Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, everything sounds so good, it is almost hard to believe it. The general public out there believes that we are applying the same rules to our own institution as we apply to them. That is not true. That is not true. In the Americans With Disabilities Act, for instance, we excluded title II. We hear this rhetoric that we put that in. We excluded title II. Title II is buildings and transportation. You wait until we have to change the other subway. That is fine, but the last one cost $16 million. I wonder what the others are going to cost. That is not coming out of my pocket or the Senator's pocket; it is coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. The congressional exemptions in the statutes as provided by this bill will do a lot of things. If the same laws are applied to Congress as to the private sector, the statutory provisions must be the same. The statutory provisions are not the same. The remedies available to employees must be the same, the regulations must be the same, and the provisions for judicial enforcement and review must be the same as it applies to the private sector. But, no, we do not do that. We do not do that. No, we do not. The Republican bill creates a special agency, creates a special agency, to enforce selective provisions of law to the Congress. We set up a special agency. We do not just say that the provisions that apply to the small employer down there, the small businessman, will apply to us. We do not do that. Under the bill, Congress will have its own special regulations. We set up our own special regulations. Separation of powers, sure. But we are out there telling our general public, our constituents, that we are going to apply the same thing to us as we apply to them. Now, I may vote for the bill, but I am going to tell you one thing, I want the general public to know what we are doing and what we are not doing. Congress will have its own special regulations that may vary for each House. We may not have the same provisions in the Senate as they have in the House. It will vary between the House and the Senate, its own rules of procedure, not what the general public has--its own agency with its own inspectors with its own staff with its own general counsel with its own executive director and its own board. Now, you know, the general public out there does not have all that as we are setting up for ourselves. The law will not result in Congress being subjected to the same laws that apply to the private sector. It is a continuation of special treatment of Congress by Congress. Any rose should smell so sweet. The repeal of the exemption for Congress in the various civil rights and labor statutes would be the fulfillment of what the Republicans really promised by the Democrats. We would be holding them to their promise, not to their slogans. So when you get right down to it, it is very simple. You just say all the statutes that apply to the business people out there apply to us. That is very simple. But, no, we are making it complicated. We excluded the Members of the Senate and the Members of the House. We are giving the Senate and the House the opportunity to set up different rules, and the expense is going to be tremendous. Impact on confidentiality: The bill provides its office proceedings, including hearings before a hearing officer and before the board on appeal, will be confidential. It would permit public release only of the hearing officer's or board's decision, provided the complainant's name had been redacted. However, trial de novo will likely become the more popular avenue for the employee to pursue. A trial is usually not confidential and the parties would be named in the complaint. Just a lot of things that we are doing here. The bill requires the office to develop a system for the collection of demographic data respecting the composition of congressional employees, including race, sex, wages and a system for the collection of information on employment practices, including family leave and flexible work hours, and report annually to Congress on the information collected under such system. How many employers out there have that done for them? How many? And so we are saying we are applying the same laws to Congress that we are applying to our constituents. Not true. Not true. You can say what you want to, get up here and make all these grandiose statements for 30-second sound bites, but when you get down to it and you read the bill, we are taking care of Congress. We are giving immunity to Congress. The immunity is there. Self-enforcement has not worked very well. And that is what is happening here. Self-enforcement is what is happening here and it has not worked very good. Two years ago, Congress passed legislation to extend coverage of several employment discrimination laws to the Senate. A Fair Employment Practices Office was established and employees were promised fair treatment. It was certainly an intent of these actions to provide some protection against arbitrary employment decisions to employees of the Senate. With this change in the majority, we have had employees that were within a few weeks of retiring, few months of retiring, and nondesignated employees--they were not Democrat or Republican, Independent or otherwise, they were professionals--the professionals were fired so you could hire some more designated. We will see employees terminated for the sake of termination. And we are going to have a lot of cases, a lot of cases, when you fire a professional that is there because he is a professional, not because he is a Republican or Democrat or an Independent, whatever he might be. Is this action consistent with the intent of this legislation? If the same laws are to apply to Congress and to the private sector, the statutory provisions must be the same. The enforcement agency must be the same, the remedies available to employees must be the same, the regulations must be the same, and the provisions for judicial enforcement and review must be the same as applied to the private sector. But, no, Congress is being good to itself again. Congress is being good to itself again. We are given immunity. So, Mr. President, I hope that we will look at what is coming down the pike. And I think it is appropriate. But let us not fool the general public. Let us not say we are applying the same laws to Congress that we have applied to them, because we are not. We will get in the argument about separation of powers and all this sort of thing. But then that is an argument where you can take care of yourselves. Eight-thousand employees are now serving in the Senate. We will go to approximately 24,000 employees that will be covered; counseling up to 30 days; mediation, 30 or more; inspections for OSHA and ADA, title II. You hear we have put ADA, we