[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 27 (Friday, March 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 1994
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Chair
will now lay before the Senate a House message accompanying H.R. 3345,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3345) to amend title 5, United States Code, to
eliminate certain restrictions on employee training; to
provide temporary authority to Government agencies relating
to voluntary separation incentive payments, and for other
purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate the following
message from the House of Representatives:
Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 3345) entitled ``An act to provide
temporary authority to Government agencies relating to
voluntary separation incentive payments, and for other
purposes'', with the following amendment:
In lieu of the matter inserted by said amendment, insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994''.
SEC. 2. TRAINING.
(a) In General.--Chapter 41 of title 5, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in section 4101(4) by striking ``fields'' and all that
follows through the semicolon and inserting ``fields which
will improve individual and organizational performance and
assist in achieving the agency's mission and performance
goals;'';
(2) in section 4103--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``In'' and all that follows through
``maintain'' and inserting ``In order to assist in achieving
an agency's mission and performance goals by improving
employee and organizational performance, the head of each
agency, in conformity with this chapter, shall establish,
operate, maintain, and evaluate'';
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (2);
(iii) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
(iv) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) provide that information concerning the selection and
assignment of employees for training and the applicable
training limitations and restrictions be made available to
employees of the agency; and''; and
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``determines'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``determines
that such training would be in the interests of the
Government.'';
(ii) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph
(3) as paragraph (2); and
(iii) in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) (as so
redesignated) by striking ``retaining'' and all that follows
through the period and inserting ``such training.'';
(3) in section 4105--
(A) in subsection (a) by striking ``(a)''; and
(B) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
(4) by repealing section 4106;
(5) in section 4107--
(A) by amending the catchline to read as follows:
``Sec. 4107. Restriction on degree training'';
(B) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and redesignating
subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (a) and (b),
respectively;
(C) by amending subsection (a) (as so redesignated)--
(i) by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)''; and
(ii) by striking ``by, in, or through a non-Government
facility''; and
(D) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (b) (as so
redesignated) by striking ``subsection (c)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)'';
(6) in section 4108(a) by striking ``by, in, or through a
non-Government facility under this chapter'' and inserting
``for more than a minimum period prescribed by the head of
the agency'';
(7) in section 4113(b)--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``annually to the
Office,'' and inserting ``to the Office, at least once every
3 years, and''; and
(B) by striking the matter following the first sentence and
inserting the following: ``The report shall set forth--
``(1) information needed to determine that training is
being provided in a manner which is in compliance with
applicable laws intended to protect or promote equal
employment opportunity; and
``(2) information concerning the expenditures of the agency
in connection with training and such other information as the
Office considers appropriate.'';
(8) by repealing section 4114; and
(9) in section 4118--
(A) in subsection (a)(7) by striking ``by, in, and through
non-Government facilities'';
(B) by striking subsection (b); and
(C) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 3381(e) by striking ``4105(a),'' and
inserting ``4105,''; and
(2) in the analysis for chapter 41--
(A) by repealing the items relating to sections 4106 and
4114; and
(B) by amending the item relating to section 4107 to read
as follows:
``4107. Restriction on degree training.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. 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 April 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 March 31,
1997).
(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 5
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 by 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 individual involved possesses
unique abilities and is the only qualified applicant
available for the position.
(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
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.
(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
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.
(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.
(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. 4. ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RETIREMENT
FUND.
(a) Relating to Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.--
(1) 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--
(A) who, on or after the date of the enactment of this Act
and before October 1, 1995, retires under section 8336(d)(2)
of such title; and
(B) to whom a voluntary separation incentive payment has
been or is to be paid by such agency based on that
retirement.
(2) Definitions.--For the purpose of this subsection--
(A) 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; and
(B) the term ``voluntary separation incentive payment''
means--
(i) a voluntary separation incentive payment under section
3 (including under any program established under section
3(f)); and
(ii) any separation pay under section 5597 of title 5,
United States Code, or section 2 of the Central Intelligence
Agency Voluntary Separation Pay Act (Public Law 103-36; 107
Stat. 104).
(b) Relating to Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1998.--
(1) In general.--In addition to any other payments which it
is required to make under subchapter III of chapter 83 or
chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, in fiscal years
1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 (and in addition to any amounts
required under subsection (a)), each agency shall, before the
end of each such fiscal year, 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 the product of--
(A) the number of employees of such agency who, as of March
31st of such fiscal year, are subject to subchapter III of
chapter 83 or chapter 84 of such title; multiplied by
(B) $80.
(2) Definition.--For the purpose of this subsection, the
term ``agency'' means an Executive agency (as defined by
section 105 of title 5, United States Code), but does not
include the General Accounting Office.
(c) Regulations.--The Director of the Office of Personnel
Management may prescribe any regulations necessary to carry
out this section.
SEC. 5. REDUCTION OF FEDERAL FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS.
(a) Definition.--For the purpose of this section, the term
``agency'' means an Executive agency (as defined by 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) 1,922,300 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 3 (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.
(g) Limitation on Procurement of Service Contracts.--The
President shall take appropriate action to ensure that there
is no increase in the procurement of service contracts by
reason of the enactment of this Act, except in cases in which
a cost comparison demonstrates such contracts would be to the
financial advantage of the Federal Government.
SEC. 6. SUBSEQUENT EMPLOYMENT AND REPAYMENT OF SEPARATION
PAYMENT.
(a) Defense Agency Separation Pay.--Section 5597 of title
5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g)(1) An employee who receives separation pay under this
section on the basis of a separation occurring on or after
the date of the enactment of the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994 and accepts employment with the
Government of the United States within 5 years after the date
of the separation on which payment of the separation pay is
based shall be required to repay the entire amount of the
separation pay to the defense agency that paid the separation
pay.
``(2) If the employment is with an Executive agency, the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management may, at the
request of the head of the agency, waive the repayment if the
individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.
``(3) 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 individual involved
possesses unique abilities and is the only qualified
applicant available for the position.
``(4) 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 individual involved
possesses unique abilities and is the only qualified
applicant available for the position.''.
(b) Central Intelligence Agency Separation Payment.--
Section 2(b) of the Central Intelligence Agency Voluntary
Separation Pay Act (Public Law 103-36; 107 Stat. 104) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``An employee who
receives separation pay under this section on the basis of a
separation occurring on or after the date of the enactment of
the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 and accepts
employment with the Government of the United States within 5
years after the date of the separation on which payment of
the separation pay is based shall be required to repay the
entire amount of the separation pay to the Central
Intelligence Agency. If the employment is with an Executive
agency (as defined by 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 individual involved possesses unique
abilities and is the only qualified applicant available for
the position. 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 individual involved
possesses unique abilities and is the only qualified
applicant available for the position. 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 individual involved possesses unique abilities and is the
only qualified applicant available for the position.''.
SEC. 7. STANDARDIZATION OF WITHDRAWAL OPTIONS FOR THRIFT
SAVINGS PLAN PARTICIPANTS.
(a) Participation in the Thrift Savings Plan.--Section
8351(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
``(4) Section 8433(b) of this title applies to any employee
or Member who elects to make contributions to the Thrift
Savings Fund under subsection (a) of this section and
separates from Government employment.'';
(2) by striking paragraphs (5), (6), and (8);
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (7), (9), and (10) as
paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
(4) in paragraph (5)(C) (as so redesignated by paragraph
(3) of this subsection) by striking ``or former spouse'' each
place it appears;
(5) by amending paragraph (6) (as so redesignated by
paragraph (3) of this subsection) to read as follows:
``(6) Notwithstanding paragraph (4), if an employee or
Member separates from Government employment and such
employee's or Member's nonforfeitable account balance is
$3,500 or less, the Executive Director shall pay the
nonforfeitable account balance to the participant in a single
payment unless the employee or Member elects, at such time
and otherwise in such manner as the Executive Director
prescribes, one of the options available under subsection
(b).''; and
(6) in paragraph (7) (as so redesignated by paragraph (3)
of this subsection) by striking ``nonforfeiture'' and
inserting ``nonforfeitable''.
