July 10, 2003

The Honorable Tommy G. Thompson
Secretary
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201

The Honorable Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.
Director
National Institutes of Health
9600 Rockville Pike, #344
Bethesda, Maryland 20892

Dear Secretary Thompson and Dr. Zerhouni:

Last month, it was reported that all employees at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are being required to sign a paper agreeing to implement several of this Administration’s very controversial management initiatives, including the implementation of "strategic human capital management" and completing the "FY 2003 competitive sourcing program" ("NIH Employees Are Asked to Sign Off on Bush Administration’s Goals," Washington Post, June 13, 2003, B2.)

I am perplexed by this report. First, are you seeking to force civil service employees to sign on to the political initiatives of one party as opposed to working in a non-partisan way for the taxpayers and citizens of this country? These employees do not work for this Administration or the Republican Party; their job is to implement the laws of this country as effectively as they can, regardless of which party controls the White House. The civil service system was established specifically to make sure that federal employees’ jobs were not controlled by political appointees and carried out in an unequal manner based on political favoritism. The result of this legal separation of the civil servants from political parties and appointees in this country is the greatest and least corrupt civil service in the world, an accomplishment that many other countries struggle to emulate.

Second, are you taking away from dedicated civil servants the right to freely question and discuss the Administration’s initiatives in an effort to improve those that are useful and to warn against those that may not work as effectively as managers and political appointees with little knowledge of the specific programs affected may have expected? Good managers in the private sector know that free and open discussion of their initiatives by the people who are most knowledgeable will improve the ultimate product. Yet this Administration seems to be telling career employees that their performance evaluations will be downgraded if they do not automatically sign on to initiatives that may or may not work.

Third, are you having these employees sign what is, in essence, a loyalty oath and blank check combined? Is it because of opposition to your controversial outsourcing schemes? The National Institutes of Health is the crown jewel of the American health science establishment. Its scientists are respected all over the world, and it is the envy of most other nations. Foreign countries, private researchers and universities rely on NIH researchers every day for assistance in their own work. The synergy that occurs when biological scientists from different disciplines interact on one campus cannot be duplicated by contracting out this work. All of this is in danger of disappearing into private laboratories which have no obligation to address national or international public health issues.

Fourth, the implementation of these kinds of performance goals is fraught with mischief. Details matter, and could be coercive. Therefore, please answer the following questions:

a. What will the repercussions be for any NIH or other employee of the Department of Health and Human Services who refuses to sign these new performance goals? Have they been put in writing and provided to NIH employees? If so, please provide a copy.

b. Under existing civil service rules, regulations, and guidance, is an agency allowed to change the annual performance goals without notice to or discussion with the employee and his or her supervisor? Please provide reference to the appropriate rule, regulation, or guidance.

c. What percentage of the employee’s performance evaluation is based on implementation of "strategic human capital management" and "completion of the FY 2003 competitive sourcing program"?

d. Who will evaluate whether each employee has assisted in implementation of "strategic human capital management" and "completion of the FY 2003 competitive sourcing program"?

e. Will employees be free to discuss their objections to the competitive sourcing program if they believe that it will not save money and will not benefit positively NIH’s research programs?

f. It has been determined in the past that some competitive sourcing contracts actually increase costs to the Federal Government. Will employees be free to question whether calculations of the cost of work performed by the Federal Government are accurate or not?

g. What resources will be available to the agency to determine the comparable costs and benefits of out-sourcing compared to continuing to have Government workers do a particular task?

It would be most unfortunate if the legacy of this Administration is a gagged, and ultimately privatized, NIH which does not serve the public interest or further the public’s health and welfare. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me or have your staff contact Edith Holleman, Minority Counsel, at 202-226-3400.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER

cc:   The Honorable W. J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman
        Committee on Energy and Commerce

        The Honorable Michael Bilirakis, Chairman
        Subcommittee on Health

        The Honorable Sherrod Brown, Ranking Member
        Subcommittee on Health