John Glenn

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, could we have order.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, Senator Byrd, in his experience here as majority leader, minority leader, repeat majority leader and so on, has an experience level in this body that no one can match. And when he rises and expresses his concerns about things it is of great importance to us because he has studied these things and no one is a greater constitutional scholar on what is provided for, for the Senate and the House, the separation of powers, and making certain that the balance of powers within our form of government remains intact and protected. When he rises to oppose this legislation it is of particular concern to me and I want to just address a couple of the items very briefly here. I do not want to get into a big debate on this. I would say we have passed, through the years, much legislation that applies all across this country. We did that in the assumption that what we were doing was right. It was right to apply certain protections of workplace conditions and of how people were dealt with out there on safety in the workplace and on wages and conditions of employment and so on. And we applied them all across this land. Some of the arguments the distinguished Senator from West Virginia makes are the same arguments that businessmen across this country have made. They feel they are treating their employees fairly. Yet we impose laws upon them. We are not without being justifiably criticized, sometimes, here on Capitol Hill. I remember some newspaper articles just a couple of years ago of some of the working conditions in the Government Printing Office. That is an instrumentality of the Congress. They were atrocious. They did not even come close to passing safety and OSHA regulations that we apply all across the country to every other printing plant and every business across this country. So I would just say if it is right that we impose these laws on other businesses across this country, is it not also right that we apply those for the protection of our own employees here on Capitol Hill? At the same time, I know everyone relates to the situation in his or her own office. What is going to happen in our office on this? Let me say we provide in this legislation that employees who are employed in a ``bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity are not covered by the minimum wage and maximum hours provision.'' That means, then, that the people who are covered are basically clerical people, people like that in our offices. We can say that even they are required sometimes to work irregular hours. And that is true, they are, just as out in the private industry sometimes people who are temporary employees or something are required to work very irregular hours. Where that is a norm for the conditions of employment in private industry, they can make an appeal from that and get relief from the requirements of the law. That is done on a regular basis by those who have their employees working very irregular hours. The same way here on Capitol Hill, that would be the province of the board, to issue regulations like that right here if we wish to be exempted from that. If we did not, if our clerical personnel, for instance, and those who normally out in industry would be working a regular shift, say--if they are not exempted by the board then I would say we are treating ourselves, then, just like everybody else in the country. If a person out there running a business has some irregular working hours and applies for relief from that so he does not have to comply with certain regulations, then I think we would do the same thing here. If we find it is not working right we would appeal to the board. In other words, the board would be the authority here. Just as there is an appeals process out there in private industry, we would have our own appeals process here. But I want to point out that bona fide executive, administrative or professional capacity--they are not covered by these minimum wage or maximum hour provisions. That would cover our LA's, our legislative assistants, who would be considered as professionals. As far as the right to strike, that is prohibited here. I was looking up the language--I did not get it--just before I took the floor. But that is prohibited as it is in other Government activities also. I would say all we tried to do in this, after all these years of having this objection about the separation of powers--and that is a very real one, and has been a problem for me all those years, too, as it has for my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. He was one who rose many years ago on the floor here and was very concerned about the separation of powers. He brought some of this up a long time ago, and rightly so, because we should not be giving away authority, back and forth, here. So what we did, instead of having the executive branch have the authority to just say, ``OK, we are going up on Capitol Hill and we are going to run a check on OSHA considerations and we are going to do it on our own and we will enforce it by law''--that gets into a very sticky area, as the Senator from West Virginia knows. And it has been one of his main complaints about this. We set up this Office of Compliance which will set rules that are appropriate to the unique operations of the Congress. They will have considerable authority. But we will have the appeals process, also. Another area of the board's authority that I think may be misunderstood, and I want to clarify also, is most of the rules for the Congress could probably be approved once the board sees them. The rules and regulations will have to come back for approval. I think most of those can be a joint resolution that applies to both the House and the Senate, probably most of it. If there are requirements, though, for one body or the other to treat itself differently because of the different operation of the House and Senate, then those rules have to be approved by each House regarding their own operations. And if we would deem it necessary here in the Senate to say our operation here is unique to the House and we think the rule here should be applied in a different way and we passed that, and the House passed a different resolution with regard to their operations, then the board would administer those rules for that body according to what that body approved for itself. The Senate rules that applied that the board would administer might not be the same rules of the House as it applies to them. But the board would be administering the rules as approved by each body for its own operations. I was not sure that was clearly understood. So it gives us the maximum flexibility, I think, and gives us protection for the unique nature of congressional operations, both the House and the Senate, and allows for the peculiar nature of and the unique nature of the activities of both the House and the Senate. So we try to foresee these things. We may not have done a perfect job on it. Senator Grassley and Senator Lieberman put the bill in last year. We worked together on this. But I think I fairly described how this whole thing [[Page S639]] would operate. I do not know if Senator Grassley wants to add anything or not. But that should clarify some of the concerns of my distinguished colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, we had this legislation on the floor last week, of course, and continue it today. We will continue it tomorrow. The time is limited on this. I wanted to rise and let all the people watching in the offices, all the different staffs, as well as the individual Senators, know that it is my understanding--and I ask my distinguished colleague from Iowa to comment on this, too--it is my understanding that the majority leader has indicated that he wished to end this bill, if at all possible, by 7 o'clock tomorrow evening, Tuesday evening. Now, I presume that is correct. I know we will try to end by a certain time. I was just told a few moments ago that the time expressed is 7 tomorrow evening. That being the case, there are no amendments on the Republican side. They are all on the Democratic. If we are to meet that deadline, it means that people had better get their amendments together and get them over here. We have no time agreements at this point, so anyone can take up as much time as they want on the floor. But we do have a number of amendments still pending, and if people expect to make certain of not getting frozen out with their proposals, then they better get over here this afternoon. We will have some tomorrow morning. But people should be cognizant of the fact that tomorrow is conference day also where we will be out of session temporarily, or in recess, from about 12:30 to 2:15, so we lose a block of time in the middle of the day. As I see it right now, with the number of amendments still left, there is not going to be time for getting them all in right now even if people started coming to the floor now. I hope people are not going to wait until late tomorrow afternoon and then bump up against the 7 o'clock deadline and then want the floor managers, Senator Grassley and myself, to try to make some special arrangement for them, because that is not likely to be possible. I encourage people who have amendments to get them together, get them over here and consider them this afternoon while we have time. We have quite a bit of time. It is 20 minutes to 4. We can consider several amendments. We have nothing pending at the moment. I urge my Democratic colleagues to get them together and get over here. Thank you.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what our distinguished colleague from Kentucky, Senator Ford, is trying to do here is say if the Government pays the bills and there is a rebate of some kind, the Government should get the benefit, not the individual. It is that simple. For the life of me, I do not see how anyone can argue against that, particularly people elected over in the House now who are supposed to be cleaning up Government and all that sort of thing. In other words, right now over in the House the more you travel, the more trips you can generate back and forth, the more you personally gained for you and your family in free travel paid for by the taxpayers. How anybody can justify that I do not know. I realize the House sets their own rules and we apply our own rules but I submit to my distinguished colleague, Senator McConnell, we have had rules applied back and forth between the branches from time to time in the past. I think there are lots of examples of that. I see this as almost a maximum personal perk. How can you have a more personal perk than all your travel back and forth between here and the west coast? You travel many, many, many thousands of miles. Or Hawaii, the Senators from out there, you build up a bundle of credit that over in the House they can use for personal family travel. They can take a trip around the world if they build enough of it up, at taxpayers' expense. I just do not see how anybody can justify that, that Government-paid-for tickets, with a rebate coming back, that rebate should not go to the Government that paid for it. That goes back to the taxpayers who paid for it to begin with. I do not think this thing of having the House determine its own rules--we have made rules back and forth that applied to different Houses in the past. I will at the appropriate time, probably tomorrow morning, since we have just discussed this a short time ago, but I will probably have an amendment after we dispose of this one that would ask the GSA, the General Services Administration, that supervises the travel, that they negotiate with the airlines to include a frequent flier mile reduction in the original cost of the tickets. Why should that not inure to the Government going in? We should not argue about who gets the benefits of kickbacks later on, on frequent flier miles, but say if there is a reduced cost to the Government beyond the normal Government-reduced price, Government rate, for frequent flier miles in addition to Government-reduced rates, apply those frequent flier reductions in the original cost of the ticket. It seems to me that is very simple and solves the whole problem. So I will introduce that tomorrow at the appropriate time. But I rise in strong support of the proposal of Senator Ford.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I stated a few moments ago I hope that our colleagues who are watching in their offices or staffs working in the offices will get interested Senators who have amendments to propose-- and I would add that they are all on the Democratic side--let us get them over here because we are going to be time limited on consideration of this bill as far as time for amendments. The majority leadership has indicated, as I understand it, a desire to close out this bill at 7 o'clock tomorrow evening if at all possible. Now, granted, considering that we also have our respective parity caucuses tomorrow which takes us out of the Senate Chamber here from about 12:30 to 2:15, we lose that time. It means that we are going to be very hard pressed to consider all the amendments we have on the list by that time. So I would urge my colleagues to get their amendments over here and let us get debating on them and so we can get them all considered. I would hate to see anyone get closed out tomorrow night with not enough time on the Senate floor to consider their amendments. Mr. President, in the opening days of the 104th Congress I think we can accomplish a reform that is long, long overdue. We can finally eliminate the congressional double standard under which we have enacted laws that apply to everyone but ourselves. Now, by enacting laws for others and then exempting ourselves, we have done great damage to the public perception of Congress. When I go back home and make speeches in Ohio and open it up for questions or you remark about the fact that you would like to see Congress covered by the same laws that cover everyone else in this country, laws that address individual concerns, organizational concerns, Government concerns, and so on, but that we want to make those same laws apply to them apply here on Capitol Hill where we have exempted ourselves for many years, I can tell you from personal experience there is nothing guaranteed to get you a rousing ovation any faster than bringing that up as something you want to correct. This has been true for a number of years. We in Congress I sometimes think do not really understand the real impact of these laws because we do not have to follow them here. And that is an irritant to other people around the country. Our efforts to apply the law on Capitol Hill go back many years. I stated in my opening statement the other day that back in 1978, just a few years after I came to the Senate, I proposed a resolution to assure that all Senate employees would be protected against employment discrimination. I referred then to Capitol Hill being the last plantation and incurred the ire of some of my colleagues for that remark at that time. The resolution did not pass. It is enacted some substantial legal protection for Senate employees. So we are not quite as bad off as we were back then in 1978. Our employees are now covered under the civil rights laws and certain other employment laws, and they can take their cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals. But despite this progress, what we still have is a unacceptable. It is a patchwork quilt of coverage and exemptions here on Capitol Hill. And it has not been easy to solve this problem. As I have often said, we should apply the same laws to ourselves as we apply to the private sector. But there is a difference here on Capitol Hill compared to businesses in the rest of the country. That is, we have the concerns of our Members--and they are legitimate concerns--who believe that the Constitution requires us to preserve substantial independence of the Senate and the House of Representatives. That is not just because it is a personal preference or an ego matter with those particular Members. In the private sector these laws are normally implemented by the executive branch and the judicial branch. But there are many Senators--and this is not the prerogative of one side or the other--there are many Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who have expressed genuine concern through the years about politically motivated prosecutions that might result if we ignore the principle of separation of powers as we apply these laws to the Congress. I think everyone should understand that concern about separation of powers has probably been at the heart of the delay, of why legislation in this regard has not been considered more seriously through the years. I think we have taken care of it in this bill. The separation of powers is very, very real. It is in the Constitution. When one branch of government gains ascendancy over another, or authority over another branch of government, it is a very serious matter. Many of our Members through the years have been very concerned about this. Last year, in a meeting with our then majority leader, Senator Mitchell, he asked