[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.
  

                          ____________________