Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator is correct.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I would call up amendment No. 151.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Idaho for what has been a very good, substantive debate and to make two points. One, he is right that this amendment would have that effect regarding section (1)(B). So we remove from any mandate that equally affected the private and public sectors the requirement of section (1)(B), but it leaves (1)(A) intact. (1)(A) is the requirement to report the cost of any bill before the Senate can act on it. It says very simply it shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any bill or joint resolution that is reported by the committee unless the committee has published a statement of the director of CBO on the direct cost of Federal mandates in accordance with this proposal. So that remains intact. The evidence will be there. Finally, I want to say this to my friend from Idaho. I think that he and Senator Glenn have done extraordinary work here. This measure, S. 1, really would force us finally to do what we should have done a long time ago. I sincerely believe that the passage of this amendment that I have offered leaves almost all of the intent of the bill intact, and certainly that part that imposes the most serious cost on State and local governments. I think, with the amendment passed, the bill is a better bill. And may I say with thanks and appreciation to the Senator from Idaho, if we pass it with the amendment it is a truly historic accomplishment and will begin to dramatically affect the way in which we behave here and force us to behave in a much fairer way to our friends in the State and local and private sectors who have to live with the laws that we adopt. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair how much time remains?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield such time as he may need to the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I do want to respond to my friend from Idaho and say it is certainly the intention of the sponsors of the amendment--I am confident the desired impact of the sponsors of the amendment--to leave most of the contents of requirements of S. 1 intact, including the requirement that there be a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the cost of every Federal law which might result in a mandate on public and private entities, and that a measure would be subject to a point of order--a point of order would lie if there was not such an estimate. So we want to keep those facts in there, and we want to keep the second point of order in there with regard to the mandate that would impact State and local governments in the capacity of State and local governments, unique as it is, when they are not competing with anyone from the private sector. All we want to do here is to say that it is unfair to lower the bar on State and local governments when they are performing a function pursuant to a mandate that the private sector is also performing. Yes, the Senator from Idaho is correct, this is just a point of order. But a point of order is more than just a point of order. It sets up here a two-track system, and we are saying to State and local governments, ``You have the opportunity to put yourself on a course that says no money, no mandate, no responsibility,'' while the private sector has to pay the cost of fulfilling that mandate regardless. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Ms. Carol Moseley-Braun, be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the question from my friend, and it is a good one. Let me first state that not only is there not the intention to wipe out most of bill, I am convinced the impact of the amendment is not to do that. And let me assure my friend from Mississippi that I wish to support this bill. I was a cosponsor of S. 993 last year. I was the attorney general of Connecticut before I came here. I believe in federalism. I know that the States have not been treated fairly in a whole host of mandates that we have put on them. But it is just the point that the Senator is making that is part of my argument. We are in a time now, I do not have to tell my friend, where we are quite appropriately reviewing the whole structure and focus and purpose of government, and taking a look at whether government is best suited to perform certain functions or whether the private sector can pick up those functions. I am afraid that if we pass this bill unamended, without the amendment that I have put in, all the incentives go toward keeping governmental functions in the Government and not giving them over to the private sector, because the private sector is held to the higher standard. The public sector can be held to a lower standard if we do not fully pay the cost of any mandate. So, if I understand the Senator's question correctly, it is in fact because: First, I do not want to put the private sector at a competitive disadvantage and, second, I agree the Government has grown too big and we ought to figure out ways in which we can have private entities perform some public functions. But this bill as it sits now will discourage that, as the school bus operators--I read a letter, before my friend was on the floor, from the school bus operators association, National School Transport Association where they urge support of this amendment because of their fear that the result of it, unintended, will be for fewer municipalities to contract with them to provide school bus service because the municipalities will not have to carry out Federal mandates regarding safety equipment on the bus so they will have a lower cost whereas the private school bus operators will have to carry that out. So I repeat, I feel very strongly that this amendment does not gut the bill. The bill remains strong, very strong. And frankly it is revolutionary in its impact, forcing us to face the cost, setting hurdles, and including setting that high hurdle when we mandate that a State and local government perform a function uniquely. And that is where most of the dollars are that we mandate the State and local governments to pay. So I urge my colleagues to consider supporting this bill across party lines. I think it is fair. It is good for the private sector. And it is good for the public, too, insofar as they are concerned about us protecting their health and safety. [[Page S1176]] Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I will yield in a moment to my colleague from North Dakota, but I want to say in response, on my own time, to one of the statements made by the Senator from Georgia, that the reference to the Motor-Voter Act is in point. I want to reassure him that under this amendment, the motor-voter law would still have to pass the two hurdles, be subject to the two points of order, and could be suspended in its impact if the Federal Government did not pay the costs of the State's implementing it because it is a unique governmental function. The State and local governments, in implementing the Motor-Voter Act are not competing with any private sector businesses. This is a delegation of responsibility that we put on the States uniquely unless, under the terms of the bill which are generally part of S. 1, there was an estimate that it would not cost $50 million in any given year of its implementation. So the example is a good one to indicate exactly how S. 1, if our amendment were adopted, would impact mandates, mandates uniquely on State and local governments such as motor voter or the large most costly mandates that I indicated earlier, and referenced specifically earlier, would still be faced with the two hurdles. That is quite different from mandates, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, which are aimed at solving a national problem, guaranteeing people pure drinking water regardless of whether they get it from public or private sources. Madam President, I yield now 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan].

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield myself as much time as I need. I have just a brief statement to thank my friend and colleague and leader from the Governmental Affairs Committee, the Senator from Ohio, for his cosponsorship of this amendment. He has been a leader in the whole crusade to force the Federal Government to confront the costs of its enactments on State and local governments and on the private sector. He is a cosponsor of the underlying bill, S. 1, and so I am particularly heartened and appreciative that he has agreed to cosponsor this amendment, which, in my opinion, does not go to the heart of this measure. It goes to the margins, which is its application and applicability. It is a simple amendment which slightly narrows the definition of the term ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' so it does not include a provision ``in any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would apply in the same manner to the activities, facilities or services of State, local or tribal governments and the private sector.'' The Senator from Ohio has stated his concern about the unintended consequence here, that this will put disproportionate burdens on the private sector in excusing the public sector. Again, I thank him for his leadership on this issue and for his support. I hope in the end I can join him in supporting S. 1 by itself. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I yield as much time to the Senator from Ohio as he needs.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor one of Connecticut's great Revolutionary War heroes, Col. Seth Warner. Tragically, the accomplishments of this extraordinary American have not been properly heralded by history, and I believe the time is past due for us to honor him. I salute the dedication of Edward S. Caco, Jr., of Roxbury, CT, in researching and recognizing the Colonel's great work and life. I have set forth below a discussion of Colonel Warner's life prepared by Mr. Caco. I can only hope this entry, by Mr. Caco, describing the importance of the Colonel's contribution to American independence, helps to bring the recognition he deserves. I sincerely thank Mr. Caco for his fine work on Colonel Warner's life. * * * Colonel Seth Warner was born in Roxbury on the 17th day of May, 1743. As a man, he was over six feet tall, and was courageous and commanding. Engaged in the controversy with New York, he was fully prepared to engage in our Revolutionary struggle. He was personally present in many engagements in the northern colonies. It has been reported that General Washington relied especially upon Colonel Ethan Allen and Colonel Seth Warner [who were cousins], considering them as among the most active, daring, and trustworthy of this officers. Not long after the victories of Ticonderoga and Crown Point, Seth Warner was appointed as a Delegate to the Continental Congress. Shortly thereafter, he was enrolled as part of the regular Continental Army. Seth Warner was appointed the Commander of the regiment by the officers and men, who felt that his calm and wise judgment would serve them best in the serious business of war that lie ahead. It was at Longueil Canada in 1775 that Colonel Warner fought a rear guard action against the advancing enemy, covering the retreat of General Sullivan. The retreat became a route and it was Colonel Warner that protected the rear and brought up the sick and wounded. The stricken and defeated army made its way to the safety of Crown Point, and later on to Ticonderoga. Though the Colonel was successful in carrying out his orders, it was this flight from the enemy forces which broke his iron constitution and began the malady that would eventually take this life. Several months later in July of 1776, Seth was again called upon to fight a rear guard action to cover the retreat of General St. Clair's forces from Ticonderoga. At Hubbardton, along with units from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the Colonel made a stand against a combined unit of British and Hessian forces. During this engagement the Massachusetts unit scattered, and the New Hampshire unit surrendered, leaving Colonel Warner and his men to stand alone. Though his unit was forced off the field, Colonel Warner was entirely successful in the duties to which he was assigned. * * * In spite of his failing health, the Colonel carried out his orders, led his men into battle, and was to have no rest as Burhoyne was on the march. In August of 1777, General Stark was engaging the Hessians of Burgoyne's command at Bennington. The first action had been fought and the Hessians were already winning the day. A powerful enemy reinforcement was taking to the field when Seth arrived with his regiment. General Stark ordered Seth to ride on the line and order a retreat into the middle of Bennington. Seth refused that order, much to General Stark's surprise, stating instead that he was certain that he could get his men into action on the ground. General Stark agreed and the day was won. Once again it was Colonel Seth Warner's fiery courage and steady judgment that had turned the tide of the battle. General Stark stated in his report to General Washington, ``Colonel Warner's strategy and judgment was of extraordinary service to me.'' In recognition of his valor and service, Seth was promoted to the full rank of Colonel. It has been said that if Seth had retired from the service at this time, he may have to a certain extent retained his health. However, with Seth the needs of his burgeoning country always took precedence over his own welfare, as well as the needs of his own family. With failing health, Seth continued to fight the ravages of the Indians and the ever present Tories. Not one to remain idle for any length of time, Seth led a scouting party in 1780. It was on this mission that Seth was ambushed by the Indians. In the melee of battle the two officers by his side were killed and Seth received two bullets through his arm. This was the end of Colonel Seth Warner's active military career. He retired to his Vermont residence for two years to recuperate. In 1783 Seth returned to his native Roxbury and established a homestead. Still in a great deal of pain from his wounds and malady, Seth spent time by the seashore hoping that this would give him some respite. This was to prove fruitless, and he returned to his home where he lingered in suffering and delirium for several months. At times neighbors were needed to assist in his care. Finally, on December 26, 1784, Colonel Seth Warner was relieved of his pain and suffering through his merciful death. * * * The entry on Colonel Warner's tombstone well summarizes his life. In Memory of Colonel Seth Warner, Esq., Who Departed This Life December 26th, A.D. 1784. In the Forty-Second Year of His Age Triumphant leader at our armies' head, Whose martial glory struck a panic dread, Thy warlike deeds engraven on this stone, Tell future ages what a hero's done, Full sixteen battles he did fight, for to procure his country's right. Oh! this brave hero, he did fall, By death, who ever conquers all. When this you see, remember me.