have applied that to the Senate. We have not. Investigation and initiation of charges: In addition to Senate OFEP board and two, House and Senate, deputy directors. We do not need all those. Just eliminate the statutes' exemptions for us and let the statutes apply to us. So I will have more to say on this, I guess, before we get through. But I just want to be sure that people understand that we are not applying the same laws that we apply to our constituents to the Congress. I hope that there will be an admission that we are not doing that. We are doing more than we have been. I have been for it for a long time. I got the Fair Employment Practices Office set up. Who had the responsibility of that? That is a $900,000 annual budget. We have had several cases we have settled. All those things have been transpiring. And wonder who paid for that? The taxpayers paid an additional $900,000, plus whatever the costs were. And whatever happens in this instance, the taxpayers are going to pay for it. We have immuned ourselves. Confidentiality is there. All of that. And so, I hope those that who are listening understand that what we are doing is in the right direction, but it is not what we are saying we are doing. We are doing something far different. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, Mr. President.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to clear up one item with my colleague as it relates to his interpretation of whether it belongs to the Government or to the office. Under the rules of the Senate, and legislative counsel advised us to draft the amendment that way, it says: Discount coupons, frequent flier mileage, or other evidence of reduced fares obtained on official travel shall be turned in to the office for which the travel was performed so that they may be utilized for future official travel. This regulation is predicated upon the general Government policy that all promotional materials such as bonus flights, reduced fare coupons, cash, merchandise, gifts, credits toward future free or reduced cost of services or goods earned as a result of trips paid by appropriated funds, are the property of the Government and may not be retained by the traveler for personal use. the office. So the language in the amendment is there based on the rules of the Senate, and they would apply as a result of this amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this amendment I have before the Senate merely prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars for personal use; that is, the frequent flyer mileage miles that are built up as a result of expense-paid trips back to our States. That is simply what it is. I understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle are not ready to accept it, and particularly not ready for a vote. Order of Procedure

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside, and I further ask unanimous consent that Senator Wellstone be recognized for the introduction of an amendment.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller], and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent on official business.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have notified on the hotline that it would be at 7:15. I would appreciate it if the majority leader would not and to save us a couple of minutes.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. I will not debate this amendment, but I am going to ask the clerk to read the entire amendment. I think it explains it totally.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the clerk. Mr. President, the amendment I have sent to the desk relates to the use of frequent flier bonuses usually awarded by airlines. Both the Senate travel regulations and those applicable to executive branch travel require that any such benefits paid by an airline that are based on travel that was paid by taxpayer funds must be used for official purposes. Senate travel regulations on this subject are as follows: Discount coupons, frequent flyer mileage, or other evidence of reduced fares, obtained on official travel, shall be turned in to the office for which the travel was performed so that they may be utilized for future official travel. This regulation is predicated upon the general government policy that all promotional materials such as bonus flights, reduced-fare coupons, cash, merchandise, gifts, credits toward future free or reduced costs of services or goods, earned as a result of trips paid by appropriated funds are the property of the government and may not be retained by the traveler for personal use. This amendment will require that all such benefits be used for official travel by the office that pays for the original travel. In this way, the Government rather than the individual traveler will receive the benefit. The correctness of this policy is so obvious that I find it strange that an amendment, such as the one I now offer, should have to be considered. I can find no justification for a public official or elected Member of Congress to consider and use such a bonus for personal purposes. The value of any such bonus awarded to a traveler is included in the price of the ticket. Since the taxpayers have paid for that benefit when the travel is charged to the Government, it is only right that the taxpayer receive such a benefit. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. The Senator has that prerogative. He is the leader.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] would each vote ``nay.''

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], and the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Rockefeller] are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent on official business. I also announce that the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] is absent because of illness.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask for its first reading.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The resolution is as follows: Resolved, That, for the purpose of section 6 of Senate Resolution 458 of the 98th Congress (agreed to October 4, 1984), the term ``displaced staff member'' includes an employee in the office of the Minority Whip who was an employee in that office on January 1, 1995, and whose service is terminated on or after January 1, 1995, solely and directed as a result of the change of the individual occupying the position of Minority Whip and who is so certified by the individual who was the Minority Whip on January 1, 1995.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. Res. 17 adopted earlier today be modified by the following language, which I send to the desk. This request has been cleared by the majority leader and does not alter our agreements with the committee ratios.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object.