me to work on a bipartisan solution for this. In the Governmental Affairs Committee we had as a starting place the very excellent bill introduced by Senators Grassley and Lieberman. Then, together with those two Senators and other Senators from both sides of the aisle, we worked hard to reach a solution. I think we succeeded with this bill. We included even stronger applications of the laws to Congress and we also included the text of that constitutional independence, that separation of powers that I just mentioned. Our legislation won broad bipartisan support, but unfortunately it was blocked on the Senate floor in the closing days of the 103d Congress. So I am particularly gratified that the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 is modeled closely on that proposed legislation from last year. Also, our new minority leader, Senator Daschle, introduced our congressional accountability legislation from last year. He did that the other day. But that is not the vehicle that we are on here today. That proposed legislation by Senator Daschle included the gift ban and lobbying reform, which we dealt with to some extent on the floor the other day, as additional amendments to this bill that just covers congressional coverage. So, I am pleased our solution to congressional coverage was introduced as a separate bill as part of Senator Daschle's comprehensive congressional reform proposal. But regardless of that, we have strong bipartisan support, I believe, for this bill. Let me urge once again--I will break in the middle of my comments here to urge any of my colleagues who have amendments to this bill to come to the floor. Tomorrow we are going to be very short of time to consider all of the amendments. I urge any of the staff or any of the Senators who are watching these proceedings in their offices to, if at all possible, get their amendments over here to the floor so we do not find ourselves in a time shortage tomorrow afternoon, because it is my understanding the majority leader has indicated it is his intent to end consideration of this bill by about 7 o'clock tomorrow evening. Let me give a little more background on this legislation. Though Congress has taken strides in recent years to apply antidiscrimination and employee protection laws to its employees, there is a patchwork of coverage that remains that allows certain exemptions to these laws and permits different applications to different employees. This has helped create the impression among many citizens that Congress exempts itself from the same employment and antidiscrimination laws that it applies to the general public and to other entities of government. There have been a number of statements. People have commented on the fact that on November 8 the people of this country sent a message they did not want business as usual anymore. I think that was a generally accepted message that was received here on Capitol Hill. But there is another aspect of this, too. We apply laws to the rest of the country and the citizens of this country in their places of employment or their businesses or their organizations and we say, in all fairness, here is what you have to do. Here is what the Federal Government says. Whether it is civil rights or whatever, we say this is the way it is going to be because it is right for our people. Repeat, ``right for our people.'' We base our legislation on that, what is right for our people. Are our people out there being dealt with fairly by their employers? By their Government? By their local governments? By whatever we are passing legislation on here? But at the same time we say what is right for workers out there, what is right for employees out there, what is right for people working in communities, is not necessarily right for those working on Capitol Hill. So we do not cover them. We exempt them. What kind of possible justification can there be for exempting what is right for everybody else in this country? Regardless of whether we are treating ourselves differently, is it right for our employees that they have the same protections of employment rights? Of organizational rights? Of whatever other rights we insist on giving to everybody else in this country and yet we say we do not want to give our own people that same coverage? We do not want to deal that fairly with our own employees here on Capitol Hill? That is just flat not right. So I bring this down not just to the perception of what other people say around the country, or the perception that Congress exempts itself and so we are somehow above the law, but let us bring it down to this. Is it right for our people or is it not right for our people who work for us right here on Capitol Hill to have the same protections that everybody else here in this country has? Is it right? To me that is the most powerful argument for passing congressional coverage. We can say the perceptions are out there that we are dealing differently and so the people do not like that--but is it right that our people here on Capitol Hill, the people who man the elevators and the Government Printing Office and everything else around here that goes to support congressional action--is it right that they get the same protections as other people around this country? The answer to that has to be that it is right. And that is the reason why I think we have a lot of bipartisan support for this legislation. Congress has responded in the last few years to the call for a uniform application of employment and antidiscrimination protections to our employees. We made some moves. A Bipartisan Task Force on Senate Coverage, which was established in 1992 in the 102d Congress, and the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, which was also created in 1992, both proposed recommendations for congressional compliance with employment laws. Numerous witnesses before the joint committee and in hearings of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee expressed the sentiment that exemptions for congressional coverage had to end. The time had finally come. There were several significant pieces of legislation introduced in the 103d Congress that drew from the work of the joint committee and the Task Force on Senate Coverage. I had a bill in. It was a Glenn substitute to H.R. 4822, which followed action taken by the Senate Rules Committee on a substitute version of S. 1824, which contained sections on congressional coverage. There was other action by the Governmental Affairs Committee on S. [[Page S633]] 2071, which is substantially similar to the substitute to H.R. 4822 plus overwhelming passage by the House of its version of H.R. 4822. Senator Mitchell sought unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of my substitute to H.R. 4822, as modified by a managers' amendment, on October 6, 1994. But there was objection to proceeding. Senator Lott objected to the motion to move to consideration of the bill and this Republican objection prevented any further consideration of the measure in the 103d Congress. S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act, is substantially--almost identical. It is very similar to the managers' amendment to the substitute to H.R. 4822 that was brought before the Senate at the end of the 103d Congress, as well as the congressional coverage language that is part of the current leadership congressional reform package, which was S. 10, that we have already dealt with a couple of days ago. Just a little short summary statement of what is provided in the legislation today. S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act, would apply a number of Federal workplace safety and labor laws to the operations of Congress. The bill also provides a new administrative process for handling complaints and violations of these laws. I had not mentioned that in any detail before, but that is a very key part of this legislation and addresses the difficulties that Members have had dealing with this separation of powers through all of these years, which has been the basic reason why legislation has been held up. I do not quarrel with those concerns. They are very real concerns. In other words, if you had an administration so inclined and they wished to go into a super enforcement of OSHA or clean air or whatever the bill was, and you wish to apply some sanctions to Congress in return for getting something else that a President wanted sometime, would they do that? I think those of us who have been around here for a while have seen some pretty politically motivated executive branch officials who just might take such action against the legislative branch. I do not think that would be commonplace, but should we even set up in law the possibility that that might happen? So the second part of what I just read, as a summary: The bill also provides a new administrative process for handling complaints and violations of these laws, which is a key toward dealing with this problem of separation of powers. We set up a separate process by which people can bring complaints about how they are being dealt with. That is a very key part of this legislation, and something that is different from most of the proposals that occurred back through all of these years. I may run through some of the major provisions. First, in the application of workplace protection and antidiscrimination laws, S. 2 would apply to several Federal laws regarding employment and the operation of legislative branch offices and provide an administrative process for handling complaints and violations--provide an administrative process for handling complaints and violations--a key part of this legislation. The following laws would be applied to legislative branch employees. First, under antidiscrimination laws, title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would apply; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, title I; Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and under public services and accommodations under Americans with Disabilities Act, title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits discrimination in Government services provided to the public; and title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Workplace protection laws are very important. Why should we exempt our people in those areas of workplace protection laws? Are we a factory? No, we are not. But should we protect those people here on Capitol Hill who work and have some concerns about their safety? Workplace protection laws and fair labor standards: Should they be protected? How can we say that they should not be protected? So under workplace protection laws, we have the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, concerning the minimum wage, equal pay, maximum hours, and protection against retaliation, regulations which will be promulgated to track the executive branch regulations. These regulations will take into account those employees who work irregular schedules or whose schedules depend directly on the Senate which, as we all know, is an irregularly scheduled body at best. Also, under workplace protection laws; OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; the Employee Polygraph Protection Act; and Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, which requires a 60-day notice of office closings or mass layoffs--you might say we are not a factory, that we do not have to give 60-day notice. But we do have people working for us here on Capitol Hill, such as the Government Printing Office and some others, that should have the same protections that people out there in industry have because they are performing at least a semi-industrialized function for us here on Capitol Hill. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, Family and Medical Leave Act--I read these before--Employee Polygraph Protection Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, the 60-day notice that I just mentioned; and another one, the Veterans Re-Employment Act, which grants veterans the right to return to their previous employment with certain qualifications if reactivated or if they are drafted. Under labor-management relations, the Federal Service Labor- Management Relations Statute of 1978, which applies to personal staff, committees, or other political offices, would be deferred unless rules are issued by the new Office of Compliance. We expect that Office of Compliance to get into operation just as quickly as possible after this legislation is passed. Who are covered employees? The compliance provisions for the preceding laws would apply to staff and employees of the House, of the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Technology Assessment, and the newly created Office of Compliance itself. Congressional instrumentalities, as they are called under that title--instrumentalities are such organizations as the General Accounting Office, the Library of Congress, and the Government Printing Office--will be covered under some of these laws. But a study will be ordered to discern current application of these laws to the instrumentalities and to recommend ways to improve procedures. This was necessary, at least in part, because some of these instrumentalities had already taken action some years ago to make some of these laws apply to their own operations. So the General Accounting Office has taken certain actions that the Library of Congress or the Government Printing Office has not taken. And so, rather than just saying we set down in concrete mandates for all of these different organizations, we felt it was better to make a transition period where we would have a study to discern current application of these laws to the instrumentalities and to recommend ways to improve procedures. What are the protections and the procedures for which people might seek remedy? The bill provides the following five- step process, which is similar to some current Senate procedures for employees with claims of violations of the Civil Rights and Americans with Disabilities Act and employment discrimination laws, for violation of family and medical leave protections, for violations of fair labor standards, violations of laws regarding polygraph protection, plant closing, and veterans reemployment violations. If there are concerns in those areas and an individual or individuals wish to file a complaint, they would go through a several-step procedure. The first step will be they would be required to go through counseling, which could last up to 30 days and must be requested within a 6-month statute of limitations. If that does not take care of things, if you cannot counsel people out of this into an acceptable solution, then you go into step two, which is a mediation service. That, too, can last for 30 days, and must be pursued within 15 days. Let us say that the aggrieved party, or the person who feels they have been aggrieved, feels at that point they have not been dealt with fairly. They have [[Page S634]] been through counseling and mediation. Step No. 3 they could take, if the claim cannot be resolved, is then a formal complaint and trial before an administrative hearing officer. That would be the next step. At that point, if the person still says, ``I don't feel I've gotten justice here, so I want to go ahead with this thing,'' there would be another step. After the hearing, any aggrieved party may still appeal to the Office of Compliance's board of directors. So at that point we are up to a four-step process--counseling, mediation, and the administrative hearing officer can still request that this go before the board, the Office of Compliance's board of directors. Even at that point, after all these four steps, if a person feels, no, I feel I still have not received my due or have not received a fair shake, then they can take it outside to the U.S. Court of Appeals for judicial review. I think that gives the employees here on Capitol Hill tremendously increased protection. The bill would allow employees to bring suit in Federal district court. Let me explain this a little bit. I mentioned that five-step process. Another option is that if the employee did not wish to go through that whole process of counseling, mediation, the hearing officer, the board, and so on, the person could say, OK, after that mediation step--just the mediation step now, counseling and mediation--at that point the aggrieved employee could start up a separate track and go directly outside to the U.S. Federal district court, rather than proceeding to an administrative hearing. The district court remedy would include the right to a jury trial. The option to seek district court redress could occur only after an employee went through the counseling and mediation process. That is required, whichever track you want to go through--the counseling and mediation process. Then you can decide whether you want to go up the first track I went through, the five-step process. Or you might say: I want to go outside, I am going directly to district court. That is in there because that is what any businessman or organization across this country can do. If they have a problem and they do not get satisfaction from the agency or the Government entity involved, they could go directly to district court and file suit. So we give our own employees