<DOC> [109 Senate Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:30599.wais] S. Hrg. 109-927 CRITICAL MISSION: ASSESSING SPIRAL 1.1 OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 __________ Available via http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 30-599 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 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 Jennifer H. Hemingway, Professional Staff Member Theresa Prych, Professional Staff Member, Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee Michael L. Alexander, Minority Staff Director Lawrence B. Novey, Minority Senior Counsel Jennifer L. Tyree, Minority Counsel, Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Collins.............................................. 1 Senator Voinovich............................................ 3 WITNESSES Wednesday, September 20, 2006 Hon. Gordon England, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Defense, accompanied by Mary Lacey, NSPS Program Executive Officer, U.S. Department of Defense............................ 2 Hon. Linda M. Springer, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management..................................................... 7 Lieutenant General Terry L. Gabreski, Vice Commander, Air Force Materiel Command, U.S. Air Force............................... 9 Alphabetical List of Witnesses England, Hon. Gordon: Testimony.................................................... 2 Prepared statement........................................... 23 Gabreski, Lieutenant General Terry L.: Testimony.................................................... 9 Prepared statement........................................... 33 Springer, Hon. Linda M.: Testimony.................................................... 7 Prepared statement........................................... 27 APPENDIX Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: Mr. England.................................................. 41 Ms. Springer................................................. 54 General Gabreski............................................. 56 Darryl Perkinson, National President, Federal Managers Association, prepared statement................................ 58 United Department of Defense Workers Coalition (UDWC), prepared statement...................................................... 62 CRITICAL MISSION: ASSESSING SPIRAL 1.1 OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Collins and Voinovich. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS Chairman Collins. Good afternoon. Today, the Committee holds its third hearing to examine the design and implementation of the National Security Personnel System. We will focus on the conversion of approximately 11,000 employees that began earlier this year. The pay-for-performance systems underway at the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security represent the most significant change in Federal employees' supervision and compensation methods since the General Schedule was introduced in 1949. When fully implemented, the new pay-for-performance systems will cover approximately one-half of the Federal civilian workforce. Debate on the National Security Personnel System for the Department of Defense's civilian workforce started in 2003, when the Department initially submitted a proposal that many of us believed went too far and failed to provide important provisions to protect good employees. Since then, considerable progress has been made. I want to commend Secretary England for his continued commitment during the past 3 years to ensuring that the new system is credible and that it appropriately reflects congressional intent to reward high performers and avoid unfair consequences. I am very impressed that Secretary England has stayed personally involved in this project, despite having the tremendous responsibility of being Deputy Secretary. Despite the Department's efforts to provide a robust training program for its employees and their supervisors, I continue to hear concerns from employees and their representatives that show their lack of confidence in the new system. I have had, for example, employees from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, express to me concerns about whether their managers will be fair in their evaluations and whether they will know how to do their evaluations. There is not a resistance to evaluation per se. In fact, most employees tell me they welcome a good evaluation system where their pay is tied to their performance. But many of them say to me, quite frankly, ``I do not think my manager is going to be able to do this in a way that is fair.'' I believe we have a real challenge to build confidence in the new system. Secretary England has previously testified that, ``A key to the success of NSPS is to ensure that employees perceive the system as fair with trust between employees and supervisors.'' I think that really sums up the challenge before us. I look forward to learning how the Department is building that trust that is absolutely critical to achieve a successful implementation of the new program. If there is not employee buy-in, if employees do not view NSPS as a fair system that will truly reward good performers, then the Department is going to be met with continued resistance and opposition. After all, the real test of NSPS begins next month, when Spiral 1.1 employees receive their first written performance evaluations from their supervisors. Implementation of the new system will, of course, require honest, accurate, and actionable evaluation and will continue to be dependent, as I have indicated, on good management, proper execution, and effective training. Each of those factors requires adequate resources. I am, therefore, also interested in hearing what kinds of improvements are planned to ensure that future employee conversions are properly funded so that managers and supervisors can make the proper judgment calls. Whether the system set forth in the final regulation will achieve the Committee's goal of helping the Department recruit, reward, and retain a highly skilled workforce and ensuring that employees are recognized for their contributions to the mission remains to be seen. As the Department moves forward, this Committee will continue to scrutinize the system and to assist to determine if it meets the goal of supporting the best possible Federal workforce. And that really is the goal that unites all of us. I know that Senator Voinovich, who asked me to conduct this hearing, is very eager to hear the Secretary's remarks. It is my understanding that he is on the way, so I am going to ask that the Secretary proceed with his statement, and with your permission, when Senator Voinovich arrives, I will interrupt you and defer to him for his opening comments. Secretary England, we are delighted to have you here today. TESTIMONY OF HON. GORDON ENGLAND,\1\ DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ACCOMPANIED BY MARY LACEY, NSPS PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Mr. England. Senator Collins, thank you, Madam Chairman, and it is a delight to be here. I do thank you for the opportunity to be here. I know you are extraordinarily busy in the Senate as you get to the end of the session, so it is very gracious of you, frankly, to hold this hearing today. Thank you for your comments about my personal involvement, and let me reciprocate. We appreciate your personal involvement because it has been most helpful, and we do appreciate your steadfast support and your help and assistance and suggestions as we have gone along. So I do thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. England appears in the Appendix on page 23. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is a pleasure to be here today with Linda Springer. She is our very close partner at OPM. And here is Senator Voinovich, so maybe I will---- Chairman Collins. We will break, and I will ask you to withhold. Senator Voinovich, you have perfect timing. You did not have to listen to my opening statement, but you did not miss Secretary England's. I would say that was good timing. So, Senator Voinovich, I was explaining that the idea for this hearing originated with you and that we have worked very closely on a variety of human capital challenges, and I would like to give you an opportunity to make some opening comments before the Secretary proceeds. