[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15111-H15116]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR PROVISIONAL APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO HOUSE 
                           AND ITS EMPLOYEES

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 311) to provide for the provisional approval of 
regulations applicable to the House of Representatives and employees of 
the House of Representatives and to be issued by the Office of 
Compliance before January 23, 1996.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 311

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS.

       The regulations applicable to the House of Representatives 
     and the employees of the House of Representatives which are 
     to be issued by the Office of Compliance before January 23, 
     1996, are hereby approved on a provisional basis until such 
     time as such regulations are approved in accordance with 
     section 304(c) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384(c)).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Education and Economic 
Opportunities, for a colloquy.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before 
us today and would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the Committee 
on House Oversight, regarding the jurisdiction of these resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, while this matter is within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, we do not intend to delay the progress in 
considering this matter and support suspending the rules and passing 
without consideration in committee these two resolutions.
  I also join the gentleman from California in his assurances that we 
will work to have the final regulations promptly considered by the 
House once we reconvene in January.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I concur with the gentleman's conclusions 
and obviously we share jurisdiction. The Committee on House Oversight, 
primary jurisdiction; the Committee on Economic and Educational 
Opportunities, sequential jurisdiction. Neither one of us want to delay 
putting these into effect. I will support the gentleman's jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Accountability Act, which was passed 
on the first day of this Congress, created an Office of Compliance. It 
is to become effective January 23, 1996. The board of directors of the 
Office of Compliance have issued notice of proposed rulemaking and is 
in the process of reviewing those comments on the proposed regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the board is scheduled to make final 
those regulations on January 8, 1996. It is our fervent belief that we 
are going to adjourn sine die prior to that time and not reconvene for 
the second session of the 104th Congress until January 23.
  Therefore, this resolution provisionally adopts the anticipated 
regulations that are applicable to the House and at the next regularly 
scheduled meeting, which will be as soon as possible upon reconvening, 
we will review the final regulations and make a recommendation as to 
their final approval to the House.
  Obviously, in that interim period between January 8 and January 23, 
we do believe it is appropriate to offer provisional approval, whatever 
those regulations may be. That is the intent and purpose of House 
Resolution 311.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is clearly needed legislation and it needs to be 
implemented, not just in the technical sense, but in the spirit of the 
law. Some of the treatment of employees in this House over the last 
year, I believe, has been reprehensible. The long-time employees of 
this institution have been treated badly.
  Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this new legislation will improve 
their lot. We ought to be an example for the Nation, not just of 
following the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law in dealing 
with our employees.
  Frankly, leaving all Federal employees in a lurch over the failure to 
pass a continuing resolution is another example of some of the 
hypocrisy here, but I do commend the spirit of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I am 
pleased that the process that was started in the 103d Congress is 
finally nearing implementation. Very frankly, we had a political 
discussion, in the 102d and 103d, about merit hiring and about doing 
away with patronage; doing away with the politicization of the 
ministerial duties of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I was for that. I thought we were moving in the right 
direction. 

[[Page H15112]]
In fact, we adopted in the last Congress a rule which would have said 
that employees could not be removed for purely political reasons. That, 
in fact, they would be treated as merit employees if they were 
performing administerial functions.
  One of the first acts of this Republican leadership was, frankly, to 
delete that rule from the rules of the House of Representatives, while 
at the same time projecting legislation, which had been killed by 
Republicans in the Senate, as their legislation, which had been 
previously passed in the 103d Congress, and providing for the covering 
of the House of Representatives under the laws that we had passed vis-
a-vis employees' rights and working conditions to the private sector, 
that they be applied to the Congress.
  That legislation was supported by over 400 Members of this body, and 
as some of my colleagues may recall, I was the floor leader on this 
side of the aisle for that legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my support of that policy and this 
resolution, my colleagues should not be fooled that the passage of this 
resolution will ensure that the employees of this House will be treated 
fairly, equitability, and nonpolitically. I want to call to the 
attention of every Member of this House the recent actions that have 
been taking place by the Clerk.
  I want to say something at the outset. I have a great deal of respect 
and affection for the Clerk of this House. I think she has operated in 
what I perceive to be an open and fair fashion over the last few months 
of her tenure. I appreciated that. It was, frankly, in juxtaposition to 
some other leaders dealing with personnel in this House, and so it was 
doubly appreciated.
  As many of my colleagues may have read in recent press reports, 
however, 10 employees have recently been dismissed by the Clerk, 
contrary to the management plan submitted to and approved by the 
Committee on House Oversight; contrary to the rules of the 103d 
Congress, which stated that employees cannot be dismissed without cause 
and cannot be dismissed for reasons other than their nonperformance or 
malfeasance in office.
  Mr. Speaker, the rules of the 104th Congress, did not include the 
referenced language of the 103d Congress.
  Some may think that these dismissals were part of the transition, 
which would have been understandable, I suppose, except for the fact 
that the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], a member of the Committee 
on House Oversight, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation and then the ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General 
Government, properly expressed outrage on this floor when members of 
the travel office in the White House were removed, notwithstanding they 
served at the will of the President.
  Mr. Speaker, there was an expression of outrage and, in fact, the 
Treasury-Postal bill was held up by the gentleman from Virginia because 
of that concern. I think that concern was appropriate, and I said so on 
the floor of this House then when it was the Clinton White House 
acting.
  Some may think, as I said, that these were part of the transition. In 
fact, each of these employees were kept on through the transition, and 
each was in receipt of a letter from the Clerk in May offering them 
continued employment.
  Each employee was informed that they were specifically being 
dismissed in December, just a few days ago, without cause.

