[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST: A WAY FORWARD FOR THE HOMELAND SECURITY WORKFORCE

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT,
INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT

of the

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MARCH 5, 2009

__________

Serial No. 111-4

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-473 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California PETER T. KING, New York
JANE HARMAN, California LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
Columbia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
ZOE LOFGREN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Mississippi
LAURA RICHARDSON, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
AL GREEN, Texas
JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio
ERIE J.J. MASSA, New York
DINA TITUS, Nevada
VACANCY

I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director

Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel

Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk

Robert O'Conner, Minority Staff Director

______

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, Chairman

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL PASCRELL, Jr, New Jersey ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
AL GREEN, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio PETER T. KING, New York, (ex
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, officio)
(ex officio)

Tamla T. Scott, Staff Director

Carla Zamudio-Dolan, Clerk

Michael Russell, Senior Counsel

Kerry Kinirons, Minority Subcommittee Lead

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 3
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Mississippi, Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security....................................................... 68
The Honorable Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey................................... 70

Witnesses

Ms. Carol A. Bonosaro, President, Senior Executives Assocation:
Oral Statement................................................. 50
Prepared Statement............................................. 52
Mr. John Gage, National President, American Federaltion Treasury
Employees, AFL-CIO:
Oral Statement................................................. 40
Prepared Statement............................................. 42
Ms. Colleen M. Kelley, National President, National Treasury
Employees Union:
Oral Statement................................................. 31
Preapred Statement............................................. 33
Mr. Max Steir, President and CEO, Partnership for Public Service:
Oral Statement................................................. 57
Prepared Statement............................................. 59

For the Record
Material submitted for the Record

2008 Federal Human Capital Survey................................ 4
Breakdown of Components Covered by Title 5....................... 70
National Academy of Public Administration:
Prepared Statement............................................. 77

Appendix

Questions and Responses:
Responses from Ms. Colleen M. Kelley........................... 81

PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST: A WAY FORWARD FOR THE HOMELAND SECURITY WORKFORCE

----------

Thursday, March 5, 2009

U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations,
and Oversight,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Carney
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Carney, Thompson, Pascrell, Green,
and Bilirakis.
Mr. Carney. [Presiding.] The subcommittee will come to
order. The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony
on ``Putting People First: A Way Forward for the Department of
Homeland Security Workforce.''
I would like to thank everyone for joining us today. It is
the first of many M,I, and O hearings that we will hold during
the 111th Congress. I am looking forward to another year of
productive oversight and also looking forward to working with
our new ranking member, Congressman Bilirakis of Florida.
During the 110th Congress, I had the good fortune to
develop a very productive working relationship with Congressman
Rogers of Alabama. I am sure that Ranking Member Bilirakis and
I will work in a similarly productive, bipartisan manner.
Last Congress, the subcommittee traveled to my home state
of Pennsylvania to look at the threat posed by agro-terror, and
we also traveled to Mr. Rogers' district in Alabama to examine
innovative training methods for first responders from across
the nation.
Similarly, this subcommittee will continue to explore how
homeland security issues impact our local communities outside
the Beltway. That said, I look forward to learning about some
of the specific homeland security-related matters facing the
state of Florida.
Today, however, we are here to learn about an issue vital
to the Department of Homeland Security's operations, the
management of the Department's large workforce.
It is my hope that by choosing this subject as the
subcommittee's first hearing of the 111th Congress, the
committee is making it clear that the Department must put
people first.
Instead of just disparaging some of the flawed management,
as so many DHS critics like to do, this hearing gives us an
opportunity to take another look at DHS employees and hopefully
hear some innovative ways for the Department to deal with and
manage some of the challenges the workforce faces.
In the near future, we will bring the Department's chief
human capital officer before the subcommittee to provide us
feedback on the exchange of ideas we will have here today and
to discuss future plans, policies and implementation strategies
for the Department's workforce.
The Department currently employs over 223,000 people,
performing varied jobs, from law enforcement to intelligence to
analysis to even pilots, and countless jobs in between. It is
easy to see how a complex set of workforce issues has
developed.
For all of the criticisms of the Department since its
inception, it has successfully succeeded in protecting our
country from numerous threats, with only one glaring exception,
and that is Katrina. But the Department has always struggled
with employee satisfaction and morale.
Yesterday, Ranking Member Bilirakis and I were pleased to
bring to the floor a resolution honoring the Department's
workforce, and today, we seek solutions on how the Department
can improve its personnel systems.
In many ways, this vital oversight again honors the
contributions of the DHS rank and file as we seek to improve
their working environment and look for ways to improve morale.
In 2004, 2006 and 2008, Federal Human Capital Surveys, the
Office of Personnel Management, found that the Department
ranked among the lowest cabinet departments and independent
agencies in employee morale.
In the 2008 OPM survey, 35 percent of the employees said
they have insufficient resources to do their jobs, 35 percent
said they did not get enough information from management, and
34 percent disagreed that awards are based on how well people
do their jobs.
These statistics are alarming, to say the least. I think we
can all agree that measures must be taken to correct them, and
the sooner, the better.
I thank the witnesses for their participation in today's
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from Ms. Kelley, Mr.
Gage, Ms. Bonosaro and Mr. Stier.
The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, for
his opening statement.
[The statement of Ms. Carney follows:]

Prepared Opening Statement of Christopher P. Carney, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight

I'd like to thank everyone for joining us today for the first of
many MI&O hearings we will conduct during 111th Congress. I'm looking
forward to another year of productive oversight. I also look forward to
working with our new Ranking Member, Congressman Bilirakis of Florida.
During the 1110th Congress I had the good fortune to develop a very
productive working relationship with Congressman Rogers of Alabama. I'm
sure that Ranking Member Bilirakis and I will work in the Sam
bipartisan manner.
Last Congress, this subcommittee travelled to my home state of
Pennsylvania to examine the agro-terror threat, and we also travelled
to Mr. Rogers' district in Alabama to see innovative training methods
for first responders from across the nation. In the same fashion, this
Subcommittee will continue to explore how homeland security issues
impact local communities outside of Washington, and I look forward to
learning about some of the specific homeland security-related matters
facing the wonderful state of Florida.
Today, however, we are examining an issue that is vital to the
Department of Homeland Security's operations and that is the management
of the Department's large workforce. We hope that by choosing this
subject as this Subcommittee's first hearing of the 111th Congress we
are making it clear that the Department must put its people first.
Instead of just knocking the flawed management as so many of DHS'
critics like to do, this hearing gives us an opportunity to take
another look at DHS employees and hopefully hear some innovative ways
for the Department to deal with and manage some of the challenges its
workforce faces. In the near future, we will bring the Department's
Chief Human Capital Officer before the Subcommittee to provide feedback
on the exchange of ideas we have her today, and to discuss plans,
policies and implementation strategies for the Department's workforce.
While DoD's creation is often cited as a similar challenge, the
creation of DHS is really unprecedented in our nation's history. The
Department currently employs over 223,000 employees, performing varied
jobs. From law enforcement officer to intelligence analyst to pilot,
and countless jobs in between, it's easy to see how a complex set of
workforce issues has developed. For all of the criticisms of the
Department, since its inception it has, for the most part, successfully
succeeded in protecting our country from numerous threats. But the
Department has always struggled with employee morale and satisfaction.
Yesterday, Ranking Member Bilirakis and I were pleased to bring to
the House floor a resolution honoring the Department's workforce.
Today, we seek solutions on how the Department can improve its
personnel systems. In many ways, this vital oversight, again honors
their contributions as we seek to improve their working environment and
look for ways to improve employee morale.
In both its 2004 and 2006 Federal Human Capital Surveys, the Office
of Personnel Management found that the Department ranked among the
lowest cabinet departments and independent agencies in employee morale.
In the 2006 OPM survey, 43% of employees said they have insufficient
resources to do their jobs, 41% percent said they do not get enough
information from management and 43% disagreed that awards are based on
how well employees do their jobs. These statistics are alarming to say
the least. I think we can all agree that measures must be taken to
correct them and correct them sooner rather than later.
I thank the witnesses for their participation in this hearing today
and I look forward to hearing from Ms. Kelly, Mr. Gage, Ms. Bonosaro
and Mr. Stier.

Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start by saying that I am proud to serve as ranking
member for the Management, Investigations, and Oversight
Subcommittee.
The establishment of the Department of Homeland Security
marked the largest government reorganization since the
Department of Defense was created, consolidating 22 different
agencies.
The Department has made great strides in efforts to create
a unified organization, but more work needs to be done to
produce the kind of Department envisioned by the Homeland
Security Act.
This subcommittee has an important role to play in the
evolution of the Department both as a supporter, but also as an
overseer to ensure that the Department is working in the most
efficient and effective way possible.
Chairman Carney and I look forward to working with you.
Of course, I also look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, in these efforts.
I am pleased that the subcommittee's first hearing is
focused on personnel issues at the Department. The Department
is home to 223,000 employees, as Chairman Carney said, who are
some of the most dedicated employees in our government.
That is why I introduced, along with Chairman Carney, House
Resolution 195, which honors the employees of the Department
for the work they do every day to ensure that our nation is
secure.
I thank Chairman Carney for joining me again in introducing
this resolution. And I am pleased to report that the resolution
passed yesterday with unanimous support.
My district is home to many of the Department's employees,
including Transportation Security officers, Customs and Border
Protection Officers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Agents, and Coast Guardsmen.
These hard-working individuals, along with their colleagues
across the nation, deserve the best Department, the best that
the Department has to offer. And I hope today's hearing was
shed light on some initiatives the Department could put in
place that will better serve its employees.
In 2006 the Department of Homeland Security ranked nearly
last in the Office of Personnel Management's Federal Human
Capital Survey, showing overwhelming employee dissatisfaction
and low morale.
Since that time, the Department, under former Secretary
Chertoff's leadership, has worked to address these issues, and
I am pleased to see that these efforts are paying off.
The Office of Personnel Management recently released the
results of the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey, and I ask
unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to insert the results of the
survey in the record.
Mr. Carney. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information follows:]

2008 Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS)
Introduction
Agencies are required to conduct an Annual Employee Survey
(AES).
The 2006 and 2008 AES was in the form of the FHCS. The 2007 AES
was in the form of the DHS Employee Survey.
These surveys enable DHS to:
Learn employees' attitudes
Guide human capital management strategies and
practices
Provide human capital metrics within the Human
Capital Assessment and Accountability Framework (HCAAF)
in the following four indices:
Leadership and Knowledge Management
Results-Oriented Performance Culture
Talent Management
Job Satisfaction
The 2006 and 2008 consisted of 85 total items; the 2007 DHS Employee
Survey consisted of 66 total items; 40 items are identical in each
survey and are prescribed by OPM.
A total of 212,223 federal employees responded; 9,550 were DHS
employees (a 49.8% DHS response rate).

2008 Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) Highlights of the DHS Results
Results showed an upward trend in positive responses
from the 2006 survey (72 of 74 items increased) across all four
indices.
Overall, DHS employees continue to like the work they
do, strongly believe that the work they do is important, know
how their work relates to the agency's goals and priorities,
work together to get their jobs done and are committed to their
work.
Improvement is still needed in recognizing high
performers, rewarding creativity and innovation, providing
personal empowerment with respect to work processes, ensuring
that pay raises and promotions are based on merit, and dealing
with poor performers.

2008 Federal Human Capital Survey
Items with the most significant increase from the 2007 AES
Q.36: Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with
employees of different backgrounds (+ 7%)
Q.41: Managers review and evaluate the organization's
progress toward meeting its goals and objectives (+ 9%)
Q.55: How satisfied are you with your involvement in
decisions that affect your work? (+ 13%)
Q.57: How satisfied are you with the recognition you
receive for doing a good job? (+ 7%)
Q.62: Considering everything, how satisfied are you
with your pay? (+ 8%)

Next Steps: Using Survey Results to Focus Discussion Sessions on Key
Drivers of Employee Satisfaction

Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
The Department showed improvement in nearly every category
of the survey, ranking in the top five of most improvement
among the federal agencies. The largest increase came in the
job satisfaction indices, evidencing a much-needed increase in
employee morale.
There is good news. It is great news. But more work needs
to be done. The Department will now use the results of this
survey to further improve working conditions at the Department
and within its components.
I will say that I am disappointed that the Department was
not invited to testify here today. I am interested in learning
more about its plans to improve and support the Department's
workforce.
And I hope that we will have a follow-up hearing, Mr.
Chairman, on this issue in the future.
That said, I look forward to working with the Department
and Chairman Carney to address the concerns of the employees,
improve morale and foster a one-DHS culture. The Department's
employees deserve nothing less.
With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses here
today, and I look forward to their testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate it.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
Other members of the subcommittee I reminded that under
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
Our first witness is Colleen Kelley, president of the
National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU. NTEU represents over
150,000 federal employees, including 24,000 who work at the
Department of Homeland Security.
A certified public accountant, Ms. Kelley began her career
as an IRS revenue agent. An NTEU member since 1974, Ms. Kelley
has served in various NTEU chapter leadership positions,
including president of NTEU Chapter 34. She was first elected
president of the national organization August of 1999 and was
reelected to a third term in August of 2008.
Welcome.
Our second witness is John Gage, president of the American
Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO. AFGE represents
more than 600,000 federal employees, including 60,000 who work
at the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Gage was elected as AFGE's national president in 2003.
Prior to this, he served more than 20 years as president of the
AFGE Local 1923 and as national vice president of AFGE's fourth
district.
Mr. Gage began working for the federal government as a
disability examiner for the Social Security Administration in
1974.
Our third witness is Carol Bonosaro, president of the
Senior Executives Association. The Senior Executives
Association has nearly 3,000 members that represent Cabinet-
level departments, as well as 44 administrative and independent
agencies, commissions and corporations.
Ms. Bonosaro was herself a senior executive until her
retirement from federal service in 1986 to become SEA's full-
time president. Ms. Bonosaro began her 25-year government
career at the Bureau of the Budget, now the Office of
Management and Budget, as a management intern.
At 33, she became a super-grade executive at the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights. Ms. Bonosaro directed the
commission's congressional and public affairs program from 1980
to 1986, when she retired from the Senior Executive Service.
Our final witness is Mr. Max Stier, president and CEO of
the Partnership for Public Service. The Partnership for Public
Service seeks to revitalize the federal civil service by making
the government and employer of choice for talented Americans.
Mr. Stier has worked previously in all three branches of
the federal government, including clerking for the Supreme
Court Justice David Souter. His professional experience also
includes practicing law at the firm of Williams & Connolly.
Most recently, Mr. Stier was deputy general counsel for
litigation with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. His career in government service began here on
Capitol Hill, when he served as a personal staff of former
Representative Jim Leach of Iowa.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record. I now ask each witness to summarize
his or her statement for 5 minutes, beginning with Ms. Kelley.