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR VOINOVICH Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Thank you for holding this hearing. As you know, this Committee has had an ongoing interest in the National Security Personnel System. If it was not for the Chairman of the Committee and her leadership in the conference committee, NSPS would look very different. While the legislation establishing NSPS did not come through this Committee, we have been conducting oversight of it ever since, haven't we? I have often said that the changes underway at the Department are far reaching and will impact Federal workforce reform across the entire Executive Branch. It is the responsibility of Congress and this Committee to continue its oversight to ensure the implementation is progressing in a positive manner and that employees are benefiting from the changes embodied in NSPS. I am glad that Mr. England and Ms. Springer are here today to testify before the Committee. I appreciate the fact that we have had such good cooperation with you. Madam Chairman, I know that issuing the regulations to establish the National Security Personnel System was not an easy task, and it took longer than we thought. The implementation process is going to be even more formidable if we are to institutionalize NSPS at the Department of Defense. And failure is not an option. I want to go back to March 2001, when I Chaired the Subcommittee hearing titled ``National Security Implications of the Human Capital Crisis.'' The panel of witnesses that day included former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who was a member of the U.S. Commission on National Security in the 21st Century. At that time Secretary Schlesinger said, ``As it enters the 21st Century, the United States finds itself on the brink of an unprecedented crisis of competence in government. The maintenance of American power in the world depends on the quality of U.S. Government personnel, civil and military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in the personnel area to ensure the United States can meet future challenges. It is the Commission's view that fixing the personnel problem is a precondition for fixing virtually everything else that needs repair in the institutional edifice of the U.S. national security policy.'' And so far this Congress and the Committee, including my Subcommittee, have held four hearings on the National Security Personnel System. The most recent was a field hearing where we examined the training for preparation of Spiral 1.1. We looked at what they were doing at Pearl Harbor and other military bases, and we were very impressed. In addition, my staff has met with the leaders of various components in Ohio who are preparing for implementation of Spiral 1.2. While approximately 100 DOD civilian employees in Ohio were converted to Spiral 1.1, over 3,800 Ohioans will be converted during Spiral 1.2. Department-wide, I think the total converting in Spiral 1.2 is about 60,000 more people, starting in October. That is next month. During this past year, I have been struck by the excitement and enthusiasm I have seen in senior career staff as they prepare for NSPS implementation. In conversations with these individuals, I know they understand the challenge before them, and I am committed to ensuring that they have the necessary support and resources. The Chairman and I worry about the Department having the resources to support NSPS. Once DOD converts the next 60,000, are the budgets of the agencies going to be sufficient to train these folks to make this program successful? So today I restate my commitment to work with the Department, and make sure, Secretary England, that they have the money to get the job done. Too often around here--and the Chairman and I have talked about this--we keep asking agencies to do more. We give them more responsibilities, and we do not give them more money to get the job done. If we are going to be successful with this, the Department has to have the resources. I would hope that you let the Director of the Office of Management and Budget--Rob Portman--know what you need because without the support this will not be successful, it will not be institutionalized. We cannot afford to go back. Thank you. Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. Secretary England. Mr. England. Senator Voinovich, I was just commenting as you came in. The Chairman was gracious enough to thank me for staying personally involved, and I was thanking the Senator, and I also thank you because you have both been very supportive and extraordinarily helpful, and we enjoy and appreciate working with you on this very important issue. It is a pleasure to be here today with Linda Springer, our partner from OPM, also Mary Lacey, our Program Executive Officer, and also this afternoon Lieutenant General Terry Gabreski, who is from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and so can discuss some on-the-ground real events with you today. Before I proceed, I just want to give a very brief thumbnail, but let me first address the issue of budgets. We do not have a budget issue. The components have the money they need to do the training to the level they need to do it, and if they need more for training, they will have more money. This program is vitally important for the Department of Defense. We know it is vitally important, and we are fully funding all aspects of this program. And that is a personal commitment. At the end of the day, I actually get to sign off on these budgets and approve them and make sure that projects are fully funded. I can assure you this program has been and will continue to be fully funded for training our people. So a commitment on the budget, Senator, is not going to be an issue. And if there is an issue, I will tell you, and you can look me directly in the eye, but I can tell you we are not going to have a funding issue in terms of training on this program. I do want to comment--I would like to just give you a thumbnail sketch because I know time is short and there is a lot in the Senate going on. But let me say that we are making significant progress, and I have been personally very pleased by the feedback. We have been in Spiral 1.1, as you commented, Madam Chairman. We have 11,000 personnel in 12 different organizations in Spiral 1.1. And, Senator Voinovich, you are correct, we start next month. Between October and January, we will have 66,000 more people join NSPS. So we have a significant increase, and there are people from around the world in this next group of people, 66,000. They are from organizations around the world. I can tell you, supervisors are engaged, employees are engaged. We have open channels of communications. Our employees know what is expected. And I am delighted to tell you that the feedback--what people tell me, that this is the first time they have ever seen a large-scale DOD training effort focused on the leadership and our employees. This is directed to our civilian workforce and our military workforce who manages civilian employees. And so this is about improving skills, particularly improving the skills of our management personnel. And they are very pleased that this is happening. The other feedback that is very positive is people are talking about the mission of the Department. That is, they go in and talk to their supervisor. And as you know, I have felt strongly about this from day one. The great benefit is we can take our national security objectives through the Secretary of Defense and literally down to ``the deck plate'' and trace that through expectations, job objectives, and then be able to evaluate job objectives tied to our mission, and for the first time, I believe, widespread--people across the Department now in Spiral 1.1 and getting ready for 1.2, are talking about the mission and how we accomplish it and how we link job performance to the mission that we are trying to accomplish. So I am very pleased. Now, I will tell you, we do have a hiccup or two in the program. One of the hiccups, of course, is we do have a district court decision, and the district court enjoined, that is, prevented us from implementing some of the labor relations, specifically the adverse actions, appeals, and