
Representative in Congress. If these laws are so onerous, Congress
should simply stop passing them.
I believe we must go further than this bill in reforming Congress.
However, H.R. 1 is a giant step in the right direction and I commend
all those responsible for bringing this bill to fruition.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
(Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, over the years, this Congress has
developed a package of policies and a set of laws designed to provide
employee protection and to combat discrimination. Those laws have
helped to make America better and more fair.
This bill, H.R. 1, will apply those same laws to Congress that now
apply to all other employers. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of this
bill in the last session of Congress, and I will vote for this bill.
If discrimination occurs in Congress, there should be protection from
it, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, age, family status, physical
condition, or any other protected class. Labor practices should be
fair, the workplace should be safe, and fair notice and retraining
should be the expectation of those who work here.
We have outlived the days when Congress can expect special and
different treatment from the average employer. If the Constitution
means anything for anyone, equal protection of the laws must apply to
everyone.
Of all that we have done today, this is the one measure that affects
the ordinary citizen. It is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' for passage.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman
from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], one of the six original cosponsors, a
member of the freshman class that was so important to passage of this
bill.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1978 a restaurant owner in Pine Bluff,
AR, my hometown, built a restaurant with two required parking spaces, a
ramp, and a streetlight for the disabled. In 1992 the regulators came
in and said, ``The laws have changed, and you have got to move that
ramp and the two parking places to the front door.''
Rather than fight the Government or pay a fine or both, the ramp was
moved, the two spaces were moved, but the streetlight was left. So the
cost to the owner was $4,000 plus an extra space for the streetlight.
The owner is watching carefully tonight to see that we pass this
bill, the Congressional Accountability Act. Why? Because if Congress
has to abide by the regulators who come in and sustain their positions
with their fines, then congress someday will say, as we have said for a
long time, ``We cannot keep this place going with these expenses.''
Then the people who fuel the engine of our economy, the small
business person, will find relief in our leadership.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, in a day that could have passed being fairly
irrelevant to real Americans, this is something that I think we all can
be proud of.
I would like to congratulate and thank my fellow Pennsylvanian, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and all of the original cosponsors of this
effort in the last session and their hard work on it,
[[Page H97]] and on this day, this is something that goes beyond
symbolism.
This is, indeed, something that both the majority and minority
Members of the Congress can be proud of.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen], who was the cochairman of the Freshman
Bipartisan Task Force on Congressional Reform, so important to the
passage of this bill.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the efforts of
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and of everyone else
involved in this measure to bring it forward for passage tonight.
I rise tonight in strong support of H.R. 1. In a direct contradiction
of what the Framers of the Constitution intended, Congress has been
exempting itself from the very laws that every American must follow.
In the 57th Federalist Paper, James Madison wrote that Members of the
House of Representatives ``can make no law which will not have its full
operation on themselves and their friends as well as on the great mass
of the society. This has always been one of the strongest bonds by
which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together.''
Madison was right. For too long what he called one of the strongest
bonds connecting lawmakers and the people has been absent from the
Congress.
Last fall the House overwhelmingly passed similar legislation.
Failure of the Senate to act requires the House to act again this year.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure to make Congress abide
by the laws every American citizen must comply with every single day.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McHale], one of the original cosponsors of this
legislation that passed last year.
Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, the
Congressional Accountability Act, a piece of legislation which I
suspect will soon become one of the most important internal reforms
enacted by the Congress during the past 50 years.
In Roman times it was said that the people become more subservient to
justice when they see the author of the law obeying it himself. That,
in fact, was the very principle cited by the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] a few moments ago in Federalist 57 as
drafted by James Madison, the father of our Bill of Rights.
Although I suspect a vote on this matter will be bipartisan and
overwhelming, that should not cloud the recognition that but for the
tremendous courage and tenacity of our colleague, the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays], and the leadership of our former colleague,
Dick Swett, this matter would not be brought before the House this
evening.
Mr. Speaker, I believe very strongly that in our system of justice we
cannot have two tiers. All members of our society, be they private
citizens or Members of the Congress, are governed by the rule of law,
the same rule of law.
I urge an affirmative vote on H.R. 1.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Fowler], who was also just an essential part of the
passage of this bill last year as cochairman of the freshman bipartisan
task force on congressional reform.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Congressional Accountability Act. I want to commend my friend from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for his hard work.
From the beginning, this was a truly bipartisan effort. Both the
Republican and Democrat freshman classes made this bill a top priority
early on. By the time this bill passed in the 103d Congress, 97 Members
of our class, Democrats and Republicans, had signed on as cosponsors.
Bringing Congress under the laws it passes for everyone else is
something I campaigned on when I first ran for this office 2 years ago.
It is something I fought for during my first term. It is something we
simply must complete on this first day of the 104th Congress if we are
to begin earning back the trust and respect the American people once
had for this great institution.
The significant long-term impact of this bill will be that we pass
better laws. Knowing that what we pass will affect us directly will
surely make us more vigilant, more pragmatic, and maybe more reluctant
when making the laws.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

{time} 0100

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. Rosa DeLauro], one of our chief deputy whips.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1, the
Congressional Accountability Act and to commend my friend and colleague
from Connecticut [Chris Shays] for his determination to see this
important legislation come to pass. I also want to pay tribute to
former Democratic Congressman Dick Swett of New Hampshire who worked
tirelessly in the last Congress on behalf of this common sense
legislation. I might add that it was a Democratic Congress which acted
to advance this legislation, only to see it blocked by Republicans in
the other body.