STATEMENT OF COLLEEN M. KELLEY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION

Ms. Kelley. Thank you very much, Chairman Carney, Ranking
Member Bilirakis and committee members, for the opportunity to
be here today and to testify on the current state of affairs
regarding personnel practices and workforce challenges at the
Department of Homeland Security.
I would also like to thank both of you, Chairman Carney and
Ranking Member Bilirakis, for the H.R. 195 recognition to
Homeland Security employees, recognition that they earn every
day in their duty to our country.
As president of NTEU, I had the honor of representing over
150,000 federal employees, and 24,000 of those are in the
Department Of Homeland Security, so what I would like to do is
to highlight the main points of my written testimony.
Let me start with the Transportation Security
Administration and also mention that NTEU has TSOs from around
the country here in D.C. this week, including from Florida and
Pennsylvania.
Congress' intention in federalizing the screening workforce
at TSA was to replace a poorly trained, minimum wage, private
contract civilian workforce with professional, highly trained,
security screening officers.
The goal of providing screeners with adequate pay, benefits
and training, and thereby creating a professional and dedicated
TSO workforce, has been undermined by ineffective management
and the denial of most basic workplace rights.
TSA has the dubious distinction of having the lowest morale
of all federal agencies. It has the highest attrition rate and
the highest injury rate. TSA employees face a hostile work
environment. Our union officers have been demoted or moved to
less desirable areas for trying to get employee disputes
resolved.
TSOs are forced to take annual leave when they are clearly
eligible for family and medical leave. Jobs are not posted.
They are filled based on favoritism or who you know.
TSOs are routinely at the airport 11 to 14 hours a day and
get paid for only 8 hours due to split shift assignments.
Staffing levels at some airports are so low that TSOs are
working extra shifts, not getting breaks, and working on their
days off.
I believe the new administration will address these
problems, those that are the remnants of the Bush legacy, but
the law needs to be changed, and this is an agency that needs
to have the voices of its employees heard.
In the 110th Congress, both the House and the Senate voted
to repeal the section of the Aviation Transportation Security
Act that allowed management to deny collective bargaining
rights to its employees.
Unfortunately, that provision did not survive in the final
version of the 9/11 Commission bill that did become law. NTEU
strongly supports providing collective bargaining rights to
TSOs and believes it will improve morale and performance, as
well as to help ensure that employees are not retaliated
against if they report waste, fraud or abuse.
Rather than inhibit management, collective bargaining
agreements set procedures for work assignments and duties that
lead to stability in the workplace. The result is a trained and
committed workforce that enhances the nation's security.
TSA's personnel management programs, including its unique
pay system, have been massive failures. Under TSA's pay-for-
performance system, known as PASS, employees have no basis to
accurately predict their salaries from year to year. If the TSO
fails a test, they are not told why.
Every year when the PASS payouts come, our office is
flooded with calls from TSOs who are confused and disappointed
with their scores and with their payouts.
The PASS system is not fair. It is not credible, and it is
not transparent. It should be eliminated, and TSOs should be
put under the general pay schedule, the general system pay
schedule, which covers most other federal employees, including
most of DHS.
Now, at the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, we now
have over 18,000 CBP officers covering our 327 ports of entry.
NTEU believes that at least 22,000 CBP officers are needed to
have a robust and fully staffed force at our ports of entry.
NTEU's CBP members have told us that CBP officer cross-
training and on-the-job training is woefully inadequate. In
addition, staffing shortages force managers to choose between
performing port operations and providing ongoing and important
training.
The knowledge and the skills required to perform the
expanded inspection tasks under their One Face at the Border
initiative have been diluted, while at the same time increasing
the workload of CBP officers.
CBP officers are becoming generalists without ever
developing the specialized skill set that they had as legacy
inspectors. We believe this jeopardizes the nation's security.
NTEU believes this initiative has failed to integrate the
different port functions it sought to make interchangeable,
because they are not interchangeable. And I ask this committee
to review that initiative.
I would like to thank the committee for its great work in
the last Congress to finally recognize CBPOs as law enforcement
officers and to grant them an enhanced law enforcement
retirement.
NTEU asks that this Congress extend that same law
enforcement benefit to CBP's property specialists and to
agriculture specialists, as was included in the Senate's 2009
DHS authorization bill. This action would result in a more
unified CBP workforce and increase employee morale.
And DHS employees are very, very proud of the work they do,
keeping our country free from terrorism, our neighborhoods safe
from drugs, and our economy and transportation systems safe
from illegal trade.
Again, I would like to thank the committee for holding this
hearing and for the opportunity to be here to recognize them
and speak on their behalf. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Kelley follows:]

Prepared Statement of Colleen M. Kelley

Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Bilirakis, I would like to thank
the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on the current state of
affairs regarding personnel practices and workforce challenges at the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). As President of the National
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), I have the honor of representing over
150,000 federal employees, 24,000 of whom are Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) employees at the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS PERSONNEL SYSTEM AUTHORIZED BY TITLE 5, CHAPTER 97
When Congress passed the Homeland Security Act in 2002 (HSA), it
granted the new department very broad discretion to create new
personnel rules. It basically said that DHS could come up with new
systems as long as employees were treated fairly and continued to be
able to organize and bargain collectively.
It was unfortunate that after two years of ``collaborating``with
DHS and OPM on a new personnel system for DHS employees, NTEU was
extremely disappointed that the final regulations fell woefully short
on a number of the Homeland Security Act's (HSA) statutory mandates.
The most important being the mandates that DHS employees may,
``organize, bargain collectively, and participate through labor
organizations of their own choosing in decisions which affect them,''
(5 U.S.C. 9701(b)(4) as well as the mandate that any changes to the
current adverse action procedures must the fair, efficient and
expeditious resolutions of matters involving the employees of the
Department.''(5 U.S.C. 9701(f)(2)(C)).
Because the final personnel regulations failed to meet the
statutory requirements of the HSA, NTEU, along with other federal
employee unions, filed a lawsuit in Federal court. On August 12,2005,
the federal district court ruled the labor-management relations and
appeals portions of the DHS final personnel regulations illegal and
enjoined their implementation by DHS. DHS appealed the district court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. In June 2006, the Appellate Court upheld the lower court
decision and DHS declined to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Much to NTEU's consternation, on March 7,2007, DHS announced that
it would put into effect portions of its compromised personnel system,
formerly known as MaxHR, but now called the Human Capital Operations
Plan. NTEU was very grateful that on March 28,2007, the House Homeland
Security Committee acted. The Committee approved an amendment offered
by Subcommittee Chairman Carney to the fiscal year 2008 DHS
Authorization bill that repeals the DHS Human Resources Management
System. H.R. 1684, the DHS Authorization legislation was approved by
the House of Representatives on May, 11,2007, but was not considered by
the Senate.
Despite Congress' clear intent to stop implementation of the failed
DHS Human Resources Management System, DHS continued to persist in
implementing these compromised personnel regulations. Finally, Congress
approved a fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations bill that prohibits the
department from using any funds to implement a new personnel system for
rank and file employees. Because of this Congressional prohibition, DHS
finally abandoned all efforts to implement all regulations promulgated
under Title 5, Chapter 97 in October 2008. The House has voted once
already to repeal the authorization of Title 5, Chapter 97. NTEU urges
Congress to enact the Chapter 97 repeal this year.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), enacted in
November 2001, removed screening responsibility from air carriers and
the private sector contractors who conducted screening for them and
placed this responsibility with the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA). As a result, TSA hired and deployed about 55,000
federal passenger and baggage Transportation Security Officers (TSO)--
formerly known as screeners--to more than 400 airports nationwide based
largely on the number of screeners the air carrier contractors had
employed. Since August 2002, TSA has been prohibited by statute from
exceeding 45,000 full-time equivalent positions available for
screening.
Congress' intention in federalizing the screening workforce was to
replace a poorly trained, minimum-wage private contract screening
workforce with professional, highly trained security screening
officers. Congress, however, included in ATSA, Section 111(d) that
codified as a note to 49 U.S.C. 44935, the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the Under Secretary
of Transportation for Security may employ, appoint, discipline,
terminate, and fix the compensation, terms and conditions of employment
of Federal service for such a number of individuals as the Under
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out the screening
function of the Under Secretary under section 44901 of title 49, United
States Code. The Under Secretary shall establish levels of compensation
and other benefits for individuals so employed.
This section permitted the establishment of a federal personnel
management system that is unique to TSOs. The Federal Labor Relations
Authority construed Section 111(d) as granting unfettered discretion to
TSA to determine the terms and conditions of employment for federal
screener personnel. Accordingly, a directive issued by then Under
Secretary James Loy on January 8,2003 barred screeners from engaging in
collective bargaining.
The goal of providing screeners with adequate pay, benefits and
training and thereby creating a professional and dedicated TSO
workforce has been undermined by capricious and arbitrary management
and the denial of the most basic workplace rights.
To date, TSA's basic management programs have been massive
failures. The training and certification program, performance appraisal
system, and health and safety programs all lack accountability and
therefore lack credibility with employees. The Transportation Security
Officers, who put themselves on the line every day, at every airport,
deserve better than what they've endured so far. TSA is an agency with
the lowest pay in the government. Not surprisingly, it also has the
lowest morale. Lack of oversight and accountability has resulted in one
of the highest voluntary attrition rates in the entire federal
government as well as the highest workplace injury rates.

Pay for Performance
Under TSA's pay-for-performance system, known as PASS, employees
have no basis to accurately predict their salaries from year to year.
They have no way of knowing how much of an annual increase they will
receive, or whether they will receive any annual increase at all. Every
year, the amount of points required to receive a merit increase change,
as does the percentage of each category. Scores are routinely changed
on the whim of management. The PASS system relies almost entirely on
the integrity, work ethic and writing ability of the supervisor who
gives the points.
PASS is an example of the ``worst of all worlds'' kind of system -
not a statutorily set system like the GS one, and no collective
bargaining over pay, nor over anything. So, has this pay-for-
performance system aided in recruitment and retention or motivation? It
absolutely has not. It is a major contributor to the fact that TSA has
the highest turnover rate in the federal government. Has it motivated
employees to better achieve the agency mission? Certainly not.
Employees at TSA are struggling to make ends meet with an average
salary of $30,000, uncertain work conditions and no knowledge as to
whether they will receive a pay raise or even what the expectations are
to get one, under the current system. While they do a remarkable job
with insufficient training and feedback, it is hard for them to focus
on the larger mission goals.
Last fall, was awarded a contract to administer human resources
systems at TSA. It already plays a large part in the inept PASS system.
While airport screeners in charge of vital security needs rarely make
enough to afford health insurance, a contractor with an abysmal record
of deeds accomplished at the same agency was awarded a new $1.2 billion
contract. This money would be much better spent on increasing staffing
and pay for TSOs.
PASS is in disarray. The imagery used for training, when it
actually occurs, is faulty. If a TSO fails a test, they are not told
why. It doesn't measure the appropriate skills. If you do fail, there
is no training to improve your skills. Still, your merit increase is
based on these scores, scores that can change between the time the
tester hands them in to a supervisor, and the supervisor records them.
Part of your PASS score is based on duties''. The supervisor decides
who gets these duties, adding another layer of favoritism to the
personnel system. Every year, when the PASS payouts come out, our
office is flooded with calls from TSOs confused and disappointed with
their scores.
With roughly 8,000 of the approximately 40,000 member TSA workforce
leaving their jobs each year, TSA is incurring astronomical and
unnecessary costs of training, recruiting and hiring and lost
productivity. This critical workforce is in flux and I see no advantage
to experimenting further with their pay. The PASS system is not fair,
credible or transparent. It is not achieving the success to justify it,
and it is a major contributing factor to the agency's double-digit
attrition. The PASS system should be eliminated and TSOs should be put
under the General Schedule pay system.
The General Schedule
Critics of the General Schedule are often confused about the very
nature of that system, or sometimes, as in the Partnership for Public
Service's report on ``Elevating our Federal Workforce'', when they
think they're criticizing the GS, they're really complaining about
other things--federal managers who won't manage, pay that's too low,
difficulty in hiring. These are not GS problems, nor are they problems
that can be fixed with a new performance management system.
I am a big believer in setting meaningful goals and then figuring
out how to reach those goals. It seems to me that we need to step back
in this discussion about pay systems and personnel systems and ask--
what are our goals? I have a couple: (1) Does it help recruit and
retain the best people for the jobs? And, (2) Does it help motivate
employees to better achieve the agency mission? Agencies that follow
the General Schedule have been successful in both these goals. Agencies
that have pay-for-performance systems have not.
The General Schedule is a structured system. It has rules,
standards and evaluations which must be written. It has both merit and
market components--with grade and career ladder promotions subject to
merit standards. There is limited ability for favoritism,
discrimination or other non-merit determinations to come into play.
But there is also flexibility. Non-performers can be denied merit
pay increases and outstanding performers can be given many rewards,
including quality step increases, additional leave, and retention and
recruitment bonuses. Yet we see a pattern of managers' inability to
follow the rules and work within the GS system. If managers currently
have trouble with the GS system, it does not make sense to go to a more
subjective system. The GS system is a performance-based system that
works. Until we see actual success stories of pay-for-performance
systems, and there have been none in any of agencies represented by
NTEU, NTEU will continue to oppose them.
For those who argue that raises are automatic within the GS system
and say the only thing that counts is being there, I take issue. An
employee's supervisor must certify that the employee is performing the
job up to standard. If not, the employee's step increase can be
withheld and disciplinary action can follow. If there's a problem here,
it's that the supervisor is not doing his or her job. Can we expect
them to do a better job with a much greater task, the kind of task that
is involved in each and every one of the pay-for-performance systems
presently in the government? It took a very long time to build a non-
partisan, professional civil service that is envied around the world.
There has been no evidence so far that it needs to be changed. Rather
than spend money and precious resources fixing what isn't broken, I
suggest we put that money and time into developing a better hiring plan
for the federal government and more training for managers to take
advantage of what already exists.