                              {time}  1200

  I was surprised to learn these employees had all been offered 
continued employment prior to their dismissals. I was shocked to learn 
that one of the employees had, as recently as July, been given a 
promotion. I was shocked that one employee had been asked to make 
suggestions for his replacement. I do not know what that does to the 
morale of the employees who remain. I was appalled, Mr. Speaker, that a 
Vietnam veteran with 23 years' experience, who had started his 
employment with the House by filling out a Standard 171 Form, not a 
political employee, a ministerial employee, not fired for cause, a 
Vietnam veteran, 23 years of seniority, and just a few short weeks 
before that, maybe a few months, a noncitizen had been hired in this 
office at a comparable salary with comparable responsibilities.
  Shame, shame, shame that we would treat employees so cavalierly and 
then stand on this floor and say how we want to protect the rights of 
veterans in America whom we sent overseas to defend this country and 
then a few days before Christmas say, ``Guess what, we have a 
noncitizen whom we have hired who probably can do your job.'' That was 
not said specifically. I want to make that clear. But the inference is 
very clear. The inference is very clear. ``We have got somebody else to 
do the job.'' Twenty-three years of experience.
  I was further troubled, Mr. Speaker, to learn that in spite of 
repeated representations by many in the majority that a ``nonpartisan, 
professional work force'' was being employed, several recent hires in 
the Clerk's office come from the Republican National Committee. There 
is nothing wrong with that. Clearly, the same happened from the 
Democratic National Committee under Democratic leadership of this 
House. But it is wrong to tell the employees or to imply to the public 
that this is going to be merit hiring, nonpolitical, and then pursue 
that practice.
  Earlier this year, we learned a number of senior managers in the 
office of the chief administrative officer are also either former staff 
of the Republican National Committee, the Republican National Campaign 
Committee, or former political appointees of the Reagan or Bush 
administrations. That is not wrong. I do not allege it to be wrong. 
What I do allege is, if you say you are going to hire on merit and 
retain on merit and performance, then do not replace folks with 
political appointees and expect your personnel to believe, in fact, 
they work in a merit-based system.
  It is becoming increasingly apparent hiring is being done on the 
basis of political affiliation. What is so troubling, Mr. Speaker, 
about these recent firings is that each of these employees had been 
given the impression, as I have said, that they had been performing 
their jobs in a professional, competent manner. In fact, they were told 
they were not, I underline not, removed for cause. Each of these 
employees had made it through the transition period.
  Let me reiterate that. They had made it through the transition 
period. I was told by the Clerk herself that the transition was over in 
the summer. I talked to her just a few days ago, and she reiterated 
that.
  Let me make it clear, I do not question the ability of this Clerk or 
her attitude or fairness. But this instance is one that I think does 
not comport with my experience for that practice. Suddenly, after 
further recent partisan hirings, these employees have been dismissed. 
Despite repeated inquiries on my behalf, no reasonable business purpose 
for these terminations has yet been stated to me, and I suggest has not 
been submitted to the committee.
  The Clerk's office has an employee manual. I have got that employee 
manual right here, issued by this Clerk, not a prior Clerk, in this 
Congress. It lays out clear steps for dismissal. Each employee was 
given this manual when they received their offers of continued 
employment, presumably so they knew the rules of the road as employees. 
Yet this manual and its process was ignored.
  Now, very frankly, the Clerk says, ``Oh, no, the employees serve at 
the will of the Clerk.'' Let me read the language: ``Two steps, notice 
of action. Suspensions, terminations, and,'' conjunctive, in addition 
to, and counsel, I am sure, understands that interpretation, ``and all 
performance-based actions requiring the following two-step approach''; 
in other words, in other words, not only do performance-based 
terminations require these two steps, it is an ``and'', but suspensions 
and terminations also, according to this manual, require those steps. 
They were not taken, period.
  This was clearly a termination. They are terminated. Many Members of 
the House took to this well when President Clinton dismissed members of 
the travel office. As I said previously, they were outraged that 
employees were fired for seemingly partisan purposes. I was outraged 
because a number of them were my constituents. I think 