The Congressional Accountability Act simply requires that Congress
abide by all the laws it passes. It's a proposal that is long overdue
and one that will move Government closer to the people.
Politicians have set an unequal standard that put them above the
people. That was wrong. And, it helps to account for the growing
disaffection in the country. By passing this legislation, the people
are one step closer to reclaiming this body, which has historically
been the people's House. Let's pass the Congressional Accountability
Act.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. McKeon] who was president of the Republican freshman
class last year and a technical cosponsor.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and
for all his outstanding work in bringing this bill to this stage.
Mr. Speaker, at every meeting that I attend back home, the one
question that always comes up is how can Congress pass laws and then
exempt itself. We are supposed to be representative of the people, but
we have consistently treated ourselves differently.
I will be the first to admit that I wish we were all exempt from some
of the laws and regulations Congress has passed in the last few ears.
As a businessman, I have felt the burden of government regulation, but
as a Congressman I am exempt from it. That must change.
The Shays amendment is based on a simple principle of fairness. This
legislation will require the Congress to comply with the same rules it
passes. Just as we back home cannot be above the law, Congress cannot
be above the laws it passes by claiming special legislative privilege.
The clock has run out on business as usual. Congress must regain the
trust of the American people by living under the same laws it imposes
on the private sector. I urge you to support the Shays amendment and
return accountability to Congress.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson].
(Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1, the Congressional
Accountability Act. This bill, which is substantially the same
legislation that the House of Representatives passed last August,
represents a long-overdue step toward ensuring both that legislative
branch employees are treated fairly, and that Members of Congress, as
employers, are held to the same standards that our laws demand of
private-sector employers.
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.
Last year, the House of Representatives demonstrated that it was in
overwhelming agreement that workplace laws should apply by passing H.R.
4822, the Congressional Accountability Act, by a vote of 427 to 4.
Those of us who
[[Page H98]] are strong supporters of this legislation were hopeful--
right up until the last moment of the 103d Congress--that the momentum
generated by our strong showing on the vote would galvanize the other
body to follow suit, and that we would complete action on this
legislation before adjourning.
Unfortunately, that did not happen, and so we are back here today, on
this first day of the new Congress, considering again a bill which
rightly deserves the high priority it has been given by the new House
leadership.
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 7 years, the House has applied the Fair Labor Standards
Act and other antidiscrimination measures to House employees through
the Rules of the House. As Congress has passed new laws, such as the
Family and Medical Leave Act, we have applied those new measures to the
House as well.
However, neither the range of laws we have applied to the House, nor
the manner in which they are applied, is comparable to the application
of laws to the private sector. Not all the laws that apply elsewhere
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 in
November 1993. The Joint Committee, drawing from the original bill
authored by the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], and our former
colleague 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 last spring, and with further efforts by
Representatives Shays, Swett, and others, the Joint Committee's
recommended legislation was revised in several respects. The result was
that H.R. 4288 as considered (and further amended) by the House 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 bill before us, which reflects 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 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
The Americans With Disabilities Act;
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act;
The Family and Medical Leave Act;
The Occupational Safety and Health Act;
The Federal Labor Management Relations Act;
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act;
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act; and
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
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 8-member Board of Directors, all of
whom would be appointed jointly by the Speaker and the minority leader
of the House, and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. 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 bill 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 4 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. Eight 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, regardless of whether regulations are promulgated by that time.
The bill 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 bill 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, passage of this bill 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. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Upton], an original cosponsor of the bill.
Mr. UPTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time that Congress starts to do what it asks
everyone else to do: Live under its own laws. When I walk into a
restaurant in my home town in Michigan, the owners of that restaurant
must abide by a litany of Federal laws. The kitchen is regulated by
OSHA, the doors and tables and chairs must abide by the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the employees and managers are protected by the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 to name just a few. Each year we pass more and
more regulations on American businesses. It is time for us to start
practicing what we preach, and walk the walk.
The House passed this bill before during the 103d Congress. Elements
of this measure were approved by a whopping margin of 348 to 3.
However, it was the last vote of the very last day of the 103d
Congress. We have an opportunity to act again on the issue on the very
first day of the 104th Congress. Let us
[[Page H99]] take advantage of this special time as all of America
watches and send a message back home that we are willing to live under
the laws that we make. On the day we perhaps cut Congress' budget by
$50 to $100 million, let us do the same thing, impose the same rules on
us as on everyone else, the same laws that we ought to live under.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Georgia [Ms. McKinney].
Ms. McKINNEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase Yogi Bera, its deja vu all over again.
This bill ought to look familiar because this House overwhelmingly
passed it last year. I am happy to vote for congressional compliance 25
times if need be.
Mr. Speaker I find it ironic that on the day we cut committee staff
by a third and put thousands of people out of work we celebrate. Mr.
Speaker, I also find it ironic that as we cut the committee staff by a
third, the office budgets of the new Speaker and the new majority
leader have increased by nearly 50 percent.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that we enact this legislation that
protects employees.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Peter Blute.