Collective Bargaining Rights for TSOs
In the 110th Congress, both the House and Senate recognized the
failings of the TSA personnel system that prohibits collective
bargaining and voted to repeal Section 111(d) of ATSA. Unfortunately,
the ATSA repeal provision did not make it into the final version of the
9/11 bill. Reversing this unequal treatment of TSOs will help restore
morale and strengthen mission and personnel dedication at the
Department of Homeland Security.
There is little dispute that TSA is a hostile work environment. Our
union officers have been demoted or moved to less-traveled areas for
trying to get disputes resolved. People are injured on the job and told
to stay home or even told to find a different place to work. TSOs are
forced to take annual leave when they clearly are eligible for Family
and Medical Leave Act leave. Jobs are not posted; they are filled by
TSOs friendly to management. TSOs routinely are at the airport 11 to 14
hours a day, but get paid for 8. Staffing levels at some airports are
so low that TSOs are working extra shifts, not getting breaks, and
working on their days off.
Concerns voiced by the former administration, that collective
bargaining would limit management flexibility at TSA have been totally
discredited by the record of the organized workforce at other DHS
bureaus and agencies. Rather than inhibit management, collective
bargaining agreements set procedures for work assignments and duties
that lead to stability in the workplace. The result, then, is a trained
and committed workforce to enhance the nation's protection.
In conclusion, the inherent arbitrariness of the PASS system can
only be solved by moving TSOs to the General Schedule with full
bargaining rights as enjoyed by their fellow civil servants.

IMPEDIMENTS TO MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT
The second part of my testimony addresses the previous
administration's DHS staffing and personnel policies that have
deleteriously affected employee morale and threaten the agency's
ability to successfully meet its critical missions.

ONE FACE AT THE BORDER INITIATIVE
As part of the establishment of the Bureau of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) in March 2003, DHS brought together employees
from three departments of government--Treasury, Justice and Agriculture
to operate at the 327 ports of entry. On September 2, 2003, CBP
announced the One Face at the Border initiative. The initiative was
designed to eliminate the pre-9/11 separation of immigration, customs,
and agriculture functions at US land, sea and air ports of entry.
Inside CBP, three different inspector occupations--Customs Inspector,
Immigration Inspector and Agriculture Inspector were combined into a
single inspectional position--the CBP Officer.
The priority mission of the CBP Officer is to prevent terrorists
and terrorist weapons from entering the U.S., while simultaneously
facilitating legitimate trade and travel--as well as upholding the laws
and performing the traditional missions of the three legacy agencies,
the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) and the Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
This change in job description and job duties established by the
One Face at the Border initiative resulted in the Herculean task of
training, retraining and cross training over 18,000 newly created CBP
Officers. It became clear after several months that Agriculture
Specialists job duties and background was significantly unique to
establish a CBP Agriculture Specialist job series 401, separate from
the CBP Officer job series 1895.
CBP saw its One Face at the Border initiative as a ``force
multiplier``a means to ``increase management flexibility``without
increasing staffing levels. According to CBP, ``there will be no extra
cost to taxpayers. CBP plans to manage this initiative within existing
resources. The ability to combine these three inspectional disciplines
and to cross-train frontline officers will allow CBP to more easily
handle projected workload increases and stay within present budgeted
levels.'' This has not been the case. The knowledge and skills required
to perform the expanded inspectional tasks under the One Face at the
Border initiative have been diluted while at the same time increasing
the workload of the CBP Officer. The CBP Officer is becoming a
generalist, rotating from seaport cargo inspection to land port vehicle
processing to airport passenger processing without ever developing the
specialized skill set that they had as legacy inspectors, and further
undermining the nation's security.

CBP STAFFING SHORTAGES
In 2006, Congress requested that the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) evaluate the One Face at the Border initiative and its
impact on legacy customs, immigration and agricultural inspection and
workload. GAO conducted its audit from August 2006 through September
2007 and issued its public report, Border Security: Despite Progress,
Weaknesses in Traveler Inspections Exist at Our Nation's Ports of Entry
(GAO-08-219), on November 5,2007.

The conclusions of this report echo what NTEU has been saying for
years:
CBP needs several thousand additional CBP Officers and
Agriculture Specialists at its ports of entry.
Not having sufficient staff contributes to morale
problems, fatigue, and safety issues for CBP Officers.
Staffing challenges force ports to choose between port
operations and providing training.
CBO's onboard staffing level is below budgeted levels,
partly due to high attrition, with ports of entry losing
officers faster than they can hire replacements.
According to GAO, At seven of the eight major ports we visited,
officers and managers told us that not having sufficient staff
contributes to morale problems, fatigue, lack of backup support
and safety issues when officers inspect travelers--increasing
the potential that terrorists, inadmissible travelers and
illicit goods could enter the country. (See GAO-08-219, page 7)
Due to staffing shortages, ports of entry rely on overtime to
accomplish their inspection responsibilities. Double shifts can
result in officer fatigue. . .officer fatigue caused by
excessive overtime negatively affected inspections at ports of
entry. On occasion, officers said they are called upon to work
16-hour shifts, spending long stints in primary passenger
processing lanes in order to keep lanes open, in part to
minimize traveler wait times. Further evidence of fatigue came
from officers who said that CBP officers call in sick due to
exhaustion, in part to avoid mandatory overtime, which in turn
exacerbates the staffing challenges faced by the ports. (See
GAO-08-219, page 33)
According to CBP, CBP Officers have ``Twin Goals'' in doing their
job--anti-terrorism and facilitating legitimate trade and travel. CBP's
priority mission is preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from
entering the United States, while also facilitating the flow of
legitimate trade and travel. CBP's emphasis on reducing wait times,
however, without increasing staffing at the ports of entry creates a
challenging work environment for the CBP Officer.
On the one hand, CBP Officers are to fully perform their inspection
duties, yet at all times they are made aware by management of wait
times. In land port booths, wait times are clearly displayed. Primary
inspections at land ports are expected to be conducted in less than one
minute. Travelers routinely spend about 45 seconds at Canadian
crossings during which CBP Officers have to determine if a person is a
U.S. citizen or alien, and if alien, whether the alien is entitled to
enter the U.S. At airports, all international arrivals are expected to
be cleared within 45 minutes or a visual alert is displayed at
headquarters and local management is notified. CBP's posts wait times
at every land port and allow travelers to check airport wait times by
location.
The emphasis on primary passenger processing and reducing wait
times results in limited staff available at secondary to perform
vehicle, baggage and cargo inspections referred to them. NTEU has noted
the diminution of secondary inspection in favor of passenger
facilitation at primary since the creation of DHS.

CBP Agriculture Specialists
In 2008, NTEU was certified as the labor union representative of
CBP Agriculture Specialists as the result of an election to represent
all Customs and Border Protection employees that had been consolidated
into one bargaining unit by merging the port of entry inspection
functions of Customs, INS and the Animal and Plant Inspection Service
as part of DHS' One Face at the Border initiative.
In order to assess CBP Officer and CBP Agriculture Specialists
staffing needs, Congress, in its fiscal year 2007 DHS appropriations
conference report, directed CBP to submit by January 23, 2007 a
resource allocation model for current and future year staffing
requirements. In July 2007, CBP provided GAO with the results of the
staffing model.
``The model's results showed that CBP would need up to several
thousand additional CBP officers and agricultural specialists at its
ports of entry.'' (See GAO-08-219, page 31) CBP has determined that
data from the staffing model are law enforcement sensitive and has not
shared this data with NTEU.
According to GAO, with the merger of the three agencies' inspection
forces, there are now approximately 18,000 CBP Officers currently
employed by CBP. Based on the expanded mission of CBP Officers, NTEU
believes that at least 22,000 CBP Officers would be needed to have a
robust and fully staffed force at our ports of entry.
According to GAO-08-219 page 31, CBP' s staffing model ``showed
that CBP would need up to several thousand additional CBP Officers and
agriculture specialists at its ports of entry.'' And GAO testimony
issued on October 3,2007 stated that, ``as of mid-August 2007, CBP had
2,116 agriculture specialists on staff, compared with 3,154 specialists
needed, according to staffing model.'' (See GAO-08-96T page 1 .) NTEU
recommends that CBP hire additional CBP Agriculture Specialists to
comply with its own staffing model.
Congressional Appropriators added fiscal year 2009 funds to hire
1,373 U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officers and CBP Agriculture
Specialists at the ports of entry--an increase of 834 beyond those
requested by the Bush Administration in its fiscal year 2009 budget.
According to CBP February 2009 Snapshot summary of CBP facts and
figures, CBP employs 19,726 CBP Officers and 2,277 CBP Agriculture
Specialists. NTEU urges Congress to authorize and fund the additional
2,274 CBP Officers and the 880 CBP Agriculture Specialist needed
according to CBP's own staffing model.
Also, NTEU continues to have concerns of CBP's stated intention to
change its staffing model design to reflect only allocations of
existing resources and no longer account for optimal staffing levels to
accomplish their mission.
Finally, NTEU strongly supports Section 805 of S. 3623, the fiscal
year 2009 DHS Authorization bill introduced in the Senate last
Congress, that through oversight and statutory language, makes clear
that the agricultural inspection mission is a priority and increase CBP
Agriculture Specialist staffing, impose an Agriculture Specialist
career ladder and specialized chain of command. H.R. 3623 in Section
815 also extends CBP Officer enhanced retirement to their ranks and to
CBP Seized Property Specialists.

CBP Seized Specialists
CBP Seized Property Specialists are uniformed and armed GS-1801
Officers responsible and accountable for accepting, securing, storing,
maintaining and disposing of dangerous drug evidence. Seized Property
Specialists are responsible for all seized personal and real property,
including controlled substances, currency and firearms, by Border
Patrol Agents and Customs and Border Protection Officers. The
approximately 125 CBP Seized Property Specialists are the keepers of
millions of dollars worth of sensitive evidence and other contraband
until final disposition. Transportation to destruction facilities and
destruction of seized property is an integral part of their jobs.
When CBP was created in March 2003, it was decided that all CBP
Officers would be placed under one compensation system both for base
pay and for overtime and premium pay. The system is the Customs
Officers Pay Reform Act (COPRA) system and applies to all CBP Officers.
CBP Seized Property Specialists comply with the same qualification
standards and requirements as CBP Officers do. They qualify in handgun
proficiency, undergo self defense tactics training and learn defensive
and restraint techniques every trimester. They undergo the similar
specialized training and are issued the same equipment. Yet Seized
Property Specialists are not under the COPRA overtime and premium pay
system.
Also, as you know, On December 26,2007, the President signed the
2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, that included an enhanced
retirement benefit for CBP officers. The enhanced retirement benefit
(section 535 of the Act) is similar to that provided for law
enforcement officers. The provisions of this enhanced retirement
package became effective on July 6,2008. Again, Seized Property
Specialists comply with the same qualification standards and
requirements as CBP Officers do. Yet, CBP Seized Property Specialists
are not covered by the new enhanced retirement benefit.
On behalf of the CBP Seized Property Specialists (GS-1801 series)
assigned around the nation, NTEU has requested that the enhanced
retirement provision and that COPRA be extended to all Seized Property
Specialists at CBP. Both these actions will result in a more unified
CBP workforce. This discrepancy could be resolved administratively by
the Department. If the Department does not act, NTEU will seek a
legislative remedy. The Senate Committee included a legislative
extension of enhanced retirement benefits to SPS in it fiscal year 2009
authorization bill, H.R. 3623, Section 815.

CBP Trade Operations Staffing
CBP has the dual mission of not only safeguarding our nation's
borders and ports from terrorist attacks, but also the mission of
regulating and facilitating international trade; collecting import
duties; and enforcing U.S. trade laws. Customs revenues are the second
largest source of federal revenues that are collected by the U.S.
Government. Congress depends on this revenue source to fund federal
priority programs. Trade volume is growing exponentially, while CBP
trade enforcement staffing remains stagnant. In 2005, CBP processed 29
million trade entries and collected $31.4 billion in revenue. According
to a GAO report on Customs Revenue (GAO-07-529), CBP collected nearly
$30 billion customs duties in fiscal year 2006, but concluded that
CBP's shift in mission contributed to reduced focus and resources
devoted to customs revenue functions. According to most recent budget
projections, in 2009 the estimated revenue collected (Customs duties)
is projected to be $24 billion--a drop of over $6 billion in revenue
collected.
Section 412(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296)
mandates that ``the Secretary [of Homeland Security] may not
consolidate, discontinue, or diminish those functions. . .performed by
the United States Customs Service. . .on or after the effective date of
this Act, reduce the staffing level, or reduce the resources
attributable to such functions, and the Secretary shall ensure that an
appropriate management structure is implemented to carry out such
functions.
According to the Trade Resource Allocation Model (RAM) required by
Congress in the SAFE Port Act of 2006 and dated July 6, 2007, CBP needs
1,100 Import Specialists on board by fiscal year 2010 to meet its trade
facilitation mission. NTEU asks the Committee to carefully scrutinize
the 2007 Trade RAM and a forthcoming 2009 RAM also authorized by the
SAFE Ports Act when determining CBP trade function funding needs.
NTEU urges the Committee to ensure that CBP trade enforcement
personnel is increased to staffing levels sufficient to ensure
effective performance of customs revenue functions as determined by CBP
in its own July 2007 Trade Resource Allocation Model.