here the right to do the same thing if they feel they are not being dealt with fairly or they prefer not to go up that more lengthy in-house procedure before they could, as a last step, go to the U.S. Court of Appeals. So there is a dual track they can go through, and it is up to whoever would be filing the charge. With respect to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, remedies include reinstatement, back pay, attorneys' fees, and even other compensatory damages. That matches what happens out in the world, the business world or organization world, out there across the country. For claims under the ADA, title II and title III relating to discrimination in Government services, we provide the following steps: A member of the public may submit a charge to the general counsel of this Office of Compliance. The general counsel could call for mediation. The general counsel may file a complaint, which would go before a hearing officer for a decision. There could be an appeal to the board and, once again, there could be an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. For violations of OSHA, the bill provides the following procedures: Employees would make a written request to the general counsel, again, to conduct an inspection. The general counsel will not only conduct the inspection but will also inspect all facilities at least once each Congress as a normal course of events. We may not have the expertise to do that, so they would most likely use detailees from the Labor Department, who are familiar with OSHA regulations and in administering OSHA law out in the civil sector. They could give advice in this area and even conduct inspections at the request of the general counsel. Pursuant to that, citations may be issued by the general counsel and disputes regarding citations could be referred to a hearing officer once again. Appeal of hearing officer decisions could go to the board. The board may also approve requests for temporary variances. And, finally, an appellate court review of decisions of the board would be in order. There would be a 2-year phase-in period for the OSHA procedures, to allow inspection and corrective action. A survey also would be conducted to identify problems and to prepare for unforeseen budget impact. Some of these corrective actions might be expensive. So you cannot just say that we will put something in without considering the budget impact here on Capitol Hill. Penalties would not apply under the OSHA provisions, because this would result only in shifting among accounts in the Treasury. In other words, you are going to find somebody on Capitol Hill on OSHA violations and the money would go from there to Treasury, transferring it from one pocket to the other in the Treasury accounts. The following process applies to violations of collective bargaining law. First, petitions will be considered by the board and could be referred by the board to a hearing officer. Charges of violations would be submitted to the general counsel. Once again, they will investigate and may file a complaint. The complaint would be referred to a hearing officer for a decision, subject to appeal to the board. Negotiation impasses would be submitted then to mediators, and next a court of appeals review of board decisions will be available, except where appellate review is not allowed under the Federal service labor- management relations statute. ``Employees who are employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity'' are not covered by the minimum wage and maximum hours provision. Interns are also exempted. In addition, compensatory time may not be offered in lieu of overtime. That does not apply to those I just mentioned-- executive, administrative, or professional capacity people. Otherwise, we have to abide by the same laws that apply to everybody else across this country. Otherwise, remedies for violations of rights of all other employees under the FLSA will include unpaid minimum or overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Let me briefly address the Office of Compliance, because they have a great deal of authority and would be a very important part of this whole operation. S. 2 will establish an independent, nonpartisan Office of Compliance to implement and oversee the application of antidiscrimination worker protection laws. Under rulemaking, the office will promulgate rules to implement these statutes. In other words, normally we pass legislation here on the Hill, and it goes over into a branch or agency of Government, and that branch or agency then writes the rules and regulations that apply all across the country. That has been one of the hangups, because of this separation of powers through all these years. So we basically gave that authority for rulemaking to this Office of Compliance. The office will promulgate rules to implement the statutes. Congress may approve and change, by joint resolution, rules issued by the office. But if Congress fails to approve rules by the effective date within the legislation, then applicable executive branch rules would be applied. Rules would be issued in three separate sets of regulations: One, those that apply to the House of Representatives; two, those that apply to the Senate; and, three, those that apply to joint offices and the instrumentalities of the Congress that I mentioned a moment ago. Rules for each Chamber would be subject to approval by that body. Rules for the Senate would be approved by the Senate. Rules for the House would be approved by the House. I would presume that most of those will be the same. I do not think there would be much difference from one body to the other, or to grant the force and effective law by joint resolution of the Congress, if that was required. Rules for joint offices and instrumentalities would be subject to approval by concurrent resolution. This Office of Compliance will be a very important office for Capitol Hill. It will be something new and different. Membership of this Office of Compliance: The office will be headed by a five-member board that will be appointed to fixed, staggered terms of office. The board will be appointed jointly by the Senate majority leader, the [[Page S635]] Senate minority leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House minority leader. Membership may not include lobbyists, Members, or staff except for Compliance Office employees. Its chair will be chosen by the four appointing authorities from within the membership of the board. Under settlement and award reserves: Payment for awards of House and Senate employees will be made in a new single contingent appropriation account. All settlements and judgments must be paid from funds appropriated to the legislative branch, not from a Government-wide judgment account. In other words, it will be solely administered here on Capitol Hill. Once again, concern about the separation of powers dictates that. There will be no personal liability on the part of Members. Mr. President, that is a thumbnail sketch in some detail here, a rundown of what this bill provides and how it will be administered and how it would take care of some of these problems of separation of powers that have plagued consideration of this bill for all these years. So, Mr. President, I would only close by saying we do not plan to make more lengthy speeches this afternoon. We have gone through some of these things before. I thought it was worthwhile going through them again, since we have gone through the weekend. But I urge my colleagues in their offices, or their staffs, if you have an amendment, let us get it over to the floor because the majority leader has indicated a desire to have action wound up on this, terminated by Tuesday evening, by tomorrow evening, at around 7 o'clock. And I say to my Democratic colleagues, we are the ones that have the proposed amendments to this bill. There are none pending on the Republican side. They were able to convince all their Members to put off their concerns to a later time. That does not mean that I am joining them in that. I think we have every right on the floor here to address whatever concerns Members have and whatever amendments they wish to put on this bill. I can understand the majority's desire that there be no amendments to the bill, but it has been a rare occasion in the history of the Senate when that has occurred. But I urge my colleagues on the Democratic side who still have amendments on this to get over here and get them presented, because we are going to fast run out of time tomorrow. If we do not consider some of these this afternoon, then we have a limited time tomorrow morning. We go out for our respective party conferences tomorrow between 12:30 and 2:15, as is our custom. So that means we have a considerable block of time taken out right in the middle of the day and we will be coming back on the floor tomorrow with just a little bit of time left until we reach 7 o'clock tomorrow night. If everyone waits until that time to bring their amendments over, I am afraid some of them will get left out before we wrap this thing up tomorrow night. So I urge my colleagues to get their amendments over here to the floor so that they can have them considered today. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I do not have a dog in this fight. I do not have an amendment that I am proposing here, but I cannot help but respond to the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Iowa. I will be very brief because I know Senator Simon would like to make a statement here on the floor and I am happy to see him do that. But this idea that somehow because there is a push on for something here that we can avoid having anyone put on amendments is wishful thinking. I need only go back in my mind's eye and remember what was happening about 60 days ago or 90 days ago here on floor when anything we put forth was subject to amendments, extraneous or not. It was delay for delay's sake and it was a scorched earth policy. To say that we should let some piece of legislation, as much as I want it--and I am as big a backer on this piece of legislation on congressional accountability one could possibly be, but it is entirely within the right of any Senator who wants to offer an amendment. Although I do not have an amendment to offer, I do not want to let anything go by that would be critical of people who do have amendments to offer and are offering them in all good sincerity. They think it is right. If they want to attach it on by the rules of the Senate, we, obviously, can do that. We had talk here yesterday about we should be giving the new majority a chance to govern. Well, we do not set aside all the Senate rules in giving anybody a chance to lead or a chance to govern. I am all for leadership having all the leadership prerogatives, but those prerogatives do not mean that we are able to set aside amendments that people may, in all sincerity, propose, whether I agree with them or not. I yield the floor. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. I will not object.

Mr. GLENN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, just to clarify this, if there is not sufficient opposition on this side to take up the time, if another amendment was brought to the floor before Senator Wellstone comes back, I presume it would be OK if we set it aside and went on with the other amendment.

Mr. GLENN

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

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

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to support the actions being taken by Senator Simon. It is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Certainly we would not be willing to vote today to do exactly the opposite and to say no, we do not think there should be any more negotiations; no, we think it should be final. Even Japanese law, it was pointed out here, in the home country of Japan--this is a wholly-owned Japanese corporation now--but the law in Japan would prevent them from doing exactly what we are doing here, even though we have yet to put into place any striker replacement legislation in this country. So surely we do not go the opposite tack and say, ``No. We don't think there should be any more negotiation.'' We do quite the opposite. We say, ``Look, it is never too late.'' And while we cannot take sides in this as U.S. Senators and come down on exactly what the final solution would be, surely it is within our responsibility to our people in our respective States and this country to say, ``Look, don't just give up on this thing. At least sit down and talk about it some more.'' I know it has been a long discussion. They have had long negotiations. But sometimes just when things look the blackest in the negotiation is when real progress can be made. I hope this is not just a negotiating ploy. I do not think it is. I think Bridgestone/Firestone is serious about this, and that makes it all the more incumbent upon us to take some action here on the Senate floor. So I had real hope after we met with the Japanese Ambassador that he was going to use his good offices to do everything he possibly could. Perhaps he did. I certainly will not say that he did not do everything that he could possibly do. But what we are saying is, in the interest of fairness to our workers and in the interest of even the company adhering to what the Japanese law is, sit down again and let us see if we cannot work this thing out before we go through the throes of seeing some 2,000-plus American workers being tossed out permanently. I think that would be too bad. I want to compliment Senator Simon for taking the lead on this and am glad to support his sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to add my full support for and to be a cosponsor of the amendment. It is based on legislation which, through the hard work of Senator Levin and Senator Cohen and several of us working with them, passed the Governmental Affairs Committee last year which was still on my watch as chairman. It was on a bipartisan basis. Senator Roth also worked with Senator Levin and Senator Cohen and myself. As the saying say goes, no more free lunches. I am glad to say this year we hope this may also apply to Members of Congress. For that matter, gone, too, if we pass this amendment, will be the junkets to warm and sunny places to escape the chill of the winter wind here in Washington. Kiss good-bye to freebie baseball tickets, if they ever play baseball in the major leagues again. It does not look very hopeful at moment but it may happen, too. Say sayonara to first-run plays at the Kennedy Center. You can still go. You can attend. It is just that you cannot have somebody pick up the tab for you. That is the only difference. You have to pony up yourself, like every other American. I say we have to give tribute to the American people who made all this possible by expressing their concerns about this loud and clear in the last election. We have heard many references to November 8 and people trying to analyze and superanalyze what happened then. That will be saved for another day. But I do not think in any event we can turn a deaf ear because we have gotten the message. Now, do I subscribe to the notion that Members of Congress can be bought or are up for sale for a few tickets or for a few dinners? No, absolutely not. I do not. The very thought discredits our labors, the very hard work that goes on here, and such thoughts only undermine and demean this institution. But it goes without saying that Government's faith and credibility have been sorely tested these last few years. And if banning gifts and other lobbyist amenities is what it takes to begin restoring public trust and integrity, then so be it. Act we must, whether we really feel it is having any impact on what we do here or not. Do I think the gift ban will actually make a difference in how things are done around here? Probably not as much as most people really think. I do not think most people are bought by a dinner or two, or whatever. But the main thing is we want to put everything aboveboard. We want to do business the true old-fashioned way by meeting our own constituents as well as special interest lobbyists in the ambiance of our own offices. I meet constituents, I meet lobbyists all the time in my office. They do not They do not need to send gifts into the office in advance. We schedule them, talk about their particular concerns, or sometimes I have been known even to take some people to lunch myself and pay the bill myself. The point is we all recognize that in this world of politics we are not dealing sometimes with what is rationally considered out in the business world. We deal with perceptions of what people think, their view of us, what the general air is around, how you run an office. I think that is the reality of the situation. This institution which ought to be revered and respected by all Americans has been subjected to scorn and ridicule, part of it because the talk shows or the editorialists or somebody writes about the dinners and the freebies and the tickets and the so on around here as though they really run Washington on that basis. So we have had much scorn and ridicule. We have been depicted as out-of-touch Members, being