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and neighbor from
Connecticut for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, tonight this is a very important issue that we deal
with. It is true that the Shays act is about accountability and the
arguments about the particulars of the bill have been made ably by
Members of the both parties. It is a true bipartisan effort that we
deal with tonight.
But there is one more important aspect of the Shays act that I think
we should focus on as we cast our votes. Tonight we have an opportunity
to do something about the perception out there in the land that Members
of Congress are somehow a privileged elite. We have an opportunity to
do something about the view of our constituents that somehow we are
above the law. We have an opportunity to show our constituents that we
are not in a distant capital and not understanding of their real-world
problems.
Worst of all is the perception that the Congress is an arrogant
institution. We have an opportunity tonight to deal with that issue.
Let us take the first step by passing the Shays act and begin to
rehabilitate the reputation of our great institution.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my objection to the procedure by
which we are dealing with this. Tom Foley, our former Speaker, has
been, it seems to me, unfairly maligned to some extent.
Let us contrast the way we passed this bill, and we passed this bill,
as the gentleman from Connecticut has been very decent in pointing out,
under Tom Foley's leadership; but we passed it not in the middle of the
night. I understand we are here at 10 after 1 in the morning because we
are in the midst of this revolution, we are going to work hard except
we are taking off now, I gather, for about 10 days. So we stay up late
at night, rush this bill through, no amendments are allowed, no
discussion will come through. Members are aware, for instance, and I am
in favor of this, but it says in here no Member of Congress will be
personally liable for the payment of compensation. I think that makes
sense.
{time} 0110

I do not think all the Members have had a chance to talk about this.
This bill does not apply the Freedom of Information Act to Congress. It
says we will study it. I think that is a sensible thing, but those are
things that ought to be talked about.
This bill, unlike the bill we had before, allows Members to use
federally funded frequent flyer miles, and that is not easy to say for
me. It allows those to be used for personal use. Now people in the
private sector cannot do that. What we are doing with this is giving
good intentions a bad name.
Yes, it is a good bill. It is a good bill when we worked it out last
year. Typically the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] tries very
hard to be bipartisan, but sometimes, I guess, there are constraints.
This is an all partisan sponsorship. This bill was bipartisan until
now. What we have got is this silly insistence of rushing this bill
through with no amendments at 1 o'clock in the morning when we are
about to take 10 days off and do absolutely nothing so the Republicans
can take something that was passed under Democratic leadership last
year and claim authorship of it.
Mr. Speaker, they are lucky that one particular bill does not apply
to Congress, the copyright laws, because if it did, this example of
intellectual theft and attempted partisan piracy would be ruled
illegal.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield a minute and a half to my colleague,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr. Shays] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, how interesting it is to note the tone of the debate for
this last bill this evening. Most of it has been spoken in
bipartisanship, and I say that it is music to the ears of most. I think
even the old bulls, and the young freshmen, and the sophomores, and
juniors--I look at for 4 years of floor action where the outcome, most
of it was predetermined before it ever came to the floor. In only 16
years, only one Republican motion to recommit passed in 16 years. That
is a crime, and that should not happen from our side to the now-
minority either.
I would say to my colleagues, Yes, fight. I did not vote for a single
closed rule in 4 years unless it had been cleared by the majority and
the minority, and I would fight for continued open rules in most cases.
The king-of-the-hill rule in which not a single Republican win was
recorded because the outcome was afforded before it ever got to the
floor, and that is not in the best interests of the minority or the
majority.
Most of the problems that I have seen in the last 4 years have come
out of the leadership, not just the Democratic leadership, and I think
the challenge is to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] and the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] to make sure that as much as
possible the political rhetoric is taken out of these bills.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. It has bipartisan
support, and, no, it is not perfect. But I would ask my colleagues to
support it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], and I welcome him back to this Chamber.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Shays] for yielding this time to me, and I realize the hour is getting
late, colleagues. I can even hear some audible snoring, so I will take
less than my minute and just point out tonight we are ending the double
standard that has existed for more than 50 years in this institution
and in the process that we are demonstrating to the people that we are
willing to change in that Congress no longer considers itself above the
law. The Congressional Accountability Act should be approved, and I am
heartened to see the bipartisan support for this legislation.
I thank the gentleman for yielding and congratulate him on his
leadership. House action on the Congressional Accountability Act is
long overdue.
Mr. Speaker, in the 102d Congress, I had the privilege of serving as
chairman of the congressional coverage coalition. We continually
attempted to bring Congress under the same employment laws as the rest
of the country, but we were stymied in our efforts.
We sought to cover Congress under the Family and Medical Leave Act,
but were prevented by the Rules Committee from even offering the
amendment. We wanted to bring staff under statutory civil rights
protections, but were similarly rebuffed. Again, we weren't even given
a chance to debate the merits and vote.
These amendments were offered at a time when Congress was being
described by the media as ``peak city;'' as a place out of touch with
the real world; and--most damning of all--was the ``imperial
Congress.''
People reacted with boiling anger when stories such as the House bank
and House dining room fiascoes became public knowledge.
[[Page H100]] Many Members of Congress just couldn't understand why
the public was so aroused. Congress was desensitized.
