[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 52 (Wednesday, May 4, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 4, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                BONUSES

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, this morning I would like to take a 
moment to discuss some recent press reports about a figure of $32 
million worth of bonuses paid to employees of the Social Security 
Administration. This has certainly drawn a lot of attention in our 
country. I know that my colleagues have, and I can state for myself, 
received many, many phone calls and now many, many letters about this 
issue.
  On Saturday, the Washington Post reported that some 45,000 employees 
of the agency's 65,000 employees, roughly two-thirds of its work force, 
received some type of bonus in fiscal year 1993. One employee had only 
worked for SSA for 2\1/2\ months and received a bonus of $9,256.
  Madam President, that makes people angry. It makes this Senator 
angry. It is not right.
  The Social Security Administration may be just the tip of the 
iceberg, however, because I have looked into the use of bonuses in 
prior years, and in recent months at other agencies. And, as this chart 
that I am about to demonstrate shows, some agencies give even more 
bonuses than the Social Security Administration.
  In fact, the most recent fiscal year figures that we have is fiscal 
year 1991. In 1991 fiscal year, the Department of Agriculture--here 
they are right down here, Madam President, USDA, the Department of 
Agriculture--only gave 18 percent of its employees a bonus. That is 
interesting, the Department of Agriculture giving only 18 percent of 
its employees a bonus, when you contrast and compare that with the 
Agency for International Development. The Agency for International 
Development in 1991 fiscal year gave 72 percent of their employees a 
bonus--72 percent for AID, 18 percent for USDA. The Veterans 
Administration gave 22 percent of its employees a bonus. The Army gave 
28 percent of its employees a bonus. The Department of the Treasury--
right here, Madam President--gave 32 percent, the Navy 34 percent, 
Commerce 50 percent. Half of all the employees in the Department of 
Commerce received a bonus in fiscal year 1991. The Air Force 54 
percent, HHS 63 percent, and listen, Madam President, the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, a whopping 63 percent of all of the people in DOD 
headquarters received a bonus.
  Madam President, this was not a bonus given to the folks out there in 
the foxholes, or flying the F-16's, or on the battleships or aircraft 
carriers. These were the people in the Pentagon. These were the people 
in the highest echelon of the Department of Defense, 63 percent getting 
a bonus. And, of course, the all-time champion of bonus givers, the 
Agency for International Development.
  Madam President, while I have no doubts there are good employees 
throughout this system, I think it is time for us to evaluate the 
problem that we are faced with. I think there is another good question 
to ask. Why is it that the Army only felt it could give out, or only 
had individuals there who--28 percent could get a bonus? The Navy gave 
34 percent, but the Air Force--are their people so much better or the 
Navy so much worse and the Army so much worse that the Air Force would 
give actually 54 percent of its personnel a bonus?
  I might say, I do not think these are military uniformed individuals. 
These are people who work behind the desks.
  This issue, Madam President, I think is worth our attention, because 
our Government is spending today about $500 million on 695,559 bonuses 
for Federal employees. While the average award is about $700, the 
individual awards can be much higher.
  Bonuses, and how they are used have often been criticized and 
questioned. I have been one who has questioned those bonuses. For 
example, the Washington Post article states that SSA, the Social 
Security Administration, was required by law to pay bonuses to mid-
level managers.
  Madam President, that is not the law today. That may have been true 
in the past, but that is not the law today. The program mandating the 
payment of bonuses, the Performance Management Recognition System, 
known as PMRS had for years been criticized by agencies and employees 
alike. I am very pleased that this so-called PMRS system was finally 
allowed to die. It expired at the end of 1993 fiscal year, Madam 
President, and no longer are any agencies of the Federal Government 
required under law to pay a bonus.
  Just over a year ago, the Subcommittee on Federal Services that I 
chair discovered that political appointees were lavished with bonuses 
in the final days of the past administration. S. 1070 was a bill 
introduced by Senators Levin and Stevens. It was bipartisan. It was 
approved by this body last year to permanently eliminate all bonuses to 
political appointees in the senior executive service and schedule C 
political appointees from June 1 of a Presidential year to January 20 
following the election.
  Madam President, this bill is directed at the apparent abuses of the 
bonus system uncovered during the last Presidential election. As a 
result of information uncovered by our subcommittee and others on the 
Hill, OPM, the Office of Personnel Management, conducted a review of 
cash bonuses given to political appointees during the transition and 
found that the number of awards had risen from 49 in 1991 to 133 in 
1992. OPM stated:

       Current safeguards clearly were not adequate to prevent 
     misuse of flexibilities in the awards program. The political 
     leadership at several agencies used these flexibilities to 
     grant awards to political appointees that create the 
     appearance they were given as `political favors' rather than 
     for their intended purpose.