wined and dined by special interests and caring not for the Nation or our State but only for our own reelection campaigns. Now I do not happen to believe that is true for 99 percent of the people in the Congress. But the perception, once again, is what we are dealing with. We certainly deserve much of the blame for having let this happen. So it is a big step we take today, one which hopefully will show that we are serious about improving this body's reputation and standing with the public. Having said this, however, I must confess that in my view these issues are a really a diversion from the true heart of the matter. If we really wanted to attack the notion of special interest access we would be dealing more directly with campaign finance reform. If we want to talk about what would clean up politics across country it is campaign finance reform more than anything else, not whether we limit $20 lunches or not. In fact, just to illustrate that, I find it just a bit hypocritical to say that a Member could be bought for a $20 lunch, yet he can sit down with that same lobbyist and ask for a $5,000 PAC contribution and get it. We may have to foot the bill for the lunch but it is a small price to pay for a hefty campaign check. And it just does not make sense to do one without dealing with the other. I think, really, if we were dealing with this we would be dealing with Federal financing and make some sort of matching funds that would cut down some of the costs of campaigning so we do not have to go out and be dependent upon lobbyists and big contributors across the country for every campaign we run. If we did something like that, provide at least partial Federal financing for campaigns, we would do more to clean up politics than anything else. Let me also just say I regret we are not considering what I truly believe would be also some guts of this reform and that is lobbying disclosure. We were not even able to take up the conference report on that measure toward the end of the last session. The conference report came back, as we all recall, and even the motion to proceed to it was filibustered. There were supposedly some grassroots problems that were had on the other side, basically, with it. The gift part was OK, as far as the provisions in that conference report. The gift part of it was OK, but the lobbying part of it was opposed by some people. What Senator Levin has done is he has cut back on that lobbying portion of it as it came back last year in the conference report and stuck more tightly just to the gift part of this thing. So it has been weakened in some respects. But we could not even get that conference report up to be considered late in the last session. I think there was a lot of misinformation and I do not know whether all the motives were pure or not in what people were trying to do in opposing that even coming to the floor. In my judgment, lobbying disclosure will probably have a greater impact in rebuilding the people's trust in Government than the gift ban. And I look forward to the day when everyone will be able to know who is paying what to lobby whom on which issue. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. In some cases it may even be a repellent. I know the hard work put in on this effort by Senators Levin and Cohen in our Governmental Affairs Committee last year. I think we can surely address what legitimate concerns have been raised about lobbying disclosure and pass this bill expeditiously. I would add, we have two different bills that were proposed on this congressional coverage. One is just congressional coverage, period. That is it. And that is the one that is before us today that is proposed to be amended. The other one was the one put in by Democratic leadership, by Senator Daschle, by our minority leader. And it took basically that same bill, congressional coverage, but added lobbying and gift ban to it. That is not the bill before us. So the effort now is to take those other provisions and add them to this. I must admit I started out thinking that perhaps this would complicate things in getting it over to the House and getting it passed expeditiously, which I certainly support and want to do. But when you look back at the track record and what has happened with regard to this legislation, there is not all this need for a chance to govern or for great Senate leadership that Senator Cohen, my good friend Senator Cohen, alluded to a few moments ago. Let us look at the record on this. Play the tape over again. In 1994 the House passed the gift ban, not once but twice. So it passed the House. It is not a matter of having to have great leadership to work out our differences with the House. They passed it twice last year. They passed the lobbying part of it, which is not a major part of this now. That has been watered down. But they passed this twice last year. What happened in the Senate? In May of last year the Senate approved S. 1935 that banned gifts to all congressional personnel and staff and passed it by a vote of 95 to 4. So here we have two votes over in the House, we have a vote here in the Senate on the same thing. We had the agreement in conference that was worked out. Yet we could not get that up. So as far as this idea that the new congressional leadership has to have a chance to lead, a chance to govern--to me rings just a bit hollow, rings a bit untrue here, because we have already had full agreement on these things between the House and the Senate repeatedly. And the filibuster last fall is the only reason we did not get the conference report through. So I feel the House already has spoken on this. There are a lot of new Members over in the House. But I do not think their views on gift ban and lobbying are going to be that different from those of the House the last time around. So this idea that we need some great chance to govern or need some new leadership when both sides have already agreed and voted repeatedly on the same issue that we are talking about, rings just a bit hollow. So I think the House, with the past record over there, would be more likely to, if we put this on, put on the amendment that Senator Levin is proposing--I would think they would be prone to accept it. And hopefully we could get ahead with this, rather than having to have a whole separate bill brought up and debated once again, have its own series of amendments, I suppose, and it just delays it until later in the year when, I repeat once again, for the fourth time, I guess, that the House and the Senate have already acted repeatedly on the gift bans that he is proposing. So why not put it on this and get it through in one bill? Then we can get on with other legislation. This year is going to be full of legislation anyway. The House passed this 306 to 112, I am told here. I did not look that up. They passed it overwhelmingly last year. We had overwhelming votes--95 to 4 here in the Senate. The House passed it twice. And the part that disturbed some people here, the lobbying part of it--OK that has been watered down by Senator Levin. So that is now just a sense of the Senate. So I see no reason why we should not accept this and go ahead. I think real leadership here, a chance to govern, would be to include the most we can in this package here that has already been agreed to by the House and Senate and get on with it so we can save floor time and committee time for other more important items as we go through the year. again. He stuck with this. He has really stuck with it, not just because it is politically good for him. I know because I talked with him. He stuck with it because he believes in it. He thinks it is right and I think it is right too. I yield the floor.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jill Schneiderman of Senator Daschle's staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of the Senate's consideration of S. 2.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I thank you. Floor Privileges

Mr. GLENN. Briefly summarizing, one new compliance office is estimated to cost about $1 million a year for 2 years during startup. It will be $2 to $3 million a year thereafter, including enforcement procedures and OSHA inspections. Settlements and awards to employees can run from a half million to a million dollars a year. Federal labor-management relations, possibly a million dollars a year. We do not know on that. There is no good way to estimate that. OSHA concerns are a little uncertain also, but those mainly have been taken care of around Capitol Hill, so there should not be much expenditure on that. Applying fair labor standards to the Capitol police force will cost probably around $800,000 a year or so. On other employees it was difficult to estimate on that as to what the fair labor standards application could bring in the way of costs. Antidiscrimination laws, polygraph protection, plant closing, and veterans rehiring are things for which we do not anticipate there would be any major expense. The bottom line then is that the total estimated cost CBO has run out--and this was included in our Governmental Affairs report last year in a CBO letter at pages 44 and 49 of the Governmental Affairs Committee report, if anybody wants to refer to it-- briefly, and came to the bottom line that a total estimate would be about $1 million per year for the first 2 years and a $4 to $5 million total thereafter. But it is a very, very uncertain amount. So compared to the problem we are solving, I think that is a fairly modest expenditure. Mr. President, the Congressional Accountability Act would apply a number of Federal workplace safety and labor laws to the operations of Congress. But one of the main things it also provides is the new administrative process I outlined for handling complaints and violations of these laws. And that is new. While it is true that some of these laws have applied to Capitol Hill in the past, there has not been an enforcement mechanism. There has not been a way for an aggrieved employee to exercise their rights and have justice prevail. One of the major provisions is the administrative process for handling complaints that I just described a few moments ago. Let me go through once again some of the major provisions of this act. First, it will have the application of workplace protection and antidiscrimination laws. S. 2 would apply several Federal laws regarding employment to the operation of legislative branch offices and provide an administrative process for handling complaints and violations. The following laws would be applied to legislative branch employees: Under the general title of antidiscrimination laws, we have title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; we have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; we have title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990; and we have the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Those are all under the antidiscrimination laws. Next, under the general heading of public services and accommodations, under ADA, the Americans With Disabilities Act, under title II, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibits discrimination in Government services provided to the public. Another provision under title III, Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, applies to the rest of those provisions. Under the general heading of workplace protection laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which concerns minimum wage, equal pay, maximum hours, regulations, and protection against retaliation would now apply. These regulations will be promulgated by the board that tracks executive branch regulations. These regulations will take into account those employees whose irregular work schedules depend directly on the Senate. There has been some concern expressed by Senators about how that would work. Others, under workplace protection laws, are the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act; the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, which requires a 60-day notice of office closing or mass layoffs, which would not normally apply on Capitol Hill, until you think of the fact that we have the Government Printing Office and the Library of Congress and others where such layoffs might possibly occur. Another portion under the workplace protection laws is the Veterans Reemployment Act. It grants veterans the right to return to their previous employment, with certain qualifications, if reactivated or drafted. Further, under the general heading of labor-management relations, the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute of 1978 would apply, and the application to personal or committee staff or other political offices would be deferred until rules are issued by the new Office of Compliance. Under covered employees, the compliance provisions for the preceding laws would apply to staff and employees of the House, the Senate, the Architect of the Capitol, Congressional Budget Office, Office of Technology Assessment and, of course, the newly recreated Office of Compliance. Employees of congressional instrumentalities such as the General Accounting Office, Library of Congress, and Government Printing Office will be covered under some of these laws but a study will be ordered to discern current application of these laws to the instrumentalities and to recommend ways to improve procedures. Some of these entities or instrumentalities already have their own internal rules and regulations that they have applied that we want to bring into harmony with this new legislation, and that will be done over a little period of time. Let us go through protections and procedures for remedy. The bill provides the following five-step process similar to current Senate procedure for employees with claims of violations of civil rights or Americans With Disabilities Act. For employment discrimination laws, violation of family and medical leave protection, violation of fair labor standards, and violations of laws regarding polygraph protection, plant closings, and veterans reemployment violations, the procedure would be as follows: Step 1 would be a counseling service, which can last for 30 days and must be requested within a 6-month statute of limitations. Step 2, mediation services, which last for 30 days and must be pursued within 15 days. Step 3, if the claim cannot be resolved, then a formal complaint and trial before an administrative hearing officer may ensue. Step 4, after the hearing, if the party feels that they still have not received proper treatment, any aggrieved party may appeal to the Office of Compliance's board of directors, to the board itself. And that does not even end it. Step 5, if necessary, any aggrieved party may then appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for normal judicial review. The bill would also allow employees to bring suit in Federal district court after the mediation step, without going up to all the rest of that ladder, rather than proceeding, if they choose to do that, rather than proceeding to the administrative hearing and all those five steps I just mentioned. And if they went to district court, the remedy could include the right to a jury trial. The option to seek district court redress could occur only after an employee went through the counseling and mediation process. So that is required whatever happens and whichever track the person might choose to go. With respect to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, remedies would include reinstatement, back pay, attorneys fees, and other compensatory damages. For claims under the ADA title II and title III relating to discrimination in Government services, the bill provides the following steps: Step 1 would be for a member of the public to submit a charge to the general counsel of the Office of Compliance. No. 2, the general counsel may call for mediation. Step 3, the general counsel may file a complaint which would go before a hearing officer for decision. Step 4 would be an appeal to the board. And step 5 would be an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. For violation of OSHA, the bill provides the following procedures: Step 1, employees may make a written request to the general counsel to conduct an inspection. General counsel will also inspect all facilities at least once each Congress, most likely using some detailees from the Labor Department to help since they are experienced in that area. But the authority would rest with the general counsel to do that. Step 2, citations may be issued by the general counsel. Step 3, disputes regarding citations will be referred to a hearing officer. Step 4, appeal of hearing officer decisions go to the board. Step 5, the board may also approve requests for temporary variances. Step 6, appellate court review of decisions of the board, if it gets that far. Now, in this area, there would be a 2-year phase-in period for the OSHA procedures to allow inspection and corrective action. The survey also would be conducted to identify problems and to prepare for unforeseen budget impact. Penalties would not apply under the OSHA provisions because this would result only in shifting accounts in the Treasury; in other words, the Government finding itself in one area and putting