[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL WORK FORCE REDUCTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cardin). Pursuant to House Resolution
357 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 3345.
The Chair designates the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and requests the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] to assume the chair temporarily.
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3345) to amend title 5, United States Code, to eliminate certain
restrictions on employee training; to provide temporary authority to
agencies relating to voluntary separation incentive payments; and for
other purposes, with Mr. Rahall, Chairman pro tempore, in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] will be
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, the administration has proposed an overall
reduction in the number of Federal workers of 252,000. Even apart from
the administration's plans for reducing the Federal work force,
appropriations already enacted by the Congress will necessitate
reductions beyond those that can be accommodated by normal attrition in
a number of agencies. Last week, the subcommittee on the Civil Service
and the Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits held a
hearing to examine the need for imminent work force reductions. Among
the witnesses were the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture,
Interior, and Transportation. All three Departments face work force
reductions in this fiscal year that are likely to exceed normal
attrition. Additionally, the Office of Personnel Management, the
General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration are facing the necessity of conducting involuntary
reductions in force unless they receive buy-out authority this year.
H.R. 3345 provides essential authority to enable agencies to
rationally and humanely reduce their work force. In the absence of
authority to offer voluntary separation incentives, there will be
involuntary reductions in force this year. As a consequence, senior
employees will bump employees with less seniority. Agencies will incur
severance and unemployment compensation costs. Higher paid employees
will end up performing work formerly done by lower paid employees and
overall agency salary levels will increase. Agencies will be unable to
target reductions to either retain key individuals or preserve work
force diversity. As bumping occurs, resulting dislocations will spread
within the agency to the detriment of program administration.
Hardworking Americans will involuntarily lose their jobs through no
fault of their own.
None of this need occur. Last Congress, the Defense Department
was authorized to offer employees voluntary separation incentives. In
fiscal year 1993, the Department of Defense was able to reduce its work
force by almost 70,000 employees. At the beginning of the year, Defense
anticipated it would have to involuntary separate 35,000 workers. Only
2,000 employees were involuntarily separated. Through the use of its
buyout authority, the Department induced the voluntary separation of
32,000 employees. It thereby avoided paying severance and unemployment
compensation and the salary inflation accompanying RIF's. More
importantly, the reduction was achieved in a planned and controlled
manner that minimized the impact on agency morale, work force
diversity, and the administration of national defense programs. Most
importantly, this reduction was achieved in a cost-effective manner
that minimized the hardships American workers would otherwise have
faced.
We cannot further delay the extension of voluntary separation
incentive authority. Voluntary separation incentives in this fiscal
year must be paid out of an agency's current appropriation. Unless the
agencies are able to act quickly, they will not be able to offset the
cost of separation incentives through salary reductions, and will be
unable to avoid involuntary reductions-in-force in fiscal year 1993
even if the voluntary separation incentive authorization is extended.
H.R. 3345 authorizes agencies to offer a separation incentive bonus
equal to the lesser of $25,000 or the amount of severance an employee
would otherwise be entitled to receive. In addition, the legislation
provides that agencies shall pay an additional 9 percent to the civil
service retirement fund for those Civil Service Retirement System
participants who, as a result of accepting a separation incentive, take
early retirement. Finally, it provides that the authority to offer
voluntary separation incentives, pursuant to this legislation, expires
at the end of this calendar year.
An amendment will be offered by Mr. Penny and Mr. Burton to reduce
the overall Federal work force by 252,000; to provide that anyone
receiving a separation incentive who returns to government service
within 5 years must payback the entire bonus; and to provide that
overall Federal employment ceilings will be reduced on a one-for-one
basis for each separation incentive that is accepted. I support the
amendment. Adoption of the amendment will both ensure that the
reduction that separation incentives are intended to facilitate does
occur and will also further ensure that voluntary separation incentives
are used only for the purpose of reducing the size of the government.
I want to commend the Members on both sides of the aisle who have
made it possible to bring forward a responsible bill that will
significantly reduce the Federal deficit. The chairman and ranking
member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Moakley and Mr. Solomon, the authors
of the amendment, Mr. Penny and Mr. Burton, the chairman of the Budget
Committee, Mr. Sabo, the minority leader, Mr. Michel, and the chairman
of the Democratic caucus, Mr. Hoyer, have all played an exceptional
role in forging a bipartisan consensus that allows us to move forward
on a very urgent matter. The ranking member of the Post Office and
Civil Service Committee, Mr. Myers, the subcommittee chairs, Mr.
McCloskey and Ms. Norton, and the members of the Post Office and Civil
Service Committee have been instrumental, not only in the development
of this legislation, but also in the development of the legislation
that has already saved the jobs of 33,000 Defense Department employees
at the same time the Department has reduced overall employment by
70,000.
Mr. Chairman, enactment of H.R. 3345 will provide a proven,
efficient, essential tool to reduce the size of the government. I urge
my colleagues to support the Penny-Burton amendment and I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 3345 on final passage.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
{time} 1520
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the thrust, the intention, the
direction that we are talking about here, reducing in force the number
of employees for the Federal Government. Nothing new about that. We
have heard for years from our constituents that most of the agencies in
the Federal Government are bloated. This may be true in some instances,
but in some it is not. We all recognize the need to reduce the number
of employees, thereby saving the taxpayers of this country unneeded
expenditures.
The way to go about it is where we have run into a difficulty through
the years. We can do it through normal attrition if we have an
agreement that they will not be replaced. There has been some of that
going on in the last several administrations. There have been people
who have retired, who have left employment, and all of them have not
been replaced.
However, there is another way. We can just simply fire them, RIF,
kick them out. But that is not fair to the Federal employees, many of
whom, most of whom, have dedicated their lives, and some have worked
many, many years, and maybe just lack a few years in completing their
service. To force them out of employ because we have decided that we no
longer need them is not fair to those individuals who have given so
much of their lives to the service of their Federal Government.
There is a more reasonable way, a more justifiable way, a more
equitable way to both the taxpayer as well as to the employee. That is
this procedure that we are using today to give them some incentive to
leave their employment. When this bill originally passed out of our
committee last year, I did not support it, even though, again, the
concept I completely agree with. I thought it had some problems, most
of which have been either addressed in the legislation now as it has
been refined, or it has been, at least through the amendments, I
believe there is an agreement we will accept. I think we have accepted
the amendments, or I understand we are going to, which will remedy many
of the reasons that I could not support it last year, even though,
again, I certainly agreed with the concept of what we were intending to
do.
One of these which concerned me was were we really serious about
reducing the number of employees. As an example, we have a target now
of 252,000. The way I interpreted the legislation originally passed out
last year, and as added to 3400, then it was taken out of 3400, it was
that an employee could leave the employ, get $25,000, but that person
could be replaced next week; that slot, that position, could be
replaced by a new employee, but even worse than that, in 2 years and 1
day come back in to pocket the $25,000 and come back into the employ. I
think we have eliminated that particular problem.
Another problem that I was concerned about is that the agencies could
reduce this individual, then bring that same person back in under
contract, working on a contract. I believe the amendment we are
discussing now will take care of that, so we are now being serious. We
are going to reduce a number of employees, we are going to reduce the
obligation that the taxpayers have to support all these employees.
