Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2010

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (House of Representatives - July 16, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I would like to echo the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Sarbanes.

Prior to opening New Beginnings, the District of Columbia operated another juvenile detention facility, Oak Hill, at the same location. I represented that area of our State for some period of time. This facility was plagued with a history of escapes, and Oak Hill officials routinely, in my opinion, failed to notify area officials and local law enforcement when that occurred. In 2002, I facilitated an agreement signed by the D.C. Human Services Department obligating them to contact local police and communities in the vicinity about Oak Hill escapees.

Although that facility has now been replaced, I am dismayed that the District has failed to comply with the spirit of that agreement and, as Mr. Sarbanes points out, applicable D.C. law. I join with my colleague in urging the subcommittee to continue to work with the District of Columbia to ensure, first, that every effort to prevent future escape is undertaken and, second, that the local community, including law enforcement, be notified should an escape occur.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding and I congratulate him on his leadership of this committee and say how pleased I am that my good friend, JO ANN EMERSON, is the ranking Republican on this committee. I thank her for her leadership--one of the very constructive Members of this body.

This subcommittee is a special subcommittee to me because I had the great honor of serving on this subcommittee for 23 years. I chaired this subcommittee for 2 years and then served as the ranking member when we had the hostile takeover of the institution by the other side, and they became the chair and I became the ranking member. So I have served on this committee for some time.

I rise today because I normally would have weighed in with the chairman and with the ranking member on the issue of pay for civilian employees. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity to discuss with the chairman the provisions for pay in this bill.

The administration and I had a discussion some months ago with reference to their recommendation on civilian and military pay. I indicated to him that we are in a very unique situation in America today. We've lost millions of jobs, millions of people are concerned about losing their jobs, and I therefore perceived it as a relatively unique situation where Federal employees understood that there would be constraints that were not necessarily present in other years.

Federal employees are already constrained by the ECI, the Economic Cost Index, wage index, in the country. If people across the country don't get raises, they don't get raises.

However, for the 28 years that I have served in this body, there have only been 4 years where there has not been pay parity between the military pay cost-of-living adjustment and the civilian cost-of-living adjustment.

In 1985, the military received half a point more than the civilians. In 1994 and 1995, the civilians received in 1994, 1.7 percent more than the military and, in 1995, fourth-tenths of a point more than the military. In 2002, the military received 2.2 more.

Both the military and the civilian employees obviously perform great services for our country. I think there was a sense by the military and civilians that parity between the two made sense, and in fact the Congress, as you see in 24 of those 28 years, has followed that policy.

The chairman, in consultation with me, because I don't want the burden to be on him or the committee, and in discussion with those of us who represent a large number of Federal employees, concluded because of the uniqueness of our economic situation that agreeing to this lack of parity--not supporting it, but agreeing to it--that may be, for some, a distinction without a difference, but it is, I think, a distinction.

However, because of my concern and my discussions with Mr. Orszag in February or March, I went back to Mr. Orszag--and I want to read into and submit for the Record a letter dated July 9, 2009.

It says, ``Thank you for your June 24, 2009, letter regarding pay parity for Federal civilian employees and nonmilitary in noncombat zones.''

Now, the reason he references noncombat zones is because I think there is an appropriateness in the hazardous duty pay, whether they be military or civilian. We put people in harm's way and we put them at risk, and giving them greater compensation makes a lot of sense. I suggested this to the Armed Services Committee. That's not what we did here, but I will go on.

``Given the exceptional circumstances surrounding the economic downturn, the administration did not include equal pay increases for civilian and military pay personnel in its fiscal year 2010 budget submissions. Nonetheless, the administration shares your commitment''--and, really, the commitment of all of us in this Congress who, for 24 out of 28 years, has fought for and affected pay parity as the policy of this Congress--``nonetheless, the administration shares your commitment to a strong civil service that can attract the talent we need to deliver the high level of performance the American people deserve from their government.''

This is the important sentence. I made it known to Mr. Serrano. I did not go over this with Mrs. Emerson. But, it says this, ``The administration is therefore committed in future years to the principle of pay parity between the annual pay increase for the Federal civilian workforce and members of the Armed Service serving in nonhazardous locations.'' Again, this is not about hazardous duty pay for people in harm's way. ``Thank you for your efforts on behalf of Federal employees,'' et cetera.

I rise simply to note that on behalf of the Federal employees I represent, the Federal employee representatives with whom I have had extended discussions, the Senate has taken action in their subcommittee. They did not effect pay parity either, although they effected a greater increase than is included in this bill.

Between now and the conference committee, I intend to be working with Mr. Serrano and Mrs. Emerson on what policy we believe to be appropriate, given the economic circumstances that confront all Americans.

Federal employees have the benefit of having stable, secure jobs. They very much appreciate that. They understand that they don't want their fellow citizens to be in distress and without them being cognizant of that distress and appreciation for the economic situation it puts us in.

So I thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member for their concern and their focus, and I look forward to working with him on this issue as they proceed through the process and we go to conference.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source