[[Page H15113]]
what was done was wrong, and as chairman of the Treasury, Postal 
Committee, I assured that everyone but one received offers of 
employment in the executive department, and those who wanted it got it 
at comparable levels.

  So let there be no mistake, when the White House did it, I thought it 
was wrong. When the Clerk does it, I think it is wrong.
  My colleagues, I would ask that that outrage that was expressed on 
the Republican side of the aisle at those firings to be at least 
evidenced today and now.
  There have been no allegations of mismanagement or poor performance 
by these employees. I understand that the Compliance Act relates to 
discrimination. That act goes into effect, of course, on January 22 of 
this coming year or January 23. However, each of these employees is 
being terminated in such a way that even if they wanted to explore 
their rights under that act, I believe they are precluded.
  It can be argued that some of them, perhaps all, will be on the 
payroll technically and, therefore, may be included. We will see.
  I have repeatedly raised my concerns that a goal which I strongly 
supported, ending patronage in the House of Representatives for 
ministerial employees and assuring a professional work force for the 
administrative functions of the House, is being seriously undermined 
beneath the rhetoric of professionalism.
  A number of these employees have expressed concerns over their 
treatment in the media. It has been brought to my attention that the 
word has been spread that these employees better watch out. Let no one 
in this House be mistaken, I and my colleagues, I hope on both sides of 
the aisle, will not stand for any reprisals being taken against any 
employee for exercising their rights of free speech.
  The new Republican majority may feel at will to enforce a gag rule on 
this House from time to time. But we ought not to, and it would be 
wrong to, enforce a gag rule on our employees or former employees by 
threats of recrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe these dismissals were wrong. They 
superficially, at least, appear to be based on partisanship. But 
whether they are or not, they were wrong, and they have left the staff 
of the House of Representatives, in my opinion, demoralized and feeling 
insecure.
  If dismissals are not based on job performance, for those who are not 
involved in policy making, and clearly those employees in policy making 
are subject to the will of the policy maker; that is the way it must be 
and should be. But for those people that we ask day to day to come to 
this House, to come to this Capitol and perform duties for us in a 
professional manner, unrelated to formulation or promulgation of 
policy, they ought to know that if they perform, for Republicans or 
Democrats, in a fashion that brings credit on this institution and 
facilitates the work of this House, that they will be continued in 
their employment.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in support of this resolution. I supported 
it as a Member of the Committee on House Oversight. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the Committee on House 
Oversight, has rightfully said that this moves the process forward. I 
agree with him. I am pleased that we are moving. I will vote for this 
legislation.
  But I would hope that all of the leadership of this House would 
review this matter, not just for concern with these ten but concern for 
every person who works for this institution, people of whom we are 
proud, people of whom we are very appreciative for the work they do for 
us and for the American people, and people whom we ought to treat with 
respect and the dignity they deserve.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Although the argument of the gentleman from Maryland is not on the 
measure in front of us, I think, based upon the innuendo, the 
qualifiers, the rumor and gossip, the straw man argument that he 
constructed needs to be responded to.
  Frankly, his statements are inaccurate, factually as well as in the 
innuendo, suggestions, and qualifiers. There were 9 individuals 
involved, not 10. They were employed by the Clerk in a number of 
activities. The Clerk continues to rethink the structure under her 
auspices, and, as in any business, there are restructurings that take 
place from time to time. This is one of those restructurings.
  I find it interesting that the gentleman from Maryland indicated that 
he was the floor leader in the passage of the legislation that the 
resolution actually deals with. I am pleased to say he was the floor 
leader on the minority side. His party had 40 years to pass this kind 
of legislation. They never did. They talked a lot about it. They made 
innuendos at that time that it was a fair system. In fact, it was a 
plantation run totally by patronage.
  What we did was say that that was to stop. What we are doing is 
restructuring this House, as we have from day 1. We continue to 
restructure it. We probably will not get it all done by the end of the 
104th Congress, and we will probably continue as the majority in the 
105th to continue to restructure.
  The gentleman used a number of phrases and then couched them that 
that is not really what he meant, but there were rumors and gossip, and 
according to the media that certain things were going on.
  I will tell the gentleman that he ought to rely on something other 
than unnamed sources in the media.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I am not going to yield at this time.
  Mr. HOYER. I do not think I used any of those phrases. None.
  Mr. THOMAS. I believe the gentleman, if he checks the Record, will 
find out that several times he referred to stories in the media. I 
believe the Record will show that. We will find out about it after the 
fact.
  But I would ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a letter 
that I received from the Clerk of the House, Robin Carle----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMAS. Reviewing some of the statements that have been made.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                              Office of the Clerk,


