Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MORAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], the subcommittee chairman, to explain the changes in the bill.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] for explaining the change that he has made from the bill that we brought up yesterday and that failed to get the two-thirds majority necessary. I also particularly want to thank them for bringing the bill back today without that controversial provision which prevented us from being able to move it on to the Senate yesterday. We have an opportunity today to enact legislation that will have a very positive impact upon the lives of our Nation's civil servants. As I said yesterday, this legislation is the culmination of the work of the Subcommittee on Civil Service over the past 6 months. It contains important provisions that provide needed benefits for Federal Employees. For example, the bill contains provisions, originally offered by the administration, that improve the agencies' management flexibility through a demonstration projects program and individual agencies can choose to participate in and determine what types of flexibilities enhance program performance. The bill provides 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 they pay both the employer and employee contribution. It would allow an employee who loses their job due to a reduction in force to continue to participate in the Federal employee health benefits program for 18 months with the Federal share being paid. It also establishes a priority placement program in education assistance grants to help displaced Federal employees improve their competitiveness in the job market through greater education. The provision with which a majority of Democrats disagree has been deleted from this draft. With section 201 removed, this legislation is supported by the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member; by the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] and all the Federal employee unions. That should get the Democratic support that we were looking for, and I hope we can quickly pass this legislation and send it over to the Senate for their immediate consideration. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois, Mrs. Cardiss Collins, the ranking Democratic member of the committee, to give what may be her last speech before this body. It is fitting that it be on behalf of public servants.

Mr. MORAN. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, we certainly thank the ranking member, the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois, for so many reasons, and for so much contribution to the work of this body. We thank the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] for her very appropriate remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] who presented such a spirited attack on section 201 yesterday.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentlewoman from Florida. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. I want to thank him in advance of when this gets through for using his considerable influence in getting it through the Senate side, after this gets through the House.

Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. MORAN. Further reserving the right to object. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve my right to object, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, and I thank him for recognizing the merits of section 201, too. I do think that at some point we have to figure out an appropriate way to recognize a person's performance as an important criteria is determining who should get riffed in periods of downsizing. I do not believe that pure seniority should be the only governing factor in determining who gets riffed. The fact is that everyone is not equal. Everyone does not produce equal levels of effort. There ought to be some way to sufficiently recognize people's contribution to the performance of a program and their dedication to its mission. Having said that, we have a bill that is of substantial benefit to Federal employees, particularly those who would be adversely affected by RIF's, by downsizing of the Federal Government, which we know is inevitable, and will inevitably continue for the next several years. This provides important soft landing features, and enables them to get preference in being hired for other functions within the agencies, and extends their health and life insurance, gives them some educational assistance. It is the right thing to do. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Mr. Mark J. Molli of Alexandria, VA, for his participation in CIVITAS@Bosnia-Herzegovina from July 17 to July 27, 1996. This is an intensive program which prepares local teachers to assist with the development of democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Molli was part of a team of 18 American educators and 15 teachers from the council of Europe who were assigned to key cities throughout the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The summer training program was developed by the Center for Civic Education as part of a major initiative in Bosnia and Herzegovina supported by the United States Information Agency and the United States Department of Education. The United States Information Service in Sarajevo provided valuable assistance to the program as well. The goals of the program are to help prepare students and their communities for participation in elections and other civic matters. Achieving this goal will help restore a sense of community, cooperation, tolerance and support for democracy and human rights in this war torn area. I am also pleased to announce that the curricular materials being used for the program in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been adapted from the We the People * * * the Citizen and the Constitution and the Project Citizen programs, as well as other programs supported by Congress which are used in schools throughout the United States. Initial reports evaluating the summer program indicate the materials and teaching methods were enthusiastically received and can be adapted for use in classrooms throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend Mark Molli for his dedication and commitment during the CIVITAS@Bosnia-Herzegovina summer training program. His work is helping to achieve the overall objective of building support for democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr. MORAN

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.)

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Carrie Meek.

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.

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. 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. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Holden], a distinguished member of our subcommittee.