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Welfare Reforms That Work Act of 1995. The welfare system is in crisis. The United States has one of the most expensive welfare systems in the world. But 20 percent of America's children are poor, a higher percentage than any other industrialized country. The welfare system is a disaster for those who are on it and those who pay for it. This Congress has a historic opportunity to begin to fix this disaster. The primary welfare program--Aid to Families With Dependent Children [AFDC]--is viewed by those participating in it and those paying for it as a failure. It is failing at its primary task, moving people into the work force. Worse yet, it is contributing to the cycle of poverty. By rewarding single parents who don't work, don't marry, and have additional children out of wedlock, the current system demeans our most cherished values and deepens society's most serious problems. Democrats, Republicans, and the American [[Page S1224]] public agree that the system must be changed. But little consensus exists on how best to reform the system so that it promotes work and family. Last year both President Clinton and Republicans in Congress proposed legislation that would impose time limits and work requirements on welfare recipients and would begin to turn welfare incentives around. But in this Congress some have gone further. The Republican Contract With America proposes, among other things, ending benefits abruptly for teenage mothers who have children out of wedlock. More recently some Members have advocated giving the States total control of AFDC and other Federal welfare programs, ending the entitlement status of these programs, and capping Federal outlays. While I believe that each of these ideas should be tested to see if they will produce better results than the current failed welfare system, I cannot support mandating any of them nationally because no one knows whether they will work. If Congress imposes them nationally and they do not work, millions of children's lives will be put at risk. While I am pleased to see that my colleagues are advocating State flexibility, I am concerned about their blank-check approach. I agree that States should be the testing ground for bold programmatic changes. But handing the AFDC Program over to the States with no strings attached does not guarantee reform and may produce national division and welfare shopping. And, placing caps on block grants works against State flexibility by limiting State experiments to those that save money in the short term but may do nothing to promote work and reconstruct families in the long term. The American people are asking us to reform, not eliminate, the way we are carrying out our responsibility to help poor children. Mr. President, today I am proposing an alternative welfare reform approach that I hope will meet our welfare reform goals in a way that is acceptable to both sides of the aisle--the Welfare Reforms That Work Act. The bill would allow States to test--with appropriate Federal oversight--bold welfare reform initiatives that are promising but unproven, and that involve some human or financial risk. It would also establish a process for identifying successful reform approaches-- welfare reforms that work--that can be applied nationally. The bill does not preclude our mandating immediately those reforms about which there is growing agreement--such as requiring unwed teenage mothers to live at home as a condition of receiving welfare payments--and which involve limited human risk or Federal expense. States should be at the forefront of reform for three reasons. First, a State-based approach is financially prudent. Some reforms that merit testing--including imposing time limits and work requirements or expanding residential child care options, including orphanages--will cost money in the short term. In an article in the New Republic, Paul Offner of the Senate Finance Committee staff advises us to learn an important lesson from the 1988 Family Support Act: overly ambitious and underfunded reform efforts are doomed to failure. They do little to change the expectations of those working in the system or those using it. My bill would allow States to fund ambitious changes at the more affordable city, county, or State level. Second, a State-driven approach allows us to test bold changes responsibly. We have few proposed reforms that we know will work, and those that have been tested, such as the model education and training programs launched in California and Florida, have delivered only marginal results to date. In a recent Wall Street Journal James Q. Wilson bluntly confessed that he simply does not know what reforms will work. Absent better information, we would be wise to heed the advice of proverbs and avoid zealous acts without knowledge. Changes to welfare are consequential. They affect people's lives, children's lives. Under my bill States could test bold welfare rules changes--such as totally denying benefits to teenage mothers or establish orphanages--but only if the States can ensure that children are not unintended victims of these tests. As we try to change the behavior of parents, we must not cause more pain to the children. Third, States are eager and able to lead our reform efforts. In testimony last year before the Senate Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy, the American Public Welfare Association [APWA] and other State organizations indicated their strong desire to pursue innovative strategies. When I introduced S. 1932, a similar State-based welfare reform bill last year, all 11 States that commented on the bill praised the bill's general approach. States are already leading the way. Over half the States have proposed reforms and received waivers from Federal rules under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to implement their proposed changes. My own State of Connecticut recently received a waiver to implement a comprehensive reform initiative. But the waiver process does not go far enough. In testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations last September, the APWA, State welfare administrators, and other witnesses testified that the budget neutrality requirement of the current process creates a substantial barrier to reform. As States seek to promote work and family through changing eligibility rules, it give States an incentive to test sticks but not carrots. Witnesses at the hearing urged that the Federal Government share in the cost of demonstrations programs, make the results of demonstrations readily available, and tallow States to adopt, without a waiver, those demonstrations that prove effective. In other words, we must be honest and acknowledge that we may have to spend a little more money in the short run to save a lot more money and a lot more lives in the long run. My bill addresses these and other concerns voiced by States about the current waiver process. To ensure that States will be able to test the broadest array of reforms, my bill authorizes $675 million over 5 years to support demonstration projects and independent program evaluations. Half of these funds would support innovative pilot programs specified in the bill, and the remaining half would fund other State-proposed demonstrations. Demonstration projects would last up to 5 years. States would report on progress annually. As results of interim and final reports on State tests become available, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] will submit legislation to Congress to provide for the national implementation of successful programs. As a result of this process, those innovations that proved successful could be rapidly adopted by other States or imposed nationwide. The bill promotes State-initiated welfare reforms that meet what I believe should be our four main reform goals: moving welfare recipients into the work force; strengthening families, stopping illegitimate births and breaking the cycle of welfare dependency; increasing child support collection and paternal responsibility, and improving the delivery of welfare services. title i authorizes initiatives to move welfare recipients into the work force We must make returning to work the primary focus of the welfare system. The current system demands little of people on welfare. It often impedes, rather than empowers, those who seek to return to the work force. If an AFDC mother goes back to work, her income increases only minimally--often not enough to cover child care--and she loses her Medicaid benefits. She is likely to be economically worse off if she returns to the work force, so she stays on welfare. Title I includes initiatives to move people on welfare into the work force. Two pilot programs focus on teenage parents--those at greatest risk for long-term welfare dependency. The first allows States to condition AFDC benefits for single parents under 20 years of age on: first, attending school, participating in job training or holding a job; and second, living at home. The second allows States to include young AFDC clients in the Job Corps--a successful, residential antipoverty program for youths 16 to 22 years of age. Title I also allows States to require 30 days of State-assisted job search or, where appropriate, substance abuse treatment, during the usual lag time between application for and receipt of search from the day they first seek a welfare grant. Other provisions in this title assist people on welfare in accumulating assets to invest in education or to start a small business. title II authorizes initiatives to strengthen families and break the cycle of welfare dependency Current Federal welfare rules discourage family unification and encourage out-of-wedlock childbearing. This title seeks to turn these incentives around. It recognizes that while welfare is a privilege granted by Government, not a right for parents, the States and the Federal Government have a moral responsibility to ensure the well-being of American children. The title seeks to address what is perhaps the most compelling and difficult challenge of welfare reform, to discourage out-of-wedlock births without harming children. An increasing percentage of those entering the welfare system are never-married mothers at greatest risk of long-term welfare dependency. Between 1983 and 1992, families headed by unwed mothers accounted for about four-fifths of the growth in people on welfare, and at least 40 percent of never-married mothers receiving AFDC remain in the system for 10 years or more. Never-married teen parents are particularly likely to fall into long- term welfare dependency. More than one half of welfare spending goes to women who first gave birth as teens. As William Raspberry noted last winter in a Washington Post column aptly entitle ``Out of Wedlock, Out of Luck,'' children born to parents who had their first child out-of- wedlock before they finished high school and reached the age of 20 are ``almost guaranteed a life of poverty.'' In other words, they and their parents are almost guaranteed a life on welfare. Citing William A. Galston's analyses, Raspberry notes that a startling 79 percent of children in this category lived in poverty in 1992. In contrast, only 8 percent of children whose parents had achieved all three milestones-- marriage, graduation, and the 20th birthday--before having their first child were living in poverty. The potential effect of welfare on illegitimacy has taken center stage in the welfare reform debate but there is considerable disagreement about its effects. David Ellwood, economist and Department of Heath and Human Services official, has found little evidence that welfare contributes to the increase in illegitimacy. In his book, ``Poor Support,'' he points to several other concurrent social changes that are likely contributors to the increase--the growing percentage of women in the work force, the drop in earnings and rise in unemployment among young men, and changes in attitudes toward marriage. Others interpret the data differently. Most notably, Charles Murray believes that welfare is the primary cause of the increase in illegitimate births. In a catalytic Wall Street Journal article published October 29, 1993, Murray argues that welfare has reduced the economic penalty associated with out-of-wedlock childbearing and, in turn, has reduced the social stigma associated with it. He concludes that the removal of both of these disincentives has led to more out-of- wedlock births. Based on this conclusion, Murray recommends the dramatic step of ending welfare altogether. Murray acknowledges that his approach may put this generation of children at risk and advocates, among other things, Government investment in new facilities to care for these children--thus the ensuing brouhaha about orphanages--just the kinds of facilities this act would enable states to create. The stigma of illegitimacy was not just an accident of social history; it was a societal attempt to protect children. Today, the stigma is largely gone and so the children have suffered terribly. Raspberry's previously mentioned article cites polling results indicating that 70 percent of Americans aged 18 to 34 believe that people having children out of wedlock do not deserve any moral reproach. That is an outrageous result, one that we must turn around because the decision to bear a child has profound moral and human content. We must infuse our children with a clear understanding of the consequences of teenage childbearing. We must teach them that it is wrong to have children unless you are married, always morally wrong for the mother and father, and usually horrible for the child and the mother. Few would argue that a