[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 34 (Wednesday, March 23, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3345, FEDERAL WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT OF
1994
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 388 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 388
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 3345) to amend title 5, United States Code, to
eliminate certain restrictions on employee training; to
provide temporary authority to agencies relating to voluntary
separation incentive payments; and for other purposes. All
points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], and
pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes
of debate only.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 388 provides for the
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 3345, the Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act of 1993. Under the rules of the House,
conference reports are privileged and are considered in the House under
the 1-hour rule with no amendments in order. The rule waives all points
of order against the conference report and against its consideration.
The rule further provides that when the conference report is called up
for consideration, it shall be considered as read.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that this conference report be
approved now and this legislation enacted if we are to implement an
orderly and responsible reduction in the Federal work force. Every day
that this bill is delayed the availability of funds to pay for the
buyouts is diminished. The money to pay for voluntary separations must
come from existing fiscal year 1994 agency funds, and with the fiscal
year nearly one-half over, many agencies will be financially limited in
the number of early separations they can offer. They will be forced
instead to resort to massive layoffs--layoffs which ironically are far
more costly than the voluntary separation plan outlined in this bill.
The cost in dollars is only part of the problem of forced across-the-
board reductions in force. The human toll is equally as devastating.
Federal employees continue to bear the brunt of our frustration and
anger over the Federal deficit. We all talk about how important jobs
are to the people of this Nation and to our economy and how we must
protect jobs above all else That is unless they are Federal jobs.
Somehow we treat these people differently--as if they serve no useful
purpose in our Nation's work force and deserve to lose their jobs. Well
I know how hard these people work and how much they value their
employment with the Government.
Reductions in force are an ineffective and heartless method for
reducing the Federal work force. We need to implement this bill now if
we are to be responsible both to our constituents in controlling
Federal spending and to our loyal and hardworking Federal employees.
It is time to stop the political maneuvering that has taken place on
this bill and address the issue at hand. I urge Members to vote for
this rule and for the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has
described, this rule waives all points of order against the
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3345, the
Federal Work Force Restructuring Act, and against the conference report
itself.
I want to comment on a specific waiver in this rule. The conferees
added a provision to this bill authorizing separation payments to
certain contractor employees who were displaced as a result of the
termination of the advanced solid rocket motor program. This provision
was not included in either the House-passed bill or the Senate-passed
bill, and therefore a scope waiver was necessary for this conference
report. Members should have the opportunity to debate and vote on this
provision, and this rule precludes that opportunity. The Rules
Committee almost routinely grants blanket waivers for conference
reports, and usually there is very little objection to these waivers.
As I've said many times, we need to stop this trend of granting blanket
waivers. It's the wrong way to do business and it impedes the
deliberative process here in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to comment on another trend that seems to
be developing. About a week ago, the House voted 231 to 150 to instruct
its conferees on this bill to agree to a specific Senate amendment.
These instructions were disregarded, and the Senate amendment is not in
this conference report. The motion to instruct conferees is becoming a
nonbinding procedure. The votes are meaningless, and I think we need to
work to ensure that the will of the House is upheld by House conferees.
I hope in the future we can work together to live by the rules we
have set for ourselves. But for now, let us proceed with the
consideration of this rule and the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, ``Let's don't use it as a
football to be kicked around any longer.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner].
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
resolution. The resolution contains a blanket waiver of points of order
against the conference report and thus protects language contained in
the report relative to bailing out some workers in Mississippi whose
jobs were terminated as a result of this Congress terminating the
advanced solid rocket motor by an overwhelming vote last year. If this
resolution is voted down and there is no blanket waiver of points of
order, a point of order would lie against the language that provides
for a million dollar bailout of up to $5,000 apiece for full-time
employees of three specified corporations who were working on the
advanced solid rocket motor in Mississippi prior to this Congress'
terminating it.
{time} 1650
To be consistent, anyone who voted for termination of the ASRM last
year should vote against this rule because this pumps more money into
Mississippi at the expense of the rest of NASA. Under the NASA
appropriations bill that was enacted into law last year, there is a
fixed set of funds for termination costs for the ASRM. Any termination
costs left over will go into the budget for the space shuttle.
The space shuttle budget this year which has been submitted by the
President has been cut drastically, and we are now right at the edge of
the margin of safety for operation of the shuttle during the next
fiscal year. I would like to see money be used for shuttle safety
rather than be used to bail out employees in Yellow Creek, MS.
Furthermore, there are going to be a lot of programs that this
Congress terminates during the next few years. There will be programs
in NASA, there will be programs in the Defense Department, and there
will be programs that are funded by discretionary domestic spending. If
we set the precedent by improving the $5,000-a-head bailout on this
program relative to the ASRM, every other group of employees who have
been terminated because of an action of Congress in reducing or
terminating a program will be right back here asking for their $5,000
in addition to the unemployment compensation that they have accrued.
This provision did not pass the House and did not pass the Senate. It
was inserted at the conference at the insistence of the Senate. It is
one of the things that we are justifiably criticized for doing in
Congress, and it is one of the arguments that those who are in support
of a Presidential line item veto use.
