[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S693-S706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2) to make certain laws applicable to the 
     legislative branch of the Federal Government.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

       Pending:
       (1) Ford-Feingold amendment No. 4, to prohibit the personal 
     use of accrued frequent flier miles by Members and employees 
     of the Congress.
       (2) McConnell amendment No. 8 (to amendment No. 4) to 
     prohibit the personal use of accrued frequent flier miles by 
     Members and employees of the Senate and clarify Senate 
     regulations on the use of frequent flier miles.

  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                            Amendment No. 9

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate with respect to a 
 timetable for the Senate's prompt consideration of comprehensive gift 
                            ban legislation)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, before I send my amendment to the desk, let me one 
more time thank my colleague, the Senator from Iowa, for his leadership 
on this Congressional Accountability Act. I think it is a very 
important piece of legislation. I am certainly confident that by the 
end of the day we will indeed vote on this important piece of 
legislation and it will be a very strong affirmative vote.
  Mr. President, before I send my amendment to the desk, I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, let me just briefly give some background and talk 
about the amendment.
  This amendment essentially says is that it is the sense of the Senate 
that the Senate should consider comprehensive gift ban legislation no 
later than May 31, 1995.
  At the end of last week, the Senate defeated a tough comprehensive 
gift ban amendment that was offered by Senator Levin, myself, and 
Senators Feingold and Lautenberg. I regret that my Republican 
colleagues were unwilling to move forward on this piece of legislation 
which I think had everything in the world to do with congressional 
accountability. My Republican colleagues who opposed that amendment, 
even though many had cosponsored the same language just a few months 
ago, contended that it was more an issue of timing.
  But it did seem to me then and it seems to me now that if we could be 
ready to move forward this week on an extremely important piece of 
legislation dealing with unfunded mandates, that goes to the heart of 
the interrelationship between Federal and State and local governments, 
and goes to the very heart of what Federalism is about, we should be 
able to address this straightforward issue without a lot of further 
consideration. And if, in fact, my colleagues are willing to amend the 
U.S. Constitution with a balanced budget amendment with just a couple 
of weeks preparation, then it seems to me astounding that we are not 
willing to move forward on a very simple amendment that has everything 
in the world to do with reform, which just simply puts an end to this 
practice of accepting the gifts, perks, lobbyist-sponsored vacation 
travel, and the like offered by special interests.
  This amendment, Mr. President, simply attempts to put the Senate on 
record formally in favor of returning to this issue promptly and acting 
on tough gift ban legislation no later than the end of May 1995, which 
the majority leader has indicated it was his intention to do.
  Mr. President, the nice thing about this amendment is that it is 
consistent with the debate and the discussion that we had on the floor 
of the Senate last week. At that time, Senator Cohen, who has again 
provided a tremendous amount of leadership on these reform issues, said 
on the floor: ``I intend to give Senator Dole an opportunity to bring 
it up in a relatively short time,'' the gift ban. ``He has not given me 
a specific timetable, but I would say within the next couple of months, 
I expect we will consider this legislation and any amendments that 
might be offered to it--and I suspect there will be amendments. There 
are people on this side that still do not agree with the provisions 
that we supported.''
  But, again, there will be action on this; it will be considered 
within the next several months.
  Senator Dole, the majority leader, came to the floor and said:

       I certainly commend the Senator from Michigan, Senator 
     Levin, for his leadership. But we believe there are some 
     changes that could be made even in the gift ban. This 
     amendment would not be effective in any event until the end 
     of May 1995.
       It would be my hope that by that time we will have even a 
     better package.

  So I really am essentially following the lead of the majority leader 
with this amendment. As he pointed out, our amendment would not have 
become effective until the end of May. I simply think that it is time 
now for the Senate to go formally on record that, in fact, we will take 
action no later than the end of May.
  Mr. President, let me give this amendment a little bit of context, a 
brief history.
  Almost 2 years ago, we started dealing with this problem of gifts 
being lavished on Members of Congress from outside sources. And I had 
an amendment which simply said lobbyists had to disclose specifically 
what these gifts were. I said at the time it was a first step, and I 
meant that.
  Mr. President, that lobbying registration bill, with the amendment 
that I had to that bill, passed the Senate by a vote of 95 to 2. Months 
of waiting took place for the House to act on strong gift ban 
provisions as a part of the lobbying bill. Then, Senator Lautenberg, 
Senator Feingold, and myself introduced a tough, comprehensive gift ban 
bill. We introduced a tough, comprehensive gift ban bill. Senator 
Levin's committee then held hearings and reported out a solid, 
comprehensive, more refined version of our earlier gift bans bill. 
Under Secretary Levin's leadership, we were able to beat back Senate 
amendments which would have weakened the bill. That bill passed last 
May by a 95-4 vote.

  Prodded in part by this action, the House then acted on a reasonably 
tough version. A strong version came out of a House-Senate conference 
committee. Then the lobbying registration gift ban bill to which the 
gift ban was attached was killed in the last days of the session--I 
think based upon unfounded complaints by lobbying groups that were 
concerned about the registration part.
  Legislation that we brought forward to the Senate floor last week was 
very similar to a Senate-passed version last year, and to the 
conference report; that is to say, the amendment that dealt with gift 
bans.
  Now, Mr. President, on the merits of the gift ban, 37 Republicans, 
including the majority leader, cosponsored the same legislation. In 
other words, the wording of the amendment that we brought to the floor 
dealing with gift ban was essentially identical to the wording that the 
majority leader and 36 other Republican Senators had voted for last 
session.
  Now, as I wrap up my remarks, and I am about ready to send the 
amendment to the desk, I make an appeal to my colleagues. I believe my 
colleagues when they say we are going to act on this. I believe them. 
But I want to ensure that we do not let this gift ban amendment, this 
gift ban legislation, slip by in the legislative rush of this session. 
Again, this is a simple amendment. It puts the Senate on record in 
favor of acting on a tough, comprehensive gift ban legislation no later 
than the end of May 1995, precisely what the majority leader has called 
for.
  Mr. President, I do not think I need to again rehearse the 
substantive arguments in favor of enacting a tough, comprehensive gift 
ban. We have debated this legislation and we have debated this 
amendment more than once on the floor of the Senate. I will simply say 
this: The evidence is irrefutable that the giving of these special 
favors

[[Page S694]]

to Senators and Representatives has only added to the deepening 
distrust that citizens have of this political process, of this 
congressional process. Despite assertions by my colleagues that we are 
completely unswayed by trips or fancy dinners, such gifts give the 
appearance of impropriety, and they erode public confidence in the 
Congress as an institution. Mr. President, they erode public confidence 
in each of us, personally, as representatives of our constituents.
  I am sure many of my colleagues will agree that in any town meeting 
Senators hold, Senators hear about this and other reform issues from 
people in the country. They want to put an end to this practice, and 
clean up the system. Public trust in the Congress is at a historic low 
and demand for political reform is very high. Banning outside gifts 
would be an extremely positive signal that we could send to people in 
this country that we are serious about making this political process 
more honest, more open, and more accountable.
  Mr. President, the amendment that I now send to the desk reads:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Senate should 
     consider comprehensive gift ban legislation no later than May 
     31, 1995.

  This is what the majority leader called for. This is what I believe 
we talked about last week. I am disappointed we did not act to approve 
the actual gift ban at the very beginning of the session. But I intend 
to come back at this issue until we are done.
  I think it is extremely important that the Senate now go on record 
that we shall consider comprehensive gift ban legislation no later than 
May 31.
  One final time, Mr. President, for my colleagues: There is no hidden 
agenda to this amendment. It is very simple. It is very 
straightforward. As a matter of fact, it simply is a confirmation of a 
commitment that I believe we made last week. Now, I call on all of my 
colleagues, I call on the U.S. Senate, to go on record that the Senate 
should consider comprehensive gift ban legislation no later than May 
31, 1995.
  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 9.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec.  . It is the sense of the Senate that the Senate 
     should consider comprehensive gift ban legislation no later 
     than May 31, 1995.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, for the moment I yield the floor, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I certainly support what Senator Wellstone 
is trying to do.
  The gift ban is something we have tried to put through. There has 
been controversy on it back and forth. He has kept on this, to his 
everlasting credit. I think it is good he brings it up.
  I hope the majority, after checking with the leadership, might be 
able to accept this so that we do not have to go to a vote. I hope that 
will be acceptable to my distinguished colleague from Minnesota. I 
think, as I understand it, that is the process we are in now.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GLENN. I yield to the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr, President, I state that we are checking with the 
appropriate committees to make sure if any of those Members want to 
come and speak on this subject, as well as checking to see the 
leadership's position.
  Then, as well, if it does not work out, I would like to have a 
unanimous-consent later on that. I would propose to have a vote on it 
immediately after the McConnell amendment, which takes place at 2:15.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
  I will ask for the yeas and nays, and would like to have a vote on 
this amendment, and that vote take place at a convenient time.
  Mr. President, let me right now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will my distinguished colleague yield?
  Would the Senator want the yeas and nays if the majority was going to 
accept it?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would ask for the yeas and nays. I do 
want to have a recorded vote on it.
  Mr. GLENN. That would sort of obviate the need for Members to try to 
accept it then, at this point.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I understood the Senator from Iowa to 
say there would be a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, right now we are in the process of 
letting the appropriate committees know about the amendment, and 
reserving time for them to come over and debate if they want to debate. 
I do not know that there is any request for debate on it.
  I am also checking with the leadership to see if there would be any 
obstacles to accepting the amendment. If we accept the amendment, we 
hope, then, that there will not be a vote on it. If the leadership does 
not want to accept the amendment, then I suggest that we vote on it 
immediately after the McConnell amendment, and we would have the yeas 
and nays.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I renew my request for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. GLENN. 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. KERRY. 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. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand the state of parliamentary 
procedure is that there is an amendment currently pending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Offered by the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be temporarily 
set aside for the purpose of consideration of another amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 10

 (Purpose: To restrict the use of campaign funds for personal purposes)

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 10.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . RESTRICTIONS ON PERSONAL USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS.

       Section 313 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 439a) is amended)--
       (1) by striking ``Amounts received'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Amounts received''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) Any candidate who receives contributions may not 
     use such contributions for personal use.
       ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `personal 
     use' shall include, but not be limited to--
       ``(A) a home purchase, mortgage, or rental;
       ``(B) articles of clothing for the use of the candidate or 
     members of the candidate's immediate family (other than 
     standard campaign souvenirs, articles, or materials 
     traditionally offered or provided in connection with bona 
     fide campaign events);
       ``(C) travel and related expenses that are substantially 
     recreational in nature;
       ``(D) entertainment, such as sporting events, theater 
     events, or other similar activities, except when offered or 
     provided by the campaign in connection with a bona fide 
     campaign fundraising event;
       ``(E) fees or dues for membership in any club or 
     recreational facility;

[[Page S695]]

