<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:22194.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-156
NOMINATIONS OF HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER, HON. LAURA A. CORDERO, AND HON.
NOEL ANKETELL KRAMER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON THE
NOMINATIONS OF HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER, TO BE DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT; HON. LAURA A. CORDERO, TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGE,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND HON. NOEL ANKETELL
KRAMER, TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
__________
JUNE 15, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-194 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island MARK DAYTON, Minnesota
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Jennifer A. Hemingway, Professional Staff Member
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Adam R. Sedgewick, Minority Professional Staff Member
Trina D. Tyrer, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Voinovich............................................ 1
Senator Pryor................................................ 5
Senator Carper............................................... 11
Prepared statements:
Senator Collins.............................................. 6
Senator Levin................................................ 6
Senator Akaka................................................ 6
Senator Lautenberg........................................... 7
WITNESSES
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Hon. Linda M. Springer, to be Director, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management..................................................... 3
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Representative in Congress from the
District of Columbia........................................... 17
Hon. Noel Anketell Kramer, to be Associate Judge, District of
Columbia Court of Appeals...................................... 21
Hon. Laura A. Cordero, to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of
the District of Columbia....................................... 21
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Cordero, Hon. Laura A.:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Biographical and professional information.................... 105
Kramer, Hon. Noel Anketell:
Testimony.................................................... 21
Biographical and professional information.................... 70
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes:
Testimony.................................................... 17
Springer, Hon. Linda M.:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Biographical information..................................... 36
Responses to pre-hearing questions........................... 44
APPENDIX
Rep. Todd Russell Platts, prepared statement..................... 27
Hon. Paul Strauss, Shadow Senator from the District of Columbia,
prepared statement............................................. 29
NOMINATIONS OF HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER, HON. LAURA A. CORDERO, AND HON.
NOEL ANKETELL KRAMER
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in
room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George V.
Voinovich, presiding.
Present: Senators Voinovich, Carper, and Pryor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH
Senator Voinovich. This hearing will come to order. Good
afternoon and welcome. It looks like there are lots of family
and friends here today for Ms. Springer and for our two judges.
Today the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs meets to consider three pending nominations, the
nomination of Linda Springer for the Director of the Office of
Personnel Management, the nomination of Judge Noel Kramer to be
an Associate Judge of the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals, and the nomination of Laura Cordero to be an Associate
Judge for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I
thank all of you for being here today. We are going to begin by
considering the nomination of Linda Springer.
Ms. Springer, as you know, I am committed to the needs and
challenges of the Federal workforce and have devoted
significant time to it since being elected to the Senate in
1999. Clearly there is no more important position in the
Executive Branch of Government than the Director of the Office
of Personnel Management to address these issues.
The Federal Civil Service now is undergoing significant
reforms, the most significant since 1978. For example, agencies
are implementing new performance management and pay-for-
performance systems for the Senior Executive Service, and the
Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense are
designing new personnel systems to meet their national security
missions.
In addition to having a vital role in ensuring the success
of these reforms, OPM has an important operational
responsibility to Federal departments and agencies as well. I
know that when I was governor of Ohio, the Department of
Administrative Services served all executive agencies. The
Department has a large responsibility, and if things did not
work in Administrative Services, things did not work in the
departments.
OPM continues to implement the human resources line of
business which will establish shared service centers to
delivering a broad array of office personnel services to
multiple agencies. The Office of Management and Budget
estimates that this will produce a savings of 1.1 billion over
the next 10 years, while improving efficiency and effectiveness
of human resource transactions and administration.
In addition, OPM is taking over the responsibility for
conducting the majority of security clearance background
investigations for the government, for which there is a
significant backlog. This is a vital national security mission
that must be executed better. I assure you I will continue to
monitor OPM's performance of this responsibility.
Ms. Springer, if confirmed as Director it would be your
responsibility to oversee and successfully implement all of
these reforms, and as I say, it is no small task.
I understand that Senator Pryor will be here in a few
minutes, and he may have an opening statement. Senator Akaka is
attending the funeral of Senator Exon, so he will not be here.
Ms. Springer, you have filed responses to a biographical
and financial questionnaire.\1\ You have answered pre-hearing
questions\2\ submitted by the Committee and you have had your
financial statements reviewed by the Office of Government
Ethics. Without objection, this information will be part of the
hearing record, with the exception of the financial data, which
are on file and available for public inspection in the
Committee offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The biographical information appears in the Appendix on page
36.
\2\ The responses to pre-hearing questions appears in the Appendix
on page 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at
nomination hearings give their testimony under oath, and
therefore, Ms. Springer, I ask you to please stand and rise.
Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this
Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Springer. I do.
Senator Voinovich. I understand that you have some family
members here today, and I would like to give you an opportunity
to introduce them. Please make any opening remarks at this
time.
Ms. Springer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have five
members of the family here today that I'd like to introduce.
First in the front row is my mother, Marie Springer from
Pennsylvania. And, in the second row behind her, my Uncle Frank
Caskirella, Aunt Marian Caskirella, and cousin Susan Young with
her husband, Andy Young, also all from Pennsylvania.
Senator Voinovich. Pennsylvania is well represented here
today. Thank you for coming. This is a very special occasion
and I want to thank the Springer family for the sacrifice that
they have to make so that Linda can serve her country. I know
she had some other ideas for her future but received the call
to service from the President. We are so happy that she was
willing to respond to that call.
I will now begin with the standard questions this Committee
asks all nominees. First of all, is there anything that you are
aware of in your background that might present a conflict of
interest with the duties of the office to which you have been
nominated?
Ms. Springer. No, there is not.
Senator Voinovich. Do you know of anything otherwise that
would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably
discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you
have been nominated?
Ms. Springer. No.
Senator Voinovich. And last, do you agree without
reservation to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and
testify by any duly constituted Committee of Congress if you
are confirmed?
Ms. Springer. I do.
Senator Voinovich. I just want to remind you, that this is
important to us. Some of the Members of Congress are a little
bit frustrated because so often they do not think that they
received appropriate responses. I think it is good that if the
Committee wants you to come up--and I can assure you that it is
not going to be often--that you try to accommodate us with
those requests.
Ms. Springer. I will do that.
Senator Voinovich. Great. I am interested in having your
opening statement. Do you have anything you would like to share
with us before I start asking questions?
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER,\1\ TO BE DIRECTOR,
U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Ms. Springer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an opening
statement, and in its entirety I would like it to be submitted
for the record, and I will summarize it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Springer appears in the Appendix
on page 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am pleased to be before this Committee again, as I have
been in the past, as you consider my nomination to be the next
Director of the Office of Personnel Management. I want to
express my gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, as well as to
Senator Collins and Senator Akaka for arranging for this
hearing today, and we have obviously been looking forward to
it.
I also want to acknowledge the courtesies of the other
Members and their staffs in allowing me to come up and visit
with many of them in advance of the hearing.
It is truly an honor for me to be nominated for this
position by President Bush, and it's a particular honor to have
the opportunity to be considered to lead the Office of
Personnel Management.
Mr. Chairman, there are currently 1.8 million members of
the Civil Service. On occasion these dedicated professionals
are called resources or capital or assets, but I see them as
professionals who are engaged in activities that are going to
shape our world for years and decades to come. They are people,
not entries on a balance sheet, and in that regard, we have a
responsibility to make sure that they're able to perform their
duties, perform them successfully, and to be compensated
relative to the performance of those duties.
