[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11858-S11859]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     APPLICATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND LABORS LAWS TO THE WHITE HOUSE

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would actually like to speak briefly on a 
nonrelated CR matter or a nonrelated FAA matter. This is something that 
I was fully of the understanding would be cleared on both sides and 
become law after it was sent to the President in final closing action 
of the Congress. I have sponsored a bill along with Representative Horn 
from the House designed to eliminate a very dubious double standard 
that remains in the application of our civil rights and labor laws. 
That double standard was eliminated relative to this body in this 
Congress by application of the civil rights and labor laws which we had 
previously excluded ourselves from, that application now applicable to 
the U.S. Congress.
  For too long and to the general disgust of the American people, in 
the laws which we passed requiring them to comply with the civil rights 
laws of the land and the labor standards of the land, we crafted an 
exemption for the Government. We said it is good enough for you but not 
for us. You comply with it subject to both civil and criminal 
penalties, but we are going to exempt ourselves.
  I am proud that under Republican leadership in this Congress, we 
finally remedied that inequity that existed for so many years because 
now that same list of laws which applies to every American worker and 
every American under the civil rights laws and under the labor laws of 
this country now applies to us. The theory here is that if we have to 
be subject to those same requirements, perhaps we will be a little more 
careful before we impose egregious regulations on the American people.
  I remember attending a closed meeting of Senators while we were 
debating this, and a Senator walked in and said, ``You mean we are 
going to have to live by this? It is impossible. Our office cannot 
comply with the OSHA laws. Our office cannot comply with all these fair 
labor standard laws. We cannot do this.'' We said, ``Well, now you know 
what the American people are complaining about. They are saying they 
cannot do it either. Sometimes they even conflict with each other. And 
maybe if we feel the pain ourselves, then we will be a little more 
careful when we impose that pain on others.''

  What I have attempted to do, along with Representative Horn, is 
simply apply this same standard to the White House. Today, the only 
exempted entity in America is the White House. The White House does not 
have to comply with the laws that the Congress now complies with and 
every other American complies with.
  I was encouraged because the White House sent us a statement of 
administration policy which said that they support the bill offered by 
Representative Horn and myself, and I read this statement of 
administration policy which says, ``We support H.R. 3452 that would 
apply civil rights and workplace laws to the Executive Office of the 
White House.''
  They, however, had a couple problems with that. They did not want an 
inspector general because they thought it raised constitutional issues, 
and they did not want equitable relief too, which really leaves a 
double standard in place, but the only way we could get this through 
before the conclusion of this Congress was to remove those. I did not 
want to remove them. Representative Horn did not want to remove them. 
But we were assured by the

[[Page S11859]]

White House that if we could remove these, then they would be willing 
to accept this provision.
  Now we find objections in the last day perhaps of the Congress. We 
find roadblocks. We find people stonewalling this, hoping the clock 
will run out so it is not passed. Talk about a double standard. Talk 
about a stonewalling so that the White House does not have to comply 
with all the rest of us. We are getting resistance. We are getting 
resistance from individuals who are trying to have it both ways. ``Oh, 
yes, these ought to apply to the White House.'' The White House is 
saying, ``Oh, yes, they should apply to us,'' whether it is the Family 
and Medical Leave Act, OSHA regulation, Fair Labor Standards Act. They 
said, ``Oh, well, we comply with it in policy.''
  That is what we were saying around here: ``Oh, we comply with it in 
policy. We don't need to comply by legal means.''
  Obviously, that is not true, and if we are going to apply that 
standard we ought to apply it to the American public as well. So if we 
are going to have a law, the law ought to apply equally to everybody in 
the land. It ought to apply to Congress, it ought to apply to the 
public, and it ought to apply to the White House. Everybody has now 
complied except the White House. On the one hand, they are saying, yes, 
we support this effort if you will make these changes. We made the 
changes reluctantly in order to get it through. And now they have 
apparently sent instructions or someone has decided that they are going 
to protect the White House by letting the clock run out and not let us 
pass this.
  It passed the House 410 to 5. There were only 5 members who objected 
to this, and that is the tougher language they said they needed revised 
or weakened in order for them to support it. Reluctantly, 
Representative Horn and I met and agreed to drop that tougher language 
that had passed 410 to 5--only 5 opponents.
  So it is clearly a bipartisan bill. We dropped that language and have 
now presented it, and we were totally under the assumption that this 
was absolutely cleared by everybody. If we drop the one piece of 
language that the White House objected to, that cleared the House by 
410 to 5, then surely there would not be a problem over here. But, yet, 
we are getting all kinds of resistance back, in terms of passing this 
here in the last days.

  I do not understand why we are in this situation, but--well, maybe I 
do understand. It was James Madison who wrote a long time ago, that 
``an effective control against oppressive measures by the Federal 
Government on the people is that Government leaders 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.''
  In other words, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 
What is good for the public, that we impose on them, ought to be good 
for us. We faced up to that fact. We stepped up to the bar with that. I 
was proud, under the leadership of Republicans, we imposed that on the 
Congress. Now we have to live by it. All we are trying to do now is 
extend it to the White House. They say they want it, yet efforts are 
being made to not allow it to go through.
  Mr. President, I hope as we deal with these issues here at the last, 
waning moments of Congress, we will take our responsibilities 
seriously, and whether it is FAA or public lands or White House 
accountability, we will deal with this before this Congress adjourns.
  I urge my colleagues to accept what the White House says it wants to 
accept, what the House in a total bipartisan fashion has accepted, and 
even a weakened version here in the Senate, that applies to the White 
House, is ready for passage if we can lift the restrictions against it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Massachusetts.

                          ____________________