[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 2 (Thursday, January 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S456-S458]
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.
  Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Thank you, Madam President.
  It is with great pride that I appear today to speak on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate as Maine's new Senator, particularly because of the 
legislation that is before us today on the Congressional Accountability 
Act.
  I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Senate majority 
leader for setting this as a high priority in the 104th session of 
Congress.
  In a year when people are talking about change, and looking for more 
accountability and accomplishments from Congress, there is no more 
important message that we could send than this: that we will play by 
the rules, and we will abide by the laws--and Congress will no longer 
set itself above the law of the land.
  Madam President, this is basic fairness, and I congratulate my 
colleague from Iowa, as well, for his tireless efforts to bring this 
legislation forward.
  It was a decade ago, Madam President, when I first testified in 
support of the principles embodied in this legislation before the 
Senate today. Ten years ago, I spoke before the House's Post Office and 
Civil Service Committee about the need for Congress to treat its 
employees in the same way we require private businesses to treat their 
employees.
  And I have made the application of our Nation's laws to this Congress 
a chief objective since that occasion 10 years ago. The issue then, as 
now, was fairness. Congress should not live above the law. In both of 
the last two Congresses, I introduced legislation in the other body to 
extend coverage for Congressional employees under the Civil Rights Act 
and the Age Discrimination Act, as well as OSHA.
  Last year, I testified before the Joint Committee on the Organization 
of Congress [JCOC], which was established in 1993 to review and improve 
the legislative process. And last September, I expressed my support for 
this Chamber's congressional compliance legislation in a bipartisan 
letter sent to former majority leader and fellow Mainer George 
Mitchell, as well as to other Members of this body.
  Madam President, I have remained vigilant in working for this 
legislation because we must show the American people that we are 
willing to abide by the same laws that we require of them. The 
elections last November made clear that the American people expect more 
of Congress--that they want changes in the way this institution does 
business.
  This is one of the most important and necessary pieces of legislation 
this body will consider in this Congress, and I am proud that it is 
among the first we will consider this session.
  We must support this legislation, not only to heed the wishes of the 
American people to change Congress, but also to deliver on our promise 
to do what is right. Congress simply cannot continue to live above the 
law and call itself a body that is ``representative'' of the America we 
live in today.
  After all, what kind of message does Congress send to Americans when 
it sets itself above the law? What kind of message does Congress send 
to America when it believes it is beholden to different standards? And 
how can Congress claim to pass laws in the best interest of the 
American people if Congress refuses to abide by those very same laws.
  Madam President, Congress should be the very last institution in 
America to 
[[Page S457]] exempt itself from living under the Nation's laws. 
Rather, Congress should always be the very first institution to be 
covered by the laws of the land, especially as the body legislating 
such laws.
  I am well aware of the arguments made in opposition to this 
legislation in the past.
  Some Members have expressed concerns that our Founding Fathers 
intended the three branches of Government to remain separate, and that 
is as it should be. But, at the same time, we also know that the 
legislative branch has been entirely incapable of policing itself. A 
General Accounting Office study of the House's Office of Fair 
Employment Practices and its internal grievance process indicated that 
just 16 staffers in 4 years had enough confidence in the office to file 
complaints. Of those complaints, only four cases went to the end of the 
grievance process that was established under the Office of Fair 
Employment Practices. Strong enforcement measures are
 absolutely necessary if we are going to make Congress abide by the 
same laws that apply to the private sector.

  And that is why I am pleased with the legislation before the Senate 
today that will establish the entire independence of that office to 
ensure that the congressional employees of the legislative branch will 
be treated very fairly.
  The U.S. Constitution and arguments about the constitutionality of 
this bill are used as a cover by those who want to declare Congress 
``special''--and somehow deserving of special treatment.
  Clearly our forefathers felt differently, as we have heard today on 
numerous occasions about James Madison who made it clear that Congress, 
in fact, cannot make itself above the law.
  Members have also expressed opposition in the past to making Congress 
comply with OSHA regulations, citing cost considerations. OSHA requires 
covered employers to provide a place of employment that is free from 
recognized hazards that may cause serious physical harm or death, and 
to comply with the act's occupational safety and health reporting 
standards. I have heard from many private sector employers who are 
concerned about the cost of OSHA regulations. If this body is covered 
by the same regulations, then perhaps Congress will find a way to 
ensure that employees are guaranteed a safe workplace without unduly 
burdening employers.
  We have extended workplace and antidiscrimination laws to our 
constituents because the
 Congress has felt, rightly in my opinion, that the American people 
wanted this from their leaders and their government. That is what 
representative government is all about.