TRAINING ISSUES
NTEU's CBP members have told us that CBP Officer cross-training and
on-the-job training is woefully inadequate. In addition, staffing
shortages force managers to choose between performing port operations
and providing training. In these instances, it is training that is
sacrificed. As you know, I testified before this Subcommittee on the
inadequacy of CBP training at a June 19, 2007 hearing entitled
``Ensuring 1We Have Well-Trained Boots on the Ground at the Border.''
Because little has changed since that hearing, I refer you to that
testimony with respect to continuing deficiencies in CBP employee
training program.
I do want to update you on a new development that once again shows
how shortchanging, in this case, new CBP Officer training can be
attributed to staffing shortages. In January 2008, I testified at a
field hearing in El Paso about staffing shortages and increasing wait
times at the land port. Shortly nine additional pedestrian lanes and
two more passenger lanes will be opened at the Paso del Norte Bridge.
It is NTEU's understanding that the El Paso Field Office is considering
eliminating post academy training for CBP Officers by sending FLETC
graduates directly from the academy to work the line at the POE.
Last year, El Paso eliminated the post academy training for cargo
inspection. Presently, post academy training in El Paso consists of six
(6) weeks of training in passenger processing and six (6) weeks in
passport control. If this change does occur, it most likely due to El
Paso lacking sufficient personnel to staff, not only the existing
border crossings, but also the new lanes. Lack of on the job training
for new hires not only jeopardizes the career success, but possibly the
health and safety of other employees.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ISSUES
Reported staffing shortages are exacerbated by challenges in
retaining staff, contributing to an increasing number of vacant
positions nationwide. ``CBP's onboard staffing level is below its
budgeted level. . .the gap between the budgeted staffing level and the
number of officers is attributable in part to high attrition, with
ports of entry losing officers faster than they can hire replacements.
Through March 2007, CBP data shows that, on average, 52 CBP Officers
left the agency each 2-week pay period in fiscal 2007, up from 34
officers in fiscal year 2005. . .Numerous reasons exist for officer
attrition.'' (See GAO-08-219, page 34.)
Currently CBP is seeking 11,000 new recruits for both Border Patrol
and the Office of Field Operations, however, the majority of these CBP
Officer new hires are to keep up with attrition, not to address CBP
Officer optimal staffing levels as determined by CBP's own Resource
Allocation Model.

CBP Exclusive Use of Federal Career Intern Program
In 2000, the Office of Personnel Management issued regulations
establishing the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP). CBP now uses
FCIP authority as its exclusive mean of hiring new CBP Officers. The
FCIP was originally created as a limited special focus hiring program
to provide formally structured two-year training and development
``internships'' as a strategic recruitment tool. Since then, however,
because OPM placed very few restrictions on the program, its use by
agencies has increased so dramatically that it amounts to a frontal
assault on the competitive examination process as the primary method of
hiring for competitive civil service positions. NTEU believes that
there is no justification for FCIP's broad exemption from the
competitive examination and selection requirements fundamental to the
federal civil service.
As established by OPM, the FCIP allows agencies to hire ``interns''
for almost any entry-level position. FCIP vacancies are not required to
be posted for internal candidates or on OPM's USAJOBS web site. The
FCIP authority threatens to undermine fundamental merit systems
principles. These principles require that selection and advancement be
determined on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills,
after fair and open competition which assures that all receive equal
opportunity. The practical effect for new CBP hires is that there
probationary period is unnecessarily expanded from one year to two
years.
Most importantly for all of us who support our war veterans, by
using the FCIP exemption, CBP evades veteran's preference hiring as
established by Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act. NTEU recently participated in a successful challenge to the
legality of the excepted service hiring allowed under the FCIP. The
petitioner, a 30% disabled veteran who had applied for an auditor
position in the Department of Defense, was passed over in favor of two
non-preference eligible applicants who were hired under the FCIP.
Finally, existing federal programs that have never been widely
implemented at DHS, such as the telework and student loan repayment
programs have shown proven success in recruiting and retaining federal
workers. Congress should inquire as to why these programs that also
contribute to higher employee morale are not personnel priorities at
DHS. Congress should also ensure that CBP embraces existing successful
retention programs such as the NTEU-negotiated CBP Officer Foreign
Language Award Program and expands its use and awards.
NTEU RECOMMENDATIONS
DHS employees represented by NTEU are capable and committed to the
varied missions of the agency from border control to the facilitation
of trade into and out of the United States. They are proud of their
part in keeping our country free from terrorism, our neighborhoods safe
from drugs and our economy safe from illegal trade. The American public
expects its borders and ports be properly defended.

Congress must show the public that it is serious about protecting
the homeland by:
Granting collective bargaining rights to TSOs and
putting TSOs under Title 5;
repealing Title 5, Chapter 97, the compromised DHS
personnel system;
fully funding CBP staffing needs as stipulated in
CBP's own staffing models;
ending the One Face at the Border initiative;
reestablishing CBP Officer and CBP Agriculture
Specialist inspection specialization at our 327 ports of entry;
and
extending LEO coverage to all CBP Seized Property
Specialists and CBP Agriculture Specialists, and
end the use of the Federal Career Intern Program as
the exclusive hiring authority for CBP employees.
I urge each of you to visit the land, sea and air ports of entry in
your home districts. Talk to the TSOs, CBP Officers, canine officers,
agriculture specialists and trade enforcement specialists there to
fully comprehend the jobs they do and what their work lives are like.
Again, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to
be here today on behalf of the 150,000 employees represented by NTEU.

Mr. Carney. Thank you for your testimony.
We will now recognize Mr. Gage for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOHN GAGE, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO

Mr. Gage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, subcommittee members.
I am here on behalf of the more than 600,000 federal
employees AFGE represents, including those who work for the
Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol, ICE, FEMA,
Coast Guard, Federal Protective Service, CIS, plus the more
than 40,000 TSOs, of which over 25 percent are AFGE members,
despite the fact that they are without the rights afforded
other similar DHS employees.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
severe problems of DHS faces regarding its workforce.
My written testimony discusses at length personnel issues
for DHS agencies represented by AFGE, issues which the
department must address to both fulfill its mission to the
country and its obligation as the employer of workers
performing critical tasks day in and day out.
The problems of DHS, and especially TSA, are numerous and
well documented by congressional hearings and reports, by GAO
reports, by two courts when they declared major pieces of the
DHS personnel plan to be illegal in lawsuits brought by AFGE
and others, by the decision of the Congress not to fund MAX HR,
by the failure of Katrina, and by survey data showing DHS and
TSA at the bottom among federal employees from the employees'
perspectives.
Since its creation, the management of DHS and its
components has come to reflect the definition for bad
management of a public agency.
The management problems can be categorized as follows:
anti-employee, anti-union policies at the top, which only
encourage anti-employee, anti-union practices in the workplaces
and the divisions.
This in turn led to poor morale, high attrition rates, loss
of skilled employees and poor operational management,
inadequate resources to fund the positions and the tools needed
by the employees to do their jobs, a decentralized management
structure without accountability for managers to perform or
behave properly, a decision to rely upon profit-oriented
contractors instead of a professional civil service, leading to
billions of dollars wasted in poor performance, and faulty
appointments and the lack of appointments and key management
positions.
DHS has had more flexibility than any other Cabinet agency.
TSA has had unlimited flexibility, as they were exempt from all
laws and regulations governing personnel.
And what has flexibility meant for TSA? The Best Places to
Work report tells us with its flexibility measures, TSA was
dead last--222 out of 222 agencies--on the questions of
effective leadership, questions of satisfaction toward pay and
benefits, the question of performance-based rewards and
advancement, and on the question of work-life balance.
TSA's pay system, known as PASS, is a failure, as evidenced
by the survey results I have just referenced. Congress should
end PASS immediately and place for TSA employees under the GS
pay system.
Also, TSA has the highest on-the-job injury rate in
government. This EDO filings of TSA represent 31 percent of the
total in DHS, and the average attrition rate since 2003 for
TSOs has exceeded 20 percent.
These problems at TSA undermine the mission of the agency.
Our members are dedicated Americans, who believe that the
mission. Our members believe in good government, and we have
their union stand ready to work with Congress and the new
administration to bring about positive change in DHS and TSA.
For TSA this can only be done by enacting legislation that
would treat TSOs as full Title 5 employees with all the rights
and protections, including the right to organize and bargain
collectively as provided under Chapter 71, just like they are
fellow DHS employees in Border Patrol, ICE, CBP, FEMA, Coast
Guard and ICE.
Good government needs a workforce that is experienced,
well-trained, team oriented and focused on the mission without
the distraction of the poor management issues I discussed.
AFGE is ready to do our part. We call on Congress to
support the management and staffing issues we raised in our
written testimony for the other components within DHS. The
culture in DHS must change from anti-employee to pro-employee.
A new esprit de corps in DHS can and must be created.
A recent MSPB study reported that employee engagement is
one of the key criteria for successful agency performance. That
concept is simple and makes sense. The best way for DHS to
engage its employees in a positive way is to effectively engage
with the employees' elected representatives, their unions.
DHS should move quickly and boldly to bring about a
positive labor union engagement at the top and throughout DHS.
This will be difficult because of the decentralization of the
DHS structure and culture, but the culture must change, and the
management at all levels must be accountable by the secretary.
That concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The statement of Mr. Gage follows:]

Prepared Statement of John Gage

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members: My name is John Gage, and I
am the National President of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE). On behalf of the more than 600,000 federal
and District of Columbia employees our union represents, including
approximately 40,000 who work for the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the severe
problems the Department faces regarding its workforce. I will address
the Department's notorious low morale, its failures to match resources
and mission, the controversial, wasteful, and ultimately abandoned DHS-
specific human resources management system; the staffing shortages that
have resulted from high attrition, misallocation of resources, and
misguided budget priorities; and the Department's failure to fulfill
its promises and requirements with regard to employee training.
Finally, I will address the shameful fiasco known as PASS
(performance, accountability and standards system), the so-called
performance pay system that the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) implemented for Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) instead
of placing them in the General Schedule with the rest of the federal
workforce.