Mr. Speaker, if this is so important, it ought to go through the
regular legislative process. In order to force it to go through the
regular legislative process, I would urge a vote on the rule so the
Committee on Rules can come out with a rule that does not protect the
buyout language from a point of order.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I would only point out to the previous speaker that the
particular provision that he is objecting to was inserted at the
request of two Senators from his side of the aisle, not from our side.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules
and a very valuable Member of the House.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, while I understand the necessity in completing
H.R.3345, legislation to implement the reduction in the Federal
workforce of 252,000 positions--I must rise to lament the fact that we
once again have a conference report that includes extraneous
provisions. Generally, when the House and the other body pass differing
versions of the same bill, a conference is established to, in the words
of the distinguished chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee, compromise. But shouldn't we feel safe in the assumption
that the areas of compromise discussed in this context would be limited
to the areas of disagreement within the bill at hand? You might think
so--but you'd be wrong. More often than not, conference committees meet
behind closed doors, often late at night. These committees sometimes
insert all sorts things into their work product that most members don't
find out about until after the votes are counted and the bill is
passed. A particularly egregious example of this end-run of the normal
legislative process that occurred in my brief tenure had to do with the
infamous boat user fee. We killed it in subcommittee, we killed it in
full committee, we killed it on the floor, but that thing had more
lives to live--and what do you know, it showed up in the fine print of
a conference report that Members never had time to read. It was a bad
law--and we ultimately repealed it--but the point was, it should never
have been permitted to pass in the first place. Mr. Speaker, the Rules
Committee is often asked to waive all points of order against
conference reports--giving a blank check that allows any and all
extraneous provisions in these documents to pass through without
incident. This is the case with this conference report, which includes
material, agreed to as a compromise, that goes beyond the scope of
either version of the original buy-out bill. This process is known by
the most optimistic among us as the art of compromise. Others might
call it deal making. I call it sleight of hand and most Americans call
it ripoff and are saying ``stop it, Congress, stop these rip offs.'' I
agree with most Americans and cannot support this rule.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, let me follow up on what my colleagues have
said, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], about a provision in this bill the three
of us find very objectionable.
Mr. Speaker, last year a number of us worked very hard to terminate
the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor Project and eventually we won a vote in
this House and, in fact, defeated a conference report when we
discovered, much to our dismay, that, during the conference, the Senate
and the House appropriators had again miraculously saved that project.
Mr. Speaker, in the bill we have before us, again there is a
provision to give each full-time employee that lost their job at the
ASRM plant a payment of $5,000, and that is 175 workers who would
receive a total of just a little bit less than $900,000.
Now, keep in mind that these employees are not Federal employees.
They never were Government workers. They were hired by contractors and
should not be receiving direct payments from the Federal Government.
This is really a classic example of almost triple dipping. First of
all, the provision prohibits offset of severance payments by
contractors. In addition, these employees who are about to receive
$5,000 payments from the Federal Government despite the fact they were
never Federal employees will soon be eligible for unemployment
compensation, and again they are going to receive a $5,000 check from
the Federal Government itself.
Some of the supporters of this payoff will claim that the provision
will not affect the budget because it uses funds that are presently
appropriated, but with a $4.6 trillion debt, it seems very clear to the
three of us that any savings that should be returned to the Treasury
should be returned to the Treasury and we should not be in the business
of subsidizing private defense contractors.
The second claim is that this economic dislocation may be similar to
programs under the Trade Adjustment and Assistance Program or even the
Defense Conversion Programs, but those payments, I would like to remind
my colleagues, are made to an entire industry due to an industrywide
financial crisis. This is a specific set aside for a small group of
people employed at one place by private employers.
So let me make the point again, Mr. Speaker, to urge my colleagues to
defeat this rule. I understand very clearly the implication of the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] that this was not a move originally
taken by the House. In fact, it originally was not even put up for a
vote in the Senate. It was added by two of our Republican colleagues in
the other body. That still does not change the fact that it is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this rule.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 253,
nays 170, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 87]
YEAS--253
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NAYS--170
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Coppersmith
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Myers
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Regula
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Weldon
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--10
Flake
Gallo
Hayes
Jefferson
Kleczka
LaFalce
Mazzoli
Natcher
Pickle
Ridge
{time} 1722
Mr. HYDE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution
388, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3345) to provide
temporary authority to Government agencies relating to voluntary
separation incentive payments, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 388, the
conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Wednesday, March 16, 1994, at page H1372.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] will
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Myers] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report accompanying
H.R. 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructing Act of 1994. The
conference report reduces overall Federal employment by 252,000
positions and authorizes Federal agencies to offer separation
incentives to their employees of up to $25,000 in order to accomplish
this reduction. The direct spending concern of the Senate has been
fully addressed. Over the 5-year period beginning in 1994, the entire
direct spending costs associated with the separation incentive payments
are offset. The conference report also guarantees that the costs to an
agency of encouraging voluntary separations are comparable to the costs
an agency otherwise would incur if it accomplished the same reductions
through involuntary separations.
