[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS FOR A
STUDENT LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
=======================================================================
BUSINESS MEETING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Hearing Held in Washington, DC, July 17, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
______
84-511 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
BOB NEY, Chairman
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
JOHN LINDER, Georgia CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California JIM DAVIS, Florida
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York
Paul Vinovich, Staff Director
Bill Cable, Minority Staff Director
BUSINESS MEETING
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2002
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert W. Ney
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Ney, Ehlers, Doolittle, Hoyer, and
Fattah.
Staff present: Channing Nuss, Deputy Staff Director; Fred
Hay, Counsel; Jeff Janas, Professional Staff Member; Bill
Cable, Minority Staff Director; Matt Pinkus, Minority
Professional Staff Member; Nuku Ofori, Staff of Representative
Fattah.
The Chairman. Today the Committee on House Administration
is conducting a business meeting to consider and approve
Implementing Regulations for a Student Loan Repayment Program
for the House of Representatives.
I just want to open today by touching on some background
which lays the foundation for why what we are doing here today
is important for the House of Representatives institutionally,
and for all who work and serve here. The Executive Branch, the
U.S. Senate, and several other legislative branch entities such
as the Library of Congress, the Government Printing Office, and
the Congressional Budget Office have all enacted student loan
repayment programs. So this is not a precedent-setting move
today. This is why it has wide approval.
The intent of the these programs is to provide an incentive
to attract and retain qualified employees to government service
who would otherwise work in the private sector. Because so many
Federal employers offer this benefit, the House has been left
at a competitive disadvantage in this regard, especially when
other agencies have implemented this as well as those on the
other side of the Capitol.
As a result, at our insistence, language authorizing the
program in the House of Representatives as well as the
necessary funding for the program is included in the fiscal
year 2003 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill. I want to
thank, Mr. Hoyer, his staff, our staff, members of the
committee, everybody that had input for pushing this issue into
the appropriation process, and we just wanted to thank you for
that involvement.
Here at the committee we have worked hard in total
cooperation with the minority in drafting the implementing
regulations that we hopefully will adopt today. Upon the
adoption of these regulations at this meeting, the Chief
Administrative Officer, Jay Eagen, will put in place the
administrative procedures and a standardized agreement for the
program as directed by our regulations that we create here
today.
Upon committee approval of that process, an explanation of
the program and details for participation will be disseminated
House-wide by this committee on behalf of the entire committee.
This committee has been fully engaged from the inception of
this process, and will continue to be as we work actively to
oversee and participate in the administration of this program,
and also, obviously, help Members through the informational
process.
I just want to take a moment, and hopefully this will
alleviate some questions some people have, but take a moment to
explain the substantive parameters of the program. Any Member,
Chairman, head of an employing office, or an employee of the
House may enter into a written service agreement under which
direct payments shall be made by the CAO, on behalf of the
employee, to repay the employee's student loan indebtedness.
Participation will be at the discretion of the Member, I
want to stress, Chairman or employing authority. Payments will
not be made from the MRA accounts, Members' accounts, but it
will come out of an appropriation that has been set but from a
separately capitalized account administered by the CAO, Jay
Eagen. The length of the agreement will be for 1 year with the
option of additional 1-year agreements.
With each agreement the employing office is agreeing to
make 12 monthly payments toward an employee's student loan debt
in exchange for 1 year, which is pretty simple.
Termination of the agreement occurs when the employee's
full time employment terminates, upon no payment by the CAO
because of a lack of funds available, or upon mutual agreement
of the parties. Exceptions may be made by the employing office
for illness, bereavement, or furlough not for cause.
The employee must reimburse for all payments made under the
agreement if they are terminated for cause or leave their
employment voluntarily during the period of agreement. The
employing office may waive the reimbursement requirement.
There will be no payment for loans in default. An employee
is not relieved from liability for payment of their loan. An
employee has no right to continued employment or entitlement.
Payments are not applied as earnings for benefit purposes, but
shall be subject to withholding for income and employment tax
obligations.
Individual limitations on the amount of payment will be
$500 in any one month, and $40,000 for all of the months.
