[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 2 (Thursday, January 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S439-S456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


              THE CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  [[Page S440]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we are now on the bill to extend coverage 
to the Congress? Is that the bill before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there has been some comment concerning my 
activities regarding this bill at the end of last session. I want to 
state for the Record what happened.
  Right toward the end of the session, there was an attempt to call up 
the bill. I had an appointment with a physician to check a basic 
problem--we thought it was a sheared hamstring muscle--and I asked my 
friend from Mississippi, Senator Lott, if he would object to bringing 
the bill up until I had a chance to see it. The Rules Committee had one 
version of the bill and I believe Governmental Affairs had another. I 
wanted a chance to examine that bill. To my dismay at the time, the 
problem I perceived I had was not the problem and 14 hours later I 
underwent a very serious, major operation on my spine. I never returned 
to the Senate.
  I did not intend to block the bill. I did have a request that I be 
able to see the bill, but since I never got back to the Senate, to my 
knowledge no attempt was made after that time to raise the bill. But I 
have heard comment again this morning, in the press, that I had 
filibustered the bill. That is not true and I think the Record should 
show my request was a request to examine the bill. I never had the 
opportunity to do that since I never got back to the Senate during that 
part, the last part of the Senate, due to that operation.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bumpers and Mr. Leahy pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 151, S. 152, S. 153, S. 154, S. 155, S. 156, and S. 
157 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the first bill 
that the 104th Senate will consider is the Congressional Accountability 
Act. This bill presents the opportunity to show the country that the 
Senate has listened to the American people. We will demonstrate that 
the new Senate knows that the American people want us to end business 
as usual.
  I appreciate the leadership that Senator Lieberman has provided on 
this legislation over the years. He is equally committed to reforming 
Congress. Our views on this legislation are identical. And I am pleased 
that the task of congressional coverage has benefited from a bipartisan 
approach.
  I also wish to thank Senator Dole for bringing up this legislation. 
His commitment to this legislation is outstanding. He is a true 
reformer in the best sense of the word. And he is committed to ending 
the injustices that have existed for congressional employees for so 
many years. The majority leader established a number of working groups 
to advise him on measures that should be taken in the 104th Senate. 
Senator Fred Thompson and I cochaired the Working Group on 
Congressional Coverage. I know that Senator Thompson has worked hard on 
this legislation, and I appreciate his assistance in this effort. It is 
an auspicious beginning to his career as a Senator. Other members of 
the working group included Senators Nickles, Gorton, Smith, Stevens, 
Abraham, Coats, and Hutchison.
  Moreover, our efforts to ensure congressional compliance with the 
laws it passes benefited from Senator Roth's willingness to let this 
legislation be brought to the floor immediately. Additionally, Senator 
Glenn worked on the issue over quite a few years when he chaired the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. I am also delighted that this bill has 
dozens of cosponsors, from both parties, all parts of the country, and 
all across the ideological spectrum.
  This bill represents the culmination of an effort that I began 
several years ago, when I first attempted to offer an amendment to a 
civil rights bill that would have brought Congress under labor and 
employment laws. That attempt failed, as did my attempt to amend the 
Americans With Disabilities Act in 1989.
 My amendment was accepted by the then-Senate leadership but was 
rendered ineffective in conference. And I was not even allowed to offer 
my amendment to the family leave bill when the Senate debated it in 
1991.

  Congress can no longer refuse to live by the laws it passes. The time 
is long overdue for Congress to correct this practice, and that is what 
this bill does. It completes the process begun in 1991 when the Senate 
passed the Grassley-Mitchell amendment applying the substantive 
provisions of the civil rights laws to the Senate. As I said back then, 
it was a good beginning--but only a beginning. So it is with some 
measure of satisfaction that I find myself speaking in favor of a bill 
that would finally require Congress to comply with a host of employment 
laws it has enacted for the private sector.
  Mr. President, since the 1930's Congress has passed laws that flowed 
from the assumption that Washington knew best. Congress set up 
burdensome statutory requirements on the operation of small businesses 
in this country. The burdens were increased through regulations issued 
by executive branch agencies pursuant to the statute.
  At the same time, Congress repeatedly exempted itself from the 
effects of those laws. Laws governed America, but not Congress. Workers 
were granted rights, but congressional workers were not. Those who made 
the laws did not live by them. Congress was immune from the excesses of 
the regulatory state. Congress became removed from the way its work 
affected everyone else.
  In this country, no one is above the law. But just as the Presidency 
suffered a tremendous loss of public confidence when an individual 
thought he was above the law, Congress suffered as Members thought they 
were above the law. Indeed, to me, this was one of the major reasons 
why Congress lost touch with the people. And it was one of the ways by 
which Congress displayed arrogance. Millions of Americans complained 
about the overreach of the Federal Government, but Congress, through 
its exemption from the law, could not know the depth of feeling from 
the grassroots. In November, the American people demanded that Congress 
be affected by the laws it passes. A number of Members who thought 
Congress should be above the law are no longer Members and no longer 
above the law.
  Let me remind my colleagues of someone who lost an earlier election, 
former Senator George McGovern.
 Senator McGovern believes that Congress has enacted unnecessary 
regulatory burdens that are strangling small business. Senator McGovern 
admits that he did not feel that way when he was a Member of this body, 
but he learned the reality of the operation of that legislation when he 
ran a small business after leaving office. I appreciate that Senator 
McGovern now says that he would have legislated differently had he 
known what the actual effects would have been.

  But Members of Congress learning of the effects of their votes only 
after leaving office will not solve the problem. Then, it is too late. 
Only if Members of Congress live with the consequences of their votes 
will the problem that Senator McGovern identified be corrected.
  I think that President Clinton has this issue exactly right as well. 
When we send this bill to him, he will sign it. As he stated in a July 
1992 interview, ``It's wrong for Congress to be able to put new 
requirements on American business as employers and then not follow that 
rule as employers themselves. They exempt themselves, historically, 
from all kinds of rules that private employers have to follow. And I 
think that one of the things that happens to people in government is 
they forget what it's like to be governed. They don't have any idea 
what it's like to be on the receiving end of a lot of these rules and 
regulations.''
  Of course, the Founding Fathers would be astonished to know that 
Congress had exempted itself from so many laws that it passed for the 
private sector. James Madison in Federalist 57 wrote that one of the 
primary guarantees of the people's liberty came from Congress living by 
whatever laws it passed. Madison wrote that Congress ``Can pass no law 
which will not have its full operation on themselves and 
[[Page S441]] their friends, as well as on the great mass of society. 
This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human 
policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates 
between them the communion of interest * * * of which few governments 
have furnished examples, but without which every government degenerates 
into tyranny * * * if this spirit ever be so far debased as to tolerate 
a law not obligatory on the legislature as well as on the people, the 
people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.''
  Mr. President, Madison was right. Of course, the low esteem in which 
Congress is currently held reflects the fact that there is no longer 
congruence of interests between the governors and the governed. The 
American people will no longer tolerate a law not obligatory on the 
legislature as well as the people.
  Under Madison's principle, because Members of Congress would be 
careful before they infringed their own liberties, the people's 
liberties would be zealously protected.
  Unfortunately, the corollary to the principle was equally true. 
Members of Congress who could protect their own liberties while 
infringing on the liberties of others were much more likely to fail to 
protect others' liberties. Congress enjoyed privilege through 
exemption. The time has come to end congressional royalism. The time 
has come to end the exemptions. Now, Congress must finally live under 
the same laws it passes for everyone else, to fulfill Madison's promise 
of the Constitution. And, now, employees of Congress must finally gain 
the same rights that their counterparts in the private sector enjoy.
  Like my colleagues, I take the notion of representative government 
very seriously. We are not Senators for ourselves. We do not hold this 
job as a matter of personal privilege. We are here to represent the 
interests of our constituents, our States and our country, and for no 
other reason. I think that exemptions from the operation of law 
interfere with representative government. I wonder how we truly can 
represent people who live by one set of laws when we live under 
different laws. Under the current system, our votes on various 
regulatory issues reflect our interests and not our constituents'. This 
must change if representative government is truly to function.
  When we pass this bill, we begin to restore the American people's 
faith in Congress. We will do so in five respects. First, we ensure 
that Members of Congress will know firsthand the burdens that the 
private sector lives with. By knowing those burdens, Congress may 
decide that the laws indeed are burdensome. That realization may lead 
to necessary reform of the underlying legislation. It is true that 
there will be additional costs imposed on Congress if this legislation 
passes. However, these are costs that the private sector has had to 
live with for years. And the Congressional Budget Office has estimated 
that costs of compliance will be only about $3-to-$4 million.
 While that is a considerable sum, it represents, for instance, only a 
fraction of the amount that Congress recently voted for a subway system 
to connect the Senate office buildings with the Capitol.

  The second benefit of requiring that Congress live under the laws it 
passes for others concerns future social legislation. If Congress knows 
that it will be bound by what it passes, Congress will be more careful 
in the future to respect the liberties of others.
  Third, passage of the bill will mean that congressional employees 
will have the civil rights and social legislation that has ensured fair 
treatment of workers in the private sector. Congress is the last 
plantation. It is time for the plantation workers to be liberated. 
Maybe it is more accurate to say that Congress and the judiciary are 
the last two plantations. Curiously, the only people who do not have to 
comply with the law are those who make the law and those who decide the 
cases under those laws. The judiciary has often interpreted legislation 
to be burdensome, perhaps in some instances, to be more burdensome than 
even the exempt Congress intended. Of course, an exempt judiciary has 
no reason to interpret the statute in a way to protect freedom. Under 
this bill, the judiciary will have to come up with a plan to provide 
coverage for its employees as well. I look forward to that proposal, 
and to enactment of legislation to cover the judiciary.
  The fourth general result of this legislation will be a public 
recognition that Congress has again discovered that it is subject to 
the will of the people, not the other way around. Congress will no 
longer be above the law. Members of Congress will no longer be first 
class citizens with unjustifiable special privileges.
  And fifth, Members of Congress will learn themselves of the 
litigation explosion that is choking small business in the country. 
When they see directly the litigation produced by the laws they pass, 
Congress will be very careful about creating additional liabilities for 
the private sector and additional work for the Federal courts. When 
they see how alternative dispute resolution operates, Members of 
Congress may appreciate the wisdom of encouraging additional 
alternative dispute resolution for all sorts of claims brought in the 
Federal courts.
  Every indication from polls, election returns, and the mail that we 
have received from constituents shows that nothing makes Americans 
madder than knowing that they have to live by laws that their 
Representatives in Congress do not. They are well justified in their 
anger. When we pass this bill, we will show them that we recognize the 
unfairness of the existing exemptions and the legitimacy of their 
concerns.
  S. 2 is the pending business under unusual circumstances. It has not 
been considered by any committee in this Congress. Nonetheless, it 
bears a close resemblance to S. 2071 from the 103d Congress.
  That bill was the subject of hearings in the Governmental Affairs 
Committee, and it was approved by the committee for floor 
consideration.
  Unfortunately, the bill was not able to be considered before the 
Congress adjourned, despite the fact that the other body had passed 
similar legislation.
  Although the Governmental Affairs Committee did issue a report to 
accompany S. 2071, this particular bill does not have a committee 
report. Although S. 2 is quite similar to S. 2071, there have been 
changes made in consultation with leaders from the other body.
  Accordingly, it will be necessary, in lieu of a committee report, for 
me to first describe the bill generally, and then to detail each aspect 
of the bill.
  S. 2 begins with the basic premise that the laws that govern the 
private sector should govern Congress unless it can be shown that 
important differences between Congress and the private sector justify 
some amount of change. The provisions of S. 2 also flow from a belief 
that judicial enforcement of the laws against the Congress is vital if 
those laws are to meaningfully apply.
  I strongly disagree with the implications of today's Washington Post 
article on the congressional coverage bill. That article implies that 
Congress is already covered under many of these laws and already lives 
under them, and that all that is changing is the remedies. That 
analysis misses the point. Let me provide an analogy.
  The Soviet Union's Constitution guaranteed the rights to freedom of 
speech, freedom of assembly, fair trial, and other rights that are 
similar to the American Constitution. They existed on paper. Any Soviet 
citizen could pull out that document and see that those rights existed. 
But of course, the rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are a 
reality and the rights guaranteed by the Soviet Constitution were an 
illusion. The reason for the difference: The American Constitution is 
enforced by an independent judiciary and the Soviet Constitution was 
not. The Soviet rights were nothing because there was no remedy.
  Similar to the Soviet Constitution, it is true that some of the laws 
this bill will apply to Congress already can be found in the United 
States Code as applying to Congress. But the remedies to make those 
rights exist in more than name only do not.
  ``The history of liberty is the history of procedures for protecting 
liberty,'' Justice Frankfurter once wrote, and until this bill is 
passed, congressional employees lack the remedies necessary to protect 
liberty.
  S. 2 will apply 11 laws to Congress that are either completely or 
partially 
[[Page S442]] inapplicable now. Those 11 laws are the Federal Labor 
Standards Act of 1964, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act of 1967, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Federal Service Labor 
Management Relations Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 
1988, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Veterans Reemployment Act.
  The bill provides different mechanisms for enforcement of these laws 
that correspond to their application to the private sector.
  If the underlying law provides for a private right of action in 
court, one model is followed. If the law would be administratively 
enforced in the private sector, then it is to be administratively 
enforced against Congress.
  For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, title I of the 
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, the Family and Medical Leave 
Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection 
Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and the 
Veterans Reemployment Act provide for enforcement through a private 
right of action in court. Under S. 2, any employee who alleges a 
violation of these statutes may also bring a private action in Federal 
district court. This represents the first time that this relief has 
ever been available to congressional employees. Before the employee may 
sue in court, however, the employee must exhaust administrative 
remedies available to him or her. These administrative remedies are the 
counseling and mediation provisions that now govern Senate employees 
under the Government Employee Rights Act from 1991 that Senator 
Mitchell and I drafted.
  I would now like to generally describe the operation of the 
legislation, and then detail its individual provisions.
  The purpose of S. 2 is to fully apply antidiscrimination and employee 
protection laws to Congress.
  The bill has eight key elements:
  First, rights and protections under key antidiscrimination and 
employment statutes would fully apply to the House of Representatives, 
the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget 
Office, and the Office of Technology Assessment.
  Second, a new Office of Compliance would be established to handle 
claims and issue rules. The office would be headed by an independent 
board of directors, removable only for cause.
  Third, for statutes providing a private right of action, an employee 
who believes there has been a violation could receive counseling and 
mediation services from the new office.
  Fourth, if such an employee's claim is not resolved by counseling or 
mediation, the employee may file a complaint with the office and 
receive a trial and decision from an independent hearing officer. This 
decision may be appealed to the board and to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
  Fifth, instead of filing a complaint with the office after counseling 
and mediation, the employee may choose to file an action in U.S. 
District court where a private sector employee could also bring a 
lawsuit in court. A jury trial may be requested under applicable law.
  Sixth, for underlying statutes providing for administrative 
enforcement exclusively, the office will enforce the statutes 
administratively. The employee could obtain Court review for actions 
the office brought that were resolved adversely to the employee.
  Seventh, since the General Accounting Office, the Government Printing 
Office, and the Library of Congress are already covered by 
antidiscrimination and employee protections laws, coverage would be 
expanded and clarified in certain regards.
  Additionally, the Administrative Conference will undertake a study of 
the application of these laws to the three instrumentalities, and will 
recommend any improvements in regulations and procedures and for any 
legislation.
  Eighth, to ensure compliance with these laws by the judicial branch, 
the Judicial Conference will undertake a study to determine how 
employees of the judiciary will obtain the rights and remedies 
conferred by these laws.