The conference report includes provisions identical to the Penny-
Burton-Solomon amendment adopted by the House. In addition, the
conference report requires agencies to reduce their personnel on a one-
for-one basis for every buyout offer that is accepted.
It also requires those who accept a buyout and return to Government
service within a 5-year period to pay back the full incentive payment.
The conferees adopted provisions authorizing NASA to offer separation
payments to contractor employees who were displaced as a result of the
termination of the advanced solid rocket motor program. It also imposes
reporting requirements on the executive branch regarding the operation
of the Federal employee voluntary separation incentive program.
At the end of this debate, a motion to recommit will be offered by
the minority. This motion will include instructions dedicating the
savings achieved by the Federal employee work force reductions mandated
under this legislation. Two weeks ago, the House passed the budget
resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 218. That resolution assumes
the full savings achieved by the personnel reductions mandated by H.R.
3345. The budget resolution being considered by the Senate also assumes
those savings.
The effect of the instructions accompanying the motion to recommit,
therefore, is to double count the savings achieved by the work force
reductions and to preclude funding programs at the levels assumed in
the budget resolution passed by the House. These instructions will
result in locking up more than $9 billion in outlays that are not
needed to fund the crime program.
Mr. Speaker, it is vital that the Congress grant buyout authority to
Federal agencies very quickly. If this legislation is not enacted soon,
agencies will not be able to use the authority in fiscal year 1994. As
a result, thousands of Federal employees will be fired later this year.
Adoption of the conference report enables agencies to encourage
voluntary separations and diminishes reliance upon involuntary ones.
The policy underlying H.R. 3345 is socially responsible and fiscally
sound.
I urge the defeat of the motion to recommit and the adoption of the
conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with somewhat mixed feelings and emotions.
I hope I can express myself, where I stand. This is the third time that
this same issue has come before this body. The other two times I have
supported it, without any hestitation. However, the procedure that will
probably be adopted today makes it very difficult for me to support the
legislation.
Let us look at the intent. All of us would agree that we must reduce
the cost of government. The Federal Government is very expensive. For
years we have wanted to reduce the number of employees, which is one of
the most effective ways of reducing the cost of government.
Payroll is one of the big items in the operation of a large
establishment such as ours. We all recognize reducing the people will
help reduce that cost of government. We have all wanted to do it
fairly, equitably, without any undue burden on families, on the loyal
workers that have supported the programs of our Federal Government.
This was a means to do that, to save the American taxpayers in a
compassionate way towards our employees.
Now we have moved it around to where we are not saving anything. We
are just merely trading dollars. We are going to release some Federal
employees, 252,000, sometime in the next 5\1/2\ years. Hopefully it
will save $22 billion, and a chance to save $22 billion to reduce the
national debt by $22 billion.
What are we going to do, probably today, once again? Instruct the
conferees not to save the money, but to spent it on a program that has
not even passed, a program that we do not even have at this point.
I do not think any of us would disagree that we have to do something
about crime. Mr. Speaker, I think all of us probably would support,
hopefully support, a crime bill, but some of the discussion we had
today on the rule for the crime bill, I am not sure it is that popular,
at least what is advancing presently.
I am not sure we are going to have any savings. We will not have any
savings. We are going to apply it to a bill. Setting up a trust account
does not save dollars.
Mr. Speaker, I am hesitant today to say I am going to support this
legislation. I hope I can. I hope this House will not do what they did
before. We went to conference. I felt bound, even though I did not vote
for directing that $22 billion be spent on another program, which we
all will support, without its standing independent. I will support the
crime bill, but what does it stand for? Like any other appropriation
bill that we will appropriate it as money when that is passed, we will
appropriate it as money to fund the crime programs.
What will happen is this. I expect and hope we will pass the crime
bill. Then the Committee on Appropriations will appropriate it as money
to take care of that. Then we have this $22 billion trust account over
here that might be used for crime, in excess of what we would authorize
in the authorization bill for a crime bill.
We will spend that, and we will spend double. If we do not spend it
on crime, it is always sitting there.
{time} 1730
Look at the highway trust fund account. We have dipped in it for
other programs that really do not relate to highways. Other trust
accounts can be touched. So this is not the way to carry out the intent
of what this bill is all about, to save the taxpayers.
So reluctantly today I want to see what happens on the motion to
recommit. And I admit, the procedure being used today is one that has
been used not too often around here. I am not disagreeing with the
procedure that the leader's designee will offer the motion to recommit.
It has not been used too many times around here, but I understand the
rules of the House and there is no way I can object to it. But it is a
procedure that should not be used very often, only most reluctantly
when there is something wrong with the legislation.
There is nothing wrong with this legislation, nothing wrong with
saving money. This is why I am having difficulty today to support
legislation that is needed badly.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time, and I thank him for all of his hard work on this.
