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.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill. I would like to claim time in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, how much time do I have?

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.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Does the gentleman have an answer to the question I asked?

Yes, I would yield.

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. Speaker, unfortunately as the result of a death in the family and my need to return to Illinois by Saturday morning for the funeral services, I was unable to cast my votes on the following pieces of legislation. I request that the Record state my intentions on these votes had I been present to vote.

I would have voted ``aye'' for H. Res. 1100, the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6406, to modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to extend certain trade preference programs, and for other purposes.

I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 5948, the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2006. Passage of the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act supports Belarus as an emerging democracy with U.S. assistance by strengthening democratic institutions and processes within the country. Our country has a long history of promoting democracy worldwide and this bill will assist the people of Belarus with foreign aid and the risk of U.S. sanctions should the recent political upheavals and the repression of democratic groups in the country continue.

I would have voted ``present'' in response to the Call of the House. I am sorry to have missed Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's farewell speech. I respect and admire him, and am proud to serve with him in the Illinois congressional delegation. His long tenure as the Speaker of the House is historic, and he will be celebrated as an esteemed statesman.

I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 6406, to modify temporarily certain rates of duty and make other technical amendments to the trade laws, to extend certain trade preference programs, and for other purposes. This package contains trade provisions I have supported in the past and will continue to do so in the future. These provisions will help expand the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers and exporters within the global marketplace.

I would have voted ``aye'' on the Conference Report on H.R. 5682, the Henry J. Hyde U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006. India has been a longtime and important ally to the U.S. and U.S. assistance in the development of a civilian nuclear energy program will only cement the strategic partnership between our two countries. With the passage of the cooperation agreement with India the U.S. can be assured the peaceful sharing of nuclear energy technologies under international safeguards while preventing the spread of nuclear weapon information to rogue countries, such as North Korea and Iran.

I would have voted ``aye'' on H.J. Res. 102, making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2007. While I am disappointed that we were not able to pass the remaining appropriations bills under regular order, I feel that it is important that we continue to fund our government program at adequate levels until we can address the appropriations bills in the next session of Congress.

Finally, I would have voted ``aye'' on the following bills, considered under suspension of the rules:

1. H.R. 6407--Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act

2. 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 in the House

3. H.R. 6060--Department of State Authorities Act of 2006

4. S. 4050--Sergeant First Class Robert Lee `Bobby' Hollar, Jr. Post Office Building Designation Act

5. S. 4093--A bill to amend the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to extend a suspension of limitation on the period for which certain borrowers are eligible for guaranteed assistance

6. H.R. 5304--Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement Act

7. S. 3821--COMPETE Act of 2006

8. S. 4042--A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit disruptions of funerals of members or former members of the Armed Forces

9. H.R. 6427--To increase the amount in certain funding agreements relating to patents and nonprofit organizations to be used for scientific research, development, and education, and for other purposes

10. H.R. 6428--To authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out certain elements of the project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana

11. S. 2735--Dam Safety Act of 2006

12. S. Con. Res. 123--A concurrent resolution providing for correction to the enrollment of the bill H.R. 5946

13. H.R. 5946--Stevens-Inouye International Fisheries Monitoring and Compliance Legacy Act of 2006

14. H.R. 4075--Marine Mammal Protection Act Amendments of 2006

No, I am not.

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.

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).

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.

I yield to the Speaker-designate, Ms. Pelosi.

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.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and ask unanimous consent that she may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

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. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker-designate.

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.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

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. 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.

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.