                  background and need for legislation

  Current law creates a patchwork of rights and protections for 
employees of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the 
congressional instrumentalities.
  Although Congress has made significant progress in extending 
employment laws to congressional employees, important gaps remain. The 
remaining exemptions, and significant differences in the manner and 
extent to which rights under these laws can be enforced, perpetuate the 
perception, and in at least some cases, the reality--of a double 
standard of special privilege for the legislative branch. This feeds 
the growing public cynicism about Congress.


       coverage and gaps in coverage of the senate, the house of 
       representatives, and the congressional instrumentalities.

  First, the Senate.--A number of major antidiscrimination and 
employment laws enacted in this century did not cover one or both 
Houses of Congress. Several laws, including Fair Labor Standards Act, 
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Civil Rights Act 
Amendments of 1972, were originally enacted without coverage for 
congressional employees, even while executive branch employees were 
expressly covered. The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations 
Statute and section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act 
established special programs for the executive branch, different from 
the corresponding programs for the private sector, but, again, Congress 
did not cover itself.
  The Employee Polygraph Protection Act and the Worker Adjustment and 
Retraining Notification Act did not apply to the Federal Government at 
all. Veterans reemployment provisions gave employees of Congress a 
Ramspeck remedy, but did not provide the private right of action and 
court access that private sector veterans enjoy.
  Over the past 15 years or so, and accelerating in the 1990's, 
Congress has taken considerable steps to apply these laws to itself. As 
far back as the 94th Congress, 1975-76, the Senate adopted Senate 
Resolution 534, which prohibited employment discrimination in the 
Senate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or 
handicap, and which encouraged the hiring of women and members of 
minority groups.
  With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, 
rights as established in the antidiscrimination laws were accorded to 
Senate employees.
  Enforcement, however, was through internal procedures before the 
Select Committee on Ethics, rather than through executive branch 
agencies or the courts. This act also obligated the Senate not to 
discriminate against members of the public on the basis of disability.
  Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, also known as the 
Government Employee Rights Act, reaffirmed the prohibition against all 
kinds of employment discrimination in the Senate.
  The 1991 act also established an Office of Senate Fair Employment 
Practices [OSFEP] and proved an internal Senate enforcement procedure 
consisting of: First, counseling, second, mediation, third, formal 
complaint and hearing before a board of three independent hearing 
officers, and fourth, review of the decision by the Senate Select 
Committee on Ethics.
  Finally, an appeal may be taken from the Ethics Committee decision to 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  Rights and protections under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 
have also been extended to Senate employees. These rights are 
enforceable through the procedures established in the Civil Rights Act 
of 1991.
  Thus, Senate employees enjoy the rights and protections of all of the 
antidiscrimination laws, as well as the Family and Medical Leave Act, 
albeit with a different enforcement mechanism than is provided in the 
private sector or the executive branch. However, the Fair Labor 
Standards Act and the Equal Pay Act do not apply to the Senate.
  [[Page S443]] Also, Senate employees do not have a right to trial in 
U.S. District Court, but they do have a right to trial before a panel 
of independent hearing examiners, and judicial review by a U.S. Court 
of Appeals.
  Second, the House of Representatives.--In 1988, the House of 
Representatives adopted the Fair Employment Practices Resolution, House 
Resolution 558, 100th Congress, which has been renewed and codified in 
House rule 51. This rule specifics that personnel actions shall be free 
from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, 
sex, disability, or age.
  In adoption, the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the 
Equal Pay Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act have been made 
applicable to the House.
  The House established an Office of Fair Employment Practices that has 
a 3-step process to be used by employees alleging discrimination: 
First, counseling and mediation, second, formal complaint, hearing by a 
hearing officer, and decision by the office, and third, final review of 
the decision of the office by an eight-member panel composed of four 
members of the Committee on House Administration and four officers and 
employees of the House.
  Thus, House employees enjoy rights and protections against 
discrimination, as well as rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 
the Equal Pay Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  However, the House process of enforcing and redressing these rights 
and protections is somewhat less independent than that in the Senate, 
and it affords no judicial review.
  Third, the instrumentalities--The various congressional 
instrumentalities have been made subject to some of these 
antidiscrimination and employee protection laws, but not to others. 
Coverage is uneven.
  The three largest instrumentalities--the General Accounting Office 
[GAO], the Government Printing Office [GPO], and the Library of 
Congress [LOC] are subject to these laws to much the same extent as 
executive branch agencies, although enforcement mechanisms frequently 
differ. Thus, the employees of these instrumentalities enjoy most of 
the rights and protections of the antidiscrimination laws, including 
the right to bring actions in U.S. District Court.
  These employees also have the rights and protections of the Family 
and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Federal 
Service Labor-Management Relations statute.
  These three instrumentalities, as Federal agencies, are also subject 
to the requirements of section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Act, and related provisions of section 7902 of title 5, United States 
Code, and they each have implemented compliance programs.
  However, under statute and established practice, certain of these 
instrumentalities have internal enforcement or grievance mechanisms 
where executive branch agencies would be subject to external regulation 
by other agencies.
  The Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, and 
the Office of Technology Assessment have substantially more limited 
coverage. Employees of the Architect of the Capitol enjoy rights and 
protections under the antidiscrimination laws, and were recently 
authorized to bring claims to the GAO Personnel Appeals Board.
  However, these employees have rights under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act that are not subject to 
external enforcement, and they are not covered under any labor-
management law. Employees of the CBO have the same rights and 
protections as House employees, and can bring claims to the House OFEP 
under House rule 51.
  Employees of OTA enjoy the rights and protections of 
antidiscrimination statutes and the Family and Medical Leave Act, but 
not the Fair Labor Standards Act. OTA has established its own internal 
grievance procedure.
  Last Congress, significant efforts were undertaken to remove the 
exemptions Congress has granted itself.
  Compliance with Federal laws for the legislative branch was also a 
major issue for the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 
which was charged in 1993 with presenting a legislative reorganization 
plan.
  There was a near consensus among the Senators and members of the 
House of Representatives who testified before the joint committee that 
congressional exemptions should end.
  At hearings before the Governmental Affairs Committee on June 29, 
1994, Dr. Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise 
Institute, stated:

       There is no subject now that inflames the public more, when 
     it comes to Congress, than this one [congressional coverage].

  He therefore urged that Congress get ``caught up with the curve of 
public opinion,'' or else Congress ``may be forced to take action that 
is far more destructive of the prerogatives of the institution, and of 
the taxpayers' purse,'' than the proposals now being considered for 
enactment.
  Members who testified or spoke at the Governmental Affairs 
Committee's hearing in June and at its meeting to mark up S. 2071 in 
September, were also nearly unanimous in supporting extension of 
coverage. Concern was expressed about reported and perceived 
inadequacies in existing employee rights and protections in the 
legislative branch.
  For example, there was concern about the high rate of workers' 
compensation claims by employees of the Architect of the Capitol, and 
about a GAO report documenting apparent inequities in the employment 
and hiring policies of the Architect.
  Also, studies were cited showing that the grievance process provided 
by the Office of the Architect was underutilized, presumably because of 
a lack of trust in the process, and that a sizable percentage of House 
and Senate employees expressed reluctance to use their respective 
grievance procedures because of a lack of trust.
  Additionally, the final report of the Joint Committee on the 
Organization of Congress stated: ``Witnesses were uniformly 
dissatisfied with the performance of the House Office of Fair 
Employment Practices [OFEP], which was established in 1989.'' H. Rep. 
No 103-413, vol. II, at page 147 (December 1993).
  They also expressed concern that an underutilization was caused by 
lack of employee trust in the process.


                          summary of proposal

                       A. What laws should apply?

  The guiding principle expressed by more than one member of the 
committee in considering this legislation is that Congress should be 
subject to the same laws as apply to a business back in a home State. 
The only exception should be where different rules are necessary to 
enable Congress to fulfill its constitutional and legislative 
responsibilities.
  This bill would apply 11 key anti-discrimination and employee-
protection laws to the Congress. These laws are:
  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
  The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
  The Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
  The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
  The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993,
  The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
  The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988,
  The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act,
  The Veterans Reemployment Act,
  The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and
  The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.


