[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 59 (Friday, May 13, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                NATIONAL LABORATORY EMPLOYEES INCENTIVE

                                 ______


                          HON. BILL RICHARDSON

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 12, 1994

  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
provide a retirement incentive to national laboratory employees who are 
members of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) of California.
  These 450 men and women have each given over 30 years of service to 
the Department of Energy (DOE) and yet they were not offered a 
retirement incentive when DOE began downsizing staff at national 
laboratories administrated by the University of California.
  The DOE funds three national laboratories through the University of 
California. From 1940 until October 1, 1961, national laboratory 
employees enrolled in the PERS of California. In 1961, the University 
of California established its own retirement system. As a result, 
employees hired at the national laboratories after October 1, 1961, 
were enrolled in the University of California Retirement Program 
(UCRP). When the University of California established the new 
retirement system, national laboratory employees were given the option 
to transfer to the UCRP or remain with the PERS. Most chose to stay 
with the PERS because they had already accrued benefits in that system.
  In 1993 when DOE began downsizing, national laboratory employees with 
UCRP were offered a retirement incentive package that added three years 
to retirement age, three years service credit, and three months pay. 
National laboratory employees with the PERS were not offered any 
incentive. The result of the University of California's decision to 
offer retirement incentive only to employees with UCRP was 
discriminatory against the most senior employees at the labs who were 
with the PERS of California.
  As with any retirement incentive, this bill would have initial costs, 
but would generate millions of dollars in salary savings each year 
thereafter. For an initial investment of $14 million we could achieve 
$32 million in national laboratory salaries in the first year alone.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation which 
brings both equality and savings to the scientists and employees of our 
national laboratories.

                          ____________________