[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 135 (Friday, December 8, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H9183-H9188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR A SEVERANCE PAYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES OF LEADERSHIP OFFICES
AND COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 1104) providing for a severance payment for
employees of leadership offices and committees of the House of
Representatives who are separated from employment solely and directly
as a result of a change in the party holding the majority of the
membership of the House.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 1104
Resolved,
SECTION 1. SEVERANCE PAY FOR COMMITTEE AND LEADERSHIP STAFF
DISPLACED BY CHANGE IN MAJORITY PARTY STATUS.
(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this resolution, the
following definitions apply:
(1) The term ``committee'' means a standing or select
committee of the House of Representatives or a joint
committee of the Congress whose funds are disbursed by the
Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.
(2) The term ``eligible displaced staff member'' means an
individual described as follows:
(A) The individual is separated from employment with a
committee or a leadership office solely and directly as a
result of a change in the party holding the majority of the
membership of the House, as certified by the chair of the
committee or head of the leadership office (as the case may
be).
(B) Prior to the date of the separation from employment
described in subparagraph (A), the individual was an employee
of the committee or leadership office involved for not fewer
than 183 days (whether or not service was continuous).
[[Page H9184]]
(C) During the period of the individual's employment, the
individual's pay was disbursed by the Chief Administrative
Officer.
(3) The term ``leadership office'' means the Office of the
Speaker, the Office of the Majority Leader, the Office of the
Minority Leader, the Office of the Majority Whip, and the
Office of the Minority Whip.
(b) Payment.--
(1) Eligibility for severance payment.--In accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Committee on House
Administration, each eligible displaced staff member, upon
application to the Chief Administrative Officer, shall
continue to be paid at the eligible displaced staff member's
respective salary for a period not to exceed 60 days
following the date of the of separation from employment (as
described in subsection (a)(2)) or until the eligible
displaced staff member becomes otherwise gainfully employed,
whichever is earlier.
(2) Acceptance of statement of lack of gainful
employment.--A statement in writing by an eligible displaced
staff member that the member was not gainfully employed
during any period or portion thereof for which payment is
claimed under this subsection shall be accepted as prima
facie evidence that the member was not so employed.
(c) Notification of Eligible Individuals.--The Chief
Administrative Officer shall notify the Committee on House
Administration of the name of each eligible displaced staff
member.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated from the applicable accounts of the House
of Representatives such sums as may be necessary for making
payments under this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Millender-McDonald) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill. I would like to
claim time in opposition to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman from California opposed
to this bill?
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. No, I am not.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona, pursuant to the
rule, will control the 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
to include extraneous material on the subject of this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been submitted at the request
and suggestion of the current minority leader and soon-to-be majority
leader, and because of that situation I reserve the balance of my time
and yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) to allow her, the ranking member
and the cosponsor of the bill, to speak on the resolution.
{time} 2245
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, Speaker-designate Pelosi has
indicated that she intends to usher in a new direction and spirit in
this House, a spirit which opens doors and encourages mutual
recognition, trust and respect among all Members and their staffs.
Likewise, she has signaled that this House, as a two-century-old
institution, is held in trust for all Members as a place to debate and
formulate national policy and to carry out the people's business.
Mr. Speaker, on November 7, the American people spoke loudly with
their votes, and they said that they wanted a new direction in this
national legislature. For many years, the sharp edge of partisanship
and party interests have permeated the very fabric of this very body,
its rules and its operations.
Speaker-designate Pelosi intends to change that in the legislative
arena, while acknowledging the improvements made in the administrative
arena during the last decade. The House has enhanced its bookkeeping
and become more efficient in its operations. These are important
improvements, irrespective of which party controls the House. Retention
of House officers during transition recognizes continuing institutional
interests which transcends party interests. That is a new direction.
And this resolution, sponsored by Chairman Ehlers and myself on
behalf of our respective leaderships, is a new direction as well. This
resolution recognizes that the displacement attendant to a change in
majority is unpredictable and beyond the control of individuals.
This resolution further provides for up to 60 days of severance for
leadership and committee staff displaced by a change in majority party
status. This resolution follows the Senate model, promotes civility,
and acknowledges the direct institutional contribution made by
displaced House leadership and committee staff.
This is the kinder, gentler side of an institution weakened over the
last decade by partisan strife. This is just one of many new directions
intended to begin the process of healing in the House.
This is a sign that good faith and bipartisanship or nonpartisanship
can help bridge the gap of past partisan differences. This is an
acknowledgment that people matter as much as systems, that outcomes are
as important as processes.