                         B. Bicameral structure

  Some Senators believe that to authorize executive branch agencies to 
enforce antidiscrimination and employment laws against Congress would 
create a dangerous entanglement between these two branches of 
Government.
  They think the legislative branch must be free from executive branch 
intimidation, real or perceived, and the enforcing agency must likewise 
be free of real or imagined intimidation by the legislative branch.
  The view has also been expressed that the Constitution requires each 
House to govern itself, independently of the other House. However, S. 2 
creates a Bicameral Office of Compliance. Self-government is an 
essential constitutional obligation of each House, but establishment of 
a single office to 
[[Page S444]] implement these laws jointly for the Senate and House 
would not infringe on any essential Senate or House prerogative.
  Indeed, laws cannot be enforced in a fair and uniform manner--and 
employees and the public cannot be convinced that the laws are being 
enforced in a fair and uniform manner--unless Congress establishes a 
single enforcement mechanism that is independent of each House of 
Congress.
  S. 2 would create a new independent enforcement office within the 
legislative branch. An independent board of directors would be 
appointed by the majority and minority leadership of each House, 
removable only for cause. However, the deputy directors of the office, 
one for each House, will develop the regulations that govern each 
House, and forward them to the board for notice and comment procedures. 
The board would then issue regulations, and the accompanying 
documentation would detail any departures from the recommendations of 
the deputy directors.
  Ultimately, each body would adopt its own regulations, which, so long 
as they comported with the terms of this act, could take into account 
differences between the two bodies. Specifically, the board would be 
responsible for developing rules to apply the antidiscrimination and 
employment laws to Congress, and Congress would retain the power to 
approve these rules.
  Regulations would become effective by a vote of the respective body, 
or by both bodies in the event that the regulations in question covered 
joint employees.
  The regulations would have to be consistent with the rules developed 
by executive branch agencies, unless the board determined for good 
cause that a different approach would be more effective for the 
implementation of the rights and protections conferred by the 
underlying statutes.
  The ultimate responsibility for developing, issuing, and approving 
the rules would remain within the legislative branch. Regulations could 
gain the force of law if both Houses approved them and presented them 
to the President for signature.
  Although the validity of the regulations could not be challenged upon 
their promulgation, they could be challenged collaterally by aggrieved 
employees during enforcement actions. Regulations adopted with the 
force of law could be challenged only on the basis of their 
constitutionality, and also only collaterally.
  The bicameral and legislative enforcement approach contained in S. 2 
is an effort to accommodate the views of those who adamantly oppose 
executive branch enforcement of these statutes. Some who oppose the 
interference of the executive branch claim that the Constitution 
prohibits the executive branch involvement that the private sector 
lives with under these laws.
  Indeed, some of my colleagues maintain that judicial enforcement of 
these laws to Congress violates the separation of powers.
  I am aware of no case law that establishes that subjecting Congress 
to the same executive and judicial branch enforcement mechanism that 
the private sector faces violates the Constitution.
  And if it were entirely up to me, I suppose that I would have 
introduced as S. 2 a one-page bill that simply ended the exemptions and 
required Congress to live under the same laws that it passes for 
everyone else. I would have provided the same remedies for enforcement 
that apply outside Congress.
  I would have executive branch enforcement of the laws, such as EEOC 
enforcement of the civil rights laws and Labor Department enforcement 
of the minimum wage laws.
  However, S. 2 recognizes the strong feelings of the Members who 
disagree with me.
  So long as the legislative branch agency enforcing the laws is not a 
tool of the Members, and so long as the underlying statutes are 
expressly incorporated through legislation to apply to Congress, the 
regulations must conform to the regulations, and the regulations can be 
challenged in court if they subvert the statutes that must apply to 
Congress, I am willing to accept legislative enforcement.
  But that does not mean that I agree that there would be any 
constitutional impediment to executive branch enforcement. Indeed, I 
have always been puzzled by the separation of powers argument in the 
context of congressional coverage.
  The Justice Department enforces the criminal laws against Members of 
Congress, and the courts hear such claims and render judgment. Surely 
imprisonment is a much greater intrusion against a Member than is a 
citation for an OSHA violation.
  Nonetheless, in recognition of the strong feelings of some of my 
colleagues, S. 2 provides for administrative enforcement of these laws 
by an agency within the legislative branch. That requires that S. 2 be 
a lengthier bill. An administrative mechanism for enforcing 11 laws and 
permitting judicial review of the decision cannot be written on 1 piece 
of paper.


                C. Claims procedures and judicial review

  The new office would be responsible for handling and adjudicating 
employee claims where the underlying statute provides for a private 
right of action. An employee would first receive counseling and 
mediation services.
  If the claim cannot be resolved at this stage, the employee could 
request that a hearing officer be assigned to conduct a formal 
administrative hearing on the employee's claim. After the hearing, 
either party could appeal to the board of directors. If necessary, they 
could than appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal circuit.
  In lieu of a hearing, the employee may bring an action in Federal 
district court. Allowing access to district courts makes the available 
remedies more like those available to both private-sector and 
executive-branch employees. Courts and judges do not have the complex 
interactions with Congress that executive agencies have, so the risk of 
intimidation would not arise.
  Furthermore, politically motivated claims can be made in other 
forums, regardless of whether access to district court is allowed.
  For claims arising under statutes that do not provide for a private 
right of action, the employee would proceed to the office to obtain 
counseling and mediation, as described above.
  However, in lieu of the private right of action or executive branch 
administrative enforcement, the office, if the General Counsel so 
determined, would pursue the claim itself. The aggrieved party at the 
end of the administrative process could obtain court review of the 
decision with the court of appeals for the Federal circuit.


                     D. Labor-management relations

  In the context of the labor-management relations area, I am concerned 
that congressional coverage does not create any conflicts of interest. 
For example, there might be concern if legislative staff belonged to a 
union, that union might be able to exert undue influence over 
legislative activities or decisions.
  Even if such a conflict of interest between employees' official 
duties and union membership did not actually occur, the mere appearance 
of undue influence or access might be very troubling. Furthermore, 
there is concern that labor actions could delay or disrupt vital 
legislative activities.
  The bill would apply the Federal service labor management relations 
statute, rather than the private-sector National Labor Relations Act. 
The Federal service law includes provisions and precedents that address 
problems of conflict of interest in the governmental context and that 
prohibit strikes and slowdowns.
  Furthermore, as an extra measure of precaution, the reported bill 
would not apply labor-management law to Members' personal or committee 
offices or other political offices until the board has conducted a 
special rulemaking to consider such problems as conflict of interest.
  Those rules would also not go into effect until considered and 
enacted by Congress.


                         E. Cost considerations

  Some Members expressed concern that application of laws to the 
legislative branch would impose large and unpredictable costs on the 
taxpayer.
  The Congressional Budget Office disagrees. The CBO cost estimate 
predicts costs of about $1 million in the first two fiscal years, and 
$4 to $5 million in subsequent years. However, unlike S. 
[[Page S445]] 2071, S. 2 does not permit covered employees to be 
offered compensatory time in lieu of overtime pay. That is the rule 
that applies to the private sector.
  There might be some additional cost of complying with this provision. 
But with respect to employees whose work schedule is highly irregular 
because of the irregular Senate and House schedule, the board would 
develop comparable regulations to those governing private sector 
workers with irregular work hours.
  Since the new leadership has committed itself to a more family 
hospitable work schedule, the amount of overtime is likely to be less 
in any event.
  There will also be costs that CBO did not take into account because 
S. 2, unlike S. 2071, requires OSHA inspections.
  However, the additional costs are likely to be small in relation to 
the normal sums Congress spends.
                  F. Application to instrumentalities

  In an attempt to bring order to the chaos of the way in which the 
relevant laws apply to congressional instrumentalities, S. 2 divides 
the instrumentalities into two groups.
  The three largest instrumentalities, the General Accounting Office, 
Library of Congress, and Government Printing Office, already have 
coverage and enforcement systems that are identical or closely 
analogous to the executive branch agencies.
  Notably, employees in each of these agencies already have the right 
to seek relief in the Federal courts for violations of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, and they are covered under the same provisions of 
the Family and Medical Leave Act as executive branch employees.
  Employees in each of these instrumentalities also already are assured 
of the right to bargain collectively, with a credible enforcement 
mechanism to protect that right. For these three instrumentalities, S. 
2 clarifies existing coverage in certain respects, and expands coverage 
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  It makes few changes with respect to the Government Printing Office 
because of separation of powers concerns raised by the Department of 
Justice that GPO is an executive branch agency that should not be under 
the supervision of a congressional office of compliance.
  Additionally, S. 2 directs the administrative conference to study the 
application of each of these laws to these entities, and to make 
recommendations for any improvements in such regulations or procedures 
to ensure they are at least comparable to those required by this act. 
The board is directed to complete this study within 2 years after 
passage of this act.
  The remaining instrumentalities, including the Architect of the 
Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Technology 
Assessment, are brought within the same new rules, procedures, and 
remedies as this bill would apply for House of Representatives and 
Senate employers and employees.
  This will allow for a consolidated application and administration of 
these laws. It will also extend to these employees, for the first time, 
the right to bargain collectively, and it will provide a means of 
enforcing compliance with these laws that is independent from the 
management of these instrumentalities.
  For employers of these instrumentalities, by strengthening the 
enforcement mechanisms, this bill attempts to transform the patchwork 
of hortatory promises of coverage into a truly enforceable application 
of these laws.
  Dividing the instrumentalities in this manner will reduce the 
adjudicatory burden on the new office of compliance by excluding from 
its jurisdiction the approximately 15,000 employees of GAO, GPO, and 
the Library of Congress.
  It also has the advantage of using the apparatus that will already be 
necessary to apply these laws to the 20,000 employees of the House and 
Senate to the remaining approximately 3,000 employees of the Architect, 
Botanic Gardens, CBO, and OTA.
  So, Mr. President, the time to act is now, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote for this bill without any undue delay.
  Senator Glenn will probably tell us that years before I came to the 
Senate, through resolutions he tried to bring and did successfully try 
to bring attention to this matter on the floor of this body. When I 
first made that attempt several years ago, it failed, as did my attempt 
later on in 1989 to end this situation by amending the Americans With 
Disabilities Act. My amendment at that time was accepted by the then 
Senate leadership. But in a sense I think they did it because they knew 
that they would render it ineffective in conference, and it was 
rendered ineffective in Congress. At a later time I tried to correct 
this inequity, and I was not even allowed to offer my amendment to the 
family leave bill when it was first debated in the Senate in 1991.
  Congress can no longer refuse to live by the laws that it passes. 
This bill ends that refusal. The time then is long overdue for Congress 
to correct that practice of congressional exemption, and this bill does 
that. It completes the process begun in 1991 when the Senate passed the 
Grassley-Mitchell amendment applying the substantive provisions of the 
civil rights law to the Senate. As I said back then, it was a good 
beginning, but it was only a beginning. So we are back today.
  So it is with some measure of satisfaction that I find myself 
speaking in favor of a bill that would finally require Congress to 
comply with a host of employment laws that we have exempted ourselves 
from over four or five decades and that, during that period of time, 
have been applied to the entire private sector.
  Mr. President, since the 1930's, Congress has passed laws that flowed 
from the assumption that Washington knows best. Congress set up 
burdensome statutory requirements on the operation of small business in 
this country. The burdens were increased through regulation issued by 
executive branch agencies albeit pursuant to the statute. At the same 
time Congress repeatedly exempted itself from the effects of those 
laws. Laws govern America but somehow do not apply the same way to 
employment practices on the Hill. Workers were granted rights but 
congressional workers were not. Those who made the laws did not have to 
live by them. Congress was immune from the excesses of the regulatory 
state. Congress was removed from the way its work affected everyone 
else. In other words, we, because those laws did not apply to us, did 
not really know how egregious they were upon the private sector 
employers of this country.
  In this country no one is above the law. But just as the Presidency 
suffered a tremendous loss of public confidence when an individual 
thought he was above the law 20 years ago, Congress suffered as Members 
thought we were above the law by letting these exemptions or lack of 
applicability apply to us. Indeed, to me this was one of the major 
reasons why Congress has lost touch with the American people and people 
are cynical about the process of government, cynical about public 
servants doing well and intending well and understanding what needs to 
be done.
  Of course, this exemption was one of the ways by which Congress has 
displayed arrogance. Millions of Americans complained about the 
overreach of the Federal Government. But Congress, through its 
exemption from the law, could not know the depth of feeling from the 
grassroots of America. So in November of every other year, the people 
have an opportunity to express their view. The American people in 
November 1994 demanded that Congress be affected by the laws it passed. 
A number of Members who thought Congress should be above the law are no 
longer Members, and, of course, no longer above the law.
  Let me remind my colleagues of someone who lost an earlier election, 
former Senator George McGovern, because he has a very good lesson to 
teach us in regard to the exemption of ourselves from laws that apply 
to the private sector. Senator McGovern believes that Congress has 
enacted unnecessary regulatory burdens that are strangling small 
business. Senator McGovern admits that he did not feel that way when he 
was a Member of this body, but he learned the reality of the operation 
of that legislation when he ran a small business after he left public 
life. I appreciate that Senator McGovern now says that he would have 
legislated differently had he known what the actual effects would have 
been as 
[[Page S446]] he found them to be applicable to his small business.
  But Members of Congress' learning of the effects of their votes only 
after leaving office will not solve our problem because after you leave 
office it is too late for you as an individual to do anything about it. 
Those of us who are here today can do something to end this unfair 
situation because only as Members of Congress live with the 
consequences of their votes will the problem that Senator McGovern 
identified be corrected. And I believe that S. 2 corrects that 
situation.
  I think that President Clinton as well has this issue exactly right. 
When we send this bill to him I believe, based on what he has said in 
the past, he will sign it because he did state in a July 1992 
interview:

       It is wrong for Congress to be able to put new requirements 
     on American businesses, employers, and then not follow that 
     rule as employers themselves. They exempt themselves 
     historically from all kinds of rules that private employers 
     have to follow. And I think that one of the things that 
     happens to people in government is they forget what it is 
     like to be governed. They do not have any idea what it is 
     like to be on the receiving end of a lot of rules and 
     regulations.

  That is President Clinton as Candidate Clinton. He could not have 
said it any better than any of us who believe this situation is wrong 
and why it ought to be ended. And I think that is a clear-cut statement 
that President Clinton would support our efforts today, and supporting 
those efforts then would sign the legislation that, hopefully, we will 
pass.
  Of course, the Founding Fathers would have been astonished to know 
that Congress had exempted itself from so many laws that it passed 
applying to the private sector. James Madison in Federalist Paper 57 
wrote about this issue. He wrote that one of the primary guarantees of 
people's liberty came from Congress having to live under the laws that 
we apply to the entire Nation. Madison wrote that:

       Congress can pass no law which will not have its full 
     operation on themselves and their friends as well as on the 
     great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the 
     strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers 
     and the people together. It creates between them the 
     communion of interest of which few governments have furnished 
     examples but without which every government degenerates into 
     tyranny.
      If this spirit ever were so debased as to tolerate a law not 
     obligatory on the legislature as well as on the people, 
     the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but 
     liberty.

