[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 114 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9159-S9161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. COATS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Abraham,
Mr. DeWine, Mr. Coverdell and Mr. Faircloth):
S. 2000. A bill to make certain laws applicable to the Executive
Office of the President, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
The Presidential and Executive Office Accountability Act
Mr. COATS. All Members of this body remember early in this Congress
we introduced and passed into law the Congressional Accountability Act
which applied the various civil rights and labor laws that are
currently applicable to employers and employees throughout America's
workplaces, and applied this same restrictions to Members of Congress.
For too long we had exempted ourselves from the laws and regulations
that we had imposed on virtually every other business operation in
America. There were only a couple of workplaces that were exempted: The
Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans With
Disability Act, and the other items that we discussed. Those
institutions were the U.S. Congress and the executive branch, in
particular, the White House. We remedied that, partially, for the
Congress with the adoption of the Congressional Accountability Act.
Now, these 11 specific items apply to Members of Congress as well as
to the private sector. I think what we are learning is that some of
these laws are good, some of these laws are applicable to what we do,
but some of them are overly burdensome and overly restrictive and
therefore need to be examined. Because they apply to us as they apply
to everyone else, we feel that burden, and perhaps we can be reasonable
when we examine these to determine whether or not reforms are needed.
This act would apply these same provisions that now apply to Congress
and virtually every other workplace in the country, to the White House.
This legislation, which I send to the desk for referral, was originally
cosponsored by Senator Stevens, as well as other Members including
Senators Nickles, Abraham, DeWine, Coverdell, and Faircloth.
Mr. President, today I send to the desk a bill designed to eliminate
a dubious double standard that remains in the application of our civil
rights and labor protection laws.
Last year, this Congress passed the Congressional Accountability Act,
requiring Congress to live under the laws it passes--and oftentimes
imposes--on the rest of the Nation. Now that the Congressional
Accountability Act is
[[Page S9160]]
the law of the land, only one workplace in America remains exempt from
our Nation's laws and regulations. In just one place of employment,
workers do not enjoy the rights and protections afforded to all other
Americans. That one place is the White House, and it's time for the
White House to join the rest of the United States in living under the
civil rights and labor laws governing the rest of the Nation.
For decades, Congress callously exempted itself from rules and
regulations it was passing for the rest of the country. Many of us had
supported the Congressional Accountability Act for years, but were
thwarted in our efforts. Finally, when--for the first time in 40
years--Republicans gained control of Congress, we wasted little time
and passed the Congressional Accountability Act into law.
I remain in strong support of the principle that Congress should not
be exempt from the laws that apply to all other Americans, and because
of the Congressional Accountability Act, Congress now is living under
11 different labor and civil rights laws from which it had previously
exempted itself. I continue to believe that this is a simple issue of
fundamentlal fairness. Congress should live under the laws it passes
for everyone else. In doing so, lawmakers will learn first hand which
laws work, and perhaps more often than not, which laws are overly
intrusive and burdensome.
These lessons also would be appropriate for the White House, since
under President Clinton the Federal Register of Government regulations
now totals about 65,000 pages, the largest number in more than 15
years. Despite President Clinton's stated concerns for the working men
and women of this country, the White House continues to exempt itself
from the laws and regulations covering the rest of the country,
including Congress and all private businesses.
For example, because of this privileged loophole, the White House
does not have to abide by the minimum wage or the Family Medical Leave
Act or the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act or
several of the other civil rights and labor laws that apply to all
other Americans. I think America's labor leaders will agree with me
when I say that employees of the White House should be protected by the
same laws that the President approves for the rest of the country.
Employees should have the same rights and protections regardless of
where they work--whether the individual labors in the private sector,
the Congress, and yes, even in the White House.
There are some in the White House who argue that this legislation is
unnecessary because the White House voluntarily complies with the
spirit of many of these laws. Mr. President, I argue that voluntary
compliance is not good enough. How many private sector companies are
allowed to voluntarily comply with the laws of the land? The answer is
zero, and the White House should not be an exception.
The Congressional Accountability Act, and the proposed White House
Accountability Act, give employees of these two branches of Government
the same rights as any other citizen to go into a court of law and have
their case heard by a jury of their peers. White House employees should
not have to depend on the benevolence or arbitrary good will of a
supervisor to ensure that they are not taken advantage of, sexually
harassed, or otherwise dealt with in an inappropriate and possibly
illegal manner. They deserve the right to be free from discrimination,
the right to work in a safe and healthy work environment, the right not
to be fired simply because of race, sex, disability, or age. White
House workers deserve the same rights and protections that every other
American enjoys in the private sector, and now in the U.S. Congress.
The White House Accountability Act also would be good policy for
senior management and administrators. White House policy makers and
their staffs would gain a first-hand understanding of the laws they
propose and enact. Perhaps the White House will find, as many in
Congress have been forced to learn, that some of the laws we pass are
good, some do not go far enough and need to be strengthened, or--and
this is too often the case--that many of the regulations imposed on the
Nation by the Federal bureaucracy in Washington are onerous and in
serious need of reform.
Writing in the Federalist Papers, James Madison instructed us that no
branch of Government is above the law. Madison wrote, ``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.''
Because of the Congressional Accountability Act, Federal laws and
regulations now apply from our Nation's assembly lines to our Nation's
general assembly. When President Clinton was inaugurated, he called the
White House, ``the people's house.'' It's time he backed up that
statement by letting his workers in the White House enjoy the same
civil rights and labor protections enjoyed by the rest of the people in
whose house they serve.