Americans who run businesses--great and small--must comply with
burdensome regulations. It is unconscionable that Congress exempted
itself from every major employment and civil rights law it passed.
Businesses have long complained about bureaucratic overregulation.
One likely reason that Congress has not been responsive is that it has
not been subject to these same demands.
Those who want to continue the status quo will say that employees
have protections in the House. They will point to the Office of Fair
Employment Practices.
It is true that such an office was created in response to earlier
scandals. But House employees are denied the right given to other
workers to appeal adverse decisions in Federal court.
We may also be told that Congress has treated itself differently ``to
preserve separation of powers.'' Isn't this the same argument that has
been made by Members who tried to insulate themselves from criminal
charges? And haven't the courts routinely rejected that argument?
Today we are ending a double standard that has existed for more than
50 years.
We are demonstrating to the people that we are willing to change, and
that Congress no longer considers itself above the law. The
Congressional Accountability Act should be approved.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Allard]. I point out to Members here that he was a member
of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress that championed
this legislation.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, change has been the key word the last couple
months and today it truly began. The Congressional Accountability Act
is the first big step! There are many reasons to support this
legislation, but some still have their reservations about complying
with the same laws as all other Americans, so I want to address some of
the myths surrounding Congressional Accountability.
One argument concerns the constitutional separation of powers between
the three branches of government. This is based on the concern over
executive and judicial branch oversight of Congress. If this were a
problem, then the executive branch would be exempt as well and the
Supreme Court would have upheld this separation in precedent cases.
However, the opposite is true, the executive must comply and the
Supreme Court has never upheld this idea.
I have also heard the claim that elected officials, especially
members of Congress, are uniquely vulnerable to charges against them
and their jury would be an angry electorate. In my mind, political
vulnerability is no different from economic vulnerability. This
reaction is no different from the complaints of private sector
employers facing complaints or suits from disgruntled employees, labor
unions, or unscrupulous competitors. We should be required to defend
our actions in the same manner as the people in the private sector.
Plus, members of Congress are not willing to grant similar exemptions
from the laws to elected state and local officials or to their
political challengers.
So what will Congressional compliance allow? First, this Congress
would again become a citizens legislature. Why,
because we would become true citizens again. We would have to live
under the rules which we have imposed on everyone else. Congressional
compliance makes Members of Congress become members of their community
and see how government rules and regulations affect people's lives.
Just maybe, this bill will make Congress stop and ask the question ``If
this law is too burdensome for the U.S. House, then maybe it is too
burdensome for everybody else.''

That is why I want to encourage all my colleagues to support H.R. 1.
This bill will make us accountable to all the legislation we have
passed.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
(Mr. FOX asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
I stand in strong support of the Shays Act.
In the last 40 years, Congress has not been required to live under
the laws it passes.
Passage of the congressional accountability law will change all that.
It is both fitting and proper that this fundamental reform be the
first bill adopted by the 104th Congress which can and should receive
unanimous bipartisan support.
Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ehlers). What is the gentleman's
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the House just adopted a
rule sponsored by the Republican Party which says that the
Congressional Record will from hereon be a substantially verbatim
transcript, so when the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] asks
unanimous consent to revise and extend, I do not know what he could
revise.
As I understand the rule, it says one can make punctuation and
grammatical corrections, so are we adding semicolons? I mean what will
appear in the Record as a result of that request because we have a new
rule now? I would like to know what would appear in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair the new standing
rule of the House establishes a standard for the actual remarks to
appear only as spoken in debate. Absent a unanimous consent permission
to extend and revise remarks, a Member may not include any additional
portion of the remarks not actually uttered on the floor either by way
of revision or extension. By obtaining unanimous consent to revise and
extend, a Member will be in effect able to relax the otherwise strict
prohibition contained in clause 9 of rule XIV, but only in two
respects: No. 1, to revise and/or to make technical, grammatical and
typographical corrections; and, 2, to extend remarks, and this is the
key point.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Well, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Let me finish. Two, to extend remarks which
have not been actually uttered in debate, which remarks would appear in
distinctive type style and could not be confused with remarks actually
uttered.
Thus the unanimous consent permission would not permit prepared or
revised remarks not actually uttered in debate to be substituted for
remarks actually uttered, but would only permit the supplementation in
a distinctive type style to follow all the remarks actually uttered. In
no event would the actually uttered remarks be removable. The Chair
will direct the Committee on House Oversight to promulgate rules for
printing of the Congressional Record consistent with this
interpretation. The Record will carry a daily notice to all readers to
this effect.
{time} 0120

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, continuing my parliamentary
inquiry, if a Member then says ``I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend and I oppose the bill,'' he cannot change that wording, is that
correct, except to add punctuation, like an exclamation point? Is it
correct that that wording would then appear? Then as I would understand
it, if this is correct further, anything beyond that would appear in a
distinctive typeface.
