[Pages H11340-H11352]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

OMNIBUS CIVIL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 1996

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 3841) to amend the civil service laws of the United States, and
for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3841

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Omnibus
Civil Service Reform Act of 1996''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Sec. 101. Demonstration projects.

TITLE II--PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENT

Sec. 201. Increased weight given to performance for order-of-retention
purposes in a reduction in force.
Sec. 202. No appeal of denial of periodic step-increases.
Sec. 203. Performance appraisals.
Sec. 204. Amendments to incentive awards authority.
Sec. 205. Due process rights of managers under negotiated grievance
procedures.
Sec. 206. Collection and reporting of training information.

TITLE III--ENHANCEMENT OF THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN AND CERTAIN OTHER
BENEFITS

Sec. 301. Loans under the Thrift Savings Plan for furloughed employees.
Sec. 302. Domestic relations orders.
Sec. 303. Unreduced additional optional life insurance.

TITLE IV--REORGANIZATION FLEXIBILITY

Sec. 401. Voluntary reductions in force.
Sec. 402. Nonreimbursable details to Federal agencies before a
reduction in force.

TITLE V--SOFT-LANDING PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Temporary continuation of Federal employees' life insurance.
Sec. 502. Continued eligibility for health insurance.
Sec. 503. Job placement and counseling services.
Sec. 504. Education and retraining incentives.

TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 601. Reimbursements relating to professional liability insurance.
Sec. 602. Employment rights following conversion to contract.
Sec. 603. Debarment of health care providers found to have engaged in
fraudulent practices.
Sec. 604. Consistent coverage for individuals enrolled in a health plan
administered by the Federal banking agencies.
Sec. 605. Amendment to Public Law 104-134.
Sec. 606. Miscellaneous amendments relating to the health benefits
program for Federal employees.
Sec. 607. Pay for certain positions formerly classified at GS-18.
Sec. 608. Repeal of section 1307 of title 5 of the United States Code.
Sec. 609. Extension of certain procedural and appeal rights to certain
personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
TITLE I--DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

SEC. 101. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

(a) Definitions.--Paragraph (1) of section 4701(a) of title
5, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph
(A) and by redesignating subparagraphs (B) and (C) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.
(b) Pre-Implementation Procedures.--Subsection (b) of
section 4703 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``(b) Before an agency or the Office may conduct or enter
into any agreement or contract to conduct a demonstration
project, the Office--
``(1) shall develop or approve a plan for such project
which identifies--
``(A) the purposes of the project;
``(B) the methodology;
``(C) the duration; and
``(D) the methodology and criteria for evaluation;
``(2) shall publish the plan in the Federal Register;
``(3) may solicit comments from the public and interested
parties in such manner as the Office considers appropriate;
``(4) shall obtain approval from each agency involved of
the final version of the plan; and
``(5) shall provide notification of the proposed project,
at least 30 days in advance of the date any project proposed
under this section is to take effect--
``(A) to employees who are likely to be affected by the
project; and
``(B) to each House of the Congress.''.
(c) Nonwaivable Provisions.--Section 4703(c) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) any provision of subchapter V of chapter 63 or
subpart G of part III of this title;''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) any provision of chapter 15 or subchapter II or III
of chapter 73 of this title;''.
(d) Limitations.--Subsection (d) of section 4703 of title
5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(d)(1) Each demonstration project shall terminate before
the end of the 5-year period beginning on the date on which
the project takes effect, except that the project may
continue for a maximum of 2 years beyond the date to the
extent necessary to validate the results of the project.
``(2)(A) Not more than 15 active demonstration projects may
be in effect at any time, and of the projects in effect at
any time, not more than 5 may involve 5,000 or more
individuals each.
``(B) Individuals in a control group necessary to validate
the results of a project shall not, for purposes of any
determination under subparagraph (A), be considered to be
involved in such project.''.
(e) Evaluations.--Subsection (h) of section 4703 of title
5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Office may, with respect to a demonstration
project conducted by another agency, require that the
preceding sentence be carried out by such other agency.''.
(f) Provisions for Termination of Project or Making It
Permanent.--Section 4703 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (i) by inserting ``by the Office'' after
``undertaken''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(j)(1) If the Office determines that termination of a
demonstration project (whether under subsection (e) or
otherwise) would result in the inequitable treatment of
employees who participated in the project, the Office shall
take such corrective action as is within its authority. If
the Office determines that legislation is necessary to
correct an inequity, it shall submit an appropriate
legislative proposal to both Houses of Congress.

[[Page H11341]]

``(2) If the Office determines that a demonstration project
should be made permanent, it shall submit an appropriate
legislative proposal to both Houses of Congress.''.
TITLE II--PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 201. INCREASED WEIGHT GIVEN TO PERFORMANCE FOR ORDER-OF-
RETENTION PURPOSES IN A REDUCTION IN FORCE.

(a) In General.--Section 3502 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(4) by striking ``ratings.'' and
inserting ``ratings, in conformance with the requirements of
subsection (g).''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g)(1) The regulations prescribed to carry out subsection
(a)(4) shall be the regulations in effect, as of January 1,
1996, under section 351.504 of title 5 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, except as otherwise provided in this subsection.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) subsections (b)(4) and (e) of such section 351.504
shall be disregarded;
``(B) subsection (d) of such section 351.504 shall be
considered to read as follows:
`` `(d)(1) The additional service credit an employee
receives for performance under this subpart shall be
expressed in additional years of service and shall consist of
the sum of the employee's 3 most recent (actual and/or
assumed) annual performance ratings received during the 4-
year period prior to the date of issuance of reduction-in-
force notices or the 4-year period prior to the agency-
established cutoff date (as appropriate), computed in
accordance with paragraph (2) or (3) (as appropriate).
`` `(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), an employee
shall receive--
`` `(A) 5 additional years of service for each performance
rating of fully successful (Level 3) or equivalent;
`` `(B) 7 additional years of service for each performance
rating of exceeds fully successful (Level 4) or equivalent;
and
`` `(C) 10 additional years of service for each performance
rating of outstanding (Level 5) or equivalent.
`` `(3)(A) If the employing agency uses a rating system
having only 1 rating to denote performance which is fully
successful or better, then an employee under such system
shall receive 5 additional years of service for each such
rating.
`` `(B) If the employing agency uses a rating system having
only 2 ratings to denote performance which is fully
successful or better, then an employee under such system
shall receive--
`` `(i) 5 additional years of service for each performance
rating at the lower of those 2 ratings; and
`` `(ii) 7 additional years of service for each performance
rating at the higher of those 2 ratings.
`` `(C) If the employing agency uses a rating system having
more than 3 ratings to denote performance which is fully
successful or better, then an employee under such system
shall receive--
`` `(i) 5 additional years of service for each performance
rating at the lowest of those ratings;
`` `(ii) 7 additional years of service for each performance
rating at the next rating above the rating referred to in
clause (i); and
`` `(iii) 10 additional years of service for each
performance rating above the rating referred to in clause
(ii).
`` `(D) For purposes of this paragraph, a rating shall not
be considered to denote performance which is fully successful
or better unless, in order to receive such rating, such
performance must satisfy all requirements for a fully
successful rating (Level 3) or equivalent, as established
under part 430 of this chapter (as in effect as of January 1,
1996).'; and
``(C) subsection (c) of such section shall be considered to
read as follows:
`` `(c)(1) Service credit for employees who do not have 3
actual annual performance ratings of record received during
the 4-year period prior to the date of issuance of reduction-
in-force notices, or the 4-year period prior to the agency-
established cutoff date for ratings permitted in subsection
(b)(2) of this section, shall be determined in accordance
with paragraph (2).
`` `(2) An employee who has not received 1 or more of the 3
annual performance ratings of record required under this
section shall--
`` `(A) receive credit for performance on the basis of the
rating or ratings actually received (if any); and
`` `(B) for each performance rating not actually received,
be given credit for 5 additional years of service.'.''.
(b)(1) Under regulations which shall be prescribed by the
Office of Personnel Management, for purposes of determining
the order of retention of employees in a reduction in force,
if an agency has more than 1 performance evaluation system--
(A) employees of such agency who are covered by different
evaluation systems shall be placed in separate competitive
areas; and
(B) such agency shall establish more than 1 competitive
level for such employees if--
(i) employees in a competitive area have received ratings
under 1 or more evaluation systems different from a
significant number of other competing employees within the
same competitive area during any part of the applicable 4-
year period described in the provisions of section
351.504(d)(1) of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(as deemed to be amended by section 3502(g)(2)(B) of title 5,
United States Code, as amended by this section); and
(ii) the employees referred to in clause (i) would
otherwise be placed in the same competitive level.
(2) The regulations shall require agencies to establish the
competitive levels under paragraph (1)(B) in accordance with
the following criteria:
(A) To the extent feasible, the agency shall avoid the use
of single-position competitive levels.
(B) All employees who have received ratings of record under
the same performance evaluation system for at least 3 of the
4 years described in the provisions referred to in paragraph
(1)(B)(i) shall be placed in the same competitive level.
(C) Separate competitive levels shall be established for
those employees who--
(i) have received ratings of record under the same
performance evaluation system for 2 of the 4 years described
in the provisions referred to in paragraph (1)(B)(i); or
(ii) have received ratings of record under the same
performance evaluation system for 1 of the 4 years described
in the provisions referred to in paragraph (1)(B)(i).
(3) No employee shall be placed or continued under a
performance evaluation system having only 1 rating to denote
performance which is fully successful (Level 3) or better
without such employee's written consent.
(c) Report.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall
submit to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report analyzing and
assessing the following:
(1) Based on performance-ratings statistics in the
executive branch of the Government over the past 15 years,
the correlation (if any) between employees' ratings of record
and the following:
(A) Promotions.
(B) Awards.
(C) Bonuses.
(D) Quit rates.
(E) Removals.
(F) Disciplinary actions (other than removals).
(G) The filing of grievances, complaints, and charges of
unfair labor practices.
(H) Appeals of adverse actions.
(2) The impact of performance ratings on retention during
reductions in force over the past 5 years.
(3) Whether ``pass/fail'' performance systems are
compatible with the statutory requirement that efficiency or
performance ratings be given due effect during reductions in
force.
(4) The respective numbers of Federal agencies,
organizational units, and Federal employees that are covered
by the different performance evaluation systems.
(5) The potential impact of this section on employees in
different performance evaluation systems.
(6) Whether there are significant differences in the
distribution of ratings among or within agencies and, if so,
the reasons therefor.