Introduction
Immediately after September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration took
every opportunity to erode or eliminate civil service protections and
collective bargaining rights for federal employees. After they
reluctantly agreed that the terrorist attacks necessitated federalizing
airport security functions, they insisted that the legislation not
allow security screeners the rights and protections normally provided
to federal employees. Consistent with this position, then Under
Secretary of TSA Admiral James Loy issued a decision on January 8, 2003
which denied the right to collective bargaining to all airport security
personnel.
In 2002, the Bush Administration reluctantly agreed to the creation
of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). However, the quid pro quo
for that acquiescence was that federal employees who were transferred
into the new Department would not be guaranteed the collective
bargaining rights they had enjoyed since President Kennedy was in
office. In addition, the Bush Administration insisted that the
legislation which was eventually signed into law exempt the DHS from
compliance with major chapters of Title 5 of the U.S. Code, including
pay, classification, performance management, disciplinary actions and
appeal rights, as well as collective bargaining rights. AFGE filed a
lawsuit challenging the Department's final regulations. On August 12,
2005, Federal District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled that major
portions of the DHS regulations were illegal, and enjoined the labor
relations and employee appeals systems. On June 27, 2006, the Court of
Appeals essentially upheld her decision. Congress has since refused to
appropriate funds for further implementation of the DHS personnel
program. Congress should now go further and end this anti-federal
worker, anti-union experiment by repealing the last vestiges of the DHS
personnel program.
The establishment of DHS in 2002 combined 22 federal agencies that
employed approximately 170,000 federal employees, 40,000 of whom are
represented by AFGE. These employees now work for TSA, Border Patrol,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Citizenship and Immigration
Service (CIS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
Federal Protective Service (FPS), the Coast Guard, and other bureaus
and agencies of DHS.
Section 841 of the Homeland Security Authorization Act authorized
the establishment of a new Human Resource Management System for the
Department, and provided the Administration with the ability to modify
Title 5 of the United States Code in each of the following areas: pay,
classification, performance management, adverse (serious disciplinary)
actions, appeals, and labor-management relations. This broad authority
-and its abuse -are the real reason why we are here today discussing
the profound problems in DHS rather than celebrating any of its hoped-
for successes.
Seven years after the establishment of DHS, after lawsuits and
protests, the expenditure of large sums on contractors hired to invent
elaborate new personnel systems, and the arrogant and politicized
exercise of its extraordinary authorities with regard to the treatment
of its workers, we can say unequivocally that giving the Secretary of
DHS these authorities was an error. By rescinding plans for its new pay
system, DHS has admitted the failure of that conceived venture. We
await the moment when the rest of DHS' personnel policies are likewise
abandoned and the Department's workforce can focus, without political
interference, on its national security mission.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
When Congress passed the Aviation Transportation Security Act
(ATSA) that created TSA and thereby federalized the function of airport
screening by creating the position of Transportation Security Officer
(TSO), it made a pledge to the American public: TSA would hire
``sufficient number of Federal screeners'' and provide them with
uniform training, good wages and benefits that would result in a
highly-trained career workforce with low turnover to protect the flying
public. The nation's TSOs have more than held up their end of the
bargain: Since TSO jobs were federalized in November 2001, there has
not been one act of aviation terrorism in the United States.
In return, the Bush Administration used a statutory footnote to
place sole discretion over TSO workers' rights and workplace conditions
in the hands of the TSA Administrator. Under the Bush Administration,
TSA administrators prohibited such Title 5 rights and protections as
the right to bargain collectively and to an exclusive bargaining
representative, enforceable whistleblower protections, the
Rehabilitation Act, the Civil Service Reform Act, the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Veterans Opportunity in Employment Act, the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, appeal
rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board, the General Schedule
salary scale and Office of Personnel Management adjudication regarding
compensation and leave issues.
After seven years as serving as the country's first line of defense
against aviation terrorism, immediate actions must be taken to grant
TSOs the same fundamental workplace rights and protections as other
federal workers. The quickest way for this to happen is for the new TSA
administrator to (a) rescind the January 8, 2003 directive issued by
then-TSA Administrator Loy that prohibits collective bargaining and the
election of an exclusive representative for TSOs and (b) to apply Title
5 of the United States Code to TSOs. Second, Congress must enact
legislation explicitly denying the TSA administrator the authority to
deny union rights to TSOs, and explicitly placing them under Title 5
along with the rest of the federal workforce. Only then will these
workers have full statutory protection against the whims of future
administrations that might decide to pursue policies similar to the
Bush Administration's that use ``national security'' as a pretext for
anti-union animus. The statutory footnote granting the TSA
administrator sole discretion to determine the collective bargaining
rights and workplace protections afforded TSOs should be rescinded.
The first responders on September 11, 2001--firefighters, police
officers and emergency medical technicians--were among the most highly
unionized workers in the country. Numerous other law enforcement
officers now working under DHS such as Border Patrol agents, Federal
Protective Service officers, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agents all have collective bargaining rights and full civil service
protections. The Capitol Police have collective bargaining rights and a
strong union contract. Screeners at two of the airports allowed to hire
private screeners as part of the ATSA pilot program are currently
working under collective bargaining agreements negotiated with TSA, but
TSA has never claimed that their rights and the contracts that have
been negotiated interfere with the agency's mission.
The denial of fundamental workplace rights is more than a litany of
woes. Without the right to collective bargaining and to an exclusive
bargaining representative via the Federal Service Labor-Management
Relations Act, TSOs have no recourse when they are retaliated against
for engaging in union activity. Despite President Obama's clearly
stated preference that TSOs have union rights, there has been a marked
increase in retaliation against AFGE's TSO activists at airports around
the country--retaliation that includes termination. Local TSA
management officials have sought to chill the free speech of TSOs by
limiting when and where they can discuss AFGE's organizing efforts in
violation of directives from TSA headquarters. Further, TSA managers
have harassed and retaliated against AFGE TSO activists who have
disclosed wrongdoing at their airports to their Members of Congress.
Thousands of soldiers honorably discharged from the military are
denied veterans' preference by TSA for their service because they did
not retire from the military. TSOs who return from deployment--
including those deployed to combat areas in Iraq and Afghanistan are
denied promotions and raises in violation of the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Although the public and
Congress both called for a professional, experienced, highly trained
and well-compensated screener workforce under federalization, TSA's
denial of fundamental workplace rights and protections has resulted in
the government's highest attrition rate, an annual average in excess of
20 percent since 2003. Further, TSA's on-the-job injury rates rank
among the highest in government, and TSOs are unable to comply with
Congressionally-mandated training requirements due to understaffing at
airports. Finally, TSOs are only 23% of the total DHS workforce, yet
they account for 31 % of the Department's new formal EEOC filings.
These facts and figures speak for themselves, but clearly the agency is
poorly managed, and the result is a workforce that is unable to devote
its full time and energies to the agency's mission.
TSA managers have the right to appeal their own adverse personnel
decisions to the Merit Systems Protection Board and have access to
federal court, including for retaliation for whistleblowing, but rank-
and-file TSOs do not. In fact, all employees at TSA with the exception
of TSOs have the rights and protections of other federal employees in
DHS. There is absolutely no connection between the denial of these
rights and national security. The TSO personnel system is nothing more
than a laboratory setting for the exploration of anti-worker
sentiments. TSA has yet to offer a valid or even cogent explanation of
how the denial of these rights makes the flying public safer.
Just as former TSA administrators have denied these very important
rights and protections under the ATSA statutory note, the current or
new TSA administrator under the Obama administration could grant the
same rights and protections. But a future administration could revert
to the Bush Administration's interpretation. That is why AFGE urges
Congress to repeal the language in the statutory note, and grant TSOs
full rights and protections under Title 5, including the grant of
protection against pay discrimination by coverage under the General
Schedule pay system.
Although TSOs are allowed to join unions because that is a
Constitutional right, they are denied the opportunity to elect an
exclusive collective bargaining representative and cannot file unfair
labor practice charges with the Federal Labor Relations Authority when
management wrongfully retaliates against them for engaging in union
activities. As then-candidate Obama so directly stated in his October
20, 2008 letter to AFGE, ``Collective bargaining agreements also
provide an excellent structure to address issues such as a fair
promotion system, the scheduling of overtime, shift rotation, health
and safety improvements, parking, child care and public transportation
subsidies. By addressing these day-to-day issues in a manner that is
both functional and fair, I believe the unacceptably high attrition
rate of TSOs will improve and more TSOs will remain on the job.'' We
strongly agree with President Obama's assessment.

TSA's ``Performance and Accountability Standards System'' (PASS)
The PASS system at TSA has been an enormous failure. Among pay-for-
performance schemes, PASS has the distinction of having been reformed
numerous times over its brief life because even its architects
recognize that it wastes time and resources. It also destroys morale,
renders retention of productive and experienced workers next-to-
impossible, and makes a mockery of serious efforts to improve
performance, establish esprit de corps, or develop a culture wherein
employees feel like valued members of a team.
PASS started out as a pay plan that was a system in name only, as
there was little about it that was systematic or consistent. When TSOs
were hired, they were told that they would be evaluated through a point
system on the basis of skills acquired through agency training,
personal traits, and on-the-job performance. There would be four rating
possibilities: ``role model,'' ``exceeds standards,'' ``meets
standards,'' and ``below standards.'' Those who obtained the highest
rating were promised significant base pay increases and bonuses, those
who met standards would receive only a bonus, and those who were rated
``below standards.'' would get nothing. What ensued in the next couple
of years turned the PASS into a joke. Workers often did not receive
promised training and therefore could not qualify for the highest
rating, supervisors failed to complete evaluation forms (not in every
case because of malice or ineptitude, but because inadequate staffing
forced them to spend their time supplementing TSO duties rather than
filling out evaluation forms), and the criteria having to do with
personal traits, such as ``professional presence'' and ``integrity''
were so susceptible to discrimination, subjectivity, and intimidation
that few tried to meet them. Further, TSOs were evaluated on numerous
criteria by employees of Lockheed-Martin, the contractor hired to train
the employees. If Lockheed evaluators issue a failure rating, makes
more money retraining and then re-evaluating them, a conflict of
interest that further undermines the integrity of the system.
In 2008, acknowledging failure, TSA changed PASS somewhat by
creating one additional rating called ``meets and exceeds standards''
which carried a small base pay increase and a small bonus. They also
reduced the number of times that supervisors had to evaluate TSOs from
four times a year to twice a year, and let new employees work six
months before testing them immediately on Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) skills. So-called ``dual function TSOs'' who screen both
passengers and baggage, under the ``reformed'' PASS, were supposed to
receive larger bonuses in subsequent years in recognition of the
greater number of skills these two functions require. And supervisors
were supposed to record PASS evaluation data electronically rather than
in a two-step paper first, then electronic format. And finally, there
were supposed to be improvements in the ``image quizzes'' because even
TSA management admitted that the earlier tests were meaningless because
of wide variations in standards.
One of the most egregious aspects of PASS is that employees of
Lockheed-Martin, the contractor TSA hired to provide the X-ray
equipment, are also hired by the agency to evaluate TSOs on their
ability to use the X-ray equipment. This conflict of interest is wrong
in and of itself. However, TSOs also are denied any means of appeal of
the evaluations that contractors report to an independent third party
(such as the Merit Systems Protection Board, the EEOC, or the
Government Accountability Office, forums available to their fellow
federal employees). The result is a system that is inarguably flawed.
(Despite TSA's assertions to the contrary, AFGE's TSO members report
that Lockheed-Martin employees are still conducting evaluations.) TSOs
report that supervisors who have never worked a shift with them have
been assigned to perform their evaluations, and that there is virtually
no accountability for management.
Another of the categories that is crucial to a TSO's performance
evaluation and eligibility for pay raises and bonuses under PASS is the
assignment of ``collateral duties.'' These are functions outside the
TSO's normal security screening responsibilities, such as mentoring new
employees, working in the property recovery program, and working in the
security program (where TSOs screen fellow TSOs for extra security).
The opportunity to perform collateral duties adds additional points to
a TSO's evaluation score under PASS; it can make the difference between
receiving a decent raise and/or bonus or receiving none. But TSA has no
program to coordinate the distribution of these opportunities.
Collateral duty assignments are entirely at the discretion of
individual managers, and there is absolutely no transparency or
accountability regarding how these assignments are awarded. Despite
their scores, TSOs who are injured are ineligible for any raises or
bonuses under PASS, even if the injury was work-related.
The situation with respect to collateral duties is repeated in the
area of ``shift bidding''. In 2008, TSOs who worked ``split shifts''
received eight percent pay increases, while those on regular shifts
with identical PASS evaluations received raises varying between two and
three percent. Managers have complete discretion in deciding which TSOs
work which shifts, despite the fact that this decision has enormous
consequences for an individual TSO's pay increase. Each Federal
Security Director is given such wide discretion in determining shift
bids that they can decide TSO shift assignments based on whatever
criteria they want-often ignoring without violating management
directives.
The obvious and necessary solution is to place TSOs into the
General Schedule (GS) locality pay system and to abolish PASS. The GS
system provides the opportunity for career development, market-based
salary adjustments, and performance-based step increases. All changes
to pay under the GS system reflect changes in pay in the private sector
and in state and local governments, as calculated by the Department of
Labor. It grades jobs and assigns salaries on the basis of objective
criteria. The GS system is in every way superior to the unaccountable
and subjective PASS and is what TSOs deserve to establish them once and
for all as federal employees, rather than a second-tier federalized
workforce with inferior pay and an inferior set of civil service
protections.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency was created in 1979 by
President Jimmy Carter to help protect American lives and property from
the consequences of emergencies and disasters, whether natural or man-
made. During the 1900's under the leadership of James Lee Witt, FEMA
became a model government agency whose staff had high morale and a keen
sense of mission, and who met America's needs in disasters.
But after 2001, it was a different story. Under the Bush
Administration, a succession of marginally qualified executives allowed
FEMA's capabilities to deteriorate, and FEMA's budget and resources
were cannibalized by the newly-created DHS. When Hurricane Katrina
struck in 2005, FEMA was badly understaffed and, worse, was taking
orders from Homeland Security specialists who knew little or nothing
about disaster response and who seemed concerned mainly with protecting
the Administration's public image. For example, a National Situation
Report produced by FEMA staff gave FEMA and DHS executives a detailed
warning about the impending storm 48 hours before Katrina hit. After
the Katrina fiasco, the incriminating report was deleted from FEMA's
public website, and was later restored only after legal action was
brought by outside groups who were aware of the report's existence.
After Katrina, everyone hoped FEMA would be reinvigorated, but
instead the agency's downward spiral continued. Seeing opportunities
for high-profile career advancement, numerous military, Coast Guard,
and DHS executives moved into the top jobs at FEMA, pushing out more
experienced emergency managers. Civil service hiring rules appear to
have been bypassed or ignored to hire new people at all levels while
career ladders for FEMA's long-time experienced staff became a thing of
the past. Nowadays, military or Homeland Security experience
(preferably in a white male) is highly valued at FEMA; Federal, State
or local disaster management expertise is not.
The result has been chaos. Programs are cancelled and then re-
started; offices are constantly being reorganized, then reorganized
again; agency leadership continually activates emergency teams and
brings in staff to work evenings, nights, and weekends (at a
significant cost to the taxpayers) when there is little or no danger of
a major disaster. The main focus now seems to be on public relations,
not emergency management: During the 2007 California wildfires, a major
priority was that all staff in the field wear FEMA hats, while at the
same time FEMA executives tried to conceal the problem of hurricane
victims who were living in formaldehyde-emitting trailers. FEMA Deputy
Director Harvey Johnson went so far as to hold his now-infamous ``phony
press conference,'' one more example of trying to burnish FEMA's image
while neglecting its mission.
FEMA's career staff have continued to suffer (or quit), not only
from watching their agency collapse around them, but from the
increasingly abusive and disorganized atmosphere within the agency
itself. Staff complain that they cannot get job training, that they do
not receive performance ratings, that in some cases they cannot even
figure out who their boss is. Complaints of harassment and
discrimination on the job have risen enormously, and FEMA has paid
large sums of taxpayer dollars to settle these claims, including an
allegation by a female employee that she was sexually assaulted in her
office by a FEMA executive. One employee reported that a supervisor
routinely referred to other employees in derogatory ways (using
nicknames that exaggerated physical traits or employed sexual slang)
during staff meetings, only to be told to ignore such remarks because
that supervisor has ``a tendency to be blunt.'' A female employee
reports that she was shoved and threatened at work by a male employee,
but her supervisor never reported the matter to FEMA Security. Another
female employee who was receiving unwanted advances from a male
employee was told that he could not be disciplined ``because he is a
good writer.'' But the employee who leaked the photos of Harvey
Johnson's phony press conference that wound up in the Washington Post
was fired for ``poor job performance'' even though he had received a
pay raise for his job performance just a few months before. As you can
imagine, the absence of basic professional decorum by agency leaders
has had a profoundly negative effect on employee morale.
Every survey done at FEMA shows employee morale at rock-bottom.
FEMA struggled to reach 95% staffing in 2007, but a year later staff
levels were back down to 75%. In other words, people are quitting
faster than they can be replaced, and many of those who remain are
looking for new jobs or planning to retire. Even FEMA's elite disaster
managers, the Federal Coordinating Officers, continue to leave. Yet up
until Inauguration Day, the agency's answer was more questionable
hiring, promotions, realignments, and contracts.

Undoing the damage of the Bush years will take extraordinary
effort. AFGE's FEMA Council has recommended to the Obama Administration
the following:
Closely examine all recent hiring, promotions,
realignments, and contracts. Look especially closely at
recently-awarded contracts and at jobs that were filled without
being advertised openly, to determine if applicable laws have
been followed.
Review the qualifications and iob performance of all
GS-14's and above who have been brought into FEMA since 2005.
Many of these individuals have little or no emergency
management experience, and are locked into a military-style
top-down approach that runs opposite to the collaborative
nature of Federal-State-local emergency management. They are
not the leaders we need at FEMA.
Talk with FEMA employees and unions to find out what
they think. The events listed here represent a small fraction
of the personnel abuse that has occurred over the last eight
years. There has been almost no dialogue between FEMA's
political appointees and career staff throughout the Bush
Administration's term. We are hopeful this will change under
the Obama Administration.
Ask how fixed FEMA in 1993. When James Witt became
FEMA Director in 1993, he inherited an agency that was in a
shambles, as it is now. Within a year he turned it around. We
believe that both Congress and the Administration should ask
Mr. Witt and his Chief of Staff, Ms. Jane Bullock, how they
accomplished this.

