[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 35 (Thursday, March 24, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


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

 
     FEDERAL WORKFORCE RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 1994--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report the conference report on H.R. 3345.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the amendment 
     of the House to the amendment of the Senate to 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, having 
     met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend 
     and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of March 16, 1994.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the conference report?
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Glenn].
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, what is the time limit we have on each side 
on this, on the buyout bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 5 minutes on each side.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, could we double-check that, please? It was 
my understanding it was to be 10 minutes on each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is 10 minutes equally divided; 5 minutes a 
side.
  Mr. GLENN. Fine, Mr. President. We will do this as rapidly as we 
possibly can.
  What we have is the buyout bill that has been back and forth between 
the House and Senate a number of times. I could go back and recount the 
dates and when we passed it and by what margins, and so on, but we are 
back on the floor filibustering the conference report and losing 
precious time. Because the longer we wait, the more difficult it is 
going to be for agencies to really slim down Government, and that is 
what we are talking about.
  We are talking about the 252,000 people who are going to be cut out 
by the administration over the next 5 years, slimming down the civil 
service rolls. We are talking about doing this not just in taking those 
people out by the usual attrition of the 12 percent or so of Federal 
employees who leave the Government every year; we are talking about 
doing it in a way that will let us address the structure of the civil 
service force. That is the importance of this, because in the Federal 
Government we have about one supervisor for every seven employees they 
manage. In private business and industry, the ratio usually is around 
12 or 15 to one on that employee-to-manager ratio. And in labor-
intensive businesses, it runs up as high as 20 to 1. We are 7 to 1, the 
Federal Government. It is wasteful.
  What we need is to have a program that can give some incentives to 
get the GS-13's, 14's, and 15's to take some early outs. That is what 
the buyout title comes from, is that effort to enable us to give some 
incentives. It has already been tried once in the Defense Department 
and worked very well there in helping slim down the civil service 
rolls. That is what we are after with this amendment--with this buyout 
legislation.
  The Senate did pass the Gramm amendment twice. That is what is at 
issue here. I voted for that amendment on both occasions when it was 
offered. However, that vote was nonbinding. It went to conference. The 
House conferees to the buyout bill adamantly opposed the amendment. 
They do not even have a crime bill passed over there, so there was not 
really anything to apply it to was their logic, and I agreed with that. 
I remind my colleagues the administration backed the House conferees on 
this issue.
  On March 11, I received a letter from the Vice President regarding 
H.R. 3345, in which he stated they supported placing the savings 
achieved through downsizing to the financing of the crime bill, but not 
the way it was being done through the Gramm amendment. It would be more 
appropriate to consider the violent crime reduction trust fund in the 
context of the crime legislation.
  The House expects to come up with a crime bill shortly. They do not 
have it yet, so we receded to the House, since it seemed to me it was 
logical we address that when the time arrived.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me clarify the issue here. No one I am 
aware of is against the buyout bill. The buyout bill is good public 
policy. It tries to get people to retire early, so we do not have to 
RIF people who work for the Federal Government.
  The action we are taking to reduce the number of people working for 
the Federal Government by 252,000 personnel slots, was first offered as 
an amendment by me earlier in this session. It will save $22 billion. 
The buyout provision is part of generating that savings.
  There is one and only one issue here. We have a small number of 
people in the House who want to spend this $22 billion basically on 
social programs. What I have done is offer an amendment that dedicates 
that $22 billion to funding the violent crime reduction trust fund that 
will allow us to put 100,000 more police officers on the streets, and 
that will enable us to build prisons so we can imprison people who 
commit violent crimes and keep them there. And, under my amendment, if 
Congress does not spend this money on violent crime reduction, every 
penny of it goes to deficit reduction.
  I offered this amendment. It has been voted on successfully and 
adopted in the Senate not once or twice, but three times.
  The House has voted on this provision not once or twice, but four 
times. They have instructed conferees to accept my amendment, and the 
conferees have gone to conference and thrown it out. They have passed 
resolutions with instructions urging that my amendment be adopted. They 
have recommitted the bill with instructions. And yet a small number of 
people in the House who want to squander this money instead of using it 
for deficit reduction or to fight violent crime are trying to hold up 
the Senate and say if we do not pass this bill their way, if we do not 
let them spend this $22 billion, then they are going to let this good 
bill die.
  I do not want this good bill to die. But I am tired of the will of 
both Houses of Congress being delayed and denied by a small group of 
people. So, Mr. President, I resist that effort.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down this cloture motion and send a 
clear message to the House: A majority of the Members of the House on 
four occasions have voted for my amendment which says apply these 
savings to deficit reduction or use them to fight violent crime. Do not 
squander this money. This is an important issue. It is not very often 
around here we get to save $22 billion, and it is not very often around 
here we do something about the violent crime crisis that our bleeding 
Nation faces.
  If we deny cloture on this bill, I believe the House will awaken and 
do what the majority of its Members have voted to do on four different 
occasions.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Maryland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture 
on this legislation. We have enough of a crime problem without adding 
to it, holding the Federal employees hostage. Those who could leave in 
a voluntary way are going to be RIF'd out. That in itself is a form of 
criminal punishment. I very much hope my colleagues will not do that.
  Let me quote from Chairman Brooks in the debate on the House floor 
yesterday with respect to this matter. He said:

       As a conferee on H.R. 3345--

  This very legislation--

     I oppose 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.

  Which is where we did it, in the crime bill. And Chairman Brooks 
committed himself in that debate, saying that he believed a carefully 
crafted trust fund represents the most viable means of financing the 
crime bill, and that he would support the adoption of such a trust fund 
on the crime bill, which is where we put it and where the House Members 
ought to put it. And we ought not to hold this buyout hostage to the 
crime bill.
  I support the trust fund on the crime bill, but we ought not to kill 
this buyout bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, how much time do the two sides have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from Ohio 
has expired. The time controlled by the Senator from Texas is down to 1 
minute.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if you do not lock money away when you save 
it, it ends up being spent. The issue here is that a small number of 
people in the House want to spend this $22 billion. It is obvious to a 
blind man. We have voted on this seven times. They have fought it 
because they desperately want to spend this money. I want it to go to 
either deficit reduction or to fight violent crime.
  Second, listen to what Chairman Brooks did not say. He did not say he 
was going to vote for a trust fund in the House. He did not say the 
trust fund was going to contain the $22 billion. He did not say this 
money was not going to be spent somewhere else.
  We have an opportunity today. We are on the goal line. We have come 
very close to winning on this issue. Let us not squander this 
opportunity; $22 billion is a lot of money. Do not let it be wasted.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, allowing Federal agencies to offer 
buyouts as incentives for Federal employees to retire is a matter of 
extreme urgency. It is imperative that we enact buyouts in order to 
avoid reductions in force [RIF's] or furloughs in the Federal 
Government.
  We have made a commitment to downsize the Federal Government by 
252,000 full-time positions over the next 5 years. In order to do this 
without putting younger, household heads and family providers out of 
work, we must pass legislation to encourage older workers to retire. 
Time is running out. If we wait any longer, buyouts will not be cost 
effective this fiscal year and layoffs will be inevitable. We must act 
now.
  The buyout legislation gives us a chance to reduce the size of 
Government without laying people off. It would allow agencies to offer 
targeted buyouts, so that we can reduce staff where we can afford 
reduction--managers, supervisors, and more senior workers. Younger 
workers and those working key jobs in service to the public would be 
spared the disruption of RIF's.
  The buyout legislation will not add to the deficit--it is deficit 
neutral over the next 6 years. Agencies will contribute 9 percent of a 
year's salary to the Civil Service Retirement Fund for every employee 
who takes the buyout in fiscal year 1994 and 1995. In fiscal years 1995 
through 1998, agencies will also contribute $80 per employee on the 
payroll as of March 31 of each year to the Civil Service Retirement 
Fund. The Congressional Budget Office has scored this legislation as 
deficit neutral over the next 5 years.
  Reductions in force would be a terrible blow to men and women in 
service to our Government and to our economy. Recently hired employees, 
which include a large percentage of women and minorities, would be the 
first to go. Many are household heads, providing for families. Many are 
single parents. Some make just enough to get by. They are hard-working, 
caring people committed to serving others. We have an opportunity to 
downsize the Federal Government without putting them on the street. We 
owe it to them to act on this opportunity.
  I strongly support the buyout incentive legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in getting this important legislation passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.

                          ____________________