This is a small step toward a greater goal, and Speaker-designate
Pelosi intends to achieve that goal, while acknowledging and respecting
each Member's beliefs and values and perspectives.
I am pleased to be on the ground floor of this institutional
rebuilding process, and I thank my chairman for his able, fair and
balanced leadership on this resolution. It is a new direction worthy of
all Members' support, and I urge passage of this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would inform the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) that you yielded time to the ranking member.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, how much time do I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona controls 20
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I didn't learn about this, nor do I believe most of my
colleagues did, until just minutes ago, if not an hour or so ago. This
is not the way to conduct business.
It is one thing to have a policy, a long-term policy on severance
packages, but to spring it in the middle of night on the last day of
session is simply the wrong way to do business.
My understanding is that this would apply to leadership staff and
committee staff, but not regular personal offices. Could somebody
please tell me how that is fair?
If you are just talking about fairness, how is it fair to say to
somebody from a personal office, your boss lost, you haven't got a
severance? But, oh, if you happened to work for a committee or if you
are lucky enough to work for leadership staff, you have a package. How
is that fair?
We are often accused in Congress of having a package that members of
the general public don't have. In doing this, we are offering a package
that some people in Congress have and some people in Congress don't
have, let alone the rest of the population. How is that fair? Why are
we doing business this way in the middle of the night on the last day
of session?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) has
16 minutes remaining.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As colleagues, we often disagree on many issues with our friends on
the other side of the aisle; but we can all agree that we are blessed
by a tireless, dedicated workforce in this Congress. And whenever there
is a transfer of power of this sort, there is a tremendous dislocation
amongst our staff.
I think it is entirely reasonable to do as we did to a certain extent
in 1994, as the Senate did in 2004, when there is a dramatic change of
leadership, to provide a period of time for the staff to adjust to that
changing situation. So I believe this is an appropriate measure, and I
encourage the House to act favorably for it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my next speaker, I was
just informed that we don't even know what this will cost. We still
don't have a cost estimate. If somebody has one, that would be great if
we can have it.
[[Page H9185]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Issa).
(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those dark-of-the-night type
pieces of legislation, and I am going to oppose it not because I
haven't had to personally lay off three committee staff as I went from
the majority to the minority on my subcommittee, but in fact because it
is not well thought out. It has not gone through the legislative
process it should, and it is not a precedent we want to set
haphazardly.
The United States Congress is often accused of not even paying into
Social Security when in fact for decades we have been part of it. The
American people have a lack of confidence that we are run in a uniform
and predictable way, and this is just another example of exactly that.
We don't provide moving expenses, we don't provide per diem or
reimbursements that other branches of government do; and yet, on a
selective basis, without a cost assessment, we are being asked to throw
in something.
As a Member of the majority, the party that is in fact going to be
laying these people off, I appreciate the sympathy of the minority in
this effort, and I am not without some appreciation for what they are
offering, but if they are going to do this, let us do it in a
thoughtful, legislative fashion and let us absolutely make sure that it
is something that will pass the test of the American people as a
uniform policy for government employees of this body.
So I ask that this bill be defeated and a thoughtful and proper bill
be brought back to the floor.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and ask unanimous consent that she
may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution parallels the Senate resolution. I am
amazed that here we are at Christmastime and staff is moving,
transitioning on to unemployment, that we cannot at least be sensitive
to giving them some type of severance pay. We are talking about staff
that has worked so hard in this House and has helped us have the
successes that we have had.
So I urge my colleagues to not defeat this bill. This bill is to
suggest to those staff members and leadership staff that we appreciate
the work that they have done. Many of these staff members might get the
job the next day so we will reduce that severance pay, but at least it
is a step in the right direction. I urge support for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
McCarthy).
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, you know, whether we are Republicans or
Democrats, we are all working people, working with the staffs on the
Republican side and the Democratic side. Here we are. There is a
change. None of us know whether we are going to be reelected in 2
years. That is a risk that we all take.
But for the staff who have worked so hard for all of us on all of our
issues, we certainly should be looking at this as positive legislation.
I have worked so many times with my Republican colleagues with their
staff members and we have worked certainly well together on so many
issues, but that is not the point. The point is these are people that
have devoted their lives to public service. We don't even pay them
enough. Any one of them can go into the private sector and earn a heck
of a lot more money.
So here we are at the end of a session, 11:00, almost 12:00 at night,
and we are going to deny severance pay to those who have served this
country so well.