Mr. Speaker, would it indicate it was not uttered on the floor, or
would it just be a distinctive typeface?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct. The distinctive
typeface would pertain to the comments turned in to the Clerk.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary
inquiry. The Chair explained anything uttered could not be changed, but
something not uttered could be included in a separate typeface. So if
one wanted to get a perfect set of remarks in, would one not be better
advised not to utter anything because you could not change the
utterance, but instead, put it in in writing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That would generally be a wiser course of
action.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary
inquiry, and I think Members should be
[[Page H101]] aware of this, because this is a new rule for Members who
have been here for a while. As I understand it, rising and asking for
unanimous consent to revise and extend your remarks and saying you are
in opposition, gives you the right to be in the Record to say only that
and nothing further, except in a typeface that indicates you were not
speaking. Is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is the Chair's understanding.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske].
(Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, let me say, first, what a privilege it is for me to join
this great body, and I want my children to be proud also. That is why
we should pass this bill. It is the right thing to do. Congress should
operate under the same laws everybody else does--it is only fair. But
more importantly Congress will learn the practical consequences of
these laws. Prior to November 8, I was a surgeon, essentially running a
small business. When Congress has to deal with the same laws and
regulations that small businesses do, I predict that we will modify
many of the laws in a more commonsense way. I urge you to vote for this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is very fitting that my first floor statement as the
new Representative of the Fourth District of the State of Iowa is about
congressional reform.
Congressional reform was a major concern to the voters in last
November's elections, throughout the country and specifically in the
Fourth District of Iowa. Citizens concerned about the future of this
country insisted that Congress needed to reform itself and make the
Federal Government responsive to the people. The voters demanded
control of their government.
Today, on this first day of the 104th Congress, I am proud to say to
the people of the Fourth District of Iowa, that the new Republican
majority is doing just that.
Today, I will be voting for nine major reforms of this institution--
reforms that are long overdue. Reforms that will forever change the way
business is done in Washington. These reforms include: Applying all
laws to Congress; cutting the number of committees and subcommittees;
cutting committee staff by a third; opening committee meetings to the
public; limiting the terms committee chairmen can serve; banning proxy
voting in committees; requiring a three-fifths majority to increase
income tax rates; ending phony accounting by restoring honest numbers
and zero baselines to the Federal budget process; and announcing a
comprehensive independent audit of the House books.
The House of Representatives will no longer exempt itself from the
laws they write. The Congressional Accountability Act ensures Members
of Congress must observe employment laws, occupational health and
safety laws, as well as other laws. If the American people have to live
under these laws, it is high time that Congress do the same.
In the last 25 years, the Democrats have increased the budget of the
Congress by 700 percent and tripled the size of committee staff. The
last time the House dissolved a standing committee was 1947. That is
going to change beginning today.
Three committees will be shut down--Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
Post Office and Civil Service, and the District of Columbia committee.
Committee chairs will be required to eliminate an additional 25
subcommittees, and committee staff will drop from nearly 2,000 this
year to about 1,300.
Legislative Service Organizations are groups for like-minded members
supported by congressional staff, housed in congressional buildings,
and often spending the taxpayers' money with little or no
accountability. This type of abuse is one reason the public distrusts
our government. Well, no more. These organizations will be eliminated.
These reforms are just the beginning. Any institution that is not
constantly reforming itself in the face of changing times will soon
collapse. I say to my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, that these
reforms are dramatic and historic, but they are just the beginning of a
long journey to redeeming the reputation of the U.S. Congress.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue to bring new
changes to this institution, today and well into the future.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Royce].
(Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for a longstanding
Republican initiative that we have waited many years to see become law.
It would put into permanent law section 108 of the rules changes which
we just adopted. Simply put, it will subject Congress to the same laws
that we apply to everyone else. I call it the golden rule. No American
should be immune from the law or receive special treatment in its
application, but that is what Congress has done by routinely exempting
itself from the very laws it imposes upon others.
A double standard is a symbol of the arrogance of power which
epitomizes Washington for so many citizens. It will also spur lawmakers
to review more carefully the laws they pass.
In summary, if we pass it, we have to live by it. I urge an aye vote.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I am going to congratulate
Members on both sides of the aisle for the work they have put into this
bill over the last several sessions. The gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr. Shays] has been particularly active and has done a great job,
along with the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Swett, in the last
session. It is about time this bill has come to the floor so we can
actually get it implemented.
But I hope there will be two things that come as a result of this
legislation actually being enacted. First is that Members will begin to
realize when we are drafting bills and we are building bills here on
the floor, that the full weight of these bills will in fact fall upon
us as Members of Congress. I think that with the passage of this bill,
that Members will recognize that fact, that we are going to have to
live under these. We might be a little more cautious.
Second, I would point out that we ought to, as we begin to live under
these laws, we are going to realize that the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Civil Rights Act, and other laws we have exempted ourselves from,
are rather weighty. They are weighty on the private sector, and they
are going to be very difficult for all of the Members to comply with
under our current structure. So we are going to have two choices, and
we ought to have a debate about whether we should continue to live
under the laws as they were drafted, or whether in fact we ought to go
back and listen to what the American people said on November 8 when
they said Government is too big, it spends too much, and is too
intrusive, and maybe we ought to look at some of those laws and revise
a lot of them.
Let me also say as we begin to close this debate tonight, that as
this opening day comes to a close, we have lived up to the first part
of our Contract with America. We have had real reform of the people's
House. And just as important as that was, today we did that in a very
bipartisan manner. And I hope that as we continue over the next 99
days, we will continue to pass the rest of the Contract with America in
this same spirit of bipartisanship.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in November there were 435 contracts made in each of our
districts, and we came here to represent as best we can the aspirations
and the hopes of our constituents.