With the passage of reforms in the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Defense, as well as the Federal
Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004, we have set a path for
creating, what I consider to be, a work environment that will
really and truly reward, as well as recruit and retain, top
quality performers.
During my meetings with Members of the Committee, I have
been asked some very important questions about personnel
management reforms. Today I want to say to you and to the men
and women of the Civil Service, just as importantly, that I am
deeply aware of the concern about reform, and I pledge to all
of you that OPM, should I be its next director, will be
committed to a fair and effective implementation of any
personnel reform that we undertake.
I'd like to share with you four principles on which I think
reform should be based. The first is that core values and
principles and protections that have served employees over the
years must be preserved. Second, an effective personnel system
should support employees by helping them to realize their full
potential and providing the highest level of service to their
constituents. Third, an employee's career and pay potential
shouldn't be determined by the passage of time, but should be
recognized and evaluated based on achievement. And fourth,
managers should be given the training and tools to allow them
to effectively carry out their responsibilities.
All four of those are principles that I've followed in the
past, both in the private and in the public sectors, and I'd be
guided by them as OPM Director.
Now, to call these reforms modern is really misleading.
They're not new. They've been in practice for decades and
decades in the private sector. While they're new to many of us
in the Federal Government, they're not new territory, an
untraveled territory. Performance as a basis for pay has been
used, as I've said, for decades. I personally have been paid on
that basis, managed on that basis, and designed programs on
that basis throughout my professional life, and I think that's
an important consideration in why I would be able to help lead
us in that effort.
These systems, I have found, result in mutual support and
reinforcement within organizations, and have really led to
higher and higher levels of success in carrying out the
missions of organizations who really are performance driven.
And, employees and managers outside of government, as I say,
have done it for years, and I don't believe that the members of
the Civil Service are any less capable of carrying out and
working in that kind of system, given the proper training. It
always comes back to training. It's very important.
Beyond that, I'm very impressed with the dimensions of
service provided by OPM. OPM is involved from the front end
with things like investigative services, as you've mentioned,
in a much broader role, all the way through to retirement
services at the latter stages. OPM associates support the
Federal Government workers throughout their career and beyond,
and not only the workers themselves, but their extended
families. In our Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB)
program we are covering about 8 million people, and that's
extended past, present, and families of our employees, so it's
a very large undertaking and a very large responsibility that
OPM has.
And as you know, in that regard, I've spent many years in
the financial and insurance and annuity sector, and I'm
knowledgeable regarding all of those opportunities and needs
for financial security across the entire life cycle of
individuals and their families. I think that's a background
that will be increasingly important and will be helpful to me
in carrying out these duties should I be confirmed as the next
OPM Director.
I want to recognize and thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
acknowledge your leadership and Senator Akaka's in establishing
the Chief Human Capital Officers Council and passing that Act.
There is very important work done there. I know many of the
members, and I look forward to working with them should I be
confirmed.
Last, Mr. Chairman, I want to close with a commitment to
you, the other Members of this Committee, and to all of the
Members of the Congress, that I will continue to look forward
to a constructive and a positive relationship with all of the
Members as I have worked very hard to maintain in the past.
And, I will give you my assurance of open communication and of
a very constructive and open and positive, and hopefully, a
productive period between OPM and the work of this Committee
for the benefit of the Civil Service members and the American
citizens.
And with that, I look forward to your questions.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
Senator Pryor, thank you for pinch hitting for Senator
Akaka. We really appreciate your presence here today.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Before we begin questions of Ms.
Springer, I would like to give you the opportunity to make a
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just say a
few words, that Senator Akaka could not be here today, and he
regrets that he could not. I know I am a poor substitute, but I
look forward to this hearing and look forward to hearing
everything that you have to say today.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on not just
this nomination, but many issues relating to OPM and personnel
issues throughout the Federal Government.
Ms. Springer, I know that you share our commitment to
really making the Federal Government an employer of choice, and
one that people would see as a very good option for them
personally and a good place to work, and a good career field. I
know you have some challenges there at OPM with impending
retirements. I have seen your OPM staff, and I know you have
some succession planning in process there, and that is
important. Also I know you have the challenge of modernizing
OPM recordkeeping systems, and that is a challenge from time to
time for every organization, so I know you are up to that.
I think OPM needs strong and decisive leadership, and I
believe that you have those qualifications. I am sorry that
Senators Collins, Akaka, Levin, and Lautenberg could not be
here today because I know they want to be here, but they have
been called away. I would ask unanimous consent that their
statements and questions be submitted in the record if that is
OK, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Without objection. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Senator Collins, Senator Akaka,
Senator Levin, and Senator Lautenberg follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR COLLINS
Senator Voinovich, I appreciate your willingness to chair today's
hearing as the Committee considers the nomination of Linda Springer to
be Director of the Office of Personnel Management. This position is
vitally important given the challenges facing the Federal civil
service.
As Director, Ms. Springer would help ensure that the personnel
systems proposed for the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense
are the products of a collaborative process that fully involves
employees and employee unions, as Congress intended. As with any
reform, employee acceptance will be essential to its success.
When this Committee assumed its new name earlier this year, we took
on a new role. Now, in addition to overseeing the Federal Government,
we have the responsibility of helping to protect our homeland. In
homeland security parlance, we talk about protecting critical
infrastructure. Well, there is no infrastructure more critical to the
functioning of our government than our Federal workforce. Given the
vital importance of the many missions the government carries out on
behalf of the nation, the OPM Director must ensure our government has
the ability to recruit and retain a highly skilled workforce for many
years to come. The nominee appears to have the executive management and
leadership skills necessary to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Ms. Springer has already demonstrated her commitment to public
service, having recently served our nation as Controller of the Office
of Management and Budget and the Director of the Office of Federal
Financial Management. Welcome back to the Committee, Ms. Springer. I
look forward to your testimony.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
Ms. Springer, welcome to the Committee. If you are confirmed, you
will take over the Office of Personnel Management at a critical time.
As you know, the Department of Defense is currently in the process of
implementing a new National Security Personnel System. The statute that
authorized the establishment of NSPS made OPM a full partner with DOD
in the implementation of this new system, so you will have a critical
role to play in this process.
In my view, the proposed NSPS is unlikely to be successful unless
it has the broad support of the DOD employees who must live with it.
Right now, DOD appears to be losing that battle. The draft regulations
proposed to implement NSPS include a number of provisions which appear
to send the message to DOD employees that the leadership of the
Department of Defense doesn't trust them and isn't interested in
ensuring that they are treated with the fairness and equity that they
deserve. The ``meet and confer'' process under which DOD is supposed to
consult with employee representatives, appears to have been almost
dysfunctional, with five or six major DOD unions walking out last
month.
Ms. Springer, I hope that, if confirmed, you will make sure that
you are a full partner in the implementation of NSPS and will not be
afraid to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the new
personnel system is implemented in a way that is fair and balanced, and
respects the legitimate interests of DOD employees.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA
Thank you, Senator Voinovich. I want to join you in welcoming our
nominees along with their family and friends to the Committee today.
I also wish to thank Delegate Norton for taking the time to
introduce Judge Noel Kramer to be an Associate Judge on the D.C. Court
of Appeals and Laura Cordero to be an Associate Judge on the D.C.
Superior Court. Both Judge Kramer and Ms. Cordero have impressive
resumes and are exceptionally qualified to serve in the positions for
which they have been nominated. I look forward to their testimony and
learning their thoughts on the D.C. Court system.