national campaign to discourage unmarried teenagers from having children is not a good thing to do. Indeed, Senate Minority leader Daschle introduced a bill, S. 8, on the first day of this session to combat teen pregnancy. His bill, among other things, would require unwed mothers under age 18 to live at home or in an alternative adult-supervised living arrangement as a condition of receiving AFDC. This measure seems appropriate; it would eliminate the incentive teenagers now have to bear a child so they can move out of the house, and it imposes little risk to the children of teenagers who have a child anyway. The more difficult question for those of us working on welfare reform is this: Should we pursue changes in welfare policy--such as cutting off benefits to teenage mothers--that may discourage out-of-wedlock births but would put children at risk? Some might say no, believing that there is little correlation between welfare and out-of-wedlock births. The empirical evidence is generally viewed as inconclusive. But some controlled studies have demonstrated a positive association between welfare payments and out-of-wedlock births, and my own conversations with teenage mothers bears this out. If we choose to reduce or eliminate AFDC grants to deter childbearing, however, we should acknowledge that a portion of the current and potential welfare population--perhaps a small but significant portion--is unlikely to respond to stronger inducements and penalties and will continue to have children society must provide for. In a Los Angeles Times article published last January, Adela de la Torre, an economist at California State University at Long Beach, writes that the children of such parents ``become victims of trickle down welfare programs * * * if we deem the parent unfit for welfare support, the child, too, loses.'' De la Torre rejects the notion that building stronger parental inducements into the welfare system will change the behavior of all parents and calls instead for a more child- centered social service agenda that recognizes and serves the needs of children in a more direct, comprehensive, and integrated fashion. She makes an important point. Similarly, Thomas Corbett of the University of Wisconsin asks in a spring, 1993 Focus article whether it is ``compassionate to throw a little bit of welfare into troubled families and do little else to aid the children?'' The answer is, of course, relative. AFDC reflects our best intentions toward these children, but it has more often failed them. Whether cash payments to unresponsive parents is the most compassionate approach, Corbett concludes, ``depends partly on how many children are involved and whether we can design and finance the technologies required to assist them.'' It is incumbent on us, as part of welfare reform, to explore the alternatives to a largely parent-based system, and find the answers to his question. Title II of the bill supports State efforts to do just that. Section 201 allows States to shift part or all of AFDC payments to block grants and combine the grants with other funds available under this bill to care for children, strengthen families, and implement other reforms. In contrast to the Republican block grant proposals, however, the provision requires the Secretary of HHS to ensure that States pursuing the Block Grant Program protect the well-being of affected children. Title II supports other demonstrations as well, including pilots that discourage welfare recipients from having additional children while on welfare by denying benefit increases for additional children and pilots to test innovative teen pregnancy prevention programs. title iii of the bill authorizes state initiatives to increase child support collection and paternal responsibility Too often absent parents, typically fathers, are not held accountable for their children's care. The Federal Government must also take the lead in improving child support enforcement. As a starting point, we should fully implement the recommendations of the U.S. Congress Senator Bill Bradley, a member of the Commission, introduced S. 689, the Interstate Child Support Enforcement Act, to implement the Commission's recommendations. My Connecticut colleague, Congresswoman Kennelly, also a Commission member, introduced a similar bill, H.R. 1961, in the House. This year I will again support Senator Bradley's legislation which will, among other things: Mandate hospital-based paternity acknowledgement programs; require employers to submit W-4 forms for all new employees to State child support enforcement agencies; and provide States the authority they need to assert jurisdiction over nonresident parents. The era of deadbeat dads should end. While improving interstate coordination is critical to strengthening child support enforcement, State innovation should play a role as well. Title III of my bill authorizes State efforts to improve child support collection and paternity establishment. To strengthen welfare recipients incentives to work with authorities to collect child support, it would allow States to increase the child support disregard from $50 to a higher level decided by the State. States could also hold parents accountable for the child support obligations of their minor children. Additionally, States could propose their own demonstrations projects to increase paternity establishment and improve child support collection. title IV authorizes initiatives to diversify and improve the performance of welfare services Changing the welfare system to move people back into the work force and to better serve the needs of children will require changing the way the welfare bureaucracy does business. Too many welfare workers focus on whether and how to get a welfare check to the recipient rather than how to get the recipient off of welfare and back to work. Many welfare offices don't know how many children they have in foster care. Many still operate out of cardboard files and lose people in the shuffle of paper. Offices often suffer from interagency rivalry and bureaucratic bickering. It is tragic when a child suffers needlessly because the system fails under the weight of its own inefficiency. This need not happen. Some innovative States and municipalities have tried to make their welfare systems more efficient and service oriented. At a hearing I held in the last Congress, Carmen Nazario, the Secretary of Health and Human Services in Delaware, testified that her State has brought public and private social services together in a single location and is now developing a computer network to link programs. David Truax from the Maryland Department of Human Resources described a second approach to improving services. Maryland now provides each participant with a debit card that has AFDC, food stamps, and general assistance benefits on it. Electronic benefit transfer [EBT] cards have several advantages: They preclude the trading of food stamps for drugs; they introduce people to the banking system; they make it easier for them to budget their money since they don't have to cash one single check, and they reduce recipients vulnerability to crime. Further, offices should encourage and empower, not discourage and demean, those they serve. It can be done. America Works, a private organization that trains people on welfare for work and places them in jobs, provides proof. During my visit to their Hartford, CT, office I found that clients felt they were getting the help they needed to succeed, and were motivated and optimistic. I asked one young woman who had just completed her training if she expected to be placed successfully in a job. She responded with enthusiasm, ``absolutely.'' This spirit does not typically pervade traditional welfare offices. Most important, welfare offices should be held accountable for results. They need to make the shift from writing checks to moving people on welfare into jobs. To promote this change, we should seek to establish competition among agencies and greater choice for people on welfare. We should encourage public agencies to contract with effective private sector companies and to better reward those public employees who successfully help people become self-sufficient. Title IV supports initiatives to diversify and improve the performance of welfare services. It supports State pilots to provide incentives to private sector, for-profit and nonprofit groups to place people on welfare in private sector jobs. Companies would keep a portion of welfare savings as payment for successful job placements. Title IV also supports State pilots to improve the performance of welfare office employees through, for example, providing direct bonuses to employees and judging their performance based on their clients' progress toward self-sufficiency. In addition, title IV incorporates legislation I introduced earlier this month with Senators Domenici, Feinstein, Pressler, and Hatfield to remove a Federal barrier to improving services. That bill, S. 131, the Electronic Benefits Regulatory Relief Act of 1995, exempts EBT cards from the Federal Reserve Board's regulation E. Regulation E limits cardholder liability to $50 for lost or stolen cards--a policy that promotes fraud and makes EBT Programs costly for States. Earlier this month the Vice President issued the first report from the EBT task force and called for nationwide implementation. Without passage of this provision, that goal will not be reached. finally, title v authorizes offsetting expenditure reductions to ensure the bill is budget neutral In other words, the bills pay for itself. Specifically, it eliminates the three-entity rule. Currently, an individual farmer can qualify for up to $125,000 per year in certain Government subsidies. If he forms two other business entities with two other individuals (say, a friend and a sister), each of these entities can qualify for another $125,000 per year. So the individual farmer can receive up to $250,000 in subsidies per year--$125,000 for his first business entity, and half of $125,000 for each of his second and third entities. My bill says, ``enough is enough,'' and caps the amount of agricultural subsidies any one person gets from the Federal Government at $125,000. A preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimate indicates this change will save $675 million over 5 years, money that is better spent on the truly needy. Americans continue to show concern for the poor, and particularly poor children. A 1994 poll commissioned by the Children's Defense Fund and others found that 64 percent of Americans believe we should spend more on poor children. But the same poll found that 55 percent think we spend too much on welfare, and 68 percent think we should not increase payments to parents for any additional children they have while on welfare. Our current approach to helping the poor is clearly not working. The goal of welfare reform is to shake up the status quo which promotes dependency, illegitimacy, and social disfunctions like crime into a system that promotes work, family, and responsibility and protects children from a life of poverty. The Federal Government does not have a ready formula for how to achieve this goal. I concur with my colleagues who say that we should look to the States for answers. But we must proceed in a way that meets our obligation to ensure the well-being of all of America's children. Our aim should be to make sure that this generation of welfare children do not become the next generation of welfare parents. This bill offers an approach to do just that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I support this amendment because it puts the Senate on record opposing the national standards for U.S. and world history which, while not endorsed by any Federal agency, were developed with Federal tax dollars first issued in 1991. While not a Federal mandate in that sense, they are voluntary, nonetheless, I rise to speak in opposition to them because they carry the imprimatur of the Federal Government, and have the capacity to broadly affect the course of education and the teaching and understanding of history by succeeding generations of our children, the American children. Mr. President, I should make clear, as I believe the Senator from Washington has made clear, that I support the idea of setting national voluntary standards to upgrade our education and to give us something to aim for. But I must say that the standards that were produced, the national standards for U.S. and world history that are at the core of what this amendment is about, were a terrific disappointment and may undercut some of the fundamentals, the core values, the great personalities and heroes of America and Western civilization and world history. By doing so, we put our children at risk of not being fairly and broadly educated. While the hope of those involved at the time that these standards were authorized, which goes back some years, was clearly to encourage State and local educators to raise standards in the teaching of history to elementary and secondary school students, the draft proposed is full of the kind of valueless, all-points-of-view-are-equally-valid nonsense that I thought we had left behind--and I certainly believe we should leave behind--in the teaching of our children. The history that many of us who are older learned in school obviously had its failings. It was not as inclusive as it should have been in many ways. But at least it provided core information about who we are as a nation and how our world and our Nation have progressed over time. Mr. President, we have a lot to be proud of in American history. This was established--now more than 200 years ago--by a courageous, principled, and patriotic group of Founders and Framers who were not casual about what they were doing. They were motivated by an idea, by a set of values, and it is part of our responsibility as this generation of adults, let alone as this generation of elected officials and national leaders, to convey that sense of our history--about which we have so much to be proud--to our children. First, in the interest of truth, because the American idea is a unique idea and has dramatically and positively affected the course of world history since the founding of this country--not just the course of world history in a macro sense, in a cosmic sense--it has positively affected, in the most dramatic way, the course of the lives of millions of Americans and