I would hope that as we proceed, that we together work to merit and
properly explain this institution so that we can merit the respect of
the American public.
I want to tell my new friends on both sides of the aisle who have
come here that we spend a lot of time in this institution denigrating
this institution. We have 435 campaigns that spend millions of dollars,
and on both sides of the aisle we tell the American public how bad this
institution is.
That is a disservice. It is a disservice to this institution, and it
is a disservice to our democracy. It is no wonder that the American
public has come to believe that this institution is not as good as I
believe it to be, having served here for 14 years, and is peopled by
individuals of integrity, patriotism, and commitment to the common
good.
We have differences. But few of my colleagues on either side of the
aisle I believe do not have their constituents' best interests at heart
and want to serve the best interests of their country.
I say that in the context that many of these laws do in fact apply to
the Congress. What they do not do, as has
[[Page H102]] been observed, is give the redress that is given in the
private sector.
That has been done for some very legitimate reasons in terms of the
separate but equal status of this body with the executive department
which is called upon in other instances to enforce these statutes. And
determination has been made that it would be inappropriate to subject
one coequal body to regulation by another coequal body. In fact, this
very legislation, which is bipartisan in nature, addresses that concern
and sets up an Office of Compliance within the Congress.
So as we in a bipartisan fashion pass this piece of legislation,
which some believe will show how onerous are the protections we have
extended to employees, and some of us believe how appropriate it is to
extend to our own employees the protections for their safety, for their
health, and for nondiscrimination that we have extended to employees
throughout this country.
{time} 0130

So I join my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. I
regret, frankly, that my friend, the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr.
Swett, is not here.
I congratulate all those, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and others who
have been involved in bringing to fruition this very difficult piece of
legislation.
I want to reiterate the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Frank]. Speaker Foley, knowing full well that this was a difficult
piece of legislation, nevertheless said, ``We are going to bring it to
the floor. I want to see this legislation passed.'' In August we did
and it was passed. Unfortunately, it did not pass into law, but
fortunately for us, in a bipartisan fashion we can act tonight to do
what is right.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would conclude and not use all of my time, but would
thank the Members for their graciousness, and particularly thank the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for taking the place of the
gentleman from New Hampshire, Dick Swett, in this important debate. I
thank him from the bottom of my heart for treating it with such
seriousness.
I say to my Members that behind the Speaker is the flag of the United
States. The American people revere that flag, but that flag is a
symbol. It is a piece of cloth that represents so much. Our Founding
Fathers established in the Constitution this body, the people's body.
My hope and prayer is that the American people will respect Congress as
much as they respect the American flag.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1, and I am
proud to have been an original cosponsor last Congress and again this
Congress.
As we pass H.R. 1, we keep another promise to America--to end the
double-standard congressional exemption regarding civil rights and
employee protection laws. As a small businessperson and cosponsor of
this legislation, I fully support the three principles behind the
Congressional Accountability Act:
If a law is right for the private sector, it is right for Congress;
Congress will write better laws when it has to live by the same
burdens it imposes on the private sector and local governments.
And we do so by respecting the separation of powers embodied in the
Constitution and provide appeals to the courts.
Mr. Speaker, I have experienced first hand from a business standpoint
the financial burdens imposed by excessive unfunded Federal mandates
such the Family and Medical and Leave Act, OSHA laws, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
As we close this historic first day of the 104th Congress, having
significantly reformed the rules by which this institution operates, it
is appropriate that we bring these laws to bear on us as we have
imposed them on others. Hopefully, this will provide the discipline we
need to better scrutinize future bills in terms of costs and excessive
Federal intervention in our lives.
I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 1.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, my thanks to Representative Chris Shays for
not giving up on H.R. 1, the Congressional Accountability Act. The
gentleman from Connecticut should feel doubly rewarded since this very
bill passed the House once before--during the 103d Congress. Since the
Senate chose to turn it down, we are doing the right thing in
proceeding without hesitation to enact the Congressional Accountability
Act again today.
As a member of the Joint Committee on the Organization of the
Congress, I took a special interest in applying our laws to Members. I
felt obligated to do so as a past chair of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, which has jurisdiction over many of the laws at
issue today in this bill. Give the House credit, however, for having
years ago applied these laws to itself. What has been missing was not
the laws but an enforcement mechanism independent of the House. I am
particularly proud that this mechanism is the central contribution of
the Congressional Accountability Act.

This bill more than meets the standard set by those who sought
passage of a law to apply congressional acts to the Congress itself.
H.R. 1 sets a higher standard. For example, H.R. 1 allows employees to
go immediately to court or to an administrative hearing to initiate a
claim of discrimination. As a lawyer and former professional in the
field, I have some reservations about eliminating the useful and
ancient rule that claimants exhaust administrative remedies before
proceeding to more costly and cumbersome court processes. The courts
are already clogged. These days they should be reserved as much as
possible for matters such as criminal trials. Cost-free administrative
resolution of claims of the kind encompassed by H.R. 1 is always less
expensive and often far more yielding of appropriate remedies in
shorter periods of time.