I urge my colleagues, no matter what our differences are, these
people have done great service to this Nation and they certainly
deserve severance pay.
I hope that this Congress and certainly the Members here will put
themselves in a position of what their staff might be 2 years from now.
These are people that are devoted to each and every one of us. They
have served each and every one of us. They have served this Nation. I
hope we can pass this resolution and give them a severance pay.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from
Arizona, let me point out that there were some 30 offices, and with
retirements even more than that, personal staff who will be out on the
street with no severance package at all. Again, we are picking winners
and losers. Winners are those who work in leadership offices or on
committee staff. If you are in a personal office, tough luck.
This is just not well thought out in the middle of the night to be
doing this, and with no cost estimate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sponsor of this measure
and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we are blessed by
great staff who give tirelessly.
But I would suggest this is not a debate about whether or not we
should have an appropriate severance plan for employees who lose their
jobs because one party or the other loses the majority.
It is not that debate at all. Indeed, we will be back here on the 4th
of January and we can deal with the issue of an appropriate severance
package at that time in a thoughtful way in the sunlight of day when
the American public can watch what is going on, when it is not, as the
gentlewoman who spoke just before me stated, near 11, approaching
midnight, on the last day.
I would say that indeed, it is inexcusable for us to have brought
this package to the floor at this late moment. We have been here all
this week. We came in on Tuesday; we could have proposed this idea
then. I only learned of this notion literally less than an hour ago.
And as I got on the elevator to come to the floor to vote on the
measure we voted on just 30 minutes ago, I chatted with several people
on the elevator, not a one of them was aware this was up for debate or
consideration.
I think it is very, very important to understand that we have an
obligation to be stewards of the public's money.
It was noted earlier in the debate that this parallels the Senate
plan; but I would suggest that the Senate plan was not adopted in the
middle of night on the last day of the session without notice to the
public and without hearings. The Senate plan, as the other side and as
the sponsor of this measure have pointed out, the Senate plan has been
in place for months.
By all means, we should carefully consider an appropriate severance
plan for our employees. But we ought not to do it in the middle of the
night.
As the gentleman has pointed out, there is a fundamental unfairness
in this proposal which I would suggest would not be there if we had
debated this in the daylight with hearings as we should. That is that
this severance package is reserved to leadership staff and committee
staff. They are the best paid staff. Unfortunately, Americans across
the country don't know this, but those of us who work here do,
leadership staff and committee staff, those are the best, most sought-
after jobs on the Hill. They are the best paid jobs on the Hill, and we
are going to give them severance pay but not severance pay to the
individual employees who work in a Member's office? It is fundamentally
unfair and indefensible.
{time} 2300
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues
on the other side that many bills have been passed in the cloak of
night that were adverse to the American people. What we are saying
tonight is that this resolution is for those hard-working workers who
have given so much to this House, and for us to deny them, and
especially these are Republican staff members, not Democratic staff
members that we are talking about, and to deny this, to me is just
absolutely unconscionable at this Christmastime.
I will urge you to reconsider this resolution and pass it as the
Senate has passed their resolution to try to address those who are
transitioning out because of a change in majority.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
[[Page H9186]]
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the Speaker-designate, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And I
commend the chairman, Mr. Ehlers, and Ranking Democrat Congresswoman
Millender-McDonald for bringing this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that the money contained
in this bill, the severance pay, is 100 percent for the Republican
staffers who will be losing their jobs. When the Democrats lost the
Congress in 1994, there was so much unrest and uncertainty among those
who served on committee staffs. Every one of us who is elected to
Congress and our staffs know that we have a 2-year term and the period
from the election day and the swearing in of the new Congress is our
severance pay. We have a 2-year term; that is it.
But the professional staff of the committees serve from term to term,
and in losing the majority, the Republicans have to dismiss many of
their professional and other employees. So it is just a sense of
fairness, I believe, that we in the soon-to-be-majority, but the
minority, recognize the need for these families to have a severance
pay. If they get employed between now and before the 2 months expire,
they don't get the full amount. But this isn't about leadership and
committee. It is about the Republican leadership and the Republican
committee staff. And as Democratic leader, I think that the fair thing
to do is to treat those families with the respect they deserve for the
service that these people have given to our country.
It is hard. People don't know if they are going to make their
mortgage payment or if they are going to pay the tuition installment or
what, and this at least gives them 2 months of certainty if they do not
find employment in the meantime.