Let us get right down to brass tacks. We are about to break for a
spring break. Agencies are about to have to start laying people off
through some Neanderthal way that will not give them good control and
good management control unless we pass this bill.
We are like the board of directors for the entire Federal Government,
and unfortunately, we have gotten too much in the habit of playing
little games, kicking those people like you kick a soccer ball, and if
we do not get this bill out of here we will be doing that one more
time.
Everybody has testified that the buyouts are the way to go. This way
we can target who we want and we do not have to go through RIF's which
are last hired, first fired, or do not have to go through freezes or
any of the other things that do not give control. This gives control.
It was good enough for DOD, it was good enough for the CIA, and it has
been good enough for the private sector. It has been shown to do
exactly the same thing, only surgically and well done.
So I think as a board of directors if we do not do this, or if we
vote to recommit and play more games with this, let everybody know what
they are doing. They are saying to Federal employees that we do not
care a whole lot about them, we do not care how they are treated, and
we really do not even care how efficiently managers can plan and
operate when they are being ordered to cut over 250,000 people.
Nobody would want to cut that high a percentage and not have any
control over how they do it and how they target it.
So I think the time has come that we move on this bill. It seems like
it is up here every other day. Everybody has patty-caked it, everybody
has played with it, everybody has had a wonderful time with it. And if
we do not pass it today, then I think everybody is going to be culpable
for having really, really one more time enforced bad management habits.
And that is exactly what the people do not want. They want good
management habits like the private sector has.
If that is what Members have been saying at home, then vote yes, and
vote no on the motion to recommit.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] a very hard-working member of
the committee.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time.
Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber we have heard over and over again that
famous Yogi Berra who just got into the Baseball Hall of Fame. He has
been quoted as saying it is deja vu all over again. Well, it is indeed
deja vu all over again. This bill that we are discussing this evening,
H.R. 3345, has been around for 6 months.
How many times has this Chamber taken and reduced the cost of 252,000
employees, over and over again, and yet never given the agencies the
mechanism that they need in order to do it in a compassionate,
productive, efficient way? Finally we have another chance to do it. We
have another chance to approve these buyouts.
Please know that one of the agencies, the Office of Personnel
Management, has already sent out RIF notices, reduction in force
notices effective on May 1. Other agencies are going to have to follow
suit. Time is running out.
We need to, if we care about competitiveness globally, if we care
about the moral of our Federal work force on whom we depend to take
care of our constituents, then we should at least show some care, we
should show that we have a plan to save money, to promote productivity
by passing this bill.
According to the Congressional Budget Office figure, we will actually
save $34 billion with this bill by 1999. That is even more than we
anticipated. But if we miss this opportunity, which is our last
opportunity to promote the buyouts, $25,000 for those who are eligible,
severance pay would be far more expensive. It will be a lost
opportunity if we do miss this last opportunity.
Frankly, it also gives agencies an opportunity to decide where they
can reduce their force and still be productive, not the last hired,
first fired which we have heard time and time again, accurately, will
be women and minorities. And we will continue to have others within the
agencies where we could do a kind of shift.
So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Buyouts now.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
(Mr. McCLOSKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it has been said so well by nearly everyone:
Today is the day this just simply has to be done. The buyouts are
overdue. We worked on it too long. Unless we do so as we break for the
Easter recess, there is no exaggeration to say that there will be chaos
and anarchy in the Federal Government, because as those who have
followed this know, if there are RIF's without buyouts, we will have
the very highest-paid or nearly highest-paid top managers, many of them
taking positions at lower levels, with their salaries going on, and
other employees, more equipped for those jobs, are victimized and
forced out. That is truly chaos. There is no other word for it, and we
cannot allow that to happen.
I would also say if Members are for defense, it is very important,
and I am for defense, that they vote for the buyout provisions today
and against the motion to recommit, because as we all know, there will
be a $5 billion disparity or more as to the discretionary caps, and
much of that would come down on defense. So I would say to my defense-
oriented colleagues, if they have concerns in that area, the only vote
is yes for this provision and against the motion to recommit.
With that, again I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
{time} 1740
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to recommit H.R.
3345 to the conference committee with instructions to agree to the
provisions committed to conference in the Senate amendment, the Gramm
amendment, which stipulated that the savings from ``the Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act'' be placed in the violent crime reduction
trust fund, and that the budget caps be reduced by a similar amount.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the House conferees on the Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act have ignored the instructions of the
House--that the savings generated from the Federal workforce
reductions, anticipated at $22 billion over 5 years, be applied toward
a violent crime trust fund. This motion was approved by this House by
an overwhelming, 90-2, to pass on the savings from this buyout bill to
fund what will eventually be Congress'--and the peoples'--anticrime
bill.
And let me tell you--the people support this effort to fund a crime
bill. They would much rather have these funds go toward an anticrime
trust fund than have an uncommitted $22 billion which could be spent on
any program, regardless of its merit.