I realize the gentleman in the chair right now and the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], whom I certainly thank, I congratulate, because I
do not know of anyone who worked any harder than the gentleman from
Maryland, Steny Hoyer, in bringing this about, and I understand that
both of the gentlemen, and others here, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Wolf] have a lot of Federal employees. It is a real, real problem
that these gentlemen had with their own constituency, but they were
taxpayers, too. I believe now this is the most fair way we have
addressed this problem.
One other reservation I had, and I do not know if we are ever going
to correct this, I was concerned that there are employees in the
various agencies of the Federal Government that were going to retire
anyway, next year or the year after next, and we are giving them the
incentive of $25,000, which then amounts to a bonus, but in looking at
what the Defense Department and a few other agencies would do who have
already started exercising this, I am told that has not apparently been
a problem, so I am willing to set that aside. I do not know how to
address it anyway to correct the problem, to save the taxpayers that
$25,000, if a person is going to retire anyway, but I am told that the
average benefit which we provide up to $25,000, the actual benefit in
the Department of Defense has been about $18,000 for those retirees,
which have been about 50,000 they have encouraged to retire early.
I think on balance, as we look at this legislation, while I think it
will accomplish what we need to do, I think all of the differences I
had with the amendments that are adopted will be resolved, so I am
happy today to be a part of this process. We need to get moving with
it.
Again, I congratulate the chairman, our own chairman, who worked so
hard on this, and the gentleman from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, who worked
so hard on this to bring this to reality, so we can get started on this
issue of reducing Federal employees as rapidly as we can, doing it
fairly, which I think we all have an obligation to those dedicated
Federal employees. I believe this is the fairest way we can go about
it.
I thank all of those who have worked so hard to bring this day about.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr.Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time. As others have mentioned, I surely do want to heartily
congratulate Chairman Clay as well as the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer] and particularly the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia,
Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who got a major part of this bill out of
subcommittee, and also the gracious and bipartisan leadership for the
minority leadership, particularly the gentleman form New York [Mr.
Solomon] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]. I might say that
my Hoosier colleague, Dan Burton, made a special effort in this regard
last night.
Total chaos will prevail in the Federal Government if Congress does
not pass this legislation. Last week Eleanor Holmes Norton, chair of
the Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits, and I conducted
a hearing on the restructuring of the Federal Government under the
reinventing government program. We had some three Cabinet Secretaries
testifying at once, almost a first, and they were followed by numerous
other very high-ranking Federal administrators and others who all
testified that they were unanimous, and indeed very strong that if this
legislation does not pass the impact on the Federal work force would be
devastating.
For those of my colleagues who are unclear about RIF's, RIF's are
another term for layoffs. They are used to reduce Federal employment by
allowing more senior employees to bump more junior employees from their
positions. If this occurs, there will be chaos.
Those who are ultimately laid off receive severance pay, and
extension of health benefits for 18 months. Typically these employees
are women, minorities and disabled employees.
RIF's are time-consuming, costly, demoralizing to the work force,
provide little benefit to an agency or an employee, hamper
productivity, and wreak havoc on the diversity of the workplace.
It seems that almost every Member of Congress, both majority and
minority, have made statements calling for reinventing government and
eliminating mid-level bureaucrats, thereby saving billions of dollars,
and there are significant savings as documented by the CBO over 5 years
and beyond, far exceeding their initial costs. Savings are estimated at
more than $110,000 per job eliminated over 5 years and $980,000 per
position abolished over 30 years.
Without this buyout legislation, reinventing government will be a
free-for-all, and in all likelihood productivity will be hurt, and
agencies will not be able to reduce their numbers of mid-level
managers. We must pass this legislation today and expedite the signing.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. If we do not, there
will be problems that we can hardly believe.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Virginia [Mrs. Byrne].
Mrs. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1993.
Congress likes to talk about downsizing as an abstract mathematical
exercise. But for Federal employees, the threat of massive reductions
is very real.
Over the past few months, I have spoken with hundreds of Federal
employees in my district who don't know whether they will have a job a
year from now.
They express their frustration at not being in charge of their own
destiny. They tell me that without buy-outs, they are caught in a no-
win situation--retire now into an uncertain job market or risk being
the victim of downsizing.
Buy-outs are clearly the most humane way to downsize. All the other
options cost more money, disrupt lives and leave the Government
unprepared for the challenges that lie ahead.
Buy-outs allow agencies to thin out middle management while
preserving staff on the front lines. Buy-outs create a healthy mix of
young people, with new ideas to move us into the future, alongside
senior staff with corporate memory to help us build upon the successes
of the past.
Most importantly, buy-outs will not place the downsizing burden on
women, minorities and the disabled.
We in Congress sometimes think that our decisions do not matter to
the average person.
I can assure you this decision matters to Federal workers who want to
pay for their children's education or refinance a mortgage or purchase
a car, but do not know whether they will get a retirement incentive
this year or be laid off.
Federal employees want to plan for the future, and we owe it to them
to pass this bill and give them a choice in their career plans.
Seventy-nine Fortune 100 companies offer their employees buy-outs. If
we want to downsize the Government like the private sector has, then we
should give them the same tools used by corporate America.
I urge a yes vote on H.R. 3345.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Hoyer].
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
I am pleased to follow my colleague from Virginia, [Mrs. Byrne], who
also was very active on this. And I am pleased to be here in the
Chamber with the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Moran], who is chairing
the committee, and who I know also did a lot of work on this issue. And
I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Indiana. [Mr. John
Myers]. I have said it before, but I want to repeat it. He is one of
the most decent, honest Members of this House. He is a credit to
democracy in the sense that he comes here and, as he said, he had some
concerns and some disagreements, but he is always willing to honestly
discuss those disagreements and try to reach a consensus so that we can
move forward. And I want to particularly thank the chairman of this
committee, the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Bill Clay], my friend, who
has been the chairman of this committee for some time now. I served on
the committee when he was a member, of course, and he has always been
in the forefront of legislation for rational personnel policy for the
Federal Government.
This bill accomplishes that and I am pleased to support it. As I
said, I am going to support as well the Penny-Burton-Solomon amendment
which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], was also very much
involved in formulating, to make sure that we do what we are saying we
are doing. This will be the legislation which will reduce by 252,000.
As I said earlier, that would not have been my figure. I am not sure
that that necessarily is the figure that I would have chosen.
Downsizing is clearly important, and we are going to accomplish that
objective. This does it in as rational a fashion as we can possibly
effect, I think. And I thank the chairman for all his work and
leadership, and also thank the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Myers], for
facilitating us getting to this point.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to support H.R. 3345
on the floor today. I also urge Members to vote in favor of the
amendment to be offered by Mr. Penny--which will once and for all put
into law the real reduction of 252,000 Federal positions.
This matter is of critical importance. I do not say that lightly. We
are all in agreement that we will downsize the Federal Government. What
this bill does is ensure that these reductions happen responsibly and
without jeopardizing services our constituents demand. Without this
bill, there is no question that there will be reductions-in-force this
year, and very likely next year as well. RIF's cannot be targeted
towards non-productive sectors of the Government. RIF's do not take out
fat.
They are a meat ax approach that kicks off an endless round of
bumping--where higher paid workers bump lower paid ones out the door--
and the taxpayers end up paying a higher paid worker to do a lower paid
worker's job.