the Treasury over in the other area. The following process applies to violations of collective bargaining law: could be referred by the board to a hearing officer; step 2, charges of violation would be submitted to the general counsel, who will investigate and may file a complaint. The complaint would be referred to a hearing officer for a decision subject to appeal to the board again. Step 3, negotiation impasses would be submitted to mediators. Step 4, court of appeals review of board decisions will be available except where appellate review is not allowed under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. Now, employees who are employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity--in other words, those committee staff or personal staff who are not covered by the minimum wage and maximum hour provisions--and interns, are also exempted. Otherwise, remedies for violations of rights of all other employees under the FLSA will also include unpaid minimum or overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys fees or costs. I note the exemption there, that professional employees would not be covered in that same way. These remedies would apply to the nonprofessional employees only. Now, let me address briefly the Office of Compliance. S. 2 will establish an independent nonpartisan Office of Compliance to implement and oversee application of antidiscrimination worker protection laws. Under rulemaking, the office will promulgate rules to implement the statutes. Congress may approve and change by joint resolution rules issued by the office. Rules would be issued in three separate sets of regulations. One, the House; two, the Senate; three, joint offices and instrumentalities. Rules for each Chamber would be subject to approval by that body, or to grant the force and effective law by joint resolution. Rules for joint offices and instrumentalities would be subject to approval by concurrent resolution. Membership. The office will be headed by a five-member board which will be appointed to fixed, staggered terms of office. The board will be appointed jointly by the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House minority leader. Membership may not include lobbyists, Members, or staff except for Compliance Office employees. The Chair will be chosen by the four appointing authorities from within the membership of the board. Settlement award reserves, payment of rewards for House and Senate employees, will be made from a new single contingent appropriations account. All settlements and judgments must be paid from funds appropriated to the legislative branch and not from a Governmentwide judgment account. There will be no personal liability on the part of Members. Mr. President, I think that is a rather complete rundown of this. I think it is only fair we apply the laws to our employees here on Capitol Hill that are applied to the rest of the country. I hope we can have this legislation approved very shortly. I hope we can keep amendments to a minimum. I do not know whether there are any amendments proposed to be brought up this afternoon. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Summary of Costs and Other Impacts of Congressional Accountability Act The CBO letter, at pages 44-49 of the GAC Report (and the CBO letter for the House bill) describes the following costs: 1. New compliance office: $1 million/year for 2 years, during start-up. $2-3 million/year thereafter, including enforcement procedures and OSHA inspections. 2. Settlements and awards to employees: $0.5-1 million/ year. 3. Federal labor-management relations: $1 million/year for lawyers and personnel officers. 4. OSHA: Existing standards--will require change in practices rather than significant additional space or cost. Possible future standards--e.g., ergonomic equipment; air quality--without specific standards, cost cannot be predicted. 5. Fair Labor Standards: Capitol police--$0.8 million/year. Other employees--CBO could not estimate.--CBO assumed the compliance office would have wide discretion in establishing rules and in allowing compensatory time in-stead of overtime. This is incorrect: bill requires private-sector rules. 6. Anti-discrimination laws--no additional cost, because these requirements already apply under statutes or rules. 7. Polygraph protection--no effect; polygraphs are not used. 8. Plant closing--no effect; no mass layoffs are anticipated. 9. Veterans rehiring--not scored by CBO; added to the legislation this year. Total Estimate: $1 million/year for the 2 years, $4-5 million/year thereafter.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I have listened very closely to Senator Grassley's presentation here this afternoon. It certainly has been excellent. It certainly covered the legislation in great detail. That was to be expected because he has worked on this for a long time and has been involved with it basically--not for press purposes--because he believes in it and because he believes in what is right for the rest of the country is right for Capitol Hill. I agree with that. The late great Senator Sam Ervin, who was also a great constitutional scholar, once said that Congress is ``like a doctor prescribing medicine for a patient that he himself would not take.'' I agree with that statement by Sam Ervin because by enacting laws for others and then exempting ourselves we have done great damage to the public perception of Congress. I do not find any more of a hot button item wherever I travel in Ohio and other parts of the country than this particular item because I find that people are especially irritated that we do not have to follow the rules like everybody else. There were some reasons why the rules were exempted earlier. I will address that in just a moment. It was not done just to make life easier for us here. There were some genuine concerns about how they would be administered. But businessmen and others--but especially businessmen--tell me that we in Congress cannot understand the real impact of our laws because we do not have to follow them back here on Capitol Hill. There is an even more important principle at stake it seems to me; and, that is, to continue to deprive our employees of the full protection of the law is flat wrong. We passed laws for the rest of the country that said that employers should treat their employees in a certain way, that OSHA laws should be at administered against businesses, institutions, colleges or public buildings or whatever, that EPA would take certain actions and so on out there. But then we say but we will not let those things apply here on Capitol Hill. Let me be clear. I am not just talking about our legislative and our administrative personnel that many people think of when you think of Capitol Hill staffers. We think of our administrative personnel. But we must remember there are also the cleaning crews, the police, the restaurant workers, the parking lot attendants, the plumbers, the window washers, and so on, all of the workers who do not enjoy the same rights as every other American not employed by Congress. That is what it comes down to. Is it right that we do this for our own people employed here on Capitol Hill? Is it right that they have the same protections as everyone else? I cannot come to any conclusion but that certainly it is right that we pass this kind of legislation. So I am very pleased that in these opening days of the 104th Congress we can finally do what is right for these people and eliminate this congressional double standard under which we have enacted laws that apply to everyone but ourselves. This reform is long overdue. Our efforts to apply the law on Capitol Hill go back many years. My own personal efforts, which Senator Grassley referred to a little while ago, go clear back to 1978. I had not been here too long. In 1978 I had been here I guess at that time about 3 years. I was sworn in early 1975. I proposed a resolution to assure that all Senate employees would be protected against employment discrimination just as other people were all over the country, and explained why we needed this resolution. I said that I viewed Congress as ``the last plantation.'' That got the ire of some of my colleagues. They were not happy with me for making that kind of a statement. But the employees knew what I said was true because we were treating ourselves here, we were treating Capitol Hill, as the last plantation that was a law only unto itself. The resolution did not pass in 1978. It is only in the last few years that we have finally enacted substantial legal protection for Senate employees. Our Senate employees are now covered under the civil rights laws and certain other employment laws. But they can take their cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Despite this progress we still have an unacceptable patchwork quilt of coverage and exemption here on Capitol Hill. It has not been easy to solve this problem. My guiding principle has been that we in Congress should be subject to the same laws as applied to a business back in our home State. I recognize the unique nature of life on Capitol Hill, the unique nature of the Congress and how it does business here. So every single law cannot apply in exactly the same way as they are administered back home. But most of them can. Many Members also believe that the Constitution requires us to preserve substantial independence of the Senate and of the House of Representatives--in other words, the separation of powers under the Constitution. One branch does not have a superior position over another branch of Government. It is the checks and balances of our Government that we do not wish to throw away. The concern of a lot of people about this separation of powers is not simply a matter of personal prerogative or ego. For the private sector, these laws are normally implemented by the executive branch and the judicial branch. But many Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, have expressed genuine concern about politically motivated prosecutions that might result if we ignore the principle of separation of powers as we apply these laws to Congress. Last year, the majority leader, Senator Mitchell, asked me as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee to try and find a bipartisan solution. I started with the excellent bill introduced last year by Senators Lieberman and Grassley, and then together with them, with Senators we worked hard to reach a solution, and I think we succeeded. We included even a stronger application of the laws to Congress, and we also included stronger protection of the constitutional independence of the House and Senate. Our legislation won broad, bipartisan support, but it was unfortunately blocked on the Senate floor in the closing days of the 103d Congress. I am very gratified that our solution to congressional coverage now stands, I believe, an excellent chance of being enacted by the new Congress. There have been two different bills introduced. One is the bill we have before us today, and the other was introduced on congressional accountability yesterday by Senator Daschle, our new Democratic leader, as part of a comprehensive congressional reform proposal. Senator Daschle's proposal includes a number of reforms of the way Congress does business, including not only congressional coverage, but also including measures on lobbying disclosure and gifts to Members. These essential measures, which I support, were also blocked along with congressional coverage at the end of the last Congress. That bill is not the one that is before us now. The bill before us now is the one just on congressional coverage that Senators Grassley, Dole, and Lieberman have submitted. Senator Dole has made this a top-priority legislative proposal, and I am very happy with that. With this strong bipartisan support that we have for this legislation, I am very optimistic that congressional coverage legislation can be promptly enacted--and I hope very promptly. Legislation can be briefly summarized in five key elements. First, all of the rights and protections under the civil rights laws and other employment statutes, and the public access requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act, would apply to the legislative branch. This includes the Senate, the House of Representatives, and our support agencies. Second, a new compliance office would be established within the legislative branch to handle claims and issue rules. This compliance office would be headed by an independent five-person board of directors, removable only for cause and appointed by the leadership. This board is a new proposal here, in that this takes away most of the concerns of those people who were primarily concerned about the separation of powers and what would happen if we had an overzealous executive branch of Government trying to enforce a Clean Air Act or an OSHA law on Capitol Hill and pushing too hard for it, wanting to exact a pound of flesh in some other area in response. That has been a concern that people have expressed throughout the years. So this board goes a long way toward declaring our independence and our capability in making sure that all of the laws are adhered to here on Capitol Hill and making that administration of those laws the purview of this five- person board of directors. I think it is unfortunate that we have to create a new enforcement bureaucracy at a time when we are more concerned about streamlining Government. But many Members, as I say, still believe it would violate the constitutional separation of powers to have the executive branch enforce these laws against Congress. A third point. Any employee who believes there has been a violation could receive counseling and mediation services from the new office. I would anticipate that most of the problems could be resolved at that counseling and mediation level. But if the employee's claim is not resolved by counseling or mediation, then the employee can carry this further. They can file a complaint with the compliance office and receive a hearing and decision from a hearing officer. This decision may be appealed. Then, in turn, if they are not happy with what comes out of the first two steps, it may be appealed to the board for the board's direct action, or after that, even to the U.S. Court of Appeals. That is a lengthy process, but it is one that certainly gives the employees all kinds of access to make sure that their complaint is adequately dealt with. Fourth, instead of filing a complaint with the compliance office after counseling and mediation, another track that can be followed is that the employee may elect to go directly and sue in the U.S. district court, just as any businessman across this country can do, or any individual across the country can do if they have a problem with their employer, or whatever. Further, a jury trial may be requested under normal applicable law. Fifth, the board will appoint a general counsel who will enforce OSHA, collective bargaining requirements, and other laws. So I am very pleased that there now appears to be bipartisan support for the Congressional Accountability Act. I will certainly be as pleased as anyone when it is finally adopted. This is not all brand new, make no mistake about it. The congressional coverage legislation is not completely new in that congressional coverage legislation was adopted by the Democratically-controlled House of Representatives last year. Congressional coverage legislation was sent to the Senate floor from our Governmental Affairs Committee last year. Unfortunately, it died in the final days of the Senate last year in that scorched Earth atmosphere which we all deplore, when we saw Members opposing just for the sake of opposing and sometimes killing legislation they themselves even supported. But that is behind us now and we are on to a new day here. I certainly want to let everyone know that while we went through some trials and tribulations last year, we are ready to move on. I think the American people are ready to move on and see this kind of legislation in particular get passed. That is easier said than done sometimes, but I think it is high time that we started to put the national interests first and to calculate our actions based not on narrow political calculations of today, or on who may gain more political advantage by supporting or opposing this particular piece of legislation. We should be doing this on what is best tomorrow for the United States of America, for the whole country. If Republicans and Democrats alike can just remember that, I think we are going to have a great session through this coming year. I think the Congressional Accountability Act is a good place to start. I talked about the last plantation a little while ago. The last plantation, I think, we now can eliminate and bring into the 20th century with this particular piece of legislation. So I am very happy to be supporting it. Mr. President, earlier in the remarks by my distinguished colleague from Iowa, he mentioned the costs and other impacts of the Congressional Accountability Act. I have a one-page summary of where those expenses are anticipated to occur, and I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. There will be votes tomorrow?