Let me also say that I have heard arguments against this effort to
provide up-front funding for the crime bill because we don't have a
crime bill yet. This is political hyperbole, my friends. If we are
serious about addressing our Nation's most pressing and most talked
about issue--crime--and serious about actually paying for solutions to
fight violent crime, then this motion must be approved--as the House
did on March 11. We have the backing of majorities in both the House
and Senate, as well as the President of the United States. I directly
quote from a letter from Vice President Gore to Senator John Glenn: I
quote:
As you know, the President strongly supports prompt
congressional action on anticrime legislation and the use of
savings from reductions in the Federal bureaucracy to fund
violent crime fighting activities.
I am a strong supporter of this buyout legislation, it is the right
policy to reduce the size of the Federal Government, save money and
treat Federal employees fairly. It is a shame, however, that the
conferees have decided to blatantly disregard the will of both Houses
by leaving the much-touted anticrime package unfunded and Federal
employees in limbo. To my constituents, this is not responsible
legislating and not a sound way to conduct this Nation's business.
The business of the House and Senate should be the will of this
Nation's citizens. If we do not instruct the conferees to place the
savings from this buyout legislation in the anticrime trust fund, we
will be going against the will of the American people.
If we do pass this motion to recommit with instructions, we will fund
the crime bill and enable the buyouts to commence as soon as possible.
Federal workers, the taxpayers and potential victims of violent crime
will thank you.
Once again, I urge you to vote for the will of the people and vote
yes on the motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on
H.R. 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994. I
congratulate Chairman Bill Clay of the Post Office and Civil Service
Committee and Congressman Steny Hoyer for their diligent work.
This legislation accomplishes two very important goals in the
continuing effort to reinvent government at the Federal level. First,
this conference report contains the amendment I offered during House
consideration codifying a systematic and managed reduction of over
252,000 positions in the Federal work force. In addition, this
legislation authorizes Federal agencies to offer employees buyouts as
an incentive to leave the work force. Without buyouts, reductions-in-
force--RIF's--will take place across the Government in such large
numbers to render many agencies incapable of effectively and
efficiently performing their statutory responsibilities. Furthermore,
widespread RIF's in the Federal work force will result, in most
instances, in the loss of junior employees. Ironically, these junior
Federal employees are frequently those Federal workers most actively
engaged in the innovative work necessary to reinvent government.
Furthermore, RIF's are more costly to the taxpayer than an orderly
buyout process, according to the General Accounting Office.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is needed to provide an orderly
reduction in the Federal work force. It will also provide significant
budgetary savings and deficit reduction. Without further delay this
bill should be passed and sent to the President for his signature. I
urge passage of H.R. 3345.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
(Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise just briefly this evening to talk about this
issue and particularly the motion to recommit that is about to be made
by the gentleman from Delaware.
Mr. Speaker, I respect greatly the gentleman from Indiana and what he
said earlier about his concerns over the trust fund and the question of
setting aside moneys in this bill from the savings for the purposes of
the crime effort. I know how he felt about this before. So my remarks
are not directed towards him.
But for those who voted, as many of us did, with the gentleman from
Delaware a few days ago on the motion to instruct conferees on this
issue, I would remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that it
was done with forethought, it was done with an intent to make sure that
we have the moneys that we need to have, these over $20 billion, and
the American public, I think, expects of us to provide to fight this
war against violent crime, to provide enough resources to the States to
build the prisons necessary to house these very serious violent felons,
to lock them up, to throw away the key and keep them there for a long
period of time and do the other things that are necessary to put
deterrence back into our criminal justice system and get control over
what has become a very, very big bleeding problem for our country.
So I would urge you not to change your vote tonight. Those who voted
on the motion to instruct conferees the other day on this bill should
vote with the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] in a few minutes on
his motion to recommit. Be consistent. Stick with the program. It is
the right thing to do. We need to set aside the money in this bill. It
is a technical problem, and it is very important.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
(Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I love this body, but sometimes I wonder
about its collective intelligence, especially when we have come on the
floor now three times on this bill, and especially since we are talking
about money that has already been committed for the purposes that the
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] desires.
My friends, we have got layoffs coming any minute now, and I am not
sure everybody understands what that means. Let me illustrate. It means
GS-14's doing the work of GS-7's while being paid at GS-14 rates.
Federal employees are beginning to wonder whether this is a buyout or
a sellout. We have been playing with the lives of dedicated career
employees completely unnecessarily. As a result, attrition has slowed
to a craw, and thus we have hurt ourselves on achieving deficit
reduction as well.
And for what? The one bill, Mr. Speaker, where the money is safe is
the crime bill. We have already sequestered it in the budget resolution
last week, and in effect there have been trial votes already that tell
us that Members want this money committed and are going to do so. How
many different ways do we have to do it, and how many times do we have
to commit the same $22 billion to the same crime bill?
If you vote for the motion to recommit, you are voting to cut $1.5
billion from defense, from veterans, from transportation, from the FBI,
from everything we agreed that you wanted the money to go to last week
when you voted for the budget resolution.
Vote against the motion to recommit. Show some intelligence on the
bill for a change.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn].