So I want the record to be clear. This is about the Republicans. It
is the appropriate thing to do for the Republican staff, and I urge our
colleagues to support this act of fairness in supporting this
legislation.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is the last evening that I
will stand before this body, at least for a while, as chairman of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, and there is still work that I have to
do later this evening on several votes that we are still working on
with the Senate, and I hadn't intended to speak on this, but I listened
to the debate, and I felt compelled that at least one full committee
chairman should come and speak in favor of this resolution.
I believe there are 18 standing committees of the House of
Representatives, and the staff ratios on the committees is two-thirds
Republican because we are in the majority and one-third Democrat
because they are in the minority. Since the voters spoke in November,
those ratios are going to switch. On the Energy and Commerce Committee,
which is one of the larger standing committees, right now there are
some 60-odd majority Republican staffers and some 30-odd minority
Democrat staffers. Well, the Democrats are going to be staffing up, as
they should, but it means that about half the Republican staff on the
Energy and Commerce Committee is going to have to seek other
employment, which is around somewhere between 30 and 35 people. Now,
thanks to an agreement with the majority and the minority leadership of
this Congress, for the first time we have agreed if this resolution
passes to provide up to 2 months of severance pay for the majority
staffers that have to be laid off.
If the Energy and Commerce Committee is reflective of the full
Congress and that means that every other committee on the Republican
side is losing approximately 30 staffers, that is about 540 staffers. I
don't know what the leadership staff decline is, but let us say that is
another 60. That is 600 Republicans who through no fault of their own
are going to be out of a job December 31. If you take the average
salary of about $75,000 or $80,000, and I do not know that that is the
average but that is a pretty good guess, we are talking about a
severance package, if everybody takes the full 2 months, of $10
million, give or take half a million dollars. I think that is fair.
Now, the question has been raised about this coming up in the dead of
night. I read about this in Roll Call earlier this week. I didn't know
it was coming up tonight as a resolution, but I read a story in Roll
Call that the Speaker, Mr. Hastert, and Ms. Pelosi had agreed to some
sort of a severance package. And I instructed my staff that I certainly
wanted to apply for the Republicans on the Energy Committee who could
take advantage of this.
The reason we do not do it for personal staff is because you are
either retiring and the Member knows that his staff has to find a job
or you got defeated in an election and a new Member is coming in to
take your place. But that office, that district, will still have the
same number of staffers in the next Congress. It may be a different
Congressman or Congresswoman.
Now, this may not be the perfect way to do it, but it is a good way
to try to do it. And I would hope that the Republicans will vote for
this because if anybody wanted to be partisan and vote ``no,'' it would
be the Democrats. They are adding staff. This is something that
benefits the current majority and our most loyal people, some of who
could double and triple their salary if they didn't want to work on
committees or professional staff. It is a small price to pay. If we
need to find a better way to do it in the next Congress, because I
certainly hope that I am going to be coming back 3 years from now as
chairman of the committee and not as ranking member, let us do it. But
let us please vote for this tonight.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I think the sentiment that we heard the
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee just express, as well as
the incoming Speaker of the House express, is deeply admirable. We are
speaking about 600 men and women who have demonstrated their integrity
and their commitment to public service in this Nation, and for that we
are grateful.
But, Mr. Speaker, I say very humbly that this is still not the right
way to reflect the will of the American people with regard to those
capable men and women who have served our major committees and our
leadership staff.
I am pleased to hear the incoming Speaker's sentiment for Republican
staff, and I am confident that sentiment will be there in the early
days of the 110th Congress. And well we should call it a night, Mr.
Speaker, come back, and allow the people's House in an equitable and a
thoughtful way to consider what the needs are of this Nation relative
to all of the good men and women who have served this majority so ably,
not merely in the leadership offices, not merely in the major
committees, but even those excellent men and women who have served many
of the colleagues for whom these waning moments will be their last
moments in the House of Representatives. Let us do this right. Let us
not do this tonight.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Like the gentleman from Arizona who has objected to this humanitarian
measure during the holiday season, I am a relatively junior Member of
this body, but I do recognize when there is a difference between
decisions from the heart and decisions of the mind. It is past 11
o'clock, but believe me, I know something about late-night voting, and
this is early for late-night voting. I know that we have 12 more bills
to consider.
And I also know that from our office budgets, we could have allocated
amounts of money for our personal staff if we chose to, and if the
gentleman from Arizona chose to, he could pay severance for his
employees out of his own pocket if he really wanted to.