The bottom line is simple--RIF's are more expensive, and they are far
less efficient. What you have left when they are done is a mish-mash
Government that may not have the skill mix it needs to deliver
essential services to the public.
Is that a risk we are willing to place on the people in Los Angeles,
or wherever the next disaster strikes?
RIF's also irreparably damage the morale of the remaining work force.
Buy-out authority is an alternative that works. We know that. It has
worked at DOD and CIA. At DOD last year, 30,000 people took the buy-out
option, another 34,000 retired willingly without a buy-out and only
4,000 employees had to be riffed.
Without buy-out, DOD would have had to RIF 30,000 people. And chaos
is what would have resulted.
But most importantly, buy-out authority allows managers to target
where you apply reductions. Everyone agrees that the middle management
layer is where reductions would be most productive--and where we can
save the most money. Agencies can target that level with buy-out
authority and achieve greater efficiencies. They cannot with RIF
authority.
This legislation makes sense. As the policy arm of this Government,
we also serve as the employer of our Federal work force. Simple
fairness and basic good management require us to treat our work force
sensibly and with dignity. This is a management tool that works. It has
worked for the private sector and it has worked for Government. I urge
my colleagues to adopt this legislation and give to the President the
ability to bring about a streamlined, efficient and effective Federal
work force.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to thank our colleague from Maryland for those very kind words.
There are a lot of times when we do have disagreements, but it is
always an honest disagreement and nothing that cannot be worked out if
we all put our shoulders to the wheel and our heads to the issue. We
can do that, and this is certainly an example where we did not have any
real serious disagreements. There were differences in the numbers
between OMB or CBO. All along I thought that this was not an issue that
we should fall apart on, that we could work that out later.
So we had some disagreements along the line, but they were not
insurmountable as proven by the fact that we are now able to bring this
bill to the floor.
There are a lot of people to thank today, and certainly our staff on
both sides, the majority and the minority, worked so hard also behind
the scenes. But I again do not think that anyone worked any harder than
the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Hoyer] to make sure that this became
a reality. So I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland
[Mrs. Morella], another Member who certainly has a lot of Federal
employees and who has worked very hard on this as far as way back last
year when we were trying to resolve the differences here.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Federal voluntary
separation incentive program--also called the buy-out bill.
Though the term ``buy-out'' sounds negative, the purpose of this
legislation is to streamline Government. Reduction of personnel can be
done by voluntary separation or involuntary separation. The voluntary
buy-out option before us is the fiscally responsible way to achieve the
long-term savings. Involuntary separations are costly and do not
separate employees and positions which are in surplus. Involuntary
separations retain the most senior employees and move these employees
into lower positions at the same pay level they were receiving when the
job was eliminated. It then bumps out younger, more recently hired
employees.
Mr. Chairman, we all represent Federal employees. Separations,
whether voluntary or involuntary, may affect people in every
congressional district. Rightsizing can be accomplished in the most
compassionate manner by utilizing the voluntary separation incentive
program. In fact, this method has been used successfully in the private
sector. We have also seen positive results in the Federal sector after
Congress authorized the voluntary separation incentive program for
downsizing the Department of Defense and the General Accounting Office,
and the Central Intelligence Agency.
I congratulate Members on both sides of the aisle for reaching an
agreement on this legislation and again, Mr. Chairman, I urge swift
passage of this buy-out proposal.
{time} 1540
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me this time as well as the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee in the Speaker's chair.
I want to make a point perhaps in somewhat blunter fashion than has
been expressed, but I think it is important to make the point that so
many Federal employees are aware of.
It is not responsible policy, in my opinion, to decide to eliminate a
quarter of a million Federal employees and to save $22 billion without
first identifying what functions within the Federal Government are
expendable, what programs can be consolidated, how are you going to
achieve this reduction. Because the fact is that the people who are
going to leave Federal employment have no correlation to the functions
that are expendable.
However, what I think is folly would turn into travesty if we were
not to pass this legislation. Because what will happen if we do not
pass this legislation is that people in the middle management, higher
priced positions are going to wind up bumping people below them. You
can have situations where you will have scientists driving fork trucks
because they have the opportunity to bump all the way down to the point
where you have the last person hired at the lowest salary, and that
person is the most vulnerable.
They are the ones who are going to lose their jobs, and that, of
course, has no correlation to the functions that we can afford to lose
within the Federal Government.
This bill is a necessity. We should not have been put into this
situation, in my opinion, and I know that there are many colleagues who
share that, particularly from the Washington Metropolitan Area.
I regret that we are in this situation. But I applaud my colleagues
for at least trying to make the best out of a bad situation.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], another colleague on the
committee, a very hardworking Member.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I had some reservations about this initially because
the initial cost is going to be something like $519 million. Initially
there was no guarantee that we were really going to reduce the work
force, because even though we were going to let people buy out, we
could have in another area of Government hired somebody else to replace
them.
But my colleagues on both the Democrat and Republican side had a
spirit of cooperation on this bill, and I want to thank the chairman,
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], for his cooperation and
everybody else. Because they have agreed to the Penny-Burton amendment
which will save for every one employee that buys out there will be a
reduction in the Federal work force of one. So what that means over the
course of the next few years is there will be thousands and thousands
fewer Federal employees which means that the taxpayers over the long
haul will save about $20 billion.
So this is a step in the right direction as far as reducing the size
and cost of the Federal Government. I want to compliment our committee
on this.
In addition to that, there was some question about somebody taking a
buyout and then coming back in a short period of time and going to
another job in the Federal Government. We have an amendment which is
going to put a 5-year requirement on this that you cannot come back
within 5 years without paying back the retirement buyout that you took.
This is a guarantee, I think, that will again save the taxpayers a lot
of money.
Now in the event where there is a critical need, for instance, you
may have a nuclear scientist, that nuclear scientist, if it is a
special case, can come back into the Federal Government without this
penalty, but that is the exception, the vast exception rather than the
rule.
I would just like to say to my colleagues that I think this is a
quantum leap in the right direction. I am so happy that it is a
bipartisan effort, and I wish that we could do more of this in the
House, working together for the good of the country. If we could put
partisan politics aside more often and really get down to the task of
reducing the size of Government and cutting the work force in a way
that is still efficient, I think it would be great for this country,
because we have huge deficit problems where they have to be dealt with,
and if we deal with them responsibly like we are doing today, I think
we can get this budget deficit under control and have a good economic
future for the entire country.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
the Budget, a Member who has been very helpful to us in putting this
compromise piece of legislation together.
(Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. It
accomplishes lots of good things in a responsible fashion.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 3345, the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act. This bill is essential to implementing President
Clinton's plans to reduce Federal personnel and restructure the
Government.
Under this bill, Federal agencies would be able to offer targeted
incentives to encourage workers in certain offices or occupations to
retire or resign. Without the bill, agencies would be forced to carry
out their downsizing through layoffs--a process not only harmful to the
workers involved but also very costly and disruptive to the Government.
As Chairman of the Budget Committee, let me say a few words about the
financial costs and benefits of H.R. 3345. While this bill does have
some short-term costs, it also produces substantial savings in both the
short run and the long run.