       ``(F) automobile expenses within the Washington, D.C. 
     metropolitan area (except that a candidate whose district 
     falls within the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, may 
     lease automobiles used for campaign purposes consistent with 
     subparagraph (G));
       ``(G) any other automobile expense, except that a campaign 
     may lease automobiles for campaign purposes if it requires 
     that, if the automobile is used for any other incidental use, 
     the campaign receives reimbursement not later than 30 days 
     after such incidental use;
       ``(H) any meal or refreshment on any occasion not directly 
     related to a specific campaign activity;
       ``(I) salaries or per diem payments to the candidate; and
       ``(J) other expenditures determined by the Federal Election 
     Commission to be personal in nature.
       ``(3) Any personal expenditure described in paragraph (2) 
     shall not be considered to be an ordinary and necessary 
     expense incurred in connection with a Member's or Member-
     elect's duties as a holder of Federal office.''.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that, at 
first blush, some might try to argue does not belong on this bill 
because it addresses one facet of campaign finance reform. But I want 
to make it very clear at the outset that this amendment is not broad-
based campaign finance reform. It is a small reform which we adopted by 
voice vote previously last year. I think it was offered in similar form 
by the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain. I believe that, indeed, it 
is appropriate to join it with the issue of congressional coverage, and 
that it therefore is fully appropriate to offer it as an amendment to 
this bill.
  This amendment asks us to behave like other Americans. In the spirit 
of reform that has been so embraced in the House of Representatives, in 
the spirit of reform that is at the center of the efforts of this 
Congress to try to respond to the mandate of the election, and in the 
spirit of reform that I believe is at the center of all of the dynamics 
of our politics today, this amendment is relevant and germane and 
important.
  What this amendment seeks to do, simply, is to make it illegal to 
convert campaign funds to personal use. This is not campaign finance 
reform as much as it is an effort by the Congress to say we are going 
to behave like everybody else in this country, and everybody else in 
this country does not have the ability to go out and ask people to 
donate money for one purpose and then turn around and decide, with 
enormous discretion, to spend that money for entirely different 
purposes--and, in fact, for personal gain and benefit.
  The amendment is based on the proposed rules addressing the same 
subject published by the Federal Election Commission late in 1994. It 
would close the loopholes by prohibiting personal use of campaign funds 
and by setting forth a clear definition of what constitutes personal 
use. And most important, Mr. President, it prohibits a candidate from 
drawing a salary from his or her own campaign funds.
  I believe that this amendment is synchronized with the effort to lift 
this institution out of the morass of partisanship and out of the 
morass of disdain with which most Americans have viewed in recent 
years.
  While I have been deeply involved in campaign finance reform and it 
has been one of my principal areas of legislative focus since I was 
elected to this body--indeed, it was the subject of one of the very 
first pieces of legislation that I introduced, and I will continue the 
fight for comprehensive campaign finance reform this year--I emphasize 
this amendment is not bringing a broad-based campaign finance reform 
proposal. I understand from Majority Leader Dole that there will be a 
time for that later in the year, though it cannot come soon enough as 
far as this Senator is concerned.
  But I do believe this is an opportunity for us to make an important 
change in the way campaign funds are used while simultaneously making a 
statement fully in keeping with the spirit of congressional coverage 
legislation. The bottom line of that legislation is an effort to say to 
Americans: Congress ought to live by the same standards as all other 
Americans. And this seeks to say that our management of campaign funds 
given to us for the specific purpose of campaigning should entail an 
explicit responsibility to spend that money for campaign purposes--that 
it should not be taken to buy Super Bowl tickets, or to pay for trips 
to places that many hard-working Americans would like to go but cannot 
afford to go, under the guise of some kind of campaign effort. It 
certainly should not be used by a candidate to pay himself or herself a 
salary, particularly a salary that might be in excess of what that 
candidate was able to earn in the marketplace or was previously 
earning. Each of those activities is outside the norm of life for the 
great majority of Americans. They are activities that are available to 
people in Congress only because they are in Congress and are raising 
large amounts of money necessary for campaigns under our current system 
of campaign finance.
  When the Federal Election Commission was considering the new rules on 
this subject which it proposed late in 1994, the Sacramento Bee 
newspaper said:

       The FEC should approve them. Most important, for the vast 
     majority of those in Congress who are honest public servants 
     who are at times genuinely confused about the proper use of 
     campaign funds, the rules provide some guidance.

  That is what we seek to do here, provide some guidance in order to 
help Members to live up to reasonable standards.
  The Chicago Tribune said:

       Despite a 15-year-old Federal law that bars candidates from 
     converting campaign funds to personal use, the Federal 
     Election Commission has never offered rules on what personal 
     use is.

  And the New York Times said:

       The law should be revised.

  This amendment does exactly that. It ends the confusion, it defines 
personal use, and it revises the law. I hope my colleagues will support 
it. I want to make it clear that there is an awful lot more to do than 
just this on campaign finance reform. We passed major legislation last 
year. Regretfully it got caught up in House politics and later in 
Senate politics and the American people were cheated of the most far-
reaching and important campaign finance reform in the history of this 
country. This is vital legislation because I think every American 
understands that underneath the term limits movement, underneath the 
disdain for Congress, underneath the sense of a lack of access to the 
U.S. Congress, underneath the feeling of powerlessness and the great 
gulf between elected officials and the people, there is one source that 
is to blame more than any other. It is money--the money used for 
campaigning for elective office. Money is moving and dictating and 
governing the process of American politics, and most Americans 
understand that. The reason so many people find it hard to run for 
office and keep our democracy vibrant is because of the extraordinary 
cost.
  So we have a great task ahead of us in order to pass a comprehensive 
campaign finance reform law and in order to avoid the increasing 
perception of the American people that no matter what they do, Congress 
seems wedded to interests that have money and somehow divorces itself 
from the real concerns and aspirations of the American people. So I 
hope this small measure--which is aimed at helping us to live under the 
same rules as do the rest of Americans--will be accepted by the 
majority and it will not need a rollcall vote. But in the event that it 
does, I, at this time, ask for the yeas and nays, which I certainly 
will be happy to vitiate should it be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, let me rise to strongly support the 
proposal by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. We have had 
this before us several times, as to what kind of limitation we should 
put on funds that are gathered for specific purposes and wind up being 
used for other purposes; where money that was given for a particular 
election use winds up feathering the nests or lining the pockets--
however you want to say it--anyway, being used by the former candidate 
for his or her own personal use. That was not the intent of the giving 
in most cases, that the funds could be converted for that purpose.
  That is what the Senator addresses, basically. This is a small step 
forward. It does not try to encompass all of the

[[Page S696]]

difficulties involved with the problems of campaigns and campaign 
finance reform. It is a small step forward, and I hope we will have 
support on both sides of the aisle for this, so I rise to support the 
proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, once again I express to my colleagues 
the desire that we not put amendments on this bill that will possibly 
be able to be discussed later on in this session on the floor of the 
Senate when offered to bills more germane to the subject, in this 
particular case campaign finance reform. In the case of the Wellstone 
amendment it would be the gift ban.
  This is a bill that is very basic and easily understood. The 
underlying bill I introduced, and Senator Lieberman has been my 
Democratic counterpart, is a bill that is going to end the situation 
where we have a dual set of laws in this country, one for Capitol Hill 
and one for the rest of the country. We think there is a consensus on 
this. There is very little discussion on the underlying legislation. 
Before this day is out we hope to have this legislation become the law 
of the land by being able to pass it here, the House having agreed to 
it, and immediately getting it to the President of the United States.
  There is nothing wrong with the proposals the Senator from 
Massachusetts presents to us in the way of campaign finance reform, 
only that it is being offered as an amendment to a bill that otherwise 
is basically noncontroversial. It will not pass unanimously, I know, 
but there is a fair consensus because it tries to correct a situation 
that we all agree for too long has been unjust, a situation where the 
laws that apply to the private sector do not apply to Congress and 
Capitol Hill.
  So I hope we can get these amendments behind us and move on. I do not 
say to the Senator from Massachusetts that his subject should not be 
discussed or that there is anything wrong with what he is proposing to 
do. I just think now is not the time to do it. The bill we are dealing 
with, the subject matter of the bill, in S. 2, passed the House of 
Representatives unanimously, with only about 20 minutes of debate, in 
the first day of their session. Senator Dole set this bill for 
discussion on Thursday, the first day we were having legislative 
action. That is how important the leadership, the new leadership of the 
Senate, feels that this legislation is.
  We discussed it on Thursday, on Friday, on Monday, and now Tuesday 
will be the fourth day. We have spent most of our discussion on this 
legislation on issues unrelated to congressional coverage--
congressional coverage by these laws of our employees. I hope that we 
can get on with this legislation, that we will not accept this 
amendment, and that we will before the day is out get this bill passed. 
That will mean that we have spent 4 days on a bill that the House of 
Representatives spent 20 minutes on.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague and others on the other 
side what it is of which they are afraid. I ask my colleague if my 
Republican friends are really in favor of reform. There is no strict 
formula by which we determine what legislation will be brought before 
the U.S. Senate, in what order it will be brought, or when it will be 
brought. Everyone serving in this body knows that. Where is it ordained 
that there is a better moment 5 months from now than right now to say 
to the American people we are not going to spend campaign money for 
personal use? Of what are those Members who oppose this amendment 
afraid? If they support it, why not attach it to this vehicle and make 
the statement of reform to the American people now? Why wait 5 months?
  My colleague just stood up and said that the purpose of this 
legislation is to show Americans that we are prepared to live like they 
do. Why would you not want to attach to that bill a statement that we 
are not going to allow people to raise campaign funds to spend money in 
a way that no other Americans can spend money? I thought the 
Republicans who are the new majority party were the folks who are 
saying to the people back home, we are not going to do business as 
usual anymore in Washington; no more business as usual. But business as 
usual is coming to the floor and saying, ``Oh, we are going to do this 
in 5 months; we are going to do this in 6 months.'' I note that this is 
coming from the very people who filibustered the last round of campaign 
finance reform and who saw their President, President Bush, veto the 
bill that was passed 2 years ago.
  So here is a chance to demonstrate to the American people whether we 
really are just rhetorically talking about reform and are just going to 
do the kind of pushbutton, feel-good things that happen to appeal to 
one party but do not constitute basic reform. What could be simpler 
than a fundamental principle that people who run for political office 
are not going to spend their campaign funds for personal use, are not 
going to go out and buy clothing with campaign funds, and are not going 
to pay for a trip to the Super Bowl with campaign funds?
  I have a lot of workers in Lynn, MA, or in Fall River or New Bedford 
who dream about buying new clothes or going to the Super Bowl but who 
do not have campaign funds with which to do so.
  So here we are with an opportunity to say to the average American we 
are going to live just like you do, we are going to spend our campaign 
money strictly on campaigning. Is that frightening? But we are being 
told by those on the other side of the aisle that somehow such a 
proposal does not belong on a bill that is specifically geared to 
requiring Congress to live like the rest of America.
  So what we are seeing, Mr. President, is that there is a difference 
between the reality and the rhetoric once again. Some people are 
prepared only to talk a good game about reform. Is there anybody here 
who truly disagrees that campaign funds should not be spent on personal 
use? My friend from Iowa talked about a consensus. Is there really not 
a consensus in the Congress that campaign funds should not be spent on 
personal use? I would think there would be 100 votes to support that.
  Let us put that to the test. I think we ought to find out whether 
there are 100 votes for that proposition.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
to set aside the pending amendment so that I might offer an amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, has the unanimous-consent request been 
agreed to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it has not.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator McCain was on his way over to speak on the 
Kerry amendment. Could we wait for that?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course, I would be happy to. I should say to my friend 
from Iowa that I will probably take only 3 or 4 minutes. I wonder if I 
might go forward and I would be happy to immediately yield to Senator 
McCain when he arrives.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Would Senator McCain be able to get the floor?
  Mr. LEAHY. Oh, yes. I would yield. Give me about 20 seconds after he 
motions that he wants it and I will yield to him.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Thank you.


                            Amendment No. 11

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 11.

       At the end of the bill, add the following,
       ``No congressional organization or organization affiliated 
     with the Congress, may request that any current or 
     prospective employee fill out a questionnaire or similar 
     document in which the person's views on organizations or 
     policy matters are requested.''