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the issue of regulations and the need to improve regulatory decision-making--to improve their quality and reduce their burdens. In our system of government, we the lawmakers rely on administrative agencies to issue regulations to implement our laws. The rulemaking process is an open one compared to many countries--agencies must consider the views of the public, make their decisions on the basis of a rulemaking record, and be prepared to defend their decisions in court. These are the strengths of our administrative process. Unfortunately, there are also weaknesses. General rulemaking principles have not proven rigorous enough--agencies too often promulgate rules whose costs outweigh the benefits, where the regulated risks are insignificant compared to other societal risks, and where State and local governments or the private sector are unnecessarily burdened with overly detailed red-tape. The list can go on and on. The problem is not that the Government is trying to fix something that ``ain't broke.'' The Government has been responding to the call of the people to address public issues and concerns. In the area of environmental protection, for example, the American people continue to want Government problem is more complicated. The problem is that the Government is not working well enough, it is not delivering on its promises to solve problems efficiently and effectively. The American public and Members of Congress know that we simply are not getting enough results for all the legislation, regulation, and expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Programmatically, each agency and each congressional committee must examine their policies and programs to determine what works and eliminate what doesn't work. The administration has made impressive strides in this area through the continuing work of the National Performance Review. This effort also will be helped in the coming years as agencies begin performance reporting under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which I co-sponsored with my friend and colleague on the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Roth. This law blinds agencies to performance goals and reporting on results, which will help us answer basic questions about how well Government programs are working. In this new Congress, our committee will continue our bi-partisan oversight of the implementation of this important law. On the process side of the equation, we can and should put into place analytic requirements to guide Federal rulemaking. It may sound simplistic, but most of the complaints about Federal regulation can be addressed just by ensuring that agencies stop and think before regulating. In this Congress, I know that several different approaches are already being considered. Most address single problem areas. I believe that it is our responsibility to design a comprehensive regulatory analysis and review process that is straightforward, understandable by agencies and the public, and can lead to better and fewer regulations. For this purpose, I am today introducing the Regulatory Accountability Act of 1995. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this legislation be included with my remarks. This legislation requires Federal agencies, as I have said, to stop and think before regulating. Agencies would have to involve affected members of the public, spell out the need for and desired outcome of a regulatory proposal, analyze its costs and benefits, assess the risks of the behavior or substance proposed for regulation, consider alternatives to the proposed rule, weigh the effects on other governmental action--including State and local governments--and analyze any issues that might affect private property rights under the fifth amendment to the Constitution. These analytic requirements would apply to all proposed regulations, with more in-depth analyses required for major rules. In addition to the agency requirements, this legislation would place into law a Presidential regulatory review process to be run by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]. While President Clinton's regulatory review Executive order has been generally well received, continuing calls for farther reaching controls strongly suggest that Congress put into place a workable regulatory review process to ensure integrity and accountability in rulemaking, and relief from overly burdensome and unnecessary regulations. Under this act, OMB would oversee all agency regulatory analyses, review agency rules before they are issued, and supervise an annual regulatory planning process that would include the review of existing rules. To ensure accountability for this review process, there would be a 90-day time limit on review--with public notice of extensions, the resolution of disputes at Presidential direction, disclosure of the status of actions undergoing review, and after-the-fact disclosure of regulatory review communications. Over the years, there has been much controversy about the propriety of Presidential regulatory review. I have always supported such review. But I have opposed its use as a secret backdoor channel for special interests. I believe that my legislation appropriately formalizes the President's responsibility to ensure effective and efficient regulatory decisionmaking and establishes sufficient protections to provide for the integrity of and accountability for those decisions. These regulatory issues have been a major concern of the Governmental Affairs Committee during the four Congresses in which I was committee Chair. I know that my good friend, Senator Roth, who is now chairing the committee, shares this commitment and will continue the committee's leadership in this area. I look forward to our committee's work on these issues and trust that we will soon report out legislation and bring the debate back to the floor of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN. In remarks at the White House on October 18, 1994, President Clinton stated the following: There is nothing more important to our security and to the world's stability than preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. And I certainly agree with that. That statement echoes the national security goal that was established a half century ago, and yet much of our nuclear proliferation effort is so scattered and so uncoordinated that it too often is ineffective, as I view it. This bill would help correct a lot of that. It is the Nuclear Export Reorganization Act. It deals largely with those areas of dual-use items--those items that may have a regular civilian use but which may be also key to the development of nuclear weapons. We have not monitored these carefully enough, and this act would take care of that, I think, and make a better, more coordinate effort. By all indications, our Government will in the years ahead have to accomplish a lot more with a lot fewer resources. As the budgetary belt tightens, it becomes all the more vital that we get our priorities straight and that we use these resources much more efficiently and effectively than they have been used in the past. Our civil servants and diplomats who administer our foreign and defense policies need unambiguous guidance as to what needs to be done to advance the national interest. I am certain that this specific Presidential priority is strongly shared by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the Congress. I am sure the Congress will be able to work with the President in pursuit of measures to address this dangerous threat to our Nation. By all indications, there is a lot of work for us all to do. Now that the President has so clearly articulated the challenge that lies ahead, it is important for Congress to have an equally clear statement of what needs to be done to address that challenge. A key question facing the new Congress must be this: is our Government organized today to meet this challenge? I believe the answer to this question is decidedly, no, especially with respect to the organization of our national system for processing export licenses for what are called nuclear dual-use goods--items that can be used for civilian purposes or for building nuclear weapons. To illustrate the problem, I will refer to a major report prepared by the Offices of the Inspector General in the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and State, dated September 1993, and another study prepared at my request by the General Accounting Office and released by the Committee on Governmental Affairs in May 1994. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert at the end of my remarks two detailed committee staff summaries of these reports. Quoting from the report by the four Inspectors General, here is what they had to say about our system for administering nuclear dual-use export controls: no accountability The Energy IG found that Energy's recordkeeping was not in compliance with the Export Administration Act and that Energy's degree of compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act could not be determined. The IG report found licensing authorities using their own unwritten criteria to make decisions. They found documentation of the grounds of these decisions to be poor to nonexistent. severe interagency communication problems Defense once had to get Customs to block a shipment of goods that had been licensed by Commerce. The Energy IG found that communications between the export control and intelligence shops at Energy were poor-- at one point, an outside facilitator had to be brought in to patch up relations. Some key national security offices have no idea what the Commerce Department is approving for export. lack of followup on licensing decisions The State IG found that considerable disarray exists in the operation of pre-license and post-shipment checks; the system was haphazard and often ineffective; and the program suffered from insufficient historical records and program tracking. Commerce lacks a strategic plan to conduct such checks; its database is erroneous and misleading and contains numerous errors and misrepresentations. The report documents numerous other problems surrounding the lack of followup on licensing decisions. skeleton staffs The reports noted that staffing was thin in the respective agencies, despite the high priority that was supposed to be given to nonproliferation issues. gridlock on the information highway When asked what intelligence database was used in Energy's export control office, a supervisor said, himself; he added that Energy had no structured intelligence data base for licensing use. There are inconsistencies--about 25 percent of licenses surveyed--in the databases of Energy and Commerce, which the Energy IG said call into question the integrity of the export licensing process. Disorganized files at State made information on export trends almost impossible to ascertain. [Source: The Federal Government's Export Licensing Processes for Munitions and Dual-Use Commodities, Final Report, Offices of the Inspector General at the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and State, September 1993, available from Office of the Inspector General, Department of Commerce, (202) 482-1243.] As for the GAO, here is a summary of what they found about U.S. exports of nuclear dual-use goods: The U.S. issued 336,000 export licenses between FY 1985-92 for nuclear-related dual-use items--valued at $264 billion; 54,862 licenses (worth over $29 billion) were approved for exports to 36 countries of proliferation concern; 24,048 of these licenses were approved for goods going to 8 countries that have sought or are now seeking nuclear weapons. Over 1,500 licenses covered items (worth over $350 million) going specifically to key players in these bomb programs. (FY 1988-92) U.S. license approvals have covered goods with uses in nuclear weapons development, weapons testing, uranium enrichment, implosion systems development, and weapons detonation. Commerce approved 87 percent of dual-use licenses going to controlled countries turning down only 1 in a hundred licenses. (FY 1988-92) Licenses are being required for fewer and fewer goods: the number of licenses for nuclear dual-use goods dropped 81 percent from FY 1987 to 1992. The most popular item is computer equipment, which made up 86 percent of all U.S. nuclear dual-use exports between FY 1985-92. Citing new liberalized controls, GAO predicts a substantial decline in license requirements for computers. Commerce has unilaterally approved the export of dual-use items without referral to other agencies--of licenses sent to Energy, 80 percent are not forwarded for further interagency review. Only Energy and Commerce have full access to all nuclear dual-use license applications. The U.S. often uses foreign nationals to conduct pre-license and post-export licensing activities. On-site inspections, which are rarely done, also tend to focus on less dangerous items. Inspectors typically lack technical expertise. Commerce has not given inspectors ``specific guidance'' for conducting inspections. The U.S. does not systematically verify compliance with government- to-government assurances on the use of nuclear-related dual-use items-- GAO. [Source: ``Export Licensing Procedures for Dual-Use Items Need to Be Strengthened,'' Report to Sen. John Glenn, Chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, April 1994, GAO/NSIAD-94-119, available from GAO at (212) 512-6000.] There is precious little in either of these reports to reassure members of Congress that our system for licensing nuclear dual-use items is up to par. At the very least, the system falls far short of reflecting the high priority that the President has determined should be accorded to halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a problem that is constantly aggravated by dangerous exports. As author of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, I have long been aware that our nuclear export control process was in need of reform. On May 27, 1993, I introduced S. 1055, a bill that contained many of the proposals I am Act of 1995. It is useful to note that the reports by the Inspectors General and the GAO were prepared well after I introduced my original bill in 1993--the reports nevertheless underscore the obvious need for major reforms in the nuclear dual-use export licensing process. In summary, the bill I am introducing today--the Nuclear Export Reorganization Act of 1995--includes improvements in export controls and measures to face up to the challenge of the global plutonium economy. First, as I have said before on several occasions, we must do more to take the profits out of proliferation. Specifically, I believe the President should have clear and unambiguous authority to impose sanctions against companies that engage in illicit sales of nuclear technology and to require new sanctions against countries that traffic specifically in bomb parts or critical bomb design information. The sanctions provisions--which include a ban on government contracting with firms that materially and knowingly assist other nations to acquire the bomb, and additional severe penalties against nations that traffic in bomb parts or critical bomb design information--were enacted last year as an amendment to the State Department authorization bill. My bill today will remove a sunset clause that was added to this sanctions authority in the last Congress. Second, I am proposing some significant improvements in the export licensing process. My proposal is designed to be responsive both to the legitimate needs of the exporting community for an efficient and effective licensing process and to the compelling interest of all citizens in protecting our national security. In particular, the export control reforms would accomplish the following: 1. It would vest authority to issue dual-use export licenses in the Commerce Department, while ensuring that key agencies with national security responsibilities have full rights to review license applications and to oppose approvals when they would be contrary to the country's nuclear nonproliferation interests. 2. It would establish the interagency Subgroup on Nuclear Export Coordination--which has existed in regulatory form for about a decade-- as a formal statutory entity within the National Security Council and would endow it with a clear structure and mission. 3. It would ensure timely access by relevant agencies to export licensing data and expand information available to the public about dual-use nuclear exports. 4. It would clarify in law the terms for denying export licenses by adopting a standard that is now applied by 26 major nuclear supplier nations, not just the United States. And consistent with this multilateral standard, there are no loopholes or special country exemptions in the legislation I am introducing today. 5. It would encourage the basic goal of developing in the United States a domestic industry capable of competing in international markets to sell energy technologies that do not contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation. 6. It would establish a mechanism by which private U.S. industry can assist the Government in identifying foreign competitors that are engaging in illicit nuclear sales, and by so doing, assist in the implementation of appropriate sanctions. 7. It would encourage private firms to adopt voluntary codes of conduct to regulate sales activities without active Government intervention. 8. It would upgrade the role of the Department of Defense in reviewing and approving proposed U.S. agreement for nuclear cooperation and proposed exports of U.S. nuclear technology. 9. It would defined in law for the first time in U.S. history a term that lies at the heart of all our nuclear nonproliferation efforts, namely, a ``nuclear explosive device.'' 10. It would establish in law specific deadlines on the processing of licenses to export dual-use nuclear items. 11. It would establish an Export Control Bulletin to address the needs of exporters for more detailed information both about the evolution of U.S. nuclear regulations and the nature of the global threat of nuclear weapons proliferation. 12. It would provide a means by which potential exporters can obtain advisory opinions from the Subgroup with respect to activities that may subject exporters to possible sanctions under existing nuclear export control laws. The bill also includes several findings and declarations by the Congress with respect to growing international commercial uses of plutonium, and a requirement for the President to review and modify, as appropriate, a 1981 policy that served to promote such uses. Ever since 1981, America has been turning a blind eye toward the global proliferation and environmental risks from large-scale commercial uses of weapons-usable plutonium in Europe, Russia, and Japan. It is time for that policy to be reviewed and brought into line with the high priority our country is supposed to be giving to the goal of reducing the risks of nuclear weapons proliferation. conclusion Bernard Baruch once said over 45 years ago that ``we are here to make a choice between the quick and the dead.'' Today, I can say that we have several new choices to make, each one potentially affecting the future of this planet. We must choose between leadership and acquiescence, between quick profits and the defense of our national security interests, and between the rule of law and the law of the jungle. The security threat we must collectively address--both politically here at home and in partnership with other nations--is nuclear war. We have an obligation to do all we can to prevent all forms of nuclear weapons proliferation, and--as in the recent cases of South Africa and Brazil--to work to roll back existing bomb programs wherever they may be. Mr. President, I will have more to say about the proposed legislation in the months ahead and look forward to working with the new congressional majority and the Administration in ensuring its early enactment. These reforms are long overdue. I encourage my colleagues to join me in this effort to revitalize these key elements of our nonproliferation strategy. I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Glenn pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Mr. GLENN