Ms. Springer, as Chairman Voinovich has noted, you have capably
served this Administration as Comptroller of the Office of Management
and Budget, and I know from our recent meeting that you are looking
forward to taking on the new responsibility of the President's Chief
Human Capital Officer. I commend your commitment to public service.
Your nomination comes at a critical juncture for the Office of
Personnel management (OPM) and the Federal workforce. If confirmed, you
will play a pivotal role in advancing the Administration's proposal to
extend to all agencies a variation of the new personnel regulations for
the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security (DHS).
As you know from our meeting in April, I believe it is premature to
give agencies the authority to modify the current personnel system
based on the untested rules in place at DHS and DOD. One reason I feel
so strongly about this is that Senator Voinovich and I have
successfully moved forward a number of significant workforce
flexibilities which, unfortunately, are under utilized according to
congressional testimony and numerous reports by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO).
Moreover, too many agencies, including the Department of Defense,
lack strategic human capital plans that identify the skills and talents
needed to meet future missions. Agencies must make a business case when
seeking new flexibilities and should have a proposed plan of action to
address their personnel needs, such as skill gaps, in order to be
successful. But using DOD once again as an example, there is no single
document identifying DOD's recruitment and retention strategy or goals
for its current and future workforce. Without such documented needs and
a plan of action, I believe the National Security Personnel System is
headed for failure.
Given employee reaction to the DHS and DOD regulations, I fear the
Administration is going down a road that diminishes employee input into
the implementation of these new systems and fails to ensure employee
rights and protections. And yet, the Administration argues that once
the new personnel systems at DHS and DOD are fully implemented, non-DOD
and DHS workers will want to transfer to those two agencies because of
the perception that they will receive greater pay increases. I do not
think that will happen.
Agencies will continue to face flattened or diminished budgets and
DHS and DOD employees will no longer have true collective bargaining
rights or independent review of grievances. Thus, I fail to see how
there will be adequate resources to properly train managers and
employees on new disciplinary, labor-management, appeals, and pay-for-
performance systems, let alone guarantee sufficient funds for
performance bonuses or pay increases. The lack of funding for training
deeply concerns me. Congress has been warned that without strong
training, there are no guarantees that employees will have fair and
transparent appraisal systems that provide for meaningful distinctions
in performance--the most critical component of performance based pay.
Ms. Springer, the stewardship of the Federal workforce will be your
responsibility. Employees will look toward OPM to safeguard their
rights and their paychecks from unfair and discriminatory performance
evaluations. Although you and I respectfully disagree over the need to
pursue wholesale, government-wide personnel changes at this time, I
believe you are sincere in your desire to work with Congress and with
employees.
Ms. Springer, Judge Kramer, and Ms. Cordero, again I welcome and
congratulate each of you on your nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
__________
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the
important role Ms. Springer has been nominated to serve in our
government: Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
First, let me congratulate this New Jersey native on her
nomination.
I had the pleasure of meeting with Ms. Springer after her
nomination, and she was willing to discuss her views on Administration
policy and the future of the Federal workforce, and I appreciated that.
OPM is essentially the ``human resources'' department for the
Federal Government, and there has perhaps never been a more important
time in our nation's Federal workforce from the perspective of labor
and Federal employees.
I must admit, I have been terribly distressed by this
Administration's willingness to erode collective bargaining rights in
its path to a new ``pay-for-performance'' system, and to diminish the
ability to appeal personnel decisions.
I simply do not understand this Administration's efforts to weaken
the rights of rank-and-file employees.
I am especially disturbed that we have chosen to invite cronyism
and political bias into the employment decisions of senior government
managers and appointees.
The General Schedule system has served our country and its Federal
workforce well.
I do hope Ms. Springer will take a fresh look at these changes and
work with our Federal employees to strengthen our workforce without
walking all over them.
I hope that Ms. Springer's impressive experience in both the
private and public sectors will permit her to decide objectively which
models from the private sectors are suitable in the public sectors, and
which are not.
I also wish to congratulate Laura Cordero and Noel Kramer on their
judicial nominations to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, respectively. I look
forward to their testimony as well.
Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Springer, I had a wonderful
opportunity to visit with you in my office and got to ask the
ABC questions of why do you think you are qualified for this
job. So I am not going to repeat some of those. But I do have
other questions I would like you to answer for the record.
When the Department of Homeland Security was created,
Senator Akaka and I added language to provide for enhanced
human capital flexibilities for the Federal Government. We had
been working on this legislation for years and we thought they
would not only help the Department of Homeland Security, but
all Federal departments. For example, agencies can now use
category ranking to hire employees instead of the outdated rule
of three. However, at a Subcommittee hearing I held on the 21st
of April this year, GAO said agency usage of these
flexibilities varies at best.
Given this information, what strategies will you employ to
ensure that the Federal agencies understand and utilize all of
the government wide human capital flexibilities that we have
made available to them?
Ms. Springer. One of the things that is important, first of
all, with those flexibilities is not only that they're using
them, but also they're using them wisely, using them in ways
that they're tied to the missions of the agencies, that they're
not using them frivolously. There is only a certain amount of
money to go around, and it's got to be dedicated to using
things like direct hire and other types of flexibilities and
incentives in a way that will provide the best return and
support the mission.
What I would like to do first in that regard is to work
with the Chief Human Capital Officers because in that group,
you have the representation of all of the agencies and
departments, and to make sure that they first of all are able
to be my arms and eyes and legs back to the agency in a very
direct way, to know that we've got a full accounting for how
they're using them or not using them.
I agree with you that it's disappointing to hear that
they're not using them to their fullest extent because I
believe in them, and I believe they'd be very valuable. So my
first line of attack there, if you will, would be to work with
the Chief Human Capital Officers to get a full accounting.
Senator Voinovich. As you know, I believe that an open and
continual dialogue between employees and management is
imperative. This practice becomes even more important as the
workforce is in transition as it is now. This is a critical
time. Everyone just takes for granted that 160,000 employees of
the Department of Homeland Security are coming together. It is
the biggest management challenge that this government has had
since creating the Department of Defense. So much of the
success, not only in the Department of Homeland Security, but
particularly the Defense Department, depends upon the kind of
relationships that are created between management and those
people that represent the employees.
How would you establish a relationship with representatives
of Federal employee organizations, and could you be specific as
to what kind of consultation, negotiation, collaboration, and
information sharing you see as appropriate and beneficial to
OPM's vision?
Ms. Springer. Well, as an indication of the type of
openness of communication I'd like to have, one of the things I
would share with you, Mr. Chairman, is that the very first two
people that I called after my nomination was made public were
Colleen Kelly, who, as you know, is the head of the NTEU, and
John Gage, who is the head of the other very large group, the
AFGE. And, I called both of them before I called anyone else to
offer to them that I would like to have a very open
relationship with them, and as soon as I was confirmed,
hopefully, as Director, that they would be my first two calls
again, and that I would like to meet with them.
And really, there are three principles I would like to
follow. One is that of open communication, having a very strong
line of communication between the union leadership and the
Director of OPM so that there's no misunderstanding. We
shouldn't be having to communicate through the media. There
should be very direct and open communication.
Second, a principle that I would follow in that
relationship is to be personally involved and not delegate,
necessarily. I've always been very hands-on, and I think it's
important in these issues where you're talking about matters
that are key to the men and women of government. They're
people, as I say, not entries on a balance sheet, not assets--
these are people issues, particularly things like their pay and
their benefits, so I want to be personally involved.
I think that they will find I am, and I will be committed
to being, a very straight shooter. I am not going to be playing
games, and I will be very direct and very candid and very open.
They'll be able to take me at my word.