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, December 18, 1995.
     Hon. Bill Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on House Oversight, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In light of inaccurate media reports 
     that suggested various personnel actions of recent weeks have 
     jeopardized or impacted the performance of the House floor, I 
     am writing to clarify the current situation. I hope you find 
     this information of assistance.
       First, contrary to media reports by an ``unnamed source'', 
     let me clearly state that at no time in the last week has the 
     integrity of the House floor or the quality of work produced 
     by the Offices of the Clerk suffered. Between November 30 and 
     December 7, nine individuals in the various offices of the 
     Clerk were informed that their services were no longer needed 
     and that from the day forward they would be placed on 
     Administrative Leave until January 16, 1996 and in addition 
     provided payment for their accrued annual leave for up to 30 
     calendar days. While these individuals were relieved of 
     service and their responsibilities assigned to other current 
     personnel, at no time have these actions influenced or 
     threatened the work of the floor or the internal 
     administrative activities associated with the legislative 
     process. In fact, only three of the nine individuals were 
     employed in the Office of Legislative Operations and only one 
     of them worked directly on the House floor.
       I, obviously, evaluated the workload of my offices prior to 
     taking these personnel actions and I was confident we would 
     be able to maintain the timeliness and quality of Clerk 
     operations. Although inaccurate press accounts and hallway 
     gossip would suggest otherwise, I believe it is clearly 
     evident that the House's ability to function did not rest 
     solely on the shoulders of these nine individuals. The Clerk 
     employees have and will continue to provide the high quality 
     of service needed to support the House's legislative 
     functions.
       Over the last week, all systems and procedures of the 
     Office of Legislative Operations have performed successfully. 
     No irregular delays in the handling of legislative papers and 
     no errors in the final recording of votes have occurred. 
     Further, while a printing error on the part of the Government 
     Print Office was discovered prior to consideration of a House 
     Resolution, the Office of Legislative Operations was able to 
     assist interested parties to ensure that no disruption 
     occurred in the House's legislative schedule.
       Let me stress, it is a regular occurrence, particularly 
     during the closing days of a legislative session, for the 
     administrative procedures related to the legislative process 
     to play ``catch up'' in light of the multiple legislative 
     actions that are occurring in a compressed period on both the 
     House and Senate 

[[Page H15114]]
     floors. The legislative schedule of last week, despite our preparations 
     for increased activity, was relatively calm and routine. The 
     Clerk's offices have performed well during this busy session, 
     but can certainly handle even more activity.
       In particular, during this time of budget negotiations, 
     individuals have raised concerns about the enrolling of 
     appropriations measures. I am aware it has been suggested 
     that the enrolling of the FY97 Interior and VA-HUD 
     Appropriations Bills were somehow delayed in my offices and 
     could not be forwarded to the President on Friday. In fact, 
     the VA-HUD bill was completed and forwarded to the Speaker's 
     Office for signature on Friday evening. That same evening the 
     Office of Legislative Operations completed its work on the 
     Interior Appropriations Bill and forwarded it back to the 
     Committee for final actions. The Committee completed its work 
     on the morning of Saturday, December 16, and I understand 
     that both bills were delivered to the President at that time.
       I stand ready to discuss any of these issues with you in 
     more detail if you would find it useful.
           With warm regards,
                                                   Robin H. Carle.
  Mr. THOMAS. The Clerk says in her letter, ``First, contrary to media 
reports by an `unnamed source', let me clearly state that at no time in 
the last week has the integrity of the House floor or the quality of 
the work produced by the Offices of the Clerk suffered.''
  The Clerk goes on to say that, ``I, obviously, evaluated the work 
load of my offices prior to taking these personnel actions and I was 
confident that we would be able to maintain the timeliness and quality 
of Clerk operations. Although inaccurate press accounts and hallway 
gossip would suggest otherwise,'' she says, ``I believe it is clearly 
evident that the House's ability to function did not rest solely on the 
shoulders of these nine individuals.'' I agree with her completely. As 
a matter of fact, very few of them were directly involved in the 
legislative process.
  The letter goes on to analyze arguments that have been made about the 
inability to get the job done around here. Interestingly enough, one of 
the problems was a printing error on the part of the Government 
Printing Office. It was, of course, discovered prior to consideration 
of a House resolution, and it was corrected.

