Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding today's hearing. You and I are good partners, and I very much appreciate working with you on such joint efforts like the Chief Human Capital Officers Council and other workforce flexibilities. As you know, the first and third largest federal agencies have been granted broad flexibility to develop their own personnel systems. And, the Administration is endorsing similar authority for the rest of the government.

However, today's hearing focuses on the effectiveness of existing alternative personnel systems. I am interested in learning from our witnesses how they designed and implemented pay-for-performance and other changes to their personnel systems. I am also interested in hearing from our union witnesses regarding any concerns they may have with these alternative personnel systems.

I believe today's testimony will underscore the importance of meaningful employee input.

Working with employees and their representatives will:

• Increase acceptance of the changes;
• Improve employee morale;
• Allow for quick identification and response to any problems; and
• Improve the employee-manager working relationship in other areas as well.

My goal is to solidify the acceptance of meaningful employee involvement in any personnel reform. I am curious to learn how our witness agencies have used what GAO and organizations such as NAPA have told us for years -- that when implementing personnel reform agencies need:

• Money to reward performance;
• Training on how to measure performance;
• Accountability for those in charge if problems arise;
• Oversight to address such problems; and
• Meaningful union and employee participation.

Employees need to be assured that the reforms represent an improvement over the current system; that they will not be subjected to arbitrary adverse action because of the changes; and that any proposed changes will indeed work.

I thank all of our distinguished witnesses for sharing their testimony with us today, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your continued diligence in making the federal government an employer of choice.