the labor relations portion itself of NSPS. So on three of the issues, we were enjoined by the court. We expect to have a decision sometime early next year, hopefully--it depends on the courts, but our expectation is early next year we will have a decision on that part of the case. In the meantime, we are proceeding. And, by the way, I will tell you there is some degree of frustration. It takes a while to do this. We get held up by the courts and stop and start. On the other hand, my view is, literally, God bless America, this is a case where the Legislative Branch passed a law, the Executive Branch is implementing it, it goes to the courts, and ultimately there will be an arbiter, did we do it the way that the Legislative Branch intended. And so that is the way the system works, and in the end we will end up with the right answer, and we will continue to proceed to implement the system. In the meantime, of course, we are hopeful that the courts will rule and resolve all this. We may, depending on what the rulings of the courts are, we may come back for some clarification before the Congress next year, specifically as the program has been delayed. This has not been dictated by the calendar. We always said this was going to be whatever the schedule, the appropriate timelines were. But, we do have built into the law an end date of 2009. So if we are held up long periods of time, we may indeed come back and ask for an extension of the 2009 date. I don't know if we will, but, again, just so you will not be surprised if we do next year, that is a possibility. The other thing that we may come back to you for is clarification regarding national level bargaining. Both the unions and ourselves would like to do national level bargaining. Unfortunately, it has been tied in now to the labor relations parts of NSPS, and now we are precluded from doing national level bargaining. We would like to separate that. We do not think that was ever the intent. So depending, again, on how the court case comes out, we may ask for clarification in that arena next time. But we will continue to be event driven. We are adapting as we go; that is, we are learning as we go, we are modifying as we go. The whole objective is to end up with an environment for our people to excel, for our Department to excel. We have not lost sight of what the end objective of this program is. We are committed to dialogue. We are doing that with all the stakeholders, and we have had a lot of communication and training, and I will let Mary Lacey talk more about that, and also Linda Springer. So I just want to tell you, we are committed. We have applied the resources to the program. We are making progress-- not as fast as we would like, but, frankly, we are going to have this program a long time. So even if it takes us a little bit longer, it takes us a little bit longer. But we will get to the end, and when we get there, it will be a very effective program. I remain convinced that this will be a very effective program for our employees, for our Department, and for the country. And so I thank you for your support, and I thank all the people who have worked so hard. We have been at this now literally for years. A lot of people have spent a lot of time, energy, and commitment, and I thank them for that commitment and time and energy on behalf of our employees and our Department, and I thank this Committee. Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I would now like to introduce the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, Linda Springer. Ms. Springer, we are very glad to have you here today, and I would ask that you proceed with your statement. TESTIMONY OF HON. LINDA M. SPRINGER,\1\ DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Ms. Springer. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator Voinovich. It is a privilege to testify and give you an update on OPM's role with respect to the NSPS implementation. OPM has been very deeply involved, and our collaboration with DOD has been productive. It would not have occurred without DOD's leadership, especially the senior leadership, and particularly Secretary England. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Springer appears in the Appendix on page 27. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The result of this collaboration is a new human resources system at the Department of Defense that will support our national security goals and objectives but at the same time respect the individuals that create those results. It will value their performance, their leadership, their commitment to public service, and really ensure accountability at all levels while remaining a competitive and cost-effective system. In November, I testified before you that OPM would be involved and would support the Department of Defense in every way to make sure that it was an effective implementation. In my view, the Spiral 1.1 conversion has met those objectives, and OPM has played a very important role in that success. OPM leaders participate on a weekly basis, as well as in ad hoc and other important meetings, with the DOD project team leadership to make sure that we are involved in all aspects of the policy guidance with respect to the implementation. Our legal staff actively consults with the DOD leadership's legal staff to ensure that we have met not only statutory requirements but also judicial restraints on NSPS. Our policy experts assist in the development of the implementing issuances. Our compensation experts were very heavily involved in the substance of the issuances to make sure that we have a credible pay-for-performance system that rewards individual performance and also allows for recognition of organizational results in developing those rewards. Our performance management experts were involved in the development of the performance management aspects of the implementing issuances to make sure that managers and supervisors are held accountable for effectively managing the performance of the people for whom they are responsible and also that merit systems principles are not overlooked. Our classification experts reviewed procedures for classifying positions to ensure that the system was streamlined and simplified, but not at the expense of employee rights. Our staffing experts worked with their DOD counterparts to develop procedures for implementing such features as category rating, public notice requirements, and veterans' preference requirements. All of these OPM experts--legal, policy, compensation, performance management, classification, and staffing--really covering the full breadth and scope of the personnel range, spent many months working with the Department of Defense in developing implementing issuances. Now our attention has turned to evaluating how well the NSPS is working, and with a particular emphasis on training. We have gone through all of the online training to evaluate whether or not it is in plain English, whether it is understandable, whether it is comprehensive, and the OPM experts are convinced that it is. We are going to be spending time at the on-site instructor-led training starting with the early October sessions. We will actually participate, and we will have seats in the training sessions dedicated for OPM observers. There are three different formal evaluations that are planned or already underway. The first is a review of the performance management system that will allow the Secretary to determine whether or not by law the NSPS system should extend beyond the original 300,000 employees that were in the purview of the system. That assessment will particularly focus on the Spiral 1.1 conversion all the way through the rating process and the ultimate payout, as you mentioned, that would happen in January of 2007. OPM will be involved in the assessment process. I have included the development of the criteria for determining whether or not that assessment is effective in the OPM Strategic and Operational Plan so that OPM's senior leaders are being held accountable for making sure that they are involved in the setting of those assessment criteria and that they really meet our standards as well as DOD's. The second review is an ongoing program evaluation that DOD is conducting, and OPM staff meet regularly with the DOD staff on their evaluation. That