[[Page S697]]

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, let me explain why I have done this. I 
remember when I first came to the Senate, I think within the first year 
or so I was here, I introduced legislation saying that I wished all 
laws would be applied to Members of Congress that apply to everybody 
else. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] has been doing the same for 
years, and Senator Grassley from Iowa has been doing the same for 
years. I think we have joined as cosponsors of each other's 
legislation. But I remember giving an eloquent speech--as I thought 
anyway--as a young Member of the Senate, on a Friday as I recall, about 
why we should apply all the same laws to Members of Congress. As I was 
leaving, one of the older Members of the Senate, a very senior Member 
of the Senate, said, ``Where are you going?'' I said I was heading to 
the airport to catch a plane back to Vermont. His response was, ``Good. 
Stay there.'' The legislation was not greeted with enormous enthusiasm. 
I know the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Iowa have experienced 
similar things--we have commiserated with each other about it--the 
latest being even on Sunday when the Senator from Ohio and I had a 
chance to join each other for lunch. But what I want to do is give 
employees of the Congress the same protections available to other 
workers in the Federal Government and private sector.
  As we changed from the majority to the minority, the new majority 
came in and, as is perfectly appropriate, they did a great deal of new 
hiring. I have no problem with that. I have been here in the majority 
and then the minority, and I have gone back and forth four times. I 
know a lot of staff changes with that. But I was surprised by news 
reports that the Republican Study Committee required prospective 
congressional employees to take an ideological litmus test, not so they 
could be hired but they had to take it before they could even be listed 
with a placement service.
  Mr. President, I think Senators know me well enough to know this is 
not partisan. I would object to this whether Republicans or Democrats 
did it. I do not know whether these questionnaires are legal under 
Federal laws or the rules of the Senate, but they smack of McCarthyism 
while I was a teenager during the fifties. I know enough about 
McCarthyism to know how destructive to human beings and the sense of 
the public comity loyalty oaths can be.
  I have a copy of the questionnaire, and I ask unanimous consent that 
it be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Republican Study Committee--Issues Questionnaire

       The following questions are designed to assist us in 
     placing you with an office in which you are most compatible. 
     If you tend to agree with the statements put a ``Y'' in the 
     blank. If you tend to disagree with the statement, put a 
     ``N'' in the blank.


                         Defense/International

       __ The United States devotes too great a portion of its 
     budget to defense spending in the post Cold-War era.
       __ The U.S. should not move to deploy current SDI 
     technologies. SDI is better off as just a research program.
       __ Homosexuality is compatible with service in the U.S. 
     military.
       __ A strong Israel is vital to American interests in the 
     Middle East.
       ___ The U.S. should get approval from the United Nations 
     before engaging in any military action abroad.


                            Social/Domestic

       __ The death penalty should never be available as a 
     sentencing option for federal crimes.
       __ Additional restrictions on handguns are needed to reduce 
     the murder rate in the U.S.
       __ Abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, 
     incest, or to protect the life of the mother.
       __ Membership in a union should be at the option of the 
     employee and not a requirement for employment.
       __ Members of disadvantaged groups should be given 
     preference in hiring and admissions in order to correct for 
     past inequities.
       __ Voluntary prayer should be allowed in schools.
       __ Public health concerns should take precedence over civil 
     rights concerns in dealing with the current AIDS crisis.
       __ Abortion should be viewed as a woman's right to control 
     her own body.


                             budget/economy

       __ Restrictions on imports are an effective tool to protect 
     U.S. jobs and improve the economy.
       __ The threat of global warming requires strict limits on 
     carbon dioxide emissions.
       __ Health care is a fundamental right which the U.S. 
     government should guarantee to every citizen.
       __ Congress should enact a Constitutional Amendment to 
     require a balanced federal budget.
       __ Congress should enact higher taxes as long as the 
     revenue is earmarked for deficit reduction.
       Following are a number of organizations and people involved 
     in public policy. Indicate your general agreement with a (+) 
     and general disagreement with a (-), or leave the space blank 
     if you have no opinion.
       __ American Civil Liberties Union.
       __ Common Cause.
       __ National Right to Work.
       __ National Education Association.
       __ National Organization of Women.
       __ National Right to Life Committee.
       __ Planned Parenthood.
       __ National Rifle Association.
       __ Sierra Club.
       __ United Nations.
       __ Al Gore.
       __ Jesse Helms.
       __ Ted Kennedy.
       __ Dan Quayle.
       __ Bob Dole.
       __ George Bush.
       __ Newt Gingrich.
       __ Richard Gephardt.
                                  ____


                       Republican Study Committee


                              [memorandum]

     To: Job Seekers.
     From: Grace L. Crews, Job Bank Coordinator.
       This is just a brief note to explain the RSC Job Bank to 
     you. The RSC is a Republican research organization which 
     exists solely for the aid of its members.
       The RSC provides numerous services for its members 
     including the Job Bank. When a member calls with a job 
     vacancy, he/she gives us the description which includes 
     title, duties, salary, contact, etc. We then refer resumes of 
     qualified applicants to them for their consideration. If they 
     are interested, they will contact you. You will not receive a 
     call from us. Because most of our members prefer it, we never 
     disclose the location of a vacancy.
       Rest assured that the RSC wants you to find a job. We will 
     do everything possible to aid you in your search. However, we 
     cannot guarantee you a job, and we do not know of all the 
     jobs on the Hill. Therefore, we ask that you do everything 
     you can to aid in your search.
       Because we receive so many resumes, it is impossible for us 
     to keep in contact with you. Therefore, we ask that you keep 
     in contact with us by letting us know when you have found a 
     job or if you are still looking. If we do not hear from you 
     within three (3) months, we will discard your resume. If you 
     are still looking after that, you will have to give us a new 
     one.
       And now, for some important advice. Be flexible. We would 
     all like to start at the top--very few of us get the chance. 
     Be willing to do whatever it takes to get that Hill 
     experience, even if you have to open mail for someone for a 
     while. Don't price yourself out of the market. Be willing to 
     negotiate salary. If you turn down a job because you think 
     you are worth more than the Congressman is willing to pay, 
     you may find yourself looking longer than you anticipated.
       The RSC wishes you the best in your search for employment 
     on the Hill.
                                  ____


                       Job Placement Information

       Date: ______
       Name: ______
       Street: ______
       City: ______
       State: ______
       Zip: ______
       Home Phone: ______
       Work Phone: ______
       Home State: ______
       Position(s) Desired: (You may circle more than one.)
       Chief of Staff/AA.
       Legislative Counsel.
       Committee Staff.
       Legislative Director.
       Legislative Assistant.
       Legislative Correspondent.
       Press Secretary.
       Caseworker.
       Office Manager.
       Scheduler.
       Receptionist.
       Systems Manager.
       If applying for a clerical position, please indicate your 
     appropriate skills:
       Typing (wpm).
       Shorthand (wpm).
       Computer system(s) & applications.
       Salary Range: __ to__.
       Ideology: Do you consider yourself (please circle one): 
     conservative  moderate  liberal.
       Campaign Experience: Yes {time}  No {time} .
       Fundraising Experience: Yes {time}  No {time} .
       Hill Experience: Yes {time}  No {time} .
       Press Experience: Yes {time}  No {time} .
       Senior Management Experience: Yes {time}  No {time} .
       Speech Writing Experience: Yes {time}  No {time} .
       Issue(s) Expertise: ______
       Security Clearance: Yes {time}  No {time}  Level __.
       Would you like this inquiry kept confidential? Yes {time}  
     No {time} .
       Please send this information sheet, a copy of your updated 
     resume, the questionnaire,

[[Page S698]]

     and a list of references to: Republican Study Committee, 433 
     Cannon HOB, Washington, D.C. 20515 or fax it to (202) 225-
     8705. Should you have any questions, please call (202) 225-
     0587.
                                  ____


                       Republican Study Committee


                     instructions for rsc job bank

       (1) Please read top sheet and fill out both the application 
     and issues questionnaire.
       (2) Attach resume between application sheet and 
     questionnaire with paper clip.
       (3) Place in designated box.

  Mr. LEAHY. This legislation is designed to give the employees of the 
Congress the same protections that are available to other workers in 
the Federal Government and the private sector.
  I was surprised by recent news reports that the Republican Study 
Committee required prospective congressional employees to take an 
ideological litmus test before they could be listed with their 
placement service.
  I do not know whether such questionnaires are legal under Federal law 
or under the rules of the Senate. I do know, as one who lived through 
the McCarthyism of the 1950's, how destructive, to both human beings, 
and to the sense of public comity, loyalty oaths can be.
  That is why I requested a copy of the questionnaire and related 
materials. Let me take a few minutes of the Senate's time to describe 
what I found.
  The Republican Study Committee, an organization of the House of 
Representatives, which among other activities, provides an employment 
service for persons who are applying for jobs with Republican Members 
of the House. It provides prospective employees with a set of materials 
which includes a questionnaire. This questionnaire asks a large number 
of very definitive policy questions about a prospective employee's 
views.
  For example, it asks questions about the applicants views on 
abortion, school prayer, and AID among others.
  It also asks whether the applicant is in general agreement with ACLU, 
National Right to Work, Newt Gingrich, Ted Kennedy, or Richard 
Gephardt. Apparently new litmus tests to judge an employee's political 
correctness are now in order.
  Of course, these questions are ``designed to assist in placing you 
with an office in which you are most compatible.''
  The reality is that these kinds of questions are getting close to 
loyalty oath type questions of the 1950's.
  Soon will employees be asked, ``Are you now or have you ever been a 
member of Common Cause?
  ``Are you now or have you ever been a member of Planned Parenthood?
  ``Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Sierra Club.''
  Are we on the way to a new type of politically correct rightwing 
thinking?
  This questionnaire is not new. One of my current employees 
encountered this questionnaire when she was looking for an entry-level 
job on the Hill over 3 years ago. More concerned about being a part of 
the democratic process than in ideology she applied at both Democratic 
and Republican service offices. What kind of signal does the RSC 
questionnaire send to prospective employees like her? Clearly, it 
strikes a blow at the idealism of our young people and discourages them 
from participating in the democratic process.
  This is not a difficult issue to decide.
  The public wants an end to partisan politics, and this litmus test is 
nothing but partisan.
  We want to encourage our youth to participate in the democratic 
process, this litmus test destroys the idealism of our youth.
  The Republican leadership has pledged to make Congress be held to the 
same laws as it imposes on others, this litmus test flies in the face 
of that pledge.
  Above all there is too often a sense of intolerance in the tone of 
debate in this country. We see this in tone in the abortion clinic 
shootings and bombings and when talk show hosts insult the President's 
wife.
  I will not stand quietly and let a new ``McCarthyism'' take hold of 
this institution.
  Mr. President, I will close with this: I have no problem with any 
Member, Democrat or Republican, wanting to hire staff that bears their 
views. I must say that in my own staff, I do not know whether most of 
the people in my office are Republicans or Democrats, unless they have 
been involved in something where they have made it clear to me. I know 
that I have hired people who were identified as Republicans back home, 
as well as identified as Democrats. I do not know what they belong to. 
I just do not want us to do things that would never be allowed at IBM, 
or Monsanto, or any other company.
  I do not want to get into a litmus test for people even to be able to 
make a job application, because there are so many extremely good men 
and women in this country who should have an opportunity to seek jobs 
in the Congress if they want. But they should not have the door closed 
in their faces initially because they do not pass a particular litmus 
test.
  I will ask the floor managers something and then I will yield to 
Senator McCain. What happens with this amendment? Should we ask for the 
yeas and nays? What has been the process? I have been off the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The yeas and nays have been requested on most 
amendments.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. As I understand it, these votes will be stacked.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is 
recognized.


