[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.

                          ____________________