by clicking on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level. Return to the original size by clicking on the page again.
the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.
the zoom using the slider on the top right.
by clicking on the zoomed-in page.
by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues respectively.
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
this publication and page.
displays a table of sections with thumbnails and descriptions.
displays thumbnails of every page in the issue. Click on a page to jump.
allows you to browse through every available issue.
Federal Employees News Digest : Feb. 18, 2013
February 18, 2013 Vol. 62, No. 29 4 Visit us on the Internet at www.FederalDaily.com "I mean, we've looked at this ques- tion," he responded. "We don't see a way in which you can cut $85 billion over a seven-month period and not have signif- icantly harmful impacts to our priorities, both domestic and defense." "Sequester is a blunt and indiscrimi- nate instrument that poses a serious threat to our national security, domestic priorities, and the economy," Werfel said. "And it does not represent a responsible way to achieve deficit reduction." Private-sector impact Principal Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Jason Furman, also at the conference, laid out dire consequences for the overall econo- my as well. "The sequester would also have broad- er and very negative consequences for the economy as a whole," Furman said. "And private forecasters, the Congressional Budget Office, and others have estimated that if the sequester hit you would lose hundreds of thousands of jobs as a result. And we got a tiny bit of a preview of what that might look like in the fourth quarter GDP numbers, where GDP contracted because of a large contraction in defense spending that was, at least in part, due just to fears about the sequester before it even started to hit." Workforce targeted Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees this month offered their own remedy to the seques- ter, introducing legislation to reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent to pay for a year's worth of the across-the board cuts. Senate Armed Services Committee member Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who introduced the legislation in the Senate, offered a similar bill last year. Other Republican members of the commit- tee, including Ranking Member Jim Inhofe (Okla.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), also sup- port the measure. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.) is sponsoring the House version of the bill. The legislation would require a gov- ernment-wide 10 percent reduction the federal workforce, which would be accomplished through attrition. Federal agencies would be permitted to hire only one person for every three who leave through attrition. The bill also would freeze pay for members of Congress for any year in which there is a federal bud- get deficit. Ayotte said the workforce cuts imple- mented by her Down Payment to Protect National Security Act would pay for the first year of sequestration by sav- ing about $85 billion, which she said would cover the sequestration cuts to both defense and non-defense accounts. The cuts would return the DOD civilian workforce to 2009 levels. "We can prevent the first year of sequestration without raising taxes," Ayotte said in a statement. "The legis- lation I'm introducing today does just that by replacing these reductions with common-sense savings found elsewhere in the federal budget." McKeon said the bill would "buy time" to negotiate a "truly balanced budget." "The Down Payment to Protect National Security Act of 2013 would pre- vent a further round of cuts in fiscal year 2013 from hitting our military as a result of sequestration, beyond the $46 bil- lion reduction already imposed over the last two years as part of the president's budget-driven defense strategy," McKeon said in a statement. "Republicans don't want to go into sequester, but the presi- dent will force us there if he insists on a plan that shirks his responsibility to the troops, that is bad for national security and bad for the economy." Labor blasted the bill. The American Federation of Government Employees dismissed the legislation as "the usual suspects ... scheming to spare their big defense contractor friends from the impact of sequestration by arbitrarily slashing federal employee jobs." National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley called the pro- posal "nothing more than a direct attack on the ability of federal agencies to fulfill their missions of service to the American people." "Everyone agrees that sequestration is terrible policy," Kelley said in a statement. "Plans to implement it on March 1 should be abandoned, but doing so with a 10 per- cent reduction in the federal workforce is foolhardy and would result in short staff- ing that could last for a decade." labor proposes alternative Rather than target the federal work- force, unions called for cuts to agency service contracts. AFGE released a guidance prepared by a government contract law expert which the union said demonstrates that agencies can realize between 70 percent and 90 percent of the savings required under sequestration---and avoid work- force cuts---by trimming spending on service contracts. The union said the four-page memo, prepared by Charles Tiefer, professor of law at the University of Baltimore Law School, shows agencies how to cut ser- vice contract spending by using existing authority in compliance with procure- ment law. "The good news is that managers have all of the tools they need to reduce spending on service contracts," Tiefer stated in the guidance. "The bad news is that service contractors, like any other business, are not eager to voluntarily give up revenues, so strong leadership is required from the heads of agencies." The memo contains what Tiefer said are "four established and completely legal options for reducing spending on service contracts." The options are based on existing authorities agencies have that allow them to slow, trim back or reduce the scope of service contracts, or to modify those contracts bilaterally with the agreement of contractors. AFGE said that although it paid for the assessment, the opinions are Tiefer's. The continued on page 5 continued from page 3
Feb. 11, 2013
Feb. 25, 2013