                            Amendment No. 4

  Mr. McCAIN. I take the floor this morning, Mr. President, to comment 
on both the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, 
concerning the frequent flier, frequent travelers benefits and its 
application to Members of Congress, as well as the Kerry amendment 
concerning personal use of campaign funds. The reason I do so is 
because I have been involved in both issues to a significant degree.
  First of all, on the issue of the amendment by Senator Ford, Mr. 
President, I point out that in the legislation passed in the last 
Congress, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act conference report, 
my amendment, which appears on page 130 of the conference report said, 
``Requirement: Any awards granted under such a frequent traveler 
program accrued through official travel shall be used only for official 
travel.''
  I see my friend from Ohio on the floor. If I can get the attention of 
the Senator from Ohio, I would appreciate it, since I am asking, and I 
know there were many aspects of this legislation he was responsible 
for, which I think was a landmark piece of legislation, the Federal 
Acquisition Streamlining Act. An amendment of mine was included in 
that, which said:

       Requirement: Any awards granted under such a frequent 
     traveler program accrued through official travel shall be 
     used only for official travel.

  I do not know if the Senator recollects that or not. From the nodding 
of his head, I see that he recalls that. Does the Senator recollect, 
also, that at that time it was mine, his, and Senator Roth's 
understanding that it would apply to Congress as well as Federal 
employees?
  Mr. GLENN. I would respond to my good friend by saying I think it 
should. We discussed that at the time, as I recall, and our exact 
reasoning why we did not make it apply that way, I do not quite recall 
at the moment. Looking at what is in the procurement bill this 
morning--and I think you have a copy--I would like to see that same 
provision go all across Government and apply to everybody. We gave some 
time to work this thing out.
  In that procurement bill, section 6008, entitled ``Cost Savings for 
Official Travel,'' it says:

       (a) Guidelines: The Administrator or General Services 
     Administration shall issue guidelines to ensure that agencies 
     promote, encourage, and facilitate the use of frequent 
     traveler programs offered by airlines, hotels, and car rental 
     vendors by Federal employees who engage in official air 
     travel, for the purpose of realizing to the maximum extent 
     practicable cost savings for official travel.

  It goes on to say:

       Any awards granted under such a frequent traveler program 
     accrued to official travel shall be used only for official 
     travel.

  I think it should apply across the board. We gave them 1 year to 
report on how they would enact this. I would like to see that same 
thing applied all

[[Page S699]]

across Government. We were discussing this morning whether to try to 
put this in as an amendment to this bill or subsequent legislation. The 
same thing should apply, and the Senator is absolutely correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. Also, I remind my friend, Senator Glenn, that there was a 
colloquy between him and Senator Roth, with the understanding that this 
particular provision would apply to Congress. Since then, it has been 
interpreted as not applying to Congress. And that is wrong, in my view.
  I agree with the Senator from Ohio that it should apply to Congress. 
I believe that Senator Ford in bringing it up is entirely correct in 
doing so, because if we are going to take advantage of frequent 
traveler programs, those advantages should not then accrue to the 
personal use of Members of Congress.
  So I would say I regret that the interpretation of what was already 
in law did not apply across the board to Congress. I think that it 
should in the future, and I believe the Ford amendment should make it 
applicable.
  I also want to talk about the Kerry amendment here, which applies to 
the use of campaign funds for personal use. Last year, Mr. President, 
in the consideration of the campaign finance reform bill, I proposed an 
amendment prohibiting the use of campaign funds for personal purposes. 
Then Senator Boren, the manager of the bill, accepted that provision. 
And, obviously, as we know, the campaign finance reform bill never went 
anywhere. I applaud Senator Kerry for bringing up this issue. The fact 
is that there have been outrageous and incredible abuses of the system. 
On several occasions I talked about some of these abuses on the floor 
of the Senate, and it is part of the Congressional Record of May 25, 
1993. I talked at length about it, as I did several other times.

  Mr. President when people are using campaign money to commission 
artists to paint portraits of their father, thousands of dollars to 
decorate Senate offices, $6,000 on furniture and picture framing, 
$4,494 for an illuminated globe, resort vacations, and on and on and 
on, it is not only an abuse, but it is an outrage.
  I intend to vote on the majority side to table both of these 
amendments. But I say to my Republican colleagues on this side of the 
aisle, the reason the American people voted as they did on November 8 
is that they are fed up with the abuses, such as the personal use of 
campaign funds, such as frequent flier mileage and frequent traveler 
mileage, going for personal use. These must be addressed.
  Now, I understand the desire of the majority, and I will accede to 
the desire of the majority, to table these so that we can get a bill 
through Congress.
  If I had been writing the legislation, I say to my friend from Iowa, 
I would have included these, because they are needed reforms. They are 
the things which the American people, when they hear about them, are 
simply outraged, and they are not going to put up with it any longer.
  So I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, speaking for only 
one individual Senator, if these reforms are not brought up in a 
reasonable time, meaning this year, and implemented, I will join with 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, whose newfound scheme for 
reform I applaud vigorously. But we cannot, by virtue of being in the 
majority, lull ourselves into a sense of complacency, into believing 
that issues such as personal use of campaign funds, such as the 
personal use of frequent flier mileage which is accrued through 
official business and used for personal use, are going to be acceptable 
to the American populace. It is not like that anymore.
  So I strongly urge my colleague from Iowa, who is the manager of this 
bill--and I appreciate his enormous efforts on behalf of this 
legislation--to give serious consideration to bringing forward 
additional legislation at the appropriate time, in a timely manner, 
that addresses these and other issues that are being raised by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  So, Mr. President, I will not go on and on and specify the abuses, 
especially of the personal use of campaign funds. I did that last year 
on several occasions. Those abuses are well known, and they have to 
stop. I think we have to address it very soon.
  Again, I congratulate my colleague from Iowa for his very hard work 
on this very important legislation. I look forward to supporting him. 
But again, we have to address all of these abuses and we have to do it 
soon.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to commend the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Senator Ford, for 
his efforts in raising this issue and shedding some light on an 
inappropriate practice in which some elected officials have apparently 
been engaged.
  Quite honestly, in my 2 years as a Member of the U.S. Senate, I do 
not believe we have had a vote that should be so straightforward for 
Senators to case as the vote on this amendment. In fact, this issue and 
this amendment can be summed up with one question: Should federally 
elected officials, who are well-compensated and receive ample health, 
retirement, and other such benefits, be allowed to take free frequent 
flyer trips at taxpayer expense? Some might suggest that I have just 
oversimplified what this issue is about. But I'm not oversimplifying 
the issue--it is that simple.
  Mr. President, I am not aware of any public polling on this frequent 
flyer issue. But I am going to make a bold prediction here. Let's say 
you posed the following choice to 1,000 randomly selected individuals: 
If federally elected officials earn frequent flyer awards from travel 
that is paid for with taxpayer dollars, they should use the free travel 
award to: One, take a vacation; or two, save taxpayer dollars by using 
the award for future official travel expenses. I am willing to predict 
the vast majority would pick number two.
  Last night, during debate on this amendment, the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] argued that we should not dictate to 
the House of Representatives what their rules should be. The Senator 
from Iowa went on to say that we shouldn't worry about the House 
because they were on the verge of making this rule change last August 
and will deal with the issue again.
  I would like to share the Senator's confidence in the House leaders 
on this particular issue, but I am afraid I cannot. The Senator from 
Iowa is quite correct when he states that the House came close to 
changing this rule last August. But it is my understanding that effort, 
led by a freshman Representative, was derailed with the help of the 
then-minority whip, Mr. Gingrich. If it was possible to prevent this 
measure from passing last year while in the minority party, how are we 
to expect Mr. Gingrich to raise this issue in his new position as 
Speaker of The House?
  In fact, I recall speaker Gingrich's comments on a Sunday morning 
television program just a few short weeks ago. When pressed on the 
issue of the frequent flyer perk, Mr. Gingrich responded by asserting 
something to the effect that if Congress was able to balance the 
budget, fight crime and reform the welfare system, then people did not 
care about issues such as the frequent flyer perk.
  Though I certainly share the Speaker's concern that we must address 
issues such as reducing the Federal budget deficit, I strongly disagree 
with his view that the American people do not care about reforming the 
Congress and changing the way Washington, DC, does business. People do 
care about the many perks Members of Congress receive, whether it is 
the free meals, travel and other gifts that are showered upon Members 
by the lobbying community, or the practice of converting these frequent 
flyer miles earned while traveling on official matters to free vacation 
trips.
  The underlying bill, which I support, is an attempt to make Congress 
live under the same rules as our constituents do. But our constituents 
do not receive free meals and gifts from lobbyists, and when they go on 
vacation or travel on a personal matter, they pay for it. These are the 
rules by which elected officials should abide. And if these rules are 
right for those in the private sector, and are right for the executive 
branch, and are right for the U.S. Senate, then they should be right 
for the House of Representatives.
  Mr. President, let me just conclude by saying that I am sensing 
another partisan vote on this amendment, similar to the vote last week 
on the gift

[[Page S700]]

ban amendment, and that is truly unfortunate. This is certainly not a 
partisan issue. The underlying bill will pass this Chamber with strong 
bipartisan support, and I am disappointed that further efforts to enact 
swift passage of critical reforms of our political system, such as 
banning gifts and changing the frequent flyer rule for elected 
officials, has fallen victim to the same partisan wrangling that has 
prevented such reforms from passing in previous years.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to say that I support the substance of both of 
the amendments that have been offered. But for reasons that are 
similar, really, and with the same sense of urgency expressed by my 
friend and colleague from Arizona and consistent with the position that 
my friend and partner on this underlying bill, S. 2, the Senator from 
Iowa, has stated all along, I will oppose these amendments, as I have 
all other amendments to this bill.
  Mr. President, we have talked at length about the number of years 
that people have been working here in Congress to establish the basic 
principle of accountability. What I have said here earlier in this 
debate is kind of a reverse version of the Golden Rule, which is that 
we should do unto ourselves as we have done unto others for lo these 
many years, and that is to live by the laws that we imposed on the rest 
of America.
  Senator Glenn, among those who are here, in my opinion, holds the 
record for having started this campaign--perhaps ``crusade'' is a 
better term--earlier on in the late 1970's. Senator Grassley has been a 
leading and foremost advocate in recent years. It has been my 
privilege, over the last several years, to join with them, as a 
cosponsor of this bill with the Senator from Iowa in the last session 
of Congress, and a cosponsor again this year although, as I have 
indicated for the record, in the preceding session of Congress, this 
measure was known as the Lieberman-Grassley Act, and in this session it 
is known as the Grassley-Lieberman Act.
  Whatever the name, the content and the purpose is the same. And it is 
the long overdue recognition that there is a double standard here that 
is no longer acceptable, that is unfair to our employees, and that 
shields us from the real world experience of understanding the impact 
of our deliberations and our actions on those millions of people out 
there, particularly small business people, who must live by the laws 
that we pass.
  So when this debate began, Mr. President, I made a personal decision 
that when one considers the length of time that Congress has been 
aspiring to pass this measure, when one considers that last year it 
swept, in a bipartisan basis, through the House, I think with perhaps 
four votes opposed to it, when one considers there seemed to be a 
strong bipartisan support for this here in this Chamber last year, but 
in the final day or two of the session it was stopped from being taken 
up by the use of a rarely used parliamentary point, I made a judgment 
as this session started that I was going to oppose all amendments to S. 
2, the Congressional Accountability Act, that did not go to the heart 
and substance of this proposal but that were adding on additional 
thoughts, even if one could stretch and construe some connection to the 
basic purpose of eliminating the double standard in these employment 
and safety laws.
  It has not been pleasant or easy to sustain this position. Some of 
these amendments are good amendments. But it seemed to me that--not 
only because of my personal involvement in this issue and my desire not 
to gum up the works as we move toward adopting it, but also as an 
expression here at the outset of the session that the support for this 
measure is genuinely bipartisan and has always been so and is 
bicameral, and in fact extends to the executive branch of Government, 
where President Clinton has consistently over the last couple of years, 
and as recently as the last few days, restated his position strongly 
supporting the adoption of the Congressional Accountability Act--it 
seemed to me, mindful of the election returns last November and fresh 
from my own reelection campaign, in which I heard the people of 
Connecticut certainly clearly saying to me that they do not really care 
that much anymore about what party label you wear, they care about what 
you have done or what Congress has done, that they want the nonsense 
and the gridlock to end; they want us to deal with some real problems, 
and they want us to shake up this institution and put some value into 
what we are doing here and not get into partisanship.
  So in that sense, I made the judgment that the best that we could do 
was to adopt this, to not let anything stand in the way, and hopefully 
get it to the President--get it back to the House, let the House 
receive it in a form which they could adopt without the need for a 
conference committee--send it to the President, and let us show the 
American people that both parties, both Houses, and the executive and 
the legislative branch, agree on this basic principle. Let us get it 
done. If I may paraphrase an earlier great Democratic President, 
President Kennedy, who said, ``A rising tide raises all boats,'' part 
of what I am saying here is that a rising tide of accomplishment by 
Congress will, in fact, raise all boats.