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to first express my compliments to the
chairman for the hard work that he has put in in crafting this
compromise conference report and also my colleague, the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. I want to thank him for his hard work.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to support the conference committee.
We know several things. We know we want to cut 252,000 positions from
the Federal work force. We know we need to do it in the most efficient
way, and we need to do it in the most cost-efficient way.
What does that mean? It means we need to use the mechanisms of
buyouts. Buyouts are efficient. Why? Because they enable us to
precisely determine which employees we want to encourage to leave.
Buyouts are cost efficient. Why? Because they are cheaper than layoffs.
In the end, we pay more when we lay off people than when we buy out
people.
Let me tell you about a constituent of mine, Louise Ryman, of Silver
Spring. She worked for the National Institutes of Health for 34 years,
first part time, then full time. She is divorced, been divorced 10
years. She has got to keep working, because she does not have a big
nest egg.
But let me read from her letter. She says, ``Without buyouts, there
will be RIF's, and since I am eligible, I would go, if I got the
buyout.''
{time} 1750
``But without the buyout, I will be forced to work a few more years.
That will keep someone else out of my slot. I am healthy and active,
but I would rather retire and see younger people keep their jobs.'' I
admire Ms. Ryman. She has the right idea. Without buyouts, we will see
young people, women, minorities recently hired be forced to leave the
Federal workforce while mid-managers who are eligible to retire will do
as my colleague from the District of Columbia just mentioned, they will
work, they will receive GS-14 pay while working GS-9 jobs. I do not
think that is what the taxpayers want us to do with their money. They
want us to spend it wisely and efficiently, and that means buyouts.
Now, just with respect to the question of the motion to recommit, we
need to look at this very carefully. The motion to recommit represents
the death of buyouts. We have had this bill up here a long time. We
have reached the point where, if we do not authorize the buyout
legislation, we will lose the cost savings. Some people may think that
is wise public policy; I certainly do not.
I urge rejection of the motion to recommit, and support for the
conference report.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop playing politics with people's
lives. We should have passed this bill months ago. Federal employees
deserve better than the treatment they are getting by the Congress
which passes the laws that they carry out day in and day out. They
deserve better from us.
It is well past the time to do the right thing, to offer retirement
incentives. Let us vote against the recommittal, let us get this bill
passed, and let us act in a decent and honorable fashion toward Federal
employees who have an opportunity to retire and who in fact have served
us decently and honorably and professionally throughout their lives.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the recommittal.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia [Mrs. Byrne].
Mrs. BYRNE. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, let me put this as plainly as I can: A motion to
recommit wastes Federal taxpayers' dollars. It is a waste of good
taxpayer dollars, and you may wish to put the money savings elsewhere,
but I am sure that no one wants to waste taxpayers' money. It has been
pointed out by the gentleman from Maryland and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia that we will be paying people to do work that they
are tremendously overqualified for; Grade 14s will be doing Grade 7
work.
But more than that, we are going to be paying, under a RIF, for
appeals processes and a whole bunch of other things that come into
Federal employees' rights which wastes money.
Again, a motion to recommit is a waste of the taxpayer dollars. For
those people who are truly serious about using the tax dollars that we
are given wisely, I urge you to vote against the motion to recommit and
vote in favor of this conference report.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have had some questions about the procedure here when
we had the motion the other day to instruct conferees, just what that
amounted to, since the conferees did not follow those instructions. We
did try to introduce and suggest that the House had taken
overwhelmingly, substantially, a motion to recommit, even though I did
not support that motion to recommit. But it was obvious from both the
other body and the majority on our side that the wishes were not there
to go along with applying this savings to another spending program. So,
the attempt was made, but not successfully.
The motion here to try to work out some compromise, I did then offer
to strike section 6 of the Senate amendment which provided for this
procedure, which would amount to reducing or striking the money out for
the trust fund in the first place, but it would also reduce the
discretionary funding limits set forth in the Budget Act of 1974,
thereby reducing our debt in that period of time by $22 billion,
somebody said $34 billion, whatever it might be. It would be applied to
reducing the debt.
That was shot down, I use the words shot down, it was never
introduced in the House and it was not. It was not introduced in the
Senate.
But at the same time we did accept an amendment offered by the other
body in which we would go to contract employees that would provide for
payoff for contract employees. So the conferees were somewhat
inconsistent as to what we did allow. But what I attempted to do was
simply do what I thought was the intent of the legislation, to apply
the savings--as I think every red-blooded American taxpayer who will be
paying their taxes on April 15--everyone wants to reduce spending. I
thought this was the appropriate way to show the taxpayers that we were
concerned about how their tax dollars were spent. But the votes were
not there.
I say today that if we are ever going to balance the budget, if we
are ever going to reduce spending, how can we honestly say we are
concerned about it when we say, yes, there is a chance to save $22
billion, but, no, we are going to spend it on another Federal program?