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, Senator Sam Ervin, a great constitutional scholar, once said that Congress is ``like a doctor prescribing medicine for a patient that he himself would not take.'' I agree. By enacting laws for others, and then exempting ourselves, we have done great damage to the public perception of Congress. When I travel in Ohio and other parts of the country, I find that people are especially irritated that we do not have to follow the rules like everybody else. Businessmen, especially, tell me that we in Congress cannot understand the real impact of our laws, because we do not have to follow them back here on Capitol Hill. But there is an even more important principle at stake--to continue to deprive our employees of the full protection of the law is wrong. Let me be clear: I am not just talking about our legislative and administrative personnel--whom many people think of in terms of Capitol Hill staffers. There are also the cleaning crews, and the police, and the restaurant workers, and the parking lot attendants, and the plumbers, and the window washers--all of the workers who do not enjoy the same rights as every other American not employed by the Congress. I am very pleased that, in these opening days of the 104th Congress, we can finally do what is right for these people, and eliminate this congressional double standard under which we have enacted laws that apply to everyone but ourselves. This reform is long overdue. Our efforts to apply the law on Capitol Hill go back many years. In 1978--only a few years after I came to the Senate--I proposed a resolution to assure that all Senate employees would be protected against employment discrimination. In explaining why we needed this resolution, I said that Congress was The Last Plantation. Some of my colleagues were not happy with me for this. But the employees knew that what I said was true. There resolution in 1978 did not pass, and it is only in the last few years that we have finally enacted substantial legal protection for Senate employees. Our Senate employees are now covered under the civil rights laws and certain other employment laws, and they can take their cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Despite this progress, however, we still have an unacceptable patchwork quilt of coverage and exemption here on Capitol Hill. It has not been easy to solve this problem. My guiding principle has been that we in Congress should be subject to the same laws as apply to a business back in our home State. But many Members also believe that the Constitution requires us to preserve substantial independence of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. This is not simply a matter of personal prerogative or ego. For the private sector, these laws are normally implemented by the executive branch and the judicial branch. But many Senators--both Democrats and Republicans--have expressed genuine concern about politically motivated prosecutions that might result if we ignore the principle of separation of powers as we apply these laws to Congress. Last year, the majority leader, Senator Mitchell, asked me--as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee--to try to find a bipartisan solution. I started with the excellent bill introduced last year by Senators Lieberman and Grassley. Then, together with Senator Lieberman, Senator Grassley, and other Senators from both sides of the aisle, we worked hard to reach a solution--and we succeeded. We included even stronger application of the laws to Congress, and we also included stronger protection of the constitutional independence of the Senate and the House. Our legislation won broad bipartisan support, but it was unfortunately blocked on the Senate floor in the closing days of the 103d Congress. I am very gratified that our solution to congressional coverage now stands an excellent chance of being enacted by the new Congress. The new Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, is introducing our congressional accountability legislation, as part of a comprehensive congressional reform proposal. This proposal includes a number of reforms of the way Congress does business, including measures on lobbying disclosure and gifts to Members. These essential measures, which I support, were also blocked-- along with congressional coverage--at the end of the last Congress. The first part of the Democratic leader's bill, which deals with congressional coverage, is entitled the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995. This legislation can be briefly summarized in five key elements. First, all of the rights and protections under the civil rights laws, other employment statutes, and the public-access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act would apply to the legislative branch. This includes the Senate, the House of Representatives, and our support agencies. Second, a new compliance office would be established within the legislative branch to handle claims and to issue rules. The compliance office would be headed by an independent five- person board of directors removable only for cause.It is unfortunate that we have to create a new enforcement bureaucracy, at a time when we are more concerned about streamlining the government. But many Members believe that it would violate the constitutional separation of powers to have the executive branch enforce these laws against Congress. Third, any employee who believes there has been a violation could receive counseling and mediation services from the new office. If the employee's claim is not resolved by counseling or mediation, the employee may file a complaint with the compliance office and receive a hearing and decision from a hearing officer. This decision may be appealed to the board and to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Fourth, instead of filing a complaint with the compliance office after counseling and mediation, the employee may elect to sue in U.S. District Court. A jury trial may be requested under applicable law. Fifth, the board will appoint a general counsel, who will enforce OSHA, collective bargaining requirements, and other laws. A similar bill is being introduced as part of Senator Dole's top- priority legislation. With this strong bipartisan support, I am very optimistic that congressional coverage legislation can now be promptly enacted. So I am very pleased that there now appears to be bipartisan support for the Congressional Accountability Act. And I will be as pleased as anyone when it is finally adopted. But make no mistake about it: There is nothing new about this measure. Congressional coverage legislation was adopted by the democratically controlled House of Representatives last year. Congressional coverage legislation was sent to the Senate floor by my democratically controlled Governmental Affairs Committee last year. And, unfortunately, it died in the final days of the democratically controlled Congress in that scorched Earth atmosphere--the worst I have ever seen in my 20 years in the Senate--that saw killing good legislation that they themselves supported--in order to deny credit to the majority party. Well, I will tell you something. I was not proud of what went on in those final days, and I do not think the American people were either. For they know that America did not rise to become the greatest nation in the world by trying to out-delay, out-complain, and out-divide our political opposition. And--although it is easier said than done--it is high time that Members started to put the national interest first. To calculate their actions based not on the narrow political calculations of today--but on what is best for the country tomorrow. If Republicans and Democrats alike can just remember that, I believe that we can have a very productive session. The Congressional Accountability Act is a good place to start. And I am very pleased that it is being introduced as part of Senator Daschle's comprehensive congressional reform proposal. Key Elements of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 1. Rights and Protections under Civil Rights and other employment statutes and Americans with Disabilities Act would apply fully to the House, the Senate, and all instrumentalities. 2. A new compliance office would be established within the Legislative Branch to handle claims and issue rules. The compliance office would be headed by an independent 5- percent Board of Directors removable only for cause. 3. An employee who believes there has been a violation could receive counseling and mediation services from the new office. 4. If the employee's claim is not resolved by counseling or mediation, the employee may file a complaint with the compliance office and receive a hearing and decision from a hearing officer. This decision may be appealed to the Board and to the United States Court of Appeals. 5. Instead of filing a complaint with the compliance office after counseling and medication, the employee may elect to sue in United States District Court. A jury trial may be requested under applicable law. 6. The General Counsel, to be appointed by the Board, will enforce OSHA, collective bargaining requirements, and other laws. Summary of Costs and Other Impacts of Congressional Accountability Act The CBO letter, at pages 44-49 of the GAC Report (and the CBO letter for the House bill) describes the following costs: 1. New compliance office: $1 million/year for 2 years, during start-up. $2-3 million/year thereafter, including enforcement procedures and OSHA inspections. 2. Settlements and awards to employees: $0.5-1 million/year. 3. Federal labor-management relations $1 million/year for lawyers and personnel officers. 4. OSHA Existing standards--will require change in practices rather than significant additional space or cost. Possible future standards (e.g., ergonomic equipment; air quality)--without specific standards, cost cannot be predicted. 5. Fair Labor Standards Capitol police--$0.8 million/year. Other employees--CBO could not estimate. [CBO assumed the compliance office would have wide discretion in establishing rules and in allowing compensatory time instead of overtime. This is incorrect: bill requires private-sector rules.] 6. Anti-discrimination laws--no additional cost, because these requirements already apply under statutes or rules. 7. Polygraph protection--no effect; polygraphs are not used. 8. Plant closing--no effect; no mass layoffs are anticipated. 9. Veterans rehiring--not scored by CBO; added to the legislation this year. TOTAL ESTIMATE: $1 million/year for the 2 years, $4-5 million/year thereafter. Summary of Laws and Procedures 1. APPLICABLE LAWS a. Laws against employment discrimination: Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Race, religion, national origin) Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (Discrimination against disabled employees) These laws already apply; the bill would strengthen enforcement. b. Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. (Employees may take up to 3 months off per year, for personal or family medical needs, including birth) Already applies; the bill would strengthen enforcement. c. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. (Minimum wage; overtime; sex discrimination in pay) Use of volunteers would be allowed under the same standards as apply to state and local governments. For employees whose work schedule depends on the schedule of house or Senate, special rules will be developed for overtime, comparable to statutory provisions for industries with irregular work schedule. d. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (access to public services and public accommodations. Already applies; the bill would allow enforcement. e. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (``OSHA''). f. Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute. Application to personal, committee, or other political offices would be deferred until rules are issued by the new Office and approved by Congress. g. Employee Polygraph Protection Act. (Prohibits use of polygraphs for employees and job applicants, with exceptions like national security and policy) h. Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act. (Requires 2 months advance written notice of plant closing or mass layoff, with exceptions like necessity.) i. Law on veterans' employment and reemployment. (Veterans can get job back after up to 5 years' military service. They also get the right to RAMSPEK into the Executive Branch.) 2. Procedures For Remedy a. For employee claims (discrimination, family/medical leave standards, fair labor standards, polygraph, plant closing, veterans rehiring) there would be a 5-step procedure: counseling. Mediation. Trial before a hearing officer. Appeal to the new Office's Board Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals.or Employees could elect to take case to Federal District Court after the mediation step, instead of the hearing officer. b. For Americans with Disabilities Act: A member of the public may submit a charge to the General Counsel of the Office. Only the General Counsel may call for mediation, or file a complaint. Appeal to the Board. Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. c. For OSHA, the following procedural steps will be available: The General Counsel will inspect all facilities, using OSHA detailees, and issue citations. Disputes regarding citations will be referred to a hearing officer. Appeal to the Board. Appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Board may also approve requests for temporary variances. d. For collective bargaining law, the following procedural steps will be available: Petitions (e.g., requesting recognition of an exclusive representative) will be considered by the Board, and could be referred by the Board to a hearing officer. Unfair labor practice charges--would be submitted to the General Counsel, who will investigate and may file a complaint. The complaint would be referred to a hearing officer for decision, subject to appeal to the Board. Negotiation impasses would be submitted to mediators. court of Appeals review of Board decisions.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I know the time is short. The Senator was giving a litany of those who worked hard on this, including myself, but he left himself out. No one has stuck to this any more than he has. I know last year, when I was chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, if we went more than a week without having something on the schedule over there on this subject, he was on my back about it, and properly so. He has stuck with this. He has traveled the whole country meeting with this group of seven. He has been a real sparkplug on this, and deserves a tremendous amount of credit himself. And while I may make some comments in a little bit, while I was in the Chamber I wanted to make sure he got some recognition on this, too. I appreciate his earlier comments very much. I thank the Chair.