Based on the findings of the General Accounting Office, the
report shall include recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of Federal performance evaluation systems.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to reductions in force taking effect
on or after October 1, 1999.

SEC. 202. NO APPEAL OF DENIAL OF PERIODIC STEP-INCREASES.

(a) In General.--Section 5335(c) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the second sentence;
(2) in the third sentence by striking ``or appeal''; and
(3) in the last sentence by striking ``and the entitlement
of the employee to appeal to the Board do not apply'' and
inserting ``does not apply''.
(b) Performance Ratings.--Section 5335 of title 5, United
States Code, as amended by subsection (a), is further
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(B) by striking ``work of the employee
is of an acceptable level of competence'' and inserting
``performance of the employee is at least fully successful'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in the first sentence by striking ``work of an employee
is not of an acceptable level of competence,'' and inserting
``performance of an employee is not at least fully
successful,''; and
(B) in the last sentence by striking ``acceptable level of
competence'' and inserting ``fully successful work
performance''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(g) For purposes of this section, the term `fully
successful' denotes work performance that satisfies the
requirements of section 351.504(d)(3)(D) of title 5 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (as deemed to be amended by
section 3502(g)(2)(B)).''.

SEC. 203. PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS.

(a) In General.--Section 4302 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6)
and inserting the following:
``(5) assisting employees in improving unacceptable
performance, except in circumstances described in subsection
(c); and
``(6) reassigning, reducing in grade, removing, or taking
other appropriate action against employees whose performance
is unacceptable.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Upon notification of unacceptable performance, an
employee shall be afforded an

[[Page H11342]]

opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance before a
reduction in grade or removal may be proposed under section
4303 based on such performance, except that an employee so
afforded such an opportunity shall not be afforded any
further opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance if
the employee's performance again is determined to be at an
unacceptable level.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), this section and
the amendments made by this section shall take effect 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Exception.--The amendments made by this section shall
not apply in the case of any proposed action as to which the
employee receives advance written notice, in accordance with
section 4303(b)(1)(A) of title 5, United States Code, before
the effective date of this section.

SEC. 204. AMENDMENTS TO INCENTIVE AWARDS AUTHORITY.

Chapter 45 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by amending section 4501 to read as follows:

``Sec. 4501. Definitions

``For the purpose of this subchapter--
``(1) the term `agency' means--
``(A) an Executive agency;
``(B) the Library of Congress;
``(C) the Office of the Architect of the Capitol;
``(D) the Botanic Garden;
``(E) the Government Printing Office; and
``(F) the United States Sentencing Commission;

but does not include--
``(i) the Tennessee Valley Authority; or
``(ii) the Central Bank for Cooperatives;
``(2) the term `employee' means an employee as defined by
section 2105; and
``(3) the term `Government' means the Government of the
United States.'';
(2) by amending section 4503 to read as follows:

``Sec. 4503. Agency awards

``(a) The head of an agency may pay a cash award to, and
incur necessary expense for the honorary recognition of, an
employee who--
``(1) by his suggestion, invention, superior
accomplishment, or other personal effort, contributes to the
efficiency, economy, or other improvement of Government
operations or achieves a significant reduction in paperwork;
or
``(2) performs a special act or service in the public
interest in connection with or related to his official
employment.
``(b)(1) If the criteria under paragraph (1) or (2) of
subsection (a) are met on the basis of the suggestion,
invention, superior accomplishment, act, service, or other
meritorious effort of a group of employees collectively, and
if the circumstances so warrant (such as by reason of the
infeasibility of determining the relative role or
contribution assignable to each employee separately),
authority under subsection (a) may be exercised--
``(A) based on the collective efforts of the group; and
``(B) with respect to each member of such group.
``(2) The amount awarded to each member of a group under
this subsection--
``(A) shall be the same for all members of such group,
except that such amount may be prorated to reflect
differences in the period of time during which an individual
was a member of the group; and
``(B) may not exceed the maximum cash award allowable under
subsection (a) or (b) of section 4502, as applicable.''; and
(3) in subsection (a)(1) of section 4505a by striking ``at
the fully successful level or higher'' and inserting ``higher
than the fully successful level''.

SEC. 205. DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF MANAGERS UNDER NEGOTIATED
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 7121(b) of title
5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(2) The provisions of a negotiated grievance procedure
providing for binding arbitration in accordance with
paragraph (1)(C)(iii) shall, if or to the extent that an
alleged prohibited personnel practice is involved, allow the
arbitrator to order a stay of any personnel action in a
manner similar to the manner described in section 1221(c)
with respect to the Merit Systems Protection Board.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)--
(1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act; and
(2) shall apply with respect to orders issued on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act, notwithstanding the
provisions of any collective bargaining agreement.

SEC. 206. COLLECTION AND REPORTING OF TRAINING INFORMATION.

(a) Training Within Government.--The Office of Personnel
Management shall collect information concerning training
programs, plans, and methods utilized by agencies of the
Government and submit a report to the Congress on this
activity on an annual basis.
(b) Training Outside of Government.--The Office of
Personnel Management, to the extent it considers appropriate
in the public interest, may collect information concerning
training programs, plans, and methods utilized outside the
Government. The Office, on request, may make such information
available to an agency and to Congress.
TITLE III--ENHANCEMENT OF THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN AND CERTAIN OTHER
BENEFITS

SEC. 301. LOANS UNDER THE THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN FOR FURLOUGHED
EMPLOYEES.

Section 8433(g) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(6) An employee who has been furloughed due to a lapse in
appropriations may not be denied a loan under this subsection
solely because such employee is not in a pay status.''.

SEC. 302. DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS.

(a) In General.--Section 8705 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a) by striking ``(a) The'' and inserting
``(a) Except as provided in subsection (e), the''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e)(1) Any amount which would otherwise be paid to a
person determined under the order of precedence named by
subsection (a) shall be paid (in whole or in part) by the
Office to another person if and to the extent expressly
provided for in the terms of any court decree of divorce,
annulment, or legal separation, or the terms of any court
order or court-approved property settlement agreement
incident to any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal
separation.
``(2) For purposes of this subsection, a decree, order, or
agreement referred to in paragraph (1) shall not be effective
unless it is received, before the date of the covered
employee's death, by the employing agency or, if the employee
has separated from service, by the Office.
``(3) A designation under this subsection with respect to
any person may not be changed except--
``(A) with the written consent of such person, if received
as described in paragraph (2); or
``(B) by modification of the decree, order, or agreement,
as the case may be, if received as described in paragraph
(2).
``(4) The Office shall prescribe any regulations necessary
to carry out this subsection, including regulations for the
application of this subsection in the event that 2 or more
decrees, orders, or agreements, are received with respect to
the same amount.''.
(b) Directed Assignment.--Section 8706(e) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``(e)'' and inserting ``(e)(1)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) A court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal
separation, or the terms of a court-approved property
settlement agreement incidental to any court decree of
divorce, annulment, or legal separation, may direct that an
insured employee or former employee make an irrevocable
assignment of the employee's or former employee's incidents
of ownership in insurance under this chapter (if there is no
previous assignment) to the person specified in the court
order or court-approved property settlement agreement.''.

SEC. 303. UNREDUCED ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL LIFE INSURANCE.

(a) In General.--Section 8714b of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking the last 2 sentences of paragraph (2); and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) The amount of additional optional insurance continued
under paragraph (2) shall be continued, with or without
reduction, in accordance with the employee's written election
at the time eligibility to continue insurance during
retirement or receipt of compensation arises, as follows:
``(A) The employee may elect to have withholdings cease in
accordance with subsection (d), in which case--
``(i) the amount of additional optional insurance continued
under paragraph (2) shall be reduced each month by 2 percent
effective at the beginning of the second calendar month after
the date the employee becomes 65 years of age and is retired
or is in receipt of compensation; and
``(ii) the reduction under clause (i) shall continue for 50
months at which time the insurance shall stop.
``(B) The employee may, instead of the option under
subparagraph (A), elect to have the full cost of additional
optional insurance continue to be withheld from such
employee's annuity or compensation on and after the date such
withholdings would otherwise cease pursuant to an election
under subparagraph (A), in which case the amount of
additional optional insurance continued under paragraph (2)
shall not be reduced, subject to paragraph (4).
``(C) An employee who does not make any election under the
preceding provisions of this paragraph shall be treated as if
such employee had made an election under subparagraph (A).
``(4) If an employee makes an election under paragraph
(3)(B), that individual may subsequently cancel such
election, in which case additional optional insurance shall
be determined as if the individual had originally made an
election under paragraph (3)(A).''; and
(2) in the second sentence of subsection (d)(1) by
inserting ``if insurance is continued as provided in
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3),'' after ``except that,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the 120th day after the date of the
enactment of this Act and shall apply to employees who become
eligible, on or after such 120th day, to continue additional
optional insurance during retirement or receipt of
compensation.

[[Page H11343]]

TITLE IV--REORGANIZATION FLEXIBILITY

SEC. 401. VOLUNTARY REDUCTIONS IN FORCE.