is a routine evaluation. The third one is really an OPM initiative. Under our own independent statutory authority, OPM will be conducting an evaluation of the effectiveness of NSPS. That evaluation will be very comprehensive. We will look at all levels--managers, supervisors, employees, other executives--to make sure that as they spiral into NSPS, the effective training, as well as all the other aspects of the implementation, are happening as we would expect and have met our standards. So that third independent review is one that will be completed by May 1 of next year, and we will be happy to report to you on the results of that assessment. In sum, though, we have worked very closely with DOD on implementation, and we are now very much engaged and looking forward to our assessment efforts. And we will continue to be involved in that way. We appreciate from the very beginning the Senate and this Committee's work to make sure that OPM does have an important role, and we take that very seriously, Madam Chairman, and we look forward to continuing to let you know how we are doing. But, in short, I would say the NSPS is providing the flexibilities that DOD needs to really be responsive to the ever-increasing and changing national security issues, which they need to meet on behalf of the American people. So I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to any questions that you might have. Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, Director Springer. I smiled at your closing comments because as you are well aware, Senator Voinovich and I both felt very strongly about the need for OPM to be involved at every step of the way to share its considerable expertise. I know that Secretary England always welcomed that involvement as well. That was not, however, true of everyone who was involved in this process. I am now very pleased to introduce Lieutenant General Terry Gabreski. General Gabreski is the Vice Commander of the Air Force Materiel Command and is stationed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, an installation that is near and dear to my colleague's heart. She is responsible for the oversight of NSPS training and implementation within the Air Force Materiel Command and also oversaw the conversion of 2,400 employees at Tinker Air Force Base to NSPS earlier this year. General Gabreski, we are very pleased to have you here to share your personal experiences. TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL TERRY L. GABRESKI,\1\ VICE COMMANDER, AIR FORCE MATERIEL COMMAND, U.S. AIR FORCE General Gabreski. Good afternoon, Chairman Collins and Senator Voinovich. I, too, want to echo an appreciation for you all taking time to focus on this important subject for us, not just in the Department but in Air Force Materiel Command. This afternoon I would like to briefly share with you some examples of how we successfully are implementing NSPS Spiral 1.1 out at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma and give you some examples of how we dress for success out there. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of General Gabreski appears in the Appendix on page 33. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In particular, we worked extremely hard during the planning phases of NSPS to ensure that we emphasize training as well as communication. We continue to work those two specific areas, and we think that those investments are paying off. The one thing, I think you would agree, that separates our Armed Forces from any other in the world is our magnificent people, and certainly one of the things that makes our people great is the premium that we place on training. So just like the training we provide for any operational mission, it is important that we ensure that our folks are trained and the emphasis is placed on training in regard to NSPS. We have taken great care in training both our civilian and our military personnel in the specifics of NSPS implementation, as well as the soft-skill sorts of training, such as how to manage change in organizations. This training sets the stage for our continued success as we continue to deploy NSPS. Now, hand in hand with the training focus is our focus on communication. The Air Force has made clear that communication is critical to NSPS as we continue to implement it. We have used a variety of methods within Air Force Materiel Command and at Tinker Air Force Base specifically. Our four-star commander has relayed the importance of NSPS in communications that he gives to our installations and to our individual employees. Each Air Force Major Air Command conducted ``Spread the Word'' briefings in which general officers traveled to the installations in their major commands underscoring the importance of this program. One of the key messages that was relayed during these briefings to our people is that NSPS is much more than just a new personnel system. It is a commander responsibility, and it must be led from the top. So at Tinker, as at other AFMC bases, commanders have informed their personnel about NSPS through commanders calls, weekly newspaper articles, informative websites, even down to the electronic marquees on the installations and talking about important facts about NSPS. Now, we have had the opportunity to put this training and communication to the test at Tinker as the first Air Force installation to deploy NSPS. Twenty-four hundred non-bargaining employees converted there in April of this year, but well before that implementation, we stood up at Tinker an NSPS program office. We have applied a programmatic approach to NSPS implementation, and we have charged that program office with the responsibility for every aspect of NSPS deployment. We placed in charge of that program one of our high- performing employees who is a non-personnelist, a person who is an expert in our business and someone who can show the importance of NSPS as not just a new personnel system. I visited Tinker last week personally, and I saw firsthand how their vigorous training and communication is paying off as I spoke to both employees and managers who have converted. The employees have experienced a clearer communication of performance expectations as well as a stronger linkage to the mission. Additionally, NSPS has provided to the leadership at Tinker the flexibility and responsiveness to carry out their mission. There have been challenges as well as lessons learned at Tinker, and we continue to share those across the Air Force as well as the Department. NSPS provides our commanders the agile human resources system they need to succeed in today's environment. As you heard from Secretary England, senior leadership in the Department is committed to the success of this program, and I appreciate and thank you for your strong support. So I look forward to answering any of the questions you might have on our deployment of NSPS in Air Force Materiel Command and at Tinker Air Force Base specifically. Thank you. Chairman Collins. Thank you very much, General Gabreski. A key person in the unveiling and implementation of the program has been Mary Lacey, the Program Executive Officer for the National Security Personnel System. Ms. Lacey, I'd like to give you the opportunity for any comments you would like to make before we go to questions. Ms. Lacey. Thank you for having us here today. Chairman Collins. Thank you. Secretary England, the Department has indicated that the protection of pay pool funding would be addressed in several different ways. For example, the Department has stated that it would mandate the minimum composition and expenditure of pay pool funds. In addition, certain senior-level officials would be required to certify that the funds allocated to the performance-based pay pool would be used only for that purpose. I would like to ask you how the Department is going to ensure that, in times of tight budgets, managers do not use money that is intended to support the pay-for-performance program for other purposes. One of the fears that I hear from Department employees is that the pay-for-performance system is not really to reward outstanding employees with additional compensation, but rather, it is a means to reduce overall personnel costs. What is your response to that? Mr. England. Senator, I frankly believe we are fixing a problem