Then third is that those communications and relationships
will be characterized by having a very strong interest in
what's best for the men and women of the Federal Government.
And, I think that it would be naive to think that we're going
to agree on everything. We have different perspectives, but I
think that those three principles will carry us very far, and
that would be my approach, to always maintain that type of a
standard.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I know that as part of the new Department of Homeland
Security personnel regulations, the responsibility for deciding
collective bargaining disputes will lie with a three-member
internal DHS Labor Relations Board. Currently throughout the
Federal Government those type of disputes are decided by the
Federal Labor Relations Authority, as you well know. Do you
believe that this internal labor relations board at DHS meets
the statutory mandate of the Homeland Security Act that DHS
employees may, ``organize, bargain collectively and participate
through labor organizations of their own choosing in decisions
which affect them?'' Do you think it meets the statutory
requirement?
Ms. Springer. I do, Senator. I do believe that one must
consider not just the board which, as you say, is responsible
in that manner, but certainly the opportunity for input and
recommendations for members. But I believe that it is the
totality of the interaction, whether it's through things like
the meet and confer that already took place with DHS in the
early stage, that ensures all of the representation elements of
the bill are satisfied in the way that DHS has been carrying
things out.
Senator Pryor. Sticking with DHS just for another moment or
two, the personnel regulations there at DHS say that many
personnel decisions, for example, pay, will now be based on
more arbitrary, I might say arbitrary factors under the control
of, say, local port supervisors and port directors. My sense is
that system will take much more training and administrative
time. And how will those administrative costs, the additional
administrative costs for a system like that be paid for?
Ms. Springer. Well, you're absolutely right that training
is really the keystone for making sure that this is successful,
and it's training at a variety of levels, manager training in
particular being very important.
Senator Pryor. And do you have the resources to do that
training at DHS? I guess my concern is it might take away from
their primary mission.
Ms. Springer. Well, one of the things that was--and I want
to thank and congratulate the Chairman--was that there was a
challenge. It's my understanding, too, some of the funding that
was in the proposal for the 2006 budget, in the amount of $50
million, I believe, directly related, very specifically
related, for training for DHS in this regard. And, thanks to
his efforts and some others, that is, I believe, going to see
the light of day, and it should, because as you say, calling
for new training, calling for new systems, but not funding it
really would undermine that effort.
Senator Pryor. Right. If we can stick with our DHS theme
here this afternoon, let me also say that DHS employees pay is
shifting from a GS scale pay system to a pay-for-performance
system under the new DHS personnel regulations. I am curious
about that in the sense that are you aware of any large-scale
pay-for-performance system that has been successfully
implemented in a law enforcement environment?
The reason I ask that is because law enforcement oftentimes
in most cases relies on a lot of teamwork, and I can almost see
trouble brewing if the members of the team are really competing
against one another for pay. I just have a concern about that.
Ms. Springer. To answer your question very specifically, I
have not been a part of any implementation for a law
enforcement organization. My background didn't really intersect
with any law enforcement organization, so I can't say that I
have any intimate knowledge of any.
What I do have knowledge though, and have participated in
pay-for-performance implementations where there was a teamwork
structure in place, and where the success of one individual
really was dependent on others. It was almost like an interlock
between members of the team. No one individual could be
successful and receive the compensation reward that would go
with that success if the other teammates weren't equally
successful. And as a matter of fact, I was paid that way. And,
there were individuals in the organization where I was
responsible for a line of business, and I was paid based on the
sales of that organization or the investment return of the
portfolio manager, and none of those people reported to me.
I had no control over them. But half of my pay was
determined by things like that, so it was really, ultimately up
to me to visit with them, to make sure they had everything they
needed to be successful. And, all of us had the same goals even
though we were only responsible for pieces.
So, at the end of the day, it can work in a teamwork
environment, but it really requires that you function as a
team, and so, although I haven't seen it in law enforcement,
I've seen it used successfully in other teams.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Springer, I first of all would like
to welcome Senator Carper. Senator, would you like to say a few
words before we continue our questions?
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. I just want to talk with Ms. Springer about
her FBI report but--just kidding. [Laughter.]
It was page 7 especially, the underlined parts. [Laughter.]
Let me just sit here and catch my breath, and then I will
be right up with you. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. One of the things that we insisted on
when we went forward with the new personnel system for the
Department of Defense was participation by OPM. We thought it
was absolutely essential. If you are going to do the job that
you are supposed to do, it is going to be very important that
you have the courage to speak out in regard to things that are
of great concern to you. For example, you just mentioned one of
the things that I am concerned about in the MAX HR program at
the Department of Homeland Security. The House of
Representatives voted to cut the budget. I just could not
believe it.
It seems to me that you are going to have a major
responsibility and be very vocal in this matter. The question I
have is, do you think you have the courage to do so? There are
going to be some times when you are going to really have to put
your foot down. For example, I will never forget going over on
my own to the Defense Department. I insisted on a meeting with
Secretary Rumsfeld and ended up with Mr. Wolfowitz. The Defense
Department was going to go forward and implement its new
personnel system by October of last year. I said, there is no
way on God's earth that you are going to ever be able to do
that. That caused some pause, and they were anticipating me and
came up with a new program. Ms. Springer, you are going to have
to evaluate these programs, and if you think they are moving
improperly, intervene.
For example, I think I mentioned training when you were in
the office. I surveyed agencies on training when I first came
to the Congress. I asked the question, ``How much money do you
spend on training?'' Eleven Departments said, ``We do not
know,'' and one said, ``We do know but we will not tell you.''
There are some fundamental things that should be in place in
terms of human resources.
Ms. Springer. Yes, I am, definitely. Senator, it would have
been a mistake for anyone, including me, to take this job who
wasn't willing to do that, and I think that's one reason why I
was picked for this job. I think you know that people like Clay
Johnson and other people who know me pretty well and whom I've
worked with are not bashful people. I think they know that I'm
up to that job. Frankly, there are two things I want to say in
regard to this.
First, I want to thank you and the other Members who made
sure that OPM did have a strong role in this, and I think it
would have undermined OPM's position, OPM's responsibility,
frankly, as the chief personnel organization in the Executive
Branch, to not have had a major role in these reforms. And, the
Department of Defense is no exception to that. So, I appreciate
it and I applaud you all for having done that. But at the same
time, in addition, it comes down to the person and the
organization, OPM itself, to carry those things out. Just
putting it on a piece of paper doesn't mean that it's going to
happen, but I'm committed to making that happen.
One of the things that I think you know from our
conversations is that I was ready to go back to Pennsylvania. I
didn't take this role because I was looking to run for office
or build a public image or anything else. I'm here because I
care about good government, I care that what we're doing here
is right, and it's done right. And, if that means that I'm
going to get a little scuffed up or have to take off the gloves
a little bit, that's fine. That just goes with the territory as
far as I'm concerned.
Senator Voinovich. Senator Carper, any further questions?
Senator Carper. Yes. When you worked at Provident Mutual
did you ever work in Delaware?
Ms. Springer. I visited that office, but that wasn't my
home site, but, yes, down in that Christiana area.
Senator Carper. That is now part of nationwide.
Ms. Springer. Yes, it is. I went through that merger.
Senator Carper. Did you really? OK.
Ms. Springer. Yes, I did. I was there during the merger.
Senator Carper. And then when you left Provident, what did
you do? How long were you with them?
Ms. Springer. I was with Provident for 10 years, and I
stayed through the merger, and then the senior management team
essentially, as happens in these mergers, often moves on, and
so I came down to work at OMB to be the head of the Office of
Federal Financial Management.
