[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 23307-23312]
[From the U.S. 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).
       (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

[[Page 23308]]

     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.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Issa).
  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

[[Page 23309]]

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 23310]]


  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. 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. 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.

[[Page 23311]]

  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.
  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. 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.

[[Page 23312]]


  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, 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.

                          ____________________