Federal Workforce Flexibilities: A Side-by-Side Comparison of S. 129 (108th Congress) with Current Law
Released: 2004-06-30T00:00:00

Introduction

As in the previous Congress, management of the federal workforce continues to be an issue ofinterest to the Senate and the House of Representatives in the 108th Congress. S. 129 ,the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003, passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimousconsent on April 8, 2004. Senator George Voinovich introduced the bill on January 9, 2003, and itwas referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. On October 22, 2003, thecommittee ordered the bill to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute; and it wasreported on January 27, 2004. (1) The committeesubstitute, as amended, was agreed to by unanimousconsent on April 8, 2004. In the House of Representatives, the Subcommittee on Civil Service andAgency Organization of the House Committee on Government Reform marked up S. 129on May 18, 2004. Before forwarding the legislation to the full committee, the subcommittee agreedby voice vote to an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Jo Ann Davisand en bloc amendments offered by Representative Danny Davis. On June 24, 2004, the Housecommittee ordered the bill to be reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote, afteragreeing, by voice vote, to an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Representative JoAnn Davis.

Another bill related to management of the federal workforce was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 3, 2003. Representative Jo Ann Davis introduced H.R. 1601 ,the Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003, and it was referred to the House Committee onGovernment Reform. As introduced, S. 129 and H.R. 1601 were identicalexcept for one provision relating to personnel demonstration projects. (2) On April 8, 2003, theSubcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the Districtof Columbia of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, along with the Subcommittee onCivil Service and Agency Organization of the House Committee on Government Reform, conducteda joint hearing on the federal government's human capital challenge. (3) A hearing that includeddiscussion of H.R. 1601 was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Civil Serviceand Agency Organization on February 11, 2004. (4) Both S. 129 and H.R. 1601include a number of the provisions that were in S. 2651 , the Federal WorkforceImprovement Act of 2002, introduced by Senator Voinovich in the 107th Congress. Several of theS. 2651 provisions, including those on agency Chief Human Capital Officers, alternativeranking and selection procedures, voluntary separation incentive payments, the repeal ofrecertification requirements for the Senior Executive Service, academic degree training, andmodifications to the National Security Education Program, were enacted in P.L. 107-296 , HomelandSecurity Act of 2002, signed by President George Bush on November 25, 2002 and are applicablegovernmentwide. (5)

S. 129 , as passed by the Senate and as ordered to be reported to the House, would amend current law provisions on critical pay, civil service retirement system computation forpart-time service, agency training, and annual leave. The bill also would amend current lawprovisions on recruitment and relocation bonuses and retention allowances (which would be renamedbonuses). As ordered to be reported to the House, S. 129 would amend the current 5U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½5753 and 5754 language on such bonuses and allowances. As passed by the Senate, itwould add new sections 5754a and 5754b on recruitment, relocation, and retention bonuses to Title5 United States Code . Therefore, if S. 129, as passed by the Senate, were enacted, agencieswould be able to use the current law provisions on recruitment and relocation bonuses and retentionallowances at 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½5753 and 5754 and the enhanced authority for recruitment, relocation, andretention bonuses proposed at 5 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½5754a and 5754b. (6)

S. 129 , as ordered to be reported to the House, would amend current law provisions on pay administration. These amendments were included in S. 129, as introduced, but theywere dropped during Senate committee markup and are not included in the Senate-passed versionof the bill. Provisions that would amend current law on retirement service credit for cadet ormidshipman service and compensatory time off for travel were added to S. 129 duringSenate committee markup and are included in the legislation as passed by the Senate and as orderedto be reported to the House. Added during Senate Committee markup as well were provisions onSenior Executive Service authority for the White House Office of Administration that are in theSenate-passed bill, but are not in the legislation as ordered to be reported to the House (theprovisions were removed from the House version of the bill during the full House committeemarkup). Other provisions that would have amended current law provisions relating to contributionsto the Thrift Savings Plan, annuity commencement dates, and retirement for air traffic controllerswere included in S. 129, as forwarded by the House Civil Service and AgencyOrganization Subcommittee to the House Government Reform Committee, but were removed duringthe full committee markup.

In the 107th Congress, Senator Voinovich introduced S. 1603 , the Federal Human Capital Act of 2001, on October 31, 2001 and S. 1639 , the Federal EmployeeManagement Reform Act of 2001, on November 6, 2001. Senator Fred Thompson introduced S. 1612 , the Managerial Flexibility Act of 2001, on November 1, 2001. (7) The bills werereferred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Representative Constance Morellaintroduced H.R. 4580 , the Good People, Good Government Act, on April 24, 2002, andit was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform. Earlier, on October 15, 2001, theAdministration of President George W. Bush submitted a legislative proposal entitled TheManagerial Flexibility Act of 2001 to Congress. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)described the proposal as "a key component of the Bush Administration's 'Freedom to Manage'initiative . . . to eliminate legal barriers to effective management." (8) The proposal included provisionson personnel management flexibilities, including voluntary separation incentive payments, voluntaryearly retirement, recruitment and retention bonuses and relocation allowances, academic degrees,the Senior Executive Service, personnel management demonstration projects, and direct hire.

On March 18 and 19, 2002, the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs conducted hearings on severalof the civil service bills. Following the hearings, Senator Voinovich, joined by Senators Thompsonand Cochran, revised some of the provisions in S. 1603 and S. 1639 , asintroduced, and merged them into one bill, S. 2651 . As mentioned above, several ofthe S. 2651 provisions were enacted in P.L. 107-296 . No further action was taken on anyof the other 107th Congress bills.

This report compares each of the provisions in S. 129 , as passed by the Senate and as ordered to be reported to the House, with current law. The information in this report is presentedaccording to the sequential organization of Title 5 United States Code as current law. PatrickPurcell, Specialist in Social Legislation, Domestic Social Policy Division, Congressional ResearchService (CRS), prepared the rows in Table 1 on retirement provisions under 5 U.S.C. Chapters 83and 84. [author name scrubbed], Analyst in American National Government, Government and FinanceDivision, CRS, prepared the rows in Table 1 on Senior Executive Service Authority for the WhiteHouse Office of Administration under 3 U.S.C. Chapter 2.

Table 1. S.129 Provisions Compared with Current Law