Student loan payment and compensation together may not exceed
the Speaker's Pay Order, which is standard practice here in the
House. Specific payment amounts are determined by the employing
office. So you can vary them, 5, 4, 300, whatever you want to
negotiate out.
The amount of funds available for the program will be, for
a Member's personal office, 2 percent of the average of your
MRA, or approximately $20,000 annually. So when you start
putting this together, you can have four people at $500 or you
can have five people at $400, any combination depending on the
needs of the individual.
In the case of any other employing office, the amount will
be 2 percent made available to that office for salaries and
expenses. Assuming full funding participation, this program
could cost around, in the fiscal year 2003, about $14.6
million.
Substantively, this program does not differ from the
parameters in place for the Senate. Administrative differences
do exist between the two programs to reflect institutional
differences between the two Chambers.
And with that, I wanted to again go ahead to take the time,
I wanted to lay out basic guidelines for this. I do want to
thank Mr. Hoyer and members of this committee, Mr. Hoyer and
his staff, our staff, Jay Eagen and his team, as well as the
Office of House Employment Counsel who have all provided
valuable input into the process.
I am going to close by saying I am convinced this program
will provide Members and other employing authorities in the
House of Representatives with an effective incentive at their
disposal for the recruitment of highly qualified candidates for
employment. In doing so, I believe we are strengthening the
institution.
And I just point out in closing we would be basically the
only entity practically around this city that would not in fact
have this, and I think it could make a difference when we are
looking for good qualified staff to serve the constituents,
committees, personal offices and do good things back home. So I
think this just levels the playing field for us, and I think it
is a great incentive. I think it is good for the sake of the
House.
With that, I will lay before the committee the Committee
Resolution on approving the Implementing Regulations for a
Student Loan Repayment Program for the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. As it always
is, it is a pleasure to work with you and staff. Our staffs
worked together very cooperatively on this, and I thank you for
moving these regulations so quickly. With the legislative
appropriations bill that was passed, as you know, it may be on
the floor tomorrow.
As we have designed this program, it will serve the House
by giving Members' offices and committees, as you have
explained, a valuable tool which with to recruit qualified
employees and to retain employees.
The House program will follow the form of programs in the
Senate and other legislative agencies and the Executive Branch.
As in those other agencies, in return for the loan repayment
they will have to agree in writing to remain in their
employment for a specified time, 1 year. If they fail to do so,
they will have to repay the House. This procedure is one which
is replicated in many other places.
When Congress established the authority for the program
over a decade ago, it took pains to advise agencies the program
is to be used sparingly, only as needed to recruit and retain
qualified persons. I would hope it would be used sparingly in
the House as well to preserve its effectiveness as a
recruitment and retention tool.
The necessary steps toward authorization and funding for
this program, as you have said, are in the pending Legislative
Appropriation bill. Our action today will expedite
establishment of the program by the CAO and permit us to have
this program in place at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Chairman, as always, I appreciate the opportunity to
work with you, and as usual, it has been in a bipartisan,
constructive fashion. And I did also want to continue to thank
the staff which has worked very cooperatively and openly with
my staff.
I also want to acknowledge the constructive role played by
Representative Barbara Lee. I know she has talked to you, Mr.
Chairman. She talked to me. Last year, Barbara introduced a
bill to extend this program in the House. She recognized the
value of the program and worked tirelessly to promote it, help
us to reach this point. It is my pleasure to work with her, and
I urge the members of the committee to adopt the resolution.
The Chairman. Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Just a question on the implementation of the
legislation. The previous speaker, the gentleman from Maryland,
mentioned that this is already in the Leg Branch Appropriations
bill. Is that authorization going to be permanent, or does it
require additional authorizations for this committee for
succeeding years?
The Chairman. Well, this will be permanent. The funding
would have to be renewed in order to practically implement the
program.
Mr. Ehlers. I wonder about the authorizing legislation. It
would have been nice to have kept that, to bring that to the
floor of this committee, and, you know, it would have been on
suspension, and to retain clear authority here in the
committee.
I yield back.