Senator Carper. Controller?
Ms. Springer. Controller.
Senator Carper. And who has succeeded you?
Ms. Springer. Over at OMB, the nominee actually--and I
think before this Committee--is Linda Combs, who has been a CFO
in several of the agencies.
Senator Carper. Would you describe her as a worthy
successor?
Ms. Springer. I would.
Senator Carper. Small little story. She went to Appalachian
State University, same college as my wife. Her math teacher
there was my wife's father. Is that not amazing?
Ms. Springer. Isn't that something? Yes, small world.
Senator Carper. And I managed to work it into the hearing
that we had. I do not know if Senator Voinovich or Senator
Pryor were there. I said, ``Ms. Combs, I understand your
financial skills are very good.'' She said, ``Thank you, I
would like to think so.'' I said, ``I understand you have
exemplary math skills.'' [Laughter.]
And my colleagues starting looking like, where is he going
with this? And I said, ``To what do you attribute your
remarkable math skills?'' And she said, ``Well, I did go to
Appalachian State University and my math teacher was your
father-in-law.'' [Laughter.]
I just want to know for the record, did my father-in-law
ever teach you math?
Ms. Springer. I don't think so, but I feel like I've missed
out on an opportunity. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I have learned a lot from him and even more
from his daughter. [Laughter.]
I learned some things I did not want to know too. We all
know how that is.
I want to ask you a little bit about pay-for-performance
which is something that I believe in as an old governor,
recovering governor, but before I do that, why do you think you
are particularly well-suited for this job? I can see, looking
at your background, why particularly the Controller position at
OMB was well-suited, but why this job?
Ms. Springer. As part of my time in the private sector,
Senator, I designed those types of systems, those pay-for-
performance systems. I was paid under them. I managed people in
them. Beyond the typical controller responsibilities I also
managed a number of the benefits, administration areas, payroll
areas, and had responsibilities, for a number of the human
resource areas at Provident specifically. So it's a pretty
broad portfolio even though the title seems to be more of a
financial type of position.
Pay-for-performance is--once you've been in that type of an
organization and through my whole professional life, I have
been--it just is a way of life, and so that developing people,
helping them be successful in that, is something that I'm a
believer in. I've done it, I've lived it. I've had half my
compensation at risk. I don't just mean for the raise on my
base pay. I mean you're going to get either zero dollars or
you're going to get 100 percent of those dollars based on how
you do X, Y and Z, and with people that you don't even manage,
as I mentioned earlier.
So, I'm sort of a living, breathing example of it, and I've
seen it work and make the organizations more successful. But
not just my own personal pay, but that of the people for whom
I've been responsible and the organizations, and so I believe I
have experience that's very relevant and will be very helpful,
and I would say comforting, is a good word, and relieving some
of the anxiety, that this really can work, and work to the
benefit of people who are in that system.
Senator Carper. I like that word ``comforting,''
particularly when folks who are not used to pay-for-performance
and it seems new and scary. How do you comfort people who raise
concerns about the possible lack of objectivity when the time
comes to be evaluated? How do you address that concern,
particularly in the arena in which we work as opposed to the
private sector?
Ms. Springer. I think, first of all, have to acknowledge
that that's a very fair concern. We are talking about people's
pay. There is nothing more dear to people from a professional
standpoint, I think, than how they're compensated. And, to put
that into the hands of someone else, a major determinant of
that, I think, is something that creates anxiety, and so, I
think you have to acknowledge that right off the bat. But, then
you don't back off from it.
You have to then be committed to making sure that the
people who are going to make those decisions are trained, are
operating a system that has safeguards, and one of those
safeguards, frankly, will be that OPM will not let any of these
go online until we are satisfied that we can certify that all
of the pieces are in place and that the supervisors are trained
and experienced; that they have gone through practice; that
they have the types of performance appraisal forms and
mechanisms that are complete; and just that there is a complete
training before we go live with any of those. And, OPM isn't
going to let any of those happen.
I also think that it's important to, as I think about this,
pick a few of the agencies that are really very well run, very
well managed already--and I think we know who most of those
are; GAO has their list, the President has his list--of the
best run agencies, and work with those first and let them be
the first wave of experience. So I think there's a way that you
can do it that's informed, intelligent, and that will start to
provide that comfort to the workforce.
Senator Carper. What might be some of those agencies that
we try this with first?
Ms. Springer. Well, one that I think has done very well
certainly, in the President's Management Agenda, and that I've
worked with is Social Security, for example, and GAO usually
gives them very high marks for how they're run. That's one that
comes to mind.
Senator Carper. One other question. In terms of being able
to take the concept of pay-for-performance from the private
sector and to transfer it to the Federal Government, are there
any other concerns that you would have in terms of the ability
to transfer from the one sector to the other?
Ms. Springer. A part of the training issue that we have, is
that we need to make sure that people know how to articulate
goals, that they go beyond things like the GPRA and the other
requirements for strategic planning, to really get down to
planning and articulation. I'm a believer in articulation, in
the writing of clear goals, so that we've got an agreed upon
expectations for each of our employees who is under this type
of a system. I think you should do it anyway, regardless of the
pace, and people should know what's expected and there should
be an agreed upon expectation in writing so that there's no
guesswork. And, that's another one of those safeguards. That's
my personal expectation.
But, as you go about that, I'm concerned that we have
managers who have not been used to doing that, and so we have
to make sure that they get used to it and get trained in it,
and we need to get some help from those who have done it.
Senator Carper. Good, all right.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Ms. Springer, very
much.
Ms. Springer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. I would just like to add on, build on
what Senator Carper has indicated. As you know, the
Administration is interested in implementing pay-for-
performance throughout the Federal Government. There has been
some reluctance on my part and on the Chairman's part to
entertain that suggestion. One of the things that I have made
very clear to OMB Deputy Director Clay Johnson and the
Administration is a need for their awareness and willingness to
commit the resources to move forward with these new systems in
the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense. I think it is
incumbent on you, Ms. Springer, to look at what is happening
and bring to their attention things that need to change. They
must fully understand the commitment of talent and resources
that are necessary to properly train people to execute an
effective management system.
I really do not believe some of these folks understand how
much time and effort they are going to have to give to making
this successful. Even the Senior Executive Service, which is
approximately 6, 000 people, has had challenges. I suspect you
are going to find there are some stars, and you will also find
some are struggling.
Also imperative is the involvement of your representatives.
Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to follow up on a couple of the comments that
you made a few moments ago, Ms. Springer. The Chairman talked
about the Chief Human Capital Officers Council. As I understand
it right now, the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, as it
currently is today, only has political appointees on it, does
not have career people on it. I may be wrong about that.
Ms. Springer. I believe that there's a mixture, Senator
Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Is there?
Ms. Springer. Is that right? Yes.
Senator Pryor. I think that maybe they are eligible, but I
am not sure any are serving right now. I am not sure.
Ms. Springer. To my understanding it's a mixture.
Senator Pryor. OK, great.
Ms. Springer. I hope that it is.
Senator Pryor. Because I was going to say that you have had
experience on the Chief Financial Officers Council, and that
was a mix, right?
Ms. Springer. Yes.
Senator Pryor. And the question I was going to ask is, is
there value in having a mix there?
Ms. Springer. Yes, there is, absolutely. What I found in
the Chief Financial Officers Council was that blend of
continuity over the years from the career staff and their
insights that go with those many years of service and the
perspective, was a complement and a good assist to people who
did not have the same years of experience and depth of
knowledge of the Federal Government and the workforce, frankly,
in that case, in the financial arena.