  This will not and should not be a partisan achievement, but very much 
a victory for principle, a victory for Congress, and a victory for the 
American Government, showing it can quickly and expeditiously do 
something right. I wanted to state that on the record to explain why I 
voted against all previous amendments, why I will vote against these 
two amendments, and why I will continue to vote against amendments on 
this bill, hoping that we can pass this bill tonight or tomorrow and 
get it on its way to becoming the law it ought to be.
  Mr. President, having stated that, I would like to respond to some of 
the points that have been made against the bill. I say to the two 
managers of the bill, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Ohio, 
if at any point either Senator would wish to regain the floor, or 
others come and wish to proceed on their amendments, I will be glad to 
yield upon notification to that affect.
  Mr. President, some of the arguments made in opposition to S. 2 in 
the last couple of days are serious ones. I want to respond to them. 
One argument made goes to the heart of the construct of the bill that 
Senator Grassley, I, and Senator Glenn, in his capacity as chair last 
year of the Government Affairs Committee, have brought out. The 
argument is that this bill--and forgive the pejorative use of the term, 
an excuse for inaction on this measure for years--this bill represents 
a violation or a potential violation of the separation of powers 
doctrine and the speech or debate clause.
  I must say to the presiding officer and my colleagues that when I 
first arrived here, the first time this measure came up, I inquired why 
people were opposing it because it seemed pretty sensible that we 
should live by the same laws we apply to everybody else. The answer I 
heard was the separation of powers doctrine. I remember going back home 
to a town hall meeting and having somebody ask me about the measure, 
and I started to give the separation of powers doctrine response. It 
was a moment where the more I declared it, the less I believed it, 
remembering that old wisdom that, if you are making a statement that 
you yourself have trouble believing, you better not make the statement 
and you better reconsider your position.
  I do not think this is a violation of the separation of powers 
doctrine. First of all, there is no express separation of powers clause 
in the Constitution. It is important to point that out. This is a 
doctrine that is said to underlie the structure of the Constitution. In 
fact, there is some obvious strength to that argument. The principle is 
most visibly seen in the separation of the powers of the three branches 
into three separate articles respectively. The doctrine is also 
discussed in the Federalist Papers, as well as other writings that 
informed the drafting of the Constitution.
  The separation of powers doctrine has been the most frequently cited 
constitutional objection to private rights

[[Page S701]]

of action in district court for our employees under this bill, as well 
as executive branch enforcement of the laws. Using this broad-based 
argument, I think, distorts the historical intent of the separation of 
powers doctrine. It is also not an adequate explanation for why we do 
not apply the laws we adopt to ourselves.
  The basic idea, it seems to me, 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--to use the 
term that was very much in the mind of the Framers--tyrannical or like 
a monarch in its effect on the public or on individual American 
citizens.
  The separation of powers principle was envisioned and incorporated 
into the Constitution by the Framers not explicitly but implicitly with 
the idea of precluding any one branch of the Federal Government from 
seizing a degree of power that could be used against the people of 
America in a tyrannical fashion without check by the other two branches 
of Government. However, it is clear from Madison's writing in 
Federalist 47 that the separation of powers principle was not designed 
to insulate one branch of the Government or its servants, that is to 
say, those who serve within that branch of Government, from the rule of 
law. That would have been a strange result for those who framed our 
Constitution and were so mindful of not insulating those in power from 
the rule of law.
  Indeed, Madison wrote in Federalist 57 that:

       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 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 that 
     communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which 
     few governments have furnished examples; but without which 
     every government denigrates into tyranny.

  What a magnificent statement by Madison, resonating with real insight 
and strength through the centuries to this debate on this floor of this 
great Chamber today in 1995.
  Mr. President, in concluding my remarks on this question, I would 
like to note that it is the speech and debate clause, and that clause 
only, which provides Members of Congress any immunity whatever from 
prosecution or action by the executive or the judiciary. In the case of 
Davis versus Passman, a 1979 case, the Supreme Court held that while 
the speech or debate clause does protect Members of Congress from suit 
for actions which were strictly legislative in function--and I will 
discuss in a moment what the Court has defined as ``legislative''--
speech or debate immunity is the only source of immunity, not other 
principles of separation of powers as well. In short, the broad 
principle of separation of powers is meant to protect the people from 
the Government, not to protect one branch of Government from the other 
two, nor to protect Members of Congress from prosecution or suit for 
their own misdeeds.
  Mr. President, at the Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in June 
of last year on this measure, constitutional law professor Nelson Lund 
and our own Senate legal counsel, Michael Davidson, both said, while it 
may be constitutionally permissible to allow the executive branch to 
enforce employment laws on the legislative branch, this legislation 
recognizes, as a policy decision, not a constitutional decision, that 
allowing executive enforcement might upset the current balance of power 
between the executive and legislative branches.
  So our goal in creating the independent Office of Compliance within 
this bill, S. 2, was to avoid, frankly, politically motivated 
enforcement actions by executive branch agencies. One cannot imagine--
without regard, obviously, to the current occupant of the position--a 
Secretary of Labor ordering an OSHA inspection of a Senator's personal 
office because that Senator had aggravated that Secretary for some 
reason, perhaps by holding oversight hearings on the Department of 
Labor, or perhaps by casting a vote that displeased the Member of the 
Cabinet. I think you can see why, on a practical basis, this decision 
was made to set up the independent Office of Compliance. It is, really, 
more in deference to the checks and balances principle than to the 
separation of powers principle.
  Now, Mr. President, let me speak for a moment about the speech or 
debate clause immunity which is in article I, section 6, of the 
Constitution.
  I, frankly, think this provides the most interesting argument against 
executive branch enforcement or judicial review. But historically, it 
is important to state the speech and debate clause has been read 
narrowly by the courts, and our conclusion was that it should not and 
cannot provide Members of Congress with immunity for illegal employment 
actions, for illegal actions in our capacity as employers of those who 
work for and with us here on Capitol Hill. The speech and debate clause 
says:

       They--

  The Members of Congress--

     shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the 
     Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at 
     the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and 
     returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in 
     either House, they shall not be questioned in any other 
     Place.

  The origins of speech or debate immunity can be traced to the 
formation of the English Parliament when members of Parliament sought 
to protect themselves from retribution by the monarch for speeches or 
acts in the House of Commons that were viewed as hostile to the crown.
  Mr. President, in July of last year, the Court of Appeals for the 
D.C. circuit rejected a House Member's speech-or-debate-clause defense 
in a prosecution by the Justice Department. These cases are very 
recent. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also 
issued a similar ruling, in the same week last year against a Senator 
saying the Department of Justice has the power to prosecute violations 
of Senate Rules Committee regulations, even when the Rules Committee 
itself has not concluded that a violation occurred.
  In the first ruling, the appeals court cited several cases in which 
the Supreme Court had held that the speech-or-debate clause immunity 
extends only to acts that are ``legislative in nature'' or related to 
``the legislative process.'' The defendant's alleged impropriety, the 
Court said, ``was not related to a pending bill or to any other 
legislative matter; it was, instead, the Congressman's defense of his 
handling of various financial transactions.''
  So I would say, drawing analogy from these cases and others I could 
cite, it is reasonable to assume that an illegal employment action 
would not be regarded by the courts as an act that is ``legislative in 
nature.'' In fact, this issue is thoroughly examined in a memo by John 
Killian, senior specialist, American constitutional law, American Law 
Division at CRS, dated June 4, 1993, in which Mr. Killian writes:

       A persuasive argument can be made that the speech or debate 
     clause does not encompass employment decisions.

  While Mr. Killian prefaces his interpretation by noting that the 
constitutional text, history, purposes and the judicial precedents are 
not fully dispositive, ``the text,'' he says, ``as informed by the 
interpretive judicial decisions does rather strongly suggest that the 
courts would sustain the validity of the enactment should Congress 
choose to take the step.''
  He adds:

       Certainly, an expressed decision made legislatively by 
     Congress that employment decisions of Members can be placed 
     outside coverage of the clause would be a determination by 
     the body most familiar with the issue that should be entitled 
     to special deference by the courts when they are called upon 
     to pass on the question of the validity of congressional 
     coverage under the appropriate statute.

  Of course, this is just common sense that the speech-and-debate 
clause on its face would not seem to be a clause that would make us 
immune from the impact of the laws we adopt and impose on all other 
employers when we are acting as employers instead of as Members of the 
Congress involved in legislation.
  Mr. President, I will go on to another argument that has been made a 
couple of times here on the floor; and that is that this bill, S. 2, 
will cost too much money. At times, opponents of congressional 
compliance have claimed that it would cost billions of dollars to 
implement and even require the construction of new office buildings. 
The testimony

[[Page S702]]

that the Governmental Affairs Committee received last June, as well as 
CBO's analysis of the committee-reported bill, showed that such fears, 
while understandable, are unfounded. There is no OSHA space requirement 
for offices. Indeed, the Architect of the Capitol and the Congressional 
Budget Office both anticipated in their reviews of this legislation 
little, if any, additional expense for OSHA compliance.
  Because this new bill, S. 2, was introduced just last week, we have 
not had time to receive a formal cost estimate from the CBO. But I 
suggest to my colleagues that it is fair and reasonable to assume from 
the CBO estimate of the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee in September, since this bill is so close to that bill, that 
the original cost estimate would prevail for this as well.
  We also received a cost estimate from CBO on last year's House-passed 
bill as well as the bill reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee and the estimates CBO arrived at in both cases were far, far 
lower than anyone expected or thought possible.
  Mr. President, at this point, I would like to submit for the Record 
those two cost estimates which I believe the Members may wish to 
peruse, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the estimates were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 1994.
     Hon. John Glenn,
     Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4822, the 
     Congressional Accountability Act.
       Enactment of H.R. 4822 would not affect direct spending or 
     receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
     to the bill.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                                     James L. Blum
                             (For Robert D. Reischauer, Director).
       Enclosure.

       Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, October 3, 1994

       1. Bill number: H.R. 4822.
       2. Bill title: Congressional Accountability Act.
       3. Bill Status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
     on Governmental Affairs on September 20, 1994.
       4. Bill Purpose: H.R. 4822 would apply a host of employee 
     protection laws to legislative branch employees and would 
     create an Office of Congressional Fair Employment Practices 
     (OCFEP) to enforce those protections. The board of directors 
     of OCFEP would issue rules to apply the laws to the 
     legislative branch, enforce those rules through inspections, 
     and establish procedures for remedying violations of the 
     rules. Most rules would take effect when the board issues 
     them in final form, unless the House and Senate pass a 
     concurrent resolution that disapproves them. Certain rules 
     that, in effect, create new law would have to be enacted by 
     the Congress and signed into law by the President.
       In addition, H.R. 4822 lays out a four-step process by 
     which employees can seek, redress if their rights under most 
     of the employee protection laws are violated--counseling, 
     mediation, formal complaint and hearing, and judicial review 
     of the process. As an alternative to a formal complaint and 
     hearing before the OCFEP, the bill would allow employees to 
     take their case to a U.S. district court after the mediation 
     step. The four-step process basically duplicates the process 
     that the Senate already has in place for its employees, and 
     would expand the options available to House employees who 
     currently cannot present their case before an independent 
     hearing board (because House hearing boards have consisted 
     only of House employees) and who have no access to judicial 
     review. Currently, few Congressional employees, and none in 
     the House or Senate, have the option of taking their case to 
     a district court (instead of formal complaint and hearing) as 
     the bill would permit.
       For certain laws, the bill would provide alternative 
     procedures. For example, for violations of title II of the 
     Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Occupational 
     Safety and Health Act (OSHA), private citizens and 
     Congressional employees, respectively, could ask the general 
     counsel of OCFEP to investigate. The general counsel, in the 
     case of ADA, could initiate the four-step process, or in the 
     case of OSHA, could issue citations. In neither case could 
     the employees take their complaints to a district court. 
     (Under OSHA, private citizens also may not bring a complaint 
     to court.)
       If the appropriate entity, whether the OCFEP or district 
     court, finds that an employee's rights were violated, it 
     could enter an order for a remedy for the employee, subject 
     to the availability of funds that may be appropriated by the 
     Congress after enactment of H.R. 4822. The bill would 
     establish separate settlement and award reserve funds in the 
     House and the Senate to pay compensation that may be ordered 
     as part of the remedy, and would authorize the appropriation 
     of amounts necessary to pay compensation as ordered. Such 
     appropriations would be the only source for paying 
     compensation because the bill dictates that no compensation 
     may be paid from the Claims and Judgments Fund in the 
     Treasury.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates 
     that enactment of H.R. 4822 would cost about $1 million in 
     each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and $4 million to $5 
     million annually thereafter for the new OCFEP, for agency 
     costs of negotiating with employees' bargaining units, and 
     for paying compensation under remedy orders. Applying certain 
     laws, such as the OSHA and the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     (FLSA), to the entire legislative branch could result in some 
     additional costs, but we do not expect such costs to be 
     substantial. To some extent, the amount of such costs would 
     depend on decisions to be made by the OCFEP as to precisely 
     how the laws would apply to legislative branch employees.


                           basis of estimate

           Office of Congressional Fair Employment Practices

       The primary budgetary impact of H.R. 4822 would stem from 
     creating the new office to implement the employee protection 
     laws throughout the Congress. Based on the costs of the 
     Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices and of the 
     Personnel Appeals Board at the General Accounting Office 
     (GAO), CBO estimates that the OCFEP would cost an additional 
     $1 million in each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996. (The rules 
     implementing all of the laws would be phased in and would be 
     in effect by the end of 1996.) The cost would be relatively 
     small in these years because the office would be evaluating 
     how to apply certain laws to the Congress. In subsequent 
     years, the cost would increase to $2 million to $3 million 
     annually because the office would have to implement 
     enforcement procedures and arrange for OSHA inspections.

                      Settlement and Award Payment

       The bill would authorize the appropriation of such sums as 
     necessary to pay compensation to employees whose rights under 
     H.R. 4822 are violated. Under existing law, if the rights 
     that Congressional employees currently have are violated and 
     the House or Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices 
     orders payment of compensation, the Congress must appropriate 
     funds to make the payment. Otherwise, an employee has no 
     recourse to another mechanism to receive compensation. Based 
     on the limited, recent experience of the House and Senate in 
     paying compensation under existing employee protection laws, 
     CBO expects that total compensation paid to legislative 
     branch employees in some years could be between $0.5 million 
     and $1 million. CBO assumes that the Congress would 
     appropriate the necessary amounts. If the Congress does not 
     appropriate sufficient funds, then there would be no 
     mechanism to provide compensation ordered under the processes 
     provided in the bill.

                   Federal Labor-Management Relations

       H.R. 4822 would extend to all legislative branch employees 
     the same right that the Government Printing Office (GPO), the 
     Library of Congress (LoC), and executive branch employees 
     currently have to organize, form bargaining units, select a 
     union representative, negotiate with employers, and bring 
     grievances to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). 
     (GAO already negotiates with its employees, but its cases do 
     not go to the FLRA.) If employees in the House, Senate, the 
     Architect, CBO, and the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) 
     were to decide to organize and force their employers to 
     negotiate with various bargaining units, the employers would 
     incur additional staff costs in order to meet their 
     responsibilities under the law. Based on the experience at 
     GPO and LoC, it appears that an agency with several thousand 
     employees could spend $200,000 to $300,000 per year for a 
     lawyer and part of the time of personnel officers who must 
     work with the bargaining units. CBO cannot predict to what 
     extent employees at the affected agencies would decide to 
     take advantage of their opportunity to organize under this 
     law, but even if a few did at each agency, total agency costs 
     could be in the neighborhood of $1 million annually.

                            OSHA Protections

       H.R. 4822 would extend to all legislative branch employees 
     the protections of OSHA, which requires a workplace free from 
     recognized hazards. It is possible that application of OSHA 
     standards could result in additional costs to remedy any 
     violations, but it is likely that many of the major remedial 
     actions would be done in any event.
       Industrial Settings. Because most existing OSHA standards 
     apply primarily to industrial workplaces, the employees and 
     workplaces most likely affected by the bill would be those of 
     the Architect of the Capitol. The Architect's office has 
     stated in Congressional hearings that it already strives to 
     comport with all relevant standards. The Architect employs 
     several inspectors who visit all workplaces under the 
     Architect's control to identify problems requiring remedy. 
     Over the past several years, the Architect, sometimes with 
     line-item funding direction from

[[Page S703]]

     the Congress, has undertaken many building improvement 
     efforts, such as structural repair and electrical rewiring, 
     in buildings of the House, Senate, and Library of Congress.
       However, while the Architect might already be identifying 
     big problems, small problems might still arise. In October 
     1992, GAO, at the request of the Congress, reported on 
     violations of numerous OSHA standards by four employers in 
     the legislative branch, including the Architect and the GPO. 
     The employers not only agreed that the violations needed 
     correction, but were able to do so at minimal expense. None 
     needed to request additional funding to remedy the 
     violations. Thus, it appears that the formal application of 
     OSHA standards to the activities of the Architect is unlikely 
     to add significantly to costs that would otherwise be 
     incurred.
       Office Settings. There are few OSHA standards that apply 
     specifically to an office-type workplace, which is the type 
     of environment most commonly founds in the Congress. For 
     example, there is no OSHA standard guaranteeing employees a 
     minimum amount of space and quiet in which to work (although 
     there is General Services Administration guideline governing 
     the maximum amount of space for executive branch employees so 
     agencies do not consume too much space). Therefore, applying 
     OSHA standards to the House, Senate, and other Congressional 
     entities would not, by itself, necessitate construction of 
     additional Congressional office buildings.
       The few relevant OSHA standards relate to the proper 
     location and use of wires, extension cords, electrical 
     outlets, file cabinets, and clear walkways to protect 
     employees against tripping, shocks, fires, falling objects, 
     and blocked exits in case of evacuation. Because the 
     Architect does not control the space where these hazards 
     could occur, the rules issued by the board would likely make 
     the employers--Senators, Representatives, committee chairmen, 
     and agency directors--responsible. Complying with these 
     standards probably would require a change in practices rather 
     than significant additional space or cost.
       Future OSHA standards for office-type workplaces could 
     result in additional costs for the Senate. For example, OSHA 
     is currently preparing regulations for ergonomic office 
     equipment and furniture to protect employees against physical 
     ailments resulting from inadequate lighting and positioning. 
     In the absence of specific standards, CBO has no basis for 
     estimating the cost of providing Congressional employees with 
     furniture that would meet future OSHA requirements.

                            FLSA Protections

       The FLSA requires employers to provide the minimum wage, 
     equal pay, and time-and-one-half for overtime in excess of 40 
     hours in one week for certain types of employees. H.R. 4822 
     would require legislative branch employers to pay affected 
     employees according to these standards. But Congressional 
     employers would be allowed to grant compensatory time off 
     (equal to one and a half hours of overtime worked) instead of 
     overtime pay if the employee so chooses in advance of 
     performing the overtime work. This provision would result in 
     some combination of increased spending by Congressional 
     employers because of overtime pay, and increased time off for 
     certain employees who might opt for compensatory time instead 
     of overtime pay. The impact of FLSA ultimately would depend 
     on how the OCFEP defines which employees are to be covered by 
     FLSA and on whether employees would choose overtime pay or 
     compensatory time off. The bill would require the board to 
     issue rules that outline how the protections of the FLSA will 
     apply.
       If, for example, the board were to issue rules similar to 
     the guidelines issued in 1991 by the Committee on House 
     Administration (FLSA has applied to House employees since 
     1989), then FLSA would probably have little impact on the 
     amount of additional leave employees would be able to take. 
     It appears from the House guidelines and the amount of 
     overtime paid to House employees in recent years (less than 
     $200,000 annually) that most House employees are exempt from 
     FLSA and those who are not exempt do not work much overtime.
       One group of employees that could potentially receive 
     significant amounts of overtime pay would be the Capitol 
     Police. Under current law, officers receive compensatory time 
     for the first four hours worked in excess of 40 hours and 
     then receive overtime for any additional hours. If all 
     Capitol Police employees opted for overtime pay under FLSA 
     for their first four hours of overtime, spending would 
     increase by about $0.8 million per year. Because some Capitol 
     Police employees are likely to select compensatory time, the 
     amount of additional overtime pay would be less than $0.8 
     million.

                         Other Applicable Laws

       Some of the laws that H.R. 4822 would apply to the entire 
     legislative branch are laws that already apply to some or all 
     Congressional employers through existing statute or because 
     the employer voluntarily complies. Therefore, they are not 
     likely to result in additional costs. For example, the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the 
     Civil Rights Act, which prohibit employer discrimination 
     based on disability or race, already apply to the Senate, 
     House, CBO, GAO, GPO, LoC, the Architect, and OTA--entities 
     that employ almost all of the 38,000 legislative branch 
     employees. The Family and Medical Leave Act, which guarantees 
     employees a certain amount of unpaid leave without fear of 
     losing their job in order to care for a new baby or a sick 
     relative, also applies now to all these employers.
       Other laws apply to some employers now, but would apply to 
     all upon enactment of H.R. 4822. For example, the 
     Rehabilitation Act (which requires the government to contract 
     with vendors that provide employment opportunities for the 
     disabled) only applies to the Senate and the Architect. But 
     because the Rehabilitation Act has been largely superseded by 
     the ADA, which all the employers must already comply with, 
     application of the Rehabilitation Act is not expected to 
     affect employers' practices. The Age Discrimination in 
     Employment Act (ADEA) does not apply currently to the House, 
     CBO, and certain employees of the Architect, but the House 
     has adopted a rule that ``personnel actions affecting 
     employment positions in the House . . . shall be made free 
     from discrimination based on . . . age.'' H.R. 4822 would 
     codify this policy. The bill, however, would provide such 
     employees with improved procedures for seeking redress if 
     they experience discrimination because of age (as well as 
     race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or disability). 
     CBO expects that applying the ADEA would not result in 
     significant additional costs.
       6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
       7. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
       8. Estimate comparison: None.
       9. Previous CBO estimate: On August 2, 1994, CBO prepared a 
     cost estimate for H.R. 4822, as ordered reported by the House 
     Committee on Rules on July 29, 1994. That bill is similar to 
     the Senate version of H.R. 4822, except that in the House 
     version, the Claims and Judgments Fund in the Treasury would 
     be available to pay compensation to remedy violations of 
     employees' rights in the event the Congress does not 
     appropriate sufficient funds. Because, under the House 
     version of H.R. 4822, employees would have a permanent right 
     to be paid compensation, CBO estimated an increase in direct 
     spending of $1 million in 1997 and 1998, which would count 
     for pay-as-you-go purposes. In the Senate version of H.R. 
     4822, employees' right to compensation under a remedy would 
     be limited to amounts that may be appropriated to the House 
     and Senate settlement funds (or to other legislative branch 
     entities). The Claims and Judgments Fund in the Treasury 
     would be unavailable to pay compensation in the event of 
     insufficient appropriations. Therefore, the funding mechanism 
     to pay compensation would be discretionary, not direct 
     spending, and pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
       Another difference between the House and Senate versions of 
     H.R. 4822 is that the House version would require that 
     certain employees receive overtime pay under FLSA, resulting 
     in higher outlays for legislative branch agencies, especially 
     the Capitol Police. The Senate version of H.R. 4822 would 
     allow employees to choose between receiving overtime pay, 
     which would increase outlays, or receiving compensatory time, 
     which would give them more time off, but would not increase 
     spending.
       On August 2, 1994, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R. 
     4822, as ordered reported by the Committee on House 
     Administration on July 28, 1994. That version of the bill is 
     nearly identical to H.R. 4822 as ordered reported by the 
     House Committee on Rules.
       On June 30, 1994, CBO prepared a cost estimate for S. 1824, 
     as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Rules and 
     Administration on June 9, 1994. That bill is different from 
     the Senate version of H.R. 4822 because it would cover only 
     Senate employees and because it would only apply OSHA and 
     FLSA to the Senate. H.R. 4822 would apply these two laws, as 
     well as six others, to the entire legislative branch and 
     would create a consistent procedure to enforce the laws 
     equally for all legislative branch employees. CBO has 
     estimated a higher cost for H.R. 4822 than for S. 1824.
       10. Estimate prepared by: James Hearn.
       11. Estimate approved by: C.G. Nuckols, Assistant Director 
     for Budget Analysis.
                                  ____