  I hope the House takes up and passes S. 1070 this year.
  Madam President, now that some of the problems with bonuses have been 
addressed, we have to work on the cause of this problem. I believe the 
problem starts with the managers of our agencies--managers who cannot 
or will not make tough decisions. Managers in some agencies seem to be 
giving out bonuses like candy, as a matter of routine, rather than as a 
reward for truly outstanding work. These managers need to be trained to 
use bonuses only as an incentive, not as a matter of routine.
  I believe that all too often Federal employees do believe that 
bonuses are a matter of routine, rather than a reward for truly 
outstanding work. Two-thirds of the SSA's employees received bounses. 
Under current law, bonuses can only be paid to employees who are rated 
fully successful or above. Now, while I have no doubt that most SSA 
employees are hard working, I do not think that all managers are really 
evaluating and rating their employees.
  Also, Madam President, one thing that has always concerned me about 
this so-called bonus system in the Federal Government is it must not--
it must not--be dependent upon the buddy system. If it does, we will 
see that the attitude and the actual feeling by the Federal employees 
toward their bosses is going to take a dramatic change for the worse.
  I have written the Vice President, calling on him to address these 
problems as he drafts civil service reform legislation to implement the 
National Performance Review recommendations.
  Madam President, I hope to work with the administration as this 
administration drafts its civil service reform legislation to address 
this particular problem which is angering so many American taxpayers, 
as it justifiably should.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter that I am 
sending to the Vice President on this subject be printed in the Record.

  There being no objection, the text of the letter was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 1994.
     The Vice President,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Vice President: I am writing in regard to recent 
     reports of bonuses being paid to two-thirds of the employees 
     of the Social Security Administration (SSA). In Fiscal Year 
     1993, SSA paid $32 million to 45,644 of its 65,000 employees. 
     While I recognize that Social Security's workforce has 
     dropped from 84,000 to 64,000 since 1983 and its workload has 
     grown substantially, I am concerned that the number of 
     bonuses is excessive.
       The National Performance Review (NPR) recommended that 
     ``agencies should be allowed to design their own performance 
     management and reward systems, with the objective of 
     improving the performance of individuals and organizations.'' 
     I understand that you are working to craft civil service 
     reform legislation to implement this and many other NPR 
     recommendations. I would urge you to consider, as you draft 
     this legislation, the need to improve the manner in which 
     bonuses, or incentive awards, are used.
       All too often, federal employees have been given reason to 
     believe that bonuses are a matter of routine, rather than in 
     return for truly exemplary performance. Section 4505a of 
     Title 5, United States Code, states that employees who are 
     rated fully successful or above may be paid a cash award. 
     This is not an entitlement and should not be treated as one 
     by either the manager or the employee. Managers must receive 
     better training in how to review and evaluate their 
     employees. Frequent criticisms of the bonus system have been 
     that it works as a buddy system or that managers will pass 
     the bonuses around to employees in turn. If the bonus system 
     does not work well, it can actually serve as a disincentive 
     for productivity improvements, as employees quickly learn 
     that their job performance is not directly linked to bonus 
     awards.
       The NPR envisions a smaller workforce that is rewarded for 
     individual or group performance. A respected performance 
     evaluation and assessment system is essential to making that 
     vision a reality. I look forward to working with you on this 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                      David Pryor.

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I thank the Chair and I thank my good 
friend from Wisconsin for his understanding. I hope I did not consume 
too much of the time that I know he wants to use.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KOHL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I thank you for recognizing me and I thank 
my colleague from Arkansas, who is not only a fine Senator, but one of 
the finest people that I have ever met.
  (The remarks of Mr. Kohl pertaining to the introduction of S. 2070 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant 
legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BRYAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to insert at the 
end of my comments, the article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, written by Jo Mannies, under the title ``Stately Debate; 
Danforth and Eagleton Don't Act Like Politicians--Or Do They?''
  The article tells about dialog between our colleague Senator John 
Danforth and our former Senator Tom Eagleton.
  And it is a good illustration of why Tom Eagleton is missed and why 
Jack Danforth will be missed.
  I believe that Jack Danforth sums up our problems well when he is 
quoted as saying: ``The real problem [is] the political penchant to 
tell the public what they want to hear, instead of what they need to 
know.''
  The article contains a great deal of wisdom and common sense.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch]

Stately Debate: Danforth and Eagleton Don't Act Like Politicians--Or Do 
                                 They?

                            (By Jo Mannies)

