[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.

                          ____________________