First, the buyout payments themselves are not a new or additional
cost for the Government. Federal agencies will be required to absorb
the cost of these payments out of their regular personnel
appropriations. This bill does not provide any extra funds for buyouts.
The only cost increases produced by the bill come in the Federal
retirement system. These are more than offset by later savings in that
same system.
The cost increases occur because some of the workers who accept the
buyouts will retire and start to draw their pensions earlier than they
would have. These costs are only short-term because the pensions
received by these workers will be lower throughout their lifetimes than
the pensions they would have received if they stayed on the job longer.
Therefore, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the buyout
bill will actually reduce Federal retirement costs beginning in fiscal
year 1997.
Finally, we should look at the buyout bill as an integral part of the
overall plan to reduce Federal employment by 252,000 positions. That
plan will produce well over $30 billion in savings over the next 5
years.
Buyouts are currently the most effective way of reducing Federal
employment. Layoffs can be much more expensive. Any Federal employee
who is laid off is entitled to severance pay. Further, employees whose
positions are abolished are allowed to bump workers of lesser
seniority, but to retain their old pay rate for 2 years. All this
bumping and reshuffling leads to further costs and disruptions. And,
finally, of course, layoffs are extremely corrosive of morale and
efficiency.
For all these reasons, I believe H.R. 3345 makes eminent good sense.
I urge its speedy enactment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to our
colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who has a great many
Federal employees and who, through the workings of this, trying to
develop this legislation today, has had a lot of concerns about being
sure we are treating everybody fairly. We thank him for the
contribution.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3345, the Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act. First, let me applaud the committee for
putting together a responsible and fair package of buyouts for Federal
employees. Buyouts are by far the fair way to reduce Federal personnel.
Downsizing is always painful; however, this legislation will give
employees security, and will help preserve morale. Moreover, buyouts
are preferable to reductions-in-force because of the tremendous
personal and real costs that are associated with RIF's. RIF's require
substantial up front severance pay costs, buyouts don't. RIF's leave
families guessing from where the next paycheck is coming, buyouts
don't. For these reasons, I am supporting this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, while I support the buyout option, I believe the
Congress must be on guard about the full ramifications of the Vice
President's National Performance Review. The Clinton administration has
not prioritized the functions of Government which desperately needs to
be done.
Furthermore, I am concerned that the Vice President's National
Partnership Council is recommending that Federal employees be required
to pay union dues even though they are not union members. This is
unfair and should not occur. In actuality, this would be a tax increase
on Federal employees who do not want to be compelled to pay dues when
they are not union members. While all employees should have the
opportunity to join a union, employees should also have the option not
to join or pay dues.
Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this legislation because it is the
equitable way to reduce the size of the Federal work force, but I urge
my colleagues to take a long, hard look at the National Performance
Review's plan to restructure the Federal Government and the impact on
the lives of Federal employees.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and,
indeed, I want to thank Chairman Clay and the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Myers], and I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Indeed, I want to thank the bipartisan leadership
that has worked this difficult problem out for the benefit not only of
the employees involved but of the efficiency of the Government and of
the expectations of our country.
Last October my Subcommittee on Compensation and Employee Benefits
moved expeditiously to mark up H.R. 3345, and the chairman, the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], moved it immediately to the floor
for fast action to reduce agency personnel. We acted quickly because we
ourselves had approved a budget that assumed huge reductions in the
Federal service that were even then not on schedule.
Only 20,000 employees left voluntarily in fiscal year 1993, while we
assumed 25,000 would leave the Federal service. It was clear that
attrition was not working.
The reason was also clear. Buyouts had been offered in some agencies
and not others. Obviously, Federal employees assumed that, out of logic
and surely out of fairness, Congress would not favor some agencies and
some employees over others.
{time} 1550
Attrition all but closed down in some agencies. If consideration of
this bill had not stalled at the end of the last session, most agencies
would now be on their way to achieving an historic and unprecedented
permanent downsizing of the Federal bureaucracy for fiscal year 1994,
and we probably would have made up for the shortfall on attrition for
fiscal year 1993 as well. Every day of delay digs into our own deficit
reduction goals. Moreover, quiet as it is kept, huge RIF's, or layoffs,
are not an alternative to buyouts. RIF's actually cost considerably
more than buyouts because of substantial mandatory costs, such as
severance. Worse, lower-paid employees, those who serve the public on
the front line, would be laid off, and higher paid managers, the ones
who are in excessive supply in the Government, would remain--an
absolutely perverse result. Moreover, GAO has testified that layoffs of
252,000 employees over 5 years simply could not be achieved if there
was to be a Government left standing.
Mr. Chairman, we actually have one and only one choice now: Get this
bill out fast. Without favorable action, we can forget reinventing
Government, we can forget our deficit reduction goals, and, heaven
knows, we will be forgetting what is minimally owed one of the highest
quality work forces in the country. It is not too late, just almost too
late, to meet the goals we set in the Omnibus Budget Act passed last
year. Let us do it and avoid a self-inflicted wound to our own historic
deficit reduction package.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume], who, like many others today, has a
great many Federal employees.
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Myers] for being so gracious with his time. I do appreciate that.
I rise in support of the bill, Mr. Chairman. As written, the bill
provides, as most of my colleagues know, Federal agencies with the
flexibility necessary to proceed with the mandated loss in personnel
and that they be able to do that in an organized and an efficient
manner, and, while most agencies will probably claim that the loss of
personnel is painful, and in some instances clearly it is, there are
clearly some offices that will, in fact, suffer if too many employees
are released.
Speaking from my own experience, Mr. Chairman, I know that the Social
Security Administration, headquartered in Baltimore, is understaffed
now, that any further reductions in their staff would only hamper its
ability to be efficient. I would hope that this legislation will allow
us and enable the arms of the Federal Government, such as the Social
Security Administration and HCFA, I might also add, to be flexible
enough to reduce costs without diminishing the product that they have
provided to us for such a long time.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today allows us to do just that.
H.R. 3345 represents a reasonable effort by the Congress to try to
reduce the Federal work force in a manner that we believe is fair to
the employees and at the same time true to the fiscal intent of the
previous actions.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
legislation before us, and I urge all of my colleagues to support its
quick enactment.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Guam
[Mr. Underwood].
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3345,
the Federal workforce Restructuring Act. While we all agree that the
Federal work force needs to be trimmed down, this bill will ensure that
it is done in the most fair and equitable way. It will do this by
making separation from Federal employment voluntary, without making use
of reductions in force or RIF's, which disproportionately affect women
and minorities. After so much has been accomplished in diversifying the
Federal work force, are we willing to take two steps backward in the
struggle to increase opportunities for minorities by utilizing another,
more destructive method? I know that this bill's answer is: ``No.''
Constructive incentive payments like the one proposed in this
legislation have already proven effective in three Government agencies,
most notably the Department of Defense.
Incentive programs in place in the Department of Defense are vital in
alleviating the affects of reductions in personnel. In my home, Guam,
the Navy ship repair facility [SRF] has been scheduled for a
significant cut in workload. As the Navy attempts to eliminate
positions in preparation for this change, voluntary separation will
offer workers the opportunity to leave if they choose to do so while
simultaneously eliminating the need for the Navy to force workers out.