(b) Benefits and Election of Benefits.--Section 8433 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by striking the matter before
paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(b) Subject to section 8435 of this title, any employee
or Member who separates from Government employment is
entitled and may elect--'';
(2) by striking subsections (c) and (d) and redesignating
subsections (e) through (i) as subsections (c) through (g),
respectively;
(3) in subsection (c)(1) (as so redesignated by paragraph
(2) of this subsection) by striking ``or (c)(4) or required
under subsection (d) directly to an eligible retirement plan
or plans (as defined in section 402(a)(5)(E) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954)'' and inserting ``directly to an
eligible retirement plan or plans (as defined in section
402(c)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)'';
(4) in subsection (d)(2) (as so redesignated by paragraph
(2) of this subsection) by striking ``or (c)(2)''; and
(5) in subsection (f) (as so redesignated by paragraph (2)
of this subsection)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and redesignating paragraphs
(2) and (3) as paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; and
(B) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated by subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph)--
(i) by striking ``Notwithstanding subsections (b) and (c),
if an employee or Member separates from Government employment
under circumstances making such employee or Member eligible
to make an election under either of those subsections, and
such employee's or Member's'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding
subsection (b), if an employee or Member separates from
Government employment, and such employee's or Member's''; and
(ii) by striking ``or (c), as applicable''; and
(C) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated by subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph) by striking ``paragraphs (1) and (2)''
and inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
(c) Annuities: Methods of Payment; Election; Purchase.--
Section 8434(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(c) Notwithstanding the elimination of a method of
payment by the Board, an employee, Member, former employee,
or former Member may elect the eliminated method if the
elimination of such method becomes effective less than 5
years before the date on which that individual's annuity
commences.''.
(d) Protections for Spouses and Former Spouses.--Section
8435 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(A) by striking ``subsection
(b)(3), (b)(4), (c)(3), or (c)(4) of section 8433 of this
title or change an election previously made under subsection
(b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), or (c)(2)'' and inserting
``subsection (b)(3) or (b)(4) of section 8433 of this title
or change an election previously made under subsection (b)(1)
or (b)(2)'';
(2) by striking subsection (b);
(3) by redesignating subsections (c) through (i) as
subsections (b) through (h), respectively;
(4) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated by paragraph (3)
of this subsection) by amending paragraph (2) to read as
follows:
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply if--
``(A) a joint waiver of such method is made, in writing, by
the employee or Member and the spouse; or
``(B) the employee or Member waives such method, in
writing, after establishing to the satisfaction of the
Executive Director that circumstances described under
subsection (a)(2) (A) or (B) make the requirement of a joint
waiver inappropriate.''; and
(5) in subsection (c)(1) (as so redesignated by paragraph
(3) of this subsection) by striking ``and a transfer may not
be made under section 8433(d) of this title''.
(e) Justices and Judges.--Section 8440a(b) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5) by striking ``Section 8433(d)'' and
inserting ``Section 8433(b)''; and
(2) by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the
following:
``(7) Notwithstanding paragraphs (4) and (5), if any
justice or judge retires under subsection (a) or (b) of
section 371 or section 372(a) of title 28, or resigns without
having met the age and service requirements set forth under
section 371(c) of title 28, and such justice's or judge's
nonforfeitable account balance is $3,500 or less, the
Executive Director shall pay the nonforfeitable account
balance to the participant in a single payment unless the
justice or judge elects, at such time and otherwise in such
manner as the Executive Director prescribes, one of the
options available under section 8433(b).''.
(f) Bankruptcy Judges and Magistrates.--Section 8440b of
title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(4) by amending subparagraph (B) to
read as follows:
``(B) Section 8433(b) of this title applies to any
bankruptcy judge or magistrate who elects to make
contributions to the Thrift Savings Fund under subsection (a)
of this section and who retires before attaining age 65 but
is entitled, upon attaining age 65, to an annuity under
section 377 of title 28 or section 2(c) of the Retirement and
Survivors Annuities for Bankruptcy Judges and Magistrates Act
of 1988.'';
(2) in subsection (b)(4)(C) by striking ``Section 8433(d)''
and inserting ``Section 8433(b)'';
(3) in subsection (b)(5) by striking ``retirement under
section 377 of title 28 is'' and inserting ``any of the
actions described under paragraph (4) (A), (B), or (C) shall
be considered'';
(4) in subsection (b) by striking paragraph (8) and
redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (8); and
(5) in paragraph (8) of subsection (b) (as so redesignated
by paragraph (4) of this subsection)--
(A) by striking ``Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B)
of paragraph (4), if any bankruptcy judge or magistrate
retires under circumstances making such bankruptcy judge or
magistrate eligible to make an election under subsection (b)
or (c)'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding paragraph (4), if
any bankruptcy judge or magistrate retires under
circumstances making such bankruptcy judge or magistrate
eligible to make an election under subsection (b)''; and
(B) by striking ``and (c), as applicable''.
(g) Claims Court Judges.--Section 8440c of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(4)(B) by striking ``Section 8433(d)''
and inserting ``Section 8433(b)'';
(2) in subsection (b)(5) by striking ``retirement under
section 178 of title 28 is'' and inserting ``any of the
actions described in paragraph (4) (A) or (B) shall be
considered'';
(3) in subsection (b) by striking paragraph (8) and
redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (8); and
(4) in paragraph (8) (as so redesignated by paragraph (3)
of this subsection) by striking ``Notwithstanding paragraph
(4)(A)'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding paragraph (4)''.
(h) Judges of the United States Court of Veterans
Appeals.--Section 8440d(b)(5) of title 5, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``A transfer shall be made as provided
in section 8433(d) of this title'' and inserting ``Section
8433(b) of this title applies''.
(i) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 8351(b)(5)(B) (as so redesignated by
subsection (a)(3) of this section) by striking ``section
8433(i)'' and inserting ``section 8433(g)'';
(2) in section 8351(b)(5)(D) (as so redesignated by
subsection (a)(3) of this section) by striking ``section
8433(i)'' and inserting ``section 8433(g)'';
(3) in section 8433(b)(4) by striking ``subsection (e)''
and inserting ``subsection (c)'';
(4) in section 8433(d)(1) (as so redesignated by subsection
(b)(2) of this section) by striking ``(d) of section 8435''
and inserting ``(c) of section 8435'';
(5) in section 8433(d)(2) (as so redesignated by subsection
(b)(2) of this section) by striking ``section 8435(d)'' and
inserting ``section 8435(c)'';
(6) in section 8433(e) (as so redesignated by subsection
(b)(2) of this section) by striking ``section 8435(d)(2)''
and inserting ``section 8435(c)(2)'';
(7) in section 8433(g)(5) (as so redesignated by subsection
(b)(2) of this section) by striking ``section 8435(f)'' and
inserting ``section 8435(e)'';
(8) in section 8434(b) by striking ``section 8435(c)'' and
inserting ``section 8435(b)'';
(9) in section 8435(a)(1)(B) by striking ``subsection (c)''
and inserting ``subsection (b)'';
(10) in section 8435(d)(1)(B) (as so redesignated by
subsection (d)(3) of this section) by striking ``subsection
(d)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection (c)(2)'';
(11) in section 8435(d)(3)(A) (as so redesignated by
subsection (d)(3) of this section) by striking ``subsection
(c)(1)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)'';
(12) in section 8435(d)(6) (as so redesignated by
subsection (d)(3) of this section) by striking ``or (c)(2)''
and inserting ``or (b)(2)'';
(13) in section 8435(e)(1)(A) (as so redesignated by
subsection (d)(3) of this section) by striking ``section
8433(i)'' and inserting ``section 8433(g)'';
(14) in section 8435(e)(2) (as so redesignated by
subsection (d)(3) of this section) by striking ``section
8433(i) of this title shall not be approved if approval would
have the result described in subsection (d)(1)'' and
inserting ``section 8433(g) of this title shall not be
approved if approval would have the result described under
subsection (c)(1)'';
(15) in section 8435(g) (as so redesignated by subsection
(d)(3) of this section) by striking ``section 8433(i)'' and
inserting ``section 8433(g)'';
(16) in section 8437(c)(5) by striking ``section 8433(i)''
and inserting ``section 8433(g)''; and
(17) in section 8440a(b)(6) by striking ``section
8351(b)(7)'' and inserting ``section 8351(b)(5)''.
(j) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this Act or on such
earlier date as the Executive Director of the Federal
Retirement Thrift Investment Board shall provide in
regulation.
SEC. 8. AMENDMENTS TO ALASKA RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT OF 1982
REGARDING FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) Applicability of Voluntary Separation Incentives to
Certain Former Federal Employees.--Section 607(a) of the
Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982 (45 U.S.C. 1206(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4)(A) The State-owned railroad shall be included in the
definition of `agency' for purposes of section 3 (a), (b),
(c), and (e) of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of
1994 and may elect to participate in the voluntary separation
incentive program established under such Act. Any employee of
the State-owned railroad who meets the qualifications as
described under the first sentence of paragraph (1) shall be
deemed an employee under such Act.