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, August 2, 1994.
     Hon. Charlie Rose,
     Chairman, Committee on House Administration, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4822, the 
     Congressional Accountability Act.
       Because enactment of H.R. 4822 could affect direct 
     spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer.
       Enclosure.

       Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, August 2, 1994

       1. Bill number: H.R. 4822.
       2. Bill title: Congressional Accountability Act.
       3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Committee on 
     House Administration on July 28, 1994.
       4. Bill purpose: H.R. 4822 would apply to a host of 
     employee protection laws to legislative branch employees and 
     would create an Office of Compliance to enforce those 
     protections. The office would issue regulations to

[[Page S704]]

     apply to the legislative branch, enforce those regulations 
     through inspections, and establish procedures for remedying 
     violations of the regulations. Further, the board of 
     directors of the office would have to prepare a study on 
     whether any other laws affecting employees ought to apply to 
     the legislative branch, and then would issue regulations 
     specifying the way in which such laws would apply. The 
     regulations would take effect 60 days after the board issues 
     them in final form unless the House and Senate pass a 
     concurrent resolution that disapproves them.
       In addition, H.R. 4822 lays out a four-step process by 
     which employees can seek redress if their rights under the 
     laws are violated--counseling, mediation, formal complaint 
     and hearing, and judicial review of the process. As an 
     alternative to the formal complaint and hearing before the 
     Office of Compliance, the bill would allow employees to take 
     their case to U.S. district court after the mediation step. 
     The four-step process basically duplicates the process that 
     the Senate already has in place for its employees, and would 
     expand the options available to House employees who currently 
     cannot present their case before an independent hearing board 
     (because House hearing boards have consisted only of House 
     employees) and who have no access to judicial review. 
     Currently, few Congressional employees, and none in the House 
     or Senate, have the option of taking their case to district 
     court (instead of formal complaint and hearing) as the bill 
     would permit.
       If the hearing board or district court finds that an 
     employee's rights were violated, it may enter an order for a 
     remedy for the employee. The bill would establish separate 
     funds in the House and the Senate to pay compensation that 
     may be ordered by the remedy.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates 
     that enactment of H.R. 4822 would cost about $1 million in 
     each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and $4 million to $5 
     million annually thereafter for the new Office of Compliance, 
     for additional overtime pay for officers of the Capitol 
     Police, and for agency costs of negotiating with employees' 
     bargaining units. Applying certain laws, such as the 
     Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act (FLSA), to the entire legislative branch could 
     result in some additional costs, but we do not expect such 
     costs to be substantial. To some extent, the amount of such 
     costs would depend on decisions to be made by the Office of 
     Compliance as to precisely how the laws would apply to 
     legislative branch employees.


                           basis of estimate

                          Office of Compliance

       The direct budgetary impact of H.R. 4822 would stem from 
     creating the new office to implement the employee protection 
     laws throughout the Congress. Based on the costs of the 
     Senate Office of Fair Employment Practices and of the 
     Personnel Appeals Board at the General Accounting Office 
     (GAO), CBO estimates that the Office of Compliance would cost 
     about $1 million in each of fiscal years 1995 and 1996. The 
     cost would be relatively small in these years because the 
     office would be evaluating whether and how to apply certain 
     laws to the Congress. In subsequent years, the cost would 
     increase to $2 million to $3 million annually because the 
     office would have to implement enforcement procedures and 
     arrange for OSHA inspections.

                            OSHA Protections

        H.R. 4822 would extend to all legislative branch employees 
     the protections of OSHA, which requires a workplace free from 
     recognized hazards. It is possible that application of OSHA 
     standards could result in additional costs to remedy any 
     violations, but it is likely that many of the major remedial 
     actions would be done in any event.
       Industrial Settings. Because most existing OSHA standards 
     apply primarily to industrial workplaces, the employees and 
     workplaces most likely affected by the bill would be those of 
     the Architect of the Capitol. The Architect's office has 
     stated in Congressional hearings that it already strives to 
     comport with all relevant standards. The Architect employs 
     several inspectors who visit all workplaces under the 
     Architect's control to identify problems requiring remedy. 
     Over the past several years, the Architect, sometimes with 
     line-item funding direction from the Congress, has undertaken 
     many building improvement efforts, such as structural repair 
     and electrical rewiring, in buildings of the House, Senate, 
     and Library of Congress.
       However, while the Architect might already be identifying 
     big problems, small problems might still arise. In October 
     1992, GAO, at the request of the Congress, reported on 
     violations of numerous OSHA standards by four employers in 
     the legislative branch, including the Architect and 
     Government Printing Office (GPO). The employers not only 
     agreed that the violations needed correction, but were able 
     to do so at minimal expense. None needed to request 
     additional funding to remedy the violations. Thus, it appears 
     that the formal application of OSHA standards to the 
     activities of the Architect is unlikely to add significantly 
     to costs that would otherwise be incurred.
       Office Settings. There are few OSHA standards that apply 
     specifically to an office-type workplace, which is the type 
     of environment most commonly found in the Congress. For 
     example, there is no OSHA standard guaranteeing employees a 
     minimum amount of space and quiet in which to work (although 
     there is a General Services Administration guideline 
     governing the maximum amount of space for executive branch 
     employees so agencies do not consume too much space). 
     Therefore, applying OSHA standards to the House, Senate, and 
     other Congressional entities would not, by itself, 
     necessitate construction of additional Congressional office 
     buildings.
       The few relevant OSHA standards relate to the proper 
     location and use of wires, extension cords, electrical 
     outlets, file cabinets, and clear walkways to protect 
     employees against tripping, shocks, fires, falling objects, 
     and blocked exits in case of evacuation. Because the 
     Architect does not control the space where these hazards 
     could occur, the regulations issued by the Office of 
     Compliance would likely make the employers--Senators, 
     Representatives, committee chairmen, and agency directors--
     responsible. Complying with these standards probably would 
     require a change in practices rather than significant 
     additional space.
       Future OSHA standards for office-type workplaces could 
     result in additional costs for the Senate. For example, OSHA 
     is currently preparing regulations for ergonomic office 
     equipment and furniture to protect employees against physical 
     ailments resulting from inadequate lighting and positioning. 
     In the absence of specific standards, CBO has no basis for 
     estimating the cost of providing Congressional employees with 
     furniture that would meet future OSHA requirements.

                            FLSA Protections

       The FLSA requires employers to provide the minimum wage, 
     equal pay, and time-and-one-half for overtime in excess of 40 
     hours in one week. The impact of FLSA on the appropriated 
     accounts that pay salaries and expenses for Congressional 
     employees ultimately would depend on how the Office of 
     Compliance defines which employees are to be covered by FLSA. 
     The bill would require the office to issue regulations that 
     outline how the protections of the FLSA will apply.
       If, for example, the office were to issue regulations 
     similar to the regulations issued in 1991 by the Committee on 
     House Administration (FLSA has applied to House employees 
     since 1989), then FLSA would probably have little budgetary 
     impact. It appears from the House regulations and the amount 
     of overtime paid to House employees in recent years (less 
     than $200,000 annually) that most House employees are exempt 
     from FLSA and those who are not exempt do not work much 
     overtime. (We do not know whether the result would be 
     different if the Office of Compliance were to adopt the 
     Department of Labor's regulations that apply FLSA to the 
     private sector and to state and local governments.)
       One group of employees most likely to receive additional 
     overtime pay under any set of regulations is the Capitol 
     Police. Under current law, officers receive compensatory time 
     for the first four hours worked in excess of 40 hours and 
     then receive overtime for any additional hours. Applying FLSA 
     to the Capitol Police would result in overtime pay for the 
     first four hours of overtime as well, amounting to an 
     estimated $0.8 million per year.

                   Federal Labor-Management Relations

       H.R. 4822 would extend to all legislative branch employees 
     the same right that GPO, the Library of Congress (LoC), and 
     executive branch employees currently have to organize, form 
     bargaining units, select a union representative, negotiate 
     with employers, and bring grievances to the Federal Labor 
     Relations Authority (FLRA). (GAO already negotiates with its 
     employees, but its cases do not go to the FLRA.) If employees 
     in the House, Senate, the Architect, CBO, and the Office of 
     Technology Assessment (OTA) were to decide to organize and 
     force their employers to negotiate with various bargaining 
     units, the employers would incur additional staff costs in 
     order to meet their responsibilities under the law. Based on 
     the experience at GPO and LoC, it appears that an agency with 
     several thousands of employees could spend $200,000 to 
     $300,000 per year for a lawyer and part of the time of 
     personnel officers who must work with the bargaining units. 
     CBO cannot predict to what extent employees at the affected 
     agencies would decide to take advantage of their opportunity 
     to organize under this law, but even if a few did at each 
     agency, total agency costs could be in the neighborhood of $1 
     million annually. Other Applicable Laws.
       Some of the laws that H.R. 4822 would apply to the entire 
     legislative branch are laws that already apply to some or all 
     Congressional employers through existing statute or because 
     the employer voluntarily complies. Therefore, they are not 
     likely to result in additional costs. For example, the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the 
     Civil Right Act, which prohibit employer discrimination based 
     on disability or race, already apply to the Senate, House, 
     CBO, GAO, GPO, LoC, the Architect, and OTA--entities that 
     employ almost all of the 38,000 legislative branch employees. 
     The Family and Medical Leave Act, which guarantees employees 
     a certain amount of unpaid leave without fear of losing their 
     job in order to care for a new baby or a sick relative, also 
     applies now to all these employers.
       Other laws apply to some employers now, but would apply to 
     all upon enactment of H.R. 4822. For example, the 
     Rehabilitation Act (which requires the government to contract 
     with vendors that provide employment

