<DOC> [109th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:25617.wais] MOM, APPLE PIE, AND WORKING FOR AMERICA: ACCOUNTABILITY AND REWARDS FOR THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND AGENCY ORGANIZATION of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ OCTOBER 5, 2005 __________ Serial No. 109-112 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/ index.html http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 25-617 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 _____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------ VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent) ------ ------ Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization JON C. PORTER, Nevada, Chairman JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TOM DAVIS, Virginia MAJOR R. OWENS, New York DARRELL E. ISSA, California ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of KENNY MARCHANT, Texas Columbia PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland Ex Officio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California Ron Martinson, Staff Director Chad Bungard, Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel Chad Christofferson, Clerk Tania Shand, Minority Professional Staff Member C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on October 5, 2005.................................. 1 Statement of: Shaw, Theresa S., Chief Operating Officer, Office of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education; Max Stier, president and CEO, Partnership for Public Service; W. Scott Gould, vice president, Public Sector Strategy and Change, Business and Consulting Service, IBM Global Services; Michael B. Styles, national president, Federal Managers Association; John Gage, national president, American Federation of Government Employees; and Colleen M. Kelley, national president, National Treasury Employees Union...... 72 Gage, John............................................... 127 Gould, W. Scott.......................................... 96 Kelley, Colleen M........................................ 143 Shaw, Theresa S.......................................... 72 Stier, Max............................................... 81 Styles, Michael B........................................ 108 Springer, Linda M., Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; and David M. Walker, Comptroller General, U.S. Government Accountability Office........................... 9 Springer, Linda M........................................ 9 Walker, David M.......................................... 16 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Gage, John, national president, American Federation of Government Employees, prepared statement of................ 130 Gould, W. Scott, vice president, Public Sector Strategy and Change, Business and Consulting Service, IBM Global Services, prepared statement of............................ 98 Kelley, Colleen M., national president, National Treasury Employees Union, prepared statement of..................... 146 Porter, Hon. Jon C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Nevada, prepared statement of..................... 4 Shaw, Theresa S., Chief Operating Officer, Office of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education, prepared statement of............................................... 75 Stier, Max, president and CEO, Partnership for Public Service, prepared statement of............................. 83 Styles, Michael B., national president, Federal Managers Association, prepared statement of......................... 110 Springer, Linda M., Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management: Information concerning performance-based alternative pay systems................................................ 45 Prepared statement of.................................... 11 Walker, David M., Comptroller General, U.S. Government Accountability Office, prepared statement of............... 18 MOM, APPLE PIE, AND WORKING FOR AMERICA: ACCOUNTABILITY AND REWARDS FOR THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE ---------- WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2005 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jon C. Porter (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Porter, Davis of Virginia (ex officio), Norton, and Van Hollen. Staff present: Ronald Martinson, staff director; Chad Bungard, deputy staff director/chief counsel; Christopher Barkley and Shannon Meade, professional staff members; Patrick Jennings, OPM detailee/senior counsel; Chad Christofferson, LA/ clerk; Mark Stephenson and Tania Shand, minority professional staff member; and Teresa Coufal, minority assistant clerk. Mr. Porter. Good morning. I would like to bring the meeting to order of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization. Good morning, everyone. Mr. Gage is supposed to bring donuts and coffee. John, where are you this morning? John you are supposed to bring donuts and coffee for everyone. You were late. Next time. Welcome, everyone. I appreciate you being here. As I mentioned, I would like to bring the meeting to order. We do have a quorum present. Working for America is a wonderful privilege and a great responsibility, something that I take very seriously, and I know that most Federal employees feel the same way. The work of Federal employees affects almost every aspect of our daily lives, from sending a timely Social Security check to protecting our country from terrorist attacks. Each aspect is important as millions of taxpayers rely on the Federal Government to provide them with service that is responsive, efficient and accountable. That is why it is important to review ways in which improvements can be made to the current system so the Federal Government can better serve the American people. Recently the administration released a discussion draft of a comprehensive government-wide reform personnel bill titled the Working for America Act, and I should emphasize that the Working for America Act is a draft proposal. The proposal has not been introduced as a bill and that is another reason why we are here today as we move forward looking at legislation so we can have everyone's ideas and suggestions before that bill is introduced. We are here today to discuss the proposal in its current form and exchange some ideas about how to improve its provisions. I believe that a full, open and fair hearing should be held on this matter before a bill of this magnitude is introduced. I am hear to listen to all sides and all viewpoints with an open mind. I know that we will hear from some groups today that say no change is needed and that everything is working just fine, but there are some glaring problems with the current system. For one, high and low performers get the same annual pay increases. This is something that does not sit well even with the majority of Federal employees. According to a 2004 Federal human capital survey, employees are not satisfied with the recognition they receive for doing a good job and are not happy with the fact that steps are not taken to deal with a poor performer who cannot or will not improve and the differences in performance are not recognized. Who can be against a fair process that rewards the star performers and effectively deals with the poor performers? Second, we now live in a world where agency performance matters more than ever, but agency performance always has mattered. The Katrina disaster itself demonstrated the need for high performing agencies and leadership in those agencies. Unfortunately, our current Federal personnel system does not always encourage efficiency or hard work. Any proposal that allows agencies to better manage, develop and reward its employees to better serve the American people should be seriously considered. Better performing employees mean a better performing agency, which means that taxpayers are getting the biggest bang for their buck. Third, the Federal Government needs to be better able to attract and retain quality employees, but we need to make sure that every agency has the same ability to attract and keep quality employees. The new personnel systems at DHS and DOD will place over half the government under alternative personnel systems within a short time. Agencies without modern, flexible personnel systems are going to be at a competitive disadvantage in the areas of recruitment and retention in relationship to the private sector and in relationship with agencies with flexible personnel systems. I understand that change can be difficult and that there are lots of concerns out there about moving into a new personnel system. I ask that everyone here maintain an open mind in how we can improve the current system, and when I say an open mind, I encourage all those that testify today, although you may have parts of the draft that you support, I also would like to hear your ideas on what we can do better to make it better. This is not just about a session to complain about a draft. It is a session to provide very honest and very blunt discussion on what we can do to help our Federal employees but, more importantly, the taxpayers. As I said, I hope that everyone has an open mind on how we can improve the system, and I look forward to hearing from the distinguished group before the subcommittee today. We are privileged to have some very knowledgeable people here today who will bring different points of view to this proposed legislation, and I look forward to our discussion and would like to move to a few procedural matters at this time. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit statements and written questions for the record, that any answers to written questions provided by witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents and other materials referred to by the Members and the witnesses may be included in the hearing record and that all Members be permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, so ordered. It is the practice of the subcommittee to administer the oath, which I will do here in a moment, but first I would like you to recognize my Congresswoman for any opening remarks. Good morning. [The prepared statement of Hon. Jon C. Porter follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.002 Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to be of service with you in Washington. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that before this bill is final that you're having another hearing. In case its controversial nature was not clear on the face of it, it should be noted that the--one of our appropriation committees, the House Transportation-Treasury Appropriation Committee, withheld funding, the funding requested by OPM, to continue to overhaul the civil service. Now that is the appropriation committee, which would have no reason, it seems to me, to do that, nor would the hesitation of the Senate be so clear if this were easy. Mr. Chairman, I am not at odds with what is being undertaken here. I simply begin with an appreciation for the uniqueness of the system and how difficult it is. Now, if you want to change the system so that it looks like your local largest corporation, we can try to do that. But let me tell you something. Your local largest corporation,wherever members may in fact reside, do not operate in the system under the Constitution of the United States. It requires due process, at the same time there is collective bargaining. The size of the work force and the unique strictures under which it operates presents a fascinating challenge, but we have to take the challenge and not simply imitate what we see in the larger community. I served on the board of three Fortune 500 companies. Two are unionized. One was not. They don't have the same issues, and they don't have the same problems. And they are able to operate in a way that this committee and that the Congress of the United States must come to grips with. We have the problems that have been outlined by this subcommittee. The fact that there has already been a court decision overturning a major section of what we have done is more than a shot across the bow. It is an indication that there is still a lot of work to do and that we have not grasped the functional and the intellectual challenge that this presents. I compare it, Mr. Chairman, to those who approach September 11th not knowing what to do, recognizing we had a specific challenge, and realizing we had to keep our society safe. And so their first instinct was to close down everything. Well, there is a way to do this. The Constitution of the United States isn't going to let you do it. There is no wording by the Congress that can overcome certain problems that are present in the--what do we call it--this act, the act I want to for the record say it correct, Working for America Act. Understand that we have already taken most of the work force and by statute of the United States passed by both Houses in fact done what this act would seek to do for the entire work force. You would think that having done that so recently the first thing you want to do is look very closely--since you have the largest section of the work force in the first place, what better laboratory to look at what you have accomplished to correct your mistakes? I chaired a very controversial agency at the time it was on its knees, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and I knew that the agency had to be changed from top to bottom. Well, I didn't do anything like what we do here, which is take the more than half of the offices and just change them. We took three offices, tried every single change we were trying to do, see if those changes worked, and after in fact being informed by practice, created a system that worked. I don't see us doing that here. Let's look at Judge Collier's decision, which focused on collective bargaining. Well, you can't collective bargain everybody. You can't simply redefine collective bargaining in the United States of America today, to quote what the judge said, when good faith bargaining leads to a contract that one side can disavow. Without remedy, the right to engage in collective bargaining is illusory. Now, you can try to abolish collective bargaining but you can't get around what in fact collective bargaining means in the law. And we can't get out of what it has come to mean and what we ourselves have over the decades reinforced as its meaning in the Federal sector, just to give one aspect, because we are trying to change everything in this bill: Pay, job classification, labor-management relations, adverse actions and appeals. Good luck. Doing all of that in most of your work force, we have already done that in the DOD, and now you're facing whether you're going to appeal or not a decision that has come down. Very clear, the trial judge left part of the system in place and was very clear what had been done with the rest of it. Essentially what we did was to redefine collective bargaining. We redefined it out of existence. One side could do what it wanted to do. DOD and HHS, we can do because, we confront emergencies, what it is we have to do. And yet, in this bill, Mr. Chairman, there is language, amazing language, a language that would give agencies, period, we are not even talking about DOD or HHS, which used the pretext of emergency perhaps when it sees fit, but we are talking about any agency that can take action without collective bargaining, in order to prepare for, practice for or prevent any emergency, which is very broadly defined. Well, you know, you know even a king doesn't have that authority. And I don't think in a democracy we want to give any agency head the right to decide, ``I said it is an emergency, it is an emergency. So I am going to do what I want to do and nobody has any say.'' You can't run the Federal Government that way, and what we are doing is getting ourselves deeper and deeper into a situation where everything we do is in fact going to be tested in the courts. So I understand that one of the great remedies for all this is just train everybody and you don't have to care about all the rest of it. Well, you can't train everybody out of the right to collective bargaining. You can't train everybody out of how to make sure that when you give pay increases you do not in fact engage in discrimination that will not take you to court. You have to have a system that does that and that enables people to work it. We do not have such a system today. I am with you, Mr. Chairman, in trying to see if we can get our way to such a system. Thank you very much. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. I like giving my colleague a hard time because I do live in the District. So it is always good to have two Members here working together. So I appreciate that very much. Just a couple of key points. In my position as chairman, I look at this very cautiously and I know there is a lot of steps that have to take place before we make any major changes. There are many, many steps. We also need to look closely at some of the successes and some of the failures throughout the system through the years. But the bottom line is we are looking at a personnel system that was created in the forties. So for those that are opposed to the concept of what may well be in this particular act, and I said in my opening statement, we have to find a better way to treat our Federal employees, which in turn can treat our taxpayers--our bosses--more efficiently, with more accountability, because the expectations are high, as they should be. Again, we are looking at a personnel system that was created in the forties. Whether the draft before us is the solution is yet to be determined, and that is why we are here today. We are in a global economy, a global market, where even in technology it is dog years. Everybody's computer is obsolete by the time we plug it in, technology is in dog years, seven for every one. The same with the way we deliver our services. As many of you have heard me say before, probably a large share of the time of every Member of the Congress in their district offices is trying to provide service to our constituents because of their frustration with the system. They are frustrated. Our taxpayers, our bosses, our constituents, our friends and neighbors are frustrated. They call an 800 number and no one answers. They get put on hold and it takes them 30 days to get an answer on certain problems. So as Members of Congress, we see firsthand the challenges for our constituents, but we also see those Federal employees that are doing a great job, and we need to find a way to reward those folks that are doing a great job. So today we have some experts with us. We are going to talk about better ways to encourage our personnel so we can keep our personnel as we move into this global economy and global market with high expectations, as our bosses should ask for. Again I thank you all for being here. I would like to first have all the witnesses stand so we can do the proper protocol and administer the oath. So actually all witnesses, please. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Porter. Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in the affirmative and have been seated. I would like to highlight the fact that we have so many folks here today to express their perspective and expertise. If we can hold our comments to the 5 minutes, we will of course have an opportunity for questions and answers and if time doesn't permit we will ask for you to submit your answers in writing. But it is imperative because of limited time and the number of folks that we limit ourselves to 5 minutes. So in our first panel we will hear from Director Linda Springer from the Office of Personnel Management and Comptroller General David M. Walker of the U.S. Government Accountability Office. So Director Springer, we thank you and look forward to your testimony. STATEMENTS OF LINDA M. SPRINGER, DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; AND DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STATEMENT OF LINDA M. SPRINGER Ms. Springer. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the administration's legislative proposal for improving personnel systems in the Federal Government. Simply stated, the Working for America Act will require agencies to better manage, develop and reward employees to better serve the American people. This act will establish a government-wide personnel system that creates an environment where employees have the greatest opportunity to reach their full potential. Under the proposal, individual employees will be provided clear performance goals, managers who can help them to be successful, and performance and market-based pay. An employees's career and pay potential should be determined by achievement, not by the passage of time or obsolete job classifications. But today it takes employees up to 18 years to reach the top of a General Schedule pay grade regardless of how well they perform. Our proposal establishes a process for implementing a system that recognizes and rewards performance. Each agency will design its individual plan for using the flexibilities once the general authorities are approved. However, no agency will be able to use the pay features in the bill until OPM certifies that agency's readiness. Our proposed legislation recognizes that enhancements to personnel systems must be made within the context of core values, principles and protections that characterize our American Civil Service. Reform can be accomplished while fully preserving core principles and protections. In fact, the Working for America Act promotes merit system principles by putting them into practice more broadly. Personnel systems that make it more likely that employees reach their full potential will soon cover more than half of the Federal work force. The rest should be afforded similar opportunities. The Working for America Act ensures that the remaining agencies are not left at a competitive disadvantage. Let me summarize the central elements of the Working for America Act. First, the Civil Service system must preserve core Civil Service principles. The act does just that. Second, under the Working for America Act provisions OPM would establish a core compensation system for the Federal Government, would define broad groups of like occupations, as well as pay bands within each group that represent clearly distinct levels of work. In this core system, market-based pay would constitute a significant portion of pay adjustments with the balance allocated on the basis of individual performance. Third, today even poorly performing employees receive a General Schedule increase across the board and locality pay increases. The Working for America Act would make those increases within a particular band performance based in the sense that only employees who are at least fully successful would receive those adjustments. In addition, our proposal would bar pass/fail appraisal systems for all but entry/developmental jobs but, as is the case today, would provide agencies with flexibility in designing their performance appraisal systems and would require OPM to certify that an agency's performance adjustment plan meets the high standards that Congress will set before that agency is permitted to move to a performance-based pay system. As I noted, Federal pay systems that include performance based pay are not new at all. They have existed inside the Federal Government for 25 years and today cover over 90,000 Federal employees. And I would note that does not include the DHS or DOD legislation. These are other programs that have been around as long as 25 years. These systems already apply to the same kinds of work and workers that the current General Schedule covers. The results and trends have been positive across those systems and we have looked to the lessons learned from those systems as we have developed the Working for America Act. The Working for America Act ensures that Federal unions retain core collective bargaining rights. The legislation modifies Federal labor relations statute to clarify essential management prerogatives but preserves the important role and rights of unions in the Federal labor relation system. These modifications in labor-management are much, much narrower in their scope than the flexibilities granted to the Department of Homeland Security, and I want to underscore that. Let me iterate that an agency will not be able to use pay flexibilities in the bill until OPM has certified that agency's readiness. To help agencies in that regard, OPM is leveraging its leadership of the human capital initiative of the President's management agenda. Starting in 2006, agencies will be required to develop and expand robust performance management systems for a defined segment within the agency. In other words, agencies must demonstrate that the site is ready to link pay for performance appraisal system with the expectation that such improvements will expand and continue throughout the agency. We are fully aware that OPM will have a critical role in ensuring the success of the Working for America Act. We recognize agencies will look to us for guidance and assurance from implementation and certification and beyond. You and, very importantly, the men and women of the Federal work force can be sure of the Office of Personnel Management's commitment to being fully prepared to carry out those responsibilities. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be glad to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Springer follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.007 Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. You may note that we have this little beeper going here. It is the alarm clock to let you know that your time is up. Anyway, welcome, Mr. Walker, we appreciate you being here. STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Norton, Mr. Van Hollen. It is a pleasure to be back before the subcommittee to talk about the draft proposed Working for America Act. Somehow I have been thinking about James Brown and Living in America all morning. But this is a very serious topic, and I do look forward to the opportunity to answering your questions as well. Since you have put my entire statement in the record, if I can summarize now, I would be pleased to do so. Mr. Chairman, each Member of Congress received in February of this year this document that was published by GAO. It is called, ``21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government.'' This document is based upon decades of work by GAO for the Congress, and it provides a clear and compelling case that a vast majority of the Federal Government is based upon conditions that existed in the United States and in the world in the 1950's and in the 1960's, and it includes over 200 questions that need to be asked and answered to position us for a more positive future. One of those 200 questions relates to the topic that we are covering in today's hearing. Based upon all of the experience that we have in analyzing the government's efforts in the human capital area as well as our own internal experience, GAO supports the concept of moving forward with appropriate human capital reforms and believes that implementing more market-based and performance-oriented classification and compensation systems across the entire Federal Government is both doable and desirable. Importantly, broad based human capital reform in our view must be part of a broader change in management strategy and must involve a number of changes in the performance management systems that exist in the Federal Government today. This concept cannot be simply overlaid onto the existing and often ineffective performance management systems that exist in the Federal Government today. In addition, organizations need to buildup their basic management capacity and must have adequate resources to properly design and effectively and equitably implement more market-based and performance-oriented classification compensation systems. In our view, before implementing dramatic human capital reforms, executive branch agencies should follow a phased approach that meets a ``Show me'' test, the so-called Missouri test; namely, that they have to demonstrate conclusively to OPM or some independent qualified third party that they have achieved all the conditions necessary in order to maximize the chance that there can be successful implementation before they would have the authority to implement new classification and compensation systems. This is contrary and different than what was done for the new SES pay ranges. In many cases, agencies were given conditional approval based upon promises to take actions. That is not acceptable in our view with regard to broad based work force changes. The actions must be taken and demonstrated that they are in place and functioning before the authority should be operationalized in our view. We have several observations for your consideration in the draft proposal. First, in our view there are two major elements of this proposal. The first deals with classification, pay and performance management reforms. In our view there is strong conceptual merit to moving forward with regard to classification pay and performance management reforms. The Federal Government has significant prior experience there, and I think we know what works and what doesn't work and can learn from those lessons. We think it is critically important that in making those reforms that OPM has to play a key leadership and oversight role to make sure that people deliver on their promises and they are not abusing their authorities. We also think it is critically important for the Congress to play an active and ongoing role in connection with monitoring any of these reforms efforts. The second part of the proposal deals with labor-management relations and adverse actions and appeals. In this area, we believe that Congress should move slower and possibly separately from the classification pay and performance management reforms. We do not have as much experience in this area and in fact some of the greatest experience that will be gained relate to the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, and it might well be prudent for the Congress to understand how those are implemented and to learn from the lessons there before moving forward with broader based reforms in that area. A few other quick comments. The definition of emergencies with regard to this particular section is very broad and is a matter, I believe, of concern. Second, there clearly will need to be an adequate pool of resources available for agencies to be able to modernize their infrastructure. And that is something that will have to be addressed. Furthermore, to the extent that agencies moved to compensation systems that might provide for additional amounts being paid in the form of a bonus rather than a base pay adjustment that otherwise would have been paid in a base pay adjustment under the old Civil Service system, I think it is important that they be given credit for CSRS and Federal Thrift Saving Plan purposes for that. That would require changing the law. And last, I think the target date, as I understand it, on this proposed legislation is that the current system would expire in 2010. My view is it is fine to have a target date, but I believe that there should be a conditions based approach, that people should not be able to implement these new authorities until they've met the conditions. All these government agencies may or may not meet the conditions by 2010. So it is fine to have a target date. But in the final analysis people shouldn't be able to move forward unless and until they have met all the conditions whenever that might occur, whether it be before or after 2010. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.029 Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Walker. I have a question, Ms. Springer, and I am going to read the question because I think it is important as we frame the meeting today, because I think there is some misconceptions. First question, are Working for America Act provisions identical to the authorities provided DHS and DOD? Ms. Springer. The answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, is no. They are not identical, particularly in the labor- management section. Those are the parts that are most notably being dealt with in the courts right now. So I don't want to specifically address them. But I can say that section is much, much smaller, much more limited in the Working for America Act draft bill that we proposed. The first section is--General Walker has sort of parsed it. That deals more with performance and pay. It is more similar, and that is the less controversial part. Mr Porter. Are we giving OPM authority to waive provisions in Title 5? Ms. Springer. No, we are not, and that is an important question to have clarification. The Congress is the only one that can change that statute. OPM just carries out what is there. So OPM would not have any ability to waive any part of Title 5. Mr. Davis of Virginia. Will any employee lose pay because of the conversion to the new pay system established under the authority of this act? Ms. Springer. The answer to that is no. No one's pay will be reduced. This is sort of a forward looking type of arrangement in the sense that from the point of conversion forward the pay increases, not the change in the level of pay preconversion versus post conversion, but the increases themselves may be at a different pace or a different amount than they would otherwise have been. But there will not be a reduction in pay as a result of converting to the new system. Mr. Porter. Now why should we move forward with this change prior to having all the results back from DOD and Homeland Security? Ms. Springer. I can give you a very good case in point, and I am going to answer this in two ways. One is as I mentioned, we have 90,000 employees that we have looked to as we have crafted this bill and the programs that they are under. These are programs, they are demonstration projects, they are programs that span across an entire organization. They have been functioning, some of them, as long as 25 years. That is where we've looked to inform the construct of this bill, particularly the performance and pay part. And we have done a lot of work there, a lot of surveying. There are things that are working very well. By and large the employees in those systems would not turn the clock back to what they were in beforehand. Let me give you a case in point. A couple days ago, less than a week ago, I had an e-mail that said to me, Director, we are losing someone that we just hired 2 weeks ago to OPM. They are going to go and take another position at an agency that is part of that 90,000 group because they could be in a pay band structure where they had more upside potential for their pay. And as a matter of fact, that agency right on the spot could pay them a five figure salary higher than--more in their salary than we were able to give them because of the constraints in the General Schedule. It happens time and time again. It is important for us to move on this thing. Mr. Porter. One last question for clarification, and I know since there is a lawsuit pending I want to be cautious in the question and of course in the answer as you feel is appropriate. But it is my understanding that the court injunction is regarding OPM regulations, DHS and OPM regulations, not the law, is that correct? Ms. Springer. I would have to find that answer out. That is correct. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. I appreciate that it. Ms. Norton. Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, the court found that the regulations are in violation of the law. That is the problem. And in light of that problem, I must say, Ms. Springer, I said to staff to make sure that you get me this testimony. And got this testimony. It is very thin testimony, and yet you got an extraordinary opportunity and we have no information about how this opportunity--at least from you, about how this opportunity is being used. You have jurisdiction over about 2 million employees, and if you count DOD and HHS, that is running up 900,000-some, almost a million. This is a kind of laboratory that frankly should be a perfect setting for you to come back here and tell us what the most recent experience has been. Nobody is going to leap into the next million without having some greater sense of what has happened with respect to the first million. Could I ask you, and for that matter, Mr. Walker, who talks about we have pay and classification experience, you must be talking about your agency, Mr. Walker. The whole reason that they are before us is because this is brand new, would be brand new for every section of the work force, beginning with those that we have given the authority to, not to mention the rest. But I would like to know what studies have been done, certainly by the GAO, and if the studies haven't been done, can you give us some idea of experience with these two agencies, which must have been a fertile ground to gather the kind of information an oversight committee needs before it makes the next leap and takes the whole work force with it. I tell you, I don't know about you and faith-based, but this is too big to put my faith in you or anybody in this government. And I think we deserve to know what has happened so far in great detail before you ask us to go the next step of the way, especially since you're already in litigation and you didn't even mention that and what you're going to do about that. Go ahead, Ms. Springer. Ms. Springer. Let me respond. There are several parts there. One thing I do want to say is obviously we are not trying to hide anything. We are not trying to give you a thin document. We have in fact had 18 detailed briefings. We have had 34 hours of briefings and with the House alone we have had 7 hours of detailed briefings. Ms. Norton. Staff. Which staff? Ms. Springer. Minority, majority it was open, anybody was welcome. Ms. Norton. The purpose of this hearing is for the public record, to let the Members know what is happening, to let the public know what is happening. And I appreciate that you have told the staff what is happening. Can you tell us what is happening? Ms. Springer. Sure. I just want to say that it is--for starters we have not tried to hide anything. We have put this draft bill up on the Web sites. We have been very accessible to staff. And as you say, the purpose of the hearing, which we are very happy to have today, gives us more of a public forum to do that. But we have been out there--let me just expand on that. The briefings have been with unions, they have been with good government groups. They have been with employees that we have had--it has not just only been with staff but I mentioned staff specifically because---- Ms. Norton. Ms. Springer, were these briefings about the studies or results from the changes Congress authorized and that you have begun to put in place in the two largest agencies in government? That is my question, not what were your briefings about. Ms. Springer. The briefings to a large degree were about this bill and they were also about the results of the programs that have been in place over the years. We have not briefed on the NSPS system because the final regs haven't even been published on that one yet. That is the DOD. So that is a work in progress, the final regs are in the process, they will be out in the Federal Registry. We will be more than happy to do discussions on that one, and even if there was an interest in a dedicated hearing on that, that obviously would be something we would welcome. But that has not been at the point where it has been--even the final regs have been public on that one. With respect to the DHS, once that got into court it really constrained our ability to comment publicly on the portions of that bill that are in question that are being dealt with in the court system. So those have not been the focal points of the briefings that we have done. Briefings have been more on the particular bill draft that we have submitted for those reasons. Mr. Porter. Mr. Walker, you had a comment? Mr. Walker. Ms. Norton, I would like to answer your question if I may. I would divide this bill into two parts, Ms. Norton. The first part would be classification, pay and performance. It is my understanding at the present point in time the Federal Government has 90,000 to 100,000 employees that are covered by broad banding systems and by more market- based and performance-oriented compensation systems. And some of those go back, back to the 1980's, and it is not just GAO. As you know, we have 3,200 employees covered by that. So there is 90,000 to 100,000. I think there's a considerable amount of experience with regard to classification. Ms. Norton. I would like to draw your attention back to the 1980's at the fairly higher levels of the agency involved. Mr. Walker. You are correct in saying that we need to look at the nature of the people covered by these and some are very technical and scientific. Ms. Norton. That is very important to say that, Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker. Absolutely, and I don't debate that at all. Here is my point. We have 90,000 to 100,000 of various levels and I think the other thing that this concept includes is conditions that would have to be met. By the way, these conditions were not in the DOD and the DHS legislation. These are very stringent conditions that would have to be met before anybody could move forward. Ms. Norton. Such as? Mr. Walker. Such as the conditions that you would have to be able to demonstrate that you have a modern, effective, credible, performance appraisal system that provided meaningful feedback that resulted in meaningful differentiation in performance, that you had adequate training to conduct to help people understand how to implement that system. Ms. Norton. Are you saying those are not in the law and should be? Mr. Walker. They are not in DHS or DOD. They are in the concept for this proposal. Again we don't have a bill. They are in a concept paper. And we have testified--frankly we have testified in connection with DOD and DHS that those would have been good to put in those bills but they weren't. But they are in this proposal. Second, in the second half I share your concern. The second half has to do with labor-management relations and adverse actions and appeals. And as I testified, we don't have as much as experience on that. And we believe that it may be prudent for the Congress to consider what happens as a result of DHS and DOD before you decide to move forward on that front. So the first part, classification, pay and performance management, we think there is enough experience, we think there is a way forward. And you can include work experience---- Ms. Norton. There is enough experience from employees at fairly high grades and levels, technical employees, scientists, many of them professionals that would leave the government if you mess with them because they have, many, many options. There is enough experience with 100,000 employees to now jump in and take 2 million with us all at one time? Mr. Walker. Not all at one time. That is very, very important. What is very, very important is--and first I would be happy to provide for the record information that we have about the nature of that 90,000 to 100,000. I think it is a very legitimate question. But what is important about this is that this basically would be, as I understand it, conditional authorization. In other words, it would authorize agencies to move to a broad banding system. It would authorize agencies to move to a more market-based, performance-oriented compensation system. But they could not do it unless and until they demonstrated that they had met certain conditions--not based on promises--based on results. And therefore, as I say, I don't think you ought to have an arbitrary date, 2010 or anything else, for getting rid of the GS system because you don't know what people are going to meet those conditions. You're talking about a lot of people, and a lot of these agencies quite frankly have a lot of work to do before they would end up meeting those conditions in order to move forward. Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Walker. I appreciate it. Ms. Springer. May I add one other thing as well? We have a report that we will be glad to provide for the record as well on the demonstration projects that cover these 90,000 to 100,000. We have just finished it this week and would be glad to provide that for the record. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.053 Ms. Norton. Thank you. That would be very helpful. Mr. Chairman, I do want to just note that the testimony that we received is very important if we are looking at writing a bill that might get through the Appropriations Committee and for that matter through the Congress, and that is Mr. Walker's testimony that a phased approach, a ``Show me'' approach, a condition-based approach, would be the most prudent. By the way, would you agree with that, Ms. Springer? Ms. Springer. Yes, and that is the way this act is set up. Ms. Norton. Do you think this act is--oh, you have only seen the concept because we are trying now to find out how to do it and I think that it is very, very important to make this palatable. Mr. Porter. As do I. Very compelling comments. Thank you. Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank both of the witnesses here this morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continuing oversight in this very, very important area. It doesn't get a lot of public attention, but I think it is very important to the public and the quality of government that we have. Let me just first begin with breaking it conceptually into the two parts that Mr. Walker has divided it into, on the one hand the management reforms and pay for performance issue, on the other hand labor-management relations and the adverse action provisions of the bill. And a note on pay for performance. Again, the concept of pay for performance--we have been over this ground before--is something that I don't think anyone can oppose. People should be rewarded based on their ability to produce. The key is implementing that kind of system, and especially within the government context where you have lots of factors that are not present in the private sector context and you have many different potential masters. And I don't mean to pick on anybody but if you're talking about FEMA and Michael Brown and what that kind of message sends in terms of performance and the kind of individual needed in the job and the kind of experience they need in order to carry out their job, what kind of signals can that send out to their employees and can they really believe they are going to be evaluated based on a fair judgment and based on their experience and qualifications to do their job? Let me just ask Ms. Springer if you would agree with just in terms of approaching this major piece of legislation in a manageable way, one bite at a time, whether you would agree with Mr. Walker's suggestion that we might be better off taking this as two separate pieces; in other words, let's examine the pay for performance part and focus on that issue and not move forward with the other provisions that are in the bill. What would you think of that? Ms. Springer. I think that is an option that could be considered but having said that, I think that we have crafted the bill with the thought that the two pieces do go together, and we think that they both can be accommodated in a much, much reduced way from DHS. The one mistake we don't want to make is to say this is DHS revisited or NSPS revisited because that part is scaled down considerably. However, I personally, speaking for myself, think that is an option that you know could be looked at. Mr. Van Hollen. I just note with regard to labor-management provisions, I understand there are provisions in this bill that are not the same as DHS and the Department of Defense. On the other hand, as I understand, there are some provisions in this bill that are actually potentially more expansive. Mr. Walker mentioned the definition of emergency, which is, as I understand it, is the triggering definition for determining whether or not you're going to continue to follow the labor- management provisions of the bill. And the definition of emergency is broadened to include, ``any situation involving or potentially involving an adverse effect on agency resources.'' It goes on to talk about increase in agency workload or any budgetary exigency caused in whole or in part by external authorities. I can't think of a single department in the Federal Government today that couldn't claim that they were in an emergency right now under that definition. If you could respond to that. Ms. Springer. Well, there are technical people here who could probably talk to the specific language better than I can, but the purpose of this hearing, the purpose of our work with you, with your staffs, is that we can refine those things in a way that deals with concerns that you have. If it is too broad, let's look at it. If it is not immediate enough--my understanding was that it was really intended to be for immediate situations where there is a need for immediate action, there isn't time to deliberate, what have you. But having said that, I am not the technical expert. But if there are things we need to refine, let's look at them. The idea was to get a draft act on the table so we could start to work together and get this thing refined. Mr. Van Hollen. I hear you. Mr. Walker. I agree it is too broad. And second, I think you have to think about, in coming up with a reasonable definition of what is an emergency, for what period of time is there an emergency. Is it envisioned that it is a limited period of time, or is it something that is defined so broadly that it could go on indefinitely? I think, you know, that is a very important area and a very problematic area. Mr. Van Hollen. And Mrs. Springer, I agree with you that part of this process is give and take. But the problem is when you put something in writing on the table like that it does send signals. You have to build trust to move forward with this kind of process. You have to build the trust of Federal employees who are about to be subjected to the new rules. And when you put on a piece of paper something that is just so broad it would encompass just about any agency today, it creates a more difficult environment to move forward. Mr. Chairman, if I can just ask one last question with respect to the phased in approach and the fact that you have the ``Show me'' test. Under the draft, or concept, what is--who are we showing? In other words, is this a certification that is going to be made by OPM as to whether or not the criteria had been met? Ms. Springer. Yes, that's right. I just want to add one other thing if I can with that emergency issue, I think hopefully we would all agree that there are legitimate emergencies in critical situations, assessable situations. I hope we're not saying that there is no such situation that could be addressed should we have a labor-management component to the bill. Mr. Van Hollen. I understand. It is this definition, as I say, it seems to reflect the current condition of every department in the Federal Government. Mr. Walker. Can I suggest, Mr. Van Hollen, that you are correct in noting that under this proposed draft legislation or proposal that OPM would do the certification. I would fully expect that the Congress would want GAO to monitor OPM's efforts and to report periodically with regard to the exercise of those. Mr. Van Hollen. I thank you for that. The red light was on so after the answer I wasn't sure but, Mr. Chairman, just on that point. Clearly, there's going to be a question about the-- I think from the Congress' perspective given the nature of this, if we were to move in this direction, it would absolutely be essential from our perspective to have GAO overseeing or monitoring the reporting on that. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. Ms. Norton. May I ask one factual question? Mr. Porter. Yes. Ms. Norton. Ms. Springer, do you intend to appeal the Federal court decision striking down major portions of the Department of Homeland Security provisions on collective bargaining? Ms. Springer. I am not at liberty to comment. My counsel has told me not to comment on that case. Ms. Norton. I hope at the very least it leads to some thoughtful--whatever you do. Because now you're on your way to something that is probably going to just keep going because of litigation. I hope that you're not depending entirely on litigation but are looking closely at what the court said to see if there are things you can to do mitigate the possibility of future suits like this in the future. Thank you. Mr. Porter. Thank you. Thank you both very much. I appreciate you being here today. Just know, Mr. Walker, that there is a band on the hill with five Congressman, a bipartisan band. We need to work on that James Brown song. Mr. Walker. It is a great song. Mr. Porter. It is a great song. Thank you. Thank you both very much. We have six witnesses left to testify. Actually, panel three and four, and I think for the element of time, I'm going to try to bring all six up--I know we're a little limited for space--and possibly share the mics. So if Theresa, Max Stier, Scott Gould, Mr. Styles, Mr. Gage, and Ms. Kelley--I realize there are three chairs so that's going to be a real trick. We're going to bring a couple more chairs up. Maybe we'll take about a 5-minute recess while we get things situated. Thank you. [Recess.] Mr. Porter. I'd like to bring the meeting back to order. Some of the witnesses came late. I'd like to ask once again that we do the witness and the oath. For those who weren't here, is there anyone that--Colleen, you weren't here. Anyone else that wasn't here? Please, if you'd raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Porter. Please be seated. I'd also like to acknowledge that fellow Member of Congress, Mr. Flake from Arizona, had planned on being with us today, was unable to be here, and, without objection, I'd like to enter his comments into the record. Thank you. Let's begin with our third and fourth panel. We'll start with Theresa Shaw, the Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid, U.S. Department of Education. Welcome. STATEMENTS OF THERESA S. SHAW, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, OFFICE OF FEDERAL STUDENT AID, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PARTNERSHIP FOR PUBLIC SERVICE; W. SCOTT GOULD, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC SECTOR STRATEGY AND CHANGE, BUSINESS AND CONSULTING SERVICE, IBM GLOBAL SERVICES; MICHAEL B. STYLES, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FEDERAL MANAGERS ASSOCIATION; JOHN GAGE, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES; AND COLLEEN M. KELLEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION STATEMENT OF THERESA S. SHAW Ms. Shaw. Good morning. Good morning. Much better. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. I'm pleased to be here representing Secretary Spellings, the Department of Education, and Federal Student Aid, to share some of our successes in transforming our work force, elevating our performance, and delivering tangible results. Federal Student Aid has operational responsibility for oversight in the administration of all of the Department's Federal student financial assistance programs, and, as one of the government's few performance-based organizations, upholds high standards of operational efficiency, innovation, customer care and individual and organization performance. We are also provided certain managerial flexibilities and authorities over personnel management, budget, and procurement activities. Prior to our establishment as a performance-based organization, the Federal Student Aid programs were plagued with oversight and management challenges, high default rates, and customers who were not happy with the service they received. In 1990 the Government Accountability Office found the Federal Student Aid programs at high risk to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Financial management and internal controls on the programs were largely nonexistent, and unqualified audit opinions were not attainable. In 1990, students loan default rates had hit a high of 22.4 percent. Customer satisfaction scores were not even measured. Federal Student Aid with its specific purposes, authorities, and flexibilities was created to effect change, and we are transforming our work force and culture to be highly effective. Mr. Chairman, I believe that delivery of results is the true measure of success, and I'd like to share how we have used our personnel flexibilities and our progress on our work force and culture transformation. Our hiring flexibilities allow us to fill critical and time-sensitive resource needs faster and to pay salaries closer to market rates for similar positions in the private sector. With this flexibility, our average period to hire is 34 calendar days versus 200 calendar days for the most recently Federal hired career staff subject to the usually competitive processes. We have used our hiring flexibility to hire staff with needed skill sets obtained in the private sector, to augment the skill sets of our Federal career staff. This marriage of private sector and Federal career skills, experience, and knowledge has been a great success. This hiring flexibility only applies to a small portion of our work force. Most positions are filled by General Schedule and Senior Executive Service staff and subject to the Title 5 competitive process. We recently worked with the Partnership for Public Service to identify a better, faster process for recruiting and hiring qualified Federal career staff. If you take a look at the chart on the left, the standard staff hiring process had 114 steps, with more than 45 handoffs. In comparison, our new streamlined process eliminates nearly 50 percent of the steps. The Working for America Act would provide even greater efficiencies to this process. We have not focused on the hiring process alone to transform our work force and culture. We have strengthened performance management and aligned individual performance with delivery of results. We have a process that recognizes and rewards differences in performance. The results are in for us. In January 2005, the Government Accountability Office removed the Federal Student Aid programs from its high-risk list. In March 2005, we achieved all green status in improved financial performance on the President's management agenda score card. The Secretary recently announced a new all-time low default rate, 4\1/2\ percent, and we have created innovative contract solutions to optimize the investment of taxpayer dollars and the return on that investment, saving taxpayers an estimated $1\1/2\ billion on two contracts alone. Independent customer satisfaction scores for our flagship product, the electronic Free Application for Federal Student Aid, are comparable to UPS, Mercedes Benz, and Amazon.com. Our high standards and expectations for performance, our ability to hire, manage, develop and reward employees, while being respectful of our collective bargaining obligations, have enabled us to achieve these and many other accomplishments. However, we can do more. I envision even greater results with flexibility such as those described in the Working for America Act. Competitive market-rate compensation and pay increases, driven by performance and delivery of results, will allow agencies to attract and retain the highest caliber staff. Managers who are equipped to properly set and evaluate job performance in collaboration with employees will ensure fairness in the process. Trained managers will deal effectively with poor performance. This is how the private sector works, and it works for the private sector. I'm honored to be part of Secretary Spellings' team. On behalf of the Secretary, the Department, and Federal Student Aid, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Porter. Thank you, Ms. Shaw. Congratulations. I'd like to know what the 40th orange dot is. Ms. Shaw. One of the handoffs. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much and congratulations. Appreciate your comments. [The prepared statement of Ms. Shaw follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.059 Mr. Porter. Mr. Stier. STATEMENT OF MAX STIER Mr. Stier. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman Porter, Congresswoman Norton, Congressman Van Hollen. It's a great pleasure to be here. Five minutes go quickly so I will speak quickly. I want to recognize the great work FSA is doing under Terri Shaw's leadership. It's really extraordinary stuff and it's an honor to work with her. We start from the proposition that you started with, Chairman Porter, and that is the status quo is not good enough. We can and must do better for the Federal work force and for the American people. And one important piece of evidence--this I think comes from the employee surveys that you yourself cited, just to take three quick snapshots. Less than half say they have a high level of respect for their organization's leaders and managers. I would point out that this is across the board, from top to bottom on the management side. Only one- third believe that the leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the work force, and less than one- third agree that differences in performance are recognized in a meaningful way. I would note that is 25 points lower than the private sector benchmark we're looking at. This is a big problem. It's a big problem whether we're looking at this legislation, a big problem we need to focus on beyond just this legislation. We believe that the Working for America Act can be part of the solution and ultimately needs to be a part of that solution but that system changes alone will not fix the problem. And our first order of business needs to be making sure that we focus on the overall capacity of Federal agencies and Federal managers to better manage and create performance-oriented organizations. We believe we need to invest now to create that management capacity because the consequences are both significant externally and internally for the Federal Government itself. The Working for America Act, as has been pointed out by Congresswoman Norton's questions and Congressman Van Hollen's questions, is the right approach. It's very different from the reforms we saw for DHS and DOD. It is a ``show me'' proposition, as Comptroller General Walker said, and essentially says that you need to prove that you're ready before you're enabled to be given these extra flexibilities. That is the right approach, but it's also a very important process, we believe, because you can make these changes, get agencies ready, but ultimately the kinds of flexibilities that are then available to these agencies will be very valuable. One of them that is rarely focused on that deserves a little attention is the issue of market sensitivity. It's not just performance sensitivity that we're after, but the Federal Government needs to better compete in the overall marketplace for talent, it needs to be able to offer the kinds of compensation levels that are going to be able to attract the very best talent in different geographic regions around different occupations at different levels. And that's one of the provisions the Working for America Act provides for and we think is critical. We're taking the committee at its word here, and we're offering several amendment suggestions as well. We believe that there are three areas that we can focus most helpfully on in terms of improving this legislation. First and most importantly, focusing on that management issue that I just discussed, we provide some language in our testimony that's appended that obviously is draft language; but the basic concept is this legislation would be improved if we understood better what is it that we are looking for in management and government. And we asked OPM to essentially create the kind of core competencies that we believe will be necessary for Federal managers to succeed and then, very importantly, require agencies to conduct audits, both of their overall capacity to manage, but also against individual managers, and then develop plans that help them identify ways to improve their management capacity, again, both holistically as an agency and also with individual managers. We believe that component should be made part of the certification procedure and would be critical. We also believe that kind of work can and should be done here and now even outside the context of this legislation. Second, we think that there is an increased need for focus to be paid upon the HR function itself. If you look at the Clinger-Cohen Act which came out of this committee, one of the very important provisions was it focused on the capacity of financial--I'm sorry, IT management staff, to be able to do their job and do it right. The HR function is facing increasing pressure today in the Federal environment. We need HR managers that are HR professionals that are going to be able to provide service to the rest of the agencies in ways that are much, much more demanding than previously, and they have faced an enormous cut over time. If you look at the numbers, you have seen 20 percent reduction in HR professionals during the 1990's and we believe that therefore the provision we provide there will help in that regard. Third and finally, we think looking at employee attitudes is going to be essential in understanding the consequences of these changes and whether we're getting them right, and therefore that the survey requirements that are currently part of law are very important, that the provision that's provided in this draft that would limit some of or provide opportunities for limiting the survey requirements should be itself restricted to focus on the problem that we believe is legitimate, and that is the one I'm focusing on in making sure that small agencies have the option or, rather, that the OPM Director has the option of limiting their obligation for surveys on an annual basis. Thanks; 5 minutes. Mr. Porter. Good job. I appreciate the fact that you have provided for us some suggested improvements and/or changes, and I would encourage all those that are testifying today that as you have ideas and suggestions, by providing them as you have, this is very beneficial to the process. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Stier follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.072 Mr. Porter. Mr. Gould. STATEMENT OF W. SCOTT GOULD Mr. Gould. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer joint testimony today. I'm a vice president at IBM Corp., and my colleague, Professor Linda Bilmes, is a member of Harvard University's faculty. Together we've been working on a book entitled, ``The People Factor'' for Brookings Institution, to be published next year. We're happy to be here this morning to share with you some of our preliminary findings and conclusions at this stage of our research. I'd like to offer three main points this morning. First, we agree with those who advocate major changes to the current Federal personnel management system. The reasons are straightforward. It no longer fits much of today's government work force. It defers managers from bringing in the talents government needs, it chokes the system with red tape, and in some cases it creates counterproductive competition between government agencies for certain personnel. While we agree with these arguments, in our book we have tried to put forward a positive rationale for why the Federal work force will perform better if it is reformed based on our empirical findings. We have developed a method to calculate the benefits to government of personnel reform, using a new formula we call return on taxpayer investment [ROTI]. We have also developed a method to estimate the cost of implementing a modernized personnel system and we believe the benefits will outweigh the costs by a wide margin. My second major point: For the most part we agree the WAA contains many necessary changes to the Federal personnel system. However, these changes alone are not enough. As discussed more fully in our written testimony, we suggest the following elements are necessary in the system for managing the 21st century work force: a workable pay-for-performance system, significant management training and education, a market- responsive competency-based job classification system to replace the General Schedule system, improved hiring practices, a secure and reliable funding source to support successful implementation, and finally, the means for easier movement of talented individuals between the public and private sectors. My third main point: We encourage those responsible for modernization of the personnel system to anticipate and prepare for the substantial implementation challenges posed by the Working for America Act. This is the area that we want to emphasize most in our remarks this morning, the need to take reasonable steps in advance to enable government managers to implement successfully the reforms envisioned by the proposed legislation. These steps should include the following: an active consultation and involvement strategy, two-way dialog. Active involvement and participation by managers and employees at all levels in the organization, in my view, are essential. No. 2, extensive training. Training people on their new duties and responsibilities is essential to build competence, and, I would say, instill confidence in the new system. Three, employing a step-by-step change management process, including the use of new systems. Four, dedicated resources to support successful implementation of a new personnel system. This will require sufficient dedicated resources from inside government and, in most cases, guidance from experts who have done this before. This is not a time for learning on the job or undercapitalized efforts. Finally, time to effect the change. In addition to extensive training and coaching, Federal managers will need time to adapt, and so will our employees. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to associate myself with your introductory remarks. We must remember that public servants make possible the millions of individual transactions and relationships that serve the people of our country. They provide the essential capacity of government to serve its citizens and they implement largely the laws that Congress creates. The change envisioned by this proposed legislation asks a lot of our government employees. In return, leadership must do its utmost to earn and keep mutual trust, respect, and accountability with these employees in order to succeed. This must include consultation with all the parties, extensive training, resources to fund the effort, and time to make a successful adjustment to the new system so that we do not jeopardize mission performance along the way. Thank you. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. When will you your book be completed? Mr. Gould. In the summer. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gould follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.082 Mr. Porter. Mr. Styles, president, Federal Managers Association. Pardon me. Before you begin, I would exercise caution for those folks on the labor side in that you have a lot of allies here today, and you're hearing a lot of comments that probably concur with some of your thoughts. Having read some of the backup material, I would encourage you to temper some of those thoughts because you have a lot of supporters here today, and just exercise a little bit of caution. Mr. Styles. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL B. STYLES Mr. Styles. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Norton---- Mr. Porter. I don't believe your mic is on just yet. Mr. Styles. Is that good? Mr. Porter. That's good. Thank you. Mr. Styles. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Norton, Congressman Van Hollen. It's an absolute pleasure to be here with you. I had remarks that I was going to read that were excerpts from my testimony, but given the fact that we may not have enough time to answer questions in the fullest, I'd like to at least point to some issues that I think are important that would be part of a question-and-answer period perhaps. I appreciate the comments that have been made thus far, but I also think that it should be noted that as we've moved into this HR modification process in all agencies, as we talk about the Working for America Act, to continue on with the things in DHS and DOD, I think we've started out in a negative mode. What we've started to do is talk about how the managers in the Federal work force can't manage effectively, how the work force has an awful lot of nonperforming individuals who get increases automatically. I think these are fallacies, and I think that we should readdress our focus and we should start to approach this process with a positive rationale for the development of a new system, taking into account those negative aspects of the systems that we're working under today. First of all, I believe in the empowerment of managers and employees so that we can bring about innovative changes within our work forces. I believe that we have been involved, and you just watched a cycle time management demonstration right behind me that I thought was excellent, but those of us who have been managing in the Federal work force have used cycle time management and total quality processes for years. So I think it's important that the reputation and the image of the Federal employee is recognized for what it is. We touch everything that happens every day in America, and we do a darn fine job at that, and I applaud everybody in this audience for their job and I thank you for your original comments. We also heard from Congressman Van Hollen. He said that we have to build trust if we're to move forward. That can only be done if we have a collaborative effort that's being put forward by the labor folks, management, the legislature, and the executive branch. Certain concerns that we have as we move into this new era. We have myths that have to be debunked. The private sector does not manage better than the Federal sector in all instances. We can learn from each other in very many ways. Each agency can learn from each other. Workers are more efficient in the private sector? I don't think so. I think, once again, we have a balance here that we have to look at. Our workers are pretty darn good. FMA represents managers and supervisors across 35 different agencies, and I've had tremendous pleasure over time, 16 years of that time as president of the FMA, to go to all of these agencies and see what we do in America, day in and day out, and I am very proud of what we accomplish. Points to bring out before my 5 minutes are up. If we are going to move forward, obviously funding for training is essential. When I talk about training, training for bringing into place new HR systems. And, by the way, we need training for the HR systems that are in place. We haven't had enough training, it isn't ongoing, and one of the reasons is because funding hasn't been provided for us. That funding, in our eyes, should be fenced. You should not be able to go out and use training funds as a discretionary fund for some other aspect of business. Agency oversight of expenditures has to be taken into account and tracking of training so that we ensure all personnel are trained. We can't allow those training dollars to be stolen from--and I have here, Peter to pay Paul. What we've already seen in demonstration programs across the country is the fact that we haven't given them extra money to provide training, we've just given them training dollars. And now suddenly they don't have the same amount of funding for safety and security training, for instance. Pay for performance. We already have pay for performance, but people don't seem to recognize that. It's kind of an ironic thing. We do have a process to provide people with--my time is running here. OK. In order to be effective in pay for performance, we have to make sure that we fund for the raises, whether we're in our system or another system, and I think it's a fallacy, as I said before, to think that folks automatically get pay raises, because nonperformers don't have to get a pay raise in our current system either. Do I think that there are merits to our proposal, Working for America Act? I do. I think market-based pay is essential if we're to move forward and be competitive in the marketplace. But, just to quickly say this before time goes out here, an example, what we do now is take a GS-11 and GS-12 and make a band out of it. We take a 13 and 14, make a band out of it. I thank you very much. Maybe I'll get a question on that later to finish that out. Thank you for your time. Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Styles. I appreciate your comments. The success of the current system or the future system rests in your hands as long as it's funded properly and you have the proper training to work with. So I concur. [The prepared statement of Mr. Styles follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.099 Mr. Porter. Mr. Gage is the president of the American Federation of Government Employees. STATEMENT OF JOHN GAGE Mr. Gage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Norton and Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, you have entitled today's hearing, ``Mom, Apple Pie, and Working for America: Accountability and Rewards for the Federal Workforce,'' and asked me to comment on the proposals. Working for America, mom, apple pie--based upon our union's experience with the congressional debates over personnel changes in the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense, we certainly hope that the proponents of this legislation do not mean to portray those who might oppose it as working against America in an opposition to mom and apple pie. We certainly hope that a reasoned discussion of the merits will take place and that one's position on pay for performance and the destruction of union rights and due process will not be framed as yet another measure of loyalty and patriotism. Should Federal employees be forced to compete against their co-workers for a salary adjustment? Should Federal employees have to wonder from year to year whether a supervisor might decide he or she needs a pay cut? Mr. Porter. Excuse me, Mr. Gage. If I may interrupt for a moment. I personally take exception to those comments. And as an individual that for 20-plus years has worked closely with the employees of local, State and Federal Government, I take exception when you would comment that we be against those and would not believe that they're American. So I take exception to that. Please understand this committee is here to have a fair hearing on the proposed structure of pay for performance, or whatever it is that we conclude at the end of the day. But, please, I do take exception. Mr. Gage. Thank, you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter. Excuse me, Mr. Gage. As for the balance of my committee and this Congress, there are people that are working very hard, trying to work with you to make sure that employees--we have the best and brightest that can take care of our customers, and that's the taxpayers. Mr. Gage. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, we've been through this before with Homeland Security and DOD. I just want to note that we didn't think those discussions were very fair. And I do appreciate that this will be different, but I thought it would be appropriate that we mention that because we have been through it. Mr. Porter. Again, Mr. Gage, we have a meeting later on today, and I think we can finish this discussion at 2 o'clock. On behalf of this body and this committee I do take exception to those comments. Mr. Gage. Thank you. Should Federal employees be prevented from access to their union-negotiated agreement procedures when they have evidence that a supervisor's evaluation of his performance is inaccurate? Should Federal employees be denied to have an unfairly imposed penalty overturned after an unbiased third party has decided the penalty was unwarranted? Should Federal employees be forced to work as probationary employees for 3 full years, without any rights on the job at all? And should Federal employees who work for the Federal Government be forced to trade a pay system that sets their salaries according to objective factors such as job duties and responsibilities, and adjust those salaries according to objective market data for one in which supervisors decide their salaries based on personal assessments of their personal qualities or competencies? Should these employees trade salary adjustments based on data collected by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics for so-called market surveys conducted at the discretion of local management by whatever private outfit the manager chooses? And should Federal employees who vote for union representation and pay union dues be denied the right to collective bargaining on anything except issues management decides are foreseeable, substantial, and significant in terms of impact and duration, including such issues important to every employee, as work schedules, travel, overtime, fair promotions, career development and training? Our answer to each of these questions is an unequivocal no. And that is why we urge you to reject the proposed legislation. The employees AFGE represents want their voices to be heard in the development of any new pay system, especially on fundamental issues such as the classification methods, criteria and systems structure, the way base pay is set and adjusted, and the rules of pay administration, including policies and procedures for something as complex as pay for performance. The administration's draft legislation extinguishes the voice of workers who would actually be paid under the new system. There is no provision for any collective bargaining at all with regard to the development of the new system, despite the fact that, across the board, participants in demonstration projects maintain the only way such systems have any degree of legitimacy, support, or fairness is if these issues are addressed in collective bargaining and worker protections are written into a fully enforceable collective bargaining agreement. The administration's bill is not about either rewards or accountability; indeed, it would eliminate several mechanisms for holding agency managers and political appointees accountable for how they treat the Federal work force in terms of the way that work force is selected, retained, disciplined, terminated, managed, and paid. Although the administration contends that the merit system principles will be upheld if its legislation is enacted, there's almost no way for Federal employees or others to obtain information to confirm or disprove this. Mr. Chairman, I think what I'd like to conclude on is that we think there can be changes in this system. We have suggested changes in this system. But for this system to have any credibility and be transparent, taking away union rights, employee rights, Civil Service protection, starts off on the wrong foot. And I hope that in further discussions we can make this a much more positive experience for Federal employees instead of what it is being seen out there by Federal employees now. Thank you, sir. Mr. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Gage. [The prepared statement of Mr. Gage follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.112 Mr. Porter. Ms. Kelley. Save the best for last. Appreciate your being here today. STATEMENT OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY Ms. Kelley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Norton, Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Porter. I don't think you're on just yet, your mic. Ms. Kelley. Does that work? Mr. Porter. That's working. Thank you. Ms. Kelley. Can you hear me now? In anticipation of the proposal from the administration, I have been talking to NTU members across the country of what we expected would be in this proposal, and I can tell you that they are very concerned and opposed to many of the provisions. In anticipation of this hearing, we conducted a survey of our members just over the past 2 days, and I wanted to share with you the results of the survey. We have a chart over here. Our survey shows conclusively that mom and apple pie lovers who work for the Federal Government are overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal that is being put forward that would change the personnel system across the government. NTEU has serious concerns and objections to the administration's proposed governmentwide changes, and they fall into two main categories: The first is that despite the administration's comments to the contrary, the proposal would make numerous, substantial, and detrimental changes to employee rights in the areas of collective bargaining and due process. And, second, the proposed pay system is unacceptable on several grounds, including the fact that it is not seen as fair or transparent, nor has it been tested. Employees who perform superbly will have no reliable expectation of pay increases. It is excessively complex and will require huge increases in funding to administer. Its references to holding managers accountable have no foundation in the statutory language, and it will thwart rather than promote the teamwork that is necessary to advance the missions of the agencies. With regard to the labor management provisions, there have been a number of discussions already around the new definition of emergencies. I would just note that the current law already provides great latitude to agencies to act without regard to collective bargaining obligations in emergencies. NTU does not object to that. What we do object to are the new definitions that have been discussed that were read from the record by Mr. Van Hollen, and, I would also add, one other set of language in here. It talks about the agencies' ability to preclude bargaining when they are preparing for, practicing for, or preventing any emergency. Now it seems to me if you are preparing, preventing, or practicing for, you are not in an emergency; and therefore, this language should not apply. The administration's proposal also limits employee due process rights in a number of significant ways. Just one example is a new standard that is being proposed for the mitigation of penalties by the Merit Systems Protection Board. Today, if the MSPB finds a penalty unreasonable, it can direct it be changed. This new bill would change the standard to totally unwarranted, rather than unreasonable, and this proposal is very similar to language that we see in the DHS regulations, and that language is wholly without justification. Now as we all know, that provision has been struck down by the U.S. District Court in NTEU et al. v. Chertoff. I find it hard to believe that the administration wants to pursue this provision when one so similar has already been ruled illegal. The administration's bill would also expand the untested and complex pay model from DHS and DOD before it has ever been implemented or tested in these agencies, and there is no evidence that this model will increase recruitment, retention, or performance. And in fact, similar models have shown negative results. At the IRS, while employees represented by NTEU are not covered by a pay banding system, the managers there are, and the IRS hired the Hay Group to do an evaluation of that system and this is what they found. Here are the results: 76 percent of covered employees felt the system had a negative or no impact on their motivation to perform their best; 63 percent said it had a negative or no impact on the overall performance of senior managers; only 25 percent of senior managers agreed that the system was fair, and increased organizational performance was not attributable to the system. Now, under the administration's proposed pay system, there will be many changes in how adjustments of any kind will be provided to employees. There are a lot of new terms to be learned, range rates and maximums and minimums, and there is a lot of language in the proposal that says the director may establish this or the director may provide that pay raise. But at the end of the day, when you apply this new language, it is very likely that an outstanding employee could receive no locality adjustment because their occupation was not given an increase. Because of the new definitions around pay pools and the authority of the director, who may do this or may do that, it is very possible that top performance would not receive a pay performance or a performance pay adjustment because their pay or their occupation may be determined not to have contributed significantly to the mission of the agency, even though they are a top performer in their occupation and doing what they need to do to excel. Now, assuming there is adequate funding to pay for performance increases, which I think is questionable at best, there are a lot of questions about managers who are having difficulty applying the current structured system today and having to move to a more vague, undefined system that employees will have no confidence in. If I could just summarize for a few seconds here, I would suggest that the things NTU and our members believe are important to the success of the agencies and a new system are leadership; that rules and systems don't motivate people; leaders do; opportunities for employees to have input into decisions that affect them and the functioning of their agencies--they have good ideas that are currently being ignored; and a fair compensation that has credibility among employees, promotes teamwork, is adequately funded and is not administratively burdensome, as is being defined in this new system. So unfortunately, we do not see the system as meeting these standards. But, again, I very much welcome the opportunity to appear before you today, look forward to working on changes that can be made that would be fair and appropriate, and to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.124 Mr. Porter. I'd like to ask, Mrs. Kelley, possibly we can chat some time as to maybe a blueprint that you would suggest. I say this, taking lead at Mr. Styles from a positive perspective. I would assume you would concur that the system needs some change, whatever it is. We may disagree on what that it is, but it's a system that's been in place for 50, 60 years. Today is not necessarily the time, but this is a draft, and I would encourage that we could sit down and come up with some positive ways to work on a system, a new and improved system. I realize it's not a question. I just look forward to working with you for some ideas and a blueprint you would suggest. Ms. Kelley. I would welcome that opportunity. But if I could add, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the current system is perfect, but I believe what is wrong--where the current system is the implementation of it, not so much the system. So my worries are really magnified when I think about a vague, undefined system and having to implement that, when there are so many problems with implementation of the structured system in place today. Mr. Porter. I would expect you have heard this morning, not only from some of the panelists but the subcommittee, that we have similar concerns. Thank you. Again, we always like to pick on manager styles. I follow your lead again and ask for comments from Ms. Shaw. On a positive side, you have had such great success and we've been hearing this morning of the pros and the cons, and certainly a lot of cons have been brought out, but how does it work, how did you do it? Share with us how you had such great success, because, based on what I'm hearing from some folks this morning, is that it can't work and it hasn't been successful. Ms. Shaw. Well, it can and does work. It's worked for Federal Student Aid. I'd like to say for the record here, all of the accomplishments in the Federal Student Aid Office at the Department of Education have been made by our incredibly dedicated and talented Federal career staff at all levels. We have just under 1,100 employees and those are the people who did all the work for these accomplishments. I would say that what we have been able to do, we do have some flexibilities afforded to us in our performance-based organization statute. We've been able to use those, and particularly the hiring flexibilities I described. But also I need to add that we've been able to work very diligently with what--the other processes and procedures that are already in place. We've heard some of my panelists up here talk about the system that we have today is difficult for people to administer. It is. We have focused on that very diligently. We have a host of training for our supervisors, new supervisors, employees, around performance management and how that could and should work, and we just keep at it. We don't expect change overnight. We've been working on this during my tenure, for 3 years. And there is an organizational and operational and people readiness around change. And we have been working that with a very focused plan around our work force management. We have a strategic plan around that, and it is working. I'm not here to say it's perfect, but it is working. We are delivering incredible results for the Department and for taxpayers. Mr. Porter. Thank you. I think I said earlier, and I would concur with your comments that we truly have some of the best and brightest working for the Federal Government. With proper funding, proper leadership, and proper training, I think we certainly could emulate what your success is also. So with that, I'd like to just remind the subcommittee we have about another 30 minutes for questioning. I'd like to open it up for questions. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin with Ms. Shaw. First of all, let me congratulate you on the vast improvement in the student loan program. The taxpayers are happy, and I'm sure that the consumers, colleges and universities, and particularly students themselves. I just want to note for the record that the Washington Post did run an article this summer in which it talked about thousands of civil servants leaving the Federal Government, and that OPM led the list, 21.8 percent. So they wanted to seek employment elsewhere in the government. The high rollers were the OPM, Homeland Security, Defense--these are all percentages--and, surprisingly, OMB. I guess they're tired of cutting people's budgets or something. And the Education Department was among the high rollers. I don't think that takes away from what you have done. I've read your testimony carefully and listened to you, and as best I can tell, there are two major factors responsible for your success. First of all, the problems with the agency were attributable, it seems to me, to two bodies. One is this body and the other is the management of the agency. And when you describe what you have been able to do, essentially put in place whole new systems so that you have tackled the high default rate, that didn't have a thing to do with employee performance. That had to do with the management of the agency. Unhappy customers. That had to do with the shocking performance of the agency. And its customers were, of course, the colleges, universities. Financial controls. That didn't have anything to do with anything, except how managers, in fact, enable an agency to run. Then you go on in the second part of your testimony to indicate how you did it, and one of the things you stress--and I appreciate, and I'm not sure there would be much exception taken to what you did in hiring--if we were in fact to streamline our hiring. And you talked about hiring 70 senior managers and professionals with the right skills who were needed to work with the Federal career staff. Your career staff is still there. The same folks are still there who everybody was complaining about, and I know exactly what that process is about. When I came to the EEOC, the people who took the flak were the investigators, were the people who had to deal with the public. What needed to happen was a whole new system needed to be put in place. With all due respect and for all the credit you must be given, I must say that you show what can be done with the present system, with the present pay system, with the present-- absolutely everything else. We didn't do anything to you the way we did to OPM and to DHS. You made the present system work. I think everybody needs to get in there, first and foremost GAO, and find out how by putting in new systems you were able to get the same civil servants to give you far better performance. Has there been a GAO study of what you have been able to achieve? Ms. Shaw. Well, GAO was in for practically a whole year before they took the Federal Student Aid programs off the high- risk list, and they studied us from top to bottom. Ms. Norton. But they were studying, of course, the very things you report in your testimony. Ms. Shaw. They studied--one of their particular focus points was around our work force management and how we were caring for our staff, growing our staff, focused on performance, focused on the challenges that face every agency with succession planning, the aging work force and planning for the future. They actually spent an incredible amount of time with us on that. And I don't disagree with you, and I remarked to the chairman that we worked very diligently to do better with what we did have in terms of process, procedure, and program and systems. And I'm not going to deny it does take leadership, not only from me, but from every leader and manager in the Federal Student Aid Office; and for my office, that's around 150 people. I meet with those people once a month, all together, and we talk about these kinds of things: How are we going to elevate our performance? How are we going to solve for this problem or that problem with what we have? How are we going to use the flexibilities that are afforded to us in a very smart and managed way and with purpose, with an end result in mind, and be able to, of course, correct as we go to inform ourselves with things that maybe weren't working so well? How are we going to change that? So it's a combination of all of those things together, you're absolutely right. Ms. Norton. Thank you. I think this neglected notion of how management transforms, rather than workers from the bottom up transforming agencies, could not be more important. And I don't know the extent to which it's reflected at all in our bill. I do have a question really out of--really to ask the experts who have been looking at this. With all due respect to you and the work you have done, because I think your work, Mr. Gould--and, I'm sorry, is it Mr. Stier--is very important to us to get, by people who think from outside the government. But you are not helping me enough to meet the intellectual challenges that I think we are posed with. Let me just put the hard question to you as far as I'm concerned. First you have to ask yourself why would anybody set up a system like this. Why would anybody set up a cumbersome, unwieldy system for hiring people, when we live in a market society and everybody else out here gets paid basically to the extent that they can? And of course, this is overblown, this whole notion that everybody in the private sector gets paid based on merit, and everybody sits down and goes through these exercises. But let's leave that for a moment. Why are we in such a system? All of this talk about market-based doesn't phase me at all, because I don't work in that system. If I ask myself these two hard questions, I come back with these answers. We have this system for this unique work force for two reasons: One, when there was a market-based system--if you will forgive me, before there was a Civil Service system, there was wholesale favoritism and fraud that so disgraced the government of the United States that the Civil Service system was created. Second, over the years, as a result of cases brought in the courts, the courts have been forced to face the fact that this is a system to which Constitutional protections of due process apply. Now, unless you can help me get through those two major issues, you can't--the rest of this I already know and accept. Therefore, I need to know, giving you the two great challenges I see we face, how you would deal with a section of the present proposal, for example, that gives so much flexibility to pay that if an employee happens to be in the wrong pay pool, the pay pool which the supervisor has decided in his discretion it should not have, that group should not have the same kind of increases that others have, even though that person has worked their fanny off trying to hold up their end of the bargain. That person is out of luck. So if you can help me get through that, you would have helped me. Or if you can help me get through this, you have helped me. We're talking about pay for performance. Now, we're talking about pay for performance so far in a bill that would-- and, again, the chairman could not be more right, it's not a bill. We know what the administration has proposed, but we have not disposed yet; and the chairman is trying to find out what is the best way to do this. But look at what it would do. Performance on which your pay, your life, sir, depends, for all intents and purposes, not to mention you might be out of the government altogether based on this performance. That doesn't have to be in writing, can be set--if the particular supervisor decides, or the agency decides, it can be for the team, performance for the team, it can be for the organization; in fact, it can take any darn form you want it to take. Now, I'm talking about a 2 million work force Federal Government, and I'm talking about the structures we're talking about, and you don't help me unless you can help me get through those kinds of circumstances; because I guarantee you this, gentlemen, this system, as the administration has now given us, is a bonanza for lawyers, but it won't do anything for the work force, because you'll be litigating this over and over again. And I'd like your answers based on those two examples. Mr. Stier. Congresswoman Norton, system change alone is not going to fix our problems here. And as President Kelley said, implementation issues are vital, and that is part and parcel of our recommendations here; that we focus now, irrespective of any legislation, on making sure that we help the Federal Government improve its performance by focusing on management capacity, on training development and a variety of other issues. That has to be dealt with here and now, and I think the function you're performing here in the oversight role will be also vital to making sure that the Federal Government gets the resources it needs and also focuses the attention that it needs. Ms. Norton. Would you agree, for example, before you went to any system that said you can pay based on that, that you ought to experiment with that in a sufficient number of folks before spreading it throughout the work force? Would you agree that before you decided that there should be flexibility to pay performance, on which everything is based, could be any darn thing you say it should be at your discretion? Do you believe those things should be implemented only after it has been shown they produce fairness and that they survive due process constraints under which the government of the United States, even its work force, must operate? Mr. Stier. I would agree with you 100 percent. I think the Working for America Act does this. Agencies should not be given additional authorities and additional flexibilities until they can show that they can use them effectively. And that is, I think, a very important component of this legislation. You asked the question why would anyone set up the system that we have here today? And I would argue with you that all of the issues that you raised can be addressed in a very different system, a more streamlined system. I don't think anyone set up this system, I think it grew topsy-turvy over time. I think it grew because there wasn't sufficient focus from the top of the house down on making sure we had a system that was enabling people inside government to do their jobs effectively. I think all of your concerns are absolutely legitimate in that there is no doubt that the public sector is a different environment than the private sector. There are different concerns and there are different needs, and it would be a mistake to believe that any system that is the best in the private sector could be translated fully, as is, into the public sector. That said, I believe there is enormous room in the existing system to permit Federal workers to be in an environment in which they are supported more, they're rewarded more, not just financially but in recognition for better work. I think that would enable Federal workers to do more and do better. I think there is enormous room to permit the system to allow it the flexibility to hire people at rates that reflect the overall talent war that's out there. When the Federal Government is looking for people, it's competing against all other sorts of organizations and different sectors, and I think that's what the Working for America Act should be designed to do. And I think there is room here for it to do that. I look forward--I think that there are individual places, a lot of places where it can be improved. I think that the chairman's question to President Kelley is a great one. I believe that there is going to be unanimity that we can do better, and the real issue will be identifying ways to make that happen. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. Mr. Gould. Mr. Gould. My view is the system was created 50 years ago when Frederick Taylor reigned, and the nature of the mission challenges the government faces today have changed substantially: faster cycle times, greater threats, the evolution of terrorists in the world, plagues that can travel the globe in a matter of hours on an aircraft. We need people who think, act, and move differently in the system and a system that will support that. I offer that as a mission-base perspective at the same time that I acknowledge your very astute point on what part of the system do we need to preserve the merit-based components, protecting from undue political influence, and recognizing the core fact that government is spending other people's money, the taxpayers' money. We've got to find a way to do that efficiently and effectively. Mr. Porter. Thank you. We just have a few moments left. Ms. Norton. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that one thing that this hearing has done for me is to indicate where emphasis has to be. Certainly it's not on these bottom-line notions, all that you have just said about the need for upgrading the system or changing even substantially a system after 50 years. You get everybody agreeing with that in the whole Congress, and that will get us nowhere. What in fact we need to do is, and Ms. Shaw has helped us immensely by showing us the difference between hiring where the flexibility does not implicate due process in nearly the same way, to some extent, but not nearly in the same way; that streamlining can work; and that you can use hiring as part of the overall system. But her testimony also shows us, and everybody needs to look at what she's done, because she did it with what was in place. And no one here has talked about what is in place works good enough, or is all of that to be disposed of? So I would ask us to focus on two things, because those are really the only two things that matter here: performance and how we measure that; and pay, and how you arrive at how pay is done. Everything else is secondary or tertiary. Thank you. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Stier, for what you do at the Partnership for Public Service to recognize the many achievements of our public employees. I thought that the reception that you had the other evening, recognizing those public employees, put exactly what we're talking about here, the importance of the positive forward and the incredible achievements of so many of our public employees. So often, I think, to the American public you have this image of faceless bureaucrats, and I think that's compounded by the fact that people often are critical of the Federal Government without knowing what they do and the complexity of the services they provide. So I think that recognition is important, and I thank all of you for coming to testify in that spirit. I would also like, Ms. Shaw, to congratulate you on what you have been able to do, and part of what does come out of this conversation is the leadership of the manager is important, and it's also important to support the managers with the resources they need both in terms of training, so we have trained managers, and that they have the resources they need to provide the incentives that we need to deliver. We're having this discussion outside sort of the whole budget process, but I think we all have to understand it's easy to say we're going to provide the resources, but I can tell you, around here providing resources for this kind of critical function has been very difficult to get. So I hope that everybody will be just as unified in calling for those additional resources and not supporting an effort that's going to go forward in a way that's not done right. You need the resources to do it, and the testimony has reflected that. I'd just like to pursue a little bit what my colleague Ms. Norton, Representative Norton, was discussing with respect to the existing tools that are out there that would allow us, if they were put to better use, to get better results. I think that there are clearly areas for improvement. We need to be able to hire people more quickly. Doesn't do anybody any good if people who want to join the Federal Government and offer their services and are qualified, if they go somewhere because we can't hire them quickly. Clearly, we need to compete with the private sector on salary in many, many areas, because we are losing expertise. I do think that we need to be able to provide managers to have clear criteria for their employees, the ability to reward employees, but I would just--here is an example I think sort of tests the system. There is a little department within the State Department, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. You can't measure them by what they produce in terms of how many student loans they grant or that kind of performance. They are measured in performance in terms of their ability to try to analyze what is going on around the world and provide an intelligent assessment and analysis of threats and that kind of thing. The Bureau of Intelligence and Research, if you look at the footnotes on various intelligence, national intelligence estimates, were among the people who said, with respect to Iraq, that there really wasn't a great--a lot of evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And I am not going to debate the Iraq War. I am just saying that is their job is to reach that conclusion. There was a little foot buried in the national intelligent estimate. They did their work. They were skeptical. They did it at some risk to themselves in many cases because the whole politics of this were that we are going to find evidence. Well, I don't think any of them, frankly, has been recognized or rewarded for the fact that they got it right and then you have George Tenet getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and he said it was a slam dunk case that there were weapons of mass destruction. Now, this is the political environment that we operate in. And we need to have a system where those Federal employees, whether in INR or Department of Education, or wherever they may be, have the assurance that their work is being judged based on their performance and not being judged based on other considerations. Now we have a vast Federal Government. Some of it is done in a context that is not that political. But much of it is done in a context political. And whatever system we come up with has to be able to accommodate employees in both spectrums, or you are going to have to have separate systems, depending on the nature of the work. And so I just, as we go forward, and Representative Norton was talking about that, which is that part of the reason we have the existing system is to prevent people from being unfairly punished just because they have a different political perspective in certain jobs. And many jobs, again, are outside that parallel. So I would just ask, with the system we have today, what more should we be doing, what are the existing authorities that people have that are not being taken advantage of? If we are not allowed to hire people quickly, we should change that, in my view. OK, if we can't compete with the private sector, which we obviously can't, we should change that. We can find common ground. But where are some areas in terms of pay for performance like the bonus system that are not being adequately used today to try and do the kinds of things that Ms. Shaw has been able to do under the existing system? And I would just throw that open to all of you. Mr. Gage. Well, there are a number of things. I have been advocating that we take a look at our career ladder system. And I don't disagree with what anyone said about hiring. But once you're in, what motivates Federal employees is not the within grade increase that everybody says is--I don't know, people get unfairly or just for longevity. What motivates Federal employees is promotional opportunity, is to be able to do a good job and to really excel. And I see that just an agency that week I believe is saying one problem with their pay for performance is that people with a pay band did not have that incentive to work hard for a promotion. And I think that is an incentive that really is overlooked by the whole pay banding. But you know to reward people, I think there is opportunity right now, Mr. Van Hollen, to reward the best and brightest. I don't think that really is a problem to use the system that we have right now to reward the best and brightest. And if we want to change criteria from within grades, have at it, that's fine. That is really not a problem. I think that the pay for performance system and the experiments that we have seen so far are really apples and oranges compared to what this is. Some of these, most of these, and I look forward to seeing OPM's paper on these things, but most of them have--the agencies have put supplemental money into it. People are getting actually more money under that system--under the experiment. I don't think that is the same--that is contemplated in this proposal. I think too, that when you break down, and we had a hearing the other day in front of the Senate, and I thought there was pretty much of a consensus that in the Federal Government, one size does not fit all with many of our jobs. Pay for performance, for instance, in law enforcement, will not work. Can't work. Kills that teamwork. It just--no experiment has showed that it works. So I think it takes a lot of thought and to be very careful to try to extrapolate from some experiments that applies to scientists and take that down to our VA workers, our Social Security workers, whose job is much different than the jobs that were used in these experiments. Ms. Kelley. I would also suggest that the agencies do have authority to do some things today that they don't make the maximum use out of, things like quality step increases to high performers. They are given out in most agencies in very small numbers. And there are no restrictions on that. They can give them as they see fit. Yes, they have to do it within their budget structure, they have to be able to fund those. But those are recognitions that are seen and recognized across the Federal work force when they are given. But they are given so rarely. There are also opportunities for managers to provide management awards. And they have the discretion to do that. Because we see them not implementing that very much, in many of our negotiated rings, NTU has negotiated award agreements with agencies so that there are known criteria for what employees would need to see in a performance evaluation to know that they would then be eligible for, or not eligible for an award under the negotiated system. And we have done that because left to the discretion of the agencies, they just do not use these things the way they should. Are they, you know, the be all and end all? Would it solve all the problems of the current system? Of course not. But there are two things right there that are within their discretion that they do not use. And someone last week at a hearing said that everyone gets quality step increases. Well, I can tell you that is absolutely not true. We have looked at numbers across agencies where NTU represents and the percentages of employees who receive these are very small. And there is no consistency across agencies. Some will give as high as 5 or 10 percent of the work force, and others will give less than 1 percent. We have worked with some of our agencies in an effort to have them raised to more of an average government level. Even though we don't think there is a magic number, we think that if an employee is told if they do A, B and C, and that is what they need to be to excel, and they excel, then they should expect that recognition and reward at the end. I agree it is not just about money, but it is about compensation and it is about recognition among the work force. It is about promotional opportunities, about detail opportunities, about temporary promotions, about creating new jobs that will allow these employees to use the skills that they have shown that they have and can excel at. And all of these things are available to every agency today with no limits on them at all, and yet they are not used. Ms. Shaw. If I may add, we do use all of those things that were just mentioned in Federal Student Aid. And in fact, we used existing performance management system at the Department; it is called Ed Pass. It is a five-tier system from highest performance being outstanding, lowest being not acceptable. We have spent the first 2 years of my tenure really focused and talking about performance and educating the work force, including management, training management, what does it mean to have a sound, understandable, measurable performance plan? How do you as a manager, evaluate that performance fairly and accurately with that employee-based process that is currently in place? And then what we believe in, in the Department of Federal Student Aid, is we want to reward the highest performance to the maximum extent we possibly can. Our average outstanding performer on this recent review cycle received an average of $6,000 cash award. I don't know if that is high compared to other agencies or not, but we told our performers, if you perform in an outstanding manner, we are going to be fair and we are going to reward you. And we have done just that. And people respond. And it is not just about money. They do respond. We are doing incredible work. And people want us to be fair and they do want us to recognize their performance. And that is what we are about. Mr. Styles. I think revamping some of the processes as well, when you talk about QSIs, different agencies have different methodologies for providing the QSIs. And I think that, you know, you keep hearing me going to funding, funding, funding. Even if you go to pay for performance, if you don't provide the funding, you're going to undermine the system before you even get there. If you talk about market-based pay, if I could just jump to there for a second. For us to take GS-11 and 12 brackets and put them together and call them a pay band, and then 13 and 14 and make them a pay band, that is all well and good, especially at the hiring levels where it gives you a little more of an opportunity to hire people at different levels. But if you don't raise the top level, if the GS-14 step 10 or GS-12 step 10 remains the same as it is today, you have not created a market-based pay system unless you put into effect FEPCA, if you really want to come down to it. If you do not have those levels within those market areas equal to, how can you possibly go out and recruit those folks using a market-based pay? Did I make any sense with that? All I am saying is to name it something, without providing that essential tool, which happens to be the dollars, and the benefit program that we have in place, then you're not going to accomplish anything by doing that. Ms. Kelley. If I can add one other thing that I hear over and over, and in my experience, front line managers share many of the same issue with front line employees. That is where the rubber meets the road. That is where the work gets done. And they very often, the front line manager wants to recognize the front line employee. They want to give them a QSI or they want to give them a cash award. And then what they run into is lack of support from above. I have had employees tell me that they were nominated for QSI and their manager said they were told they could only put in one per group. Well, what if you have three top performers, three outstanding performers? Putting caps like that is not pay for performance. That is exactly the kind of thing that will give no credibility to a system. And that happens every day today where front line managers who see the work and recognize the top performers, and who should be recognized and rewarded so they can motivate as well as reward, are not being supported in their efforts, whether it is about training, whether it is about support commitment, funding whatever it is, those front line managers are really in a position where they cannot do what they recognize needs to be done on behalf of the front line employees. And I don't doubt that it happens to them too, but I can just tell you that I see it between the front line managers and front line employees all the time, that the front line managers are in a very, very difficult position and not being given the training and support and funding to do what they know is the right thing. Mr. Porter. Appreciate your comments. We are out of time. Mr. Van Hollen. Ms. Norton. Would the gentleman yield to me? I just want to because I think something very important has happened here. You know, in this last discussion, I think we have learned that there are more than the devil in the details, that the solution to much of this may lie in the details. You were telling me stuff, you know, I didn't know, and I find it very informative. Because, first, when my colleague asked about quality staff increases, my first notion I said to him, do you know why anybody would do it? And this discussion-- by the way, Ms. Kelley, I can see reasons why there would be some limits on it, you know, wherein the front office has to deal with the agency's total budget, I can see where there might be great variations, and I am sure you can see circumstances in which that would happen. But I am driven back, as I listened to you, to a hypothesis, that despite Ms. Shaw's experience, and again, she is a gold star performer, where she has been able to do very substantial quality step increases, apparently, without getting morale problems within the agency. Let's assume that, at least. I am driven back to the risk that the manager takes by presuming to do so in a system, again, bound by due process, where everybody compares to everybody else under the law, where there is, in place, no standard, even a rough one, to guide that manager, and so the manager sees what she wants to do and she does it. She is taking a great risk. And the burden is on the Congress to help the OPM come to some way to harness this so it can be used. Mr. Porter. Thank you, Ms. Norton. Mr. Van Hollen. I want to thank you all you for your testimony. I think this was a hearing where lots of good ideas came out. I think the transcript will be something that we will all want to read as we go over this. And we welcome obviously your continuing input. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter. Thank you very much. I appreciate you all being here. We had some diverse opinions, but all taken in a positive sense. I would hope that as we picked on you, Ms. Shaw, today, in a positive way, we would like to make sure that your successes would be the rule and not the exception. And it appears that there are managers that are afraid to take--or afraid they are not going to have support. There are leaders that have troubles with existing systems. So we want to make sure that yours is the rule and not the exception. Thank you all very much and all Members will be able to submit additional questions. And they can submit them for the record. I want to thank you all for being here today. The meeting is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.134 <all>