John Tierney

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. I thank my colleague for taking the time to point out in the remaining 2 minutes that I have, Mr. Speaker, just to continue to point out some of the issues that the gentlewoman brought to light, and being that what we are really discussing here is the fact that this is a proposal by a committee and a committee chairperson to run a totally extraordinary and unusual type of campaign investigation that focuses only on one party, one office, instead of doing what the other body, the Senate, did in terms of broadening it out. The fact of the matter is, as our minority leader, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], pointed out, the fact of the matter is that we can do better. We need not have two separate investigations, particularly when one of them is really compromised the way the one in the House pretends to be. We ought to do what they have done over in the Senate side, or let them do it if we cannot work jointly with them, save the American taxpayer some $14 million, and deal with both parties, all offices, and have a credible investigation, and not one where we have one individual unilaterally, without any constraints, issuing subpoenas. In every other investigation that has been done by these bodies of any notoriety, the gentlewoman will note that there was never a case of the unilateral issuance of subpoenas by the chairperson, whether it be Watergate, Iran-Contra, the House Ethics Committee, or the proposed Senate investigation, nor have there been unilateral releases of privileged and confidential documents in any of those. Yet our chairperson in the House purports to do both of them, but he purports to do it by silently not stating specifically the context of his investigation and the protocol, so those Members of his committees who profess to be moderate or profess that they would be embarrassed by such a venture can hide behind that lack of specificity. I want to thank all of my colleagues who came to the floor today to highlight this matter, and urge, Mr. Speaker, that we see some leadership on the other side of the aisle here, that we do something that will have credibility, that we move forward so the American people will know that this Congress is working for them.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to my distinguished colleague from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield at this time to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, let me say that I think that all of the Members of that committee would wish that it were true that we had some indication that things were going to be done fairly and justly on that committee. I am here to tell you as a member that we have no indication that that is so. It is very unique that we should have had a meeting called for last week to discuss these very issues about process, to discuss the very issues about funding, to discuss whether or not we would be investigating all of the irregularities in campaign finance reform, only to have that meeting postponed so that this issue could be brought to the floor and rushed through without any debate and without dealing with these matters. The American public demands to know what went wrong with campaign financing at all levels, not just at the White House if anything went wrong there, but in Congress if something went wrong there and in the Senate if something went wrong there. There is no clamoring, no clamoring at all that I know of in the public for us to duplicate the expenditure of funds on this investigation. Nobody that I know of out there is saying, let us spend $6 million in the Senate and another $6 million in the House, and oh, yes, please, if you can, put an $8 million slush fund together so they can hold that in reserve. There is none of that out there in the public. I think we should all take cognizance of the fact that we should have one thorough, complete, nonpartisan and fair investigation, get it done, have it done by a joint committee or by the Senate, because at least the Senate indicates that it wants to do it right. If we insist on having the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the House want to be partisan and want to be unfair, at the very least the appearance of being unfair and partisan, then we ought to back off, we ought to let the Senate do it and we ought to get on the with the people's business. There are many things we could be doing in this Congress; providing a slush fund is not one of them.

Mr. TIERNEY

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1 as it is now constituted and proposed. It appears clearly to be an exercise in semantics. This bill is touted as the Employee Flexibility Act when in fact it would enable those few employers who would act unmindfully of their employees' interests to do just that. Throughout my district, Mr. Chairman, good employers do not clamor for a bill that would enable them to discriminate against their work force. Favoring some who opt for comp time over paid time is not prohibited in the bill as constituted. Also, the bill is ambiguous at best with regard to benefit contributions. If you work and get paid for overtime, your employer contributes to benefits or pensions for the hours paid. However, under this bill if you take comp time instead of wages, an employer avoids making those contributions. Good employers already have the ability to give time off to employees for family matters. Many find a way to do just that. The Family and Medical Leave Act gives employees the right to take time off under fair circumstances. It could be expanded to cover more instances if the majority truly had family concerns in mind. Let us be straight with the American public. This bill would allow some employers to avoid paying overtime and avoid making contributions to benefits. The majority on the committee rejected amendments that would have clarified that an employee should decide whether to take time off rather than be paid for overtime. The amendments would have required the employee to give 2 weeks' notice. If less notice was given, the employee could only take the time off if the employer's business would not be unduly disrupted. The amendments would have clarified that an employer would be prohibited from discriminating against employees while punishing those opting against the employer's wishes. Our provision stated with certainty the recourse and the penalty for violators. The amendment would have clarified a means for protecting moneys owed to employees for accumulated time if the employer went bankrupt. In short, the amendment sought to help the majority reach their stated supposed objective. The truth of the matter is that calling the bill something that it is not will not make it acceptable.