``(B) An employee who has received a voluntary separation
incentive payment under this paragraph and accepts employment
with the State-owned railroad within 5 years after the date
of separation on which payment of the incentive is based
shall be required to repay the entire amount of the incentive
payment unless the head of the State-owned railroad
determines that the individual involved possesses unique
abilities and is the only qualified applicant available for
the position.''.
(b) Life and Health Insurance Benefits.--Section 607 of the
Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982 (45 U.S.C. 1206) is
amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the
following:
``(e)(1) Any person described under the provisions of
paragraph (2) may elect life insurance coverage under chapter
87 of title 5, United States Code, and enroll in a health
benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United States
Code, in accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
``(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall apply to any
person who--
``(A) on the date of the enactment of the Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994, is an employee of the State-owned
railroad;
``(B) has 20 years or more of service (in the civil service
as a Federal employee or as an employee of the State-owned
railroad, combined) on the date of retirement from the State-
owned railroad; and
``(C)(i) was covered under a life insurance policy pursuant
to chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, on January 4,
1985, for the purpose of electing life insurance coverage
under the provisions of paragraph (1); or
``(ii) was enrolled in a health benefits plan pursuant to
chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, on January 4,
1985, for the purpose of enrolling in a health benefits plan
under the provisions of paragraph (1).
``(3) For purposes of this section, any person described
under the provisions of paragraph (2) shall be deemed to have
been covered under a life insurance policy under chapter 87
of title 5, United States Code, and to have been enrolled in
a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5, United
States Code, during the period beginning on January 5, 1985,
through the date of retirement of any such person.
``(4) The provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to
any person described under paragraph (2) until the date such
person retires from the State-owned railroad.''.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas is
recognized to offer an amendment.
Amendment No. 1495
(Purpose: To establish a Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund)
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, and I
call that amendment up.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] proposes an amendment
numbered 1495.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
H.R. 3345
SEC. . CREATION OF VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND.
Violent crime reduction trust fund
``(a) There is established a separate account in the
Treasury, known as the `Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund',
into which shall be deposited deficit reduction (as defined
in subsection (b) of this section) achieved by the preceeding
section.
``(b) On the first day of the following fiscal years (or as
soon thereafter as possible for fiscal year 1994), the
following amounts shall be transferred from the general fund
to the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund--
``(1) for fiscal year 1994, $720,000,000;
``(2) for fiscal year 1995, $2,423,000,000;
``(3) for fiscal year 1996, $4,267,000,000;
``(4) for fiscal year 1997, $6,313,000,000; and
``(5) for fiscal year 1998, $8,545,000,000.
``(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
``(1) the amounts in the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
may be appropriated exclusively for the purposes authorized
in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993;
``(2) the amounts in the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
and appropriations under paragraph (1) of this section shall
be excluded from, and shall not be taken into account for
purposes of, any budget enforcement procedures under the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985; and
``(3) for purposes of this subsection, `appropriations
under paragraph (1)' mean amounts of budget authority not to
exceed the balances of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
and amounts of outlays that flow from budget authority
actually appropriated.''.
(b) Listing of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund Among
Government Trust Funds.--Section 1321(a) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting at the end thereof the
following new paragraph:
``(91) Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.''.
(c) Requirement for the President To Report Annually on the
Status of the Account.--Section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof:
``(29) information about the Violent Crime Reduction Trust
Fund, including a separate statement of amounts in that Trust
Fund.
``(30) an analysis displaying by agency proposed reductions
in full-time equivalent positions compared to the current
year's level in order to comply with section 1352 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993.''.
SEC. . CONFORMING REDUCTION IN DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
LIMITS.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall,
upon enactment of this Act, reduce the discretionary spending
limits set forth in section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 for fiscal years 1994 through 1998 as
follows:
(1) for fiscal year 1994, for the discretionary category:
$720,000,000 in new budget authority and $314,000,000 in
outlays;
(2) for fiscal year 1995, for the discretionary category:
$2,423,000,000 in new budget authority and $2,330,000,000 in
outlays;
(3) for fiscal year 1996, for the discretionary category:
$4,267,000,000 in new budget authority and $4,184,000,000 in
outlays;
(4) for fiscal year 1997, for the discretionary category:
$6,313,000,000 in new budget authority and $6,221,000,000 in
outlays; and
(5) for fiscal year 1998, for the discretionary category:
$8,545,000,000 in new budget authority and $8,443,000,000 in
outlays.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I want to go back and recount where we
have been on the issue that is the subject matter of the amendment
which is before us.
I have offered an amendment, which consists of the text of the Byrd
amendment which I cosponsored, on the crime bill, which has the
objective of, after locking in a reduction in the Federal work force of
252,000 personnel slots, achieving a savings in the first 5 years of
$20.8 billion, lowering the spending caps in the Federal budget to
assure that none of that money is spent for other purposes, and then
dedicating the $20.8 billion to a violent crime reduction trust fund to
pay for a dual approach to try to rid America of violent crime.
One approach is putting 100,000 police officers on the street. The
other approach is building prisons, adopting mandatory minimum
sentencing, and asking States to enter into a partnership with the
Federal Government to incarcerate repeat violent offenders in regional
prisons which are to be constructed with the money contained in this
amendment.
In order to participate, the States have to adopt certain policies,
including a truth-in-sentencing provision which establishes a high
ratio between the amount of time someone is sentenced to prison and the
amount of time they actually spend in prison.
That, Madam President, is the subject matter of the amendment before
us.
Let me relate the Senate's history on this issue because it is
somewhat of a long history, and I think it will be helpful to
understand why this amendment is so important to me. I hope it will be
important to the Senate, and I hope it will become the law of the land.
On October 28 of last year, I offered the original amendment which
set out in law the President's stated goal from the reinventing
Government proposal to reduce the number of personnel slots in the
Federal bureaucracy by 252,000, and to set out an enforcement mechanism
whereby the Office of Management and Budget would make a finding
concerning the level of actual full-time equivalent employment in the
Federal Government.
If the OMB Director were to find that the level of full-time
equivalent employment exceeds the level set out in law, then that would
automatically trigger a hiring freeze that would stay in effect until
the employment target is achieved and the attendant savings are
realized.
The first Gramm amendment would have applied the entire $20.8 billion
to deficit reduction. I remind my colleagues that when I offered that
amendment on October 28, it was adopted on a very strong bipartisan
vote, 82 to 14.
In November last year, when we were considering the anticrime bill,
Senator Byrd, responding to a discussion of how we were going to come
together on a crime bill where basically, Madam President, there were
two approaches--the approach of Republicans was to build prisons, to
impose mandatory minimum sentences, and to grab violent criminals by
the throat to assure that every morning we do not have to wake up and
open up the newspaper and find that a violent predator criminal who had
previously brutalized or killed people is back out on the street and
doing it again. We had an approach on the Democratic side to put more
police officers on the street and institute a series of other reforms
that were aimed at trying to deal with first-time offenders, trying to
deal with some of the root causes of crime.
Senator Byrd and I lamented the fact that we had difficulty in
funding both approaches. Senator Byrd came up with the idea of taking
the text of my original amendment on Federal work force levels and
using the savings from that amendment to fund the crime bill.
The Byrd amendment, which I cosponsored with many others, was adopted
on November 4 of last year.
Then, at the end of the session, the original bill, to which I had
attached the first Gramm amendment that set employment caps and saved
$20.8 billion, came back over from the House without the Gramm
amendment--despite the fact that Members of the House on two separate
occasions had instructed conferees to accept that amendment and to save
$20.8 billion. A conference occurred, it lasted for 5 minutes and the
amendment was dropped.
The House then rejected that proposal and sent it back into
conference. The amendment was dropped again. So despite the fact that
the Senate voted 82 to 14 for my amendment, despite the fact that the
House voted for it twice, it ended up being dropped from the House
bill. Then last year, on the last day of the session, in one last
attempt to see that we did not leave $20 billion on the table, a table
which is often ransacked by people who want to spend money, I offered
the amendment again. But my colleagues, in their zest to leave Capitol
Hill and go back into America, rejected that amendment, I believe out
of a fear that it would mean they might be forced to come back the next
day or the next week.
Then when the bill that is now before us first came before the Senate
in February, on February 11, Senator Roth offered a substitute that
contained the Byrd-Gramm language from the crime bill, with its many
cosponsors, the amendment that created the crime reduction trust fund,
and set in law the reduction in the Federal work force.
Now we have before us a bill which has provisions in it to pay people
$25,000, or up to $25,000 to retire early, to try to meet the targets
of reducing the size of the Federal bureaucracy.