It is my understanding that we have both, and we certainly
need to maintain that, and I'll be sure that we do.
Senator Pryor. Great. Well, thank you, and thank you for
your answer. That would be my guess, too, that there would be
value.
Last thing, again, to follow up on Senator Voinovich's
questions a few moments ago, or his statement. There has been
considerable discussion of expanding the developing personnel
systems at the DOD and DHS to other parts of government, to try
to take some of those principles and export them to other parts
of government. Is this something that you envision taking up
early in your tenure at OPM, or do you believe that these
systems should be allowed to mature and to be evaluated before
they are extended to other parts of the government?
Ms. Springer. I would be in favor of the sooner rather than
later, and there are a few reasons why, and some of those are
already happening, frankly. We have smaller agencies within the
government that have already been in pay-for-performance type
situations. I can give you several accounts of career
employees, well-positioned, very experienced senior career
officials at major cabinet agencies, who have left their
positions from these major cabinet agencies, and gone to the
smaller agencies that had existing pay-for-performance
structures. And, when I asked them why, that was the reason.
They had more upside compensation potential.
So, what was happening was there was a talent flight away
from the agency that didn't have that pay-for-performance
structure today, to an agency, a much smaller one, that didn't
really need, frankly, the talent level and the skill set that
the large agency needed in that individual, but they went. Why?
Because of the upside compensation potential. That was the main
factor, frankly.
And, I felt badly about that because it was really a drain.
I can see that happening when we have now half of the workforce
coming into a situation under DHS and under the NSPS new
structures. If we don't have that elsewhere or at least start
to build that opportunity, again with the caveat of the OPM
certification, we will have no way to ensure that when they are
mature and are ripe, they can begin. There's nothing that says
we have to turn the switch today for them, but we should let
them at least have the opportunity to start to build it and
work with their employee representatives and get it right, so
that they don't have to wait for years and years, and be at
that disadvantage.
I can assure you there will be a talent drain of good
performers who are going to be drawn to situations where they
can have the maximum potential for their compensation. And,
I've seen it happen already here in the government, and I think
this will just be worse if we wait too long. So, I'm for sooner
rather than later.
Senator Pryor. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. No further questions at this
time.
The hearing record will remain open for 48 hours so that
other Members of this Committee may submit questions to you in
writing. I am sure that you will respond to them.
We really thank you for being here today. I must say that I
am very impressed with you. I think you are going to do a very
good job at the Office of Personnel Management. We will work
with you in any way we can. I want you to consider us as being
your friends.
Ms. Springer. Thank you. The feeling is mutual, Senator,
thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
I would like to welcome Judge Noel Kramer and Laura
Cordero. And particularly I want to welcome my long-time
friend, Congressman Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Columbia. Eleanor, I apologize for making you wait, but there
were some questions that we wanted to ask the nominee for
Director of the Office of Personnel Management. I am sure you
understand.
Thank you for being here, and we look forward to your
introduction.
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I must say I
am on the committee in the House--so I listened raptly to your
questions and appreciate them--the committee that will have
oversight or jurisdiction over our new OPM Director in the
House.
Senator, I hope you will forgive me if I cannot begin or
get down to the work of the day without simply thanking you for
your work for the District of Columbia as Chairman of this
Subcommittee. Many of the improvements in the Government of the
District of Columbia have come through you and the work of your
Subcommittee. I understand you, Senator. Your job here has been
of course to be the Senator for the State of Ohio, and you have
done that splendidly. But I must say, and I am sure I speak for
the elected officials in the District of Columbia and for the
people whom I represent, when I thank you for your work in our
city. You have never forgotten that before you were a Senator,
you were a mayor and a governor, and you brought that
extraordinary background to your work on this Subcommittee for
our city. So I thank you very much for that.
And I thank you for inviting me to introduce these two very
splendidly qualified nominees.
Laura Cordero has spent her entire career in public
service, and doing the kind of work that best prepares a
nominee to do the work she will be called upon to do on the
Superior Court. Ms. Cordero has been in the U.S. Attorney's
Office. She came there from the Justice Department where she
was in the Honors Program. She has been 12 years as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia,
representing and doing the kind of legal work she will be
called upon to judge, and not only in the court where she will
be sitting, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, but
in all of the courts of our jurisdiction, in the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, our highest court, and
the U.S. District Court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
We are particularly grateful to Ms. Cordero for her work as
the first community prosecutor in the District of Columbia,
former U.S. Attorney set that post up, and she had to in fact
form it. She has continued to work on community-based programs
which have been effective in reducing violent crime in the
District of Columbia. We hate to lose her where she is. We know
she will do great work where she is going, where she has been
nominated to go.
I also have the honor of introducing a particularly
distinguished judge, Associate Judge of the Superior Court,
presently serving on the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, very long experience on that court in all manner of
trials, from murder trials to family court and civil court.
Judge Kramer, Judge Noel Kramer is much revered for her
work on our courts. She has been the presiding judge for the
past 3 years of the Criminal Division. That is a particularly
difficult division. She will always be remembered for her work
on the Community Court. This is a court that works to provide
defendants with substance abuse and mental health treatment and
employment skills so they do not return to crime, since
recidivism is the major problem of the criminal justice system.
This is much appreciated work in our city.
This is a much honored lawyer and judge. She has been
President of the National Association of Women Judges. The
Congress, the House and the Senate, might want to take note of
the fact that she has worked on the D.C. Bar Committee that
drafted guidelines for civility in the legal profession.
She has been honored by the D.C. Women's Bar Association
for her activity as a mentor of young judges. Judge Kramer
began with the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering in the
District of Columbia. She went to the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the District of Columbia. She is a graduate of University
of Michigan Law School, where she served on the Michigan Law
Review. She is an honors graduate of Vassar College. She was
the first President of the Women's Law Students Association.
She most recently has been named Woman Lawyer of the Year by
the D.C. Women's Bar Association.
I think I have said enough to make you understand why the
President would nominate Judge Kramer, and I am honored and
pleased to introduce her as well, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Congressman Norton. Thank you
also for your nice comments about the Chairman of the
Subcommittee. We have been friends for a long time and I look
forward to working with you on matters like this and also the
District of Columbia. I know you are very busy, and if you
excuse yourself we will all understand.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
As Congresswoman Norton has pointed out, Judge Kramer has
served as an Associate Judge in the Superior Court of the
District since 1984. During her tenure she resided over civil,
family and criminal cases, heavily involved in establishing the
East of the River Community Court, and has provided over the
court since its inception in September 2002. The Court was
established to increase judicial understanding of the public
safety and quality of life concerns of the citizens East of the
Anacostia River, and to provide drug treatment, mental health
counseling, employment assistance, and other services.
Judge Kramer, I am sure they are going to miss your
leadership in that organization. I thank you for your years of
service.
Ms. Cordero has served as clerk to the Hon. James A. Parker
of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico for a
2-year term. In 1991, Ms. Cordero joined the Department of
Justice where she was assigned to the Civil Rights Division. In
1993 Ms. Cordero joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
District of Columbia. In 1999, Ms. Cordero was assigned as the
first community prosecutor as part of the U.S. Attorney's
Office Citywide Community Prosecution Program.
Currently Ms. Cordero is the Executive Assistant U.S.
Attorney for External Affairs. She is responsible for
developing, coordinating, and maintaining effective
partnerships with Federal and local law enforcement, government
agencies in the community and the District of Columbia. That is
a major challenge, getting them all to work together.