Section 3502(f) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
to read as follows:
``(f)(1) The head of an Executive agency or military
department may, in accordance with regulations prescribed by
the Office of Personnel Management--
``(A) separate from service any employee who volunteers to
be separated under this subparagraph even though the employee
is not otherwise subject to separation due to a reduction in
force; and
``(B) for each employee voluntarily separated under
subparagraph (A), retain an employee in a similar position
who would otherwise be separated due to a reduction in force.
``(2) The separation of an employee under paragraph (1)(A)
shall be treated as an involuntary separation due to a
reduction in force, except for purposes of priority placement
programs and advance notice.
``(3) An employee with critical knowledge and skills (as
defined by the head of the Executive agency or military
department concerned) may not participate in a voluntary
separation under paragraph (1)(A) if the agency or department
head concerned determines that such participation would
impair the performance of the mission of the agency or
department (as applicable).
``(4) The regulations prescribed under this section shall
incorporate the authority provided in this subsection.
``(5) No authority under paragraph (1) may be exercised
after September 30, 2001.''.

SEC. 402. NONREIMBURSABLE DETAILS TO FEDERAL AGENCIES BEFORE
A REDUCTION IN FORCE.

(a) In General.--Section 3341 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 3341. Details; within Executive agencies and military
departments; employees affected by reduction in force

``(a) The head of an Executive agency or military
department may detail employees, except those required by law
to be engaged exclusively in some specific work, among the
bureaus and offices of the agency or department.
``(b) The head of an Executive agency or military
department may detail to duties in the same or another agency
or department, on a nonreimbursable basis, an employee who
has been identified by the employing agency as likely to be
separated from the Federal service by reduction in force or
who has received a specific notice of separation by reduction
in force.
``(c)(1) Details under subsection (a)--
``(A) may not be for periods exceeding 120 days; and
``(B) may be renewed (1 or more times) by written order of
the head of the agency or department, in each particular
case, for periods not exceeding 120 days each.
``(2) Details under subsection (b)--
``(A) may not be for periods exceeding 90 days; and
``(B) may not be renewed.
``(d) The 120-day limitation under subsection (c)(1) for
details and renewals of details does not apply to the
Department of Defense in the case of a detail--
``(1) made in connection with the closure or realignment of
a military installation pursuant to a base closure law or an
organizational restructuring of the Department as part of a
reduction in the size of the armed forces or the civilian
workforce of the Department; and
``(2) in which the position to which the employee is
detailed is eliminated on or before the date of the closure,
realignment, or restructuring.
``(e) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `base closure law' means--
``(A) section 2687 of title 10;
``(B) title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act; and
``(C) the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990;
and
``(2) the term `military installation'--
``(A) in the case of an installation covered by section
2687 of title 10, has the meaning given such term in
subsection (e)(1) of such section;
``(B) in the case of an installation covered by the Act
referred to in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), has the
meaning given such term in section 209(6) of such Act; and
``(C) in the case of an installation covered by the Act
referred to in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), has the
meaning given such term in section 2910(4) of such Act.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
33 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking the
item relating to section 3341 and inserting the following:

``3341. Details; within Executive agencies and military departments;
employees affected by reduction in force.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 30 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
TITLE V--SOFT-LANDING PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. TEMPORARY CONTINUATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' LIFE
INSURANCE.

Section 8706 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(g)(1) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this
section, an employee whose coverage under this chapter would
otherwise terminate due to a separation described in
paragraph (3) shall be eligible to continue basic insurance
coverage described in section 8704 in accordance with this
subsection and regulations the Office may prescribe, if the
employee arranges to pay currently into the Employees Life
Insurance Fund, through the former employing agency or, if an
annuitant, through the responsible retirement system, an
amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) both employee and agency contributions which would be
payable if separation had not occurred; plus
``(B) an amount, determined under regulations prescribed by
the Office, to cover necessary administrative expenses, but
not to exceed 2 percent of the total amount under
subparagraph (A).
``(2) Continued coverage under this subsection may not
extend beyond the date which is 18 months after the effective
date of the separation which entitles a former employee to
coverage under this subsection. Termination of continued
coverage under this subsection shall be subject to provision
for temporary extension of life insurance coverage and for
conversion to an individual policy of life insurance as
provided by subsection (a). If an eligible employee does not
make an election for purposes of this subsection, the
employee's insurance will terminate as provided by subsection
(a).
``(3)(A) This subsection shall apply to an employee who, on
or after the date of enactment of this subsection and before
the applicable date under subparagraph (B)--
``(i) is involuntarily separated from a position due to a
reduction in force, or separates voluntarily from a position
the employing agency determines is a `surplus position' as
defined by section 8905(d)(4)(C); and
``(ii) is insured for basic insurance under this chapter on
the date of separation.
``(B) The applicable date under this subparagraph is
October 1, 2001, except that, for purposes of any involuntary
separation referred to in subparagraph (A) with respect to
which appropriate specific notice is afforded to the affected
employee before October 1, 2001, the applicable date under
this subparagraph is February 1, 2002.''.

SEC. 502. CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.

(a) Continued Eligibility After Retirement.--Section 8905
of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of subsection (b) by striking
``An'' and inserting ``Subject to subsection (g), an''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(g)(1) The Office shall waive the requirements for
continued enrollment under subsection (b) in the case of any
individual who, on or after the date of the enactment of this
subsection and before the applicable date under paragraph
(2)--
``(A) is involuntarily separated from a position, or
voluntarily separated from a surplus position, in or under an
Executive agency due to a reduction in force,
``(B) based on the separation referred to in subparagraph
(A), retires on an immediate annuity under subchapter III of
chapter 83 or subchapter II of chapter 84, and
``(C) is enrolled in a health benefits plan under this
chapter as an employee immediately before retirement.
``(2) The applicable date under this paragraph is October
1, 2001, except that, for purposes of any involuntary
separation referred to in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to
which appropriate specific notice is afforded to the affected
employee before October 1, 2001, the applicable date under
this paragraph is February 1, 2002.
``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term `surplus
position', with respect to an agency, means any position
determined in accordance with regulations under section
8905a(d)(4)(C) for such agency.''.
(b) Temporary Continued Eligibility After Being
Involuntarily Separated.--Section 8905a(d)(4) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``the Department of
Defense'' and inserting ``an Executive agency''; and
(2) by amending subparagraph (C) to read as follows:
``(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `surplus
position' means a position that, as determined under
regulations prescribed by the head of the agency involved, is
identified during planning for a reduction in force as being
no longer required and is designated for elimination during
the reduction in force.''.

SEC. 503. JOB PLACEMENT AND COUNSELING SERVICES.

(a) Authority for Services.--The head of each Executive
agency may establish a program to provide job placement and
counseling services to current and former employees.
(b) Types of Services Authorized.--A program established
under this section may include such services as--
(1) career and personal counseling;
(2) training in job search skills; and
(3) job placement assistance, including assistance provided
through cooperative arrangements with State and local
employment service offices.
(c) Eligibility for Services.--Services authorized by this
section may be provided to--
(1) current employees of the agency or, with the approval
of such other agency, any other agency; and
(2) employees of the agency or, with the approval of such
other agency, any other agency who have been separated for
less than 1 year, if the separation was not a removal for
cause on charges of misconduct or delinquency.

[[Page H11344]]

(d) Reimbursement for Costs.--The costs of services
provided to current or former employees of another agency
shall be reimbursed by that agency.

SEC. 504. EDUCATION AND RETRAINING INCENTIVES.