______
By Mr. PELL:
S. 2001. A bill to amend the Job Training Partnership Act to improve
the definition relating to eligible dislocated workers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the fishermen as dislocated workers act
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that
amends the Job Training Partnership Act [JTPA] to improve the
definition of eligible dislocated workers. The legislation defines
``dislocated worker'' as any employee who ``has become unemployed as a
result of a Federal action that limits the use of, or restricts access
to, a marine natural resource.''
This language is directed at fishermen. In Rhode Island, as well as
many other coastal States, customarily the crew members of fishing
boats are not paid but are given a share of the day's catch.
Unfortunately, this means they are neither employees of the boat nor
self-employed.
Fishing has always been a difficult occupation. But now, with a
declining supply, Government efforts to restore the population of
various species of fish by limiting or closing access to fishing
grounds, and the need to close large portions of our coastal waters
after oil spills and other environmental disasters, fishermen are
leaving port less and, when they do, catching less.
Some months ago, I received a letter from a Rhode Island fisherman
who realized that fishing would no longer be able to support the
demands of his growing family. He had, therefore, selected a new
occupation--he wants to be a cabinetmaker--and on his own, he had
located and been accepted into a training program. His only problem?
Financial assistance.
Because he is technically not unemployed, the present system is of no
help to him. My legislation would correct that unfortunate inequity.
I originally offered and had accepted a similar version of this
legislation in the Labor and Human Resources Committee as an amendment
to S. 143, the Workforce Development Act. Regrettably, the House-Senate
work force development conference committee has only just finished its
work under a cloud of partisanship and disagreement and I very much
doubt any further action will take place during this Congress.
I do not believe the commercial fishermen in Galilee, RI, should
suffer because of the failure of a conference committee in Washington,
DC. I have, therefore, drafted this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2001
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DEFINITION.
Section 301(a)(1) of the Job Training Partnership Act (29
U.S.C. 1651(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``; or'' and inserting
a semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) have become unemployed as a result of a Federal
action that limits the use of, or restricts access to, a
marine natural resource.''.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 2002. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
taking a child hostage in order to evade arrest; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
[[Page S9161]]
crime legislation
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, over the past few years, America has
witnessed an unfortunate trend involving standoffs between the U.S.
Government and parties who reject its authority to enforce the laws of
this land--specifically, the incidents in Waco, TX; Ruby Ridge, ID; and
Garfield County, MT. Thankfully, the most recent episode involving the
Freemen did not escalate to violence or bloodshed. Regrettably, this
does not hold true for Waco or Ruby Ridge, where there was a tragic
loss of life to civilians and Government agents alike.
Each of these situations jeopardized children's lives--innocent
children who had no choice in the role they played in these standoffs.
In Waco, 25 young children under the age of 15 died in the blaze that
spread throughout the compound. These deaths occurred despite the
repeated efforts by Federal agents to encourage Branch Davidians
leaders to allow children to leave the compound.
At Ruby Ridge, a 14-year-old died after being caught in gunfire. And
during the Freemen standoff, Americans across the Nation held their
breath--praying that violence would not erupt. Once again, the lives of
children were placed in jeopardy. But thankfully, this time, the
children--and adults--emerged unharmed.
As we have seen, tragedy can occur in these very tense situations.
Above all else, we need to ensure that children are kept out of these
situations in the future. People who arm themselves after failing to
comply with warrants or because they seek to avoid arrest must realize
that, whether or not it is intended, children are implicated in these
standoffs. We cannot allow this to continue any longer. We cannot allow
another child's life to be endangered in this manner.
Today, I am introducing a bill which seeks to protect children from
harm in these standoff situations. My bill would make it a crime to
detain a child when two conditions are met: if a person is trying to
evade arrest or avoid complying with a warrant, and that person uses
force, or threatens to use force, against a Federal agent. Any person
convicted of violating this act would be imprisoned for 10-25 years. If
a child is injured, the penalty would be increased to 20-35 years. If a
child is killed, the penalty would be life imprisonment.
No law can ever assure that children will be kept free from harm. But
this legislation will help assure that children do not become
inadvertent, innocent pawns when violent situations arise. It will
provide a deterrent to involving a child in any standoff--and severe
penalties for those who ignore the law.
Tense standoffs between Federal law enforcement officers and hostile
fugitives are no place for children. This bill will help encourage the
removal of innocent children from such dangerous situations. As a
nation, we should not tolerate the use of children as pawns or human
shields when people choose to evade the laws of this land. I hope my
colleagues support this important piece of legislation.
______
By Mr. EXON:
S. 2003. A bill to amend the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act of
1993 to clarify certain requirements and to improve the flow of
interstate commerce; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
The armored car industry reciprocity improvement act
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation known as the Armored
Car Industry Reciprocity Improvement Act. This legislation is a
companion measure to H.R. 3431 which has unanimously passed in the
House of Representatives. It is my hope that this bill which makes a
slight modification to its companion can be taken up and swiftly passed
this year to safely expand the benefits of the Armored Car Reciprocity
Act of 1993 which I introduced in the U.S. Senate. The 1993 law which
had support from law enforcement, public safety and armored car
industry advocates replaced a patch work of State laws with a common
sense, pro-safety, pro-interstate commerce approach to weapons
registration, background checks and training for armored car crew
members.
The amendments to the 1993 law build on what was learned since 1993
and will make the reciprocal benefits of the law available to more
States. The net result will be better screened, better qualified and
better trained armored car crews.
The armored car is one of the most overlooked instrumentalities of
interstate commerce. Without the ability to safely and securely move
currency, securities, food stamps, gold and other valuables, interstate
commerce would be impossible.
I am pleased to introduce this legislation which I encourage the U.S.
Senate to overwhelmingly endorse. It is a tribute to the success of the
1993 law.
____________________