                              {time}  1215

  We are in the latter days of the first session, and there is always a 
crunch-time involved and decisions hastily made, notwithstanding the 
number of employees that have to be reviewed periodically.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object. Before the 
gentleman finished what he wanted to include in the Record, the Speaker 
said ``without objection.'' But the fact of the matter is, he had not 
finished his request.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I had concluded, I heard ``without 
objection,'' and, therefore, I read from the letter.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair said ``without objection.'' The 
gentleman did not respond with an objection.
  Mr. HOYER. The Chair, I believe, and I will not press it further, I 
said ``without objection,'' before the gentleman finished his sentence.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I asked for unanimous consent, I received 
it, and, without objection, it was given. I then proceeded to supply 
for the Record portions of that letter that I thought were pertinent to 
the statement that I want to make.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is difficult for the gentleman from 
Maryland to understand that people who are employed are not guaranteed 
lifetime employment; that, as a matter of fact, somebody can be 
dismissed through no fault of their own. It happens all the time in the 
private sector based upon business decisions, business cycles, 
decisions to merge or eliminate businesses, and what will go on around 
here will be business decisions.
  We have responsibility for running this place, and we are going to 
run it in a professional manner. The gentleman can from time to time 
come to the floor, as he has done now, and criticize those decisions. 
He has every right to criticize the decision. But he has to understand 
that people are dismissed in this world when there is no cause for 
their dismissal, other than the fact that there is a restructuring 
going on, and heaven knows, this place continues to need restructuring.
  No one is guaranteed lifetime employment under this majority. Based 
upon his assertions, apparently that was the case under the old regime, 
with patronage and plantation as the model.

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. That is not the model that we are using in organizing 
this place.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I will tell the gentleman that he well knows, conjunction 
or not, that for business decisions, you can, without cause, dismiss 
people.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. No, I will not yield, and the gentleman can continue to 
say that and I will not yield.
  Mr. Speaker, based upon the CRS request that we have some modicum of 
decorum on the floor, can I continue my statement without the harassing 
yielding requests from the gentleman from Maryland?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California controls the 
time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, we currently have a discrimination procedure 
available to us under the Office of Fair Employment Practices. If it 
was for discrimination, title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies. I do 
not believe anyone is arguing that there was discrimination.
  I cannot believe the gentleman's argument about a Vietnam vet and 
someone who has permanent residence who is seeking United States 
citizenship deserves to even be responded to. It is that kind of 
pejorative placement, of course, not on his own hands, but on others 
and through the media, that is exactly the kind of argument that the 
American people are fed up with.
  As the new majority, we intend to run this place in as lean a fashion 
as possible. There will be additional dismissals, I will tell you that 
right now. They will be because we are restructuring this place. It is 
not because someone is not doing the job that they used to have here as 
well as they could do it; it is that probably that job does not need to 
be done.
  There are a number of people, I have to tell you, that are still 
employed here who are doing jobs that should not be done, and they will 
be dismissed and the job will be ended. That was the commitment the 
American people said they wanted out of this new majority, and we are 
doing it.
  It seems to me that if the gentleman from Maryland has any facts 
based upon all of the innuendo about politics in terms of evidence to 
indicate that someone was not professionally prepared to do the job, 
notwithstanding the fact that they may happen to be a Republican. Since 
the old test under their majority was whether they were a Democrat or 
not, not whether or not they could do the job, it seems to me that if 
he has any evidence whatsoever, we would certainly like to take a look 
at it, that people were hired for partisan reasons, rather than for 
their professional competency, I say notwithstanding the fact that they 
were Republicans.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what we have in front of us, once again, is a 
resolution that was passed by the committee for the interim approval of 
regulations which we believe will go into effect while we are in 
adjournment, and I would ask that we move on to the next resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman rose and responded and talked about the 
media. I did not say anything about the media. He talked about hallway 
allegations. I did not say anything about that. I think where he got 
that was from the letter from Ms. Carle. I was not going to object to 
the submission of this letter. I disagree with some aspects of it, but 
it is fine to have in the Record and we will discuss its pertinent 
parts.
  I thought there were 10, I still think there are 10, maybe there are 
9. Whether it is 9 or 10, the fact remains that a few days before 
Christmas, for no cause, they were told, some after 23 years of 
service, some after 20, some 