(a) Non-Federal Employment Incentive Payments.--
(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``eligible employee'' means an employee who is
involuntarily separated from a position, or voluntarily
separated from a surplus position, in or under an Executive
agency due to a reduction in force, except that such term
does not include an employee who, at the time of separation,
meets the age and service requirements for an immediate
annuity under subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of
title 5, United States Code, other than under section 8336(d)
or 8414(b) of such title;
(B) the term ``non-Federal employer'' means an employer
other than the Government of the United States or any agency
or other instrumentality thereof;
(C) the term ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given
such term by section 105 of title 5, United States Code; and
(D) the term ``surplus position'' has the meaning given
such term by section 8905(d)(4)(C) of title 5, United States
Code.
(2) Authority.--The head of an Executive agency may pay
retraining and relocation incentive payments, in accordance
with this subsection, in order to facilitate the reemployment
of eligible employees who are separated from such agency.
(3) Retraining incentive payment.--
(A) Agreement.--The head of an Executive agency may enter
into an agreement with a non-Federal employer under which the
non-Federal employer agrees--
(i) to employ an individual referred to in paragraph (2)
for at least 12 months for a salary which is mutually
agreeable to the employer and such individual; and
(ii) to certify to the agency head any costs incurred by
the employer for any necessary training provided to such
individual in connection with the employment by such
employer.
(B) Payment of retraining incentive payment.--The agency
head shall pay a retraining incentive payment to the non-
Federal employer upon the employee's completion of 12 months
of continuous employment by that employer. The agency head
shall prescribe the amount of the incentive payment.
(C) Proration rule.--The agency head shall pay a prorated
amount of the full retraining incentive payment to the non-
Federal employer for an employee who does not remain employed
by the non-Federal employer for at least 12 months, but only
if the employee remains so employed for at least 6 months.
(D) Limitation.--In no event may the amount of the
retraining incentive payment paid for the training of any
individual exceed the amount certified for such individual
under subparagraph (A), subject to subsection (c).
(4) Relocation incentive payment.--The head of an agency
may pay a relocation incentive payment to an eligible
employee if it is necessary for the employee to relocate in
order to commence employment with a non-Federal employer.
Subject to subsection (e), the amount of the incentive
payment shall not exceed the amount that would be payable for
travel, transportation, and subsistence expenses under
subchapter II of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code,
including any reimbursement authorized under section 5724b of
such title, to a Federal employee who transfers between the
same locations as the individual to whom the incentive
payment is payable.
(5) Duration.--No incentive payment may be paid for
training or relocation commencing after June 30, 2002.
(6) Source.--An incentive payment under this subsection
shall be payable from appropriations or other funds available
to the agency for purposes of training (within the meaning of
section 4101(4) of title 5, United States Code).
(b) Educational Assistance.--
(1) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
(A) the term ``eligible employee'' means an eligible
employee, within the meaning of subsection (a), who --
(i) is employed full-time on a permanent basis;
(ii) has completed at least 3 years of current continuous
service in any Executive agency or agencies; and
(iii) is admitted to an institution of higher education
within 1 year after separation;
(B) the term ``Executive agency'' has the meaning given
such term by section 105 of title 5, United States Code;
(C) the term ``educational assistance'' means payments for
educational assistance as provided in section 127(c)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 127(c)(1)); and
(D) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given such term by section 1201(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
(2) Authority.--Under regulations prescribed by the Office
of Personnel Management, and subject to the limitations under
subsection (c), the head of an Executive agency may, in his
or her discretion, provide educational assistance under this
subsection to an eligible employee for a program of education
at an institution of higher education after the separation of
the employee.
(3) Duration.--No educational assistance under this
subsection may be paid later than 10 years after the
separation of the eligible employee.
(4) Source.--Educational assistance payments shall be
payable from appropriations or other funds which would have
been used to pay the salary of the eligible employee if the
employee had not separated.
(5) Regulations.--The Office of Personnel Management shall
prescribe regulations for the administration of this
subsection. Such regulations shall provide that educational
assistance payments shall be limited to amounts necessary for
current tuition and fees only.
(c) Limitations.--
(1) Aggregate limitation.--No incentive payment or
educational assistance payment may be paid under this section
to or on behalf of any individual to the extent that such
amount would cause the aggregate amount otherwise paid or
payable under this section, to or on behalf of such
individual, to exceed $10,000.
(2) Limitation relating to educational assistance.--The
total amount paid under subsection (b) to any individual--
(A) may not exceed $6,000 if the individual has at least 3
but less than 4 years of qualifying service; and
(B) may not exceed $8,000 if the individual has at least 4
but less than 5 years of qualifying service.
(3) Qualifying service.--For purposes of paragraph (2), the
term ``qualifying service'' means service performed as an
employee, within the meaning of section 2105 of title 5,
United States Code, on a permanent full-time or permanent
part-time basis (counting part-time service on a prorated
basis).
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 601. REIMBURSEMENTS RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
INSURANCE.

(a) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
any amounts appropriated, for fiscal year 1997 or any fiscal
year thereafter, for salaries and expenses of Government
employees may be used to reimburse any qualified employee for
not to exceed one-half the costs incurred by such employee
for professional liability insurance. A payment under this
section shall be contingent upon the submission of such
information or documentation as the employing agency may
require.
(b) Qualified Employee.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``qualified employee'' means--
(1) an agency employee whose position is that of a law
enforcement officer;
(2) an agency employee whose position is that of a
supervisor or management official; or
(3) such other employee as the head of the agency considers
appropriate
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``agency'' means an Executive agency, as
defined by section 105 of title 5, United States Code;
(2) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means an employee,
the duties of whose position are primarily the investigation,
apprehension, prosecution, or detention of individuals
suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws
of the United States, including any law enforcement officer
under section 8331(20) or 8401(17) of such title 5;
(3) the terms ``supervisor'' and ``management official''
have the respective meanings given them by section 7103(a) of
such title 5; and
(4) the term ``professional liability insurance'' means
insurance which provides coverage for--
(A) legal liability for damages due to injuries to other
persons, damage to their property, or other damage or loss to
such other persons (including the expenses of litigation and
settlement) resulting from or arising out of any tortious
act, error, or omission of the covered individual (whether
common law, statutory, or constitutional) while in the
performance of such individual's official duties as a
qualified employee; and
(B) the cost of legal representation for the covered
individual in connection with any administrative or judicial
proceeding (including any investigation or disciplinary
proceeding) relating to any act, error, or omission of the
covered individual while in the performance of such
individual's official duties as a qualified employee, and
other legal costs and fees relating to any such
administrative or judicial proceeding.
(d) Policy Limits.--
(1) In general.--Reimbursement under this section shall not
be available except in the case of any professional liability
insurance policy providing for--
(A) not to exceed $1,000,000 of coverage for legal
liability (as described in subsection (c)(4)(A)) per
occurrence per year; and
(B) not to exceed $100,000 of coverage for the cost of
legal representation (as described in subsection (c)(4)(B))
per occurrence per year.
(2) Adjustments.--The head of an agency may from time to
time adjust the respective dollar amount limitations
applicable under this subsection to the extent that the head
of such agency considers appropriate to reflect inflation.

[[Page H11345]]

SEC. 602. EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOLLOWING CONVERSION TO CONTRACT.

(a) In General.--An employee whose position is abolished
because an activity performed by an Executive agency (within
the meaning of section 105 of title 5, United States Code) is
converted to contract shall receive from the contractor an
offer in good faith of a right of first refusal of employment
under the contract for a position for which the employee is
deemed qualified based upon previous knowledge, skills,
abilities, and experience. The contractor shall not offer
employment under the contract to any person prior to having
complied fully with this obligation, except as provided in
subsection (b), or unless no employee whose position is
abolished because such activity has been converted to
contract can demonstrate appropriate qualifications for the
position.
(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding the contractor's obligation
under subsection (a), the contractor is not required to offer
a right of first refusal to any employee who, in the 12
months preceding conversion to contract, has been the subject
of an adverse personnel action related to misconduct or has
received a less than fully successful performance rating.
(c) Limitation.--No employee shall have a right to more
than 1 offer under this section based on any particular
separation due to the conversion of an activity to contract.
(d) Regulations.--Regulations to carry out this section may
be prescribed by the President.

SEC. 603. DEBARMENT OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS FOUND TO HAVE
ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT PRACTICES.

(a) In General.--Section 8902a of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A) by striking ``subsection (b) or
(c)'' and inserting ``subsection (b), (c), or (d)'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall'' in the
matter before paragraph (1); and
(B) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
``(5) Any provider that is currently suspended or excluded
from participation under any program of the Federal
Government involving procurement or nonprocurement
activities.'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (c) through (i) as
subsections (d) through (j), respectively, and by inserting
after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) The Office may bar the following providers of health
care services from participating in the program under this
chapter:
``(1) Any provider--
``(A) whose license to provide health care services or
supplies has been revoked, suspended, restricted, or not
renewed, by a State licensing authority for reasons relating
to the provider's professional competence, professional
performance, or financial integrity; or
``(B) that surrendered such a license while a formal
disciplinary proceeding was pending before such an authority,
if the proceeding concerned the provider's professional
competence, professional performance, or financial integrity.
``(2) Any provider that is an entity directly or indirectly
owned, or with a 5 percent or more controlling interest, by
an individual who is convicted of any offense described in
subsection (b), against whom a civil monetary penalty has
been assessed under subsection (d), or who has been excluded
from participation under this chapter.
``(3) Any provider that the Office determines, in
connection with claims presented under this chapter, has
charged for health care services or supplies in an amount
substantially in excess of such provider's customary charges
for such services or supplies (unless the Office finds there
is good cause for such charge), or charged for health care
services or supplies which are substantially in excess of the
needs of the covered individual or which are of a quality
that fails to meet professionally recognized standards for
such services or supplies.
``(4) Any provider that the Office determines has committed
acts described in subsection (d).'';
(4) in subsection (d), as so redesignated by paragraph (3),
by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) in connection with claims presented under this
chapter, that a provider has charged for a health care
service or supply which the provider knows or should have
known involves--
``(A) an item or service not provided as claimed;
``(B) charges in violation of applicable charge limitations
under section 8904(b); or
``(C) an item or service furnished during a period in which
the provider was excluded from participation under this
chapter pursuant to a determination by the Office under this
section, other than as permitted under subsection
(g)(2)(B);'';
(5) in subsection (f), as so redesignated by paragraph (3),
by inserting ``(where such debarment is not mandatory)''
after ``under this section'' the first place it appears;
(6) in subsection (g), as so redesignated by paragraph
(3)--
(A) by striking ``(g)(1)'' and all that follows through the
end of paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(g)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
debarment of a provider under subsection (b) or (c) shall be
effective at such time and upon such reasonable notice to
such provider, and to carriers and covered individuals, as
shall be specified in regulations prescribed by the Office.
Any such provider that is excluded from participation may
request a hearing in accordance with subsection (h)(1).
``(B) Unless the Office determines that the health or
safety of individuals receiving health care services warrants
an earlier effective date, the Office shall not make a
determination adverse to a provider under subsection (c)(4)
or (d) until such provider has been given reasonable notice
and an opportunity for the determination to be made after a
hearing as provided in accordance with subsection (h)(1).'';
(B) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by inserting ``of debarment'' after ``notice''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following: ``In the case of a
debarment under paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (b),
the minimum period of exclusion shall not be less than 3
years, except as provided in paragraph (4)(B)(ii).''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)(B)(i)(I) by striking ``subsection (b)
or (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (b), (c), or (d)'';
(7) in subsection (h), as so redesignated by paragraph (3),
by striking ``(h)(1)'' and all that follows through the end
of paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(h)(1) Any provider of health care services or supplies
that is the subject of an adverse determination by the Office
under this section shall be entitled to reasonable notice and
an opportunity to request a hearing of record, and to
judicial review as provided in this subsection after the
Office renders a final decision. The Office shall grant a
request for a hearing upon a showing that due process rights
have not previously been afforded with respect to any finding
of fact which is relied upon as a cause for an adverse
determination under this section. Such hearing shall be
conducted without regard to subchapter II of chapter 5 and
chapter 7 of this title by a hearing officer who shall be
designated by the Director of the Office and who shall not
otherwise have been involved in the adverse determination
being appealed. A request for a hearing under this subsection
must be filed within such period and in accordance with such
procedures as the Office shall prescribe by regulation.
``(2) Any provider adversely affected by a final decision
under paragraph (1) made after a hearing to which such
provider was a party may seek review of such decision in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia or
for the district in which the plaintiff resides or has his
principal place of business by filing a notice of appeal in
such court within 60 days from the date the decision is
issued and simultaneously sending copies of such notice by
certified mail to the Director of the Office and to the
Attorney General. In answer to the appeal, the Director of
the Office shall promptly file in such court a certified copy
of the transcript of the record, if the Office conducted a
hearing, and other evidence upon which the findings and
decision complained of are based. The court shall have power
to enter, upon the pleadings and evidence of record, a
judgment affirming, modifying, or setting aside, in whole or
in part, the decision of the Office, with or without
remanding the cause for a rehearing. The district court shall
not set aside or remand the decision of the Office unless
there is not substantial evidence on the record, taken as a
whole, to support the findings by the Office of a cause for
action under this section or unless action taken by the
Office constitutes an abuse of discretion.''; and
(8) in subsection (i), as so redesignated by paragraph
(3)--
(A) by striking ``subsection (c)'' and inserting
``subsection (d)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The amount of a
penalty or assessment as finally determined by the Office, or
other amount the Office may agree to in compromise, may be
deducted from any sum then or later owing by the United
States to the party against whom the penalty or assessment
has been levied.''.
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this
section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(2) Exceptions.--(A) Paragraphs (2) and (4) of section
8902a(c) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by
subsection (a), shall apply only to the extent that the
misconduct which is the basis for debarment thereunder occurs
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) Section 8902a(d)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code,
as amended by subsection (a), shall apply only with respect
to charges which violate section 8904(b) of such title 5 for
items and services furnished after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(C) Section 8902a(g)(3) of title 5, United States Code, as
amended by subsection (a), shall apply only with respect to
debarments based on convictions occurring after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 604. CONSISTENT COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS ENROLLED IN A
HEALTH PLAN ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL BANKING
AGENCIES.