Border Security
Until Congress passes legislation to reform our immigration laws,
AFGE's Border Patrol Agents recognize that their ability to provide
true border security will be severely limited. The indifference, and at
times, outright hostility on the part of management toward the views of
the Border Patrol workforce during the previous administration has been
costly both financially and in terms of effectiveness in carrying out
the agency's mission. However, even before immigration reform
legislation is passed, there is much that DHS can do to rebuild morale
and reduce excessive attrition among the Border Patrol workforce.
Border Patrol Agents need and deserve improvements in training, pay,
and incentives to remain with the agency rather than take their law
enforcement skills elsewhere.
There are numerous steps that the Border Patrol can take to ensure
that its employees are treated like valuable assets, rather than
expendable pawns. Many Border Patrol Agents are underpaid relative to
their counterparts not only in federal law enforcement, but in state
and local government as well. They are certainly overworked, and not
adequately rewarded for their extra efforts. The agency's attrition
numbers bear witness to the way Border Patrol Agents feel about this
state of affairs. As you may know, 30 percent of Border Patrol Agents
leave during their first 18 months on the job. This high attrition
requires the agency to waste millions each year on perpetual recruiting
and training to replace those who leave. Would it not make more sense
to be selective in the hiring and screening process and provide real
financial incentives to encourage trained and experienced employees to
continue to serve?
We also believe that the Border Patrol has suffered under the
organization structure that places it under the Bureau of Customs and
Border Protection (CBP). Border Patrol should be an independent bureau
within DHS, and granted full operational control of all its assets.
That way, the mission of border security would not be compromised by
having to compete within its own agency for resources and strategic
focus.
Many of the needed reforms mentioned here are embodied in Title VI
of H.R. 264, legislation introduced by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX).
In general these provisions are intended to dramatically enhance
mission effectiveness and ensure a stronger, safer nation. We urge the
Subcommittee to incorporate Title VI into its bill.
Finally, rather than waste billions of dollars each year on
unproven technologies that are only marginally useful to Border Patrol
Agents in the field, it would make far more sense to tailor the
technologies to the work that they perform. The primary reason that
SBInet has failed is that it was constructed around the flawed notion
that technology can cost-effectively replace human initiative in law
enforcement operations. While some of the technologies that have
emerged from this program have proven useful, overall it has failed to
deliver enough value to justify its continuation. Future efforts to
provide technology need to be closely coordinated with the men and
women who actually perform the work.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
The backbone of the workforce in Detention and Removal Operations
is the Immigration Enforcement Agent (IEA). IEAs work at the nation's
prisons identifying dangerous criminal aliens, they respond to calls
for assistance from state and local law enforcement officers, they work
with deportation officers conducting fugitive operations, they locate
and apprehend criminal aliens who have slipped through the cracks, they
prosecute aliens in federal courts, and they conduct enforcement
operations when requested.
These are all functions ICE agency management considers mission-
critical. It should not be assumed that AFGE union members or other ICE
employees are in support of the recent spate of employer raids. In
making our case to consider an upgrade of the IEA position from GS-9 to
11, we urge the committee to keep this in mind. IEAs deserve an
increase and are prepared to follow new policy initiatives with respect
to such issues as enforcement, such as the Obama Administration orders.
We have been told that approximately one third of all IEA jobs are
vacant. ICE is competing with CBP and other federal agencies, and state
and local agencies to attract educated and dedicated candidates for
these critical positions. Until recently, ICE has been able to attract
candidates from the ranks of Customs and Border Protection Officers
(CBPO) because the IEA position provided law enforcement retirement
coverage. Now that have been granted law enforcement retirement
coverage, that recruitment angle no longer exists. In fact, as the CBPO
position, like the Border Patrol Agent, has a journey level grade of
GS-11, that flow of candidates may reverse.
We are working with a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House
Immigration Reform Caucus to develop legislation to be introduced
shortly. We will ask the committee to take a close look at this issue
and consider incorporating the language into your new bill.

Federal Protective Service
Although DHS placed the Federal Protective Service (FPS) under
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, federal building security is
largely unrelated to the rest of the agency's homeland security
functions. Both the DHS Inspector General and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) have published scathing reports about the
failures of ICE to effectively manage this critical agency. In fact,
ICE has sought actively to downgrade or otherwise diminish the role of
FPS at every opportunity. It has proposed the elimination of on-the-
ground police officers to patrol areas around federal buildings. These
officers constitute a pro-active force to protect against potential
terrorism and crime. ICE has also sought to reduce or freeze the budget
of FPS while pursuing budget increases for every other division of the
agency.
AFGE strongly supports removing FPS from ICE. There no evidence
that inclusion in this agency has been beneficial for federal building
security, and there is much evidence that it has not. There is no
administrative advantage in continuing with the current arrangement.
FPS should be made an independent agency within DHS. In addition,
Congress should provide funding so that the agency can meet the 2001
minimum standard of 1,200 boots-on-the-ground law enforcement officers.
Further, Congress should direct the agency to establish a team of FPS
personnel with substantial operational security and law enforcement
experience, such as that used by the former FPS director in 2005, to
determine the actual number of personnel required to provide effective
protection to GSA facilities and those owned by other non-Defense
Department agencies and departments.
Finally, AFGE strongly supported the provisions of S.3623,
legislation introduced last year by Senator Lieberman, as part of his
DHS authorization measure, to begin the process of reforming this
agency. Although we were disappointed that the bill did not separate
FPS from ICE, this is a vital reform we hope your Subcommittee will
consider. We would also highlight a provision of the Senate bill that
provides law enforcement retirement benefits to FPS Police Officers.
This is a highly justifiable change given the requirements of the job,
and a critical retention benefit to an agency that faces continuous
attrition problems.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS)
Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) is the remaining vestige
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and changing its name
and placing it under DHS solved none of the agency's long-standing
problems. The recent fee increase helped the agency hire enough new
adjudicators to begin reducing the backlog of cases. But in part
because of the very high fees now charged, and in part because of the
economic downturn, application receipts are in decline. Since the
agency relies almost entirely on fee revenue for its operating costs,
the new adjudicator positions are in danger of being eliminated.
The link between the agency's funding source and the treatment of
its workforce may not be immediately apparent, but there is a direct
connection. Because the agency's funding is so precarious and
unpredictable, and is so disconnected from the actual costs of carrying
out its mission, funding becomes an important factor in the way CIS
employees are treated. Fee funding has institutionalized high turnover,
extremely long-term temporary assignments, and wasted training dollars
since long before DHS was created. We urge the Congress to provide
funding for the agency so that it can invest in workforce stability,
training, and new technology that will allow adjudicators not only to
continue working to reduce the backlog, but to make sure that new
backlogs do not develop.

The Coast Guard
Management in the Coast Guard embraced President Bush's
privatization agenda with a vengeance. The Coast Guard reviewed for
privatization more federal jobs than the rest of DHS put together. In
the waning days of the Bush presidency, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) authorized the Coast Guard to replace privatization
reviews with so-called Business Process Re-engineering (BPR) studies.
The ``competitive sourcing'' office that once focused exclusively on
meeting Bush Administration privatization quotas is handling the BPR
program. The most recent announcement regarding BPR is that it will be
known as ``Modernization'' and 357 positions in the Coast Guard's
Industrial Program, and 950 positions in its Base Support Services
(BSS) program will be ``Modernized.''
In a context where there is trust and respect between management
and labor, the prospect of re-engineering business processes would not
be viewed with the level of skepticism and fear that our union feels
within the Coast Guard. The fact that the Modernization initiative is
being handled by the same office that so zealously pursued
privatization is one reason why employees are approaching this
initiative with trepidation. We have too much experience with
contractors profiting at the expense of our nation's security to trust
that BPR Modernization will not be a Trojan Horse filled with more
contractors.
The Coast Guard excluded our union from all ``pre-decisional''
discussions that led to the announcement that it will establish four
Logistic/Service Centers. These pre-decisional efforts have been
ongoing for two years, during which time AFGE representatives were
never invited to participate. The Coast Guard did, however, include its
contractors in these pre-decisional activities. One example of the
impact of the union's exclusion emerged at the briefing after the
announcement of the Centers. The Coast Guard announced that it would
detail 27 employees to a test product line. It had randomly selected
the employees for the detail, without having asked for volunteers
first, which has been the practice in the past. No position description
or statement of duties for the detail had been prepared; nor was there
any information on how the performance of the employees on detail would
be evaluated. This type of exclusion and secrecy, and the agency's
cavalier attitude toward employee concerns are the reasons for our
skepticism toward the Modernization program.
Our first concern is that the Modernization effort not be used to
undermine service to the public through an arbitrary reduction in the
number of authorized positions. Inevitably, after reductions in Full
Time Equivalents (FTE) undermine the agency's ability to fulfill its
mission requirements, we are told that hiring contractors to fill the
gap is the only alternative. The hiring of costly and unaccountable
contractors subsequent to FTE cuts is a familiar and painful story. The
Coast Guard's Modernization program has been described as A-76 without
the competition. This means that the agency will undertake a review
that has a pre-determined outcome. It will start with a requirement of
reducing the number of jobs, and then ``study'' the work to determine
which jobs to cut. A more valuable approach would be to examine whether
each component has enough FTEs, given our responsibilities and
obligations to the public. But that is not on the agenda.
We ask that the Congress instruct the Coast Guard that it should
not undertake random FTE reductions under the guise of Modernization if
such cuts will undermine the agency's ability to carry out its mission.
We also ask that the agency not be permitted to exclude the costs of
conducting these studies from its ``savings'' estimates. Hiring
contractors to undertake the study and taking Coast Guard employees
away from their regular duties imposes genuine costs on the agency.
Further, since the Coast Guard has not demonstrated a willingness to do
the right thing, we request that the agency be reminded of its
bargaining obligations as it undertakes changes in the context of BPR.

Conclusion
However noble the intentions were in the creation of the Department
of Homeland Security, the attitude of hostility and disdain for the
Department's workforce was set when the Bush Administration insisted
that the employee unions represented a national security threat. That
calumny poisoned everything that followed.
The damage to employee morale from the denial of collective
bargaining rights and the imposition of an atrociously unfair and
unaccountable pay system on Transportation Security Officers are the
first places to start in repairing the integrity of DHS as a federal
employer. The bitterness of having to fight repeatedly in court for
basic rights such as the opportunity to chose union representation, and
have appeals of adverse actions and negative performance ratings heard
by impartial third parties can be healed, but not without a serious
commitment to change.
DHS is fortunate to have a large cadre of dedicated employees who
possess a wealth of experience and creative energy and they are eager
to give their all to fulfill the Department's crucial domestic security
mission. The have done so under the most trying circumstances, and can
do even more if the distraction of hostile management bent on the
elimination of collective bargaining, the General Schedule pay system,
and their civil service protections is ended. Add to that a commitment
to obtaining the proper level of funding, an end to privatization
reviews, and a fair and rational allocation of resources and the
Department of Homeland Security will be second to none.
This concludes my statement. I will be happy to respond to any
questions.

Mr. Carney. Thank you for your testimony.
We will now recognize Ms. Bonosaro for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CAROL A. BONOSARO, PRESIDENT, SENIOR EXECUTIVES
ASSOCIATION

Ms. Bonosaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to testify today.
DHS workforce challenges related to the Senior Executives
Service are a concern government-wide. DHS has always faced
high SES turnover and vacancy rates. At present too many SES
positions are vacant to ensure effective policy implementation
and workforce oversight.
Further, 25 percent of DHS career SES were eligible to
retire last year, 34 percent this year and 41 percent in 2010,
yet only 64 percent of DHS executives responding to a 2008 OPM
SES survey agreed that the department could attract and retain
high-quality senior executives.
The SES pay and performance management system is a concern.
In the OPM survey only 51 percent of DHS executives understood
how their salary increases were determined. Thirty-four percent
didn't know.
Responses regarding performance awards were almost
identical. Similar results were reported government-wide.
While pay and performance management affect morale,
utilization of the career SES has steadily diminished.
Many executives have been buried under layers of noncareer
appointees with limited ability to distinguish and accomplish
long-term agendas, while we lose the benefit of seasoned career
executives who know how to operate government programs and
pursue the agendas of political leadership.
One reform SEA proposes is to restore the stature of the
SES is to place high-performing career executives in the
assistant secretary for administration and other key positions
requiring long-term experience at each agency, such as deputy
or chief human capital officers, CIOs and CFOs.
These positions are now reserved almost exclusively for
political appointees.
In 2008 DHS Acting Deputy Secretary Paul Schneider told the
Senate committee it was essential that the department's highest
human resources office be held by a careerist, yet this
position is restricted by law to a political appointee.
The SES pay system also must change to ensure that quality
applicants will aspire to the SES, and those who are in will
want to stay. With the large number of executives eligible to
retire, this is imperative.
When SEA surveyed the SES in 2006, 47 percent of those
responding said the GS-14s and 15s were losing interest in SES
positions. The 2008 OPM survey found that only 50 percent of
senior executives believe the current pay system was helpful in
recruiting qualified applicants.
The GS-14s and 15s losing interest in aspiring to the SES
is regularly reported to SEA. This is true, because SES pay
increases have not kept up GS increases over the years.
Executives don't receive locality-based pay. Annual
increases are entirely discretionary, irrespective of
performance. And alternative pay systems have become so
generous that some GS-15s and equivalents make more than the
executives who they work.
Pay isn't a primary motivator, but it gives GS-14s and 15s
pause. The SES requires added responsibilities, added risk, and
less time with families, especially at DHS, where many SES jobs
are viewed as 24/7.
SEA proposes several legislative remedies. First, every
senior executive rated fully successful or better should
receive an annual guaranteed increase at least as much as the
increase in the executive schedule plus a locality pay
increase.
In January 2008 senior executives rated fully successful,
however, received an average 2.5 percent pay increase, while
the GS employee in Washington, D.C., received a 4.5 percent
increase without regard to his or her rating.
Second, to recognize the reality that performance awards
are an integral part of the SES compensation system, they
should be included in executives ``high three'' in calculating
annuities.
Finally, continuing development and training is needed to
keep career executives up-to-date and revitalized.
In November Acting OPM Director Hager noted that recent
history has proved the disadvantages for national security and
disaster preparedness when leaders lack a government-wide
perspective or are not experienced in working across agency
lines to respond to national threats or issues.
He urged agencies to offer details to other major
components within their departments, training and education
opportunities for executives designated as national security
professionals.
Senior executives often face a lack of training funds or
are unable to take time away from their job. The OPM survey
found that only 54 percent of DHS executives were satisfied
with their developmental opportunities. Twenty-three percent
said there were insufficient funds to maintain up-to-date
skills.
Only 34 percent said that their needs were even assessed.
Because 34 percent of DHS executives responding to OPM's 2008
have been SES members for 3 years or less, continuing
development is critical, as many new executives face unexpected
challenges.
A lack of training and development affects the preparedness
and effectiveness of DHS and all agencies, so SEA recommends a
comprehensive review to ensure that SES training and
development needs are met and that funding exists to implement
OPM's new directive.
But we look forward to working with you on these issues and
urge Congress and the administration to implement the reforms I
have outlined. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Bonosaro follows:]