If such an option did not exist, the Navy would be forced to fire
workers who would rather stay and keep workers who might otherwise opt
for an early retirement. I hope that they will stay on this intelligent
and wise course.
This should provide a tangible example of why this legislation and
the process it proposes is the best option available in attempting to
substantially cut the Federal work force. I urge my colleagues to
support the passage of the bill H.R. 3345. Downsizing should not be
synonymous with dehumanizing the reduction of the Federal work force.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains
on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has 14 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] has 13 minutes
remaining.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to just comment on some reservations that I have, some concerns
that I have.
Mr. Chairman, I do support the legislation; no question about it.
However, wearing the other hat, my appropriations hat that I have got
to put on later this afternoon, hopefully before midnight, to go to
conference with the Senate on the supplemental appropriation, I am
thinking about how we are going to pay for this. I know we got a letter
from OMB saying it is off-budget, but how many times can we continue to
go off-budget and say it is going to be swept under the rug? The
justification from Mr. Panetta, our former colleague, I understand over
a 5- to 6-year period, we are going to save money, or can. I certainly
hope we do. But we have to pay for it whether it be $500 million this
next year. It has to come from someplace.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about making certain we know where
this money is going to come from in the intervening period here, and it
will save money, I hope, if it is properly run. It will save money. But
we do have to pay for it next year. So, I do have some concern about
this. I hope we will find some way, finding a way to pay for it without
just continually taking everything off-budget.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks].
(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise is strong support of this important
legislation that is essential to the efficient and fair execution of
reduction in the Federal work force necessitated by spending cuts
needed to achieve deficit reduction.
I want to express appreciation on behalf of all Federal workers to
those members who worked so hard to reach the agreement that has
allowed this legislation to come to the floor today. Clearly, if we are
to achieve the reductions that must be made intelligently, this
legislation is urgently required.
This legislation will extend the same early retirement and voluntary
resignation incentives that are already in place for the Department of
Defense, GAO and the CIA.
I have seen first hand the successful application of this approach to
employment reductions in my district at the Navy's Puget Sound Naval
Shipyard. The yard had to reduce nearly 3,000 positions as a result of
smaller workload associated with the declining fleet. Prior to the
establishment of incentives there was widespread fear of reductions in
force that seriously undermined employee morale. Fortunately, these
incentives successfully avoided a RIF at Puget Sound and achieved the
necessary reductions.
Reductions in force are also cost inefficient for the Government.
Severance pay requirements are only the tip of the iceberg. Because of
rules that allow more senior workers to bump junior workers, while
retaining their pay levels, RIF's produce situations with
overqualified, and overpaid individuals performing lower level tasks.
It also produces a major gap in work force experience makeup that can
produce serious problems when there is a wholesale retirement from
these more senior workers and the experience base to produce continuity
does not exist.
With the amendment that will be offered by Congressmen Penny and
Burton the link of providing these incentives to the commitment in the
President's budget to reduce Federal employment by 250,000 by 1999 will
be directly linked. This will overcome any concerns that we are somehow
providing a windfall and are, in fact, simply providing the most
effective way to take this critical element of deficit reduction.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to compliment my colleague, the gentleman
from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for his efforts on this legislation.
{time} 1600
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished
chairman, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I am going to speak rapidly, because
we need to get this out. We should have gotten this out last year. As
everyone has said, this is very important.
On the Committee on Armed Services we always talk about surgical
strikes. Without this, we do not give the people who manage the
different agencies the right to be surgical in the positions they can
do without. Without this, they are forced to go into things such as
RIF's or freezes, that we know do not work.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a surprise. We know how this works. The CIA
has done it, the Department of Defense has done it, and the GAO has
done it. They have shown how well it works. We know if we do this, this
will help us save almost $30 billion over the next 5 years. We also
know if people decide to get rehired and come back to the Government in
the next 5 years, they have to pay this back.
So I think this is proper. I think we ought to move on it.
Mr. Chairman, I must say this is an historic day. People told me if I
was here long enough, I would find something I agreed with with the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], and I am delighted that that day
has finally come.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have this bipartisan consensus
that this must be done. I think it is a good message to Federal
employees, that people here in the House feel they should be treated
with the dignity and respect the private sector would give. For that,
we are going to get much, much more back in the realm of morale and a
much better motivated work force.
Mr. Chairman, I thank all Members for the high level of this debate,
and urge passage.
Mr. Chairman, we hear rhetoric every day that the President's budget
is full of gimmicks. Well, if you want real cuts this bill gives
agencies the authority to make them. Agencies will finally have the
tools necessary to trim 252,000 jobs from the Federal work force and
save almost $30 billion over 5 years.
If this doesn't pass, the only other alternative is to RIF employees.
The Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have
made it clear that RIF's demoralize the workforce, hit women and
minorities hardest, and leave agencies ``top heavy.'' Moreover,
employees who are RIF'ed, generally receive severance pay, which can
cost plenty.
And in the long run, RIF's don't save any more money than a buyout
plan.
This bill allows Federal agencies to offer incentive payments to
employees who agree to retire or resign voluntarily from the
Government. Agencies could offer up to $25,000 to employees.
We know that Federal employees will take advantage of this program.
It has worked for the Central Intelligence Agency, the General
Accounting Office, and most recently the Defense Department. In fiscal
year 1993, the Defense Department successfully used the same kind of
incentive to cut its work force by about 30,000 workers.
One last point: Federal employees feel like they have gone 15 rounds
with Evader Holyfield. Every year there is a new proposal to raise the
retirement age or to ax their pay and benefits.
It's time we did something to give Federal employees control over
their lives. The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act does this and
reduces the deficit. I know it's a new concept for a lot of Members,
but it has a lot of merit.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
3345, the Federal Work Force Restructuring Act of 1993.
I would like to take just a moment to describe the impact that H.R.
3345 will have on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
[NASA].
H.R. 3345 would allow NASA to offer separation incentive payments to
encourage eligible employees to retire or resign voluntarily from the
agency. It would provide NASA with an alternative to involuntary
separations due to reduction in force, reorganization, transfer of
function, or other similar action. As such, H.R. 3345 is critically
important legislation that will enable NASA to downsize its personnel
base in a manner that does not adversely affect civil service
employees.
NASA's fiscal year 1994 appropriations was premised on a rapid
reduction in the agency's civil service work force by some 1,000
employees, targeting a work force ceiling of 22,900 by the beginning of
fiscal year 1995. These reductions reflect in large part the Space
Station redesign and program reorganization that occurred over the
course of the last year.
However, the efficacy of H.R. 3345 to enable NASA to achieve
necessary cost savings diminishes with each passing day. Because of the
delay in enacting this legislation, work force reductions have not
occurred at a rate sufficient to meet the budget shortfall. In order
for NASA to capitalize on the program authorized in this bill, and to
minimize the use of program funding to meet the fiscal year 1994
payroll, the agency must begin to offer separation incentives to
eligible employees as soon as possible.
I would also take this opportunity to express my appreciation to my
colleague from Missouri, and chairman of the Committee on Post Office
and Civil Service, Mr. Clay, for his cooperation in advancing our
common objectives through this bill.
I urge my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 3345.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support
for H.R. 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act. This
legislation would further emphasize this Congress' support for the
reduction of Government spending, as outlined in the National
Performance Review.