The bill before us that has now returned from the House has part of
my amendment in it. It has the employment reduction targets. It has the
enforcement mechanism. But it does not have a reduction in the spending
caps, so there is no guarantee that the money cannot be spent on just
anything, and it does not have the crime trust fund.
What I am doing in my amendment today is putting us exactly back
where we were when the Roth substitute was adopted. So that when we are
providing a mechanism to reduce the size of the Federal work force with
a buyout, we are certain the money saved is not going to be spent on
conventional programs and that it is going to be available to be spent
only for the purpose of reducing violent crime in America. So this is a
subject we have voted on many times. It is a very important subject.
I have a growing suspicion, Madam President, that people do not
intend to see this money spent to reduce violent crime; that there are
those who intend to spend it on other things. I do not intend to see
that happen. That is why I have offered the amendment today. I hope it
will get a strong vote.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from
Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I may
require.
Madam President, the buyout bill, which is the basic bill we are
talking about here, is very important. It has a great deal of urgency.
We are beginning to run out of our available time window on this
legislation as far as having it do any good and do what it was supposed
to be able to do.
The administration has proposed that we reduce the Federal work force
by some 252,000 people. I support that. But I want to do it in the
right way. The reason that we want to do it in the right way is not
just to say, well, we laid off 252,000 people. What we want to do is
restructure the Federal work force.
By restructuring, I mean we have the wrong people in the wrong places
right now, and this buyout bill we are considering is what will let us
then make sure the people who are let go are not just out on a RIF, a
reduction in force basis, but done in a way that will let us get the
people out of Government we need out.
Now, what do I mean by that? Well, in the civilian sector, the normal
manager-to-employee ratio is about 1 to 15, and in labor-intensive
industry it may be 1 to 20 or even more. The Federal work force through
the years has gotten topheavy with managers. The military had that
problem some years ago. We called it brass creep, as we got too many
officers in relation to the number of enlisted, and we put legislation
forward that took care of that and got that ratio back into a more
normal alignment.
What we have with regard to the Federal Government is a 1-to-7 ratio,
and so the people we need to get out are the GS 13's, 14's, and 15's.
There needs to be some incentive because they are not the people who
are going to volunteer to get out.
So what we are going to do if we just have the 252,000 work force
reduction and we do that by just normal attrition of the 11- or 12-
percent turnover a year that happens in the Federal work force, we are
going to lose the lower paid people who, by and large, are the
minorities, the women who are at the lower pay scales in Government. It
is going to be a very unfair matter.
That is the urgency behind this bill. We need this legislation in
order to correct that imbalance in the upper levels of the GS ratings
as opposed to the workers at the lower levels.
So we are beginning to run out of time because with the limitations
that have been placed on the administration budgetwise, we have some of
the departments of Government that right now are having to start RIF's,
reductions in force, without this buyout, and it is going to leave us
with the same unbalanced structure we have right now.
That is the urgency of this bill. When the bill came through before,
the Senate acted on it but it attached the crime bill to it because as
some of the savings came out of the GS cutbacks as reductions in force,
the savings therefore were going to be put over into the crime bill.
Now, I voted for that before. The House objects to that strongly. And
so they have sent the bill back to us with a changed formula, and we
can accept the formula they have sent back to us, I believe, as far as
how they structure the percentages that will be paid into this
retirement fund. The $80 active employee contribution each year for up
to 3 years from each department will be paid back into the civil
service retirement trust fund, a 9-percent agency payment, 9 percent of
the final year of salary for each retiring employee will come back into
the fund also.
The House sent it back with no reference to the crime bill that we
had sent over to them, and that is what the distinguished Senator from
Texas, Mr. Gramm, is proposing we put back in the bill today.
Now, in an ideal world, I would like to just accept the House bill
and pass it, but I realize we voted for this before. There is general
support for it in the Senate. And even though the administration in the
form of a letter from the Vice President dated March 9 urges us just to
pass the House bill so we can get on with dealing with the original
problem of GS ratings I mentioned a moment ago, I doubt we are going to
be able to do that. I am sure we will not be able to do that.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Vice President's
letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. GLENN. Let me recount a bit of the history of this matter.
S. 1535, the Federal Work Force Restructuring Act, was first
introduced on October 7 last year. On October 19, the Governmental
Affairs Committee, which I chair, held a hearing on S. 1535. We marked
it up on November 9. And on February 4, 1994, the House passed its
version, H.R. 3345, and that bill was sent to the Senate.
The Senate then passed the substitute amendment to 3345 on February
11 and sent the bill back to the House. And so now we have the House
version sent back to us again. This has been legislative ping-pong if I
have ever seen it. But regardless of how many times we go back and
forth, I think the game has gone on long enough.
The administration has stated repeatedly it desperately needs this
Federal Work Force Restructuring Act so that Federal agencies can begin
to downsize the work force by encouraging employees to resign or retire
from Federal service. Agencies can downsize without resorting to
reductions in force, to RIF's. And as private industry learned, unlike
RIF's, buyouts also can streamline a work force without sacrificing
morale or diversity.
We have had experience with that in the military over in the Pentagon
in reductions in force. In addition, buyouts save agencies money
because they cost less than layoffs.
The longer we wait to pass this bill the slimmer the opportunities
become for agencies to use buyouts to down size in the way that we want
them to down size.
The letter from the Vice President explains this also. Many agencies
have said that the latest day they can use buyouts is March 15. Here we
are March 11 referring to an amendment of the bill again. I just do not
think we can continue to play around with the bill. We need to go to
conference which we were willing to do some time ago. But it was up to
the House at that time to call the conference under the rules under
which we operate. So we never got to conference on it, and passing the
bill with this amendment today will let us go to conference with it.
So while I would prefer to go with the House bill today so we could
get into force as soon as we possibly could, I guess we are going to
pass it today, I would be willing to accept this in the interest of
getting on to the conference and accept it here.
I believe my distinguished colleague--correct me, if I am wrong--
wants a rollcall vote on this particular amendment.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Exhibit 1
The Vice President,
Washington, March 9, 1994.
Hon. John Glenn,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express the Clinton
Administration's strong support for the House-passed version
of H.R. 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act and to
urge the Senate to expeditiously pass the bill. This
legislation is needed immediately in order for the Executive
branch to reduce, reshape and retool its workforce without
large numbers of reductions in force (RIFs).
The Administration is committed to reducing the deficit and
streamlining government with as few involuntary separations
as possible. However, caps on agency budgets will force
agencies to cut employment--with or without ``buyouts.'' The
question is whether we provide for a more orderly downsizing
through buyouts, or suffer large numbers of reductions in
force (RIFs). The down side of RIFs is well known: they are
costly, disruptive, and strike younger workers, many of whom
are recently hired women and minorities. Buyouts, coupled
with early retirement authority, permit agencies to target
employees in unnecessary high level jobs and maximize
savings.
Time to realize savings through buyouts is running out.
However, the earlier the buyout legislation is enacted, the
sooner the savings can begin. With buyouts enacted in Fiscal
Year 1994, agencies can still cover the costs of buyouts even
if senior people take early retirement as late as the third
quarter. Not only does the agency save salary and benefits
costs in future years, but with the nine percent agency
contribution to the retirement fund, the retirement system
breaks even over the long run because early retirees take a
permanent pension reduction.
The bill as passed by the Senate included language from the
Senate crime bill providing for the establishment of a
violent crime reduction trust fund. As you know, the
President strongly supports prompt congressional action on
anti-crime legislation and the use of savings from reductions
in the Federal bureaucracy to fund violent crime fighting
activities. However, the Administration believes it would be
more appropriate to consider the violent crime reduction
trust fund in context of the crime legislation.
I urge the Senate to pass H.R. 3345 swiftly. Passing this
bill will demonstrate to the American people our shared
commitment to lowering the deficit and the cost of doing
business in the government. In short, the Senate will have
taken a responsible step toward creating a government that
works better and costs less.
Sincerely,
Al Gore.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I do not have a quarrel with my
distinguished colleagues here today. But I have a big quarrel on this
issue with some of the leadership of the House on the Democratic side
of the aisle, and I am beginning to believe that I have a major quarrel
about it with the administration. Every time we try to target this
$20.8 billion, whether to apply it to deficit reduction, or use it to
fund violent crime reduction, we are always running out of time. We
were supposedly running out of time at the end of the last session.
So people who were for the amendment voted against it because they
wanted the Congress to adjourn, and they did not want to be around here
for two or three more days. The administration says that it wants to
get tough on crime. But yet, it is increasingly clear to me that the
administration does not want to dedicate the money that is required to
do that.