that used to exist in that regard. It was brought to my attention when we started that it was not unusual in the past that if somebody was short on funds, they needed to fix a building, they fixed the building and, therefore, cut down on the pay pool for employees. So I believe that was a problem that existed, frankly, before we implemented this system. It is not a problem that exists now. We have strict controls in place. We identify what the pay percentages are, what the performance pay pool allotments are. We approve those so they are controlled. People do not have flexibility to move that money around. We work with the Comptroller to make sure that is the case. So under NSPS, I would say that we have a much stricter process in place in terms of controlling funds that they do not drift out of this system, and I am confident--we worked this very hard. That was a commitment when you passed the legislation and we started implementing this that we would make sure we had controls in place, and we do. So we approve the amount of money, we approve what goes in the bonus pools, and we control those within the Department. And I can tell you, that money is not going to migrate, and I do not believe it can migrate the way we have had the Comptroller set this up. And, Ms. Lacey, you may comment yourself because we are actually implementing this now as part of our mock pay pools to make sure we have those controls in place. Ms. Lacey, if you want to add to that? Chairman Collins. Ms. Lacey. Ms. Lacey. We have built that into policy, which has the force of internal regulations in the Department of Defense. So those floors for the amount of money available have been set in policy already. The money is set in place in the budgets. It will be there for the January payouts for the employees, and we will continue to do that year in and year out. It is institutionalized. Chairman Collins. So, Secretary England, just to close out this issue for the Federal employees who are watching today or who may read about this hearing, there is no intention on the part of the Department to spend less on overall pay under NSPS than under the old system. That is not a goal of the system. Mr. England. That is not a goal. As a matter of fact, as I recall, Senator, I believe we are actually precluded by law from spending less. So, we will spend the money allocated. It will not be less than it would have otherwise been. I think in some cases it will be more because of the pay-for-performance aspect. It will not be less. More importantly, the money is being protected to make sure that it actually goes to pay pools for employees. So employees can feel very confident that under NSPS there is a defined pot of money for employee raises and for pay-for-performance. Chairman Collins. Thank you. The reason I wanted to spend some time on that issue is because pay-for-performance has a hollow ring to it if, in fact, you cannot get additional compensation because the money is not there. Mr. England. Right. Chairman Collins. And that is why I think that is a really important point. Mr. England. You are absolutely right, Senator. Chairman Collins. General Gabreski, I am very interested in your observations as someone who has overseen the conversion of some 2,400 employees. What do you think needs to be improved? What kind of feedback can you give us, can you give the Secretary, Ms. Lacey, and Director Springer? General Gabreski. When I was out at Tinker last week, I got some very up close and personal feedback from the folks that have converted, and several lessons come through loud and clear. One of them is that they really appreciated the quality and the quantity of training, and, if anything, they are wanting to continue that level of training to keep their skills sharp. But as important, as they go through these mock pay pools, the fact that writing objectives between supervisors and employees is harder than they thought it would be. So they are wanting specifically to improve their skills in that area so that everyone can be successful in the end, that they properly sit down with employees, outline the objectives and their expectations, and that they follow the process through in the best way. So those are really the two takeaways I had from last week's interface and observations as we have deployed this. Chairman Collins. Ms. Springer, the General Accountability Office has constantly emphasized the importance of an ongoing review which incorporates lessons learned during implementation. How is OPM making sure that changes such as the ones that were just identified by General Gabreski are fed back into the system so that the next conversion can learn from the past conversion? Ms. Springer. The first step is to make sure that OPM is involved, that we are actually sitting in on training courses, which we are doing, and that we are actually going in and using the online tools and training. Then, when we meet with individuals and interview them, as we will be doing during our assessment and independent evaluation, we can actually have a working knowledge of what it is that they are using. As a result of that level of involvement, when the individuals with whom we meet come back and say, well, this part of it needs to be enhanced or this part of it was more or less valuable to us, we already have an understanding and are able to give direction on how to incorporate those findings. It is not as if we will be in a learning mode. In many ways, our actual experience will help us to validate independently what we are being told. The notion and the observation that the objective setting is a key part of this is no surprise to OPM. It is similar to evaluations we have done of demo projects. In fact, we are making sure that the questions that we ask and the assessment metrics that we look at are very closely aligned with what we have learned are important from evaluating demo projects. There is a very close relationship. And that is why it was so important to make sure that these objectives were put in writing because that written exercise forces people to come to grips with a clear articulation of measurable goals. So that is not an unexpected observation. Chairman Collins. Thank you. Ms. Lacey, are there examples of changes that either have been made or will be made to Spiral 1.2 as a result of employee feedback from Spiral 1.1? Ms. Lacey. Yes, there are several. Let me start with the aperture for the conversion. With Spiral 1.1, we converted everybody on virtually the same day, over a period of 3 or 4 days, the personnelists working to do all the electronic conversions. That meant everybody had to be prepared and trained up by the same day. For Spiral 1.2, we have opened that aperture, opened that window, to do the conversion over a 4-month period. This makes it a lot less stressful for us to actually get people trained up and ready to go. And so we have done that. It also enables the commanders to make the final decision ``my organization is ready,'' so they do not have that pressure of having to go by a certain date. On the training, every single training class has feedback built right into it. We have two different kinds of feedback. We have the usual how did the instructor do in teaching you the material, but we also have a pre-test and a post-test to get a sense of how much learning did this employee actually get while they were sitting through this course. And we are using that feedback to continuously upgrade the training material so that we can ensure that employees have the opportunity to learn as deeply and richly as possible. So we have made those changes all along, even through some of the Spiral 1.2 training that has been going on. We have added several training modules and vehicles to the toolkit. We have recently put up online some Web-based training, Camtasia training for folks so that they can get a better understanding of the automated tools that are available on employee and managers' desktops. We are adding an additional module to what we call our NSPS 101 to put more information in about pay pools and the performance management process. This certainly has caught the attention of our employees, and they want to know more. So we are adding more details there. We also have provided additional ad hoc courses on writing performance objectives for commands and organizations that wanted a graduate school program, if you will, as they went through that process. So we will continue to listen to that feedback and continue to do those things to ensure that we have the best experience. Chairman Collins. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. Senator Voinovich. I would like to continue discussing how pay adjustments work. Congress passes a pay increase across the board for everyone, right? Then that money is allocated to the various departments, so they are going to get X number of dollars. In Spiral 1.1, which will be the first group to be paid on the basis of performance, you take that pool of workers and then you allocate X number of dollars differently. Is that right? Ms. Lacey. The law provides for us to do that, but from a policy point of view, we have chosen not to for this payout. For Spiral 1.1's payout, any across-the-board raises that Congress passes, we will make structural adjustments to employees' pay so they will receive that. Senator Voinovich. So the first Spiral will get their automatic pay increase, a cost-of-living increase, and then have extra money for those whose performances are higher. Correct? Ms. Lacey. Correct. Senator Voinovich. OK. So, in effect, you are spending more money than you would ordinarily spend. Ms. Lacey. Not quite. The source of that other money is money that we are no longer spending that used to be automatic, the within-grade pay raises that folks got. Career ladder promotions that went away because the bands---- Senator Voinovich. OK. So the extra money would come from where? Ms. Lacey. Step increases, that we would have otherwise---- Senator Voinovich. Step increases. Ms. Lacey. Right. Senator Voinovich. The step increases are gone, so employees will get an across-the-board increase, then you take the funds that would have funded step increases to fund performance increases. Is that right? Ms. Lacey. Correct, and across the Department, the white- collar portion of the workforce, the GS/GM, acquisition demo equivalents, that number is actually 2.26 percent of salaries. That is what we have historically spent on within-grades that we are no longer going to be spending. Senator Voinovich. And there are 11,000 trained to do performance evaluations. Ms. Lacey. Yes. Senator Voinovich. Just to be sure I really understand this, of the 11,000 only a certain number of them are managers that are going to do performance evaluations. But you have gone beyond the managers in training employees to familiarize everyone with how NSPS is going to work. So 11,000 have been trained on NSPS, but the jacket, the heavy jacket is on the managers to write performance evaluations. Is that right? Ms. Lacey. That is correct. Mr. England. Yes, Senator, that is well said. And this is a critical part of the program. You have heard a few people say that. You have alluded to it. This heavy training for managers and supervisors to be able to sit down with employees, literally write out objectives, come to agreement, and make sure those objectives track with what the objectives of the Department are so that we link these throughout the organization and that they are in sufficient clarity that you can actually then measure against the objective because at the end of the day it is pay-for-performance, so you have to be able to measure performance. And this is the very crucial part of the program. And, Madam Chairman, when we talked earlier about the fairness of the system, this is the crux of it, to make sure that people understand how to do that. Senator Voinovich. Right, but the fact of the matter is that the first real snapshot that we are going to have of the program is when that is done. When will that take place? Mr. England. Well, we have a mock payout this fall, so we will have feedback from the mock payout. Now, again, that is not a real payout. It is a mock. It is part of the training process. But it is just like you go through the whole process, get evaluated for the whole thing, but your pay is not dependent on that evaluation. So it is called a mock because your pay is not going to be dependent on it. We want people to go through this process so we can learn ourselves and make sure we have it right. Senator Voinovich. This is an important part of a government-wide reform bill that I have introduced. All of the managers would go through the training. This ought to be done anyhow just in terms of a management objective. People should know how they fit in the organization, what the organization wants to accomplish. Well, I am interested to see, once that happens, what kind of feedback you are going to get. General, how do you monitor the folks that you are responsible for? Do you hear feedback or have you developed metrics that you judge whether NSPS is effective? General Gabreski. Absolutely, Senator. We have a variety of ways that we monitor how we are deploying and how well we are doing. One of them is at the local levels; our installations have established various forms of executive steering groups at the senior leadership level so that they can, on a routine basis, get feedback from pay pool managers, from supervisors, from their NSPS program offices. And they use metrics that measure how much training has been done versus how much needs to be done. For instance, at Tinker Air Force Base, they have filled 17,000 training seats just in getting ready for their 2,400 folks who went into Spiral 1.1. So at the local level, we monitor all of that very closely. Senator Voinovich. Do you have some kind of piece of paper that you get back, kind of an information sheet that the folks that have had the training can offer feedback. In other words, anything in writing right now that so you know whether the training is working or not? General Gabreski. Yes, sir. As Ms. Lacey mentioned, we get the feedback at the end of the training, but we also ask-- particularly useful in doing this, in asking for this back, is our website, where folks can tell us what they need more of or what needs to be done just a little bit better. And because we are in the first spiral out there, they are able to actually help tweak the system. Senator Voinovich. So you have a paper method for employees to get back to you, and they get feedback through e-mail. General Gabreski. You bet. Senator Voinovich. Do you get a lot of that from folks? General Gabreski. Yes, sir, we do. Our employees are not shy, and the one big takeaway in terms of not being shy that I got last week is between the employees and the managers, they are actively engaged in working their way through what each group has to do to get this thing done properly. Senator Voinovich. They are sort of excited about this, aren't they? General Gabreski. Actually, they are. They really are. Senator Voinovich. Yes. Secretary England, when are we going to get to the unionized employees? Mr. England. Senator, I expect to wait to see what happens with the court case because---- Senator Voinovich. Does the court case preclude you from doing pay-for-performance for unionized employees? Mr. England. No, it does not. We can do that. But it does get a little bit complicated because, you know, pay then gets into the labor system, particularly if you have an issue or a problem then it goes into labor relations. So it does make it somewhat complicated. Senator Voinovich. I hate to interrupt you, but would the elimination of the step increases be something that might be touchy? Mr. England. I am not sure that is touchy. I will tell you where I have been on this, and folks, sort of our senior group, all agree with this, and that is, while the court case is going on, we actually do not want to put our employees nor the union employees in an uncomfortable position. There is really no rush to do this. We have 66,000 people in Spiral 1.2. The court case will be determined early next year. So why put people in a difficult position? Senator Voinovich. The point is that down the road is when the unionized employees would be transitioned, in Spiral what? Mr. England. One point three, or something. Senator Voinovich. So you have time before that to get this court case resolved and come back to us. Mr. England. You are correct, sir. Senator Voinovich. OK. If NSPS is implemented with the non- unionized employees and the feedback is positive, that will be the best thing to allay employees' fears. But I know there will be some unhappy people. How successful you are with NSPS will have a lot to do with whether it will continue under a new administration. They may have a different point of view. That is why what you are doing right now has got to be quality. If you want to institutionalize NSPS, how well you do is going to make the difference for the future of the program. Chairman Collins. Thank you, Senator. I have no further questions for this panel, just a concluding comment for this panel. Do you have additional questions? Senator Voinovich. I do. Chairman Collins. Please feel free to proceed. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. Secretary England, you mentioned that you may need an extension of the date. What is the relevance of that? I am not sure I understand the relevance of it. Mr. England. Senator, there is a sunset clause that we have to have a certified system, and basically we have to have--as I recall, the whole system has to be certified and in place by the end of 2009. Now, as you know, when we started the system, that sounded like a long way down the road. But, also, we decided not to have a calendar-driven system but an event-driven system. That is, we were never going to move to the next phase--your recent comments, make absolutely certain we are doing this right and employees benefit from it, and we are confident as we go forward. Plus the court case has been delaying because it has been a bit disruptive to us. So at the end of the day, it may be that we may--and, again, I am not sure we will. We will wait and see where we are next year, but we may end up asking for an extension. Senator Voinovich. OK. What does the sunset mean? Mr. England. We need to have a certified system of the first, I believe, 300,000 people before we are allowed to go forward. So it has to be certified before we can go beyond 300,000 people. That is the certification between ourselves and OPM that---- Senator Voinovich. So when NSPS was authorized, it was capped at 300,000 employees initially. You are saying you cannot get to 300,000 because, first of all, it took longer to develop the regulations, and I frankly think you took a lot of time with them. That was good. You are just saying we need more time because the whole system has been slowed down. Is that right? Mr. England. That could indeed be the case. Again, we will decide, but we did not want you to be surprised if we came back and talked to you about that next year. Ms. Lacey. Let me add just a little bit here, sir. The specific piece that sunsets, according to the current legislation, pertains to our authority to change anything in the labor relations world. That is the piece that we are most concerned about because the anticipation was by then we would have had several years of run time under a new LR system to determine was it fair, was it credible, was it working, and if it wasn't, it ought to---- Senator Voinovich. But you will not know because the court case still is pending. Ms. Lacey. Right. Senator Voinovich. You might have to come back and ask for an extension as to that portion of the law. Mr. England. Right. Senator Voinovich. OK. I want to get back again to the issue of the training because when I was out and met with the folks at Pearl Harbor, many of them said they were able to fold training into the current budget. However, they were somewhat concerned that when NSPS expands, they would not be able to absorb the costs into their regular budget process. Now, Mr. Secretary, you said that you were going to be watching that? General, you have been doing this with your regular budget, haven't you? General Gabreski. Yes. Senator Voinovich. You have been somehow doing it; there is no question about it. We did total quality management in Ohio, but we did ultimately have to get some more money for it. What is your perspective on how you are going to be able to handle that? Are you going to be able to handle the next Spiral with the current budget, or are you going to need more resources in order to do the job? General Gabreski. Senator, we have already allocated in fiscal year 2007 the funds that we need to continue into this next spiral, and we don't currently see any problem at all, just as the Secretary said. Senator Voinovich. Mr. Secretary, have you looked at the budget for future years to see if they are going to need more to get the job done? Mr. England. Well, what happens is the services have a certain allocation of money, and then they have to fit lots of requirements in there, and this is one of the requirements. So they prioritize and they juggle, and at the end of the day, they make it fit. And our direction to them is you have to do NSPS, it is important to the Department, and it gets done. Senator Voinovich. Now, I want to make sure that the money that you use for other training does not evaporate. We often ask an agency to take on new responsibilities and then leave it up to the agency to figure out how to fund the program. Agencies then end up having things that really need to get done but do not because the resources have been put into some other area. Mr. England. I would expect that we are like all other agencies, and we do not have extra money. There are always more things you can do. The demand is always greater than the money. That is just the nature of every organization. But like the nature of every other organization, you prioritize what needs to get done, and you decide that this is one of those things we need to do, it is important. Ultimately, we are all convinced that we will be more efficient and more effective with NSPS, so it is an investment. And we just need to invest now so we get the benefit for our employees and for the organization later. And our management team understands that, Senator, and that is the path we are on. Senator Voinovich. Well, General, we would like to get feedback, and if I do not get it from you, I am going to be out visiting your people, and I will get it from them. [Laughter.] With NSPS in Ohio, I always like to get out and talk to the folks that are involved. I think a couple of my staff members were out at Wright-Patterson, weren't they? General Gabreski. Yes, sir, just recently, in August. Senator Voinovich. Good. Now, I was wondering, what is your plan to deal with managers who find they do not want to be in this new role? Have you run into that at all? If they do not want to do it, have you decided what you are going to do? Ms. Lacey. That would not be a surprise to us based on the experience we had with all of the other demonstration programs over the last 15 or 20 years. Truth be told, when people have been put in senior leadership, senior management positions, their job is to be a manager. We have changed the rules of the game. We understand that. We have several places that have already gone through the mock payout process, and managers have said, ``I cannot handle this. I am the wrong person. This is the wrong job for me,'' and their line management is working with them to see about assigning them to other duties--which, by the way, is much easier in NSPS than it would have been otherwise--so that they can continue to make meaningful contributions to the organizations. Truth be told, though, we may not be able to find equivalent senior-level positions, non-managerial positions for every individual, but we---- Senator Voinovich. So you might have to say to somebody, ``I know you do not want to do this, but we do not have a different job for you?'' Ms. Lacey. No. I think the answer would be, ``We do not have a different job for you that is not a manager's job.'' We would take the managerial duties away. We may not be able to place them in their perfect job right away at their current salary. Senator Voinovich. But the point is that you expect that might happen. Ms. Lacey. We expect that might happen. In fact, it has happened, and we have organizations that are working with line managers as we speak. I will also say, though, sir, that there are many folks that have gone through this mock payout process, the mock pay pool process, the training, and they have said, ``Now that I get it, now that I have had the training, now that I have had the conversations, it is not as scary to me today as it was