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise to announce my support for S. 1--the Kempthorne-Glenn bill on Federal mandate reform and relief. This is legislation that had strong bipartisan and administration support last year. In fact we had 67 cosponsors, and my hope is that we will be able to pass the bill quickly through the House and Senate in this Congress. But before I go into a description of the bill, I'd like to provide some background to the whole unfunded Federal mandates debate. On October 27, 1993, State and local elected officials from all over the Nation came to Washington and declared that day--``National Unfunded Mandates Day.'' These officials conveyed a powerful message to Congress and the Clinton administration on the need for Federal mandate reform and relief. They raised four major objections to unfunded Federal mandates. First, unfunded Federal mandates impose unreasonable fiscal burdens on their budgets; Second, they limit State and local government flexibility to address more pressing local problems like crime and education; Third, Federal mandates too often come in a ``one size fits all'' box that stifles the development of more innovative local efforts--efforts that ultimately may be more effective in solving the problem the Federal mandate is meant to address; and, some worthy mandate or program, while leaving State and local governments with the difficult tasks of cutting services or raising taxes in order to pay for it. In our two hearings, we heard testimony from elected State and local officials from both parties, representing all sizes of government. It was clear from the testimony that unfunded mandates hit small counties and townships as hard as they do big cities and larger States. I think it's worth stepping back and taking a look at the evolution of the Federal-State-local relationship over the last decade and a half so we can put this debate into some historical context. I believe the seeds from which sprang the mandate reform movement can be traced back to the so-called policy of ``New Federalism,'' a policy which resulted in a gradual but steady shift in governing responsibilities from the Federal Government to State and local governments over the last 10 to 15 years. During that time period, Federal aid to State and local governments was severely cut, or even eliminated, in a number of key domestic program areas. At the same time, enactment and subsequent implementation of various Federal statutes passed on new costs to State and local governments. In simple terms, State and local governments ended up receiving less of the Federal carrot and more of the Federal stick. A. the cost of federal mandates Let's examine the cost issue first. While there has been substantial debate on the actual cost of Federal mandates, suffice it to say that almost all participants in the debate agree that there isn't complete data on the aggregate costs of Federal mandates to State and local governments. In fact, one of the major objectives of S. 993 is to develop better information and data on the cost of mandates. Likewise, there is even less information available on estimates of what potential benefits might be derived from select Federal mandates--a point made by representatives from the disability, environmental, and labor community in the committee's second hearing. Nonetheless, there have been efforts made in the past to measure the cost impacts of Federal mandates on State and local governments. And those efforts do show that costs appear to be rising. Since 1981, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has been preparing cost estimates on major legislation reported by committee with an expected annual cost to State and local governments in excess of $200 million. According to CBO, 89 bills with an estimated annual cost in excess of $200 million each were reported out of committee between 1983 and 1988. I would point out one major caveat with CBO's analysis--it does not indicate whether these bills funded the costs or not, nor how many of the bills were eventually enacted. Still, even with a rough calculation, the chart shows that committees reported out bills with an average estimated new cost of at least $17.8 billion per year to State and local governments. In total, 382 bills were reported from committees over the 6-year period with some new costs to State and local governments. So if anything, the $17.8 billion figure is a conservative estimate for reported bills. Federal environmental mandates head the list of areas that State and local officials claim to be the most burdensome. A closer look at two of the studies done on the cost of State and local governments of compliance with environmental statutes does indicate that these costs appear to be rising. A 1990 EPA study, Environmental Investments: The Cost of a Clean Environment, estimates that total annual costs of environmental mandates--from all levels of government--to State and local governments will rise from $22.2 billion in 1987 to $37.1 billion by the 2000--an increase in real terms of 67 percent. EPA estimates that the cost of environmental mandates to State governments will rise from $3 billion in 1987 to $4.5 billion by 2000--a 48-percent increase. Over the same timeframe, the annual costs of environmental mandates to local governments is estimated to increase from $19.2 billion to $32.6 billion--a 70-percent gain. According to the Vice President's National Performance Review, the total annual cost of environmental mandates to State and local governments, when adjusted for inflation, will reach close to $44 billion by the end of this century. The city of Columbus in my home State of Ohio also noted a trend in rising costs for city compliance with Federal environmental mandates. In its study, the city concluded that its cost of compliance environmental statutes would rise from $62.1 million in 1991 to $107.4 million in 1995--in 1991 constant dollars--a 73-percent increase. The city estimates that its share of the total city budget going to pay for these mandates will increase from 10.6 percent to 18.3 percent over that timeframe. In addition to environmental requirements, State and local officials in our committee hearings cited other Federal requirements as burdensome and costly. They highlighted compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Motor Voter Registration Act; complying with the administrative requirements that go with implementing many Federal programs; and, meeting Federal criminal justice and educational program requirements. Now I would note that while each of these individual programs or requirements clearly carry with them costs to State and local governments, costs which we have too often ignored in the past, I believe that on a case-by-case basis each of these mandates has substantial benefits to our society and our nation as a whole, otherwise I along with many of my colleagues in the Senate wouldn't have voted to enact them. State and local officials readily concede that individual mandates on a case-by-case basis may indeed be worthy. However, when you look at all mandates spanning across the entire gamut of Federal laws and regulation, you begin to understand that it is the aggregate impact of all Federal mandates that has spurred the calls for mandate reform and relief. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations testified in our April hearing that the number of major Federal statutes with explicit mandates on State and local governments went from zero during the period of 1941 to 1964, to 9 during the rest of the 1960s, to 25 in the 70s, and 27 in the 80s.However, to truly reach a better understanding of the Federal mandates debate, we must also look at the Federal funding picture vis a vis State and local governments. b. federal aid to state and local governments The record shows that Federal discretionary aid to State and local governments to both implement Federal policies and directives as well as comply with them saw a sharp drop in the 1980s. An examination of Census Bureau data on sources of State and local government revenue shows a decreasing Federal role in the funding of State and local governments. In 1979, the Federal government's contribution to State and local government revenues reached 18.6 percent. By 1989, the Federal contribution of the State and local revenue pie had steadily shrunk to 13.2 percent before edging up to 14.3 percent in 1991--the latest year that data is available. What contributed to declining trend in the Federal financing of State and local governments? A closer look at patterns in Federal discretionary aid programs to State and local governments during the 1980s provides the answer. According to the Federal Funds Information Service, between 1981 and 1990 Federal discretionary program funding to State and local governments rose slightly from $47.5 billion to $51.6 billion. However, this figure when adjusted for inflation tells a much different story; Federal aid dropped 28 percent in real terms over the decade. A number of vital Federal aid programs to State and local governments experienced sharp cuts and, in some cases, outright elimination during the decade. In 1986, the administration and Congress agreed to terminate the general revenue sharing program--a program that provided approximately $4.5 billion annually to local governments and allowed them broad discretion on how to spend the funds. Since its inception in 1972, general revenue sharing had provided approximately $83 billion to State and local governments. Unfortunately, the Reagan administration succeeded in terminating the program and the Congress followed its lead. There were other important Federal-State-local programs that were substantially cut back between 1981 and Community Development Block Grants, Mass Transit, Refugee Assistance, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. Luckily, under both the Bush and Clinton administration, we've managed to restore some needed funding to many of these programs. Still, in real dollars, funds for discretionary aid programs to State and local governments remain 18 percent below their 1981 levels. The Committee's Legislative Efforts In the last Congress, eight bills were referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee that touched on at least some aspect of the unfunded Federal mandates problem. After two hearings, we marked up a compromise bill that borrowed the best of the various provisions and requirements from the different bills. We worked closely in a deliberative, bipartisan fashion with the de facto leader on this issue, Senator Kempthorne, along with other Members and with the administration. The Kempthorne-Glenn Compromise had the endorsement and strong support of the 7 groups representing State and local governments: the National Governors Association; the National Conference of State Legislators; the Council on State Governments; the National League of Cities; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Counties; and the International City Management Association. It had the backing of the Clinton administration and was endorsed by the editorial boards of the New York Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and other newspapers across the country, both large and small. The bill we are introducing today as S. 1 largely embodies what we had last year in S. 993. Let me explain what the Kempthorne-Glenn bill does: It requires the Congressional Budget Office to conduct State, local and tribal cost estimates on legislation that imposes new Federal mandates in excess of $50 million annually onto the budgets of State, local, and tribal governments. The current laws requires these estimates at a $200 million threshold. I believe that that high a figure allows a lot of Federal mandates to slip through without being scored. $200 million spread across equally among all States may not be much, but if it falls particularly hard on any one region--which does happen with legislation around here--it is substantial. Let me make clear, however, that what CBO will score here are new Federal mandates, not what State, local, and tribal governments are spending to comply with existing mandates, nor what they are spending to comply with their own laws and mandates. Second, and I think most importantly, is that the bill holds Congress accountable for imposing additional unfunded Federal mandates. We do this by requiring a majority point of order vote on any legislation that imposes new unfunded Federal mandates in excess of $50 million annual cost to State, local or tribal governments. To avoid the point of order, the sponsor of the bill would have to authorize funding to cover the cost to State and local governments of the Federal mandate, or otherwise find ways to pay for the mandate. This could come from the expansion of an existing grant or subsidized loan program, or the creation of an new one, or perhaps the raising of new revenues or user fees. S. 1 also includes provisions for the analysis of legislation that imposes mandates on the private sector. CBO would have to complete a private sector cost estimate on bills reported by Committee with a $200 million or more annual cost threshold. We do exempt certain Federal laws from this bill. Civil rights and Constitutional rights are excluded. National security, emergency legislation, and ratification of international treaties are also exempt. I want to also point out that the bill does not prohibit Congress from passing unfunded Federal mandates. There may be times when it is appropriate to ask State and local governments to pick up the tab for Federal mandates. But let that debate take place on the Senate floor and let there be a vote on the specific mandate in the legislation. The Kempthorne-Glenn Compromise also addresses regulatory mandates. We all know how the Federal bureaucracy can impose burdensome and inflexible regulations on State and local governments as well as on others who end up trapped in the bureaucracy's regulatory net. In the Committee's November hearing, we heard testimony from Susan Ritter, county auditor for Renville County, ND. Ms. Ritter noted that the town of Sherwood, in her State, with a population of 286, will have to spend $2,000--one half of its annual budget--on testing its water supply in order to comply with EPA regulations. Clearly, there is no way that the town is going to be able to meet this requirement. So, consistent with the President's Executive Orders, we have required that Federal agencies conduct cost-benefit analyses on major regulations that impact State, local and tribal governments. Further, agencies must develop a timely and effective means of allowing State and local input into the regulatory process. Given that State and local governments are responsible for implementing many of our Federal laws, it is not only fair that they be considered partners in the Federal regulatory process, but it is also good public policy as well. Such a process must also be consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act to ensure an open and fair process. The bill also requires Federal agencies to make a special effort in performing outreach to the smallest governments. Then maybe we'll be able to minimize the occurrence of situations like the one that took place in the town of Sherwood. Finally, we've asked the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to work with CBO to develop a better cost estimating process and to monitor implementation of the legislation. Closing Remarks. In closing, I'd like to put this issue into some larger perspective. As we all know, the Federal, State, and local relationship is complicated. It is a blurry line between where one level of government's responsibility ends and another's begins. All three levels of government need to work together in a constructive fashion to provide the best possible delivery of services to the American people in the most cost-effective fashion. After all, as Federal, State, and local officials, we all serve the same constituents. Further, we serve the American people at a time when their confidence in all three levels of government is probably at an all-time low. There are numerous explanations for this lack of confidence in government and I won't go into them here. Vice President Gore's National Performance Review attributes ``an increasingly hidebound and paralyzed intergovernmental process'' as at least part of the reason for why many Americans feel that government is wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective. We need to restore balance to the intergovernmental partnership as well as strengthen it so that government at all levels can operate in a more cost-effective manner.Both the administration and a number of my colleagues have made proposals to shift a number of Federal programs and responsibilities to State and local governments. Clearly, as this mandates debate has shown us, we ought to at least experiment to see if State and local governments can carry out some these programs in a more effective fashion than we have been doing at a Federal level. I know from my years as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee that Americans do want more efficient and less costly government and maybe one way to accomplish that objective is too grant more flexibility to State and local governments and let them run some of these programs. However, I think we should proceed with some degree of caution. Growing up in the Depression, I learned that State and local governments don't have the wherewithal and resources to meet all human needs. That's why President Roosevelt came through with the New Deal. So there has been and will continue to be, the need for a Federal presence in many domestic policy areas. But that shouldn't preclude us from maybe loosening the reigns on State and local governments some, or even dropping them entirely. But we should be careful, and look at it on a case-by-case basis. I believe that the Kempthorne-Glenn bill would help to restore that partnership and bring needed perspective to future Federal decisionmaking. I am Senate and look forward to working toward its very early passage. I want to give special thanks to my colleague from Idaho for his rule in developing this legislation. He has been over diligent and, as a former mayor, very passionate about this issue. But he has also been willing to engage in the give and take that goes on in developing legislation where there are a lot of pressures from all sides to go one way or the other. This has truly been a bipartisan effort and he deserves special credit for that.