Prepared Statement of Carol A. Bonosaro

Chairman Carney and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
The Senior Executives Association (SEA) is pleased to testify
before this Subcommittee concerning Senior Executive Service matters at
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). SEA is a professional
association that for the past 29 years has represented the interests of
career federal executives in government, including those in Senior
Executive Service (SES) and equivalent positions, such as Senior Level
(SL) and Scientific and Professional (ST) positions.
Now that we are at the beginning of a new presidential
administration, it is more important than ever, especially at agencies
like DHS that are tasked with ensuring our national security, that
critical initiatives are maintained and that there is expertise,
leadership and continuity at the highest levels. The members of the
career SES are uniquely positioned to lead agencies through this
transition and to ensure that this happens. Career executives also
serve as the interface or link between policy and implementation. An
effective relationship between political appointees and career
executives is the key to mobilizing the federal workforce to carry out
new initiatives, reforms and improvements of existing programs.
In considering the personnel practices and workforce challenges
facing DHS, I will focus on those related to the Senior Executive
Service and first on the significant issues at the Department
specifically affecting the SES. Many of the issues discussed below are
not only a concern at DHS, but government-wide. Therefore, it is
necessary to examine the problems faced by DHS in the context of
overall reform of the SES. This includes recommendations by the Senior
Executives Association to restore career leadership, create a more fair
and transparent pay and performance management system, and provide for
training and continuing development of the SES. Making such reforms to
the SES system across the government will help all agencies, including
DHS, recruit and retain the best Senior Executives and ensure that they
have the necessary tools to effectively carry out the missions of their
agencies.
The Department of Homeland Security Senior Executive Service
When the Department of Homeland Security was created, Senior
Executives were brought together from across the government to lead the
department. Since its inception, DHS has faced problems regarding its
SES corps. They include continuing high rates of vacant positions and a
high turnover of Senior Executives.
In bringing career executives to the Department in 2003, DHS
appears to have drastically underestimated the levels of leadership
necessary to effectively run the agency. A 2008 report by the National
Academy of Public Administration, commissioned by DHS under funds
granted through the 2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law
110-28), to study the state of DHS at the 2009 transition, found that
``DHS' initial allocation of total senior executive slots was well
below the number it ultimately would need to accomplish its mission''
(Addressing the 2009 Presidential Transition at the Department of
Homeland Security, p.51). In the years since, DHS has made requests to
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to increase its number of SES
positions. Even though the number of allocated positions has increased
(from 323 positions in 2003 to 536 positions by the end of 2007), there
are still too few Senior Executives at the agency to ensure the
effective implementation of policy and oversight of the workforce. In
fact, as of March 2008, the NAPA report found that 139 positions remain
vacant, creating a large gap in the career leadership structure at DHS.
While we are not aware of whether political appointees from the last
administration may still be in office, current vacancies in the career
corps may well have necessitated such a situation. If so, that would
most likely slow down, if not inhibit, the institution of new policies.
Problems with recruiting and retaining Senior Executives contribute
to the high vacancy rate. It is not clear that DHS has determined
precisely what contributes to those problems, for example, by
conducting regular exit interviews with those leaving. In any event,
many of the original Senior Executives tasked with starting DHS in 2003
were already close to retirement. Several congressionally mandated
reorganizations of DHS have created increased challenges for Senior
Executives and may well have hastened the retirement or transfer to
other agencies of still other Senior Executives. According to the DHS
strategic plan for FY09--13, 25% of career SES were eligible to retire
in 2008, with the number increasing to 34% in 2009 and 41% in 2010. Of
DHS executives responding to the 2008 OPM SES survey, only 64% agreed
that the department was able to attract and retain high quality Senior
Executives. Therefore, it is critical that problems affecting
recruitment and retention be resolved as quickly as possible.
A lack of transparency in the SES pay and performance management
system at DHS concerns many career executives. Like all federal
employees, Senior Executives value clear performance standards and
feedback from their supervisors (in many cases, political appointees).
According to one member of the Senior Executives Association, who is an
employee at DHS:
It is bewildering why political leadership do not discuss
performance nor explore an executive's development. As I near
retirement I have not had a meaningful discussion on my
performance with any political leader. While Ihave enjoyed the
bonus and pay adjustments, they occurred without a word. It's
as if it is always a surprise.''
According to the 2008 OPM survey, only 51% of DHS executives
understand how their salary increases were determined; 34% don't know.
The responses with regard to performance awards were virtually
identical. 36% had no discussion of their progress in a required mid-
year discussion with supervisors. In fairness, these results are not
unusual; similar ones were reported for other agencies and departments.
Transparency and clearly communicated standards are necessary to an
employee's morale and ability to adequately do his or her job. The
Senior Executives Association has continuing concerns about the pay and
performance system at DHS and also at other agencies.
Fortunately, the vacancy rate for SES positions at DHS is not
uniform across the Department. Many components have a lower vacancy
rate and are doing a much stronger job of managing their Senior
Executive corps. A quick review of the 2008 Federal Human Capital
Survey questions regarding supervisors shows a diversity of responses
across the components of DHS.

Recommendations for Reform of the Senior Executive Service
Due to many of the workforce challenges regarding the SES corps at
DHS--problems that are endemic throughout the federal government--an
overall reform of the Senior Executive Service is necessary to ensure
that the career executive corps is attractive and promotes the
recruitment and retention of the most qualified employees.
Given the myriad of jobs and the substantial responsibilities
exercised by the career federal executive corps, these almost 7,000 men
and women are critical to high performing government and are key to
implementing the political and management agenda of each agency and the
Administration. These are the top career professionals in government,
with an average of 26 years of experience, who obtained their positions
on the basis of merit.
For many years and several prior Administrations, utilization of
the advice and creativity of the career SES corps has been steadily
diminished. It has been politically fashionable to denigrate and
mistrust the ``bureaucracy'' and to give less attention and compass to
the career corps. The complex and critical work of the hundreds of
separate Federal programs they run has frequently been underestimated
and undervalued, often resulting in negative impacts on Administration
initiatives and on the quality of services provided to the American
public. Rather than being treated as the ``most valuable players'' in
the Federal enterprise--which they truly are--they have been
increasingly taken for granted and buried under layers of non-career
appointees. This trend has generated serious problems in the past, most
dramatically in FEMA's disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina. If not
reversed, this erosion of the salience of the career SES will become
even more dangerous as the current corps ages and retires, recruitment
becomes more difficult, and the nature and magnitude of the issues
facing our nation grows exponentially in the coming years.To this end,
the Senior Executives Association proposes several reforms to the SES,
both at DHS and government-wide, that will restore its stature and
allow its members to effectively and efficiently serve their agencies.

1. Restoration of Career Leadership
Career Senior Executives have spent their careers in civil service
and are committed to the mission of the federal government and their
agencies. Years of neglect have lowered morale, but with the proper
focus and respect, the career executive corps is ready and willing to
step up and lead their agencies through the transition, implement new
policies and programs and effectively serve the American people.
The work of career executives is rated highly by appointees. In the
Spring 2001 issue of the Brookings Administration journal, Governance,
George C. Edwards wrote, ``[A]ccording to surveys of appointees ranging
from the administration of Lyndon Johnson to the present, political
appointees-regardless of party, ideology, or administration-find career
executives both competent and responsive. `In interview after
interview,'' observes Paul Light, ``presidential appointees celebrate
the dedication of their bureaucrats.''
The most recent data, from the Brookings Presidential Appointee
Initiative, confirms that more than four out of five appointees found
the career officials with whom they worked to be both responsive and
competent. Only 25 percent of appointees found directing career
employees to be a difficult task. Indeed, every other task about which
appointees were asked was more difficult. More than a third of
appointees, for example, found it hard to deal successfully with the
White House.
Given the transition and the critical issues facing the country, it
is imperative that career leadership is given attention by Congress and
the new Administration. Career executives will be the key to the
continuity and expertise necessary to ensure critical programs and
daily agency operations continue to function while there is a lack of
political appointees in place. Career senior executives will also play
a crucial role in overseeing the effective and proper use of the
economic stimulus funds that will go to DHS and other federal agencies.
To ensure that Senior Executives at DHS and across the government have
the necessary support and tools to carry out their mission, the Senior
Executives Association suggests the following reform:
Consider placing high-performing career executives in Assistant
Secretary for Administration and other key positions requiring long-
term experience at each agency, specifically, as Deputy or Chief Human
Capital Officers, Chief Information Officers, Chief Financial Officers,
and Chief Operating Officers. These positions are now reserved almost
exclusively for political appointees, as is the position of Assistant
Secretary for Administration, which was formerly held by senior career
employees in cabinet departments. In only two departments--Justice and
Transportation--do career Senior Executives now hold that position, as
a result of a statutory requirement (at Justice, the Assistant Attorney
General for Administration is also required to be held by a member of
the competitive service). On May 14, 2008 the Homeland Security
Department's acting Deputy Secretary Paul Schneider told the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the
department's highest human resources office should be held by a career
official, not a political appointee, as is now the case.
Deputy Secretary Schneider stated: ``The fact that by law it's a
political appointee means that, for the most part, that person will
leave on January 20. Having a career civil servant in that job--
especially. . .at this point in time--somebody that could carry over to
the next administration would be absolutely essential. . .to improve
national operations [in the] department.'' While this position is, by
statute, restricted to a political appointee, many others throughout
government are not, and career executives could be named to fill them.
We make this recommendation because a) continuity in leadership and
expertise during the transition from one Administration to another is
needed and the need is not satisfied when a political appointee resigns
and another takes his or her place, and b) relatively short-term
political appointees have limited ability to accomplish long term
agendas. Further, Administrations are not gaining the benefit they
might from seasoned and accomplished career executives who know how to
operate government programs and to pursue the agendas of their
political leadership.

2. Reform the SES Pay and Performance Management System
The current SES pay and performance management system has been in
place for four full years of performance ratings and pay adjustments.
There has now been sufficient time and experience to examine how well
the system works. Congress has had the opportunity to review the SES
system, identify problems and implement solutions. We believe the
system needs to be fine tuned and modified to ensure that quality
applicants will aspire to the SES and that those who are in the SES
will want to stay. The large number of Senior Executives eligible to
retire makes a review of the SES system even more imperative. Such a
review will also yield valuable lessons learned which should inform
your consideration of other pay for performance systems which are
proliferating in the Federal government.
In 2008 OPM conducted a survey of the SES. This survey was preceded
by an SEA survey in 2006 that also covered concerns and opinions about
the SES pay system, albeit in far greater detail. In a number of ways
the two surveys complement each other and show that Senior Executives
feel good about their jobs, but the results are more mixed when
addressing the pay system.
When SEA surveyed Senior Executives in 2006, one of the most
telling findings was that 47% of those that responded believed that GS-
14 and GS-15 employees were losing interest in aspiring to SES
positions. The 2008 OPM survey reported that only 50% of Senior
Executives believed that the current SES pay and performance management
system was helpful in recruiting qualified applicants for SES
positions. GS-14's and 15's losing interest in aspiring to SES
positions is a disturbing trend that is regularly reported to SEA and
confirmed now by two survey results.
In our opinion, there are several reasons for this unfortunate
situation. First, SES annual pay increases have not kept up with GS
increases over the past several years. This is true because increases
in the Executive Schedule, which sets the caps for SES pay, have lagged
behind GS increases. From 1994 to the present, if the EL-II pay rate
had increased each year by the same percentage as GS pay in the
Washington DC area, EL-II (the cap on SES pay in certified agencies)
would now be $242,318, not $177,000. Second, in addition to the lack of
locality-based pay adjustments, SES annual pay increases are entirely
discretionary, irrespective of performance, creating the accurate
perception that a new Senior Executive cannot rely on the receipt of
annual comparability increases upon entry to the SES. Third, GS and
alternate pay systems have become more generous with the result that
today some GS-15 or equivalent employees make more than the Senior
Executives they work for, particularly if the Senior Executive is new.
While pay is an issue, we are well aware that pay is not a primary
motivator of those in Federal service. What it does in this situation,
however, is to give GS-14's and 15's pause. With SES positions come
added responsibilities, added risk, and less time with families. This
is especially true at DHS, where many SES jobs are viewed as ``24/7.''
Many Senior Executives also express concerns about a distinct
disconnect between ratings, pay adjustments and performance awards. The
SEA survey found that many executives believe the connection between
their performance ratings and pay adjustments were based on
administrative decisions and budgetary constraints, not actual
performance. Further, there was no connection between increased
responsibilities and pay; of the 233 executives reporting increased
responsibilities since the implementation of the new pay system, 191
(82%) received no salary increase.
To that end, SEA has several legislative remedies to propose. These
are common sense solutions that directly address the concerns of Senior
Executives and potential SES members.
When the Senior Executive Service was created by the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978, the corps was designed to provide a careful balance
of increased risk and increased rewards to the GS 16's, 17's and 18's
who were to be asked to convert to the Service. Over time, that balance
has been eroded. The centerpiece of our proposal consists of two
provisions that would restore the balance of risk and reward so that
the SES will be attractive to potential Senior Executives.
First, we recommend that all Senior Executives rated as ``Fully
Successful'' or better performance level receive at least some annual
increase. In an October 31, 2006 memorandum regarding Certification of
Performance Appraisal Systems for Senior Employees for Calendar Year
2007, OPM Director Linda Springer expressed OPM's expectation that
``senior employees who are at a pay level consistent with their current
level of responsibilities and who receive an acceptable (``fully
successful'' or better) rating should receive a pay increase.'' Agency
discretion (as noted above), however, interferes with this outcome. In
January 2008, Senior Executives rated ``Fully Successful'' in F.Y. 2007
received an average 2.5% pay increase; contrast this with a GS employee
in the Washington DC locality pay area, who received a 4.49% adjustment
without regard to his or her performance rating. An annual guaranteed
increase for executives who have performed successfully should be at
least as much as the increase in the Executive Schedule plus the
increase in locality pay for the geographic area in which the executive
works. That would still, in most years, be below what GS employees
receive.
Second, performance awards should be included in a Senior
Executive's ``high three'' in calculating his or her retirement
annuity. We believe that this second provision would make the SES an
attractive career goal for the best applicants and will help assure a
high quality future SES. Also, it recognizes the reality that
performance awards have become an integral part of the SES compensation
system.