On November 22, 1993, the House overwhelmingly supported the Vice
President's plan to reduce spending of the Federal Government. The
National Performance Review called for the downsizing of the Federal
Government by 252,000 positions within 5 years. H.R. 3345 humanely
reduces the number of Federal employees by providing Federal agencies
the ability to offer buyouts to those who voluntarily resign or retire.
Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that mandatory reductions in force are
an inhumane means of downsizing our Federal Government. Mandatory
layoffs unfairly target the most recently hired employees, causing a
disproportionate number of minorities and women to be released,
reducing the diversity of the workplace. Layoffs also tend to lower the
productivity of the Federal Government by removing vital clerical and
administrative positions and leave agencies saturated with a redundancy
of middle-management positions. Reductions in force can also instill a
sense of fear among those employees targeted for removal.
Voluntary separation incentives are the most cost-effective and
equitable mans of achieving targeted reductions in the Federal work
force. Layoffs and early retirements are more costly, generally
requiring substantial severance pay or pensions to those who retire
early. The buyouts provided in H.R. 3345 will facilitate the required
reduction in force in a way that targets the excess positions of
Federal Government in a long-term cost-effective means. This bill also
ensures that once a position has been bought out, this position will be
permanently removed, as opposed to relocating this position with
another Federal agency.
Mr. Speaker, unless this bill is passed as quickly as possible, the
Federal Government will be forced to begin laying off employees,
forcing them to seek work, uncompensated, at a time when work can be
difficult to find, but I believe that reinvention of government is
important, I do not feel that it should be at the expense of the
Federal workers whom we represent. I therefore urge my colleagues to
support this bill and help to equitably reduce Government spending.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, we as a body have come to the bold
agreement that downsizing the Federal work force is in the best
interest of this country. We agreed on this when we passed H.R. 3400
the Government Reform and Savings Act. Now we are left with the
critical decision of choosing the most sound policy to reduce the
Federal work force by 250,000. I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
3345, which I believe is the best policy for restructuring the Federal
work force.
The Congressional Budget Office recently released a study examining
different options for achieving downsizing in the Federal work force.
The study found the two best downsizing alternatives, involuntary
dismissals and pay incentives, each achieved nearly identical savings
over 5 years.
The difference the study found between involuntary dismissals and pay
incentives was that involuntary dismissals would disproportionately
effect women and minorities. We have worked hard over the last decade
to ensure that our highly skilled Federal work force is representative
of the diversity of our Nation. In the State of New Mexico, 27,700
individuals are employed in Federal Government positions. Some 13,100
of these employees, or just over 50 percent are minorities. The Federal
work force in New Mexico is representative of the Hispanic, Native
American, African-American, and Asians who comprise 60 percent of New
Mexico's population. I want to ensure that the integrity of New
Mexico's Federal work force is not disturbed.
Today we will consider the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act, which
would help agencies in their efforts to downsize by 250,000 while
maintaining the diversity and health of the work force.
Mr. Chairman, when we have a choice that is just as cost effective as
an involuntary dismissal but offers everyone in the work force the same
voluntary incentive we should take it. There should be no question that
we should support H.R. 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act. This buyout bill is the
fiscally and administratively sound way to achieve President Clinton
and Vice President Gore's goal of reducing our Federal work force by
252,000 people over the next 5 years.
Presently, Governmentwide voluntary turnover is at a record low. H.R.
3345 would allow the Government to offer incentives to Federal
employees to voluntarily resign or retire early. These incentives have
a proven track record of success. Last year, the Department of Defense
was able to encourage over 30,000 employees to leave early under a
similar plan.
The alternative to H.R. 3345 is massive furloughs and costly
reductions-in-force [RIF's]. Reductions-in-force are a cumbersome and
demoralizing alternative to the buyout, resulting in a lengthy process,
expensive severance packages, and low worker morale. Rather than
eliminating higher-paid, often redundant positions, layoffs would
affect the newer, younger and more diverse population of Federal
employees--the very ones our Government has been working so hard to
recruit. Women, ethnic minorities, and disabled workers would be
especially hard hit. RIF's and furloughs would result in a huge step
backwards in Federal employment policy. Alternatively, H.R. 3345 would
allow Federal agencies to target the employee reductions, maximizing
efficiency as well as work force diversity.
Mr. Chairman, I know that H.R. 3345 would be welcomed by hardworking
Federal public servants across the country, including those in my
district of San Francisco. This is the smart, efficient and proper way
to achieve the administration's goal of reducing the Federal work
force, thus helping to make our Government work better and cost less.
In order for a buyout to be most cost effective, however, it needs to
be enacted swiftly. We must do our part in helping Federal agencies
constructively cut their work force. I urge my colleagues to pass the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act today.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in part 1 of House Report 103-422 is considered as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment and is considered as read.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
H.R. 3345
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994''.
SEC. 2. VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVES.
(a) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section--
(1) the term ``agency'' means an Executive agency (as
defined by section 105 of title 5, United States Code), but
does not include the Department of Defense, the Central
Intelligence Agency, or the General Accounting Office; and
(2) the term ``employee'' means an employee (as defined by
section 2105 of title 5, United States Code) who is employed
by an agency, is serving under an appointment without time
limitation, and has been currently employed for a continuous
period of at least 12 months; such term includes an
individual employed by a county committee established under
section 8(b) of the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment
Act (16 U.S.C. 590h(b)), but does not include--
(A) a reemployed annuitant under subchapter III of chapter
83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, or another
retirement system for employees of the Government; or
(B) an employee having a disability on the basis of which
such employee is or would be eligible for disability
retirement under the applicable retirement system referred to
in subparagraph (A).
(b) Authority.--
(1) In general.--In order to avoid or minimize the need for
involuntary separations due to a reduction in force,
reorganization, transfer of function, or other similar
action, and subject to paragraph (2), the head of an agency
may pay, or authorize the payment of, voluntary separation
incentive payments to agency employees--
(A) in any component of the agency;
(B) in any occupation;
(C) in any geographic location; or
(D) on the basis of any combination of factors under
subparagraphs (A) through (C).
(2) Condition.--
(A) In general.--In order to receive an incentive payment,
an employee must separate from service with the agency
(whether by retirement or resignation) before January 1,
1995.
(B) Exception.--An employee who does not separate from
service before the date specified in subparagraph (A) shall
be ineligible for an incentive payment under this section
unless--
(i) the agency head determines that, in order to ensure the
performance of the agency's mission, it is necessary to delay
such employee's separation; and
(ii) the employee separates after completing any additional
period of service required (but not later than December 31,
1996).
(c) Amount and Treatment of Payments.--A voluntary
separation incentive payment--
(1) shall be paid in a lump sum after the employee's
separation;
(2) shall be equal to the lesser of--
(A) an amount equal to the amount the employee would be
entitled to receive under section 5595(c) of title 5, United
States Code, if the employee were entitled to payment under
such section; or
(B) $25,000;
(3) shall not be a basis for payment, and shall not be
included in the computation, of any other type of Government
benefit;
(4) shall not be taken into account in determining the
amount of any severance pay to which an employee may be
entitled under section 5595 of title 5, United States Code,
based on any other separation; and
(5) shall be paid from appropriations or funds available
for the payment of the basic pay of the employee.