The President came into office last year, cut prison construction by
$580 million, cut FBI, and cut DEA. The Attorney General spent the
entire year trying to overturn mandatory minimum sentencing, an effort
that is still under way. Yet, the President in December had a
conversion and endorsed the ``three strikes and you are out'' concept
in the crime bill, and yet, when he submitted his budget this year, he
cut prison construction again, he cut DEA again, and FBI funding is
still below the projected level needed to maintain even the levels in
the President's budget.
Now the Vice President who supposedly wants to pass our crime bill in
supporting the President's position has sent a letter that says, well,
look, this is an important matter, but we are running out of time. He
says we shouldn't adopt this amendment because we are running out of
time for passage of this bill. The House does not want to dedicate the
savings from a limitation in the size of the Federal bureaucracy,
either to hard deficit reduction or to fighting violent crime. They
want to spend it on other programs.
Well, I understand running out of time. But I think the American
people are running out of patience. With their opposition to this
amendment, I am beginning to believe that the administration is not
telling us the truth when they say they want our crime bill to become
the law of the land. If we reject this amendment, our agreement on the
crime bill is going to be overturned. I am going to believe that there
is no intention when we come out of conference of having the Byrd
language in that bill. And I believe that it is going to be important
at that point for us to then begin the process of having a new crime
debate.
So I hear that we are running out of time. I have no quarrel with any
of my colleagues here. But my point is I believe the American people
are running out of patience. I think they want to see this money either
go to hard deficit reduction, or see it be spent fighting violent
crime. We passed a bill with over 90 votes. This was a major element in
it. Ultimately the House is going to have to support our position, or
else this whole crime agreement is going to come apart.
So I am not running out of time. I am going to oppose this bill if it
comes back without this provision in it.
I yield Senator Roth 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the distinguished Senator, Madam President. As he
knows, I support the Gramm amendment, and urge its adoption. Its
passage is essential to capture the $22 billion in savings created by
this bill and dedicate it to fighting crime.
On Tuesday, after a 1-month delay, the House finally responded to the
Senate amendment to H.R. 3345, the Federal Work Force Restructuring
Act. The House action is curious in several respects. First, while the
House suggests this is a matter of great urgency, it took nearly a
month to respond to the Senate amendment.
Second, the House did not seek to clear in advance its amendment to
the Senate amendment. As far as I know, the pending House amendment,
which in some circles has been called a compromise, was fashioned
unilaterally in the other body.
Third, the House amendment, and the statements delivered on the House
floor in support of it, make no acknowledgment of the primary area of
disagreement between the two bodies; namely, what is to be done with
the $22 billion in savings realized from downsizing the Federal work
force. The Gramm amendment would ensure that these savings are held
available for the purpose of combating crime.
Today, the Senate takes action on this bill and does so without
delay. It should be noted that while the other body complains about
delay, this body has responded to the House actions on both occasions
within hours--I emphasize within hours--of the House delivery of the
legislative papers to the Senate. In contrast, the House has acted with
total disregard of its own rhetoric of urgency. And the action taken by
the House Tuesday, which completely ignores the primary area of
disagreement, does not advance the cause but only forestalls the
necessary resolution of the matter.
The Gramm amendment is not new to the Senate. Last November, the
Senate in acting on the crime bill, agreed to an amendment offered by
Senator Byrd that did three things: First, it ordered the reduction of
Federal work force by 252,000 employees; second, it captured the
savings from this downsizing, estimated to be approximately $22 billion
by CBO, by lowering the discretionary spending caps by the amount of
those savings; and third, it established a trust fund in a similar
amount to be used exclusively for purposes of the crime bill that the
President signs into law. The vote on this three-pronged amendment was
94 to 4.
Today, we are being asked to cast a vote on the identical provision
that garnered a 94-to-4 vote last November.
On February 11, 1994, the Senate included this same amendment as part
of the Senate substitute for H.R. 3345. At this time, 1 month later,
this item remains as the only significant matter in disagreement.
Actually, the House has embraced the first of the three elements of
the amendment by requiring a work force reduction of 252,000 employees.
The disagreement is focused on the second and third elements. While the
House would allow the $22 billion in savings to be spent on the general
purposes of Government, the Senate bill and the Gramm amendment would
fence off these savings from general appropriators by reducing the
discretionary spending caps.
This is an important distinction. This legislation is a National
Performance Review proposal ``to make government work better and cost
less.'' Normally, when you tell someone that something costs less, they
expect to spend less rather than the same or more. The House bill, like
the Senate bill, creates $22 billion in savings but, unlike the Senate
bill, would turn the savings over to the appropriators to spend as they
see fit.
How the savings are to be treated is not a question that can be
avoided. Each House has a position. Those who suggest that the Senate
position is unrelated to the legislation while the House position is
related, unfortunately, do not understand how the budget process really
works. If you reject the Senate language and the Gramm amendment, you
allow the created savings to be spent on anything. If you agree with
the Gramm amendment, the authority of appropriators is restricted. The
choice cannot be avoided as unrelated. Whatever course is taken
requires Congress to choose what to do with the savings.
One argument that is certain to be made is that Congress should wait
until the crime bill goes to conference to determine how the savings
from H.R. 3345 are to be spent. The problem is that if we accept the
House position, the savings may not be available if and when that time
comes; the appropriators are being besieged daily by demands for all
sorts of causes. If we do not fence off the savings we create, there is
no guarantee that no one will appropriate them before the crime bill is
ready.
The Senate has acted twice to earmark these savings for a crime trust
fund, once on the crime bill and once on this bill. Either time, it was
possible to argue that the provision was misplaced. When the crime bill
was before us, one could have argued that it was inappropriate to spend
savings that had yet to be created. Now when the bill to create savings
is before us, it may be argued that the crime bill is not finished, so
we should put off consideration of the matter.
The Senate has rejected these circular arguments. However, it is my
impression that some Members of the other body would like to catch us
in a shell game in the hope that the provision survives in neither
bill. Then, as the originator of appropriations bills, the House would
have first choice on how to spend those savings. It is my opinion that
the provision is most appropriate as part of the bill that creates the
savings, because there are no savings without this bill. But for those
who believe we should wait for the crime bill to include this
provision, I would hope that they would see that it is necessary to
escrow the savings by reducing the discretionary spending caps, lest
the savings be spent before the crime bill is enacted.
The third element of the provision establishes a crime trust fund. It
is important that my colleagues understand that this element does not
enact the Senate crime bill in its totality. Rather, it merely creates
a fund to which appropriators may turn to pay for the programs that
both the House and the Senate must agree on in sending the crime bill
to the President for signature. Upon enactment of the crime bill,
separate appropriations legislation will be needed to spend the savings
of this bill to fight crime. I mention this to assure the other body
that if the Gramm amendment prevails, it still remains for Congress to
decide how much money is to be appropriated for what crime program.
What the Senate version and the Gramm amendment does is merely to
assure that the funds are there to fight crime.
What is so bad about that? The President on several occasions has
endorsed the Senate provision. It is time that the House finally faced
the issue squarely. I urge adoption of the Gramm amendment and
ultimately the endorsement of the President's wishes to use the $22
billion saved by downsizing the Federal work force to combat crime.
I reiterate, Madam President, once again, my strong desire to meet
promptly in conference on this bill. I stand ready to expedite this
conference committee, and I urge the House to do exactly the same.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMM. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from
Florida [Mr. Mack].
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida is
recognized.
Mr. MACK. Madam President, when I saw this debate begin this morning,
I thought it was appropriate--since this is an issue of deep concern in
my State--that I have an opportunity to speak. I have taken a headline
from the Florida Times Union of February 24, 1994. The headline says:
``Prison Math? `Life' Equals 5 Months.''
This is the result of a crime that took place some time ago in the
State of Florida. The crime was committed by an individual who had been
arrested 32 times, had 6 felonies, and was out on early release. He
broke into a home, beat a woman, tied her up, stole her money, stole
her car, was arrested; and under a new law in the State of Florida, he
was given life in prison. That was 5 months ago. The individual is now
being considered for early release.
I want to say that again. This person was arrested 32 times, had six
felony convictions and committed another crime while he was out on
early release. For his latest crime, this individual was sentenced to
life in prison, or so we thought. Next Tuesday, March 15, just 5 months
after this villain was sentenced to life in prison, the parole
commission in Florida will hold a hearing to determine if this
individual should walk free. How many more innocent victims must suffer
until we stop turning out prisoners?
The people in my State and, frankly, people all over the country, are
saying that one of the first things we ought to do to fight crime is we
ought to just make those people who have already committed a crime, who
have been sentenced, serve every single day of their sentence. That is
a requirement that we placed in the Senate-passed crime bill. It is
associated with the establishment of a Federal regional prison system
that would make prison cells available for States like the State of
Florida, where this individual would not be out on early release.