millions of other people around the world who have been influenced by the American idea and by American heroes. And we ought not to let that be disparaged. We ought not to let that uniqueness, that special American purpose, be lost in a kind of ``everything is equal, let us reach out and make up for the past exclusions in our history'' set of standards. So to me this is consequential. I guess the social scientists tell us that our children should think well of themselves if we expect them to do good things; that they have to have a good self-image. They mean this in the most personal sense of how parents raise children, how society gives children an impression of themselves. I say that in a broader sense of citizenship, our country has a responsibility, honestly and accurately conveying some of the blemishes as well as the great beauty of our history, to give our children a sense of self-worth as Americans. And part of that is respecting the great leaders in America that have gone before. Mr. President, these draft standards are, alternatively, so overinclusive as to lose major events in American and world history, major participants, leaders, heroes in American and world history, in a tumble of information about everybody and everything. And then, on the other hand, they are oddly underinclusive about important events, people and concepts. Robert E. Lee, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers, just to name a few, appear nowhere in these standards. Thomas Edison, whose most memorable invention has become the very symbol of a good idea--the light bulb--is not mentioned. Albert Einstein, whose extraordinary contributions to our sense of the physical universe, let alone beyond, who changed our understanding of our existence in so many dramatic ways--not mentioned. The Wright Brothers, whose courage and boldness and inventiveness, steadfastness-- with the development of airplanes, flight--has dramatically affected the lives of each of us and of society--not even mentioned in these standards. In another way, in the world history standards, slavery is mentioned briefly in reference to Greece. The only other discussion of slavery concerns the transatlantic slave trade. Slavery, to the world's shame, existed in many cultures over many centuries, and those examples are not mentioned. The Holocaust in Nazi Germany received significant attention, as it should. But the death, persecution, and humiliation in a cultural revolution in China go by with barely a whisper. There is nothing in the cold war section of these standards, this experience that dominated the lives of most of us in this Chamber from the end of the Second World War to 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed. The section on the cold war does not give the reader, the student, the teacher, the sense that that conflict involved principles at all, involved ideals. It describes it, in my opinion, solely as a contest for power. There is no indication that we were fighting a battle for democracy--not just a system, a way of government, but a way of government that has a particular view of what humans are all about, and a particular view that is rooted, I think, in the idea and the principle that people have a Creator. We say it in our founding documents, ``that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights,'' not a casual accident of nature, but a conscious act by a Creator. Democracy is on the one hand, and totalitarianism is on the other, which denies all of that. The cold war is described blandly and revealingly in one sentence as ``the swordplay of the Soviet Union and the United States.'' Inadequate, to put it mildly; insulting, to put it more honestly and directly. We do not need sanitized history that only celebrates our triumphs, Mr. President. But we also do not need to give our children a warped and negative view of Western civilization, of American civilization, of the accomplishments, the extraordinary accomplishments and contributions of both. I recognize that the Federal Government is not talking about forcing these standards on anybody. These standards were always intended to be voluntary, and I recognize that the standards we are talking about are not final. They are in a draft form. But the standards, by virtue of their being developed with Federal funds, have the unavoidable imprimatur of the Federal Government. Ten thousand of these are available throughout America. It is a very official-looking text. I, for one, worry that some well-meaning official of a local school district will get hold of it and think this is what we in Washington have decided is what the teaching of American and world history ought to be all about. In fact, I have been told that text book publishers are waiting to see what happens next with these standards so they can make their own plans as to whether to adopt the draft standards wholesale. In fact, I have heard also that some school districts are close to adopting them. I think it is particularly appropriate that my colleague from Washington has chosen this bill about mandates and Federal involvement in our society for us to speak out, to make sure that no one misunderstands these standards, to hope that teachers, parents, and students will understand the ways in which some of us feel they are deficient, and that, as the business of setting such standards goes forward from here, they will be developed with a better sense of balance and fairness and pride. History is important. We learn from it. It tells us who we are, and from our sense of who we are, we help determine who we will be by our actions. The interest in these standards, in some sense, confirms the importance of history. And what I am saying, and what I believe Senator Gorton is saying, is that we should celebrate the vitality of that interest in history by starting over to develop standards that more fairly reflect the American experience, not to mention world history, and to particularly give better and fairer attention to the positive and optimistic accomplishments and nature of the American people. I thank the Chair, and I congratulate my friend from Washington for taking the initiative on this matter. I yield the floor. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton]. In fact, I ask unanimous consent at this point that I be added as an original cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, since 1983, the United States Congress and the German Parliament, the Bundestag, have conducted an annual exchange program for staff members from both countries. The program gives professional staff the opportunity to observe and learn about the workings of each other's political institutions and convey Members' views on issues of mutual concern. This year marks the fifth exchange with a reunified Germany and a parliament consisting of members from all 16 German states. A delegation of staff members from the United States Congress will be chosen to visit Germany from May 7 to May 20. During the 2-week exchange, most of it will be spent at meetings conducted by Bundestag Members, Bundestag party staff members, and representatives of political, business, academic, and the media. Cultural activities and a weekend visit in a Bundestag Member's district round out the exchange. A comparable delegation of German staff members will visit the United States in July for a 3-week period. They will attend similar meetings here Members over the Fourth of July recess. The Congress-Bundestag Exchange is highly regarded in Germany, and is one of several exchange programs sponsored by public and private institutions in the United States and Germany to foster better understanding of the politics and policies of both countries. The U.S. delegation should consist of experienced and accomplished Hill staff members who can contribute to the success of the exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. The Bundestag sends senior staff professionals to the United States. The United States endeavors to reciprocate. Applicants should have a demonstrable interest in events in Europe. Applicants need not be working in the field of foreign affairs, although such a background can be helpful. The composite United States delegation should exhibit a range of expertise in issues of mutual concern in Germany and the United States such as, but not limited to, trade, security, the environment, immigrations, economic development, health care, and other social policy issues. In addition, U.S. participants are expected to help plan and implement the program for the Bundestag staff members when they visit the United States. Participants are expected to assist in planning topical meetings in Washington, and are encouraged to host one or two staff people in their Member's district over the Fourth of July, or to arrange for such a visit to another Member's district. Participants will be selected by a committee composed of U.S. Information Agency personnel and past participants of the exchange. Senators and Representatives who would like a member of their staff to apply for participation in this year's program should direct them to submit a resume and cover letter in which they state why they believe they are qualified, and some assurances of their ability to participate during the time stated. Applications may be sent to Kathie Scarrah, in my office at 316 Hart Senate Building, by Wednesday, February 15.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to the Senate and my constituents my reason for missing two votes on Friday, January 9. These votes were on two separate amendments offered to S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act. The first amendment, offered by Senator Exon, would have created a point of order against any budget resolution brought before the Congress that fails to set forth a glide path to a balanced budget by the year 2002. The amendment would also make out of order any budget resolution or amendment to the Budget Act that sets forth a level of outlays for fiscal year 2002 that exceeds the level of revenues for that fiscal year. This amendment is printed on page S540 of the Congressional Record of January 6, 1995. The second amendment in question was offered by Senator Simon. This sense-of-the-Senate resolution called on the Bridgestone/Firestone Corp. to reconsider its decision to hire permanent replacement workers and return to the bargaining table and bargain in representative of their employees. This amendment is printed on page S557 of the Congressional Record of January 6, 1995. Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent from the Senate when rollcall votes were held on these two measures on the afternoon of the 9th. Earlier that day I felt compelled to leave Washington, DC in order to tend to an important family matter. I regret my necessary absence, and I would like to explain how I would have voted on these amendments and my thoughts on the substance of the amendments. Before any amendments were offered to S. 2, I decided to vote against the addition of all nongermane amendments that my colleagues might offer. As a sponsor of S. 2, I saw the need to move the bill though the Senate without the addition of nongermane amendments which would have slowed passage of the bill and possibly forced a lengthy and contentious conference between the Senate and the House. I felt it was in the interest of the entire Congress that we take quick and decisive action on S. 2. I am convinced that the best way for Democrats and Republicans to begin the 104th Congress is by promptly enacting this legislation, which helps restore the American public's confidence in our system of governance. I believe that quick enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, which will require Congress to live by the same laws it imposes on the rest of the country, will go a long way toward achieving that goal. I was concerned that amendment to S. 2 would force a lengthy conference and delay the bill. Had I not felt the need to vote against all amendments to S. 2 in order to expedite swift passage, I would have voted in favor of the Exon amendment to require a roadmap to a balanced budget by the year 2002. While I wholeheartedly endorse the goal of a balanced budget, I have long been troubled by the fact that we have not come up with a coherent plan that will get us to that goal. As we all know, the devil is in the details, and the Exon amendment sought to get at those details. For this reason, I support the thrust of the Exon amendment, and I anticipate Senator Exon will offer it again when the Senate considers the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Mr. President, I would also like to note my support for the thrust of the Simon sense-of-the-Senate resolution. This resolution simply sought to express the collective view of the Senate that Bridgestone/Firestone should not replace thousands of its striking workers with permanent replacements. The resolution would have had no binding legal effect on the parties in dispute, but its intent was entirely consistent with the National Labor Relations Act, which requires parties in a collective bargaining dispute to negotiate in good faith. The Simon resolution asks Bridgestone/Firestone to resume good faith negotiations with its striking employees, and that is a goal I support. Mr. President, I would also like to note that I voted against the adoption of many amendments during consideration of S. 2 which I would ordinarily support. Among these are many of the amendments regarding campaign finance reform and the Levin-Wellstone-Feingold-Lautenberg amendment regarding a prohibition on gifts to members of Congress and their staff and full disclosure of lobbyists and their contacts. These were worthy measures which I have supported in the past, and I note that the majority leader has indicated he would bring to the Senate floor legislation prohibiting gifts and requiring full disclosure of lobbying, as well as comprehensive campaign finance reform in the early months of this 104th Congress. Mr. President, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues who were instrumental in passage of the Congressional Accountability Act. Senator Grassley deserves enormous credit for his tireless efforts to build support for this legislation and his skilled stewardship of this bill on the Senate floor over the past week. Since the later years of the last decade my friend from Iowa has reminded this body on