[[Page H15115]]
after 19, some after 15, that their services were no longer going to be 
utilized by the House of Representatives. They effectively were fired 
before Christmas. They are still on the payroll; they will still be 
paid. They have comp time coming to them, they have certain leave 
coming to them. But the fact of the matter is we took that action.
  The issue here is that in July of 1995, in reorganization, this 
manual was published and given to the employees, and it said if they 
were going to be removed, they would have certain rights. This was not 
complied with. Period. That is not a newspaper report, that is not 
hallway talk. That is Steny Hoyer standing on this floor reading this 
very simple sentence and saying the Clerk's own rules were not complied 
with in this action. That was wrong, unfair, and ought to be reversed.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have never disagreed with the American 
people's votes. The Republicans are in charge and run the place, and I 
support that.
  One of these fellows that was let go was a Vietnam vet, did not come 
here under patronage, filled out a general application, and was 
instructed as of July that he would be free and clear and ended up 
purchasing property, an individual that fought hard to get the 
gentleman from Florida, Bill Young, a voting booth in the back.
  One of these new hires is a noncitizen with a green card. I think 
that is the problem with the country here. I think it starts in the 
Congress of the United States. I think this is a damn shame. And from 
what I am hearing now, there will be more dismissals.
  Take this staff. They start at 10 in the morning. If some long-winded 
politicians should have special orders until 2 o'clock the following 
morning, they are here. Now, they are looking over their shoulder 
worrying if they are going to have a job.
  We passed an accountability act, an accountability act that would in 
fact make Congress sensitive to the laws of the land. My God, we have 
uprooted families. In July we were supposed to have been beyond this.
  This is wrong. The Congress of the United States should stand for 
more than this. And when an individual comes in here without patronage, 
without a sponsor, and is fair to everybody on both sides of the aisle, 
a Vietnam vet, it is a week before Christmas, set loose, 1 day, 1 week 
before the January 23 deadline, officially, look, everybody is saying 
they do not question the Clerk. I question the Clerk, and the Clerk is 
not the boss around here. She is not in charge. The Republican majority 
is in charge, and I think you should do what is right on this and put 
to rest this dismissal business. We have good quality people. We should 
be keeping them and reinforcing them, not scaring the hell out of them.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the 
Record a letter to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] from the 
Clerk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. HOYER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, and I do not 
intend to object, first of all, let me ask, is this the letter of 
December 13?
  Mr. THOMAS. I will tell the gentleman, this is the letter of December 
18.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I have that copy as well. I will not object, 
but simply reiterate that I want to make it clear, because she says 
that I question her abilities or her abilities have been questioned, I 
do not question that. There are some other things in the letter with 
which I disagree. But I think she has set forth her case, and I think 
it is appropriate that it be in the Record at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The letters referred to follows:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, December 13, 1995.
     Hon. Robin Carle,
     Clerk of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Robin, As a follow-up to our meeting yesterday, I am 
     writing to again express my grave concerns over the personnel 
     actions you have taken over the last two weeks. I am fearful 
     that the ability of the Office of the Clerk to perform the 
     administrative functions of the House has been compromised. I 
     am specifically concerned about the ability of the enrolling 
     and tally clerks to perform their functions to their usual 
     high standard in light of the severe staff reductions you 
     have undertaken.
       Furthermore, I and other members of the Committee on House 
     Oversight were under the impression that your reorganization 
     was complete. Yet these employees, who had all received and 
     accepted offers of continued employment, have now been 
     summarily dismissed without cause. In our recent conversation 
     you also implied that some of these positions would be 
     filled, some changed and some would not be filled. As you 
     know, this is contrary to the plan you submitted to the 
     Committee on House Oversight.
       I have also been troubled to learn that contrary to my 
     understanding from our recent conversation that you had not 
     made any recent hires, that in fact, there are several new 
     employees in Legislative Operations.
       Since our conversation, I have had the opportunity to speak 
     personally with a number of individuals that you or your 
     representatives dismissed. I am shocked at the way these 
     dismissals were handled. These dismissals all seem contrary 
     to the policies you lay out in the Policies and Procedures 
     manual of your office. Furthermore, many of these employees 
     had been recently promoted and were, by your or our staff's 
     own admission, quality employees. Again, I am very concerned 
     that employees are now being dismissed without cause after 
     the end of the transition period. That was not my 
     understanding of the protections the new majority was seeking 
     for House employees and is contrary to all public statements 
     made by the Majority. It is also clearly inconsistent with 
     conversations you and I have had in the past.
       In light of these recent events, I would like to see the 
     staffing levels in each of your offices as of the following 
     dates: November 1, 1994, January 5, 1995, July 1, 1995 and 
     today. In addition, I now make the request to you that I have 
     made to other officers of the House for the resumes of your 
     senior staff, including office chiefs and of the personnel 
     you have hired since February and the positions they occupy.
       I can find no readily apparent logical or appropriate 
     reasonable business purpose for these actions. I urge you to 
     revisit these decisions to ensure the proper function and 
     integrity of the Office of the Clerk, I look forward to 
     receiving your materials and to further discussing these 
     matters with you.
           Sincerely yours,
     Steny H. Hoyer.
                                                                    ____