  Now, we must make the Congress representative not only of our 
constituents, but of our laws as well.
  Applying the 10 laws included in this legislation to Congress will 
not extract any great pain or price from our way of working. But it 
will send a signal to Americans who are frustrated with Congress--who 
do not believe that we get it.
  In the past, passionate debates have been held, both in this Chamber 
as well as in the House, about the need to provide America's working 
men and women with a fair living wage. We have gone to great lengths to 
ensure a living wage, fair workplace practices, and high standards. We 
are justifiably proud of these standards, and our constituents 
willingly meet them, often voluntarily. If the proprietors of the many 
stores, factories, and employers in my State and other States have to 
meet labor standards laws, should not the Congress of the United States 
as well?
  The same holds true for other laws included here: not only OSHA, as I 
mentioned, but Family and Medical Leave and the Americans With 
Disabilities Act. This legislation is a first step toward regaining its 
credibility as a law-making and law-abiding institution--one that 
claims as its master the American people, and not the other way around.
  Madam President, Congress has shown great skill over the last 20 
years in passing laws barring discrimination and in passing regulations 
and requirements on America's small businesses. Unfortunately, Congress 
has shown even greater skill in avoiding those same laws. While small 
businesses struggle to pay for renovations that would make it pass an 
OSHA inspection, the Capitol--and our own offices, I might add--has 
never hosted an OSHA visit. And dare I say they would not pass an OSHA 
inspection, either. Why? Because, unbelievably, it has never had to.
  That is why passage of this bill is an absolutely critical step in 
giving this institution the reform it desperately needs and the reform 
the American public so clearly wants. Now is the time to restore the 
public's faith in Congress and the democratic process. And now is the 
time to show the American people that, yes, we do listen, yes, we are 
accountable, and yes, we are delivering on our solemn promises of 
change.
  And let us also take this opportunity to demonstrate that we can do 
so in a bipartisan manner.
 That, Madam President, no institution should be above the law, 
especially Congress. No institution should be exempted from the law, 
especially Congress. And no one should ignore the law, especially 
Congress.

  Madam President, I would urge my colleagues to vote for the passage 
of this very important legislation.
  Madam 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. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the 
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. This legislation would apply 
to the Congress the same regulatory laws that apply to the rest of 
society. The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] deserves extraordinary 
credit for his long-term commitment to the principles incorporated in 
this legislation.
  During the most recent campaign in which I was engaged, I discovered 
a sense of public outrage across the entire State of Michigan that we 
in the Congress were not required to abide by the same laws as the rest 
of the country. This outrage was based upon the perception that this 
was a double standard, a hypocritical policy by which those who enacted 
the laws of the land exempted themselves and only themselves from the 
burdens of these laws. The purpose of the present legislation is to 
bring the Congress in closer touch with the American people by making 
them subject to a common set of laws.
  There are two principles that lie at the heart of this legislation: 
first, there is the principle of equity. To the extent that the 
Congress has made the judgment that employees in the private sector are 
entitled to minimal standards and terms of employment, it is difficult 
for me to understand why employees of the Congress should not be 
subject to the same standards. While the Congress is a distinctive 
institution in its role in our public life, I am unable to see how that 
distinctiveness relates to the proper standards and terms for treating 
its employees. Although the Congress clearly has the authority to 
exempt itself from the employment rules which it applies to other 
institutions, I believe that the integrity of the lawmaking branch of 
the National Government is diminished when it seeks to treat itself in 
a different manner than it treats the rest of society. If anything, we 
should hold ourselves to higher standards than are applied to other 
institutions which do not make the rules.
  Second, the Congressional Accountability Act incorporates the 
principle that sound legislation is better promoted when legislators 
must abide by the rules set forth in their legislation. When I hear 
opponents of this measure arguing that Members of Congress should not 
be subject to frivolous litigation or that reputations may suffer when 
individuals are wrongfully sued, I am sympathetic but only to a point. 
Private employers should not be subject to frivolous litigation or 
liable to damage to their reputations any more than Members of 
Congress. If these concerns are legitimate, then they are legitimate 
for all Americans not merely for those of us who toil on Capitol Hill. 
If these concerns are legitimate, 
[[Page S458]] then they should be addressed directly by those who 
fashion these laws.
  I am simply convinced that Members of Congress who are confronted 
with the reality of having to comply with the same legal structure as 
other Americans are likely to be: first, more careful in their 
craftsmanship in drafting laws; second, more attentive to detail in 
saying precisely what is meant by the law; third, more concerned about 
resolving legal issues and definitions within the text of the 
legislation rather than effectively delegating these decisions to 
unelected and unaccountable Federal judges; and fourth, more 
conscientious in carefully balancing the costs and benefits of their 
legislative product.
  To have separate classes of Americans, some subject to the law and 
others exempt from it, is to have a fundamentally inequitable 
situation, particularly when that line of division is drawn along the 
lines of legislators and legislatees. Also, the incentives in the 
legislative process are skewed in the wrong direction when those who 
draft the laws do not
 have to live with the consequences of those laws.

  Although I recognize that constitutional considerations--separation 
of powers considerations--come into play whenever relationships are 
created between the Congress and enforcement agencies of the executive 
branch, I do not understand there to be anything in the Constitution 
which would stand in the way of the immediate legislation. The 
Congressional Accountability Act attempts to address the concerns about 
separation of powers by enacting a specific enforcement mechanism 
unique to this act. Although I do not believe that such a precaution is 
constitutionally necessary, and would prefer that this special 
mechanism not have been included, ultimately I do not believe that it 
undermines the critically important thrust of this legislation.
  Madam President, it is imperative that this institution restore to 
the American people a sense of trust and confidence. Rightly or 
wrongly, too many Americans have viewed the Congress as increasingly 
arrogant in their toleration of double standards of public policy. 
Passage of this legislation should be revived as a necessary step in 
reestablishing the proper relationship between our Government and its 
citizens.
  If we are going to ask the American people to make sacrifices as we 
attempt to restructure our bloated Federal Government, the Congress 
will need credibility. This legislation can contribute to that 
credibility. In a Congress that promises to be as active and aggressive 
as the 104th in reforming the way that government does business, there 
may be no more important legislation than this measure. By restoring 
public trust, S. 12 would enable us to do a better job in all of the 
rest of the areas of our public responsibility.
  Because this legislation represents sound public policy, and because 
its enactment would signal a new sense of relationship between 
Washington and the rest of the country, I urge its enactment.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and 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. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 10 minutes in morning business.

                          ____________________