[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 17 (Thursday, February 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 24, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  FEDERAL EMPLOYEE BUYOUT LEGISLATION

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act is 
an important legislative initiative. The administration has testified, 
and I am persuaded, that the legislation is urgently needed so that we 
can downsize and rightsize the Federal work force.
  On February 10, 1994, the House passed its version and on February 
11, 1994, the Senate responded promptly by passing its version. The 
bill with the Senate substitute was returned to the House so that the 
House could either agree with the Senate or disagree and ask for a 
conference.
  The administration says that it will have to start firing Federal 
employees soon in order to meet budget constraints unless this 
legislation is immediately enacted. What puzzles me is that the House 
leadership has taken no action. I am informed that the House leadership 
plans to take no action. Why.
  There are two noteworthy differences between the House version and 
the Senate version. The first flows from the Senate's desire to comply 
with the 1990 Budget Enforcement Act. The House version contains a $519 
million pay-as-you-go violation, as scored by the Congressional Budget 
Office. It should be noted that it was Chairman Glenn who insisted that 
this budget problem be solved before floor consideration of the bill. 
To allay the concerns of several Senators, the Vice President's office 
provided language to the Senate to satisfy the pay-as-you-go problem.
  Today I read in the newspapers that certain House leaders and the 
head of OPM are very critical of the Roth amendment.
  It seems to me that the administration needs to have a conversation 
with itself. I hold no particular interest in the pay-as-you-go 
solution proposed by the Vice President's office. I am sure that there 
are equally valid alternative solutions to the pay-go problem. Why 
doesn't the House leadership offer one?
  The answer lies in the second difference between the two versions. I 
cannot say that I wrote this language either. That distinction goes to 
the President pro tempore of the Senate, the Senator from West 
Virginia. The Senate substitute contains the Byrd amendment to the 
Senate's crime bill. Since the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act is 
the legislation that creates the savings that will fund the crime bill, 
it is entirely appropriate that it also contain a provision how that 
savings is to be spent. For if we do not downsize the work force, there 
will be no savings to apply to fighting crime.
  It should be noted that last November the Senate adopted this 
provision 94-4 and that President Clinton has personally endorsed the 
provision as recently as last week.
  Is the House leadership unwilling to confer on this issue? I hope 
that what I hear is not true.
  I urge the House Democratic leadership to recognize the critical need 
for passage of this bill and either accept the Senate version or call 
for a House-Senate conference immediately.

                          ____________________