       For about 90 minutes last week, it seemed like old times:
       Missouri's ``Dynamic Duo'' in the U.S. Senate for much of 
     the 1980s--Republican John C. Danforth and Democrat Thomas F. 
     Eagleton--entertained a crowd by spiritedly sparring over an 
     issue and poking holes in each other's arguments.
       And just like the old days, the animated atmosphere spoke 
     of friendship, not feuds. The jabs were jovial, not jugular.
       Although neither gave any quarter, neither exacted a piece 
     of the other's hide.
       The display was, said many of those in attendance, an 
     example of what political discourse should be--a debate 
     without digs.
       ``In Missouri, we ought to be thankful to have had two of 
     the giants,'' said Lawrence K. Roos, a Republican and former 
     St. Louis County executive who sponsored the Wednesday night 
     forum at Webster University that featured the two men.
       Danforth, 57, is leaving the Senate this year after serving 
     18 years. Ten of those years were alongside Eagleton, 64, who 
     retired in 1986 after 18 years. Although the two have had 
     joint appearances in recent years, Wednesday's forum marked 
     the first substantive public discussion between the two since 
     Eagleton's retirement.
       The topic was, fittingly enough, ethics in public service. 
     Although they singled out different problems and disagreed 
     on solutions, Eagleton and Danforth shared the view that 
     political discourse and political campaigns have hit a new 
     low.
       Both blasted the popularity of the 30-second sound bite and 
     gutter tactics. Both called for the public to demand--and for 
     television to provide--more substantive discussion of the 
     major issues.
       Eagleton, who favors public financing of campaigns, lobbied 
     for more limits on campaign spending. Danforth, who says more 
     limits are unnecessary, argued that the real problem was the 
     political penchant to tell the public what they want to hear, 
     instead of what they need to know.
       ``Anybody in my line of work can talk about any subject for 
     2 or 3 minutes--and you'll hear nothing,'' said Danforth. 
     ``But keep them on the subject for one hour, and they'll 
     begin to feel the heat.''
       Eagleton told of watching colleagues using the 10 phone 
     booths in the Senate cloakroom to make fundraising calls 
     between votes. ``About two-thirds of a senator's time is 
     spent fundraising during the last 2 years of a 6-year term,'' 
     he said. ``Doing it, planning it, thinking about it, going to 
     it . . . Flying to it . . . Where am I going to find it? How 
     are we going to get it?''
       But, to many in Wednesday's crowd, what the two men said 
     was almost overshadowed by how they said it.
       Except when one was at the podium, they sat side by side on 
     the stage, inches apart. Each listened intently as the other 
     spoke. There were no interruptions, no rude remarks.
       Their display of mutual respect, said several in the 
     audience, demonstrated by example how politicians should 
     behave, on and off the stump.
       It came after years of practice.
       During their 10 years together in the U.S. Senate, Eagleton 
     and Danforth--despite their sharp philosophical and political 
     differences--developed an unusual friendship that continues 
     to this day.
       While both were in office, their staffs worked closely on 
     Missouri projects. Press releases frequently were issued 
     jointly. the duo often held court together with groups of 
     constituents who came to Washington to visit.
       Since Eagleton's departure, the two continue to keep in 
     touch. Besides occasional phone calls, they sometimes have 
     lunch together when both are in St. Louis. Their wives remain 
     close.
       Says Danforth of Eagleton: ``It's always fun to be with 
     him.''
       Says Eagleton of Danforth: ``The vibes are good.''
       It's common in Washington for politicians of different 
     parties to be friends, particularly in the clubby 100-member 
     Senate. Such odd couples include Democrat Ted Kennedy of 
     Massachusetts and Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah.
       But it's rare for close ties to form between a Democrat and 
     a Republican hailing from the same state.
       Why? Because each one has allies back home intent on 
     knocking off the other. And as a U.S. senator, each one 
     often is campaigning for opposing candidates running for 
     other state offices.
       So, often as not, partisan politics back home take a toll 
     on relationships at the office.
       ``It's a little more ticklish,'' Eagleton conceded.
       This year, for example, Danforth already is campaigning 
     hard to get former Gov. John Ashcroft elected as his 
     successor. Eagleton, meanwhile, is siding with U.S. Rep. Alan 
     Wheat of Kansas City, one of several Democratic hopefuls who 
     regularly bash Ashcroft.
       And there's the given that Danforth and Eagleton hold 
     different political views, particularly on national issues. 
     (The two do, however, hold the same view on abortion; both 
     are against it.) By GOP standards, Danforth may be a 
     moderate, but he's much more conservative than Eagleton.
       The two men also have very different styles. Danforth tends 
     to be reserved and deliberate. Eagleton is usually gregarious 
     and spontaneous. Danforth harbors a dry wit; Eagleton leans 
     toward side-splitters.
       But somehow, with humor and humanity, Danforth and Eagleton 
     appear to have succeeded in keeping politics from becoming 
     personal. And that, said Roos, is something that more 
     politicians need to emulate.
       During their time in the Senate, some observers theorized 
     that Danforth and Eagleton got along because they knew they'd 
     never be running against each other. They were often known 
     for ganging up on House members of the Missouri delegation to 
     get them to go along with whatever deal the two senators had 
     worked out.
       Eagleton says now that the two became allies, in part, out 
     of necessity. For most of the time they were in the Senate 
     together, said Eagleton, Democrats controlled the Senate, and 
     Republicans controlled the White House. (There were a few 
     years when the GOP had the Senate as well, giving Danforth 
     all the cards.)
       For Missouri to get its fair share, he said, the two had to 
     work together. That partnership included trust, he said, when 
     ``both of us realized that one wouldn't take advantage of the 
     other.''
       Danforth theorizes that the two men also shared a similar 
     view of public life.
       ``Tom and I have both discovered the same secret of public 
     service,'' Danforth said, in a parting shot during 
     Wednesday's speech.
       ``Retire before you're indicted.''

                          ____________________