anticipating it 6 months ago.'' So that training and retraining, which is built into our program, is very important as well. A little bit of knowledge takes a lot of the fear away. Senator Voinovich. General, could you share with me how long it is going to take for a manager to do a complete performance evaluation? General Gabreski. I would tell you that after I chatted with the managers specifically out at Tinker, the fact that the training, in conjunction with the pay pool, kind of completes the cycle, just as Ms. Lacey said, that is really part and parcel of their job as supervisors and managers. So in the future, that will be part of their jobs. But now, as they are doing the training, they are getting that comfort level. And I would tell you it is not just the managers. It is the employees in terms of getting feedback, which is something different than they have had before, having to sit down face to face and eyeball to eyeball---- Senator Voinovich. Do you have any idea of how long it would probably take to conduct a performance appraisal? For example, a manager sits down with an employee to discuss the written performance appraisal. By the way, is that going to be uniform throughout the system? General Gabreski. Well, actually, the way it works is the training that they have had and that we have been doing has been going on for about a year and a half. Senator Voinovich. But the document that you are going to use, is that uniform throughout the system? General Gabreski. Yes, it is. Senator Voinovich. Yes. And have you gotten any feedback in the training process as to whether people think that the format is a good instrument to do the evaluation? Have you discussed that one yet? General Gabreski. We have both sides of the coin. Once they get used to it and they are familiar with it and comfortable with it, they are going, OK, now I get it. But as you go into it, it is a little bit scary, but once you start doing it, it is a matter of the training and the on-the-job training. Senator Voinovich. One of the things that is really important is the instrument you are using. It is going to be uniform, but does it really help get the job done? Is that something you already had, or have you worked with a consultant? Ms. Lacey. Well, sir, if I can, let me answer that question. This is built into the Defense Civilian Personnel System tool that we currently have. We have a single integrated database for all of our civilian personnel information in the Department of Defense. That particular system has some functionality in it for doing performance appraisals. It is used in the private sector. It is an Oracle-based product that we have modified to include the NSPS performance standard system. And that is now available at the desktop to all employees and supervisors as they transition into Spiral---- Senator Voinovich. So they can see it? Ms. Lacey. They can see it. They can make modifications. Senator Voinovich. And as you go through this, if somebody feels there is something that needs to be changed, there are ways to do that? It is really important that employees feel comfortable that the tool that you are using is fair. Ms. Lacey. Yes. Senator Voinovich. It must capture the things that really are necessary to do the job. Ms. Lacey. In fact, I am actually changing the tool as we speak. Based on the preliminary results from the mock payouts, they said, ``We need more characters that we can put in our self-assessments.'' So we are making that change so it will be ready for the final payouts this fall. Senator Voinovich. OK. Mr. England. Senator, if I can make one comment, too, just for clarity, because the objective is not to sit down at the beginning with the employee and arrive at objectives and criteria, then at the end of the year sit down again. The objective is to work with the employee throughout the year so-- -- Senator Voinovich. Yes, but the point is you have to have the employee involved at the beginning. Mr. England. Right. Senator Voinovich. A good performance evaluation is one that you do not wait a year to do. As you go through the year, people should hear constant feedback, so when it is the end of the year, employees have a pretty good idea of how they are doing. Chairman Collins. It should not be a surprise. Mr. England. That is my point. Senator Voinovich. Good. Chairman Collins. Exactly. Mr. England. Exactly my point. By the end of the year---- Senator Voinovich. I am all for that. Mr. England. Right. Senator Voinovich. It is unfortunate Mr. Perkinson is not here, and we ought to talk to him to see how he is looking at the system. One last thing, I really think it is important that you spend a lot of time collecting feedback from folks about whether or not they think NSPS is fair or not. Some will not be happy, but they need to know their supervisors are doing it fairly, that it is not subjective. The biggest concern we are going to hear from the unions is that this is arbitrary. How are you going to guarantee that it is being implemented the way it should be to deal with some concerns in that area? Chairman Collins. Senator Voinovich, before the witnesses respond to that excellent question, I am going to have to leave, and so I am going to turn the hearing over to you. Senator Voinovich. Well, this is the last question, but thank you. Thanks for staying. Chairman Collins. I will allow you to finish. Senator Voinovich. If she had not been willing to hold this hearing, you might not be here. [Laughter.] Chairman Collins. I apologize to our witnesses. I am involved in the negotiations on four bills right now that I am trying to complete. And I hope you will keep my friend busy for a long time because chemical security is one of those bills. [Laughter.] Senator Voinovich. And I want to talk to you about sunset. Chairman Collins. I had a feeling that you did. But I did want to place in the record the testimony of Darryl Perkinson, the National President of the Federal Managers Association, who has had an unexpected event arise that precludes him from being here today.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Perkinson appears in the Appendix on page 58. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I want to close my comments by citing for the record his conclusion. Mr. Perkinson says, ``Education and training are easing many concerns and providing initial calm to anxious managers and supervisors. Four and a half months into the new system, this is encouraging, but we have a long way to go.'' I really think that sums up so well where we are, and it also indicates how absolutely critical that education and training process is to not only ensure that people understand the new system and implement it correctly, but also to ease those fears and those anxieties. I thought that Mr. Perkinson said it very well, and since he is not here to say it for himself, I did want to say it publicly on his behalf. Again, I want to thank Senator Voinovich for all of his work on this issue and thank all of our witnesses for being here today. Thank you. Senator Voinovich, the gavel is yours. Senator Voinovich [presiding]. Thank you. Well, it is going to be for one second. The main thing is to make sure there is in place a mechanism for employees to provide feedback. DOD must be able to identify a potential problem area before it gets out of control. Thank you very much. We appreciate it and look forward to seeing you after the first pay outs under NSPS. Mr. England. Absolutely. Senator, thanks. We do appreciate your personal involvement. You have indeed been very helpful to this whole process, and we do thank you. It is greatly appreciated. Senator Voinovich. Well, the reason why I included the quote from Schlesinger is I really believe that this is fundamental to our national security. It really is. Mr. England. Absolutely. Senator Voinovich. Again, how well you do in the next 2 years is going to have a lot to do with whether or not this program is going to be successful and become institutionalized. That is a big challenge. I think from your perspective that it may be the greatest contribution particularly, Mr. Secretary and Director, that you can make to your country. Mr. England. Absolutely. We agree. Senator, thank you. Senator Voinovich. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 30599.044 <all>