Section 5 of the FEGLI Living Benefits Act (Public Law 103-
409; 108 Stat. 4232) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``and the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System'' after ``Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision'' each
place it appears;

[[Page H11346]]

(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``or under a health
benefits plan not governed by chapter 89 of such title in
which employees and retirees of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System participated before January 4, 1997,''
after ``January 7, 1995,'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by inserting ``(in the case of the Comptroller of the
Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision) or on January
4, 1997 (in the case of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System)'' after ``on January 7, 1995'' each place it
appears;
(B) by inserting ``, or in which employees and retirees of
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
participate,'' after ``Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency or the Office of Thrift Supervision'' each place it
appears; and
(C) by inserting ``(in the case of the Comptroller of the
Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision) or after
January 5, 1997 (in the case of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System)'' after ``January 8, 1995'' each
place it appears;
(4) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by striking ``title;'' and
inserting ``title or a retiree (as defined in subsection
(e);''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`retiree' shall mean an individual who is receiving benefits
under the Retirement Plan for Employees of the Federal
Reserve System.''.

SEC. 605. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC LAW 104-134.

Paragraph (3) of section 3110(b) of the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-343) is amended to read
as follows:
``(3) The Corporation shall pay to the Thrift Savings Fund
such employee and agency contributions as are required by
sections 8432 and 8351 of title 5, United States Code, for
those employees who elect to retain their coverage under the
Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees'
Retirement System pursuant to paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 606. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE HEALTH
BENEFITS PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

(a) Definition of a Carrier.--Paragraph (7) of section 8901
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
``organization;'' and inserting ``organization and the
Government-wide service benefit plan sponsored by an
association of organizations described in this paragraph;''.
(b) Service Benefit Plan.--Paragraph (1) of section 8903 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``plan,''
and inserting ``plan, underwritten by participating
affiliates licensed in any number of States,''.
(c) Preemption.--Section 8902(m) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``(m)(1)'' and all that follows
through the end of paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(m)(1) The terms of any contract under this chapter which
relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or
benefits (including payments with respect to benefits) shall
supersede and preempt any State or local law, or any
regulation issued thereunder, which relates to health
insurance or plans.''.

SEC. 607. PAY FOR CERTAIN POSITIONS FORMERLY CLASSIFIED AT
GS-18.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the rate of
basic pay for positions that were classified at GS-18 of the
General Schedule on the date of the enactment of the Federal
Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 shall be set and
maintained at the rate equal to the highest rate of basic pay
for the Senior Executive Service under section 5382(b) of
title 5, United States Code.

SEC. 608. REPEAL OF SECTION 1307 OF TITLE 5 OF THE UNITED
STATES CODE.

(a) In General.--Section 1307 of title 5, United States
Code, is repealed.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
13 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by repealing
the item relating to section 1307.

SEC. 609. EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PROCEDURAL AND APPEAL RIGHTS
TO CERTAIN PERSONNEL OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION.

(a) In General.--Section 7511(b)(8) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``the Federal Bureau of
Investigation,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to any personnel action taking
effect after the end of the 45-day period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Mica] and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins]
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the Congress the Omnibus
Civil Service Reform Act of 1996. This is significant legislation for
our Federal employees and the taxpayers they serve. It is my hope that
it will improve the performance and accountability of Federal
employees, rewarding those who work hard and obey the rules. This bill
will soften the impact of Government downsizing on dedicated Federal
employees. And it will address a wide variety of other problems. For
example, it will give the Office of Personnel Management the tools it
needs to deal swiftly with anyone who tries to defraud the Federal
Health Benefits Program.
This bill is the product of hard work by Members from both sides of
the aisle. I want to thank the distinguished gentlelady from Maryland
of [Mrs. Morella]. She has been an active and effective champion of
Federal employees, and she has made invaluable contributions to this
legislation. Both Frank Wolf and Tom Davis, distinguished
Representatives from Virginia, have also made significant contributions
to this bill. Thanks are also due to another Virginian, Jim Moran, the
distinguished ranking member of the Civil Service Subcommittee. His
leadership, diligence, and willingness to work with Members of both
parties are very much appreciated.

performance management

No part of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is more important to taxpayers and
to the many dedicated Federal employees than title two. This title
sends the right message--loud and clear--to Federal employees and
taxpayers alike: Good performance will be rewarded. Performance
management in the Federal Government is strengthened. Federal managers
are given important tools so they can correct problems when they occur.
More important, this bill rewards employees for their good work.
Under this bill, managers need not place poor performers repeatedly
on Performance Improvement Plans. Agencies should not have to waste
precious resources dealing with chronic poor performers.
But the cornerstone of this title is section 201. This section
increases the weight given to performance on the job during a reduction
in force. Although seniority would remain an important factor in
determining who remains after a reduction in force, outstanding
performance will now be properly considered and credited. This is
especially important for employees with less than 15 years of service.
As we downsize the Federal workforce and restructure agencies, we must
assure taxpayers that the Government will retain its most productive
employees. We must also reward and recognize those productive
employees.

reorganization flexibility and soft landings

This bill also contains provisions that give Federal agencies
additional flexibility in restructuring and soften the impact of
downsizing on individual employees. Under this bill, agencies can allow
individuals to volunteer to be separated in reductions in force. It
also allows agencies to make 90-day nonreimbursable details of
individuals targeted for RIF to other agencies. In effect, this given
the employee a 90-day tryout with a new agency.
Other provisions provide a safety net to separated employees by
providing continuity of health and life insurance. Agencies are also
authorized to establish job placement and counseling services. The bill
authorizes relocation and retraining assistance to separated employees
who take jobs in the private sector and educational assistance to help
them develop new skills. Finally, this bill guarantees Federal
employees whose jobs are contracted the right of first refusal for
those jobs with the contractor.

other provisions

Numerous provisions provide the Administration with tools to deal
with existing problems in the civil service system. Title I
significantly expands demonstration authority to experiment with new
ways of managing personnel. This was high on the Administration's list
of priorities for civil service reform. The bill also gives the
Administration authority to debar health care providers found to have
engaged in fraudulent practices. This is an important tool for the
Office of Personnel Management to use in the fight against fraud and
abuse in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran] to control the time.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] for his
kind words and for bringing up this bill.

[[Page H11347]]

{time} 1730

Mr. Speaker, this is a shadow of its former self. We had a number of
provisions in this that I think would have gone a long ways towards
reforming some of the parts of the civil service system that really
need to be addressed; for example, the appeals process. Right now
people with mixed appeals can decide they want to appeal a grievance to
the Merit System Protection Board or the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission or the National Federal Labor Relations Board. They have got
any number of choices, and if they really want to obstruct the process
of appealing and make it very difficult for a manager to discipline an
employee, that employee has any number of ways to punish the manager
for even attempting to do so.
So what we wanted to do was to tell the employee, pick one appeals
process. Speed up the process. We do not have enough time, with all the
responsibilities of the Federal Government, to get bogged down in
simply these structural appeals processes that have much more to do
with process than with progress.
Another thing that we wanted to do was to give more discretion to
managers and to employees. One of the things that seemed to make a
compelling amount of common sense was to require that when there was an
employee grievance they ought to engage in the alternative dispute
resolution process, sit down, see if the manager and the employee first
cannot work it out, until you get into this very legalistic structure.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, supported
that very strongly from her experience with the EEOC. We did not get
anyplace on it. Those are the kinds of things that really should have
been included.