[[Page S705]]

     opportunities for the disabled) only applies to the Senate 
     and the Architect. But because the Rehabilitation Act has 
     been largely superseded by the ADA, which all the employers 
     must already comply with, application of the Rehabilitation 
     Act is not expected to affect employers' practices. The Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) does not apply 
     currently to the House, CBO, and certain employees of the 
     Architect, but the House has adopted a rule that ``personnel 
     actions affecting employment positions in the House . . . 
     shall be made free from discrimination based on . . . age.'' 
     H.R. 4822 would codify this policy. The bill, however, would 
     provide such employees with improved procedures for seeking 
     redress if they experience discrimination because of age (as 
     well as race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or 
     disability). CBO expects that applying the ADEA would not 
     result in significant additional costs.
       Finally, some laws that would apply under H.R. 4822 are not 
     currently followed by any Congressional employer. The Worker 
     Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires 
     employers to give employees certain notice and job placement 
     assistance before closing down a workplace, is not expected 
     to have a significant effect, budgetary or otherwise, on 
     Congressional employers because no mass layoffs are 
     anticipated. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act, which 
     forbids employers from using polygraphs on their employees 
     (except when required by the federal government to protect 
     national security), does not now apply to any legislative 
     branch entity. Because Congressional employers do not now use 
     polygraphs for employees, prohibiting this practice is not 
     likely to have any effect.
       6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets up pay-as-you-go 
     procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
     receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enactment of H.R. 
     4822 could affect direct spending. Thus, pay-as-you-go 
     procedures would apply to the bill.
       The bill would allow a hearing board or a district court, 
     depending on which forum the employee has taken the case, to 
     order a remedy that could include compensation. The bill 
     would establish separate funds in the House and the Senate to 
     pay such compensation (the Senate already has such a fund; 
     the House does not), but it does not authorize an 
     appropriation to the funds nor does it explicitly provide 
     spending authority for the funds. Further, the bill appears 
     to say that all compensation orders, regardless of which 
     legislative entity the employee works for, may be paid from 
     one of the House and Senate funds. The bill does not say what 
     would happen if the affected employer or the two compensation 
     funds do not have sufficient appropriations to pay the 
     compensation. Because the existing Claims and Judgments Fund 
     in the Treasury is available under current law to make 
     payments as ordered by the courts in cases where agencies do 
     not have a source of funding for the payment, it is possible 
     that successful claimants under H.R. 4822 could begin to 
     receive payments from the Claims and Judgments Fund. However, 
     it is unclear what would be the ultimate source of 
     compensation because the bill does not explicitly identify a 
     funding mechanism. CBO expects that the total of such 
     compensation paid to legislative branch employees in some 
     years could be between $0.5 million and $1 million. If paid 
     from the Claims and Judgments Fund, these payments would 
     constitute direct spending. The following table summarizes 
     the estimated pay-as-you-go impact of this bill.

                [By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1994   1995   1996   1997   1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays....................      0      0      0      1      1
Change in receipts...................  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)  (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.

       7. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
       8. Estimate comparison: None.
       9. Previous CBO estimate: On June 30, 1994, CBO prepared a 
     cost estimate for S. 1824, as ordered reported by the Senate 
     Committee on Rules and Administration on June 9, 1994. That 
     bill is different from H.R. 4822 because it would cover only 
     Senate employees and because it would only apply OSHA and 
     FLSA to the Senate. H.R. 4822 would apply these two laws, as 
     well as seven others, to the entire legislative branch and 
     would create a consistent procedure to enforce the laws 
     equally on all legislative branch employees. CBO has 
     estimated a larger cost for H.R. 4822 than for S. 1824.
       On August 2, 1994, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R. 
     4822, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Rules on 
     July 29, 1994. Because that version of the bill is nearly 
     identical to H.R. 4822 as ordered reported by the Committee 
     on House Administration, CBO's estimate of the cost of the 
     two bills is the same.
       10. Estimate prepared by: James Hearn.
       11. Estimate approved by: C.G. Nuckols, Assistant Director 
     for Budget Analysis.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, CBO estimated that both versions, the 
House-passed last year and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, 
quite similar to S. 2 before us now, would cost about $1 million for 
the first 2 years in effect as the 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 pricetag should dip back down by the beginning of the second 5-
year budgetary cycle.
  When you look at the total cost figures, I think you also have to 
realize that the Senate and House offices of the existing Fair 
Employment Practices Office, which would be supplanted, would be 
replaced by the independent Office of Compliance created by this bill, 
will cost almost $1.2 million in this fiscal year, so that the marginal 
cost of the bills considered here is even less.
  Mr. President, there was some indication on the floor yesterday that 
the Senate Rules Committee has found the administrative hearing system 
created for the Senate by the Government Employees Rights Act to be 
extremely expensive and that this bill would further increase that 
expense.
  I hope that my colleagues on the Rules Committee will agree that the 
bulk of the costs involved in the administrative hearing process lies 
in the fact that the GERA, the Government Employees Rights Act, 
requires three hearing officers to hear any one case. When we drafted 
this bill, S. 2, and gave employees the right to bring original civil 
actions in Federal district court, we recognized that the 
administrative hearing process could be streamlined because it would no 
longer be the only legal recourse for an employee to use in addressing 
grievances that that employee felt he or she had.
  Therefore, we create in this bill, S. 2, an administrative hearing 
system that only requires one hearing officer to hear any case. That 
surely will reduce the cost of holding any hearing by 67 percent, one 
hearing officer as opposed to three. I think that my colleagues who 
raise concerns about the costs of the current administrative hearing 
system under the Government Employees Rights Act will recognize this 
change--I hope they will --as a significant cost-saving measure.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to 
consider the estimated cost of last year's bill in its most expensive 
year, fiscal year 1998, as a percentage of the legislative branch's 
annual budget. For fiscal year 1998, which would have been the fourth 
year in effect if the bill had been enacted last year, Congress' budget 
will probably be in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion. Even if this bill 
did cost $5 billion in fiscal year 1998 as a percentage of Congress' 
total operating budget for that year, it would only amount to one-fifth 
of 1 percent--one-fifth of 1 percent--which is surely not too much to 
pay to, first, guarantee our employees that they have the same rights 
as every other employee in America working for private business and, 
second, for us to adopt the principle of living in the real world, of 
getting rid of the double standard and of understanding in our own 
capacity as employers the impact of the laws that we adopt on every 
other employer in America.
  Because this bill makes very few substantive changes from last year's 
Senate bill, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that CBO will 
provide a similarly low score for S. 2, and we can then also assume 
that the cost of the bill, in its most expensive year, will be an 
equally small percentage of the legislative branch budget. That really 
is not too much to ask.
  Finally, there is in this another principle which is that we should 
impose the same laws on ourselves as we do on everybody else because 
presumably, if we adopt them, we believe they are good laws, that they 
make sense, that they embrace values that we hold to be real and 
important for our country.
  We should pass this bill with strong enforcement, including the right 
for claims to be heard in court, because we believe the laws we have 
passed are right. By passing this bill, therefore, we not only get rid 
of the double standard and create equity in reality, but we also 
demonstrate a commitment to the underlying values that we have adopted 
in these bills.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S706]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GLENN. 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. GLENN. Mr. President, let me just put out a general call here for 
those who may have amendments to this bill. We do have time. We have 
handled several this morning. The votes on those will be stacked until 
this afternoon after our 2:15 end of the respective party conferences. 
We will vote on those after that.
  I think the distinguished floor manager on the Republican side was 
going to propound a UC on that at the appropriate time, on how we will 
go through the votes, so people will know what to expect. Let me just 
say, on the Democratic side we are the only ones who have amendments 
left on this bill. For those watching in the offices, or for Senators 
or staffs who may be listening, I encourage them to get over right now 
when we have some time here. We have about another hour before we break 
for our conference lunches. Get over here and get the amendments taken 
care of.
  I heard the majority leader in the opening this morning state we are 
going to go on this bill until it is done tonight with all the 
amendments. That puts the heat on our side of the aisle to get the 
amendments over here and get them taken care of.
  So I ask staffs and Senators, if they have amendments, let us not 
wait until 10 or 11 o'clock tonight to bring them up. Let us get them 
over here while we have time right now.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, am I correct that the Leahy amendment is 
pending before this body?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The amendment by the Senator from Vermont is a very 
short amendment.
  I will read one sentence that is in the amendment:

       ``No congressional organization or organization affiliated 
     with the Congress may request that any current or prospective 
     employee fill out a questionnaire or similar document in 
     which the person's views on organizations or policy matters 
     are requested.''

  Of course, this amendment is not germane to this legislation. That is 
obvious, as most of the amendments we have been dealing with.
  The congressional accountability act is designed to make sure that 
Congress lives under the same laws that we impose upon the private 
sector. The private sector does not live under the law that the Senator 
from Vermont seeks to impose on Congress, because a private sector 
employer may ask prospective employees about their political views.
  To be sure, the private sector does not ask these questions very 
often. Political views are normally irrelevant to the performance of 
job duties as a brick layer, or a secretary, or an airline pilot. Of 
course, it may even be poor judgment and poor public relations for any 
private sector business to ask such a question. But they are looking 
for people to perform their jobs. They do not care whether they hire 
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, or anything else. But the point 
is that it is legal for a private sector employer to ask those 
questions on political views if they want to. The Leahy amendment would 
prohibit organizations affiliated with Congress from asking the same 
question of prospective employees.
  I spoke about the private sector, but in the political and Government 
arena there are varying rules about whether or not this is a legitimate 
question. Civil service employees and certain other governmental 
employees cannot be hired or fired for their political views. These 
tend to be nonpolitical employees who perform nonpolitical Government 
jobs. These employees have the first amendment right to hold any 
political views. In one famous case, a protected employee could not be 
fired for saying, ``I hope he dies.'' That statement was made when she 
learned of President Reagan being shot in March of 1981. However, the 
rules are different for political employees in both the legislative and 
executive branches. Rules that might apply to political views in the 
executive branch may not hold in regard to inquiry into that point for 
employees of the legislative branch. Under their constitutional duties, 
it is quite obvious that the President and Members of Congress must be 
able to hire people philosophically sympathetic to their agendas. 
Personnel is policy.
  When President Clinton fills a position that is a political 
appointment, the applicant is asked his or her political views. 
Whenever any Members of this body hires a legislative staff member, we 
ask about their views. That is totally appropriate. That does not mean 
that we practice any form of McCarthyism. If we properly do that as 
individuals, then, of course, it seems reasonable to me that 
organizations--the very same organizations that would be prohibited by 
the Leahy amendment--which we join to help us in doing our jobs act 
properly if they choose to ask prospective employees about their 
political views. Members of these organizations are entitled to know 
the views of potential employees. Members who rely upon the 
organizations of Congress to submit potential employees are entitled to 
know if that employee would be compatible with the legislative agenda 
of the Member.
  The amendment, however, offered by the Senator from Vermont overlooks 
the essential political requirements of service on Capitol Hill. And it 
is peculiar, because it would ban employees from completing 
questionnaires on their views, but it would not affect oral 
questioning. I do not know whether that is an oversight or not. It 
would not allow questioning to be asked on a form, but you could have 
the same questions asked orally. Thus, the amendment would not address, 
in any real way, the problems--if there is a problem. I do not see it 
as a problem, but the Senator from Vermont does. It does not, in any 
practical way, address what he wants to accomplish. He wants to make 
sure there is not some sort of litmus test for the hiring of employees 
on Capitol Hill. So he says you cannot ask questions on the 
questionnaire, but you can ask these questions orally. Moreover, I feel 
that inquiring about a congressional employee's political view is not 
in any way a horror. In fact, it is very vital to the functioning of 
the institution.
  In short, the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont should be 
rejected. It has nothing to do with congressional coverage. It would 
harm the ability of Members to do what they were elected to do, and it 
would not accomplish its stated objective. So I urge that it be 
rejected.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. 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. BYRD. Mr. President, has the Pastore rule run its course for the 
day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Craig). The Pastore rule has not expired.
  Mr. BYRD. It has not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out 
of order for not to exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no objection, the Senator is 
recognized.

                          ____________________