It just seems to me that we are inconsistent. I understand what some
are saying about the crime bill, we are all concerned about reducing
crime. I think that the crime bill should be appropriated out of the
budget just like everything else. But here is a chance to reduce the
budget by at least $22 billion, and for some reason we are not willing
to do it.
So I am reluctant, I will not support the motion today to recommit,
for many reasons. I may not support the bill even though the thrust of
it, the concept, what originally was intended 6 months ago when it was
first introduced, I certainly do still support. We do need to reduce
Federal employees, we need to reduce our payroll, and we need to do it
fairly. This bill at one time did that. But we are straying away from
it now, and I think it is a tragedy we are doing this to the taxpayers
as well as to the Federal employees who will be riffed.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, no one has worked more diligently on this bill or more
effectively than the gentleman from Missouri, the distinguished
chairman, Mr. Clay.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, on behalf of the Federal employees whom I
represent, and those all over this country, the efforts that the
gentleman from Missouri has made to try to do the reduction which this
House voted on and the other body voted on on a number of occasions, in
the most humane but also the best managerial method available to us.
I also want to thank my good friend, John Myers, the gentleman from
Indiana. He and I have the opportunity to serve on the Committee on
Appropriations together. We do not serve in a partisan sense for most
of the time; we serve as people trying to solve the problems of this
country in a commonsense, responsible fashion. The gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Myers] does that.
This legislation, I suggest to you and to the American public, has
almost unanimous consent on this floor. You would not know that,
however, when you follow the procedural ins and outs of this bill.
One of the reasons that Americans are so frustrated with the Congress
of the United States is demonstrated in this bill. We have made a
policy judgment as a Congress and as an executive that we should reduce
by 252,000 employees the complement of Federal employees which serve
the people of this country.
Having made that decision, we have, as managers, looked at how we
accomplish that objective and we did so in a nonpartisan way. As a
matter of fact, one of the principal amendments in this bill is the
Solomon-Burton amendment, which the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]
supported as well, and that amendment is to insure that we were honest
in saying to the American public we are really reducing; not reducing
one here and adding one here. In addition, we have had this bill on
this floor twice.
{time} 1800
This bill in essentially this form passed 391 to 17 the first time.
It then passed, in effect, unanimously because it passed on voice vote
with nobody asking for a vote. This bill reflects that consensus.
However there is a tangential extraneous issue, and that issue is the
trust fund created in the Senate on the crime bill. Why? Because it
seeks to dedicate the sums to be saved, less now, I suggest to my
colleagues, than they otherwise would have been had we acted over a
month ago when the House first passed this legislation and had the
Senate passed it. Save one Member of that body who held hostage this
legislation, Mr. Speaker, we would be in a much better position, and
that issue is the issue of the crime trust fund.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
on H.R. 3345 and to offer my views on proposals to use the savings from
Federal personnel reductions to finance a violent crime control trust
fund.
As a conferee on H.R. 3345, I opposed the Senate's proposal to adopt
a crime trust fund as part of legislation designed to facilitate the
orderly reduction of the Federal work force over the next several
years. Today, I continue to believe that the issue of such a trust fund
should be addressed in the context of comprehensive crime legislation,
and not in this buyout bill.
As my colleagues are aware, the Senate has included a trust fund in
its omnibus crime bill. With consideration of H.R. 4092 set to resume
later today, I am confident the House will pass a comprehensive crime
package before we adjourn for the district work period.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a carefully crafted trust fund represents
the most viable means of financing the thoughtful and innovative crime
control and prevention initiatives included in H.R. 4092. I therefore
intend to support the adoption of a trust fund in conference and fully
expect that such a fund will be included in the conference report on
the crime bill when we go to conference.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Brooks], chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his statement.
I think it was a critically important statement that this issue, the
chairman says, will be considered, and he fully expects this issue, a
carefully crafted trust fund, to come out of that conference, and will
clearly be passed by this House as it will be passed by the Senate.
I would ask, therefore, at this time, Mr. Speaker, let us move
forward to this bill as the conference has reported it out, and let us
reject the motion of the gentleman from Delaware so that we can
accomplish this issue, save the money that this bill will result in,
and then have the Senate and the House in conference on the crime bill
determine how to craft the expenditures of those sums in a crime trust
fund.
My colleagues, it is time, yea it is far past time, to act on this
legislation.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Myers] for yielding this time to me.
I have listened to the arguments which we have here. Quite frankly
sometimes I have an extreme difficulty with the logic of what I hear in
terms of what is really going on here. First, we hear this went to
conference on a 92 vote from the Senate and on an overwhelming vote
from the House of Representatives to have this money set aside for a
trust fund, and it comes out of conference, despite all those
instructions, without that money in it. Then we hear on the floor
today, it is represented to us, that this will save money. And then we
have the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary get
up and say that the crime bill will be funded. So, the money will be
spent anyhow.