Now there are some very important provisions that are still included,
provisions that will help employees that may be adversely effected
through Federal downsizing. For example, if an employee is RIF'd, the
Federal Government would pay 100 percent of their health insurance
premium for 18 months. Currently, although the Federal employee can
keep their health insurance, they have to pay all of it. Excuse me, the
employer would continue to pay the employer's share, which is 72
percent. Life insurance we would extend for another 18 months, until
the person gets a job.
These are called soft landing provisions.
There is a provision I put in where an agency can provide money for
education and training for an employee being RIF'd. That seemed to make
a lot of sense. We have a provision that gives preference for people
within the same Federal agency to find other jobs if they are being
RIF'd, again a common sense measure. Those measures need to be passed
now.
Unfortunately, we have a provision in, and I can understand why it is
in because I support the concept, which may be a killer provision. The
Senate says they will not accept it because it is controversial. As a
result, if it is included, this bill is not going to go anywhere this
session.
What that provision does is to give added weight to performance. If
an employee gets an outstanding performance rating instead of a
satisfactory or a fully satisfactory, it may sound semantic, but they
are quite different in terms of the points that they would get. An
outstanding rating in 1 year gives you 10 points. If it is only
satisfactory, you only get 5 points. That would be added to 1 point for
every year of service.
Now for people that got outstanding ratings in the 3 years prior to
being RIF'd, they could get as much as 30 points added onto their
length of service. Somebody that did not get even a satisfactory rating
but that had 30 years of service themselves, they would be equally
treated.
Now many people say that leaves too much subjective judgment to the
manager, to the person running the program, to the person making that
evaluation, and so it is a very controversial measure. It is something
we could have worked out perhaps in conference with the Senate, we
could have worked out if we had more time. We do not have any more time
left in this session to work that type of controversial provision out.
I understand why it is in, but I am afraid by keeping it in this bill,
despite all our hard work and despite the very important provisions
that provide soft landing for Federal employees, they are not gong to
be enacted this year because of that provision.
I think the debate we are going to hear is going to largely center on
that one provision. It would probably not give the amount of attention
that ought to be given to the other provisions, solely because the
other provision are really not all that controversial.
After working on this for almost 2 years, it saddens me to realize
that this may very well not become law, but if that is the case, we
will know why, and we will just have to let the chips fall where they
may. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica]
has gotten this bill to the floor, I appreciate the work he has put
into it, and I also appreciate the leadership that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] has given, and the ranking Democrat member
of the full committee, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the distinguished chairman of our full
committee.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3841, the
Omnibus Civil Service Reform Act. This is a significant piece of
legislation for our Federal employees and the people they serve. Laws
governing the Federal civil service have not had a major revision since
the civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Throughout the 104th Congress,
the Civil Service Subcommittee has conducted nearly 20 oversight
hearings on Federal human resource management policies. This piece of
legislation is a praiseworthy culmination of that work.
Due to the reductions in personnel, agencies need additional tools
for improving employee performance. Section 201 of the bill goes a long
way toward ensuring that the Federal Government continues to
efficiently serve the American public as the Government downsizes.
Mr. Speaker, section 201 puts increased emphasis upon performance in
determining who is retained during a reduction in force, or RIF. As
agencies downsize, Federal managers no longer will be forced to retain
those who have been on the job the longest and release employees who
consistently outperform senior employees. Performance must be rewarded.
Instead of retaining only those who have been on the job a long time,
we recognize those employees who have done the most with the time they
have been on the job.
Under this section, employees will be credited with additional years
of service based on the sum of their three most recent performance
ratings preceding the RIF. Employees will earn 5 years of additional
service for each rating of fully successful, 7 years for each rating of
exceeds fully successful performance, or 10 years for each rating of
outstanding.
This section, Mr. Speaker, also establishes rules for crediting years
of service when an agency uses a pass/fail appraisal system. Pass/fail
systems are unfair to employees because they do not allow for
recognition of the extra effort put in by many Federal employees.
Nevertheless, this administration has been aggressively promoting this
unfair performance review system. Section 201, therefore, establishes
rules to separate competition among employees in different performance
systems. These rules assume that employees are treated equitably when
their agency has more than one performance evaluation system and that
employees in the same competitive area are not adversely affected as a
result of having been covered by different performance systems.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the performance rules established in this
section will be applied to RIF's taking effect on or after October 1,
1999. The bill purposefully delays implementation of the stronger
performance requirements in order to allow agencies to strengthen their
internal management systems. This will help ensure fairness across
agencies in the executive branch.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge my colleagues to
support this bill. It is a good bill. It will promote effectiveness and
efficiency in the

[[Page H11348]]

Federal Government by recognizing and regarding the people on whom we
rely to enforce the laws we pass. Again I commend the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Mica], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], and my
colleague and ranking member, the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs.
Collins], for the work and the willingness to allow this legislation to
be considered today.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois [Mrs. Collins] the ranking minority member of the full
committee.
(Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable regret
that I rise in opposition to H.R. 3841, the Omnibus Civil Service
Reform Act. I know well the amount of time and effort that the
subcommittee's ranking member, Jim Moran, and its chairman, John Mica,
have put into the measure during the 104th Congress; however, the bill
they have crafted is flawed in one important and fatal respect: It
contains section 201 which would replace a flexible regulatory system
with a new statutory formula for determining the order in which
employees are to be separated during a reduction-in-force [RIF].
The new formula would devalue the use of seniority and replace it
with highly subjective ratings. Because the majority is unwilling to
purge or at least modify the provision which many on our side find
objectionable, what would otherwise by a very desirable and bipartisan
bill may actually fail.
During full committee consideration of this legislation, section 201
of the bill became the target of an amendment that was going to be
offered by my colleague from Florida, Congresswoman Carrie Meek, who
opposed it because she believed as I do, that the current regulatory
framework provided a ore appropriate and flexible means to manage a
RIF.
After considerable debate and negotiation, an agreement was reached
which led her to suspend her opposition to the provision, thereby
enabling the bill to be approved by the committee by a voice vote. What
was supposed to follow the markup was a serious effort on the part of
the majority staff to work with minority and affected groups to further
refine the language of section 201 so that it would better meet
Congresswoman Meek's concerns. Unfortunately, these efforts failed. The
language which the majority staff put forward proved to be even more
rigid and cumbersome.
Congresswoman Meek and I are not alone in voicing opposition to
section 201 of this bill. During the subcommittee's hearing on the
measure which occurred prior to the mark-ups, the Office of Personnel
Management, the three major Federal employee unions, as well as the
three of the associations representing Federal managers and executives
all testified in opposition to this provision. They strenuously argued
that a regulatory rather than a statutory approach to crediting
performance in connection with a RIF would make it more possible for
agencies to address inequities and disparities which might result.
Their thoughtful observations and those of others have gone unheeded by
the bill's managers. I ask my colleagues not to ignore them today.
The hearing testimony and the subsequent research conducted by
Congresswoman Meek and my own staff has identified three basic problems
that would be made worse by the implementation of section 201:
First, performance appraisals are routinely challenged as being
subjective and unfair, overinflated, and biased against minorities.
Just a few years ago, when the Performance Management and Recognition
System for mid-level managers was in place, which tied cash awards to
performance ratings, those employees subject to it asked the Congress
to let it sunset because of complaints it was corrupted by favoritism.
As the result, the trend in Government has been to move away from the
highly subjective multilevel rating systems and toward the use of more
simplistic pass/fail rating systems. Section 201 was specifically
designed by the subcommittee's chairman and his staff to discourage the
growing use of pass/fail appraisal systems.
Second, it is not unusual for divisions, bureaus, or units within the
same agency to utilize different types of performance appraisal
systems. Under existing regulations, agencies have been free to have
five, four, three, or two-level rating systems. Merging employees from
different rating systems into the same competitive area for the purpose
of conducting an agencywide RIF could result in inequities under
section 201's formula because of the way in which it more favorably
credits employees from multilevel rating systems.
Third, a report issued just last month by the Merit Systems
Protection Board [MSPB], entitled ``Fair & Equitable Treatment: A
Progress Report on Minority Employment in the Federal Government,''
indicates that minorities are better represented within the Federal
workforce than they are within the private sector. Data obtained by
Congresswoman Meek from the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] on the
length of service of African-Americans and other minority groups within
the Federal workforce reveals that African-Americans have an above
average length of service.
The information from MSPB and OPM, taken together, would appear to
suggest that the Federal Government has been a primary source of job
opportunities for African-Americans and that when we get a government
job, we tend to keep it and build up seniority. The MSPB report
indicates, however, that even with their seniority, African-Americans
and other minorities appear to be concentrated at the lower grade
levels, hampered in obtaining recognition and promotions by performance
ratings which are disproportionately lower than those received by non-
minorities.
The clear indication being, therefore, that the devaluation of
seniority, which is the objective of section 201, would be especially
harmful to African-Americans who have had to rely on it to secure their
advancement in the Federal workplace.
There are many aspects of this bill I do support. Most of these
provisions are not controversial, such as: soft-landing provisions that
would enable laid-off employees to maintain their health and life
insurance benefits, pursue retraining opportunities, and obtain job
placement assistance; providing agencies some reorganization
flexibilities; and increasing the opportunities to conduct
demonstration projects to test innovative ideas.
Other controversial provisions have been eliminated. For example,
during the subcommittee's mark-up of the bill, I successfully pursued
the adoption of an amendment removing what was then title II, a
provision that would have eliminated the essential role which the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission plays in resolving the appeals of
adverse personnel actions tied to complaints of employment
discrimination.
In summary, while the bill contains many useful provisions, it is
unfortunate that the majority has been unable to resolve the one fatal
flaw in this bill that would reduce the protections of seniority in
favor of a system of flawed and biased ratings.