So I rise today in strong support of the amendment that has been
offered by the Senator from Texas, which basically says if we are going
to spend the money--not that we have to spend it--but if we are going
to spend it, we spend it on crime only. I plead with my colleagues to
support that amendment. People throughout the entire country and people
in my State are saying we have to keep criminals off of our streets. To
repeat, this person had 32 arrests, 6 felony convictions, broke into a
woman's home, beat her, robbed her, stole her car, was caught,
convicted, and given life in prison. In 5 months, he is up for early
release--that is wrong.
I have sent a letter to the Florida Parole Commission urging that
this individual and every other convicted criminal remain behind bars
and serve their full sentence. There are evil people out there who must
be locked up and kept away. This individual is one of them.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, March 11, 1994.
Gene Hodges,
Chairman, Florida Parole Commission, Tallahassee, FL.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On March 15, Curtis Head, currently
serving a life sentence as a habitual offender for the July
1993 brutal beating and robbery of a Jacksonville woman will
be considered for early release.
Mr. Head must not be released. He is a convicted felon who
must remain behind bars for his full sentence, unable to prey
on other innocent citizens.
It is a slap in the face of Mr. Head's victim Deborah Liles
and every innocent victim throughout Florida to even consider
this convicted criminal for early release. It was only five
months ago he was sentenced to life for breaking into Deborah
Liles' home and savagely beat her, robbing her of her
possessions and more importantly, her freedom. Her life was
never be the same, her wounds have just begun healing.
Yet in five short months, Mr. Head is already being
considered for early release from prison. The last time this
convicted felon was granted early release from a previous
sentence, it took only 56 days to find his next victim,
Deborah Liles. If Mr. Head is released from prison this time,
how many days or hours will it take before another victim is
brutalized, another family is terrorized, another life
shattered?
Mr. Head and all criminals must serve their full sentence.
Justice demands no less. Early release sends a loud and clear
message to criminals: ``do the crime and you won't have to
serve the time.'' Instead of places for punishment, prisons
have become revolving doors--a stop-off where criminals rest
between crimes.
This injustice has to stop. I fully endorse the effort of
Stop Turning Out Prisoners to end early prison release. STOP
understands the system favors criminals over the safety of
citizens. STOP is turning to the people of Florida to end
early prison release because the justice system won't.
We can't wait for the passage of the STOP referendum to end
early prison release and keep Curtis Head behind bars. He
must stay behind bars now. It's time to send the right
message to criminals: ``do the crime and you will spend the
full time.'' I urge you to keep Mr. Head locked-up and off
our streets. Ms. Liles' safety and our safety depends on it.
Sincerely,
Connie Mack,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. MACK. In my State, there is an effort called STOP, Stop Turning
Out Prisoners. It was put together by a group of victims of crime that
have said enough is enough, it has to stop. I ask my colleagues again
to support the Gramm amendment. We have to keep violent criminals off
of our streets.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I might
require.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I would like to inquire of the Senator,
because this brings up a point I brought up in previous debate on the
crime bill. Forty-nine percent of the prisoners in our States are
nonviolent prisoners. They could just as well be put in low-cost
facilities, whether inflatable dome structures or Quonset huts or
Butler buildings, like millions of Americans have lived in for many
years of their lives.
I had an amendment in the crime bill that advocated States looking at
this and trying to put as many prisoners as possible into that type of
facility. We are doing a little bit of that in Ohio now. I talked to
the Governor about it a couple of years ago, as a matter of fact, and
they are now using some of these inflatable structures, like we see
used for tennis facilities in the country. We could get people in and
keep them in.
I saw a TV program where, I believe, in the State of North Carolina,
of the sentences given to prisoners, one-twelfth of the sentence is the
average served. It makes a mockery out of our criminal justice system.
We spent a lot of money. We are going to put 100,000 new police on the
streets. I do not quarrel with that, but we have police arresting
people now that are not taken care of. Then we put more money into our
system to make sure all their rights are protected. Then they stand up
in front of a judge and get a sentence, and they should be put away.
Where do they go? Into prisons that do not have space. Then we have to
turn somebody out to put somebody else in. Obviously, the State of
Florida, with somebody like this, who is a criminal of this magnitude,
should turn somebody else out that is a nonviolent person to get this
person in.
I want to create as many of these prisons as we need to take care of
the violent prisoners, but I think we can do an awful lot in this
regard by putting the nonviolent prisoners into the lesser facilities
where they do not need all the expensive cells. The average cost is
between $50,000 and $100,000 per cell for high security prisons of the
type that are needed for the criminals like the distinguished Senator
from Florida is talking about. It just points up the need.
I just wanted to point up the need for getting our prisoners that are
nonviolent prisoners into lower-cost facilities. Do not keep them in
the high-security prisons that are needed for things exactly like the
Senator from Florida is talking about.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, will the Senator yield me time?
Mr. GLENN. I yield to the Senator from Maryland 8 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is
recognized.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee
for yielding me time.
I want to speak to the underlying bill, the buyout bill, and
underscore its urgency and its necessity.
We are moving further and further into the fiscal year and, of
course, as we do that the opportunities to utilize the buyouts and
achieve the savings that are connected with them diminish and diminish.
Eventually it will be a moot point.
The House originally passed a buyout bill in which they waived the
Budget Act. They did not pay for it in the short run because they
recognized that over the long run there are enormous savings to the
Government to be achieved by this legislation.
Consequently, they originally passed a bill by a vote of 391 to 17,
representing virtually unanimous bipartisan support. The House was able
to produce such a majority because they recognized that moving
employees off the payroll voluntarily through this separation incentive
would, in fact, achieve very significant savings to the Government over
time and would also achieve reductions in many of the middle and senior
management levels, which is exactly where the national performance
review has identified excessive layers of higher paid personnel.
One of the Senate's objections was that the bill was not paid for
and, of course, what the House has now done is send us a bill that is
paid for. CBO has scored this legislation as budget neutral over 5
years.
Let me just address the problem with reducing the Federal workforce
if we do not seek to achieve these reductions through a voluntary
separation incentive program. The alternatives are two.
One is a reduction in force, a RIF, which is really a slash-and-burn
approach with potentially devastating consequences for thousands of
employees across the country and for the activities of the Federal
agencies. In fact, I do not know of anyone who argues that this is a
preferable way to achieve reductions in the number of employees as
compared with the voluntary separation incentive program proposed in
the legislation before us.
RIF's, as we know, are likely to undermine morale in the Federal
workforce. They may also result in losing the very people you want to
keep, the lower-level people, the people most recently hired, the ones,
in effect, who have a future--or so one hopes--in the Federal service.
They would also impact adversely on the diversity of the work force.
When you really think about it, RIF's are very costly in terms of work
disruption, low morale, reemployment obligations, and administrative
costs.
What the voluntary separation incentive approach does, the so-called
buyouts, is to enable agencies to target reductions in the workforce in
a way that can improve the efficiency of their activities. Buyouts
permit agencies to target organizations whose products are no longer
needed, without harming organizations with higher priorities. It
enables them to reduce middle management and overseers while still
preserving vital front-line workers upon whom the agencies depend to
actually provide the services.
The other approach is a combination of a hiring freeze and attrition.
These are the three approaches: RIF's, a hiring freeze and attrition,
and voluntary separation incentives or buyouts. I have discussed the
problems associated with the RIF's; I think everyone recognizes the
impact on morale, work disruption, and reemployment obligations. They
impact adversely on the workforce and do not really thin the workforce
in the very places where you seek or need to do it.
Next is a hiring freeze combined with attrition, which means that as
people leave the Government their positions are not filled. Again, most
of the reductions come at the lower levels. You do not really get at
the excess numbers of managers and higher-grade specialists through
this approach. It also takes a longer period of time in order to
achieve the desired reductions. In fact, it is estimated that a hiring
freeze would require virtually 3 years to get the kind of numbers that
we are trying to achieve in 1 year.
The buyouts allow an agency to target employee reductions in contrast
to these other two approaches, RIF's or a hiring freeze and attrition,
both of which are tremendously disruptive to the workforce. The
voluntary separation incentives allow an agency to target employees in
surplus high-level positions, thereby maximizing savings. It is the
quickest, cheapest, and the most effective way to downsize the
Government with a minimum disruption of services, while maintaining
managerial flexibility in delivering services and in administering the
workforce.