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.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute in regard to the bill.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that this bill has been modified so that it is truly a bipartisan product. It is supported by a number of the senior ranking members on the Committee on International Relations. It does some good and important things in the area of international human rights, many of which have been described by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]. As a result, the minority has no objection and urges passage of the bill.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, normally what goes around comes around. Normally people who abuse their positions of power to destroy political rivals in underhanded and dishonest ways ultimately become the victims of their own corruption. The snake that they unleash from their souls invariably comes around to bite them as well. But that natural law of justice has been thwarted in this body. It has been thwarted because Speaker Gingrich has suppressed the release of an Ethics Committee report that details activities that makes Speaker Wright's improprieties pale in comparison. Mr. Speaker, we have a number of quotes from Speaker Gingrich that identify the reasons why Speaker Wright was charged. They are far more applicable to the charges that have been leveled against Speaker Gingrich. If you take Speaker Gingrich at his words, we would release this Ethics Committee report today.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 868 and the manager's amendment offered by Representative Mica. S. 868 is a simple bill first proposed by the Office of Personnel Management after the tragic bombing in Oklahoma City. It makes it easier for federal employees to donate unused annual leave to their counterparts who have been adversely impacted by a disaster or national emergency. This bill passed the Senate unanimously last October and recently passed the Government Reform and Oversight Committee on voice vote. To this legislation, Mr. Mica is offering a manager's amendment that incorporates other important provisions. The first makes important reforms to the Thrift Savings Plan and enables employees to participate in the plan earlier and to invest their funds in two new plans. The Thrift Savings Plan is a very successful retirement plan that enables federal employees to save for their retirement. The provisions in this legislation will also provide federal employees the same flexibiliies enjoyed by their private sector counterparts who participate in 401(k) plans. This provision also allows federal employees to borrow against their accounts for any reason. The second provision is the Veterans Employment Opportunities and Improvement Act. This legislation has passed the House by voice vote and makes some positive reforms in the application of our Veterans' preference laws. By attaching this provision to S. 868, the majority expects that we will be able to engage the Senate in a conference on this legislation and break the current deadlock. Finally, the manager's amendment incorporates a provision that was introduced by Senator Sarbanes and passed the Senate by voice vote. This is more a technical provision and will help remedy a situation that affects only a limited number of employees. I support the effort to enact this correction. Again, I support this legislation and the manager's amendment. I hope it will have my colleagues' support as well.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I am very hesitant to speak on this issue. For one thing, I have been associated with the pro-choice side throughout my legislative career, and I do believe that when the issue of abortion is concerned, it really ought not be a legislative issue; it ought to be a personal decision determined by a woman with the advice of her physician, within the context of her religion and family. I do not believe that this issue falls within that rubric, within that context of decisionmaking. I do agree with the Roe versus Wade decision which attempted to apply our human values, human judgment, to an issue on which none of us can ever be sure: at which point human life begins. And so we decided in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decided that in the first 3 months, the woman should be fully free to exercise her judgment; and in the second trimester, the democratic process through State legislatures should apply restrictions; and in the third trimester, we should try to make it as difficult as possible. What we are talking about now, though, goes beyond that third trimester. We are talking about the delivery of a fetus clearly in the shape and with the functions of a human being. And when that human being is delivered in the birth canal, it cannot be masked as anything but a human being. We should not act in any legislative way that sanctions the termination of that life. And that is why I urge my colleagues to vote to override the President's veto of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I wish that the pro-choice groups, when they saw this issue, would have simply agreed, said, ``You are right. We are not going to get involved in this because there are extremes on every one of these issues.'' This is an extreme that we ought not support.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleagues and friends, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], for working with me in a bipartisan way to get this authorization to mint 100,000 gold $5 coins. They will be minted in 1999, commemorating the 200th anniversary of the death of George Washington, our first President. I think I can speak for Mr. Davis and probably all my colleagues, that getting 290 signatures is not like rolling off a log. This has taken us much of the year, and we would not have done this if it was not of some consequence. Even the fact that the Coin Commission recommended it, it still is difficult to get people's attention to focus on it. But this is a uniquely important coin because once we reimburse the taxpayers fully for the cost of minting this coin, the Mount Vernon Ladies Association will use the proceeds for the preservation of Mount Vernon, which was George Washington's home in northern Virginia at the southern end of the parkway. We invite all our colleagues and people listening to visit that beautiful birthplace, the home of George Washington. The funds will also enhance the ladies association's efforts to educate the American public about George Washington's life. Few people know that this, in fact, is the 200th anniversary of George Washington's farewell address this very day. It still has resonance, it has tremendous profundity, wisdom in that address, but too few people are aware of it. This will enable us to spread that kind of educational information. Many of our textbooks include now only a small fraction of information about George Washington's life and times. Forty years ago there was a lot about it. But over the years our history textbooks have reduced, more and more, the life of George Washington, and it should not be diminished. So this is an effort to see to it that it will not be diminished, and the Mount Vernon Ladies Association is going to host a series of programs in conjunction with the bicentennial of Washington's death in 1999. There will be seminars, programs for schoolchildren and adults, construction of two new buildings which will provide the opportunity for people of all ages to learn about George Washington in the context of the 18th century life where he was the most prominent figure. Proceeds from the sale of these coins will help to finance all these events and ensure that the nearly 1 million visitors who pass through Mount Vernon every year are fully informed about how important George Washington was to the founding of this country. This commemorative coin, as I say, has been endorsed by the Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee. There is no reason why we should not support this legislation. It is urgent given the particular timing of it. We need to do it now, and certainly we need to give these proceeds to the Mount Vernon Ladies Association to spread information about a man who had a pivotal role in the direction of this country.

Mr. MORAN

Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we also support this bill redesignating the Dunning Post Office that is located on West Irving Park Road in Chicago as the Roger McAuliffe Post Office. The Illinois delegation has chosen a fitting way to honor a former State representative in this way. State Representative McAuliffe was the dean of the Illinois State House Republicans. He recently died in a tragic boating accident over the Fourth of July holiday. So we would support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.