                                              Office of the Clerk,


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, December 18, 1995.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hoyer: This letter is a follow up to our 
     conversation of Tuesday, December 12, and your letter dated 
     December 13. I appreciate knowing of your interest in the 
     internal management and personnel actions of my office and 
     your concern with my personal management abilities.
       First, I would like to address your questions regarding the 
     current integrity of the Office of Legislative Operations, 
     the Office of Legislative Computer Systems, LEGIS, the House 
     Document Room and the overall functioning of the House floor 
     in light of these personnel actions. It is my position, that 
     while nine individuals were relieved of service and their 
     responsibilities assigned to other current personnel, at no 
     time has the integrity or quality of work produced by the 
     Clerk's operations suffered, as evidenced by our successful 
     performance during last week's legislative schedule. I was 
     confident this would be the case at the time these actions 
     were taken. Although inaccurate press accounts and hallway 
     gossip would suggest otherwise, I believe it is now even more 
     clearly evident to you and others that the House's ability to 
     function did not rest solely on the shoulders of these nine 
     individuals.
       Several other rumors and issues have been circulating in 
     light, I believe, of our earlier conversation and your 
     subsequent conversations with other parties. Issues have been 
     raised regarding the demographic makeup of the group of 
     individuals hired in the last eight months, their gender and 
     other questions regarding employees of foreign origin. In 
     general, I have been criticized for hiring women, minorities 
     and individuals of foreign background. I have been hiring and 
     firing people for 20 years. It is and has always been my 
     personal objective to hire people competent to carry out the 
     missions required of individual positions, separate of race, 
     gender and religious background. Not only would 
     discrimination based upon these characteristics be in 
     violation of House Rules and federal law, it would be against 
     my personal beliefs and character. I am proud of my hiring 
     record since February, which includes the appointment of 35 
     individuals, of whom 19 are women (54.3%), eight are 
     minorities 