  That is Federalist Paper 57.
  Mr. President, Madison was right. Of course, the low esteem in which 
Congress is currently held reflects the fact that there is no longer 
congruence of interest between the governors and the governed. The 
American people will no longer tolerate a law not obligatory on the 
legislature as well as the people. Under Madison's principle, because 
Members of Congress would be careful before they infringe their own 
liberties, the people's liberties would then be zealously protected.
  Unfortunately, the corollary to that principle was equally true. 
Members of Congress who could protect their own liberties while 
infringing on the liberties of the mass of society were much more 
likely, then, to fail to protect everyone else's liberties. Congress 
enjoyed privilege through exemption. The time has come to end 
congressional royalism. The time has come then to simply say that there 
will no longer be an environment of two sets of laws in America--one 
for Pennsylvania Avenue and the other for the rest of the country, in 
Main Street America. No longer will there be two sets of laws, one for 
this town and this Hill and one for the rest of the country. One set of 
American people, one set of laws.
  So now Congress must finally live under the same laws that pass for 
everyone else. We do this to fulfill Madison's promise of what was 
meant in the Constitution. And, thus, employees of Congress will 
finally gain the same rights that their counterparts in the private 
sector enjoy.
  Like my colleagues, I take the notion of representative government 
very seriously. We are not Senators for ourselves. We do not hold this 
job as a matter of personal privilege. We are here to represent the 
interests of our constituents in our States and in our country. And we 
are here for no other reason. I think that exemptions from the 
operation of the law thus interfere with representative government. I 
wonder how we truly can represent people who live under one set of laws 
when we live under another set of laws. Under the current system, our 
votes on various regulatory issues reflect our interests and not those 
of our constituents. This must change if representative government is 
to truly function as intended by Madison.
  When we pass this bill, we begin to restore the American people's 
faith in Congress. We will do so in five respects.
  First, we will ensure that Members of Congress know firsthand the 
burdens that the private sector lives with. By knowing those burdens, 
Congress may decide that the laws indeed are burdensome. That 
realization may lead to necessary reform of the underlying legislation. 
It is true that there will be additional costs imposed on Congress if 
this legislation passes. However, these are costs that we must realize. 
We have to be cognizant of the fact that the private sector has to live 
with these costs and has had to do it in some instances for the last 
six or seven decades. And as far as the cost of this bill to Congress, 
the Congressional Budget Office estimated that cost of compliance will 
be about $3.4 billion. Now, while this is a considerable sum, Mr. 
President, it represents, for instance, only a fraction of the amount 
Congress recently voted in for a subway system to connect the Senate 
office buildings with the Capitol.
  The second benefit of requiring that Congress live under the laws it 
passes for others concerns future social legislation. If Congress knows 
that it will be bound by what it passes, Congress will be very careful 
in the future to respect the liberties and rights of others.
  Third, passage of the bill will mean that congressional employees 
will have the civil rights and social legislation that has ensured fair 
treatment to workers of the private sector. So then Congress thus 
becomes the last plantation for our workers. It is time for the 
plantation worker to be liberated. Maybe it is more accurate to say 
that Congress and the judiciary are the last two plantations. Senator 
Glenn stated that plantation point of view 20 years ago, so I give him 
credit for that.
  Curiously, the only people who do not have to comply with the laws 
are those who make the laws and those who decide the cases under the 
laws, meaning the members of the judiciary. The judiciary has often 
interpreted legislation to be burdensome, and perhaps in some instances 
to be more burdensome than even the exempt Congress intended. Of 
course, an exempt judiciary has no reason to interpret the statute in a 
way to protect freedom. They will have to come up with a plan to 
provide coverage for their employees as well. I look forward to that 
proposal and to the legislation to cover the judiciary, which might 
then really be the last plantation.
  The fourth general result of the legislation will be public 
recognition that Congress has again discovered that it is subject to 
the will of the people and not the other way around. Congress will no 
longer be above the law. Members of Congress will no longer be first-
class citizens with unjustifiable special privileges.
  Fifth, Members of Congress will learn themselves of the litigation 
explosion that is choking small business in this country. When Congress 
sees directly the litigation produced by the laws we pass, Congress 
will be very careful about creating additional liabilities for the 
private sector and additional work for the Federal courts. When 
Congress sees how alternative dispute resolutions operate, maybe 
Members of Congress will appreciate the wisdom then of encouraging 
additional alternative dispute resolution for all sorts of claims 
brought in the Federal courts, to reduce the burden of the Federal 
court, to have a way of settling disputes in a less adversarial 
environment and a les costly environment.
  Every indication from polls, from election returns, and from our mail 
is that all of these show that nothing makes Americans more mad than 
knowing that they have to live by laws that their representatives in 
Congress do not have to follow. Of course, we believe they are well 
justified in their anger. When we pass this bill, we will show them 
that we recognize the unfairness of the existing exemptions and the 
legitimacy of their concerns.
  [[Page S447]] Mr. President, S. 2, as we know, is the pending 
business, and it is the pending business under somewhat unusual 
circumstances, because it has not been considered by any committee in 
this Congress. Nonetheless, I want to say that it bears a very close 
resemblance to S. 2071 from the last Congress. That bill was the 
subject of hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee, and it was 
approved by the committee before consideration. Unfortunately, it was 
not possible to consider the bill before Congress adjourned, despite 
the fact that the other body had overwhelmingly passed a similar piece 
of legislation.
  So, Mr. President, in conclusion of my opening statement, the time is 
to act now. I hope that my colleagues will vote for this bill without 
any undue delay or any particular destructive amendments.
  Senator Glenn is going to seek the floor in just a moment. As I 
indicated once before in this debate, when Senator Glenn was a freshman 
Member of this body he was aware of this inequitable situation. He has 
worked hard with lots of us and he worked hard before a lot of us came 
here to bring attention to this inequitable situation, unfair 
situation. Inequitable in the sense that we as employers do not have 
the same laws apply to us as private sector employers do, unfair in the 
sense that congressional employees and Hill employees do not have the 
same rights as private sector employees have under the employment and 
discrimination laws and safety laws that affect private--and that 
assures safety and employment fairness--sector employees.
  Senator Glenn studied this issue hard, and I suppose in his early 
days even had more trouble than I did in trying to get the people to 
appreciate that this dual standard of law was wrong. But he had some 
resolutions passed very early. I want to commend him for using that 
method to try to rectify this situation for employees on the Hill. But 
most importantly, in the time that I have been in the Senate, I want to 
say that I have found Senator Glenn very cooperative with my efforts to 
extend these laws. I appreciate very much his efforts to do that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank you.