What is really likely to happen here, Mr. Speaker, is that we are
going to have a situation in which the $22 billion will be saved
tonight and will be spent on other programs at some time in some way
fitting to a budget at some point in the future, and the crime bill
will be funded on top of everyone else. Everyone in this building,
everyone in this Congress, knows that we are going to pass a crime bill
and we are going to fund a crime bill. We have the 22 or so billion
dollars here right now. This is the time and the place to go forward
with it so we cannot spend it any other way. We should support the
motion to recommit to make sure that that money is frozen for the most
important program Congress is going to face this year.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Myers] for yielding this time to me, and I just want to clarify to the
House where we are with regard to this vote on the crime trust fund.
I say to my colleagues, this is your vote on the crime trust fund
period. We have just received preliminary word down from the Rules
Committee, and the Rules Committee is not going to make in order the
Gingrich amendment to have the crime trust fund in the crime bill. So
anybody who suggests that somehow you can vote ``no'' here because you
are going to get another chance to vote for a crime trust fund as part
of the crime bill, that is nonsense. The Rules Committee is not going
to make that in order based on the information out of the Rules
Committee, and so the only place you have a chance to actually fund the
crime bill is here, and understand that this is a key economic issue as
well as a crime issue because time and time again what we see in the
House is that whenever the majority wants to make certain that they can
go ahead and spend over whatever budget numbers there are that they
have passed, what they do is find a popular subject, leave that out of
their budget presentation, and then come along later and say, ``We have
passed the bill; we have got to do a supplemental for it.'' That's
where we are headed unless we set aside some money. The way to set
aside the money is to have a crime trust fund to be sure money has been
set aside to take care of the crime bill. We can fund it right here
now. This is the place to do it. We will not get there if you await the
crime bill. The crime bill is not going to give you an opportunity to
vote on the crime trust fund because at least, as we understand the
preliminary situation, the Rules Committee is not going to permit that
amendment to come to the floor, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Federal
employee buyout provision.
The threat of RIF's is hanging over our heads. Government agencies
are on the brink of issuing leave notices by the thousands. Some
agencies have already started to RIF.
The need to enact this bill is imminent. Federal employee unions,
Government agencies, and the administration have all expressed, in
hearings before the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, that we
cannot wait 1 day longer to implement the buyout option.
Let us send the final message in this time of great reform by passing
this provision and let us show the American people that the reform
starts here, with the Federal Government.
By allowing agencies to utilize the buyout option, we are alleviating
a tremendous amount of pressure that currently exists in our Government
agencies. We need to reduce the work force in a fair, humane manner. We
will show our Federal employees who have loyally worked as civil
servants that we are working on their behalf as well. They deserve this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3345, the Conference
on the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3345, the Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act.
The administration's goal is to reduce the size of the Federal work
force by 100,000 in 1994--on the way to eliminating 252,000 positions
over 5 years.
Currently, an estimated 40 percent of Government employees, including
the Department of Defense, have the option to take a $25,000 voluntary
separation incentive. As most of us are aware, Defense managed to buy
out 30,000 employees last year by offering payments of as much as
$25,000. This greatly reduced the number of employees to be fired. Most
of the people offered buyouts were either eligible for regular
retirement--at age 55 with 30 years of service, age 60 with 20 years or
age 62 with 5 years--or early retirement--at age 50 with 20 years of
service or any age with 25 years. Many early retirees apparently felt
that the buyout offset the pension reduction they took for leaving
before age 55.
The administration had hoped that reducing the work force could be
accomplished through attrition. However, the Federal Government has
been experiencing a very low turnover rate. Thousands of retirement-age
workers are waiting for buyouts, while an equal number of younger
workers see the buyout as a job-saving plan. Unless this option is
extended to the rest of the Federal work force, the administration
might not be able to reach its employment reduction goals without
massive layoffs. Those most likely to be hurt by such layoffs, or
reductions in force, would be those most recently hired, including a
large number of minorities and women. The Federal agencies are running
out of time to implement this buyout plan in fiscal year 1994. Unless
this bill passes soon, it will not be cost-effective--and, thereby
thousands dedicated Federal employees will be left out in the cold.
Also, in the conference report, an authorization has been given for
payment of $5,000 to each of approximately 175 individuals who were
full-time ASRM contractor employees. Since this dislocation pay will be
funded from existing NASA appropriations, this section will have no
budgetary impact.
I urge Members to vote for the conference report.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of the House to vote ``no''
on the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
motion to recommit offered by mr. castle
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CASTLE. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Castle moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 3345, to the
committee of conference, with instructions to the managers on
the part of the House, to agree to the provisions committeed
to conference in the Senate amendment numbered 1, to the
House amendment to the Senate amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 166,
nays 261, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 88]
YEAS--166
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lancaster
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Santorum
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sundquist
Talent
Taylor (NC)
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--261
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Bacchus (FL)
Baesler
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blackwell
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Hutto
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lehman
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCloskey
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rose
Rostenkowski
Rowland
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shays
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Swett
Swift
Synar
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Whitten
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--6
Gallo
Mazzoli
Natcher
Pickle
Ridge
Washington
{time} 1857
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. BROWDER changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). The question is on the
conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid in the table.
____________________