[[Page H15116]]
     (22.9%) including two individuals who hold permanent work visas and who 
     prior to employment with my office, applied for U.S. 
     citizenship, and two military reservists.
       In addition, let me assure you that I am the employing 
     authority for the Offices of the Clerk. I personally 
     determine the hiring and other personnel actions that are 
     taken in my offices. All references that either the Committee 
     on House Oversight, Leadership Offices or others determine my 
     personnel decisions are untrue and I find personally 
     insulting. I made these and other personnel decisions and 
     will not hide behind someone's political agenda to suggest 
     otherwise. Further, I believe it is a stretch to be 
     criticized for ``wholesale'' termination of individuals 
     employed prior to the 104th Congress. After these nine 
     actions, 168 professionals are employed by the Clerk, in 
     addition to 66 House Page positions. Of these 168 employees, 
     133 are holdovers from the Democrat-controlled 103rd 
     Congress. Therefore, 80 percent of the Clerk's current 
     employees are holdovers from the 103rd Congress.
       Also, as I explained to you earlier, in the reorganization 
     of the Clerk's offices as I proposed to the Committee on 
     House Oversight and as it was approved, all positions were 
     abolished effective June 30, 1995, and new standardized 
     positions created effective July 1, 1995. All employees who 
     were retained within the Clerk's organization were re-
     assigned to these new standardized positions and this re-
     assignment may have resulted in increases or decreases in 
     pay. While these nine employees were retained at that time, 
     none of the employees received merit raises or promotions.
       Between November 30 and December 7, all nine employees were 
     informed that they were going to be placed on administrative 
     leave from their notification date forward until January 16-
     22 days after Christmas and more than five weeks advance 
     notice before their removal from the Clerk's payroll. This 
     voluntary action was also accompanied by my further 
     commitment to provide lump sum payments for accrued annual 
     leave for all of these employees for up to 30 calendar days 
     and other help in their efforts to find alternative 
     employment. No employee was terminated during the Christmas 
     Holiday week as stated throughout various media reports.
       Other media reports have contained statements that the 
     released employees were ``locked out'' of computers prior to 
     their notification. This statement is completely inaccurate. 
     While changes in computer user IDs and passwords have now 
     occurred, it came after notification of individuals of their 
     future employment status. In fact, all employees were asked 
     during their exit interview with the Immediate Office to 
     complete a checkout process with my office prior to close of 
     business Monday, December 11. This process is routine and 
     requires the return of office keys, House equipment, parking 
     stickers and House IDs prior to the finalization of payroll 
     actions. A number of these released individuals have failed 
     to meet this deadline and could jeopardize timely processing 
     of their lump sum payments during this compressed 
     administrative period. Any personal assistance you could 
     provide in the retrieval of these items would be of great 
     help.
       I'd like to again state that while all these positions were 
     contained within my reorganization proposal adopted by the 
     Committee on House Oversight and implemented on July 1, 1995, 
     I have yet to determine whether to fill these positions with 
     new candidates, hold them as vacant positions or forward a 
     proposal to CHO for their elimination.
       You also raise questions regarding the personnel manual I 
     have provided my staff on the operation of the Offices of the 
     Clerk. The manual clearly outlines procedures and guidelines 
     for disciplinary actions and dismissals for cause. In no way 
     does the manual prohibit dismissal without cause or end the 
     category of at-will employment. In fact, contrary to various 
     media reports, the enactment and implementation of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act will not end at-will 
     employment in these offices.
       I know and respect your interest in the institutional 
     aspects of Capitol Hill. Like you, I have a deep sense of 
     obligation and responsibility to ensure the success of the 
     House and in particular the Clerk's organization. 
     Consequently, I have never had any interest in taking 
     internal administrative actions that would threaten the 
     abilities of the House. I would like to personally discuss 
     with you again any questions or concerns you have regarding 
     these actions and my management abilities.
       Finally, I share your belief that these individuals have 
     and could continue, in different capacities, to make positive 
     contributions to the House. While I do not wish to further 
     their employment with the Clerk's organization, I am not the 
     only employing authority on Capitol Hill. I would happily 
     recommend them for employment with you or any other Member 
     interested in offering them new opportunities.
       If you have any further inquiries, I would welcome them.
           With warm regards,
                                                   Robin H. Carle.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize briefly in the 
letter to Mr. Hoyer the Clerk indicated, ``These positions were 
contained within my reorganization proposal adopted by the Committee on 
House Oversight and implemented on July 1, 1995.'' The Clerk says, ``I 
have yet to determine whether to fill these positions with new 
candidates, hold them as vacant positions, or forward a proposal to the 
Committee on House Oversight for their elimination.''
  Again, this is a business reorganization decision on the part of the 
Clerk.
  She goes on to say, ``You have also raised questions regarding the 
personnel manual I have provided my staff on the operation of the 
offices of the Clerk.'' The letter states, ``The manual clearly 
outlines procedures and guidelines for disciplinary actions and 
dismissals for cause. In no way does the manual prohibit dismissal 
without cause or in the category of at-will employment. In fact, 
contrary to various media reports, the enactment and implementation of 
the Congressional Accountability Act will not end at-will employment in 
these offices.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would to on to tell you that it will not end the 
reorganization of this institution, and that there will be individuals 
who will no longer have jobs, through no fault of their own, other than 
the fact that this place was padded with scores of people who should 
never have been on the payroll in the first place, and who had jobs 
which did not make a lot of sense. We will continue to restructure this 
place until it makes sense. We will do it with as much reasonableness 
as we can, but we will do it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the letter 
directed to Ms. Carle dated December 13, 1995, appear immediately 
preceding her response, so that the record is clear.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, House Resolution 311.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________