Nevertheless, if this bill passes we must celebrate the choice to
allow Members and employees to submit to an administrative process
where hearing officers are selected from a rotating list of
professionals recommended by the Administrative Conference of the
United States and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The
independence of the factfinding process from control of the House is
extraordinary for a legislative body and does great honor to the House.
I hope that this time Members in the majority will insist that
Republicans in the Senate take the lead of their Republican colleagues
in the House and make the Congressional Accountability Act the law of
the land.
I am pleased to support H.R. 1.
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of
H.R. 1, the Congressional Accountability Act. This bill is the first
step toward fulfilling the Republican pledge to the American people to
demonstrate our sincerity about changing the way we conduct business in
this body. For over 100 years, beginning with the first exemption from
the Civil Service Act of 1883, Congress has absolved itself from laws
which apply to private employers and other Government employers. The
American people are not fooled--they recognize hypocrisy when they see
it. It's no surprise that a majority of the American people consider us
to be an elitist, privileged, out-of-touch group of individuals who can
not recognize that it is wrong to require compliance from the entire
Nation--except for ourselves. Thanks to the Republican leadership, we
now have a chance to change our image--to show the American people that
we too will accept the responsibility for complying with the laws that
we pass for the rest of America.
The bill before us today applies 10 laws to this body--the Fair Labor
Standards Act; title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Americans
with Disabilities Act; Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Family and
Medical Leave Act; Occupational Safety and Health Act; Federal Labor
Management Relations Act; Employee Polygraph Protection Act; Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act; and the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973. The newly created Office of Compliance will develop
regulations to apply these laws to Congress which are consistent with
application in the private sector. A four-step process is established
to address employee complaints. If, after the mediation process, the
complaint is not resolved, the aggrieved employee may seek redress in
U.S. District Court for alleged violations.
I am confident that the legislation before us today will strengthen
our credibility with the American people. It is time for this body to
accept that we can no longer treat ourselves as a privileged body
unaccountable for actions which violate the laws of this Nation.
I look forward to passage and implementation of this bill.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Speaker, the concept of applying the laws of the land
to Congress has been one which I have been fighting for since I first
came to Congress. This is why I am pleased to see a bill on the floor
of the House which attempts to achieve this goal. The bill before us
today, H.R. 1, the Congressional Accountability Act, is a good step in
the direction of true congressional coverage, and it is very similar to
the bill of the same name which was passed by the House last August.
Both measures have been a long time in coming.
The hypocrisy of Congress in exempting itself from the very laws it
imposes on others is
[[Page H103]] so obvious, that one wonders how the practice so long
managed to escape wide criticism. In the last few years, however, we
have seen a change in the long-standing attitude that Congress is so
unique and so different that it simply must be afforded special
exemptions, even from employment laws, or it could not function; and
those of us who once felt alone in the wilderness in urging
Congressional coverage now have welcome company. The reality is that
the public is fed up, and Congress has been reacting. I am very pleased
that the Republican Leadership is bringing H.R. 1 to the floor today,
as the first bill to be passed as part of the Contract With America.
In my years in the House, it has become increasingly clear that
Congress, in its imperial wisdom, too cavalierly and too eagerly,
continues to place layer upon layer of regulatory requirements on the
private sector--without any deep understanding for what it is doing.
Congressional coverage is vitally important because it will help
Congress to adopt credible, effective and workable laws which affect
everyone else in the United States and will allow Congress to truly
feel the pain of the impact of these laws. If the statutes don't apply
to us, how in the world are we supposed to know how they will work in
the real world outside of the beltway?
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 sets up a Congressional Office of Compliance
which would be required to issue regulations to implement the
application of 10 laws to Congress. Although there is no committee
report language accompanying this bill, it is my understanding that the
bill's sponsor, my colleague, Mr. Shays, is looking to the August,
1994, report language which accompanied last year's legislation, to
provide guidance to the Office of Compliance. This report language
directs that the Compliance Office should implement the specific
provisions of the laws listed in the act to the greatest extent
possible, and that it is not the act's intent that existing law be
reinterpreted. I very
much agree with Mr. Shays on this point.

I am also heartened by the fact that the Occupational Safety and
Health Act is one of the statutes which will be applied to Congress. In
1993, I introduced the Congressional Safety and Health Act (H.R. 3458)
to extend OSHA protections to employees of the House and its
instrumentalities. Last year's Report language suggests an approach
which is modeled after my bill, to ensure that OSHA enforcement
mechanisms are applied to Congress that mirror, as closely as possible,
those found in the private sector.
With regard to remedies available to aggrieved employees, H.R. 1
copies the private sector process in allowing private law suits in
court, with jury trials, where the underlying law allows for such law
suits. In my view, this is a very important provision in the bill,
because Congressional employees should be entitled to the same type of
damages as private sector employees under the relevant laws.