She also coordinates an extensive community engagement
network aimed at reducing violent crime in the District of
Columbia.
I believe that our candidates are both well qualified for
the position to which they have been nominated.
Senator Pryor, would you like to say a few words?
Senator Pryor. I just want to hear from the nominees. Their
backgrounds and resumes sound very impressive, so I look
forward to hearing what you have to say.
Senator Voinovich. As I mentioned earlier, it is the custom
of this Committee for those that appear here to take the oath,
and if you will stand up, I will administer it to you.
Do you swear that the testimony you are going to be giving
today is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you, God?
Ms. Cordero. I do.
Judge Kramer. I do.
Senator Voinovich. Judge Kramer, I understand that you may
have some family members here today, as well as supportive
colleagues and friends, and I will give you an opportunity to
introduce them to us today. This is a very special day, I am
sure, for them.
Judge Kramer. Thank you, Senator. I am really honored to be
here today. I am delighted to have an opportunity to introduce
to you some of the people who have accompanied me today.
Let me begin with my husband, Frank Kramer, to whom I have
been married for 35 years. My son, Christopher is a former
staff member of the Permanent Committee on Investigations and
heading off to law school next year. My older child, my
daughter, Katherine, is working in San Francisco and
unfortunately unable to be here today.
The next person I want to introduce to you is the
equivalent of family, if you will, and that is my judicial
assistant of 18 years, Jackie Waller. If you could stand since
you are in the audience. I have to say that she has provided me
with the utmost support for 18 years, and in all of my various
endeavors, and I sometimes think that I get too much credit and
she gets too little.
My current law clerk, Natalia Medly, also like myself, a
graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, and our dear
young friend, Douglas Robb, who is a recent graduate of the
Naval Academy and often takes up residence in our home.
In addition I would like to say that I have two other law
clerks who happily are here today and would just like to
mention their name, Murray Scheel, who actually has now
preceded me to the Court of Appeals since he clerks for Judge
Ruiz, and Braden Murphy, who is also here.
I am also honored to be accompanied here today by Chief
Judge Rufus King of the D.C. Superior Court, who has been
unfailing in his support of my various endeavors throughout his
term as the Chief Judge. Also Chief Judge Annice Wagner of the
D.C. Court of Appeals, who I so look forward to working with.
And also Chief Judge Designate Eric Washington of the D.C.
Court of Appeals.
So those are my introductions, Senator.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Your family and extended
family.
Ms. Cordero, would you like to introduce members of your
family that are here today?
Ms. Cordero. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With me today is my mother, Ofelia Cordero, who recently
celebrated her 80th birthday.
Senator Voinovich. Congratulations.
Ms. Cordero. My husband, Poli Marmolejos; our three
daughters, Sofia, Cecilia, and I believe in the interest of
preserving the integrity of these proceedings, our 4-year-old
Amalia is outside. [Laughter.]
I would also like to introduce my extended family of
friends and colleagues, who over the many years of my
professional career have shared their wisdom, support, guidance
generously, and who have joined me here today, and I very much
appreciate their support and the fact that they are here with
me today.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
There are three questions that I would like each of you to
answer. First, is there anything that you are aware of in your
background that might present a conflict of interest with the
duties of the office to which you have been nominated? Ms.
Cordero, Judge?
Judge Kramer. No.
Ms. Cordero. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Voinovich. Do you know of any reason, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
Judge Kramer. I do not, Senator.
Ms. Cordero. No, sir.
Senator Voinovich. And last but not least, do you know of
any reason, personal or otherwise, that would in any way
prevent you from serving the full term for the office to which
you have been nominated?
Judge Kramer. Let me say, Senator, that it is my intention
to serve until the law's mandatory retirement age requires that
I step down as an active judge, and that will be shortly before
my term would end.
Senator Voinovich. Ms. Cordero.
Ms. Cordero. No, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Do either one of you have a statement
you would like to make for us today?
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. NOEL ANKETELL KRAMER,\1\ TO BE ASSOCIATE
JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
Judge Kramer. I would like to just simply make a very brief
statement. I have been on the D.C. Superior Court for 20 years
now. I can sincerely say that it has been a challenging and
fulfilling job, as much as I could have ever asked for, but
should the Senate see fit to confirm me for our Court of
Appeals, I would be thrilled by the opportunity to serve the
District of Columbia in this new role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The biographical and professional information appears in the
Appendix on page 70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me also say that I much appreciate having the
opportunity to appear before the Committee today. I appreciate
the staff work that goes into such appearances, and I thank you
for having me, and I thank President Bush for nominating me for
this position.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Cordero, do you have a statement you would like to
make?
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. LAURA A. CORDERO,\2\ TO BE ASSOCIATE
JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Cordero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The biographical and professional information appears in the
Appendix on page 105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to you, Mr.
Chairman, for making the arrangements for this hearing today,
to the Committee Members and to the staff. For some period of
time now they have graciously extended their guidance through
these proceedings, and I am very grateful for that.
I also would like to thank the President for nominating me
for this very important position. I am very much humbled by the
opportunity to continue to serve the residents of the District
of Columbia if I were to be fortunate enough to be confirmed as
Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Ms. Cordero, whether it is through your experience of
appearing before judges or in observing your colleagues, I am
sure that you have observed a variety of judicial temperaments.
I would like you to discuss for me what you think the
appropriate temperament and approach of a judge should be.
Ms. Cordero. I have indeed, Mr. Chairman. I believe after
spending many years in the courtroom first as a law clerk, and
then the last 12 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney
representing the United States of America, I do believe that it
is of the utmost importance to have, above all, fairness and
impartiality from the Court. I think it is equally important
for those who preside in those courtrooms to accord each and
every person who comes into the courtroom, whether they are a
litigant, a party, an attorney, a witness or a spectator, the
utmost respect and dignity. I think those are very important
factors for the appropriate judicial temperament.
Senator Voinovich. Judge Kramer, you are moving to the D.C.
Court of Appeals, which has a Chief Judge and eight Associate
Judges, and is the equivalent of a State Supreme Court, whereas
the Superior Court where you have been, you are a judge with
your own courtroom. How are you going to handle the transition
from the Superior Court to the Court of Appeals?
Are you going to be bored, Judge? [Laughter.]
Judge Kramer. Senator, you are not the first person to ask
me that question. I am confident that I will not be bored
should I be so fortunate as to be confirmed. I've looked
forward very much to bringing my experience to the Court of
Appeals. Our Court of Appeals is really renowned nationally for
its collegiality and its scholarship, and I am fortunate to
personally know the members of the Court of Appeals, so I don't
have any surprises in that regard. Indeed, even President
Bush's most recent nominee and I go back to practically
kindergarten, but that would be kindergarten in the U.S.
Attorney's Office.
I look forward to the opportunity to work with others on
making decisions. As a trial judge you work alone, and although
it seems as if the Court of Appeals may be more isolating, were
it not for staff, as a trial court judge you can actually be
quite isolated. So I look forward to that opportunity. I look
forward very much, should I be confirmed, to the opportunity to
play a greater role in the development of the law in the
District of Columbia.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Judge Kramer, let me inquire, if I may. A mention was made
to community court?
Judge Kramer. Yes.
Senator Pryor. I do not know if I understand what that
means.