{time} 1745

Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], a leader in
civil service reform and civil service issues.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill to improve our civil
service system. I appreciate the willingness of Civil Service
Subcommittee Chairman Mica and ranking Democrat Jim Moran to bring
together Members from both sides of the aisle, OPM, and Federal
employee unions to reach consensus on this legislation. This truly has
been a team effort. I also want to thank Congressmen Davis and Wolf for
their valuable contributions to help Federal employees.
Several provisions included are pieces of legislation that I have
introduced. While I know that this legislation is not a panacea, and it
does not remedy some problems with our civil service system, it does
make some important improvements and helps employees and agencies
adjust to downsizing.
This bill contains several important titles to improve demonstration
projects, provide for soft landings, increase worker retraining,
provide additional optional life insurance for Federal retirees, and
promote reorganization flexibility.

[[Page H11349]]

This legislation originally included legislation I introduced last
year to enhance the thrift savings plan, H.R. 2306. I am very pleased
that portions of that legislation passed last night as part of S. 868.
Under that legislation, Federal employees will be able to invest their
money in one of the two new investment options under the thrift savings
plan: a Small Capitalization Stock Index Investment Fund or the
International Stock Index Fund. This bill also originally contained a
provision I introduced to allow Federal employees to increase their own
TSP contributions to the IRS limit--$9,500. Although that provision was
not included, I will continue to work to see it enacted.
Throughout this Congress, I have pursued a legislative strategy to
help Federal employees and agencies cope with downsizing. The 1994
Workforce Restructuring Act mandated that we reduce our Federal work
force by 272,900 FTE's by 1999. I believe that the Congress has the
responsibility to help our dedicated civil servants through this
difficult time, and I have introduced several bills to provide for
reemployment training and retirement incentives. Although I wish they
had all been incorporated in the bill before us today, this legislation
does include important retraining provisions and a soft-landings
package to ease the pain of downsizing for Federal employees.
When a Federal employee faces a reduction in force, his or her life
is turned upside down. The provisions in this bill will help Federal
employees cope with this transition. This legislation would create
educational accounts so that employees separated from the Government
could return to school to learn new skills. It would also allow
employees to continue FEGLI life insurance coverage at its full cost in
the event of a RIF, and extend health insurance for displaced Federal
employees by waiving the 5-year minimum and extending an agency's
payment for 18 months.

As the Federal work force shrinks to its lowest level since President
Kennedy's administration, Federal workers must look to the private
sector for reemployment. This civil service reform bill would also
allow retraining for private sector jobs, a concept I introduced in
H.R. 2825, the Strategic Reemployment Training Act. This simple, but
critical, change will allow agencies to tailor their job training and
counseling programs toward the private sector. To help Federal
employees move into new jobs, this legislation would permit
nonreimbursable details to Federal agencies before a RIF so that
Federal employees can try out different kinds of jobs before they are
separated. This concept was also in legislation I introduced, the
Retraining and Outplacement Opportunity Act.
This omnibus bill includes legislation that I have introduced to help
Federal retirees and their dependents by allowing Federal retirees to
retain additional, optional life insurance under any circumstance. I
became aware of the need for this legislation because one of my
constituents, Harry Bodansky, has a son with severe disabilities. It
doesn't seem fair that Federal retirees cannot continue their
additional, optional life insurance if they pay the premium.
Unfortunately, this bill cannot go back and retroactively help those
who were unable to extend their insurance at the time of their
retirement, but I am hopeful that it will help future retirees with
dependents with disabilities.
The legislation before us today contains many other valuable
provisions that will positively impact the tens of thousands of Federal
employees and retirees in my district. I urge all my colleagues to vote
in favor of the Mica-Moran-Morella civil service reform legislation
considered today. Again, I want to thank Mr. Mica, Mr. Moran, Mr.
Davis, and Mr. Wolf for their commitment to helping Federal employees
and moving this bill forward.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Carrie Meek.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the
subcommittee chairman and the ranking subcommittee chairman on the work
that has gone into the preparation of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, in committee I opposed a section of this bill, section
201, and of course I was told that there would be work toward
correcting this particular flaw. As my ranking member, the gentlewoman
from Illinois, Cardiss Collins, has said, this bill is seriously
flawed. I want to tell the Members why.
There are about 2 million Federal workers to whom this bill will
apply, and to have it go into the statutes to say that this is the way
that they will be ranked or rated in terms of a RIF process. I think
the Members of the Congress should realize that.
With almost 2 million people being affected, 11,000 of them in my
district, we must think, first, of the flaw that is in this bill. That
provision, 201, should be removed. If it is not removed, then this bill
should be stopped right here on this floor because of the serious
contradictions in it.
Second, there is a problem in codifying these regulations. Why not
have them regulate it so that we will have some flexibility, and not
put it in the statute?

The second thing is, Why is it in this bill that we are using
performance ratings above that of seniority? We are putting another
level in that in some way will take away the weight of seniority.
I am not against merit at all. I am looking for merit, just as the
committee is. But think about the subjective nature of performance
evaluations. They are very subjective. By our own studies here in the
Federal Government, it proves that a person will evaluate someone
positively that they feel most comfortable with. The figures show that
white Americans naturally rate white Americans better. These are our
own figures. Black Americans rate black Americans better. We do not
want that bias. This was brought up by one of our own studies here
within the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this is too subjective. We are not
objective enough when we are dealing with folks' lives. We are going to
RIF these people and make people be laid off.
Our own Office of Personnel Management has addressed that. They have
said in terms of their report, and I have it here, Fair and Equitable
Treatment: A Progress Report on Minority Employment in the Federal
Government. This is a recent report, recent statistics, showing the
negative implications of this kind of evaluation. This is probably due
to the fact that the Federal Government, as my ranking member has
brought to the Members' attention, has hired more of these level of
persons than anyone else.
Mr. Speaker, I support it, as I said before, and this committee is
fine. But our own U.S. Merit System Protection Board confirms what we
have said here today, that it is a subjective rating of performance
evaluations. The report found that the race of the evaluator and the
race of the person being evaluated makes a difference. That further
emphasizes what I have just mentioned. There is a strong weakness in
using performance evaluations as the greatest weight in your criteria.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, these people hold, a lot of them, supervisory
positions. They are not always fair. It establishes this new formula.
It gives less weight to seniority and more weight to performance
evaluations than the current formula. We do not want that. The unions
have told us that it is wrong, and everyone has spoken to the committee
to say it is wrong. Yet, our subcommittee is adamant about maintaining
this particular provision. We are moving too quickly on this. It is a
very complicated kind of thing. It affects 2 million people, not just
here but all over the country.
Mr. Speaker, this controversial particular feature, as I have said
before, is a bill opposed by many people. We are very concerned. The
Office of Personnel Management, as I have stated before, is against
putting this procedure into the statutes. I appeal to the Members and
to the subcommittee, we need to kill this bill right here. I do not
think we are going to change it anymore. I do not think it is going to
be acceptable anywhere, when there is any measure of unfairness in
anything that comes from the Federal Government, putting in the statute
something that is inflexible regarding the lives of 2 million people.
We certainly want it to be fair to all concerned. I submit to each of
the Members that section 201 is not fair to all concerned, and either
it

[[Page H11350]]

should be removed, or this Congress should vote against it. I am
adamantly opposed to this particular bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to focus on the soft landing
provisions of the bill.
Budget reductions, reinventing government, downsizing, rightsizing,
streamlining, and restructuring--whatever it's called, the result could
be the same--reductions-in-force [RIF]. Many dedicated Federal
employees are concerned that they will be displaced from their jobs by
RIF's. As the Nation's largest employer, it is our responsibility to
make sure that downsizing is conducted in the most fair, sensitive, and
humane manner. These soft landing provisions will do just that.
The bill before us contains many of the provisions contained in H.R.
2751, the ``Federal Employee Separation Incentive and Reemployment
Act,'' which I introduced on December 7, 1995. These soft landing
provisions will help the separated Federal employee make a smooth
transition into the private sector.
This legislation will permit employees separated in connection with a
RIF to continue health and life insurance benefits for 18 months. It
authorizes agencies to establish job counseling and job placement
programs for current or former employees. It authorizes agencies to
provide retraining and relocation assistance to employees separated in
connection with a RIF who take a job with a non-Federal entity.