                            Floor Privileges

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jill 
Schneiderman of Senator Daschle's staff be granted floor privileges for 
the duration of the Senate's consideration of S. 2.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have listened very closely to Senator 
Grassley's presentation here this afternoon. It certainly has been 
excellent. It certainly covered the legislation in great detail. That 
was to be expected because he has worked on this for a long time and 
has been involved with it basically--not for press purposes--because he 
believes in it and because he believes in what is right for the rest of 
the country is right for Capitol Hill. I agree with that.
  The late great Senator Sam Ervin, who was also a great constitutional 
scholar, once said that Congress is ``like a doctor prescribing 
medicine for a patient that he himself would not take.'' I agree with 
that statement by Sam Ervin because by enacting laws for others and 
then exempting ourselves we have done great damage to the public 
perception of Congress.
  I do not find any more of a hot button item wherever I travel in Ohio 
and other parts of the country than this particular item because I find 
that people are especially irritated that we do not have to follow the 
rules like everybody else. There were some reasons why the rules were 
exempted earlier. I will address that in just a moment. It was not done 
just to make life easier for us here. There were some genuine concerns 
about how they would be administered. But businessmen and others--but 
especially businessmen--tell me that we in Congress cannot understand 
the real impact of our laws because we do not have to follow them back 
here on Capitol Hill.
  There is an even more important principle at stake it seems to me; 
and, that is, to continue to deprive our employees of the full 
protection of the law is flat wrong. We passed laws for the rest of the 
country that said that employers should treat their employees in a 
certain way, that OSHA laws should be at administered against 
businesses, institutions, colleges or public buildings or whatever, 
that EPA would take certain actions and so on out there. But then we 
say but we will not let those things apply here on Capitol Hill.
  Let me be clear. I am not just talking about our legislative and our 
administrative personnel that many people think of when you think of 
Capitol Hill staffers. We think of our administrative personnel. But we 
must remember there are also the cleaning crews, the police, the 
restaurant workers, the parking lot attendants, the plumbers, the 
window washers, and so on, all of the workers who do not enjoy the same 
rights as every other American not employed by Congress. That is what 
it comes down to. Is it right that we do this for our own people 
employed here on Capitol Hill? Is it right that they have the same 
protections as everyone else? I cannot come to any conclusion but that 
certainly it is right that we pass this kind of legislation.
  So I am very pleased that in these opening days of the 104th Congress 
we can finally do what is right for these people and eliminate this 
congressional double standard under which we have enacted laws that 
apply to everyone but ourselves.
  This reform is long overdue. Our efforts to apply the law on Capitol 
Hill go back many years. My own personal efforts, which Senator 
Grassley referred to a little while ago, go clear back to 1978. I had 
not been here too long. In 1978 I had been here I guess at that time 
about 3 years. I was sworn in early 1975. I proposed a resolution to 
assure that all Senate employees would be protected against employment 
discrimination just as other people were all over the country, and 
explained why we needed this resolution. I said that I viewed Congress 
as ``the last plantation.'' That got the ire of some of my colleagues. 
They were not happy with me for making that kind of a statement. But 
the employees knew what I said was true because we were treating 
ourselves here, we were treating Capitol Hill, as the last plantation 
that was a law only unto itself. The resolution did not pass in 1978. 
It is only in the last few years that we have finally enacted 
substantial legal protection for Senate employees. Our Senate employees 
are now covered under the civil rights laws and certain other 
employment laws. But they can take their cases to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals.
  Despite this progress we still have an unacceptable patchwork quilt 
of coverage and exemption here on Capitol Hill. It has not been easy to 
solve this problem. My guiding principle has been that we in Congress 
should be subject to the same laws as applied to a business back in our 
home State.
  I recognize the unique nature of life on Capitol Hill, the unique 
nature of the Congress and how it does business here. So every single 
law cannot apply in exactly the same way as they are administered back 
home. But most of them can. Many Members also believe that the 
Constitution requires us to preserve substantial independence of the 
Senate and of the House of Representatives--in other words, the 
separation of powers under the Constitution. One branch does not have a 
superior position over another branch of Government. It is the checks 
and balances of our Government that we do not wish to throw away. The 
concern of a lot of people about this separation of powers is not 
simply a matter of personal prerogative or ego. For the private sector, 
these laws are normally implemented by the executive branch and the 
judicial branch. But many Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, 
have expressed genuine concern about politically motivated prosecutions 
that might result if we ignore the principle of separation of powers as 
we apply these laws to Congress.
  Last year, the majority leader, Senator Mitchell, asked me as 
chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee to try and find a 
bipartisan solution. I started with the excellent bill introduced last 
year by Senators Lieberman and Grassley, and then together with them, 
with Senators 
[[Page S448]] Lieberman, Grassley and other Senators from both sides, 
we worked hard to reach a solution, and I think we succeeded. We 
included even a stronger application of the laws to Congress, and we 
also included stronger protection of the constitutional independence of 
the House and Senate. Our legislation won broad, bipartisan support, 
but it was unfortunately blocked on the Senate floor in the closing 
days of the 103d Congress.
  I am very gratified that our solution to congressional coverage now 
stands, I believe, an excellent chance of being enacted by the new 
Congress. There have been two different bills introduced. One is the 
bill we have before us today, and the other was introduced on 
congressional accountability yesterday by Senator Daschle, our new 
Democratic leader, as part of a comprehensive congressional reform 
proposal. Senator Daschle's proposal includes a number of reforms of 
the way Congress does business, including not only congressional 
coverage, but also including measures on lobbying disclosure and gifts 
to Members.
  These essential measures, which I support, were also blocked along 
with congressional coverage at the end of the last Congress. That bill 
is not the one that is before us now. The bill before us now is the one 
just on congressional coverage that Senators Grassley, Dole, and 
Lieberman have submitted.
  Senator Dole has made this a top-priority legislative proposal, and I 
am very happy with that. With this strong bipartisan support that we 
have for this legislation, I am very optimistic that congressional 
coverage legislation can be promptly enacted--and I hope very promptly.
  Legislation can be briefly summarized in five key elements. First, 
all of the rights and protections under the civil rights laws and other 
employment statutes, and the public access requirements of the 
Americans With Disabilities Act, would apply to the legislative branch. 
This includes the Senate, the House of Representatives, and our support 
agencies. Second, a new compliance office would be established within 
the legislative branch to handle claims and issue rules. This 
compliance office would be headed by an independent five-person board 
of directors, removable only for cause and appointed by the leadership.
  This board is a new proposal here, in that this takes away most of 
the concerns of those people who were primarily concerned about the 
separation of powers and what would happen if we had an overzealous 
executive branch of Government trying to enforce a Clean Air Act or an 
OSHA law on Capitol Hill and pushing too hard for it, wanting to exact 
a pound of flesh in some other area in response. That has been a 
concern that people have expressed throughout the years. So this board 
goes a long way toward declaring our independence and our capability in 
making sure that all of the laws are adhered to here on Capitol Hill 
and making that administration of those laws the purview of this five-
person board of directors.
  I think it is unfortunate that we have to create a new enforcement 
bureaucracy at a time when we are more concerned about streamlining 
Government. But many Members, as I say, still believe it would violate 
the constitutional separation of powers to have the executive branch 
enforce these laws against Congress.
  A third point. Any employee who believes there has been a violation 
could receive counseling and mediation services from the new office. I 
would anticipate that most of the problems could be resolved at that 
counseling and mediation level. But if the employee's claim is not 
resolved by counseling or mediation, then the employee can carry this 
further. They can file a complaint with the compliance office and 
receive a hearing and decision from a hearing officer. This decision 
may be appealed. Then, in turn, if they are not happy with what comes 
out of the first two steps, it may be appealed to the board for the 
board's direct action, or after that, even to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals. That is a lengthy process, but it is one that certainly gives 
the employees all kinds of access to make sure that their complaint is 
adequately dealt with.
  Fourth, instead of filing a complaint with the compliance office 
after counseling and mediation, another track that can be followed is 
that the employee may elect to go directly and sue in the U.S. district 
court, just as any businessman across this country can do, or any 
individual across the country can do if they have a problem with their 
employer, or whatever. Further, a jury trial may be requested under 
normal applicable law.
  Fifth, the board will appoint a general counsel who will enforce 
OSHA, collective bargaining requirements, and other laws.
  So I am very pleased that there now appears to be bipartisan support 
for the Congressional Accountability Act. I will certainly be as 
pleased as anyone when it is finally adopted. This is not all brand 
new, make no mistake about it. The congressional coverage legislation 
is not completely new in that congressional coverage legislation was 
adopted by the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives last 
year. Congressional coverage legislation was sent to the Senate floor 
from our Governmental Affairs Committee last year. Unfortunately, it 
died in the final days of the Senate last year in that scorched Earth 
atmosphere which we all deplore, when we saw Members opposing just for 
the sake of opposing and sometimes killing legislation they themselves 
even supported.
  But that is behind us now and we are on to a new day here. I 
certainly want to let everyone know that while we went through some 
trials and tribulations last year, we are ready to move on.
  I think the American people are ready to move on and see this kind of 
legislation in particular get passed. That is easier said than done 
sometimes, but I think it is high time that we started to put the 
national interests first and to calculate our actions based not on 
narrow political calculations of today, or on who may gain more 
political advantage by supporting or opposing this particular piece of 
legislation. We should be doing this on what is best tomorrow for the 
United States of America, for the whole country.
  If Republicans and Democrats alike can just remember that, I think we 
are going to have a great session through this coming year. I think the 
Congressional Accountability Act is a good place to start.
  I talked about the last plantation a little while ago. The last 
plantation, I think, we now can eliminate and bring into the 20th 
century with this particular piece of legislation. So I am very happy 
to be supporting it.
  Mr. President, earlier in the remarks by my distinguished colleague 
from Iowa, he mentioned the costs and other impacts of the 
Congressional Accountability Act. I have a one-page summary of where 
those expenses are anticipated to occur, and I ask unanimous consent 
that this be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GLENN. Briefly summarizing, one new compliance office is 
estimated to cost about $1 million a year for 2 years during startup. 
It will be $2 to $3 million a year thereafter, including enforcement 
procedures and OSHA inspections.
  Settlements and awards to employees can run from a half million to a 
million dollars a year.
  Federal labor-management relations, possibly a million dollars a 
year. We do not know on that. There is no good way to estimate that.
  OSHA concerns are a little uncertain also, but those mainly have been 
taken care of around Capitol Hill, so there should not be much 
expenditure on that.
  Applying fair labor standards to the Capitol police force will cost 
probably around $800,000 a year or so. On other employees it was 
difficult to estimate on that as to what the fair labor standards 
application could bring in the way of costs.
  Antidiscrimination laws, polygraph protection, plant closing, and 
veterans rehiring are things for which we do not anticipate there would 
be any major expense.
  The bottom line then is that the total estimated cost CBO has run 
out--and this was included in our Governmental Affairs report last year 
in a CBO letter at pages 44 and 49 of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee report, if anybody wants to refer to it-- 
[[Page S449]] described these costs that I just enumerated here 
briefly, and came to the bottom line that a total estimate would be 
about $1 million per year for the first 2 years and a $4 to $5 million 
total thereafter. But it is a very, very uncertain amount. So compared 
to the problem we are solving, I think that is a fairly modest 
expenditure.
  Mr. President, the Congressional Accountability Act would apply a 
number of Federal workplace safety and labor laws to the operations of 
Congress. But one of the main things it also provides is the new 
administrative process I outlined for handling complaints and 
violations of these laws. And that is new.
  While it is true that some of these laws have applied to Capitol Hill 
in the past, there has not been an enforcement mechanism. There has not 
been a way for an aggrieved employee to exercise their rights and have 
justice prevail.
  One of the major provisions is the administrative process for 
handling complaints that I just described a few moments ago. Let me go 
through once again some of the major provisions of this act.
  First, it will have the application of workplace protection and 
antidiscrimination laws. S. 2 would apply several Federal laws 
regarding employment to the operation of legislative branch offices and 
provide an administrative process for handling complaints and 
violations.
  The following laws would be applied to legislative branch employees: 
Under the general title of antidiscrimination laws, we have title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; we have the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act of 1967; we have title I of the Americans With 
Disabilities Act of 1990; and we have the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 
Those are all under the antidiscrimination laws.
  Next, under the general heading of public services and 
accommodations, under ADA, the Americans With Disabilities Act, under 
title II, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits 
discrimination in Government services provided to the public. Another 
provision under title III, Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 
applies to the rest of those provisions.
  Under the general heading of workplace protection laws, the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938, which concerns minimum wage, equal pay, 
maximum hours, regulations, and protection against retaliation would 
now apply. These regulations will be promulgated by the board that 
tracks executive branch regulations. These regulations will take into 
account those employees whose irregular work schedules depend directly 
on the Senate. There has been some concern expressed by Senators about 
how that would work.
  Others, under workplace protection laws, are the Occupational Safety 
and Health Act of 1970, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the 
Employee Polygraph Protection Act; the Worker Adjustment and Retraining 
Act, which requires a 60-day notice of office closing or mass layoffs, 
which would not normally apply on Capitol Hill, until you think of the 
fact that we have the Government Printing Office and the Library of 
Congress and others where such layoffs might possibly occur.
  Another portion under the workplace protection laws is the Veterans 
Reemployment Act. It grants veterans the right to return to their 
previous employment, with certain qualifications, if reactivated or 
drafted.
  Further, under the general heading of labor-management relations, the 
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute of 1978 would apply, 
and the application to personal or committee staff or other political 
offices would be deferred until rules are issued by the new Office of 
Compliance.
  Under covered employees, the compliance provisions for the preceding 
laws would apply to staff and employees of the House, the Senate, the 
Architect of the Capitol, Congressional Budget Office, Office of 
Technology Assessment and, of course, the newly recreated Office of 
Compliance.
  Employees of congressional instrumentalities such as the General 
Accounting Office, Library of Congress, and Government Printing Office 
will be covered under some of these laws but a study will be ordered to 
discern current application of these laws to the instrumentalities and 
to recommend ways to improve procedures. Some of these entities or 
instrumentalities already have their own internal rules and regulations 
that they have applied that we want to bring into harmony with this new 
legislation, and that will be done over a little period of time.
  Let us go through protections and procedures for remedy. The bill 
provides the following five-step process similar to current Senate 
procedure for employees with claims of violations of civil rights or 
Americans With Disabilities Act. For employment discrimination laws, 
violation of family and medical leave protection, violation of fair 
labor standards, and violations of laws regarding polygraph protection, 
plant closings, and veterans reemployment violations, the procedure 
would be as follows:
  Step 1 would be a counseling service, which can last for 30 days and 
must be requested within a 6-month statute of limitations.
  Step 2, mediation services, which last for 30 days and must be 
pursued within 15 days.
  Step 3, if the claim cannot be resolved, then a formal complaint and 
trial before an administrative hearing officer may ensue.
  Step 4, after the hearing, if the party feels that they still have 
not received proper treatment, any aggrieved party may appeal to the 
Office of Compliance's board of directors, to the board itself. And 
that does not even end it.
  Step 5, if necessary, any aggrieved party may then appeal to the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for normal judicial review.
  The bill would also allow employees to bring suit in Federal district 
court after the mediation step, without going up to all the rest of 
that ladder, rather than proceeding, if they choose to do that, rather 
than proceeding to the administrative hearing and all those five steps 
I just mentioned. And if they went to district court, the remedy could 
include the right to a jury trial. The option to seek district court 
redress could occur only after an employee went through the counseling 
and mediation process. So that is required whatever happens and 
whichever track the person might choose to go.
  With respect to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, 
or national origin, remedies would include reinstatement, back pay, 
attorneys fees, and other compensatory damages.
  For claims under the ADA title II and title III relating to 
discrimination in Government services, the bill provides the following 
steps:
  Step 1 would be for a member of the public to submit a charge to the 
general counsel of the Office of Compliance. No. 2, the general counsel 
may call for mediation. Step 3, the general counsel may file a 
complaint which would go before a hearing officer for decision. Step 4 
would be an appeal to the board. And step 5 would be an appeal to the 
U.S. Court of Appeals.
  For violation of OSHA, the bill provides the following procedures:
  Step 1, employees may make a written request to the general counsel 
to conduct an inspection.
  General counsel will also inspect all facilities at least once each 
Congress, most likely using some detailees from the Labor Department to 
help since they are experienced in that area. But the authority would 
rest with the general counsel to do that. Step 2, citations may be 
issued by the general counsel. Step 3, disputes regarding citations 
will be referred to a hearing officer. Step 4, appeal of hearing 
officer decisions go to the board. Step 5, the board may also approve 
requests for temporary variances. Step 6, appellate court review of 
decisions of the board, if it gets that far.
  Now, in this area, there would be a 2-year phase-in period for the 
OSHA procedures to allow inspection and corrective action. The survey 
also would be conducted to identify problems and to prepare for 
unforeseen budget impact. Penalties would not apply under the OSHA 
provisions because this would result only in shifting accounts in the 
Treasury; in other words, the Government finding itself in one area and 
putting the Treasury over in the other area.
  The following process applies to violations of collective bargaining 
law: 
[[Page S450]] Step 1, petitions will be considered by the board and 
could be referred by the board to a hearing officer; step 2, charges of 
violation would be submitted to the general counsel, who will 
investigate and may file a complaint. The complaint would be referred 
to a hearing officer for a decision subject to appeal to the board 
again. Step 3, negotiation impasses would be submitted to mediators. 
Step 4, court of appeals review of board decisions will be available 
except where appellate review is not allowed under the Federal Service 
Labor-Management Relations Statute.
  Now, employees who are employed in a bona fide executive, 
administrative, or professional capacity--in other words, those 
committee staff or personal staff who are not covered by the minimum 
wage and maximum hour provisions--and interns, are also exempted. 
Otherwise, remedies for violations of rights of all other employees 
under the FLSA will also include unpaid minimum or overtime wages, 
liquidated damages, and attorneys fees or costs. I note the exemption 
there, that professional employees would not be covered in that same 
way. These remedies would apply to the nonprofessional employees only.
  Now, let me address briefly the Office of Compliance. S. 2 will 
establish an independent nonpartisan Office of Compliance to implement 
and oversee application of antidiscrimination worker protection laws. 
Under rulemaking, the office will promulgate rules to implement the 
statutes. Congress may approve and change by joint resolution rules 
issued by the office. Rules would be issued in three separate sets of 
regulations. One, the House; two, the Senate; three, joint offices and 
instrumentalities. Rules for each Chamber would be subject to approval 
by that body, or to grant the force and effective law by joint 
resolution. Rules for joint offices and instrumentalities would be 
subject to approval by concurrent resolution.
  Membership. The office will be headed by a five-member board which 
will be appointed to fixed, staggered terms of office. The board will 
be appointed jointly by the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority 
leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House minority leader. 
Membership may not include lobbyists, Members, or staff except for 
Compliance Office employees. The Chair will be chosen by the four 
appointing authorities from within the membership of the board.
  Settlement award reserves, payment of rewards for House and Senate 
employees, will be made from a new single contingent appropriations 
account. All settlements and judgments must be paid from funds 
appropriated to the legislative branch and not from a Governmentwide 
judgment account. There will be no personal liability on the part of 
Members.
  Mr. President, I think that is a rather complete rundown of this. I 
think it is only fair we apply the laws to our employees here on 
Capitol Hill that are applied to the rest of the country. I hope we can 
have this legislation approved very shortly. I hope we can keep 
amendments to a minimum. I do not know whether there are any amendments 
proposed to be brought up this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
                               Exhibit 1

