[House Report 104-469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Rept. 104-469
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 2
_______________________________________________________________________
IMMIGRATION IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT OF 1995
_______
March 7, 1996.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2202]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 2202) to amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act to improve deterrence of illegal immigration to
the United States by increasing border patrol and investigative
personnel, by increasing penalties for alien smuggling and for
document fraud, by reforming exclusion and deportation law and
procedures, by improving the verification system for
eligibility for employment, and through other measures, to
reform the legal immigration system and facilitate legal
entries into the United States, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line
numbers of the introduced bill) are as follows:
Strike section 356 (page 198, line 17, through page 200,
line 16), and make all necessary technical and conforming
changes.
Strike section 523 (page 270, line 16, through page 273,
line 10), and make all necessary technical and conforming
changes.
I. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THIS LEGISLATION
Sections 356 and 523 of H.R. 2202 would have provided the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) authority to hire
retired Federal employees without a reduction in salary to
offset the amount of their Federal pensions. Section 356 would
authorize the employment of up to 300 persons for no more than
two years to provide support for the Institutional Hearing
Program, a program established to facilitate the deportation of
criminal aliens. Section 523 would have authorized the re-
employment of up to 300 persons for no more than two years to
assist the INS in the processing of backlogged asylum
applications. Annuitants re-employed under these provisions
would have been compensated at full salary in addition to their
annuities. They would not, however, have accumulated additional
retirement credit for this service.
A. Current use of re-employed annuitants by Federal agencies
OPM reported that Federal agencies currently rely upon
73,446 re-employed annuitants. These include 1,794 Civil
Service Retirement System (CSRS) annuitants, 196 Federal
Employee Retirement System (FERS) annuitants, and 9,588 retired
military officers. The vast majority of other re-employed
annuitants are retired enlisted military personnel. Under
provisions of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8344, if a retired CSRS employee
becomes re-employed in either elective or appointive office,
the re-employed annuitant's salary for the position is to be
reduced by an amount equal to the annuity. Comparable
provisions govern reductions for FERS employees under a formula
established in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 8421(a). The proposed sections of
the immigration bill would supersede these reductions, enabling
annuitants re-employed under these provisions to collect full
salaries and full pensions during their period of re-
employment. At minimum, these provisions would establish a
basis for inequitable treatment of employees who are re-
employed under current law mandating pension offset and those
who might be hired under this authority.
B. Provisions of current regulations
Under regulations promulgated at 5 C.F.R. Sec. 553.201,
agencies may petition the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
for authority to re-employ individual annuitants without a
reduction in annuities. Re-employment in such individual cases
is intended for emergency situations, and requires a request
from the agency's headquarters to the Director of OPM. These
provisions would bypass OPM scrutiny and grant direct authority
for a significant number of individuals to perform support
functions that would not necessarily meet the rigorous
knowledge, skills, and abilities requirements of current
regulations governing these situations. Because existing
statutes and regulations already provide administrative
authority to grant the exceptions being proposed, the
administration informed the Committee on the Judiciary that it
considers these provisions unnecessary.
C. INS' applications for authority to re-employ annuitants
The INS is currently hiring numerous Border Patrol
officers, Immigration Investigators, and Immigration
Inspectors. It has submitted a request to OPM seeking authority
to re-employ annuitants to assist with the training of these
personnel. It has not sought authority to re-employ annuitants
to perform the functions identified in these provisions.
Although the INS has a substantial backlog of asylum
applications, standards for adjudicating asylum cases were
revised following the adoption of new asylum regulations in
1990 and the settlement of the court case, American Baptist
Churches v. Thornburgh. The pool of retired Immigration
Examiners who had received training in the new asylum
procedures would be small, so annuitants who would be refired
to accomplish this function would be required to undergo a
three-week training program to learn new legal standards for
the work.
Although these sections are intended to provide additional
staffing for the designated functions, they appear likely to
have wider unanticipated consequences. By eliminating the
salary reduction that offsets re-employed annuitants' pensions,
the legislation would enable current employees of these offices
who might be eligible for retirement to increase their income
substantially by retiring and returning as re-employed
annuitants. This factor could present especially severe
problems for the Institutional Hearing Program, where the
support envisioned is less technical than the asylum
adjudication responsibilities and where the agency has a larger
cadre of senior investigators.
Beyond the incentives that might adversely affect the
current workforce, the option to re-employ annuitants without
reductions in salaries could establish undesirable precedent
and generate pressure to extend comparable benefits government-
wide. The precedent would increase incentives for retirement
among employees having critical skills in a way that would
expose agencies to the vulnerability of losing valuable
employees unless the government was willing to pay both
salaries and retirement annuities for the same work.
