[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.

                          ____________________