 Summary of Costs and Other Impacts of Congressional Accountability Act

       The CBO letter, at pages 44-49 of the GAC Report (and the 
     CBO letter for the House bill) describes the following costs:
       1. New compliance office: $1 million/year for 2 years, 
     during start-up.
       $2-3 million/year thereafter, including enforcement 
     procedures and OSHA inspections.
       2. Settlements and awards to employees: $0.5-1 million/
     year.
       3. Federal labor-management relations: $1 million/year for 
     lawyers and personnel officers.
       4. OSHA: Existing standards--will require change in 
     practices rather than significant additional space or cost.
       Possible future standards--e.g., ergonomic equipment; air 
     quality--without specific standards, cost cannot be 
     predicted.
       5. Fair Labor Standards: Capitol police--$0.8 million/year.
       Other employees--CBO could not estimate.--CBO assumed the 
     compliance office would have wide discretion in establishing 
     rules and in allowing compensatory time in-stead of overtime. 
     This is incorrect: bill requires private-sector rules.
       6. Anti-discrimination laws--no additional cost, because 
     these requirements already apply under statutes or rules.
       7. Polygraph protection--no effect; polygraphs are not 
     used.
       8. Plant closing--no effect; no mass layoffs are 
     anticipated.
       9. Veterans rehiring--not scored by CBO; added to the 
     legislation this year.
       Total Estimate: $1 million/year for the 2 years, $4-5 
     million/year thereafter.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I rise in support 
of the bill.
  Mr. President, it has been my privilege to have been cochairman of a 
working group with Senator Grassley to try to pull together various 
parts of this legislation and help get it to the floor.
  I am fully cognizant of the fact that those of us who are newcomers 
to this legislative process, indeed, stand on the shoulders of giants. 
There have been so many who have done so much in this area: Senator 
Grassley, Senator Lieberman, Senator Glenn and others. I am delighted 
to be a part of that, and to be part of this strong bipartisan effort 
here in my first opportunity to address this body.
  Mr. President, Senators Grassley and Glenn have very aptly gone over 
the details of this legislation. It is indeed complex. It involves 
several pieces of complex litigation and applicability to those already 
existing laws. They have gone over this in detail. I will not.
  I would like to make some basic observations, however, starting with 
the proposition that the people spoke in a very loud voice in this last 
election. We can disagree as to what the people were saying in many 
respects, and we do. We have spent a lot of time trying to interpret 
the voice of the people in these last few weeks. However, I think there 
is one thing we cannot or should not disagree on. That is, in large 
part, they were saying that they want a change of the way we have done 
business in Washington, DC, Mr. President, specifically in the Congress 
of the United States.
  I cannot think of a better example of the way that we have been doing 
business in times past than this whole business of exempting Congress 
from the laws that other people have to live under. So today, I think 
that what this bill does is take a step in the right direction. It 
takes a step away from that and toward accountability. It stands for 
the basic proposition that those who make the laws in this country have 
to live under the laws that they make, as other citizens do.
  Those of us who have just come off the campaign trail, perhaps, have 
an additional insight into this matter. Those here with us today have 
spoken many times and labored in the vineyard for many years on this 
bill. Those of us on the other end of the spectrum have just come from 
being a part of campaigns where the people's voice was most recently 
heard.
  Mr. President, not only are the people in America for this 
legislation, the people in America demand this legislation. I would 
suggest that the people in my State of Tennessee, and I would guess the 
people across this Nation, wonder why it took so long to pass a 
proposition that seems to be so imbued in basic common sense. So 
perhaps that day has changed. I hope we are winning it now, as I speak.
  Mr. President, in the first place, it is the fair thing to do. That 
has been so aptly discussed and described by earlier speakers today. 
Second, Mr. President, I would like to bring up an additional point, 
and that is, in my observation, the people of this country, in many 
respects, are unfortunately losing confidence in our country's 
institutions. People more and more, I believe, Mr. President, are 
feeling alienated from their Government in this country. I think that 
that certainly has to do with the Congress of the United States. I 
believe that people more and more feel that the Congress has lost touch 
with people who work hard, pay their taxes, obey the laws and 
regulations, and are seldom heard from except when additional revenues 
are needed.
  So, I believe that this legislation is the first of many reforms that 
we will be discussing here in the next several days that will help 
restore the confidence that the people must have in the people's branch 
of Government, the Congress of the United States. We cannot stop this 
cynicism and this feeling of alienation, Mr. President, by ourselves. 
But the Congress of the United States can stop contributing to it.
  [[Page S451]] Mr. President, I believe in the years to come that this 
body will be a messenger of bad news to the American people if we do 
our job, if we are responsible. When we look at the economic picture 
down the road, when we look at the budgetary problems we will be facing 
in this country, we will not always have good news to bring to the 
American people.
  I believe the American people are up to it. However, I believe when 
we deliver that message, the American people must be able to trust the 
messenger, and I think, again, that is what we are about here today, 
the first step in that process.
  In addition to those reasons, I think that another pretty commonsense 
proposition applies, and that is that, if the Congress of the United 
States had to live under the laws they passed for everybody else, maybe 
we would not have so many laws and, thereby, maybe we would not have so 
many regulations.
  I think it has become entirely too easy in this country, in this 
Congress, to spend other people's money and regulate other people's 
lives. That is what I believe Congress has spent too much time on for 
too many years.
  I think for the first time under this legislation, Members of 
Congress, who understandably are concerned with cost, understandably 
are concerned with inconvenience and all of these other things, for the 
first time will start to realize the problems that people out in the 
country who have to live under these laws have experienced. And maybe, 
just maybe, we might want to, in the future, reconsider some of the 
laws that have already been passed and some of the regulations that 
have been promulgated pursuant to those laws.
  I think, in looking at this legislation, legislation of much detail, 
much work, that there are a couple basic criteria that I look for:
  No. 1, that it be comprehensive, and when I study this legislation, I 
see that every comparable law here is, indeed, applied to Congress.
  Second, there must be access to the court system. I examined this 
legislation and, indeed, we do have access to the court system. Those 
bringing actions against the officers and Members of Congress of the 
United States, indeed, have court access. It is not just the laws under 
this legislation that will apply to Congress but the regulations will 
also.
  Also, Congress under this legislation does not exempt itself from the 
numerical limitations that are afforded to small businesses which would 
exempt Congress from coverage under many of these laws. So I think we 
are moving in the right direction.
  Is the legislation perfect? I would say not. Could it go further? 
Indeed, I would like to see it go a bit further, but I think that we 
can revisit this at times in the future. I think the question of 
ultimate liability is something that perhaps needs to be revisited. 
Surely we can come up with a solution whereby Congressmen and 
Congresswomen and Members of the Senate are not faced with imminent 
bankruptcy constantly, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the 
taxpayers are not left with a bill that we might run up on them.
  I would think that, with the use of insurance and other measures, we 
could do better perhaps than that. But I think this is a strong--very 
strong--first step in the right direction. I wholeheartedly support it, 
not only because it is the right thing to do, but it will be to the 
benefit of the American people and, I believe, to the ultimate benefit 
primarily of the Congress of the United States. Thank you.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I am privileged to rise in support of this measure and 
am delighted not only to join the real pioneers in this effort--Senator 
Glenn and Senator Grassley--but to speak after our new colleague, the 
Senator from Tennessee, who has spoken eloquently. I am privileged to 
work with him on a bipartisan basis on behalf of this bill.
  He made reference to the elections that just occurred and the message 
that was sent to us. I was thinking after this election, there is an 
old story about a politician who lost an election by a lot, he got 
clobbered. In the traditional election night speech, he got up and 
said, ``The people have spoken, but did they have to speak so loudly?''
  I think the answer in this case is, obviously, the people did feel 
they had to speak loudly, and what they were speaking for was change, 
change in the status quo and, I think, demanding a Government that 
responds to their problems, that deals efficiently with those responses 
and that, most of all, gets its own house in order.
  I do not know what my colleagues may have found as they were out 
there this year. I was out there myself, grateful for the support of 
the people of Connecticut to send me back here. But I found an 
increasing number of people--and I would say it is a majority out 
there--who really do not care whether you are Republican or Democrat. 
What they care about is what you are doing and what have you done. They 
are not going to judge by labels, as so often happens. They are going 
to judge by the record of accomplishment or lack of accomplishment.
  All of that brings me to this measure, which I think is at the heart 
of responding to the demand for a change in the status quo, for a 
demand to a leaner, more responsive Congress, to a demand for 
legislation that reflects the real world, that reflects the thinking of 
Members of Congress who understand what is happening out there and who 
play by the same rules that everybody else plays by, who are forced to 
live by the same rules that everybody else lives by, and that will act 
on a bipartisan basis in the interest of America. I think all of that 
comes together in this piece of legislation.
  The measure we are considering today, S. 2, is an improved version of 
the successive congressional compliance measures which Senator Grassley 
and I authored last year, beginning with S. 2071. This latest bill, if 
enacted, will, as those who have spoken before me said, apply to 
Congress and its support offices all of the laws regarding civil 
rights, fair labor practices, disability, family medical leave, 
veterans, reemployment, health and safety that Congress has applied 
over the years to the executive branch of the Government and to the 
private sector as well.
  Every public opinion poll that I have seen--to tell you the truth you 
do not need a public opinion poll, it is kind of common sense--
indicates that the people of America are ardent, enthusiastic, just 
about unanimous in their support of this legislation.
  I am greatly encouraged that the leaders of this new Congress have 
placed this bill at the forefront of our business for the opening days 
of this session. This is a measure that passed the House overwhelmingly 
on a bipartisan basis last year and was stopped from coming up here at 
the closing day of the 103d Congress on a procedural objection, an 
unusually and rarely used procedural objection.
  But the mood is different this year. I think passing this bill will 
show that we have collectively realized that Congress simply cannot 
continue to do its business as usual and we can no longer live above 
the law. It is not just that the public will not stand for it, they 
should not stand for it, and we should not stand for this kind of 
double standard. It undercuts the basic trust that is a precondition of 
our democracy, the trust that has to exist between those who are 
privileged to serve and govern and those who are governed, those who 
send us here to represent them.
  Mr. President, we must pass this bill with strong enforcement, 
including the right for claims to be heard in court, not just because 
it has symbolic value but because it is right. By passing this bill, we 
demonstrate a commitment to the principles that are in all the laws 
that we have applied to the private sector.
  At the end of June 1994, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 
which I am privileged to serve on, held a hearing on this subject and 
took a close look at all the issues involved. The committee realized 
that there is a complex problem that requires well-considered 
solutions, particularly to the general problem of uneven coverage.
  So we went ahead, Senator Grassley and I, Senator Glenn and other 
members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and worked on some ways 
to solve these problems. Since then, this group, and others, has done 
everything 
[[Page S452]] possible to address the tough legal and constitutional 
issues in a way that is fair to our employees. It forces us to live in 
the real world according to the real law but also has some respect for 
the special constitutional status of the legislative branch.
  The bill that we are considering today builds upon that committee 
substitute to H.R. 4822, which was reported out by the Governmental 
Affairs Committee last September. I think this bill remains true to 
virtually all the defining principles and provisions found in H.R. 
4822. Like that bill, this measure we are considering establishes an 
independent office to function as a legislative branch equivalent of 
the executive enforcement agencies.
  Substituting this independent agency for the executive agencies, I 
think, responds to a genuine argument, which is separation of powers 
and, in another sense, ends Congress' ability to sit or hide behind the 
separation of powers argument as an excuse for inaction.
  We have dealt with that argument. We have solved that problem. There 
is no longer that constitutional excuse or argument for inaction.
  Some of the strongest arguments that were made against this measure 
can also I think be put to bed now. At times opponents claimed it would 
cost billions to implement and even require the construction of new 
office buildings by Congress. But the testimony that the committee 
received in June as well as CBO's analysis of the committee-reported 
bill showed that such fears are not well founded. There is no new OSHA 
space requirement for offices, projecting the impact of the provisions 
of this bill. Indeed, the Architect of the Capitol and the 
Congressional Budget Office have anticipated little, if any, additional 
expense for OSHA compliance.
  Mr. President, passage of this legislation will really go a long way, 
or at least, let me put it this way, at the outset of the 104th 
Congress take the large first step in the direction of restoring the 
public's trust in this institution.
  The history of this and companion legislation is interesting. As I 
looked back at the record, 1938 was the first time that Congress 
exempted itself from coverage under a relevant Federal employment law 
when it passed the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congressional staff were 
not covered by the wage and hour provisions contained in that act. And 
that precedent, unfortunately, became a tradition of congressional 
self-exemption from Federal employment laws over the course of the 
succeeding 56 years since 1938. Right now, Congress is wholly or 
partially exempt from the relevant provisions of the 11 major Federal 
employment laws with which this bill deals.
  Senator Glenn, as I have indicated earlier, in 1978 really was the 
pioneer here in authoring a bill that sought to correct this problem. 
In 1991, Senator Grassley and then Senate Majority Leader Mitchell 
coauthored the Government Employees Rights Act, also known as GERA, 
which gave employees of the Senate partial coverage under the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, 
and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. GERA created this 
Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, and an administrative 
complaint process administered by the office designed to fill the role 
of the Federal district courts as set forth in the statutes in 
question. It also provided Senate employees with a review of their 
decisions in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  Mr. President, Members of Congress are still faced with the fact that 
there is more to do, and that is what the legislation before us intends 
to do. Private sector employers are particularly and understandably 
angry and aggrieved by the knowledge that Congress does not subject 
itself to the most demanding legal and regulatory burdens that Congress 
imposes on them, particularly the small business community.
  Congressional exemption from Federal employment laws I think has also 
had an adverse effect on the legislative branch work force and its 
right to equal protection under the law. This is not just a matter of 
symbolism. It is not even just a matter of equity, though it is a 
matter of equity. This is kind of a reverse of the golden rule here in 
this case. This bill is saying let us do unto ourselves as we have done 
unto others. But beyond those principles, there is a real problem out 
there and that is the rights of those who work for us, for the 
Congress.
  The Architect of the Capitol, for instance, which has no independent 
enforcement of its OSHA program, is plagued by one of the highest 
worker compensation claim rates of all the Federal agencies. Employees 
of the Senate exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act have no 
guaranteed means of securing financial or other compensation for 
overtime. No employee of the House of Representatives or the Senate may 
bring a civil action in Federal district court to remedy violations of 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Federal antidiscrimination 
statutes, all of which provide employees in the private sector with 
exactly that right to pursue their grievances in Federal court.
  So there is a real problem out there. This is not symbolism. It is 
not just principle, though both of those are important. There is a real 
problem of our workers. The vast majority of legal inequities that may 
be endured by employees of the House and Senate can be remedied at 
minimal cost to the Congress by adoption of this measure.
  Mr. President, I would briefly like to focus on some of the 
constitutional concerns that have been raised. Most frequently, again, 
we have heard about the separation of powers argument, but using this 
broad-based argument I think distorts the historical intent of the 
separation of powers doctrine. The basic idea is to limit each branch 
to a certain set of powers subject to checks by the other two branches 
so that no one branch can accumulate a level of power that becomes 
tyrannical in its effect on the public or the private citizen.
  In Buckley versus Valeo, a 1975 case, the Supreme Court, citing the 
history of the separation of powers principle, wrote:

       James Madison, writing in the Federalist Paper No. 47, 
     defended the work of the Framers against the charge that 
     these three governmental powers were not entirely separate 
     from one another in the proposed Constitution. He asserted 
     that while there was some admixture, the Constitution was 
     nonetheless true to Montesquieu's well-known maxim that the 
     legislative, executive and judicial departments ought to be 
     separate and distinct.

  And they went on to say that it was a demonstration of Montesquieu's 
meaning when he wrote:

       When the legislative and executive powers are united in the 
     same person or body, there can be no liberty, because 
     apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate 
     should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical 
     manner.

  In other words, the separation of powers principle was to preclude 
any one branch of the Federal Government from seizing a degree of power 
that could be used against another branch of the Government or the 
citizenry in a tyrannical fashion without check from the other branch.
  But this was affected by another view of Madison which goes right to 
the point of this legislation, writing in Federalist 47 that the 
separation of powers principle was not designed to insulate one branch 
of the Government or its servants from the rule of law. In other words, 
each branch was to be strong and independent, to resist a 
centralization of power.
 But that did not mean that anyone branch of the Government or its 
servants should be above the law or exempted from the law. And in 
Federalist 57, Madison wrote the Congress 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 deemed''--and 
I am continuing with Madison's words--``one of the strongest bonds by 
which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It 
creates between them the communion of interest and sympathy of 
sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples but 
without which every government denigrates into tyranny. If it be asked 
what is to restrain the Congress from making legal discriminations in 
favor of themselves and a particular class of society, I answer,'' 
Madison said, ``the genius of the whole system. The nature much just 
and constitutional laws. And above all the vigilant and manly spirit 
which actuates the 
[[Page S453]] people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom and 
in return is nourished by it. If this spirit is ever so far debased as 
to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature as well as on the 
people,'' Madison wrote, ``the people will be prepared to tolerate 
anything but liberty.''
  Powerful words from one of the great founders and framers of our 
country. I think they speak to us today because history has taken us in 
a direction that he feared but did not believe would occur. And it is 
that drift that brings us to introduce this legislation so that Members 
of Congress and the institution will not be above and separate from the 
law.
  Mr. President, a final point, if I may, on the question of cost. 
Because this new bill was just introduced yesterday, there clearly has 
not been time to receive a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget 
Office. Yet I would suggest to my colleagues that it is fair and 
reasonable to draw some pretty firm conclusions from the CBO estimate 
of the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee last 
September because this measure is so similar to that measure. We also 
received a cost estimate from CBO on last year's House-passed bill and 
the estimates CBO arrived at in both cases were far, far lower--not 
only than the opponents of the measure feared--but, frankly, than most 
of the supporters of legislation expected or thought possible.
  CBO estimated that both versions, the House-passed version last year 
and the one reported out of Governmental Affairs, would cost about $1 
million for the first 2 years of effect, as the new independent office 
gears up, and $4 to $5 million in the third, fourth and fifth years. 
Much of the cost expected in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 is the cost of 
working out collective bargaining agreements. So once the cost of that 
is taken care of, the overall price tag should actually dip back down 
by the beginning of the second 5-year budget cycle of effect.
  When you look at the total cost figures projected, I think we also 
have to realize that the Senate and House offices of fair employment 
practices will already cost us almost $1.2 million in this fiscal year. 
So the marginal cost of the bill we are considering would be even less 
than the CBO estimate.
  Mr. President, in the bill's most expensive year as projected by CBO, 
fiscal year 1998--which would have been, under last year's estimate the 
4th year of effect, projected legislative branch spending would be in 
the neighborhood of $2.5 billion. Therefore, as a percentage of our 
total operating budget for that year, the bill reported by the 
Governmental Affairs Committee--according to the CBO estimate--would 
only have amounted to 1/5 of 1 percent of the total operating budget of 
the Congress. I think that figure is worth repeating. The cost of the 
bill would be 1/5 of 1 percent in the year when the bill would have 
been most expensive. Allocating that tiny fraction of our annual budget 
would enable Congress to comply with the same laws that we force 
everyone else to live with, to repair the ruptured relationship between 
this institution and the people who control it, for whom we work, and 
to do what is right.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text--noting the 
presence of my friend and colleague from Alaska here--the full text of 
my speech be printed in the Record as read.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I intend to support this bill because I 
support a continuation of our efforts to bring Congress under the same 
laws that apply to the private sector. But I have some serious 
reservations about this proposal. Contrary to what my friend from 
Connecticut has just said, I think that the estimates for the cost of 
this proposal are absurd.
  Next week we are going to consider a bill to ban unfunded mandates on 
States and local governments. Today, we are considering a bill to 
create an unfunded mandate for Congress to be paid for by the taxpayer.
  The Rules Committee is already in the process of cutting 15 percent 
from the budgets of every committee in the Senate. We have been asked 
to cut $200 million from the congressional budget over the next 2 
years. But I have not heard anyone suggest where we are going to get 
the money we need to pay for this bill, in light of these cuts that we 
already face. And, contrary to what you have just heard and what many 
people believe, I believe complying with the laws contained in this 
bill is going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money. If it will not, why 
are all of the business people of this country complaining about the 
application of these laws to them now?
  We have just heard that it is going to cost us $1 million a year. I 
am making the Senate a commitment as the new Senate Rules Committee 
chairman, we will keep track of the costs of this bill year by year, 
and report them to the Senate.
  In 1991, with my support, we brought the Senate under the following 
laws that are contained in this bill: The Civil Rights Act, the 
Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination Act, and the 
Rehabilitation Act. Congress included itself in the Family and Medical 
Leave Act when it passed that law. We still do not know what those will 
cost the Congress.
  In the last Congress I joined then-chairman of the Rules Committee, 
my good friend from Kentucky, Chairman Ford at that time, directing the 
Architect of the Capitol to bring the Senate wing of the Capitol into 
compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
  The Architect is now at work on that with the Department of Labor to 
bring us into compliance. We do not know what the cost will be. The 5-
year cost of our current compliance efforts under one--one thing alone, 
employment discrimination laws, will be about $5 million. And I think 
these are just a fraction of the spending that will be needed to bring 
about compliance with this bill.
  I am not against the concept. I think we should face the same laws we 
impose on the private sector. But we should not stand here and say that 
this estimate of $1 million a year is a reliable estimate. We should 
keep in mind the congressional bureaucracy alone created by this bill 
will cost at least $15 million over the 5 five years. And it does not 
include the cost of damage awards and attorneys' fees. But don't 
forget, the taxpayers must pay these costs.
  We are trying to apply the same laws to Congress that apply to the 
private sector. But again I say to the Senate, if it will cost so 
little to apply them to the Congress, why is the American public in the 
private sector complaining so loudly? The estimates we are getting are 
like a lot of other estimates we get from the Congressional Budget 
Office, in my opinion. And we are going to keep track of them for the 
Senate. That is why I am here now. I want to make the commitment to the 
Senate. We are going to watch the costs under this bill. We are going 
to report them every year. And I am going to ask the Senate to take 
action to modify some of these laws for both the private sector and the 
Congress when I show what it really costs the Congress to comply with 
these laws.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the 
Congressional Accountability Act. I really cannot believe that we are 
debating this issue as if it is something we might or might not do in 
light of what happened on November 8. It is this kind of reform which 
will help restore Congress as the truly representative body it was 
intended to be.
  The fact that Congress has routinely exempted itself from laws and 
regulations which affect virtually every other person, business, and 
organization in the land says volumes about the arrogance of power, 
about the insulation of Washington from the real world, about the gulf 
which has come to exist between the people and those who are elected to 
represent them.
  [[Page S454]] The Congressional Accountability Act is closely related 
to several of the other things that were discussed in the Contract With 
America, such things as overburdened regulations, such things as term 
limitations.
  You know, many of us in Congress have our own stories that we can 
tell from back in the real world. I was, among other things, a 
developer. I can remember one time, in order to get, down on the coast 
for a six-story development, a dock permit, I had to check with 26 
Federal and State agencies in order to get that permit. It could have 
just as well been done with one.
  And I think therein lies one of the better arguments for term limits. 
The fact if you have people who are out in the real world and know what 
the tough regulations are and what they do to your competitiveness, 
then they would not behave the way they do.
  I understand that earlier today our colleague from Iowa told the 
story about George McGovern. And I remember that so well, because I was 
there when the statement was made that after a lifetime in public 
service he had this burning desire to fulfill a lifetime dream and 
build that hotel. I guess it was in Connecticut. And he built it. And 
then, before he knew it, the health department started beating him up, 
the IRS started beating him up, and the EPA started beating him up, and 
he went into, I believe, Chapter 11. I would have to paraphrase him. 
But the exact quote was given by the Senator from Iowa this morning, 
the thrust of which is, If I had known how tough it was in the real 
world, I would have voted differently when I was in the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. President, to take another example. We ought to recall the very 
illustrative experience that one of my colleagues from the other body, 
Representative John Boehner, experienced, where he invited an inspector 
from OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, to come 
in and look at his three-room office that he had there in the, I 
believe it was, Cannon Office Building. When they did, they found six 
safety violations, including a lack of an evacuation plan.
  I might suggest to my colleagues that if we do not pass this bill, we 
might all want to install an evacuation plan in our offices.
  They went on to look at some of the other areas of Government right 
here in the Capitol, I believe, in the Architect's Office. They said 
that in the event that we had to comply with the OSHA requirements, 
that it would cost over $1 million to come up to compliance.
  And there is a historic precedence for this. James Madison, in his 
writing in 1788 in the Federalist Papers, said:

       Congress can make no law which would not have its full 
     operation on themselves and their friends as well as on the 
     great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the 
     strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers 
     and the people together. Without this communion of interests, 
     every government degenerates into tyranny.