Mr. Hoyer. If the gentleman will yield. Of course I have
the dual capacity of serving on the Legislative Appropriations
Committee as well as this. But, frankly, I am going to assure
the ranking member on the Republican side that the committee,
Mr. Taylor, was very interested that this committee was in fact
in favor of it. I know he talked to our chairman, and
obviously, I brought it to the attention in my discussion with
the chairman to the committee that this was a program supported
by our committee.
So they were very concerned about the jurisdiction of this
committee.
Mr. Ehlers. If the gentleman will yield, I certainly
understand that. But as someone who is a member of the only
authorizing committee, there is always that--we have the
authorizing, you should do the authorizing. And we recognize
your perfect right and necessity to do it when you have to.
But I am just saying it would have been nice as we were on
record as having authorized it as the committee rather than
rubber stamping what you have done. It is a minor point.
The Chairman. Let me just jump in here for a second, and
this applies to my part, not to Mr. Hoyer. Working with some of
the people over there and particular staffers on Appropriations
is like walking on a razor. Originally I had no problems to do
a resolution. They opted not to do a resolution, maybe a signal
to do this, this is directed toward my party.
Finally, I got to the point where, you know, you don't do
games with a good part of our people. And I agree. And the
resolution was good. I thought, well, we get it. We do sign off
on this. So this is kind of a unique way for someone on our
side of the aisle to get their signals straight. And I do
agree. I am sensitive to stepping on toes, which they have done
about 13 times on this particular piece of legislation trying
to work it out this week. There are a wide variety of ways that
we can work it out, and I promise you that we will one way or
another.
So I am sensitive to this. This is the way we did it just
to get it for the benefit of our good staff.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was intrigued by the
minutia of the legislative process, but I did have one
question. And I would first like to add my voice to both the
chairman and the ranking member's comments at this time. This
work is one of the most significant things that we have done
around here in a very long time.
But there is one point that I just wanted to ask. I know
that in the Capitol Police program, it is up to $10,000 and
this would be something less than that. But I assumed that ours
with $500 a month is on par with the Senate?
The Chairman. Exactly. It is on par with the Senate.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The Capitol Police now, that would be a
tuition reimbursement program if the force put it into their
work. So they actually can choose.
Mr. Fattah. That is up to a thousand dollars. But I
understand the differential and am not unsupportive of it.
The Chairman. Mr. Doolittle.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you. I join
with my colleague on the other side of the aisle here to lend
my approval.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Ehlers for the
purpose of a motion.
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee
resolution approving the Implementing Regulations for Student
Loan Repayment for the House of Representatives be adopted.
The Chairman. The question is on the motion. Those in favor
say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The
motion is agreed to, and the committee resolution is adopted.
I ask unanimous consent that members have 7 legislative
days to submit material into the record, and for materials
submitted to be entered into the appropriate place in the
record. Without objection, the material will be so entered.
Motion for technical and conforming changes: I ask
unanimous consent that staff be authorized to make technical
and conforming changes on all matters considered by the
committee at today's meeting.
Without objection, so ordered. And having completed our
business for the day----
Mr. Ehlers. Mr. Chairman, I want to raise an issue that
continues to trouble me. Recently, we had a meeting with
representatives from the CAO's office and the Post Office about
the mail situation, to which I was unfortunately not able to be
present. I was in a markup with the other committee, but I got
a full report from my staff members. The Post Office assured us
there was no mail held back, et cetera. Within a week I
received a Christmas card which had been mailed in December.
I have been very patient with it, but this week I got a
first class letter. It was mailed on May 24th. It was important
business. I should have received it. The party sending it, not
being familiar with the problems, had failed to fax me
something. I received that letter which was mailed May 24th, I
received it 2 days or 3 days ago.
Also in the same mail was a letter from June 13th.
Obviously we still are having problems, and I cannot understand
how the greatest parliamentary entity in the world is expected
to function when we cannot get our mail. It is simply
unacceptable. I don't know what has to be done. I don't even
know where the problem is. But clearly there are difficulties
here.
Incidentally, I even got a Priority Mail letter some 3
weeks ago now that had been mailed in March. Priority Mail. It
took me several months to get it. I would seek your advice, Mr.