Judge Kramer. Well, the idea of a community court is to
take a group of cases that are of a misdemeanor nature. There
may be community courts that involve felonies, but I don't know
of any if there are. The low-level offenses that present a
challenge for the community in terms of what to do with the
offenders, where the offenders are not violent criminals, but
are continually involved in activities that get them arrested,
activities such as drugs, prostitution, unlawful entries,
because perhaps they're homeless, or other low-level offenses
such as this. Not drug sales or drug possession. Drug use
particularly is a problem.
Senator Pryor. So all of these are criminal in nature.
Judge Kramer. Always criminal in nature. If by working with
not only the judge but resources in the community----
Senator Pryor. So social services and other type----
Judge Kramer. Exactly, social services, drug treatment
programs, mental health programs----
Senator Pryor. Nonprofits, just whatever might be out
there.
Judge Kramer [continuing]. maybe prostitution programs. You
can't stop the revolving door, but, at least, as Judge King so
aptly put it once, you can slow down the revolving door. We
don't expect miracles, but we can at least attempt to slow down
the revolving door, to change lives.
At the same time it's a court and you--also one of the
things that makes it effective is a close relationship between
the judge and the defendant, regular reviews, that kind of
thing, so that there is true accountability, because without
accountability you don't get very far.
Senator Pryor. So there is some post-adjudication contact?
Judge Kramer. Most of these cases are--actually, another
key element is the cooperation of the U.S. Attorney's Office or
the prosecutor. Most of these cases actually end up with
dismissals if people do what they are supposed to do.
Senator Pryor. Do you use a mix of probation and that type
of thing to see if, for lack of a better term, they will stay
on the straight and narrow for a designated time?
Judge Kramer. Yes, that's also used.
Senator Pryor. How long have you been involved with the
Community Court?
Judge Kramer. It began in September 2002, and my law clerk,
Braden Murphy, was with me the first time I went out into the
community for this.
Senator Pryor. When you say go out in the community----
Judge Kramer. Yes. That is another strong element of it.
The judge goes into the community on a regular basis, is known
in the community, tries to be high profile in the community,
speaks with the citizens, learns their concerns. This
particular community court was the East of the River Community
Court, so it speaks for itself through its name. It has been
going now since September 2002.
Senator Pryor. As I understand it, you have been on the
bench for 20 years?
Judge Kramer. Yes.
Senator Pryor. We have been talking about criminal here.
Have you done civil as well?
Judge Kramer. Oh, yes.
Senator Pryor. What type of civil cases have you handled? I
mean just everything, just whatever is filed?
Judge Kramer. That is basically a good description,
everything that's filed from landlord/tenant through what we
call our Civil 1 cases, including some asbestos cases, a lot of
malpractice matters, and contract issues, civil rights cases,
the whole gamut.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Ms. Cordero, your colleague there has community court on
her resume. You have community prosecutor.
Ms. Cordero. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. Is there a connection there?
Ms. Cordero. There most definitely is. I think generally
the criminal justice partners have looked at new and innovative
approaches to try to prevent crime as opposed to deal with the
crime when it has already been committed. Our office certainly
is an integral partner of the community court effort. Our
prosecutors are integral partners in this effort. Much of what
is done in the community court itself is, as Judge Kramer
noted, preventive, and that's exactly what we do at the U.S.
Attorney's Office through the community prosecution effort.
We go to many community meetings. In fact, we average about
600 a year. I've gone to hundreds of community meetings myself
over the years, and I think it's a critical component for us as
public servants to maintain that dialogue at all times with the
residents that we serve to better understand what their public
safety needs are.
They vary greatly as you go from one part of the community
to the other, and it's important to know what their priorities
are and for us as law enforcement to work with them, to try to
identify what is the best way that we can address some of those
challenges.
Senator Pryor. And you have been with the U.S. Attorney's
Office for 12 years.
Ms. Cordero. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. What type of cases have you handled at the
U.S. Attorney's Office?
Ms. Cordero. The U.S. Attorney's Office has a great
opportunity for young assistants because they rotate them
through various sections in the office. I first did some
appellate work, and then moved on to trial work, doing all
types of misdemeanors, certainly prostitution, possession,
assaults, and then handled some of the felony matters,
narcotics, stolen drugs, and robbery. I also prosecuted some
cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
under some Federal statutes, counterfeit currency. I did some
human trafficking cases, illegal bringing in of undocumented
persons. So I've had a pretty extensive and diverse caseload as
an Assistant U.S. Attorney there.
Senator Pryor. Sounds like all criminal.
Ms. Cordero. Yes. While I was at the U.S. Attorney's Office
I have only handled criminal cases. The civil cases I have
handled were before my tenure as an Assistant U.S. Attorney.
While I was at the Department of Justice I did have the
opportunity to serve as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights
Division, enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and so I had
the opportunity to crisscross the country, working with
citizens and safeguarding their right to vote in our great
democracy. So those were civil suits that were filed in the
course of that.
I did handle some civil cases while I was in law school.
For 2 years I served at the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, serving
indigent clients on landlord/tenant matters and family court
matters, and other such things.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Really, one last double question,
if I may, Mr. Chairman, and that is, I am curious for both of
you, your thoughts on the greatest challenges facing the D.C.
Court system, and also how the Congress can respond to those
challenges. I assume there are some things that can be done on
the local level, and I am sure you will work on those things,
and I would like to hear about that, but also what Congress can
do.
You want to go next, Judge Kramer?
Judge Kramer. One of the challenges, well there are several
challenges, but one is always the volume, because our volume is
so great, and I think that's probably true also with our Court
of Appeals, although I don't pretend to be an expert on that
issue.
Senator Pryor. Now, when you say volume do you mean you
need more judges or more----
Judge Kramer. No.
Senator Pryor. Better facilities or more support staff.
Judge Kramer. Well, it is a continuing challenge. I'm not
asking for more judges right now. I would leave that issue to
my chief, but that is a challenge. Part of the issue on the
criminal side, which is where I've spent the last 6 years of my
life, are finding the resources in the community to adequately
reduce the recidivism in the District of Columbia. That was one
of the reasons why community court was begun.
I don't think that we have yet gotten to the point where we
have adequate resources such as drug treatment programs, which
are so critical for making changes in people's lives, mental
health treatment, that kind of thing. These are issues that
still exist as unsolved problems many ways in the criminal
justice system.
On our family court side, of course, as I'm sure you know,
Congress has been extraordinarily helpful, and we have
resources that when I sat in Family Court we never had. Just as
somebody who looks back on where we were and where we are, I
would like to thank you all for bringing about and providing
the resources to make a change there. In terms of the court, I
think that substantial--a world of difference has occurred.
Ms. Cordero. Senator, I would agree with Judge Kramer, that
I think one of the challenges is certainly the volume of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia. They preside over
any matter, anything from criminal, civil, family, and probate.
I think among the challenges for the court is there is always
an issue of volume and an issue of resources, and how do we
maximize the resources that we have to try to identify
solutions for some of the systematic issues that may arise.
Certainly, I see great strides in the court in terms of
identifying models like community court. They recently started
a truancy court as well, where they have only one judge
presiding over all truancy matters. I think, again, that's
always going to be an ongoing challenge, how do you maximize
the resources that you have to provide the best service that
you can ultimately to all the litigants that come before you.
Senator Voinovich. I want to thank both of you for your
testimony here today. I know you are anxious to be confirmed
and invested. The next step in this process will be
consideration of your nomination at a Committee business
meeting, and reporting your nomination to the Senate for final
action.
I am happy to see that your families are with you,
supporting you. I know it is a very proud day for them. Thank
you both for the service that you have rendered to the District
of Columbia, and we look forward to your continued service.
[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2194.107
<all>