  Those like Madison who wrote our Constitution intended that Members 
of Congress would not be part of some elitist aristocracy, out of touch 
with the people, insulated from the real world. Rather, they intended 
Members of Congress to be themselves the same farmers and shopkeepers 
and business men and business women and merchants who expected to 
deserve the Government that we finally got--``of the people, by the 
people, and for the people.''
  With this reform, this Congressional Accountability Act, we will take 
one small step following so many others in our history to help ensure 
that such a Government shall not perish from the Earth.
  This reform, like our reform of the discharge petition process--Mr. 
President, you remember that well from the other body--will serve as a 
predicate for many other reforms that we surely will be considering and 
are really adamantly demanded by the people as a result of the 
revolution of November 8.
  I cannot imagine there is one Member of this body who would go back 
to his State and look a constituent in the eye and say, ``We will take 
care of you. We know what is best for you. You just do what we say. And 
yet, that is not going to apply to us. You know, we live in an ivory 
tower with impenetrable walls, so we are insulated from many things 
that you folks are not insulated from.''
  This eliteness was shot down in the revolution of November 8.
  So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
measure.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleagues, Senator 
Grassley, Senator Glenn, Senator Lieberman, and others, for their fine 
work on this piece of legislation.
  I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and I 
assume that includes you, Mr. President, are going to be caucusing at 
3:15. And I certainly will not take more than 10 minutes, if that.
  Mr. President, a little later on, it would be my honor to be on the 
floor with an amendment with Senator Levin, and, I am sure, Senator 
Feingold, Senator Lautenberg, I know the minority leader also feels 
very strongly about this. I think it will be a very important amendment 
when we do have the debate on this amendment before the Senate.
  This amendment deals with lobbying disclosure, but with a special 
focus on the gift ban. This is a piece of legislation that probably 
Senator Levin and Senator Cohen, among others, have exerted tremendous 
leadership on.
  My strong interest in this, Mr. President, has been on the gift ban 
part. I have heard my colleagues for the last several hours speak with 
a considerable amount of eloquence about the mood in the country. I 
think probably Senator Glenn from Ohio did this as well as any would 
when he talked about how strongly he feels about this piece of 
legislation and the fact that it is above and beyond the politics of it 
all; that is to say, it certainly does not look very good when we try 
to live by other workplace rules than the people that we represent.
  Well, I think from the point of view of the right thing to do, and 
that is what Senator Glenn has focused on, this piece of legislation is 
extremely important. But, Mr. President, if we are going to talk about 
congressional accountability, I think that we can do much better.
  I believe that this amendment, which will later on be on the floor of 
the Senate at least before this bill is finally voted up or down that 
deals especially with the gift ban, is extremely important.
  Mr. President, when my colleagues talked about what they have heard 
back home from the people they represent in our different States, I can 
just tell you that in the cafes in Minnesota, there just is not even 
any debate about the following proposition. And the following 
proposition is as follows: It is just simply wrong for Senators to be 
receiving gifts in the form of paid trips for recreation or meals or 
tickets to athletic games, or whatever the case, from lobbyists and 
others.
  I mean, Mr. President, to the 99.99 percent of people in the country, 
it is wrong because this, to them, represents a process where people 
attempt to buy access, to buy influence. Though I am not talking about 
the individual wrongdoing of any Senator, because I do not think that 
that is the issue and I would certainly hope that there is very little 
of that, or maybe in the best of all worlds none of that, the fact of 
the matter is that this amendment which, in part, deals with ending 
these gifts, the giving of these gifts and the taking of these gifts, 
is an amendment that has everything in the world to do with 
accountability.
  Mr. President, we can do a lot of things to change the political 
culture here in Washington. We can do a lot of things to make this 
political process more open and more honest and more accountable. We 
can do a lot of things to rebuild the trust of people in this political 
process. But, Mr. President, I just will tell you, and I would say this 
to my colleagues as well, that cutting committees or cutting some staff 
may be fine. It may be the appropriate thing to do. Certainly, the 
focus on living by the same workplace rules is a huge step in the right 
direction. But if we are serious about making this process more 
accountable and more open and more 
[[Page S455]] honest and a process that the people can more believe in, 
then there is not one reason in the world why Senators, on this bill, 
would not want to make us accountable. It is called the Congressional 
Accountability Act.
  One of the ways we can be accountable to the people we represent is 
to say to them in no uncertain terms that we are not going to be at the 
receiving end of these gifts. We are not going to take them, not 
because necessarily taking these gifts that are sometimes lavished upon 
us has anything to do with any kind of corruption, but rather because 
we know it does not look good, we know Senators do not need it, and we 
know people want to have trust in this process. We will simply say to 
them by passing this amendment that, indeed, we agree with the people 
we represent on this question.
  Mr. President, one of the interesting things about this amendment, of 
course, is that toward the very end of the very end, indeed, the very 
end of the last Congress, the 103d Congress, while there was some 
disagreement about some features of the lobby disclosure gift ban 
bill--and I want to focus just on the gift ban part, because that is 
what I have been working on for several years--as a matter of fact, 
toward the very end of the session, I believe that the majority leader, 
along with 36 or 37 of his colleagues, came out on the floor, 
supporting the gift ban provision. So there is strong bipartisan 
support. I have somewhere in my documents the names of every Senator 
who supports that gift ban, Democrats and also Republicans.
  So from my point of view, it is the beginning of the session. I do 
not think it is just my point of view, but I think it will be the point 
of view of colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I think it has to 
be the point of view of colleagues on both sides of the aisle because 
it is the collective point of view of people within our country that if 
we are going to get off to the right start--and we will talk about 
reform, and we will say we want to make this process more open and 
accountable, and we will talk about congressional accountability--then 
there is not one reason for any further delay in getting serious about 
accountabilities. I do look forward, later on, with Senator Levin and 
the minority leader, and Senators Feingold and Lautenberg, and I am 
sure other Senators as well on both sides of the aisle, to having this 
discussion.
  I certainly hope that my colleagues will vote for this very important 
amendment. Mr. President, I will not argue that this amendment will be 
the final step that we should take. I think it greatly strengthens this 
bill. We have been putting off this gift ban for too long a period of 
time. Over and over and over again, we have put off taking action on 
it. I think that that is unconscionable. I think we want people to 
believe in this institution. I think we want people to believe in the 
legislation we pass. And I think the way that that will happen is when 
people believe in the political process. That is what this amendment is 
all about.
  Now, I do hope that some time in the near future, we can also deal 
with another part of this which has to do with campaign finance reform. 
I think, ultimately, if we want to talk about accountability, the whole 
mix of money and politics is another part of the equation, and I do 
look forward to that discussion and that debate and those amendments 
when that happens on the floor of the Senate, as well.
  But, again, Mr. President, I do not want to take up any more time. I 
understand that my colleagues are going to be maybe breaking for 
conference, at least on the other side, and if other Senators want to 
speak right now, I will be glad to simply be done.
  So, Mr. President, I conclude my remarks for now. I see other 
Senators on the floor. I hope I did not take too much time. I wanted to 
alert Senators that this amendment will be coming up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Helms). The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I 
realize there is a conference pending at approximately 3:15. I would 
like to have my views heard on this very important piece of legislation 
which I strongly support.
  I want to congratulate Senator Grassley on the fine job he has done 
in his leadership on this issue. I am in very strong support of S. 2, 
the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. Mr. President, I am 
pleased that the Senate is now addressing itself to this issue, 
finally. It is a very important matter, assuring that Congress obeys 
the same laws by which it requires the rest of the Nation to abide. 
That is certainly not an unreasonable approach to take, I think.
  It is an issue in which I have long been interested, and I am pleased 
to have served with Senator Grassley on the Senate Republican working 
group that developed the proposal that is now embodied as S. 2.
  Mr. President, we are all aware that public opinion polls, whether we 
like it or not, consistently report that the American people hold 
Congress as an institution in very low regard. The people's lack of 
esteem for Congress is based in large part on the perception that 
Congress is an arrogant and imperial body that has placed itself above 
the law. We should not be doing things to enhance that perception. It 
should be the opposite.
  Unfortunately, in modern times at least, this perception has been 
well grounded in reality. For decades, Congress has routinely--
routinely--exempted itself from a wide range of laws governing such 
matters as civil rights, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, 
workplace safety, and on and on and on.
  In a very real sense, then, Congress indeed has placed itself above 
the law. That decidedly was not what the Founding Fathers of our great 
Nation intended. They have been amply quoted here, and there is the 
possibility of repetition; I would like to quote a couple of more 
times. In Federalist No. 57, Madison assured the American people that 
under the Constitution, Congress would not abuse its lawmaking power 
because ``it can make no law which will not have its full operation on 
themselves and their friends.''
  So Madison was very clear about that. Later, as a Member of the first 
Congress, Mr. Madison spoke on the floor of the House of 
Representatives about the important principle that all laws should be 
made to operate as much on the lawmakers as upon the people.
  It is amazing when you go back and read the words of these founders, 
Mr. President. They were so brilliant, and so many times we walk away 
from their logic. It is interesting to hear contemporaries interpret 
their words almost 180 degrees differently from what they intended when 
the Founders wrote them.
  Mr. President, Madison was not alone in articulating this principle 
that Congress should not be above the law, but rather under it. And in 
his manual of parliamentary practice, Thomas Jefferson, another pretty 
well-known founder, noted that ``the framers of our Constitution took 
care to provide that the laws should bind equally on all, and 
especially that those who make them shall not exempt themselves from 
their operation.''
  Sadly, however, all too often the Congress has seen fit to ignore the 
solemn principle that those two great founders, Madison and Jefferson, 
so clearly enunciated.
  In recent years, mounting public pressure for change has prompted a 
movement toward reform with respect to congressional coverage, and in 
response to that call for change in the 103d Congress, I, among others, 
introduced legislation to deal with it. Mine was S. 579, the Equity for 
Congress Act.
  The principal difference between the bill that I introduced, the 
Equity for Congress Act and the other congressional coverage bills in 
the last Congress, is that the bill I introduced would have kept the 
Congress out of the business of policing itself with respect to its 
compliance with the laws that my bill would have made applicable to the 
legislative branch.
  So under the bill that I introduced, there would have been no office 
of compliance created within the legislative branch. Rather, the 
executive and judicial branches would have enforced the laws with 
respect to Congress in the same manner in which it has done in the 
private sector.
  But I still believe the approach to enforcement taken under the 
Equity for Congress Act in the last Congress is 
[[Page S456]] the right approach. A number of Members of the Senate and 
House objected to this approach, however. It is a parliamentary body, 
and we sometimes have to compromise a bit. They use the separation of 
powers as the grounds for not wanting to do that. Their concern is 
focused particularly on what they see as a potential for partisan 
motivation in the manner in which the executive branch might enforce 
the law.
  In an effort to ensure the broadest possible support for, as well as 
speedy enactment of, congressional coverage legislation, I agreed to 
support this compromise, the compromise embodied by the bill before us 
now, S. 2.
  Under this compromise, congressional employees who believe that their 
employer--congressional employer--is violating one of the laws made 
applicable to the Congress by S. 2 have a choice, they have a choice 
that is a compromise here. After counseling, they can either file a 
formal complaint with the new congressional office of compliance or 
they can go directly to the courts.
  The only highly limited exceptions are with respect to those 
substantive laws that do not afford an analogous right to go to court 
to other persons who are not congressional employees.
  So, I agreed to support this compromise. It is a good compromise and 
a reasonable compromise because it is consistent with the spirit of the 
proposal I introduced. I congratulate Senator Grassley for his 
leadership and his willingness to discuss this matter and to listen to 
those of us who wanted to make some changes.
  Mr. President, I believe that it is imperative that we should move 
forthwith to take this important step toward restoring the confidence 
and the trust of the American people in their Congress. Acting promptly 
to place the Congress under the same laws by which it expects the rest 
of society to abide will send a powerful message to the American people 
that we got the message. We got the message that the reign of an 
arrogant and imperial Congress is over. By moving expeditiously, we in 
the Congress can send that clear and unmistakable message to the 
American people that we are committed to true and honest reform.
  Finally, Mr. President, I believe that S. 2 has another equally 
important purpose. Beyond moving to restore the confidence of the 
American people in their Congress, I believe the enactment of the 
Congressional Accountability Act will help us to make better laws. If 
we have to live under the laws we make, we will make better laws. Some 
say we ought to make a lot less laws, and I totally agree. Others say 
we ought to repeal one for every one we pass. That sounds like a good 
idea as well.
  But learning firsthand what effects the laws that are passed have on 
those to whom the law applies will give Congress a unique and 
invaluable way in which to learn by experience what is wrong with those 
laws.
  Moreover, living under those laws will give Congress a powerful 
disincentive. It will think twice before passing laws which it would 
not want to live under.
  So I am hopeful, in conclusion, that one spinoff from this excellent 
piece of legislation will be that we may look at some of these laws 
that are so onerous on the American people and on many businesses 
throughout the country and change some of them, as well, when we 
realize how bad they really are.
  I thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his 
courtesy, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The able Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Hutchison as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________