[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H15155-H15156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1715
 PROVIDING FOR PROVISIONAL APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS ISSUED BY OFFICE OF 
                               COMPLIANCE

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 123), to provide for the 
provisional approval of regulations applicable to certain covered 
employing offices and covered employees and to be issued by the Office 
of Compliance before January 23, 1996.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 123

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS.

       The regulations applicable to employing offices which are 
     not the House of Representatives or the Senate and covered 
     employees who are not the employees of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate 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 (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to the 
rule, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] will be recognized for 
20 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 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, House Concurrent Resolution 123 is a companion 
resolution to House Resolution 311 that we looked at earlier in the day 
and accepted. House Resolution 311 applied to the House of 
Representatives, and the House Concurrent Resolution 123 applies to 
covered employee offices and others, such as the Architect, and so 
forth.
  Mr. Speaker, recall the situation in which probably a provision of 
rules will be passed on January 8. We probably will not be here. We 
will accept these provisionally. When we come back on January 23, we 
will examine and then approve the final orders.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. It has been a very 
cooperative effort on the part of the majority and the minority to 
develop standards and guidelines that we can all benefit from as we 
live with the new law that applies all of the laws that this Congress 
has passed to ourselves at some point during the next calendar year. I 
believe 

[[Page H15156]]
that the step that we are taking today is appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Fazio] for yielding me this time.
  As I did earlier today, I rise in support of this resolution, which I 
think is an appropriate resolution. I congratulate the chairman of the 
Committee on House Oversight for bringing it to the floor and for 
moving this process forward.
  However, as I did this morning, I take this opportunity to rise to 
consider legislation and resolutions which move the process forward of 
extending to employees protections to which I think they are entitled 
and which will enhance morale and the quality of our work force. I rise 
because I think that we have taken action in recent weeks to undermine 
both of those objectives.
  I will not repeat the facts as I know them to be with reference to 
the nine employees who were removed by the Clerk just a few days ago, 
shortly before the Christmas holidays, some of whom have spent more 
than two decades as employees of this body. Suffice it to say that none 
of them were removed for cause.
  The reason I rise is because the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on House Oversight made some observations at the end of that 
debate which I want to comment on. The gentleman observed that the 
majority had not indicated that it would not take further actions after 
reorganization had been completed to eliminate redundant positions, to 
eliminate, in effect, featherbedding which might have been created, he 
did not use that term, but that was the implication, that had been 
created under the patronage-plagued system that the gentleman alleged 
existed under the Democrats. Not getting into that argument, let me say 
that the unfortunate implication was that any of these positions fall 
in that category.
  None of them do, Mr. Speaker. Let me repeat, none of the nine fall 
into a category of being eliminated because they were described as was 
characterized by the chairman. I do not say that the gentleman form 
California [Mr. Thomas] was characterizing these positions. I do not 
know that the gentleman was doing that at all. However, the implication 
could have been drawn that in fact that was the rationale for this 
action.
  In my opinion, it was not. That opinion is drawn after personal 
conversations with the Clerk, Ms. Carle, and after correspondence from 
her.
  I rise once again to discuss this issue simply because we are moving 
a process forward which in a bipartisan way we agree will accomplish an 
objective of depoliticizing and professionalizing the ministerial staff 
that serves this institution. When I refer to ministerial staff, I 
simply mean that staff which is not involved in the formulation or 
promulgation of policy, but simply involved in making sure that the 
day-to-day operations of the House of Representatives are as efficient 
and honest as they possibly can be.
  That is, of course, the objective we want to both accomplish. When I 
say both, both the majority party and the minority party.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as we go through this season, as we 
adopt, probably unanimously, perhaps without a vote, this resolution 
and the previous resolution, that the majority party will look once 
again at the actions that have been taken with respect to these nine 
individuals, and see if that might be reconsidered: see if very loyal, 
very hard-working, very effective employees might be reinstated to the 
duties that I think they have done so well.
  Furthermore, within the course of that review, ensure that other 
employees equally talented, equally essential are not subjected to the 
same precipitous, and that is my word, not anybody else's termination 
of their services, not because of lack of performance, but simply 
because a decision is made that their services are no longer needed.

  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would reiterate that a manual has been 
distributed to the employees of the Office of the Clerk which sets 
forth that terminations will be done in a manner that will provide 
employees with an opportunity to be heard.
  It does not imply, nor do I interpret it to mean, that termination at 
will has been changed. In fact, I believe that House employees should 
be in the status of being terminated at will. But in that context of 
professionalizing our staff, they ought to have a sense that it will 
not be an arbitrary or political determination that leads to that 
action. Rather, it should be based upon their professional performance 
on the job.
  As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to oppose this resolution; 
indeed, I support this resolution, and I support the chairman and our 
committee's efforts to move this process forward.
  I appreciate the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] giving me this 
opportunity to again call to the attention of the House a matter that I 
think is important not from a political standpoint, but from the 
standpoint of professionalizing this House. That is the stated intent 
of the majority. I congratulate and applaud them for that effort. It is 
an effort in which I and many, I think all, of my colleagues join.
  It is an effort, however, that needs to be more than rhetoric. It 
needs to be reality for each and every one of our employees. I hope we 
will accomplish that objective, and I thank the gentleman from 
California for yielding me the time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If anyone has watched the House of Commons, one of the things that 
goes on there is something that we might adopt; and I will see if we 
can work it today. I will refer the gentleman to comments the chairman 
made a few hours ago in response to his statement, but I will also say 
that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] is certainly entitled to 
his opinions.
  The Clerk has indicated that the reorganization was not based upon 
arbitrary or political reasons, and I am not going to replace the 
Clerk's judgment with the opinions of the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers on 
this side, so I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  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 concurrent resolution, 123.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was 
agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________