{time} 1800

This would also provide educational assistance to employees separated
in connection with a RIF. These provisions are good for Federal
employees, good for morale, good for the Federal Government and just
make good sense.
Mr. Speaker, this soft landing provision in this bill is very, very
important. I strongly support it.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden], a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
Mr. HOLDEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret, that I rise today to ask my
colleagues to vote in opposition to the Omnibus Civil Service Reform
Act.
First, I want to commend Mr. Mica and Mr. Moran for their hard work
on this bill. Their efforts have been critical in getting the bill this
far.
Nevertheless, I am afraid that I cannot support this bill because
there are still changes which need to be made. I understand the late
hour requires that this bill be considered on the Suspension Calendar,
but I cannot support it without amendment.
When the bill was considered in subcommittee and full committee, we
agreed to continue to work to remedy the concerns about the performance
evaluation sections.
Unfortunately, those concerns have not been addressed, and the
performance evaluation section remains. This bill is correctable, and I
am confident that these problems can be addressed in the future.
For today, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I hope
we can work in the future to pass civil service reform.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS. I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, we have worked on this legislation for a long time,
Members from both parties. I feel genuinely conflicted about this. With
the inclusion of section 201, this legislation has proved more
controversial than I think it needed to be. If we had spent some more
time on this legislation working with some of the affected groups, we
might have been able to come up to a better resolution. I am afraid
that its inclusion is going to poison the well for this when it leaves
this body and goes to the other body, and it may end up meaning that we
do not end up with a bill. I think that is unfortunate, because there
are a number of good provisions in this bill.
I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], the chairman, the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the ranking member, the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella],
the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and the gentleman from
Maryland [Mr. Wynn], and others who have worked to try to get some of
these provisions in that I think give soft landings to Federal
employees at a time of downsizing.
It authorizes, for example, making Thrift Savings Plan loans to
employees who have been furloughed due to lapses in appropriations when
Congress and the President do not get their jobs done. This gives them
out.
It distributes life insurance proceeds in accordance with divorce
decrees, and it permits retirees to elect to continue unreduced life
insurance policies.
It provides management flexibility in reorganizing agencies,
including allowing voluntary RIFs for all agencies.
And it provides soft landing support to employees affected by
downsizing, something that we need to be ready for over the next few
years as government continues to reorganize itself and become more
efficient.
I am concerned that as the Federal Government shrinks and as we make
the transition to an information and high-technology-based society, the
need for a highly qualified and professional work force increases. The
Federal Government must be able to recruit and retain the best
qualified professionals. Therefore, we have to provide a compensation
package that is competitive with the private sector.
We also need to provide extensive training opportunities for
employees while developing appropriate soft landing and job transition
services for our departing Federal workers. The American taxpayers, our
customers, demand excellent government service provided by qualified
professionals who are treated fairly.
This bill incorporates a variety of provisions originally introduced
by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], myself, and others that will
help do this by serving to soften the landings of Federal employees who
face the loss of their jobs due to downsizing.
Under H.R. 3841, they would specifically be authorized to continue
their coverage under the Federal employees group life insurance program
if they pay the full premiums. Agencies could also extend health
insurance coverage for as long as 18 months for RIFed employees, with
the Government continuing to pay its share of the premiums.
The reform bill also authorizes priority placement programs in
agencies and outplacement assistance for Federal employees and
incorporates a right of first refusal for jobs with a contractor if
Federal jobs are converted to contract. This title would also create
educational accounts and allow for reimbursement of retraining and
relocation expenses of up to $10,000.
These are good, solid provisions that ought to be enacted into law. I
hope they are not jeopardized here at the last minute by the inclusion
of section 201.
By voting today to send this over to the Senate, perhaps they can
make their amendments, and it is our only chance because these
provisions, I think, are demanded if we are to have a professional work
force for our Federal employees in the future.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], a constant and strong advocate on
behalf of Federal employees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentleman from Maryland
is recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, and I am sorry that I
rise in opposition. This bill has much in it which deals with Federal
employees fairly at a time when they are at risk, at a time when they
have been traumatized by shutting down the Federal Government, telling
them to go home and maybe we will pay you, and maybe we will not.
This bill comes at probably one of the most tenuous times in the
civil service that I have seen. We are going to have trouble recruiting
and retaining our good people.
Let me tell you what is wrong with this section 201 if you are a
supervisor and you are charged with the responsibility of rating an
employee. That is an extraordinarily difficult task under the best of
circumstances, because human beings have trouble judging one another.

[[Page H11351]]

But I tell my friends who are bringing this section 201 to the floor
that if the consequences of my rating my Federal employee is to either
give them 10, 7, or 5 years seniority, the pressure on me will be
geometrically increased, geometrically increased, because that employee
know that I not only do not give him or her an outstanding rating, but
that the consequences of that may be, after 5 or 10 or 15 years'
service, that somebody with 5 years' service will have more points than
I do. So that if Mr. Moran is Steny Hoyer's supervisor, I really have
high expectations for what he will do.
I suggest to you, my friends, that if there is any doubt, you are
going to see a pressure for evaluation inflation beyond that which
exists today.
In closing, let me say that obviously this bill has merit. Just as
obviously, unfortunately, the concept that 201 speaks to has merit as
well. It is a shame, therefore, that we consider it under suspension,
no amendments, limited time, without sufficient time to debate fully an
important concept.
I urge the Members to reject this bill under these circumstances.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In conclusion, I believe this is a very important bill and it sends
the right message to our Federal employees at a time when they are
uncertain about their job security.
The bill says to those who have worked hard that we will make a
special effort to help them keep their jobs. And it says to taxpayers
that we are serious once and for all about improving the performance
and accountability in the civil service.
Sometimes it is easy to do what is expedient, but sometimes it is
more important to do what is right. Tonight it is time to do what is
right. This bill provides a safety net to those who lose their jobs as
we reduce the size and scope of government and will help in the
transition to the private sector. And this bill also provides the tools
to make government more efficient, and, I believe, more effective.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to work my best with my colleagues on the
other side. We have even asked for their input as we drafted and made
changes in section 201. I am sorry that they will oppose this. We would
continue to work with them as the legislation might make its way
through the other body. But tonight it is important that we do what is
right and we do not just do what is expedient.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional
minute in regard to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members on both sides to vote
for this bill. The soft landing provisions on health insurance and life
insurance and educational assistance by themselves have more than
sufficient merit to pass this bill. But I do think that there is merit
as well in section 201. I do not agree--and I have discussed this with
the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] and the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Meek]--that giving more weight to performance ratings has
anything to do within a racial context. I do not think that there is an
issue of racial discrimination here. In fact, I think that new hires,
in fact, would be better served under this new system. We have some
disagreement and obviously there is a report that lends credence to the
argument that has been made. But I would urge my colleagues to vote for
this bill, for giving more weight to performance ratings in the civil
service and certainly for the soft landing provisions that are an
important and necessary part of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Omnibus Civil Service Reform
Act and urge its passage.
Earlier this year, Chairman Mica, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Davis, and I met
to discuss the possibility of drafting and enacting some important
civil service reforms. At that meeting, we all agreed that there were
certain reforms and modifications that simply had to be done this year.
We agreed that we would draft a bipartisan bill--one that took into
consideration the concerns of Federal employee associations, Federal
employee unions, and rank and file Federal employees.
The result is this legislation. This bill does not contain every
provision that I wanted. It does not contain every provision that Mr.
Mica wanted. It does, however, contain a number of important provisions
that will improve the performance of our civil service and that will
improve the lives of our Nation's civil servants.

The bill contains provisions originally offered by the administration
to improve the Demonstration Projects Program. Title I of this
legislation will enable agencies to try new initiatives and demonstrate
different ways to run the Federal civil service.
The bill contains provisions to improve the performance management of
the federal civil service. Since the first caucus of the Civil Service
Subcommittee, we have focused on how to remove poor performers from the
Federal workforce and reward those employees who are outstanding. This
is particularly important now that the Federal Government is
downsizing. We have about the same number of Federal employees today as
we did during the Kennedy administration.
These employees, however, are involved in activities never foreseen
in 1963. If we are to have fewer employees doing more work, we must
ensure that those employees retained during a reduction in force are
the best and brightest employees. Section 201 of this legislation, the
section which has received the most criticism, is an attempt to reward
performance rather than seniority when agencies are undergoing RIFs.
Other sections in title II enable managers to effectively do their jobs
and either take action against poor performers or reward outstanding
work performance.
The remainder of this bill incorporates a number of provisions
designed to help employees undergoing reductions in force. These
provisions allow an employee to continue to participate in the
Government life insurance programs, provided that he pay both the
employer and employee contributions. It would allow an employee who
loses his job due to a reduction in force to continue to participate in
the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. It also establishes a
priority placement program and education assistance grants to help
displaced Federal employees improve their competitiveness through
greater education.
Throughout this process a number of Federal employee organizations
have raised concerns about a number of provisions. These concerns have,
for the most part, been addressed. The Civil Service Subcommittee has
dropped provisions to streamline the appeals processes and have ensured
that certain provisions contained in the legislation do not adversely
impact employees covered by collective bargaining. The Government
Reform and Oversight Committee modified section 201 of this bill to
ensure that its affect is not discriminatory.
The bill considered by the subcommittee was 100 percent better than
the original draft. The bill marked up in full committee was 100
percent better than the subcommittee draft.

Since Chairman Mica and I first assumed our positions on the Civil
Service Subcommittee, we have had a number of serious disagreements
over Federal employee policies. We continue to have ideological
differences. Throughout this Congress, however, we have worked together
in an effort to improve the Federal work force. We agree on the
provisions contained in this legislation.
This does not mean Mr. Mica has softened his positions or I have
softened mine. Instead, this legislation represents a mutual
identification of reforms that simply had to be made this year. I
appreciate the work Mr. Mica and his staff have put into this
legislation and I greatly appreciate his willingness to work closely
with me and my staff on this effort. I also appreciate the work Vice
President Gore and his staff have done in trying to reinvent the
Federal work force. Many of the positive reforms incorporated in this
bill come directly from his work. The National Performance Review has
benefited us all by focusing on how to improve the Federal work force.
I understand the concerns raised by a number of Federal employee
groups about section 201 of this bill. As everyone knows, I have worked
closely with all of these groups throughout this Congress and,
together, we have been able to defeat efforts to unfairly increase
retirement contributions and improperly modify the Federal Employee
Health Benefits Program. We worked hard to protect Federal employees
from continued downsizings and Federal Government shutdowns.
This, however, is an area in which we simply disagree. I strongly
believe that Federal employees and Federal taxpayers must ensure that
the best employees are retained during RIF's. I oppose RIF's. I was the
first to speak out against the original NPR report because I thought it
unfairly targeted Federal employees. But the Federal Government is
downsizing and we simply cannot afford to retain any unsatisfactory or
minimally successful employees.
Regardless of our individual positions on title II, we must all agree
that this is an extremely important bill. I sincerely hope that we do
not defeat this entire effort, and all the benefits it provides Federal
employees, because of our disagreements.

[[Page H11352]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3841, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________