We have used the voluntary separation incentives before. They were,
in fact, authorized for the Department of Defense only last year. They
have proven very successful. DOD's experience with buyouts is
instructive. The Department has successfully used buyouts to cut its
workforce. In fact, about half of the workforce reductions it achieved
in fiscal 1993 were through the buyouts; the other half were achieved
through normal attrition. Consequently, DOD suffered no real disruption
to their workforce and no adverse impact on morale.
It is important to recognize that this is a technique also used
extensively in the private sector. Seventy-nine of the Fortune 100
companies have offered their employees separation incentives, including
corporate giants like General Motors and IBM. Furthermore, private
sector separation incentive packages have typically been more generous,
significantly more generous, than those proposed in this bill.
A survey by the University of Michigan in September 1993 found that
the maximum separation incentive offered in this bill is 44 percent
less than the mean--in other words, right in the middle--of the
incentive packages offered to private sector workers by these large
Fortune 100 companies.
In effect, the maximum benefit offered in this bill is at the mid-
point of what these private companies are offering their people and,
furthermore, DOD's average payout was less than $18,000, well short of
the maximum that this bill provides.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, how much time is remaining on this
side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Nine minutes 54 seconds.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield myself 1 minute and 54 seconds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for an
additional 1 minute and 54 seconds.
Mr. SARBANES. Finally, let me just close with this observation. The
long-term salary savings from work force reductions will, in fact, far
exceed anything that can be achieved under either the RIF or the
attrition and hiring freeze approach. The clear superiority of buyouts
as a work force reduction tool, in addition to the cost consideration,
are significant nondirect cost factors, such as the ability to target
the reductions, thereby maximizing work force efficiency as well as
diversity, minimizing the disruption of the agency mission and
maintaining work force morale.
So, Madam President, I close on the point on which I began, and that
is the urgency now of achieving this buyout legislation. The further we
move into the fiscal year, the less value buyouts have, because the
offsetting benefits from the savings which result from not paying out
the salary and benefits diminish with each pay period that goes by. Of
course, in the lower-grade jobs, you are at that point now. The cost of
the buyout is potentially higher than the savings that will be achieved
in the current fiscal year. This negates it as a tool to be used to
achieve our objective of reducing the work force, but in a way that is
rational, sensible, and accomplishes this objective without having a
negative impact on the workings of the Government.
As I indicated at the beginning, the House originally sent us a bill
that was not paid for. They recognized the logic and the rationale of
trying to move this thing forward and, in fact, they waived the Budget
Act on a bipartisan basis with a vote of 391 to 17.
Objections were raised on this side regarding the pay-go issue, and
the House has now sent us a bill that addresses the pay-go problem.
This is an important step forward, it seems to me, in terms of some of
the objections which have been raised on this side to moving the buyout
legislation.
So I again close by underscoring the importance of getting this
buyout provision into the law so we can move forward with a sensible,
rational restructuring of the Federal work force.
I thank the Senator for yielding me time.
Mr. GLENN. I thank my distinguished colleague for his comments.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I just want to point out that we all agree
as to the urgency and the importance of getting this matter resolved.
But it is also important to understand that it has been the House
that has been delinquent. This body has acted within hours on two
separate occasions on moving this legislation, as we are today.
I have already had a discussion with my distinguished chairman. We
are hopeful that, when this is reported out, we will have a conference
within days; that it will begin early next week. Because we agree with
the Senator from Maryland that it is important to resolve the matter.
But my concern and unhappiness has been that the other side, the
House, has talked about urgency and yet has failed for over a month to
call a conference, as is the normal procedure in this kind of
situation. But the important thing is, time is of the essence and we
are ready to act.
Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I did not yield time.
Was that taken out of my time?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time was charged to the Senator
from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. I am sorry I gave that impression.
How much time do I have remaining and how much time is remaining on
the other side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the time that
was used by the Senator from Delaware will not be charged to the
Senator from Ohio.
The Senator from Ohio has 6 minutes.
Mr. GLENN. How much time is remaining on the other side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas has 4
minutes and 38 seconds.
Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, we just had a very good and important
discussion of what is at issue in the bill.
Let me say to our colleague from Maryland, I am for the buyout
provision. I do not want to lay people off. I would rather try to use
market incentives. I am delighted that the House has set up a fiscally
responsible way of doing that by requiring agencies to absorb the cost.
I agreed to a time limit. I in no way want to hold this bill up.
But let me tell you, there is a greater emergency. We are faced with
a greater time limit than just passing this bill. The greater emergency
is that we have a criminal justice system which is the laughing stock
of every hoodlum in America. We are going to have an opportunity today
to take an important step toward fixing that.
I have offered an amendment that has previously been adopted in the
Senate on several occasions. It is an amendment which has been endorsed
by the House on two separate votes. It simply says this: With the $20-
plus billion that we will save through employment caps, achieved with
the buyout provisions in this bill to facilitate an efficient reduction
in force, which everybody here, as far as I know, supports; with that
$20-plus billion, there should only be two options: One, reduce the
deficit and not allow one penny of this money to be spent on
conventional Government; or, two, if it is spent, it has to be spent on
dealing with violent crime.
So we take the money and put it into a violent crime trust fund. We
lower the spending caps so it cannot be spent for other purposes.
Now, the issue here basically boils down to two things. First, it
seems that the basic Democratic leadership of the House does not want
to build these prisons. That is the first issue. The second issue is,
they desperately want to spend this money on something else. I am
trying to prevent that from happening.
I would just like to urge my colleagues, before I yield to my
colleague from Utah, to look at the example that Senator Mack gave us.
He spoke about a violent predator criminal in his State who has
committed 32 crimes, who has been convicted of 6 felonies, who broke
into a peaceful home in a peaceful neighborhood, beat up a pregnant
women, and took her car. He was arrested, convicted, sentenced, and he
is about to be let out of prison after just 5 months.
Does anybody believe that he is not going to go out and do it again?
Now, maybe some Members of the House believe that their homes are safe
and that it is not going to happen to them.
What I have proposed today is an amendment that will let us start
addressing this problem by building prisons, by entering into a
partnership with the State of Florida and every other State, and by
asking them to have a truth-in-sentencing provision so, when somebody
is sent to prison for life after having committed numerous felonies,
they serve the life term.
That is what the issue is about. If you want to do something about
it, first vote for my amendment today and then join me in opposing this
bill if it comes back from the House without this provision in it.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Utah.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is advised
that there is less than 1 minute remaining.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator from Ohio yield me a few minutes?
Mr. GLENN. Madam President, how much time is left?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 50 seconds left on the
side of the Senator from Texas and 6 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. I thank both of my colleagues.
Madam President, I want to personally congratulate and express my
appreciation to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who
helped to establish this Byrd amendment, and the distinguished Senator
from Texas, from whom the idea came to begin with.
We are talking about whether or not we are going to make a difference
against crime in this country. Everybody here knows that the President,
without this amendment, is going to have to abide by the budget
formulated by OMB that cut the FBI, cut the DEA, cut the Justice
Department, and cut the prosecutors at a time when we are all talking
about trying to do something about crime.
Now, I know the President would prefer to have this amendment; so
would anybody who wants to be serious about crime. This is the way to
pay for it and it comes right out of Vice President Gore's suggestion.
It took a very ingenious set of Senators to come up with this
methodology of paying for our anticrime bill. We all know what the big
ticket items on that bill are going to be. I think both Democrats and
Republicans have worked very hard on this crime bill and it would be
absolutely tragic if we pass a great, big, grandiose, important,
workable crime bill and then not put the moneys there so it can work.
I commend the distinguished Senator from Texas because he has, almost
singularly, worked on these budget issues to find the moneys to be able
to do what really needs to be done and he deserves a lot of credit as
does my friend and colleague from West Virginia, without whom we would
not be here today.
This amendment is extremely important. It is one we simply have to
have. I know my colleagues in the House are upset about having it on
here but they themselves ought to be wanting to fund the anticrime
efforts in this society and to do it in a straight-up fashion, like the
amendment the distinguished Senator from Texas is filing here today.
(Mr. MATHEWS assumed the chair.)
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is a good amendment. If we are serious
about crime, we have to do something about it. This is an amendment
that will do something about it. In all the time I have been here, for
the first time we will be able to have the moneys that will really make
a difference against the criminal activity in this country that is
ripping our country apart.
The Gramm amendment establishes a violent crime reduction trust fund
and affirms the Senate's position that savings earned through personnel
reductions must be used to fund the crime bill.
I was pleased to help craft this amendment when it passed as an
amendment to the Senate crime bill last fall under the able leadership
of the distinguished leadership of the Senator from West Virginia. I
was also encouraged when it passed without opposition as an amendment
to an earlier version of the buyout bill.