(d) Effect of Subsequent Employment With the Government.--
(1) In general.--An employee who has received a voluntary
separation incentive payment under this section and accepts
employment with the Government of the United States within 2
years after the date of the separation on which the payment
is based shall be required to repay the entire amount of the
incentive payment to the agency that paid the incentive
payment.
(2) Waiver authority.--
(A) Executive agency.--If the employment is with an
Executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 5,
United States Code), the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management may, at the request of the head of the agency,
waive the repayment if the employment is in a position for
which there is exceptional difficulty in recruiting a
qualified employee.
(B) Legislative branch.--If the employment is with an
entity in the legislative branch, the head of the entity or
the appointing official may waive the repayment if the
employment is in a position for which there is exceptional
difficulty in recruiting a qualified employee.
(C) Judicial branch.--If the employment is with the
judicial branch, the Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts may waive the repayment if the
employment is in a position for which there is exceptional
difficulty in recruiting a qualified employee.
(e) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management may prescribe any regulations necessary for the
administration of subsections (a) through (d).
(f) Employees of the Judicial Branch.--The Director of the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts may, by
regulation, establish a program consistent with the program
established by subsections (a) through (d) for individuals
serving in the judicial branch.
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RETIREMENT
FUND.
(a) In General.--In addition to any other payments which it
is required to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 of
title 5, United States Code, an agency shall remit to the
Office of Personnel Management for deposit in the Treasury of
the United States to the credit of the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund an amount equal to 9 percent
of the final basic pay of each employee of the agency--
(1) who retires under section 8336(d)(2) of such title; and
(2) to whom a voluntary separation incentive payment under
section 2 (including under any program established under
section 2(f)) has been paid by such agency based on that
retirement.
(b) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the term
``final basic pay'', with respect to an employee, means the
total amount of basic pay which would be payable for a year
of service by such employee, computed using the employee's
final rate of basic pay, and, if last serving on other than a
full-time basis, with appropriate adjustment therefor.
(c) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management may prescribe any regulations necessary to carry
out this section.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the substitute is in order except the
amendment printed in part 2 of the report. The amendment may be offered
only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
is not subject to amendment and is not subject to a demand for a
division of the question.
Debate time on the amendment will be equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment.
amendment offered by mr. penny.
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Penny:
In section 2(d)(1), strike ``2'' and insert ``5''.
In section 2(d)(2)(A), strike ``repayment if'' and all that
follows through the period and insert ``repayment if the
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.''.
In section 2(d)(2)(B), strike ``repayment if'' and all that
follows through the period and insert ``repayment if the
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.''.
In section 2(d)(2)(C), strike ``repayment if'' and all that
follows through the period and insert ``repayment if the
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.''.
In section 2(d), add at the end the following:
(3) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1) (but not
paragraph (2)), the term ``employment'' includes employment
under a personal services contract with the United States.
After the last section, add the following:
SEC. 4. REDUCTION OF FEDERAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS.
(a) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``agency'' means an Executive agency as defined under section
105 of title 5, United States Code, but does not include the
General Accounting Office.
(b) Limitations on Full-Time Equivalent Positions.--The
President, through the Office of Management and Budget (in
consultation with the Office of Personnel Management), shall
ensure that the total number of full-time equivalent
positions in all agencies shall not exceed--
(1) 2,084,600 during fiscal year 1994;
(2) 2,043,300 during fiscal year 1995;
(3) 2,003,300 during fiscal year 1996;
(4) 1,963,300 during fiscal year 1997;
(5) 1,992,300 during fiscal year 1998; and
(6) 1,882,300 during fiscal year 1999.
(c) Monitoring and Notification.--The Office of Management
and Budget, after consultation with the Office of Personnel
Management, shall--
(1) continuously monitor all agencies and make a
determination on the first date of each quarter of each
applicable fiscal year of whether the requirements under
subsection (b) are met; and
(2) notify the President and the Congress on the first date
of each quarter of each applicable fiscal year of any
determination that any requirement of subsection (b) is not
met.
(d) Compliance.--If at any time during a fiscal year, the
Office of Management and Budget notifies the President and
the Congress that any requirement under subsection (b) is not
met, no agency may hire any employee for any position in such
agency until the Office of Management and Budget notifies the
President and the Congress that the total number of full-time
equivalent positions for all agencies equals or is less than
the applicable number required under subsection (b).
(e) Waiver.--
(1) Emergencies>--Any provision of this section may be
waived upon a determination by the President that--
(A) the existence of a state of war or other national
security concern so requires; or
(B) the existence of an extraordinary emergency threatening
life, health, safety, property, or the environment so
requires.
(2) Agency efficiency or critical mission.--
(A) Subsection (d) may be waived, in the case of a
particular position or category of positions in an agency,
upon a determination of the President that the efficiency of
the agency or the performance of a critical agency mission so
requires.
(B) Whenever the President grants a waiver pursuant to
subparagraph (A), the President shall take all necessary
actions to ensure that the overall limitations set forth in
subsection (b) are not exceeded.
(f) Employment Backfill Prevention.--
(1) In general.--The total number of funded employee
positions in all agencies (excluding the Department of
Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency) shall be reduced
by one position for each vacancy created by the separation of
any employee who has received, or is due to receive, a
voluntary separation incentive payment under section 2(a)-
(e). For purposes of this subsection, positions and vacancies
shall be counted on a full-time-equivalent basis.
(2) Related restriction.--No funds budgeted for and
appropriated by any Act for salaries or expenses of positions
eliminated under this subsection may be used for any purpose
other than authorized separation costs.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Penny] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will be
recognized for 15 minutes. Is there a Member in opposition?
There apparently is no opposition to the amendment. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] for 15 minutes.
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, I will divide my 15 minutes with the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] for him to manage.
Mr. Chairman and members, this is a straightforward amendment. It
deals with a work force reduction to be implemented over the next 6
years. This is not a new issue to the Congress. Several times in the
last few months, we have debated and concurred in the decision that
252,000 Federal workers could be taken off the Federal payroll over the
next 5 or 6 years.
We first raised this issue as part of a deficit reduction sponsored
by myself and Mr. Kasich last fall. That amendment conformed with the
recommendation by Vice President Gore to reinvent Government and to
down size the Federal work force.
While that effort was unsuccessful, an alternative proposal was
approved by the House of Representatives, the Sabo amendment, which
incorporated these same staffing reductions. It is uncertain when or
whether that bill will be processed by the Senate.
We also know that in the Senate, Senator Gramm of Texas pursued a
work force reduction to finance most of the elements of the pending
crime bill. But, as we know, that bill has a long and torturous path
before final enactment.
We feel it critically important to get the work force reductions
locked into law as soon as possible. We feel that it is entirely
appropriate that these work force reductions be tied to this buyout
legislation, because the buyout legislation makes it possible to
achieve roughly 40,000 personnel in work force reductions each of the
next 6 years.
For that reason, we present the amendment at this time. It could save
as much as $25 billion in Federal expenditures over that timeframe. It
makes good sense.