The fact that this act of generosity, of humanitarianism during the
holidays was taken should not be held up for political points.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H9187]]
I should say that we need to remember whose generosity we are relying
on here, and it is the taxpayer.
And also to make a point of fairness, again, the chairman that spoke
earlier, the gentleman from Texas, mentioned that there are some 600
staffers that are affected here. I would submit that there are more
than 600 staffers in the personal offices who are affected here. And
rather than the average salary of $60,000 to $80,000 or whatever that
is, the average salary in a personal office is much, much lower. Are
they not worthy? Is it a fault of their own that their bosses were not
re-elected? Why are we choosing here between them? Why are we saying if
you work in a leadership office, you are worthy of this; if you work in
a personal office, you are not? That is what happens in the middle of
the night when decisions like this are made. That is why we shouldn't
do decisions like that when we are given notice minutes before it comes
up on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, it is very unusual for me to watch
C-SPAN on my television set in my office and decide this is something I
want to come speak about it. It is rare for me to be on the House floor
speaking about someone else's bills or speaking about an amendment.
Usually when I am here, it is on a topic of interest and personal
involvement from my committees and my involvement as a Member of
Congress from a very rural community who is here to fight on behalf of
rural America.
Well, tonight as I watched the debate on this issue, as I heard it
explained, it is one of those issues that caused me to walk across the
street to come talk about something that is gnawing at me.
We have talked about a double standard between the leadership staff,
the committee staff, and our own personal staff. But to me the double
standard is the way that Americans in the job market are not treated
when they lose their job. What I see is that Americans, the taxpayers
of this country, will see one more piece of evidence that Congress
doesn't get it, that we are simply taking care of our own and
forgetting the taxpayers, the Americans who go to work each and every
day and those who may, through no fault of their own, lose their jobs.
So what I see tonight, as we discuss this issue, it is about a double
standard that treats the American people differently from those who
happen to work for Members of Congress, particularly in leadership or
in committee staff positions. They are important. They are important to
the process. They are important to good government. But the reality is
we are here on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the American
taxpayer, and those are the people we ought to be thinking about
tonight as we debate how to spend the taxpayers' dollars.
It is easy to be generous with other people's money. Tonight we ought
to remember it is the taxpayers' money that we are attempting to be
generous with. Let us recognize that once again Congress should not
create a special opportunity for people who happen to work here. Do not
treat ourselves, do not treat our staffs differently from the American
people.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker-designate.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is probably one of the last
opportunities I will have to enjoy the back and forth of debate on the
floor of the House. And I can't resist coming to the defense of the
Republican Members' committee staff people who will lose their jobs
because of the results of the election.
But I want to make this point, standing up again, seeking recognition
again: first I hear the distinguished gentlemen from various States
stand up and say we shouldn't be spending this money, it is $10
million-plus, to give severance pay to families who have lost their
jobs.
{time} 2315
One hundred percent of those jobs will be lost by Republicans, so as
the Democratic leader, I want to support the Republican employees
getting the severance pay. Then I hear the gentlemen stand up and
various ones say that we oppose the expenditure because it's not a good
use of the taxpayers' money and why aren't you spending more to cover
the personal offices? And the point is clear. All Members of Congress
are elected for 2 years, our staffs understand it is a 2-year job and
our opportunity to find employment is between November and January.
But all of this reminds me of a story that was told about Yogi Berra,
which may or may not be a Yogi Berra story, because many stories are
attributed to him. When asked about a particular restaurant, he said,
``I don't like to go there. The food's lousy. Besides, the servings are
too small.''
That is really what this reminds me of. I am opposed to this spending
of money because we shouldn't be spending money to help these families,
and why aren't we spending more to help the other families?
This is really the fair thing to do. Again, I urge my colleagues to
very forcefully support this act of fairness for the Republican
committee staffers.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. I would like to make several points:
First off, that committee staff knows there are elections every 2
years, too. I was a staff director in the minority before we became the
majority and when the ranking member changed, all staff loses their job
whether there has been an election or not. Yes, you could take your
personal accounts for the losing Members and cover some. But the fact
is so could committees. If they withheld funds, they could have done it
as well.
I lose five staff. They have been very close to me. Many of them have
been personal friends. They have had 2 months. It would be nice if they
could have the extra months, but it is no more their right as higher-
paid staff than personal office staff. We are not arguing to spend even
more money. We are saying, how did you come up with the double
standard? Why do leadership staff get the dollars, why do committee
staff get the dollars and not the personal office? The budgets are the
same. The elections are the same. You know the risks. In fact, for a
committee the risks are higher, because you could change your ranking
member, you could change your chairman. You could have your chairman
switch subcommittees and the staff change. This is the nature of the
business.