a continual basis that it cannot continue to maintain a double standard which is offensive to the public and injurious to our system of governance. Our success is due in large part to his longstanding commitment to this legislation. It was a privilege to work on this bill with him, both last year on our bill S. 2071, and on this year's version, S. 2. I would also like to thank Senator John Glenn, who moved this bill through the Governmental Affairs Committee in the 103d Congress and continued his work on this bill in the 104th Congress as the Democratic floor manager of S. 2. Like Senator Grassley, Senator Glenn's successful effort in the past week to move this bill through the Senate was the culmination of many years of work. Beginning in 1978 my friend from Ohio introduced legislation seeking to bring Congress under the same employment laws it imposes on the private sector, and so I see passage of this bill as the happy culmination of many years of work on the part of Senator Glenn. I would also like to note that immediately following Senate passage of S. 2, Senator Glenn proceeded to serve as the floor manager for the unfunded mandates bill. Acting as floor manager for one bill is difficult enough. Acting as floor manager for two complex pieces of legislation in immediate succession is a challenge that most Senators never face, and so I would like to commend Senator Glenn for his stamina, good humor, and willingness to tackle two intricate pieces of legislation at once. Mr. President, I should also mention my colleagues, in the House who originated this legislation. Congressman Christopher Shays, my friend and colleague from Connecticut, was the original author of the Congressional Accountability Act. He has been tireless in his advocacy of this legislation, and I would like to praise him for moving his bill through the House of Representatives not only last year, but also again on the first day of the 104th Congress. I offer him my congratulations on his great success. Last among my colleagues I would like to thank the majority leader, Senator Dole, for giving this bill privileged consideration as the first bill brought to the Senate floor in the 104th Congress. I believe the majority leader wisely saw that quick passage of this bill could help restore the public's faith in Congress and the ability of our two political parties to work together again, and I offer him my sincere thanks for choosing to designate the Congressional Accountability Act as S. 2. Finally, I would like to thank all the staff who worked tirelessly on this legislation. I would like to thank Melissa Patack, formerly of Senator Grassley's staff, who worked with my staff to formulate the first bill, S. 2071, which Senator Grassley and I authored in the 103d Congress. I would also like to thank Frederick S. Ansell of Senator Grassley's staff, who worked many long hours over the holidays to finish preparation of the bill for floor action in early January. This was an extremely demanding task, and I thank Fred for his sacrifice, patience, and good humor. I would also like to thank Lawrence B. Novey of the Governmental Affairs Committee. Larry worked many weekends and late nights in the 103d Congress to coordinate the committee's hearings on this legislation, organize a markup, draft the committee report, and ready the bill for floor consideration in October. The bill the Senate passed on Wednesday is based largely on the committee-passed bill, so it is fitting that we recognize Larry's enormous contributions to the bill. Larry also spent many long hours over the holidays preparing the bill for floor action, and we are clearly the benefactors of his commitment, wide knowledge, and legal skill. My thanks also go to Michael Fox and Peter Carson of Congressman Shays' staff, who first began work on the Congressional Accountability Act and produced H.R. 349, the very first version of the bill. By aggressively seeking a wide, bipartisan group of cosponsors and the consent of the House leadership in the 103d Congress, Peter and Michael assisted Congressman Shays in laying the political foundation of this bill, and made it that much easier for my staff to do the same in the Senate. Before concluding, I would like to offer many thanks to our Senate Legal Counsel, Michael Davidson, and his assistant counsel, Claire M. Sylvia. Mike and Claire provided invaluable counsel points to constitutional issues surrounding this legislation. As always, their counsel was sound, impartial, and imbued with the wisdom and insight of a first-rate legal team. In addition to the gratitude that Senator Grassley and I owe Michael and Claire, I believe the Senate and indeed, the entire Congress, is indebted to them, because their counsel has improved the substance of this legislation so greatly. Michael Davidson and his staff are a great credit to the U.S. Senate. Finally, I would like to thank Fred Richardson and John Nakahata of my staff for their dedication to enactment of this bill. I know that the Senate's approval of this legislation on January 11 was particularly meaningful to both of them, but for very different reasons. For Fred I know it was a very happy coincidence that final passage of the Congressional Accountability Act came on his birthday, after nearly 2 years of work and countless drafts of the legislation. For John, it is with a mixture of deep personal regret and real happiness for John that I note that the day of final passage for S. 2 was also John's last day of service in the Senate. While I am very happy to see John advance his career and new challenges at the Federal Communications Commission, it is with deep sadness that I see John leave my staff. John's energy, intellect, and reputation for unfailing professionalism is well known in the Senate, and his departure is a great loss to me and my staff. He will be deeply missed. But I am very pleased that John's final day happened to coincide with passage of this legislation to which he devoted so much time and energy. John's imprint can be found throughout the text of the bill and in the history of its movement through the Senate, and so I hope he leaves the Senate with S. 2 as a memento to his talents, energy, and understanding of the institution, and also with a sense of closure and success on a very complex and important piece of legislation. Thank you, John, for your years of service and your invaluable work on the Congressional Accountability Act.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

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

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, in my home State of Connecticut we face many challenges this winter: An economy that is beginning to recover, hopes are rising, and still a lot of work to do. But there is one element of life in the State that really has brought us all closer together, and that is the University of Connecticut Huskies basketball teams. Over the last few years, the success of the UConn men's and women's basketball teams have inspired a feverish following that has actually earned its own name, which is ``Huskymania.'' Each season, these teams bring the State a little closer and make those cold Connecticut winters all the more bearable. I know the occupant of the chair has some relatives from Connecticut, and he can testify at least to the coldness of the winters. These days, we all feel with great pride that our Connecticut Huskies are top dogs. The latest basketball polls nationally show that both the men's and women's teams are ranked second in the country, which is the highest combined ranking of any school in the Nation. I think even the most passionate partisan of some other college team would recognize what a tremendous accomplishment this is for a school from a State the size of Connecticut. I think it is really a remarkable tribute to the young men and women who have worked so hard in pursuit of excellence and a dream--the school's first national championship in basketball--and to the great coaches who lead them, Jim Calhoun and Geno Auriemma. These Huskies, if I may continue this metaphor, clearly have a bite to match their bark. The 11-0 men's team is the only team among the Nation's 302 Division I schools that has yet to be beaten, and we are very proud of that. It is also worth noting that the Huskies are achieving this extraordinary start this year even after losing their All-American big man, Donyell Marshall, to the NBA. If I can extend my pride regionally, it would be important to note that the UConn men this week are second to the University of Massachusetts, which marks the first time that two teams from New England have ever been ranked 1 and 2. The UConn women's team, which is also 11-0, has been equally impressive. These Huskies have been ranked second for much of the season, actually beating their opponents by an average of more than 40 points per game. This is a very dominant team. They are led by All- American center Rebecca Lobo, who is an exceptional student athlete-- remarkable athlete--but an extraordinary student as well. So I want to take this opportunity on this particular Friday to salute both teams who, in my opinion, are a classic example of what can happen when you aim high and work hard. I want to congratulate them on their success. I know that they have a tough road ahead of them from now on, but what they have achieved up until now should not go uncomplimented and they should know how much we appreciate them. This Monday, the UConn women will face the No. 1 Tennessee Volunteers, and on that same day, the UConn men will get a big test when they play the 10th-ranked Georgetown team. Regardless of what happens, to say the obvious, the State of Connecticut feels that these Huskies are winners. We wish them the best of luck as they try to not only fulfill their dreams but ours. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to say that I support the substance of both of the amendments that have been offered. But for reasons that are similar, really, and with the same sense of urgency expressed by my friend and colleague from Arizona and consistent with the position that my friend and partner on this underlying bill, S. 2, the Senator from Iowa, has stated all along, I will oppose these amendments, as I have all other amendments to this bill. Mr. President, we have talked at length about the number of years that people have been working here in Congress to establish the basic principle of accountability. What I have said here earlier in this debate is kind of a reverse version of the Golden Rule, which is that we should do unto ourselves as we have done unto others for lo these many years, and that is to live by the laws that we imposed on the rest of America. Senator Glenn, among those who are here, in my opinion, holds the record for having started this campaign--perhaps ``crusade'' is a better term--earlier on in the late 1970's. Senator Grassley has been a leading and foremost advocate in recent years. It has been my privilege, over the last several years, to join with them, as a cosponsor of this bill with the Senator from Iowa in the last session of Congress, and a cosponsor again this year although, as I have indicated for the record, in the preceding session of Congress, this measure was known as the Lieberman-Grassley Act, and in this session it is known as the Grassley-Lieberman Act. Whatever the name, the content and the purpose is the same. And it is the long overdue recognition that there is a double standard here that is no longer acceptable, that is unfair to our employees, and that shields us from the real world experience of understanding the impact of our deliberations and our actions on those millions of people out there, particularly small business people, who must live by the laws that we pass. So when this debate began, Mr. President, I made a personal decision that when one considers the length of time that Congress has been aspiring to pass this measure, when one considers that last year it swept, in a bipartisan basis, through the House, I think with perhaps four votes opposed to it, when one considers there seemed to be a strong bipartisan support for this here in this Chamber last year, but in the final day or two of the session it was stopped from being taken up by the use of a rarely used parliamentary point, I made a judgment as this session started that I was going to oppose all amendments to S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act, that did not go to the heart and substance of this proposal but that were adding on additional thoughts, even if one could stretch and construe some connection to the basic purpose of eliminating the double standard in these employment and safety laws. It has not been pleasant or easy to sustain this position. Some of these amendments are good amendments. But it seemed to me that--not only because of my personal involvement in this issue and my desire not to gum up the works as we move toward adopting it, but also as an expression here at the outset of the session that the support for this measure is genuinely bipartisan and has always been so and is bicameral, and in fact extends to the executive branch of Government, where President Clinton has consistently over the last couple of years, and as recently as the last few days, restated his position strongly supporting the adoption of the Congressional Accountability Act--it seemed to me, mindful of the election returns last November and fresh from my own reelection campaign, in which I heard the people of Connecticut certainly clearly saying to me that they do not really care that much anymore about what party label you wear, they care about what you have done or what Congress has done, that they want the nonsense and the gridlock to end; they want us to deal with some real problems, and they want us to shake up this institution and put some value into what we are doing here and not get into partisanship. So in that sense, I made the judgment that the best that we could do was to adopt this, to not let anything stand in the way, and hopefully get it to the President--get it back to the House, let the House receive it in a form which they could adopt without the need for a conference committee--send it to the President, and let us show the American people that both parties, both Houses, and the executive and the legislative branch, agree on this basic principle. Let us get it done. If I may