This bill is a bill that must become law. It must be sent to the
President's desk at the earliest possible date. By adding this
amendment to the buyout legislation, we package the entire issue as it
ought to be packaged. We ought to get this issue behind us once and for
all. By putting the work force reduction in this bill we settle the
issue, and then we can move forward to address the remaining items in
the Federal budget.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENNY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there are few Members in this House on either side of
the aisle who have been more conscientious in the review of the budget
and of fiscal policy than has been the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Penny] during the course of his career here in the House of
Representatives.
I have not always agreed with Mr. Penny, but we have always disagreed
I think with honesty and with good demeanor.
That has been so mostly on my part because I have such respect for
him. On his part, because he does not deal in personalities. He deals
in substance, and I congratulate him for that.
I also want to thank the gentleman very much for looking at this
issue, for realizing we were all going to accomplish the same
objectives, and working with us to fashion a bill and an amendment that
would accommodate that objective as quickly as possible.
I thank the gentleman very much. I would also say that I want to
thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] a member of the
committee, who worked also very hard to come up with language.
I also want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and
again the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
I also want to thank Billy Pitts. I do not know if Billy was on the
floor, but he was asked by the minority leadership to work this issue.
Every time I called him he was available to discuss it. He was very
candid and honest with the problems that Members on his side of the
aisle, on the Republican side of the aisle, had, and he served a very
important and useful function in getting us to this point in time. I
appreciate that very much.
Mr. PENNY. I thank the gentleman from Maryland for those remarks. I
too want to express my appreciation to the gentleman for his leadership
on this issue, to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] for his
leadership, and to the others here involved in this very critical
issue, and also to those on the Republican side.
I think this is a good compromise. This package makes good sense. Let
us get the bill passed today, send it to the Senate, and get this issue
settled once and for all.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I echo what was just said about
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny]. We are going to miss him
around here, because he was one of the stalwarts who has worked so hard
to get this massive Federal budget under control. I am very proud to be
a cosponsor of this amendment with the gentleman.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, guarantees that there will be a
reduction in the work force. One of the problems that we felt we might
have with the bill is that we would have people buy out, and then might
be replaced in another area of government. This amendment, the Penny-
Burton amendment, will guarantee for each Federal employee that takes
the buyout option, there will be a reduction in the Federal work force
of one.
Mr. Chairman, that will ultimately result in they estimate 252,000
fewer Federal employees by the year 1999, and it will save $20 to $30
billion. That is a quantum leap in the right direction, and I
appreciate that being done and the cooperation of both Democrats and
Republicans on this.
Mr. Chairman, the other provision, as I mentioned earlier, that I
think is very important, is that except in very special cases, very
rare cases, anyone who takes the buyout option will not be able to come
back and work for the Federal Government for 5 years without repaying
their retirement buyout option.
So I think there are all kinds of protections in the Penny-Burton
amendment. I still am concerned about, as the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Myers] the $519 million that is going to be off budget. However,
when you look at $519 million as opposed to $20 to $30 billion in
savings, you have to say this is the right thing to do, and it is the
right thing to do at the right time. I am glad once again there is
cooperation with both sides. I am very happy to be a cosponsor of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, we all agree on one thing today. We agree
that the Federal work force should be trimmed by 252,000 positions.
A week ago the President asked me to assist him in passing the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act. He felt strongly that he needed
the same tool that we in Congress have authorized for the Defense
Department, the CIA, the GAO, and the Library of Congress to bring down
their work force levels.
And that tool is a Federal incentive payment to encourage individuals
to leave Federal service.
I expressed to administration officials and to Members of the
majority, including the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer] that when passing such incentive payments, it is imperative to
also place into law a specific timetable to achieve the personnel
reductions that we all agree on.
I further insisted on additional safeguards to ensure that the
reductions are real.
We provided such a timetable and such safeguards in the Penny-Kasich
amendment which narrowly failed by a vote of 213 yeas to 219 nays on
November 22, 1993.
When I agree with the President on a particular policy objective,
such as reducing Federal personnel levels, then I feel I must also
provide him the tools he says he needs to accomplish that policy
objective.
Otherwise, I have no basis upon which to criticize the President if
he does not meet that objective. That is why I decided to work with him
on this issue.
But, I want to make clear that in the end the burden will be on the
President and his administration to bear the full responsibility for
the end result. We will turn to the President for proof that the
personnel reductions have been achieved each year.
My effort to work with the President culminated with the Burton-Penny
amendment which I will support today.
That amendment puts into law a 6-year schedule to reduce work force
levels by 252,000 positions. The base from which the reductions are
made is the OMB estimate contained fiscal year 1995 budget submission.
I candidly would have preferred the 5-year plan voted on in the
Penny-Kasich amendment. But, my office was told last night that the
President believes he can no longer achieve the 252,000 reduction over
5 years.
The Burton-Penny amendment also lengthens the time from 2 years to 5
years in which a person cannot be rehired by the Federal Government. It
places in law a new prohibition on a person being rehired as a
consultant to the Federal Government within a 5-year period of
accepting an incentive payment.
Finally, the Burton-Penny amendment contains specific backfill
language that states that for any position that is vacated because of
an incentive payment, one position must be eliminated. Furthermore,
funds appropriated for any eliminated position may not be used for any
other purpose.
I believe that the Burton-Penny amendment contains strong safeguards
to assure that the incentive payments can be used to achieve real and
substantial personnel reductions in short order.
We will be vigilant to make certain that these incentives are used
properly and for the purpose intended--to achieve substantial long-term
savings because of a streamlined Federal work force.
{time} 1610
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 409,
noes 1, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 24]
AYES--409
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de Lugo (VI)
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Faleomavaega (AS)
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kaptur
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Natcher
Neal (MA)
Norton (DC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Romero-Barcelo (PR)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Underwood (GU)
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--1
Kanjorski
NOT VOTING--28
Andrews (TX)
Bilirakis
Boehner
Brooks
Coleman
de la Garza
Dingell
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastert
Hastings
Laughlin
Lewis (FL)
Machtley
Michel
Neal (NC)
Ortiz
Owens
Ridge
Roth
Scott
Sharp
Slattery
Towns
Washington
Young (AK)
{time} 1633
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Skaggs) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moran, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3345) to amend
title 5, United States Code, to eliminate certain restrictions on
employee training; to provide temporary authority to agencies relating
to voluntary separation incentive payments; and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 357, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--yeas 391,
nays 17, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 25]
YEAS--391
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Byrne
Callahan
Calvert
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Fish
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gallo
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hayes
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Inslee
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
Kyl
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Manzullo
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCandless
McCloskey
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Natcher
Neal (MA)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roukema
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shaw
Shays
Shepherd
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Swift
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--17
Archer
Armey
Barton
Camp
Canady
Crane
DeLay
Duncan
Ehlers
Hancock
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Porter
Rogers
Sensenbrenner
Smith (MI)
Stump
NOT VOTING--25
Andrews (TX)
Bilirakis
Boehner
Brooks
Coleman
de la Garza
Dingell
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hastert
Hastings
Laughlin
Lewis (FL)
Machtley
Michel
Neal (NC)
Ortiz
Owens
Ridge
Roth
Slattery
Towns
Washington
Young (AK)
{time} 1708
Mr. CANADY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read. ``A bill to provide
temporary authority to Government agencies relating to voluntary
separation incentive payments, and for other purposes.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________