I must emphasize that if Members of Congress and Senators are not
subjected to the same employee remedies which exist under many of the
laws of the land, especially in the area of ``place-of-employment''
labor law, then we will not have true Congressional coverage of these
laws. This is not very well known, because Members are currently exempt
from the most important aspect of many private sector laws, the right
of employees to sue the employer in trial court for damages. In this
day and age, these employee rights are what put the ``teeth'' into many
of our private sector labor laws--and in ever increasing frequency,
Congress is expanding these rights.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to one of the laws included in H.R. 1, the
Family and Medical Leave Act, I am pleased today to see that Members
will be supporting the correct position on its application to
Congress--a position which was not accepted when I offered my motion to
recommit the FMLA bill when it was considered by the House in 1993. My
motion would have allowed Congressional employees to use judicial
remedies in the FMLA's enforcement and would have allowed Members to be
sued in Federal court for violations of the Act. H.R. 1 does, with the
exception of allowing punitive damages and Member liability for
wrongdoing, achieve the same result that I attempted to accomplish with
my motion last year.
H.R. 1, however, although it provides major improvements in terms of
employee rights, still is still very deficient in the area of employer
accountability. Under this bill, all Members of Congress, Senators, and
heads of employing offices are totally shielded from any financial
liability resulting from wrongdoing, even in proven cases of egregious
violations of the law. This is a step back from the current procedures
of the existing House Office of Fair Employment Practices, which
provide for award payments from Members' office accounts. The bill also
sets up a separate fund and provides for government-paid attorney
representation, no matter how outrageous the behavior or allegations in
question. In addition, H.R. 1 expressly excludes awards of punitive
damages. Where is the sting here? If only private sector companies were
lucky enough to have this arrangement!
In the final analysis, the lack of employer accountability in this
legislation will likely result in additional litigation against
Congressional employers, because the ``deep pocket'' of the
government--the taxpayers--will pay for any damages or attorney fees
which are awarded.
Mr. Speaker, despite these defects in the bill, it is still an
improvement over the current situation. I would also hope that the
shortcomings I mentioned can be addressed in conference with the
Senate. There are many members who should be thanked for their work on
this issue, but I would like to specifically recognize several of my
colleagues: Mr. Shays for his perseverance in promoting their
legislation; Mr. Dreier and Mr. Hamilton for their work in the Joint
Committee on the Organization of Congress, on which H.R. 1 is based;
Mr. Goodling, the new Chairman of the Economic and Educational
Opportunities Committee who introduced legislation in 1993 which guided
the authors of H.R. 1 and ensured that we have a better product before
us today; and finally, the new Republican Leadership--Speaker Gingrich
and Majority Leader Armey for having the wisdom and the foresight to
include Congressional coverage as part of the Contract With America.
I only hope that the Senate will follow our lead and will pass
similar legislation in the near future so that we may go to conference
and send a bill to the President this year--one that provides a real
and workable mechanism for making Congress subject to the same laws it
mandates on the private sector.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Congressional Accountability Act and applaud those leaders on both
sides of the aisle for bringing this legislation forward in the House.
In the 103d Congress, Democrats and Republicans in the House acted
responsibly and passed this important and long overdue legislation. I
am pleased that it is one of the first orders of business in the 104th
Congress.
One of the reasons I strongly support this legislation is that it
will--for the first time--extend Federal labor law to the U.S. Capitol
Police.
For the past 2 years, I have waged a lonely struggle to get the House
leadership to address the serious morale problem which exists on the
U.S. Capitol Police. Over the past 10 years, dramatic progress has been
made in transforming the Capitol Police form a patronage club to one of
the best trained and most professional law enforcement agencies in the
country. unfortunately, the upgrades in training and professional
standards have not been matched by parallel advances in labor or
management policies. I have found instances of age, sex, and racial
discrimination. I have found that in all too many instances management
is petty, unsympathetic, and incompetent. The Capitol Police Board has
made some important changes, but has done nothing to address the
fundamental structural problems that exist. For example, the
ombudsperson they established to hear complaints and grievances reports
directly to management, and is perceived by the rank and file as a tool
of management and not as an objective third party who can resolve
problems.
The 3-day demonstration on the steps of the Capitol in February 1994
was proof positive that the morale problem is widespread, and not
simply a matter of a few disgruntled officers making a lot of noise.
There is a serious problem and Congress can't ignore it.
Many of the problems on the force could be effectively addressed
simply by giving the rank and file what every other Federal law
enforcement agency has: collective bargaining rights. As a Democrat, I
am ashamed of the fact that the party of the working man and woman has
turned its back on the brave officers who protect and serve them every
day.
With passage of the Congressional Accountability Act, Congress has
the opportunity to right this wrong. The act would afford the U.S.
Capitol Police with the same labor rights as other Federal law
enforcement officers.
The legislation would allow for a 2-year grace period before the
Capitol Police would be permitted to collectively bargain. I intend to
ask the Speaker and other congressional leaders to waive this provision
and afford the rank and file the right to collectively bargain
immediately. I would also strongly recommend that action be taken to
fully professionalize the management of the force so that the officers
are being led by experienced and competent managers.
By acting swiftly on this issue we will be sending a positive message
to the rank and file that--at long last--those who run the House care
about the men and women who protect the House.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the
Congressional Accountability Act.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H104]] The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ehlers). Pursuant to
section 108 of House Resolution 6, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 429,
nays 0, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 15]

YEAS--429

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lambert-Lincoln
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--4

Brown (FL)
Martinez
Stark
Yates

{time} 0146

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

____________________