[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23848-23849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  FOR THE RELIEF OF ROCCO A. TRECOSTA

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from 
the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2042) for the relief of Rocco 
A. Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the Senate bill, as follows:

                                S. 2042

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. COMPENSATION OF BACK PAY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, 
     out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
     to Mr. Rocco A. Trecosta of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the sum 
     of $10,000 for compensation for back pay not received as an 
     employee of the Department of Defense Overseas Dependent 
     Schools for service performed during the period beginning 
     April 14, 1966, through June 30, 1975. Payment under this 
     subsection is made after the transmission of the applicable 
     report of the United States Court of Federal Claims under 
     section 2509 of title 28, United States Code.
       (b) No Inference of Liability.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed as an inference of liability on the part 
     of the United States.
       (c) Full Satisfaction of Claims.--The payment authorized 
     under subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all 
     claims of Rocco A. Trecosta against the United States for 
     back pay in connection with his service in the Department of 
     Defense Overseas Dependent Schools.
       (d) Limitation on Agents and Attorneys Fees.--No more than 
     10 percent of the payment authorized by this Act may be paid 
     to or received by any agent or attorney for services rendered 
     in connection with obtaining such payment, any contract to 
     the contrary notwithstanding. Any person who violates this 
     subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be 
     subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United 
     States Code.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today S. 2042, for the relief of 
Rocco Trecosta, is being considered by unanimous consent by the House. 
I have agreed to move this private bill outside the regular private 
bill process for two reasons: a substantially similar bill passed the 
House under regular order in the 104th Congress; and this bill only 
arrived in the House yesterday from the Senate, making it impossible to 
move the bill through the normal process before this Congress adjourns. 
It is only because of these unusual circumstances that I am making this 
exception to the regular order.
  In the 104th Congress, a substantially similar bill, H.R. 2765, was 
introduced by then Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and 
Claims, Representative Lamar Smith. Pursuant to the Meritorious Claims 
Act, the Comptroller General recommended that Congress enact 
legislation to treat Mr. Trecosta as a member of the plaintiff class in 
March v. United States. According to the GAO: ``we believe his 
situation is extraordinary and contains such elements of equity as to 
be deserving of the consideration of Congress.'' Because there is 
generally no controversy on cases referred under the Meritorious Claims 
Act, the House quickly passed the bill under the normal private bill 
process, however, it did not pass the Senate.
  This bill pays Mr. Trecosta, a former teacher in the Department of 
Defense Overseas Dependent Schools, backpay he would have been awarded 
if he had been a member of the March plaintiff class. In that case, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals held that DOD had not property implemented pay-
setting procedures established under a law requiring the Secretary of 
each military department to fix the basic compensation for teachers and 
teaching positions in his department at rates equal to the average of 
the range of rates of basic compensation for similar positions of a 
comparable level of duties and responsibilities in urban school 
jurisdictions in the U.S. of 100,000 or more population.
  The Court held that DOD violated the statutory requirement and 
directed DOD to base the salaries on current salaries paid to stateside 
teachers. The Court also granted the plaintiffs entitlement to recover 
money damages. A judgment in the District Court on June 30, 1975, 
provided backpay for the plaintiffs for the period from April 14, 1966, 
to the date of that judgment.
  Out of 23,000 potential plaintiffs, only Mr. Trecosta had previously 
brought an action in the Court of Claims which was denied. But for his 
suit, he would have been included in the plaintiff-class in March. 
Furthermore, he could have been paid administratively. The GAO denied 
his claim, stating that the matter was res judicata and therefore his 
final Court of Claims judgment barred any further claim arising out of 
the matters involved in the case.
  No one else is in Mr. Trecosta's position. He was the only teacher 
who challenged DOD's practices, and was excluded from the class due to 
that challenge.
  When the Senate did not move the House passed bill in the 104th 
Congress, Mr. Trecosta was encouraged to pursue his bill in the Senate 
first in subsequent Congresses. In 1999, the Senate referred his claim 
to the Court of Federal Claims, which determined that he should be paid 
the back pay as a matter of equity. Only now, after receiving that 
decision, has the Senate passed S. 2042 for Mr. Trecosta.

[[Page 23849]]

  First as a private bill objector for many years, and now as the 
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have always insisted on the 
processing of private bills through regular order and deviate from that 
policy in this one instance due to the unique details of the situation. 
This bill previously passed the House under regular order. It was not 
only a Meritorious Claims Act referral, but it now also has the 
blessing of the Court of Federal Claims. This man has already been 
through a lot, for a long time, to have his claim resolved. I have 
checked with the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. 
Conyers, and the Republican and Democratic private bill objectors, Mr. 
Coble, Mr. Chabot, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Schiff, and Mr. 
Grijalva, and they have all agreed that this procedure is appropriate 
under these unusual circumstances. I appreciate their cooperation. I 
urge my colleagues to adopt the bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________