Regarding the buyout bill, I have expressed an interest in limiting
the availability of buyouts to law enforcement agencies to those cases
where the agency replaces any participating agent with a new agent. It
is my understanding and hope that the conferees will visit this issue
during conference.
Opponents of the Gramm amendment argue that this amendment should be
dealt with during the crime bill conference rather than as a part of
the buyout bill. Yet, given the seriousness of our Nation's crime
problem and the troubling law enforcement cuts contained in the
President's fiscal year 1995 budget, I believe it is critical that the
Senate take steps to settle this issue.
Mr. President, resolving this matter as part of the buyout bill is
not premature. In fact, President Clinton has already stated his
support for using reductions in the Federal bureaucracy, which the
buyout bill facilitates, to pay for the crime bill. At a recent speech
before law enforcement officers in Ohio, President Clinton specifically
enforced this concept saying, ``I think it's a good swap.''
At the same speech, President Clinton talked tough about crime,
saying, ``I care a lot about this problem.''
Alluding to his years as a State attorney general and Governor, the
President went on to say:
I know what it means to double the prison capacity of a
state, and to sign laws toughening crimes, and to * * * add
to the stock of police officers and to deal with all the
problems that are facing them. I know this is a tough
problem. I also know it is a complicated one. It's easy to
demagogue, easy to talk about, and quite another thing to do
something that will make a fundamental difference in the
lives of the people of this Country.
Creation of the violent crime trust fund will insure that we do in
fact make a difference in the fight against violent crime. Yet, I am
concerned that if the Senate fails to act on this amendment, the crime
bill may not be fully funded. After all, President Clinton has
delivered to Congress a budget that cuts Federal prison construction by
nearly 30 percent, a $78 million reduction, cuts Federal law
enforcement personnel, and cuts existing grants to State law
enforcement. Frankly, the President's budget does not reflect the
rhetoric of enthusiastic support for crime control and law enforcement
he espouses. For this reason, I believe we must resolve the crime bill
funding mechanism sooner rather than later.
The fiscal year 1995 budget cuts 1,523 Department of Justice law
enforcement agency positions.
According to the Justice Department budget summary, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation loses 847 positions, the Drug Enforcement
Agency loses 355, the Department's Criminal Division loses 28, the
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces lose 150, and Federal
prosecutors lose 143 positions. Absent the fiscal year 1995 budget
cuts, there are still 431 fewer FBI agents and 301 fewer DEA agents
today than there were in 1992.
At a time when violent crime and drug control are said to be national
priorities, these cuts will reduce the effectiveness of Federal law
enforcement, and the President's budget acknowledges this. The
administration's own budget figures reveal that Federal prosecutors
will be filing 527 fewer criminal cases in fiscal year 1995. The
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program, cut by over $12
million, will investigate, indict, and convict fewer criminals.
Existing State and local law enforcement block grants, which police
have been counting on, are also cut by over $400 million in order to
fund the crime bill's proposed police hiring program. As I stated
earlier, the money to pay for the police hiring program is supposed to
come from savings earned through personnel cuts not from existing law
enforcement grants. Crime emergency assistance grants have been cut by
$222 million, the missing children's program is cut by nearly $3
million, and regional intelligence sharing grants have been cut by
$14.5 million to pay for the administration's community policing
program.
Ironically, when it suits the administration's purpose, they will
defend the preservation of Federal prosecutors and law enforcement
strength. In testifying against the balanced budget amendment, Attorney
General Reno recently stated that preserving adequate funding for the
FBI, DEA, and U.S. attorneys' office are what our Nation so desperately
needs to fight crime aggressively. She went on to state that the effect
of cuts on Federal law enforcement could be ``catastrophic.''
At this same hearing, Attorney General Reno discussed the importance
of adequate staffing for the Justice Department. She said:
I try, when I travel to different districts, to visit with
the United States Attorney's offices. I ask one question when
I go to these offices to begin a discussion. If you were
Attorney General of the United States, what would you do to
improve the operation of this office? And consistently they
said we need more staff in the civil and criminal division.
There is a substantial increase in overall funding for the Department
of Justice. Yet, instead of spending this money on Federal criminal law
enforcement agencies, a bulk of this money goes to fund the
Department's assorted civil branches. For example, the Department plans
to bring more civil suits, 450 more cases, and more antitrust suits, 33
new positions are created. The Department plans to bring more
environmental and natural resource cases, nearly 900 more cases given
an increase of 78 positions.
There is clearly a need for fiscal restraint. Recognizing the need to
address the budget deficit, Attorney General Reno has expressed a
willingness on behalf of Federal law enforcement agencies and
prosecutors to do their part to regain control over our Nation's
financial well-being. But, in a budget of $1.5 trillion, priorities can
and must be met. We must ensure that the sacrifices we ask law
enforcement to make do not impair the Government's ability to meet its
obligations to our Nation's law abiding citizens.
Cutting Federal criminal law enforcement positions, prison
construction, and existing law enforcement grants programs is an unwise
choice, especially in light of our Nation's crime problem. It is also
certainly inconsistent with the President's stated position and the
bravado we are hearing from the administration. For this reason, the
Senate must adopt the Gramm amendment so that we can guarantee that the
crime bill and the administration's promise to fund it are not an empty
promise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, in the short time remaining let me bring us
back to the need for the buyout bill because I think it is important.
It is important to all the people in civil service, the people who
really make the Government run.
What has happened is basically out in the Federal workforce we have
an imbalance between the managers and the people at the lower levels.
When we do this 252,000 reduction which the administration has
proposed, which I certainly support, if we do not have the buyout bill,
we are going to get the wrong people out. We are going to have the
people in the lower GS ratings, a high proportion minorities and women,
who will be the ones forced out of Government while the people in the
GS-13, -14, -15 levels will be the ones who stay in.
The imbalance there is we have about one manager for each seven
Federal employees now. Business and industry have a ratio of about 1 to
15, 1 to 12 or 1 to 15 or in some labor-intensive industries, 1 to 20
is the ratio between managers and the rest of the employees. So what we
want to do with this buyout bill is give the option to the
administration, not just to go through RIF's, reductions in force, in
which the lower level people will be the ones forced out. What we want
is to give them the option to correct this imbalance. That is what this
buyout bill would do.
The crime bill, of course, needs its funding. I supported that before
and I support it again now. With the moneys saved out of the changes in
the civil service ranks, the money saved through the years can go over
into the crime bill which the Senate has voted in favor of before. So
that is what the distinguished Senator from Texas has put back in.
I support that. I offered to accept the amendment. As I understand
it, he still wants a rollcall vote on it, so I will be prepared to
yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. ROTH. If the Senator will just yield the few seconds he has
because I think the record should be clear we are all concerned and
interested in downsizing in the most compassionate, humane way
possible. That is the reason our committee has been concerned about
this matter. It is the reason several years ago I came out with an
early-out, to help ``right size'' Government.
We are all in agreement with the principles and goals of trying to
downsize in a way so those who leave have a choice, so they are treated
humanely, and it accomplishes the goals of retaining those employees
necessary for good government.
Mr. GLENN. That is correct.
Unless there is further comment, time is passed, 10 o'clock, when we
were going to vote. I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote on the Gramm
amendment occur at 10:25.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the
Federal Workforce Restructuring Act. This bill will ensure that we
streamline Government as efficiently as possible. Reducing the
Government work force through this legislation will permit agencies to
target employees in unnecessary high level jobs and maximize savings.
This will help meet the administration's goal of reducing the total
Federal work force by approximately 252,000 employees over the next 5
years. This is a sensible and rational proposal for restructuring the
Federal work force. Additionally the money saved through this
downsizing effort will be targeted to help finance the omnibus crime
bill which will help fund 100,000 additional police officers on the
streets and ensure more effective punishment for criminals. I urge my
colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas an nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
Dodd], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin], the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] and the Senator from Maryland [Ms.
Mikulski], are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware [Mr. Biden], would vote ``aye.''
Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
Durenberger] and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Wallop] are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 2, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 56 Leg.]
YEAS--90
Akaka
Baucus
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boren
Boxer
Bradley
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Daschle
DeConcini
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
Mathews
McCain
McConnell
Metzenbaum
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Sarbanes
Sasser
Shelby
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--2
Hatfield
Simon
NOT VOTING--8
Biden
Campbell
Dodd
Durenberger
Harkin
Kennedy
Mikulski
Wallop
So the amendment (No. 1495) was agreed to.
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment, as
amended, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes
of the two houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair appoints
the following conferees.
The Presiding Officer appointed Mr. Glenn, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Sasser, Mr.
Roth, and Mr. Stevens conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
____________________