Chairman, and the ranking member as well. What are we going to
do about this? There has to be an answer.
The Chairman. Let me just say this is an issue where I have
literally got headaches from working on this for hours and
hours. I got a piece of mail sent to me 2 weeks ago, and about
a week before that the same thing. One of them was from
January, and one from March. I have come to the conclusion that
if we keep our current system, that no matter what we do, if we
have five irradiation machines outside this building going
full-time, that this is not addressing the issue of lost mail.
If they are going full time, we are going to get it in 13 days.
We are looking at a digital pilot program. I have been
getting letters from members saying you are not going to open
my mail. Well, we are not going to force anybody to do this
pilot program. If it is successful and members want to do it,
they can do it. If they would like to have 13 more days to open
their mail, that is the way that it is going to be. There are
some bugs to work out on that. So I don't have an answer.
Except on the backlog we are told we are somewhere close. By
bar coding, it was sent to another place. They are fully now
coming back. I have come to the conclusion that it has been
somewhere and it is being found. That is the only answer.
I don't know if anybody else has experienced it the last 2
weeks, but I have experienced it. So we have met with the
postal authorities. So I am hoping that old mail somehow is
still flowing in. I have come to the conclusion that the
current way that we are doing it is the best thing that we can
do. Jay Eagen has no choice. The system completely went away,
evaporated because a result of the anthrax. But I don't know
what we to do. I think that is a shame. That is why I have
pushed for this pilot.
Now, there is a lot of misunderstanding, and all of the
staff comments I have read in Roll Call were I can't have it
printed. But they can push the button, it prints out in their
office. So there is a lot of misunderstanding, but right now
that is the only way.
Mr. Ehlers. But, Mr. Chairman, if I may. That still
wouldn't get Ted Stevens' smoked salmon here on time. It is
hard to send that digitally. And there is a lot of things we
get Priority Mail.
The Chairman. We can do a virtual salmon tour.
Mr. Ehlers. But the Priority Mail was a small envelope that
contained a tie from someone, and they had sent it months ago.
But I am sure they were wondering why in the world they didn't
get a thank you note from me until 4 months later when I
explained what happened. The point is I am frankly--I am not
faulting the House because I think the House is proceeding
well. There is something wrong with the U.S. Postal system in
the way that they are handling this problem. I don't know what
it is. I am not sure that they know. Whether they periodically
are uncovering trailers, oh, that is right, we had this here,
or finding bags of mail in the Brentwood Post Office, or what
have you.
But I know in our office, our e-mail is way up, but our
U.S. Mail from constituents is way down, I would say almost a
factor of 10 to what we normally do. Does the public know that
we have this problem and they are clearly not writing us, or
are there letters not getting got us? We have no way of
knowing.
My advice to every one back home is if you want to send us
a letter, send to it our district office. Don't bother with
Washington. Then the district office sends it here, not to this
building but to our employees at home so that they can bring it
in. That is the only way that we have been able to get a rapid
response.
The Chairman. A couple of our staff has done it. We look
throughout the buildings. I have come to the conclusion that
Pitney-Bowes is putting out every piece of mail that they get.
That mail comes in, they get it out. But basically staff told
me while they were in there, it was cleared out and then
another trailer comes in of mail. They were looking through the
mail and it is 3 months old
So our people are getting it out if it is getting out of
them. Again, I don't know if they discover, you know, a
trainload of this, whatever it is. We will go until we get it.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether we have done
this. But it might be useful if we would send out to the
Members a request for examples, such as Mr. Ehlers gave here
today, in preparation for another hearing similar to the one we
had as to where we are. And we may not do that until--it may be
late September or something to find out where we are before we
leave here for the October recess.
I am fearful to say I don't think we are gong to get to
adjournment in October, unfortunately. But so that we would
have examples from Members of the kinds of things you are
talking about, Mr. Ehlers, and then we would know that we would
continue to follow this and monitor and be concerned about it,
and then it would be material that we could use when we follow
up with that.
The Chairman. If there is no further business, the
committee is adjourned. Thank you.
[Where upon, at 10:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]