paraphrase an earlier great Democratic President, President Kennedy, who said, ``A rising tide raises all boats,'' part of what I am saying here is that a rising tide of accomplishment by Congress will, in fact, raise all boats. This will not and should not be a partisan achievement, but very much a victory for principle, a victory for Congress, and a victory for the American Government, showing it can quickly and expeditiously do something right. I wanted to state that on the record to explain why I voted against all previous amendments, why I will vote against these two amendments, and why I will continue to vote against amendments on this bill, hoping that we can pass this bill tonight or tomorrow and get it on its way to becoming the law it ought to be. Mr. President, having stated that, I would like to respond to some of the points that have been made against the bill. I say to the two managers of the bill, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Ohio, if at any point either Senator would wish to regain the floor, or others come and wish to proceed on their amendments, I will be glad to yield upon notification to that affect. Mr. President, some of the arguments made in opposition to S. 2 in the last couple of days are serious ones. I want to respond to them. One argument made goes to the heart of the construct of the bill that Senator Grassley, I, and Senator Glenn, in his capacity as chair last year of the Government Affairs Committee, have brought out. The argument is that this bill--and forgive the pejorative use of the term, an excuse for inaction on this measure for years--this bill represents a violation or a potential violation of the separation of powers doctrine and the speech or debate clause. I must say to the presiding officer and my colleagues that when I first arrived here, the first time this measure came up, I inquired why people were opposing it because it seemed pretty sensible that we should live by the same laws we apply to everybody else. The answer I heard was the separation of powers doctrine. I remember going back home to a town hall meeting and having somebody ask me about the measure, and I started to give the separation of powers doctrine response. It was a moment where the more I declared it, the less I believed it, remembering that old wisdom that, if you are making a statement that you yourself have trouble believing, you better not make the statement and you better reconsider your position. I do not think this is a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. First of all, there is no express separation of powers clause in the Constitution. It is important to point that out. This is a doctrine that is said to underlie the structure of the Constitution. In fact, there is some obvious strength to that argument. The principle is most visibly seen in the separation of the powers of the three branches into three separate articles respectively. The doctrine is also discussed in the Federalist Papers, as well as other writings that informed the drafting of the Constitution. The separation of powers doctrine has been the most frequently cited constitutional objection to private rights of action in district court for our employees under this bill, as well as executive branch enforcement of the laws. Using this broad-based argument, I think, distorts the historical intent of the separation of powers doctrine. It is also not an adequate explanation for why we do not apply the laws we adopt to ourselves. The basic idea, it seems to me, is to limit each branch to a certain set of powers subject to checks by the other two branches, so that no one branch can accumulate a level of power that becomes--to use the term that was very much in the mind of the Framers--tyrannical or like a monarch in its effect on the public or on individual American citizens. The separation of powers principle was envisioned and incorporated into the Constitution by the Framers not explicitly but implicitly with the idea of precluding any one branch of the Federal Government from seizing a degree of power that could be used against the people of America in a tyrannical fashion without check by the other two branches of Government. However, it is clear from Madison's writing in Federalist 47 that the separation of powers principle was not designed to insulate one branch of the Government or its servants, that is to say, those who serve within that branch of Government, from the rule of law. That would have been a strange result for those who framed our Constitution and were so mindful of not insulating those in power from the rule of law. Indeed, Madison wrote in Federalist 57 that: The Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government denigrates into tyranny. What a magnificent statement by Madison, resonating with real insight and strength through the centuries to this debate on this floor of this great Chamber today in 1995. Mr. President, in concluding my remarks on this question, I would like to note that it is the speech and debate clause, and that clause only, which provides Members of Congress any immunity whatever from prosecution or action by the executive or the judiciary. In the case of Davis versus Passman, a 1979 case, the Supreme Court held that while the speech or debate clause does protect Members of Congress from suit for actions which were strictly legislative in function--and I will discuss in a moment what the Court has defined as ``legislative''-- speech or debate immunity is the only source of immunity, not other principles of separation of powers as well. In short, the broad principle of separation of powers is meant to protect the people from the Government, not to protect one branch of Government from the other two, nor to protect Members of Congress from prosecution or suit for their own misdeeds. Mr. President, at the Governmental Affairs Committee hearing in June of last year on this measure, constitutional law professor Nelson Lund and our own Senate legal counsel, Michael Davidson, both said, while it may be constitutionally permissible to allow the executive branch to enforce employment laws on the legislative branch, this legislation recognizes, as a policy decision, not a constitutional decision, that allowing executive enforcement might upset the current balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. So our goal in creating the independent Office of Compliance within this bill, S. 2, was to avoid, frankly, politically motivated enforcement actions by executive branch agencies. One cannot imagine-- without regard, obviously, to the current occupant of the position--a Secretary of Labor ordering an OSHA inspection of a Senator's personal office because that Senator had aggravated that Secretary for some reason, perhaps by holding oversight hearings on the Department of Labor, or perhaps by casting a vote that displeased the Member of the Cabinet. I think you can see why, on a practical basis, this decision was made to set up the independent Office of Compliance. It is, really, more in deference to the checks and balances principle than to the separation of powers principle. Now, Mr. President, let me speak for a moment about the speech or debate clause immunity which is in article I, section 6, of the Constitution. I, frankly, think this provides the most interesting argument against executive branch enforcement or judicial review. But historically, it is important to state the speech and debate clause has been read narrowly by the courts, and our conclusion was that it should not and cannot provide Members of Congress with immunity for illegal employment actions, for illegal actions in our capacity as employers of those who work for and with us here on Capitol Hill. The speech and debate clause says: They-- The Members of Congress-- shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. The origins of speech or debate immunity can be traced to the formation of the English Parliament when members of Parliament sought to protect themselves from retribution by the monarch for speeches or acts in the House of Commons that were viewed as hostile to the crown. Mr. President, in July of last year, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit rejected a House Member's speech-or-debate-clause defense in a prosecution by the Justice Department. These cases are very recent. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also issued a similar ruling, in the same week last year against a Senator saying the Department of Justice has the power to prosecute violations of Senate Rules Committee regulations, even when the Rules Committee itself has not concluded that a violation occurred. In the first ruling, the appeals court cited several cases in which the Supreme Court had held that the speech-or-debate clause immunity extends only to acts that are ``legislative in nature'' or related to ``the legislative process.'' The defendant's alleged impropriety, the Court said, ``was not related to a pending bill or to any other legislative matter; it was, instead, the Congressman's defense of his handling of various financial transactions.'' So I would say, drawing analogy from these cases and others I could cite, it is reasonable to assume that an illegal employment action would not be regarded by the courts as an act that is ``legislative in nature.'' In fact, this issue is thoroughly examined in a memo by John Killian, senior specialist, American constitutional law, American Law Division at CRS, dated June 4, 1993, in which Mr. Killian writes: A persuasive argument can be made that the speech or debate clause does not encompass employment decisions. While Mr. Killian prefaces his interpretation by noting that the constitutional text, history, purposes and the judicial precedents are not fully dispositive, ``the text,'' he says, ``as informed by the interpretive judicial decisions does rather strongly suggest that the courts would sustain the validity of the enactment should Congress choose to take the step.'' He adds: Certainly, an expressed decision made legislatively by Congress that employment decisions of Members can be placed outside coverage of the clause would be a determination by the body most familiar with the issue that should be entitled to special deference by the courts when they are called upon to pass on the question of the validity of congressional coverage under the appropriate statute. Of course, this is just common sense that the speech-and-debate clause on its face would not seem to be a clause that would make us immune from the impact of the laws we adopt and impose on all other employers when we are acting as employers instead of as Members of the Congress involved in legislation. Mr. President, I will go on to another argument that has been made a couple of times here on the floor; and that is that this bill, S. 2, will cost too much money. At times, opponents of congressional compliance have claimed that it would cost billions of dollars to implement and even require the construction of new office buildings. The testimony that the Governmental Affairs Committee received last June, as well as CBO's analysis of the committee-reported bill, showed that such fears, while understandable, are unfounded. There is no OSHA space requirement for offices. Indeed, the Architect of the Capitol and the Congressional Budget Office both anticipated in their reviews of this legislation little, if any, additional expense for OSHA compliance. Because this new bill, S. 2, was introduced just last week, we have not had time to receive a formal cost estimate from the CBO. But I suggest to my colleagues that it is fair and reasonable to assume from the CBO estimate of the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee in September, since this bill is so close to that bill, that the original cost estimate would prevail for this as well. We also received a cost estimate from CBO on last year's House-passed bill as well as the bill reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the estimates CBO arrived at in both cases were far, far lower than anyone expected or thought possible. Mr. President, at this point, I would like to submit for the Record those two cost estimates which I believe the Members may wish to peruse, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, CBO estimated that both versions, the House-passed last year and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, quite similar to S. 2 before us now, would cost about $1 million for the first 2 years in effect as the office gears up and $4 to $5 million in the third, fourth, and fifth years. Much of the cost expected in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 is the cost of working out collective bargaining agreements. So once the cost of that is taken care of, the overall pricetag should dip back down by the beginning of the second 5- year budgetary cycle. When you look at the total cost figures, I think you also have to realize that the Senate and House offices of the existing Fair Employment Practices Office, which would be supplanted, would be replaced by the independent Office of Compliance created by this bill, will cost almost $1.2 million in this fiscal year, so that the marginal cost of the bills considered here is even less. Mr. President, there was some indication on the floor yesterday that the Senate Rules Committee has found the administrative hearing system created for the Senate by the Government Employees Rights Act to be extremely expensive and that this bill would further increase that expense. I hope that my colleagues on the Rules Committee will agree that the bulk of the costs involved in the administrative hearing process lies in the fact that the GERA, the Government Employees Rights Act, requires three hearing officers to hear any one case. When we drafted this bill, S. 2, and gave employees the right to bring original civil actions in Federal district court, we recognized that the administrative hearing process could be streamlined because it would no longer be the only legal recourse for an employee to use in addressing grievances that that employee felt he or she had. Therefore, we create in this bill, S. 2, an administrative hearing system that only requires one hearing officer to hear any case. That surely will reduce the cost of holding any hearing by 67 percent, one hearing officer as opposed to three. I think that my colleagues who raise concerns about the costs of the current administrative hearing system under the Government Employees Rights Act will recognize this change--I hope they will --as a significant cost-saving measure. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to consider the estimated cost of last year's bill in its most expensive year, fiscal year 1998, as a percentage of the legislative branch's annual budget. For fiscal year 1998, which would have been the fourth year in effect if the bill had been enacted last year, Congress' budget will probably be in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion. Even if this bill did cost $5 billion in fiscal year 1998 as a percentage of Congress' total operating budget for that year, it would only amount to one-fifth of 1 percent--one-fifth of 1 percent--which is surely not too much to pay to, first, guarantee our employees that they have the same rights as every other employee in America working for private business and, second, for us to adopt the principle of living in the real world, of getting rid of the double standard and of understanding in our own capacity as employers the impact of the laws that we adopt on every other employer in America. Because this bill makes very few substantive changes from last year's Senate bill, I think it is entirely reasonable to expect that CBO will provide a similarly low score for S. 2, and we can then also assume that the cost of the bill, in its most expensive year, will be an equally small percentage of the legislative branch budget. That really is not too much to ask. Finally, there is in this another principle which is that we should impose the same laws on ourselves as we do on everybody else because presumably, if we adopt them, we believe they are good laws, that they make sense, that they embrace values that we hold to be real and important for our country. We should pass this bill with strong enforcement, including the right for claims to be heard in court, because we believe the laws we have passed are right. By passing this bill, therefore, we not only get rid of the double standard and create equity in reality, but we also demonstrate a commitment to the underlying values that we have adopted in these bills. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. I would be most happy to listen to him for a while. I thank him very much for his courtesy.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Iowa, and I thank the Chair. I am very privileged to be a cosponsor with the Senator from Iowa of this amendment, and I congratulate him on his willingness to charge the fortress here, to try to remove one of the hurdles to this being a truly representative and productive body. The filibuster may have made some sense at one point; it may have been a reasonable idea, but it in fact has been badly misused in our time. You can pick your favorite statistic, but the one that I saw a while ago was that there were more filibusters in the last session of the Senate than in the first 108 years combined. Others will tell you there have been more since 1990 than the preceding 140 years combined. Whatever the years, it is pretty obvious we have come to a point in the history of this Chamber where the filibuster, the ability of one Member to stand up and stop the body from functioning effectively and to block the will of the majority, is a contributor to gridlock and to our inability to produce and, therefore, to public frustration which is in the air and we are attempting as best we can to respond to them. The other body in its wisdom took some steps yesterday that I think are reflective of that mood and responding to it, and there are many things we can do in this Chamber along with those that were done yesterday in the other body. I think one of the most important is to alter the current rules of debate so far as they allow a single Senator or, in the synthetic filibusters, not the real filibusters that we have had in our time, allow a minority to threaten to debate interminably and by that means to block the majority from working its will. I have just enormous respect for the distinguished Senator from West Virginia and, as I said in the Chamber last night, he is clearly the expert in this Chamber on the rules of the body and not only knows the rules of the body but knows from whence they come, their history, so when I speak in opposition to his position I do so with some humility and respect. I would say on the question of the derivation of freedom of speech back to earlier times, English precedents or Roman precedents, and developing as it has in our time in the speech and debate clause in the Constitution, that I would respectfully offer this thought: That the Constitution and the great freedoms that it gives our people as they have been interpreted by the Supreme Court over the history of America, all have been at one point or another limited. In other words, we are given individual freedom, which is at the heart of what it means to be an American, by the Constitution, by the community. Although, of course, many of us feel that the ultimate source of our individual freedom goes beyond the community, beyond the Constitution, to our Creator, and I believe that the Founders and Framers very much were motivated by that religious impulse and that theological view of human nature. But my point is this. Over our history, every right, including the sacred and fundamental right of free speech, has occasionally been limited because it was thought that its unlimited exercise threatened the safety and well-being, perhaps even the continuity and the survival of the community. Of course, there is the classic and perhaps limited expression, but it is a popular one, that you do not have the right to rise in a crowded theater and shout ``fire'' when there is no fire and create a pandemonium, a bedlam. And the limits go on and on: those that relate to libel and slander; the ways in which the Supreme Court, for instance, has wrestled with questions of obscenity, when is freedom of speech so offensive to the community that it threatens some of the fundamental values of the community? This right of unlimited speech for Members of the Senate in the particular context of our rules, it seems to me, requires at this point, based on what we have experienced, limitations. Because the ability of an individual Senator to stop the process, the capacity of a minority to make it impossible for a majority to work its will and represent the majority of constituents back home, has come to a point where it has too often threatened the ability of this Chamber to function, to represent, to lead, to be truly deliberative in the sense that we mean it. In its misuse the filibuster has also, I think, threatened not only the productivity and credibility of the U.S. Senate, but has contradicted some of the basic principles of our Government as expressed by the Framers of the Constitution. And one is this fundamental question of majority rule. It seems to me as I read the Federalist Papers and look at the Constitution that as concerned as the Framers were about individual rights and protection of the minority, they made a clear decision, which was that the Congress--and let me be more specific, that the Senate--was to be a majoritarian body; that the majority would rule; that there were other protections in the system for the minority. One was what we referred to as the republican form of government--small ``r''--which is to say the various checks and balances built into the system, the requirement in our system, to adopt a law, of the support of the Senate, the House, and the signature of the President. Ultimately, if the minority rights were still threatened, an individual could go to court, and over our history it has been clear that the courts interpreting the Constitution have been there to protect the minority. But this was to be a majoritarian body. And this filibuster has turned that, in my opinion, upside down and allowed the minority to rule. Some who support the status quo on the filibuster say that it is there to protect the rights of the minority. But what about the rights of the majority? Some say that there is a danger of a tyranny of the majority. I say that there is a danger inherent in the current procedure of a tyranny of the minority over the majority, inconsistent with the intention of the Framers of the Constitution. It is inconsistent in another specific way with the Constitution, and I will mention this briefly because it has been mentioned before. The Constitution states only five specific cases in which there is a requirement for more than a majority to work the will of this body: Ratification of a treaty, override of a Presidential veto, impeachment, adoption of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a Member of Congress. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution considered other cases in which a supermajority might have been required and rejected them. And we by our rules have effectively amended the Constitution-- which I believe, respectfully, is not right--and added the opportunity of any Member or a minority of Members to require 60 votes to pass almost any controversial bill in this Chamber. It is wrong. It has also made this a less accountable body. And I think accountability of elected officials is at the heart of democracy and all we stand for. It is less accountable in two ways. One, when we are allowed to defeat a measure on a procedural vote such as a filibuster, it cloaks us from having to stand up and vote on the merits, on the bill itself, and therefore, to some extent, it muddles our accountability and the record that we take back to our constituents. Second, in another sense it makes it hard on the majority and those of us on this side of the aisle--and the majority of us on the Democratic side experienced this over the last couple of years. Clearly not all the filibusters have been partisan. The opposition to the procedure is bipartisan and so is the support. But in a strict political partisan sense, it is hard for a majority to be held accountable fairly to the public if a minority, a party, for instance, can block the majority from attempting to work its will, from attempting to pass its program, and then, unfairly in some cases, the majority may be held accountable for that failure even though it was the minority who blocked action by filibustering that resulted in the failure to produce. A lot of Democrats may have been held accountable for that on election day, November 8, 1994. But the wheel of history has turned and the majority is now on the other side of the aisle. Though it might seem inviting for Democrats to use the filibuster to confuse and frustrate the will of the majority here, it is not fair. The majority ought to have the opportunity to try to pass its program or be held accountable for it. And this filibuster frustrates that opportunity. So, Mr. President, I understand, and the Senator from Iowa understands, that we are fighting upstream in this effort. But it is an effort that I think is at the heart of congressional reform, at the center of responding to the public frustration and the drop in respect for this Congress of ours which is so central to the relationship that those who govern have with those who are governed. When that trust is gone our democracy is in trouble. I think this is the time to begin to challenge this procedure. History shows us that on the other occasions when the filibuster rule has been changed, it generally was not changed on the first try. The Senator from Iowa and I would be pleasantly surprised if that were not the case today, but it probably will be the case. But I know he feels strongly, as I do, that we should continue this effort to work with our colleagues to see if we cannot find ways that will achieve adequate support to bring about a change in the existing filibuster procedure. Again, I express my great admiration for the Senator from Iowa for taking this on. It is not an easy battle. It is not a popular battle. But it is the right fight to make and it is my privilege to be marching arm and arm with him on this one. I hope that when the vote is taken, we will be surprised, and I hope particularly that the support for our amendment is across party lines. I thank the Senator from Iowa for his leadership, for yielding his time to me, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am privileged to rise in support of this measure and am delighted not only to join the real pioneers in this effort--Senator Glenn and Senator Grassley--but to speak after our new colleague, the Senator from Tennessee, who has spoken eloquently. I am privileged to work with him on a bipartisan basis on behalf of this bill. He made reference to the elections that just occurred and the message that was sent to us. I was thinking after this election, there is an old story about a politician who lost an election by a lot, he got clobbered. In the traditional election night speech, he got up and said, ``The people have spoken, but did they have to speak so loudly?'' I think the answer in this case is, obviously, the people did feel they had to speak loudly, and what they were speaking for was change, change in the status quo and, I think, demanding a Government that responds to their problems, that deals efficiently with those responses and that, most of all, gets its own house in order. I do not know what my colleagues may have found as they were out there this year. I was out there myself, grateful for the support of the people of Connecticut to send me back here. But I found an increasing number of people--and I would say it is a majority out there--who really do not care whether you are Republican or Democrat. What they care about is what you are doing and what have you done. They are not going to judge by labels, as so often happens. They are going to judge by the record of accomplishment or lack of accomplishment. All of that brings me to this measure, which I think is at the heart of responding to the demand for a change in the status quo, for a demand to a leaner, more responsive Congress, to a demand for legislation that reflects the real world, that reflects the thinking of Members of Congress who understand what is happening out there and who play by the same rules that everybody else plays by, who are forced to live by the same rules that everybody else lives by, and that will act on a bipartisan basis in the interest