D. Need for the legislation
These provisions were included in the Immigration in the
National Interest Act reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary could not identify
the sponsor of these provisions, provided no hearing record or
analysis to support inclusion of these provisions in the bill
as reported, and did not object when informed of the Civil
Service Subcommittee's findings of their inconsistency with
other provisions of Title 5, United States Code.
II. LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS AND COMMITTEE ACTIONS
H.R. 2202, Sections 356 and 523 were referred to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. The bill was
marked-up in the Civil Service Subcommittee on March 5, 1996,
where Subcommittee Member Rep. Burton of Indiana presented an
amendment to strike sections 356 and 523. This amendment was
considered and adopted without objection. The Committee met on
March 7, 1996, and ordered reported the bill H.R. 2202, as
amended by voice vote.
III. COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY
The Civil Service Subcommittee held no formal hearings on
H.R. 2202.
IV. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
The amendment simply strikes section 356 and section 523 of
H.R. 2202, thereby leaving in place existing law.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XI
Pursuant to rule XI, 2(l)(3)(A), of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause
2(b)(1) and clause 3(f), the results and findings from those
oversight activities are incorporated in the recommendations
found in the bill and in this report.
VI. BUDGET ANALYSIS AND PROJECTIONS
This Act provides for no new authorization or budget
authority or tax expenditures. Consequently, the provisions of
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act are not
applicable.
VII. COST ESTIMATE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
VIII. INFLATIONARY IMPACT STATEMENT
In accordance with rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation is assessed to
have no inflationary effect on prices and costs in the
operations of the national economy.
IX. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
The bill was referred to this committee for consideration
of such provisions of the bill as fall within the jurisdiction
of this committee pursuant to clause 1(g) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives. The changes made to
existing law by the amendment reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary are shown in the report filed by that committee
(Rept. 104-469, Part 1). The amendments made by this committee
do not make any changes in existing law.
X. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 7, 1996, a quorum being present, the Committee
ordered the bill favorably reported.
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight--104th Congress rollcall
Date: March 7, 1996.
Final Passage of H.R. 2202, as amended.
Offered by: Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr. (R-PA).
Voice Vote: Yea.
XI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT; PUBLIC LAW 104-1; SECTION
102(B)(3)
H.R. 2202 as amended by the committee is inapplicable to
the legislative branch because it does not relate to any terms
or conditions of employment or access to public services or
accommodations.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 7, 1996.
Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2202, the
Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995, as amended by
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on March 7,
1996. The amendment strikes from H.R. 2202 sections 356 and
523, which deal with federal employee retirement.
Attached is a table summarizing the estimated spending and
revenue effects of H.R. 2202, as amended. CBO estimates that
striking sections 356 and 523 would increase net direct
spending savings by $2 million to $4 million a year in 1997
through 1999. These provisions would permit certain civilian
and military retirees to collect their full pensions in
addition to their salary if they are reemployed by the
Department of Justice to help tackle a backlog of asylum
applications or support the Institutional Hearing Program. A
more detailed description of the provisions that were stricken
is included in the CBO cost estimate sent to Chairman Henry J.
Hyde of the House Committee on the Judiciary dated March 4,
1996. That cost estimate also includes detail on the estimated
budgetary impact of the other provisions of the bill. Striking
sections 356 and 523 would not affect the cost of
intergovernmental or private sector mandates in H.R. 2202.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. the CBO staff contact is Wayne
Boyington.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill,
Director.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION
Authorizations:
Estimated Authorizations Level........ 129 699 774 856 960 978 996
Estimated Outlays..................... 0 532 637 940 994 956 976
MANDATORY SPENDING AND RECEIPTS
Revenues:
New Criminal Fines and Forfeiture..... 0 \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\
Earned Income Tax Credit.............. 0 14 13 12 13 13 13
Change in Revenues.................. 0 14 13 12 13 13 13
Direct Spending:
New Criminal Fines and Forfeiture..... 0 \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\
Immigration Enforcement Account....... 0 \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\ \1\
Supplemental Security Income.......... 0 -10 -80 -160 -260 -370 -670
Food Stamps........................... 0 0 -15 -45 -100 -170 -250
Family Support........................ 0 -1 -13 -23 -48 -63 -78
Medicaid.............................. 0 -5 -110 -240 -390 -570 -830
Earned Income Tax Credit.............. 0 -216 -214 -218 -222 -224 -229
Change in Direct Spending Outlays... 0 -232 -432 -686 -1,020 -1,397 -2,057
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.