I think it is great to be generous with your own dollars, but when
you're generous with the taxpayers' dollars, there are obligations with
that. At the very least, there should have been a discussion. There
should have been hearings. We hear that all the time. There should have
been hearings. Sometimes there aren't. But at this point, at the last
day, for us to come up here and give special benefits to the few,
including some of my own staff, is just wrong.
I hope the Members give this a resounding ``no.''
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to anyone who can
tell me that a committee staffer has a longer contract than somebody
who works in a personal office. It is simply not the case. So the
notion that a committee staffer should be treated differently is simply
wrong. The gentleman from Indiana, I think, said it best. Nobody is
here arguing that we shouldn't be generous. It is that when you come
here in the middle of the night the last day of session, you rarely
think things out very well and this isn't thought out very well. How
can you say some people, we're just going to target who gets this
benefit and who doesn't? This isn't how the public expects us to
conduct our business.
As I mentioned before, we are already accused of having different
rules for Congress than exist out there in the general public.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. FLAKE. Does the gentleman have an answer to the question I asked?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. A partial answer to the
question.
Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I would yield.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. That is, on the night that
Members found out that they were defeated,
[[Page H9188]]
their staffs knew they were out of a job. It is my information that a
number of Republican staffers on some of the committees were not
informed until just yesterday that they were out of a job because we
didn't know what the staff ratios were going to be, we didn't know
which people were going to have to be selected, and so just in that
particular regard, they got far less notice.
I understand what the gentleman is doing here. I happen to be one of
those who has been accused about not being concerned enough about
staff, but the fact of the matter is, if we want small government to
work well, we need to have good people to work here. I don't know why
we are taking the time tonight to berate, in essence, our people, to
suggest that somehow they knew this was coming.
Mr. FLAKE. I reclaim my time.
No one has berated anyone. I have worked with very, very able
committee staff. Very, very able leadership staff. Also very able
personal staff. That is not the point here. The point is if we want
small government and we want it to work, let's not conduct it in the
middle of the night on the last day of session. Let's actually come
here in January and say, should we have a different severance package?
Should it be different for committee staff? Should it be different for
personal staff? But let's do it in the light of day. Let's do it with
some kind of deliberation. That is all we are asking. No one is
berating anyone's staff. No one is. That is the last thing on my mind
or anyone who has spoken here.
So let's just step back. Please withdraw this resolution. Let's have
a little more thought to this. I think the American people want us to
deliberate. They want us to do it in the light of day, not at 11:40 at
night, or 11:20 at night. We shouldn't be doing business this way.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona said no one was
being berated, but frankly I feel berated. This is not the middle of
the night. We all know that. I never thought my fellow Republicans
would accuse me of doing something in the middle of the night. I would
have rather done it in the light of day but this just happened to be
when it came up in the schedule.
This action, what we are doing here, does not preclude later action
to take care of those problem cases in personal offices. That is beside
the point. The point right now is we have a large number of committee
staff who are learning fairly late in the game who it is that is being
laid off; namely, those particular persons. They do not have the
opportunity to suddenly rush out and find a job immediately.
Some committee chairmen have talked to me and are very concerned
because they don't know whether they should use their leftover year-end
funds for this purpose. Some of them have money left. Others do not.
There is a huge inequity. This is an attempt to provide an equitable
severance package. A severance package is not unusual in today's world.
Ford Motor Company just bought out huge numbers of employees who they
just wanted to get off the payroll. It is a very common practice. We
are doing the proper thing to assure that everyone is treated equally
in the committee staffs that are losing their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, in the little time I have remaining, I would like to
recognize the gentleman from California for a closing statement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman has 45 seconds.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The only thing I would suggest
is please at this late hour, don't make some of our employees punching
bags. I mean, the fact of the matter is some of these people just
learned this week that they are not going to have employment. If you
think it is an easy thing to try and find a job over the holidays, if
you say come back in January, sure, let's give them more uncertainty.
Let's give their families more uncertainty. Let's have them bear the
burden of this.
And frankly at times we ought to be thinking of those people. I would
just ask you to vote ``yes'' for this. Not for us, not for them, not
for anybody in this House, but for the individuals who have served us
well and their families.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1104.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds of those voting having not
responded in the affirmative) the motion was rejected.
____________________