of America. I think all of that comes together in this piece of legislation. The measure we are considering today, S. 2, is an improved version of the successive congressional compliance measures which Senator Grassley and I authored last year, beginning with S. 2071. This latest bill, if enacted, will, as those who have spoken before me said, apply to Congress and its support offices all of the laws regarding civil rights, fair labor practices, disability, family medical leave, veterans, reemployment, health and safety that Congress has applied over the years to the executive branch of the Government and to the private sector as well. Every public opinion poll that I have seen--to tell you the truth you do not need a public opinion poll, it is kind of common sense-- indicates that the people of America are ardent, enthusiastic, just about unanimous in their support of this legislation. I am greatly encouraged that the leaders of this new Congress have placed this bill at the forefront of our business for the opening days of this session. This is a measure that passed the House overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis last year and was stopped from coming up here at the closing day of the 103d Congress on a procedural objection, an unusually and rarely used procedural objection. But the mood is different this year. I think passing this bill will show that we have collectively realized that Congress simply cannot continue to do its business as usual and we can no longer live above the law. It is not just that the public will not stand for it, they should not stand for it, and we should not stand for this kind of double standard. It undercuts the basic trust that is a precondition of our democracy, the trust that has to exist between those who are privileged to serve and govern and those who are governed, those who send us here to represent them. Mr. President, we must pass this bill with strong enforcement, including the right for claims to be heard in court, not just because it has symbolic value but because it is right. By passing this bill, we demonstrate a commitment to the principles that are in all the laws that we have applied to the private sector. At the end of June 1994, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged to serve on, held a hearing on this subject and took a close look at all the issues involved. The committee realized that there is a complex problem that requires well-considered solutions, particularly to the general problem of uneven coverage. So we went ahead, Senator Grassley and I, Senator Glenn and other members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and worked on some ways to solve these problems. Since then, this group, and others, has done everything issues in a way that is fair to our employees. It forces us to live in the real world according to the real law but also has some respect for the special constitutional status of the legislative branch. The bill that we are considering today builds upon that committee substitute to H.R. 4822, which was reported out by the Governmental Affairs Committee last September. I think this bill remains true to virtually all the defining principles and provisions found in H.R. 4822. Like that bill, this measure we are considering establishes an independent office to function as a legislative branch equivalent of the executive enforcement agencies. Substituting this independent agency for the executive agencies, I think, responds to a genuine argument, which is separation of powers and, in another sense, ends Congress' ability to sit or hide behind the separation of powers argument as an excuse for inaction. We have dealt with that argument. We have solved that problem. There is no longer that constitutional excuse or argument for inaction. Some of the strongest arguments that were made against this measure can also I think be put to bed now. At times opponents claimed it would cost billions to implement and even require the construction of new office buildings by Congress. But the testimony that the committee received in June as well as CBO's analysis of the committee-reported bill showed that such fears are not well founded. There is no new OSHA space requirement for offices, projecting the impact of the provisions of this bill. Indeed, the Architect of the Capitol and the Congressional Budget Office have anticipated little, if any, additional expense for OSHA compliance. Mr. President, passage of this legislation will really go a long way, or at least, let me put it this way, at the outset of the 104th Congress take the large first step in the direction of restoring the public's trust in this institution. The history of this and companion legislation is interesting. As I looked back at the record, 1938 was the first time that Congress exempted itself from coverage under a relevant Federal employment law when it passed the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congressional staff were not covered by the wage and hour provisions contained in that act. And that precedent, unfortunately, became a tradition of congressional self-exemption from Federal employment laws over the course of the succeeding 56 years since 1938. Right now, Congress is wholly or partially exempt from the relevant provisions of the 11 major Federal employment laws with which this bill deals. Senator Glenn, as I have indicated earlier, in 1978 really was the pioneer here in authoring a bill that sought to correct this problem. In 1991, Senator Grassley and then Senate Majority Leader Mitchell coauthored the Government Employees Rights Act, also known as GERA, which gave employees of the Senate partial coverage under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. GERA created this Office of Senate Fair Employment Practices, and an administrative complaint process administered by the office designed to fill the role of the Federal district courts as set forth in the statutes in question. It also provided Senate employees with a review of their decisions in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. President, Members of Congress are still faced with the fact that there is more to do, and that is what the legislation before us intends to do. Private sector employers are particularly and understandably angry and aggrieved by the knowledge that Congress does not subject itself to the most demanding legal and regulatory burdens that Congress imposes on them, particularly the small business community. Congressional exemption from Federal employment laws I think has also had an adverse effect on the legislative branch work force and its right to equal protection under the law. This is not just a matter of symbolism. It is not even just a matter of equity, though it is a matter of equity. This is kind of a reverse of the golden rule here in this case. This bill is saying let us do unto ourselves as we have done unto others. But beyond those principles, there is a real problem out there and that is the rights of those who work for us, for the Congress. The Architect of the Capitol, for instance, which has no independent enforcement of its OSHA program, is plagued by one of the highest worker compensation claim rates of all the Federal agencies. Employees of the Senate exempted from the Fair Labor Standards Act have no guaranteed means of securing financial or other compensation for overtime. No employee of the House of Representatives or the Senate may bring a civil action in Federal district court to remedy violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Federal antidiscrimination statutes, all of which provide employees in the private sector with exactly that right to pursue their grievances in Federal court. So there is a real problem out there. This is not symbolism. It is not just principle, though both of those are important. There is a real problem of our workers. The vast majority of legal inequities that may be endured by employees of the House and Senate can be remedied at minimal cost to the Congress by adoption of this measure. Mr. President, I would briefly like to focus on some of the constitutional concerns that have been raised. Most frequently, again, we have heard about the separation of powers argument, but using this broad-based argument I think distorts the historical intent of the separation of powers doctrine. The basic idea is to limit each branch to a certain set of powers subject to checks by the other two branches so that no one branch can accumulate a level of power that becomes tyrannical in its effect on the public or the private citizen. In Buckley versus Valeo, a 1975 case, the Supreme Court, citing the history of the separation of powers principle, wrote: James Madison, writing in the Federalist Paper No. 47, defended the work of the Framers against the charge that these three governmental powers were not entirely separate from one another in the proposed Constitution. He asserted that while there was some admixture, the Constitution was nonetheless true to Montesquieu's well-known maxim that the legislative, executive and judicial departments ought to be separate and distinct. And they went on to say that it was a demonstration of Montesquieu's meaning when he wrote: When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body, there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner. In other words, the separation of powers principle was to preclude any one branch of the Federal Government from seizing a degree of power that could be used against another branch of the Government or the citizenry in a tyrannical fashion without check from the other branch. But this was affected by another view of Madison which goes right to the point of this legislation, writing in Federalist 47 that the separation of powers principle was not designed to insulate one branch of the Government or its servants from the rule of law. In other words, each branch was to be strong and independent, to resist a centralization of power. But that did not mean that anyone branch of the Government or its servants should be above the law or exempted from the law. And in Federalist 57, Madison wrote the Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends as well as on the great mass of the society. ``This has always been deemed''--and I am continuing with Madison's words--``one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them the communion of interest and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples but without which every government denigrates into tyranny. If it be asked what is to restrain the Congress from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of society, I answer,'' Madison said, ``the genius of the whole system. The nature much just and constitutional laws. And above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the in return is nourished by it. If this spirit is ever so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature as well as on the people,'' Madison wrote, ``the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.'' Powerful words from one of the great founders and framers of our country. I think they speak to us today because history has taken us in a direction that he feared but did not believe would occur. And it is that drift that brings us to introduce this legislation so that Members of Congress and the institution will not be above and separate from the law. Mr. President, a final point, if I may, on the question of cost. Because this new bill was just introduced yesterday, there clearly has not been time to receive a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Yet I would suggest to my colleagues that it is fair and reasonable to draw some pretty firm conclusions from the CBO estimate of the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee last September because this measure is so similar to that measure. We also received a cost estimate from CBO on last year's House-passed bill and the estimates CBO arrived at in both cases were far, far lower--not only than the opponents of the measure feared--but, frankly, than most of the supporters of legislation expected or thought possible. CBO estimated that both versions, the House-passed version last year and the one reported out of Governmental Affairs, would cost about $1 million for the first 2 years of effect, as the new independent office gears up, and $4 to $5 million in the third, fourth and fifth years. Much of the cost expected in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 is the cost of working out collective bargaining agreements. So once the cost of that is taken care of, the overall price tag should actually dip back down by the beginning of the second 5-year budget cycle of effect. When you look at the total cost figures projected, I think we also have to realize that the Senate and House offices of fair employment practices will already cost us almost $1.2 million in this fiscal year. So the marginal cost of the bill we are considering would be even less than the CBO estimate. Mr. President, in the bill's most expensive year as projected by CBO, fiscal year 1998--which would have been, under last year's estimate the 4th year of effect, projected legislative branch spending would be in the neighborhood of $2.5 billion. Therefore, as a percentage of our total operating budget for that year, the bill reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee--according to the CBO estimate--would only have amounted to 1/5 of 1 percent of the total operating budget of the Congress. I think that figure is worth repeating. The cost of the bill would be 1/5 of 1 percent in the year when the bill would have been most expensive. Allocating that tiny fraction of our annual budget would enable Congress to comply with the same laws that we force everyone else to live with, to repair the ruptured relationship between this institution and the people who control it, for whom we work, and to do what is right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text--noting the presence of my friend and colleague from Alaska here--the full text of my speech be printed in the Record as read. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Iowa for his kind words. I would just say to him that it is really an honor to begin this session by being his partner in this effort that I think is really at the heart of making the Senate a more responsive body. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.