3. Focus on Continuing Development and Training for Senior
Executives
Training and development for Senior Executive positions is most
often provided in Candidate Development Programs (CDP's). Without
regard to how well CDP's prepare new Senior Executives, there is a need
for continuing development and training. That includes specific ``on-
boarding'' programs (which may include, for example, executive coaching
and/or a mentor for the first year), as well as attention to activities
which can keep a career executive up to date and revitalized throughout
his or her time in the SES. Because 34% of DHS executives responding to
OPM's 2008 survey of the SES have been members of the SES for 3 or less
years, professional development is especially important as many
executives face, in their first years, unexpected challenges for which
they were unprepared.
On November 7, 2008, Acting OPM Director Michael Hager issued a
memorandum for Chief Human Capital Officers, emphasizing steps that
agencies should take to ``broaden'' their SES members' experiences
throughout government, in order that they might become more effective
leaders. He noted that the original creation of the SES envisioned
``broad careers,'' and that ``recent history has. . .proven the
disadvantages for national security and disaster preparedness when
leaders lack a Government-wide perspective or are not experienced in
working across agency lines to respond to national threats or issues.
Specifically, the memorandum urged agencies to offer developmental
opportunities such as details or assignments to other major components
within their departments, training, and education opportunities for SES
members designated as ``National Security Professionals'' under
Executive Order 13434. Issued on May 17, 2007, this Executive Order was
meant to promote the development of federal employees in national
security positions to ensure that deficiencies apparent in the handling
of Hurricane Katrina were addressed.
The Hager memorandum builds upon the idea of continuing development
that should be a priority for all agencies and their career executives.
Although OPM runs some training programs through the Federal Executive
Institute, these are by no means mandatory or utilized throughout
federal agencies. Senior Executives must use their own initiative to
seek out training opportunities, but are often hampered by a lack of
designated funds or an inability to take time away from their duties to
do so. OPM acknowledges that ``ongoing development of current and
potential executives is critical to their effective performance as
leaders in an environment of constant change and advancing technology,
as well as to enhancing organizational achievement.'' However, SEA
questions whether this is truly a priority at DHS or other government
agencies.
In fact, in a 2007 US Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Ombudsman Annual Report to Congress, it was found that training and
leadership programs are pursued separately from development and
retention needs and that the programs offered by the agency had no
clear correlation to career development. The Annual Report went on to
recommend ``a comprehensive merger of core job career paths with
necessary training requirements--mandatory, technical, and leadership--
oriented to future needs and groups, as well as transparency from entry
to executive levels.
We have no information as to whether these recommendations have
been implemented, not only at USCIS, but at other component parts of
DHS. The OPM survey found that only 54% of DHS executives were
satisfied with the developmental opportunities they receive; 23%
disagreed that there are sufficient funds available for their job-
related development to maintain up-to-date skills; in fact, only 34%
said that their developmental needs were even assessed.
The lack of training and development related to a strategic plan is
a problem that not only affects the preparedness and effectiveness of
DHS, but has an impact on all agencies across the government. SEA
recommends that a comprehensive review of the strategic plan of DHS and
all agencies is needed to ensure that training and continuing
development needs of the Senior Executive Service are being pursued and
implemented. This includes assessing the funding given to implement
OPM's new training directives.

Conclusion
Many challenges remain that must be addressed at DHS and
government-wide to ensure an effective Senior Executive Service. We
encourage you to implement the reforms outlined above. The Senior
Executives Association looks forward to working with you on these
issues and serving as a resource on reforms to strengthen the SES.

Mr. Carney. Thank you for your testimony.
And I now recognize Mr. Stier to summarize his statement
for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MAX STIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, PARTNERSHIP FOR
PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Stier. Thank you very much, Chairman Carney,
Congressman Bilirakis, members of the subcommittee. It is a
great pleasure to be here and really a pleasure to see that you
are focusing on these important issues.
I go back to the 9/11 Commission, and I think they stated
it best when they said that the quality of the people is more
important than the quality of the wiring diagram. In this town
you have a lot of attention paid to wiring diagrams and not
enough to people issues.
Even today you see a huge amount of energy focused on the
question of do we need a separate department of food safety,
should FEMA be in or out of DHS, but not enough again time on
the issues that you have focused on here--people issues, which
are absolutely essential to making any of this work.
So the question today is where is DHS right now. As we have
seen from the data from OPM, things have improved. You see 62
percent of the DHS staff saying that they are satisfied with
their jobs. You see numbers across the board moving up, and in
fact DHS moved more than most any other agency.
The flipside, though, is that they had a heck of a lot of
distance to travel. And as much as they have moved, the numbers
are, frankly, still not good enough. And I would point out
three different things that highlight that to me most
egregiously.
The first--only 34 percent of DHS employees say that their
leaders generate high level of motivation and commitment from
them. That to me is a stunning number, and one that no one
could be proud of.
Second, if you looked at the career executive ranks, 72
percent of the career executives left between fiscal year 2004
and 2007. Nearly three-quarters of those executives left in
that timeframe. That is, frankly, just scary.
And then third and finally, you look and you see 300
political appointees. Last I saw, you had one, the secretary,
who has been confirmed by the Senate, and that is a major
problem, to.
So what can you do about this moving forward? And I would
offer seven suggestions here. I can come up with more, if you
want, but seven in the 5 minutes I have got.
First of all I would have to re-imagine oversight. You look
at the stimulus bill. Right now, you have got $350 million
going into IGs, GAO. Truth be told, we need to make sure we get
it right at the front end.
You need oversight, but you need to make sure that you are
actually investing in the people and government that are going
to get the job done right and well to begin with.
And the oversight has to be a different form of oversight.
The oversight has to be one that is constructive, rather than
punitive. And this hearing is an example of just what we really
need.
Secondly, we need better and more frequent data. When you
listen to all the testimony here, you listen to what the
opening statements had to say, we know now more about DHS
because of the survey that the OPM is doing, but it is not
being doing frequently enough.
The law requires an annual survey. OPM actually only does
it every other year. Agencies do it on those off years. And
that doesn't work. We actually need OPM to do it every year,
and we need that information to come out a lot faster.
We are 6 months after those surveys were being done, and
they still just this week they say they are going to make it
public. We need that information as soon as possible to make it
real-time relevant.
And we need additional information. Survey is great, but
Carol had a great idea, which I think is really important to
their testimony. What about exit interviews? Let us really
understand why it is that people are leaving.
A lot of key pieces of information that we still don't
understand. If you understand it, you will be able to do a
better job, the agencies will be able to do a better job, and
the American people will get better service.
Number three, around learning and development, the one-DHS
issue. We know one thing that is going to work, and that is
rotational assignments. We see that in joint duty requirements
in the military. We are seeing joint duty efforts now and the
intelligence community.
We need to invest more in making sure that people in
government move around and government. They will understand the
problems and other agencies. They will learn from their
colleagues. That is something that needs to be ramped up. There
are pilot programs that are in place. We need them to go to
scale here now.
Number four, leadership. What do our ``Best Places to Work
At'' show us? The number one issue that would have the greatest
impact on employee engagement is better management and
leadership.
And that is going to require investing in our managers and
leaders in a way that has never happened before. We have
programs like the DHS Fellows program, which are terrific, but
we need to see more of them.
Number five, hiring process broken in every which way. We
need an applicant bill of rights that guarantee transparent,
clear and easy process. And we need to take a look at the
assessment processes, whether we are actually selecting the
right talent.
Number six, we need a review of the political appointees.
You have heard it before. Why do you need 300 of them? The
president deserves folks that he can bring in that enable him
to push the policies that he was elected to represent, but he
doesn't need 300 of them, and that has huge consequences not
only during this transition period, but also for the career
staff as well.
And then finally, the last in seventh point I would make is
we need to see a very different kind of relationship with
unions and employee organizations. You can't be happy when you
hear the testimony that you have just heard right now. No
matter what the system is, the system will never work if
employees don't trust it.
And if the people who represent those employees are as
unhappy as they are right now, you know something is not
working.
Now, my belief is the status quo can be improved upon, and
I am confident that you and all these folks here will make that
happen. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Stier follows:]

Prepared Statement of Max Steir

Chairman Carney, Representative Bilirakis, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you today. I am Max Stier, President and CEO of the Partnership for
Public Service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to
revitalizing the federal civil service by inspiring a new generation to
serve and transforming the way the federal government works. We were
honored to testify before this subcommittee in 2007 on the human
capital challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
the morale of the department's employees. It is our pleasure to be back
before you again today to comment on the current state of the
department's workforce and to suggest areas which we believe would
benefit most from this subcommittee's attention.
The Partnership has two principal areas of focus. First, we work to
inspire new talent to join federal service. Second, we work with
government leaders to help transform government so that the best and
brightest will enter, stay and succeed in meeting the challenges of our
nation. That includes all aspects of how the federal government manages
people, from attracting them to government, leading and engaging them,
supporting their development and managing performance; in short, all
the essential ingredients for creating, developing and maintaining a
world-class workforce.

The Presidential Transition: A First for DHS
You have charged the witnesses for today's hearing with
recommending a way forward for the department's workforce. Your timing
is ideal; the new administration has created new opportunities to
improve on the hard work that has already gone into standing up the
Department of Homeland Security.
The Partnership for Public Service issued a report last year
entitled ``Roadmap to Reform: A Management Framework for the Next
Administration.'' The premise of our report is that the new
administration's policy objectives cannot succeed unless our government
has a talented and engaged federal workforce that is able to implement
those policies. We suggest that the core components of an effective
workforce include having the right talent; an engaged workforce; strong
leadership; and, public support. This is true for government as a
whole, and it is true for the agencies of government--including the
Department of Homeland Security.
The recent transfer of power from one presidential administration
to another was a first for the department. Political transitions are a
challenge for any federal agency as new political leaders and career
professionals learn to work with each other to achieve the president's
policy objectives, but the challenges for DHS are perhaps unique. Just
over six years old, the department continues to experience the growing
pains that resulted from its creation--the assemblage of 22 different
federal organizations with different types of workforces, different
cultures, different compensation systems and different goals into one
department with a common mission to protect our homeland and 216,000
employees.
The Obama administration moved quickly to select a new secretary to
lead this critically important department. Though the secretary was
confirmed on January 20th, she remains essentially ``home alone''--
surrounded by senior staff who are in an ``acting'' capacity plus some
holdovers from the previous administration. The department has almost
300 political appointees; filling those slots requires an enormous
investment of time and resources. And when those slots are vacant, it
creates a vacuum in leadership and accountability at a department that
is tasked with protecting our homeland 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Further, as noted in the DHS Human Capital Strategic Plan for fiscal
year 2009--2013, 72 percent of DHS career executives left the
Department from October 2003 to September 20,2007, the highest rate of
any Cabinet department.
DHS is now the largest law enforcement agency in the federal
government. Many department subcomponents brought a ``command and
control``culture with them to DHS and a staff that is deployed largely
in the field, rather than in Washington. In many ways, the department
is still struggling to create a ``Team DHS'' culture.
At the time of its creation, the Department of Homeland Security
was granted major exemptions from Title 5 requirements, including in
the areas of pay and performance. DHS designed a new human resources
(HR) system that included a pay-banded approach to pay and was intended
to be more sensitive to performance and the market for talent than the
existing General Schedule system. DHS, however, also designed new
approaches to labor-management relations and employee appeals which
were challenged in court by employee unions. After years of fits and
starts, Congress recently pulled the plug on the department's plans to
move forward with its alternative personnel system.
The continuing adjustment to the department's creation and the
uncertainty over the future of the department's personnel system
certainly contributed to the department's poor showing in the
Partnership's 2005 and 2007 Best Places to Work in the Federal
Government rankings, which measure employee satisfaction and
engagement. When we testified in 2007, we highlighted the key drivers
for employee satisfaction--or lack thereof--at DHS. Nearly two years
later, we can report that in many ways, DHS appears to be headed in the
right direction--but much work remains.

Measures Drive Change
The old adage that ``what gets measured, gets changed'' still holds
true. And when it comes to the federal workforce, not enough is getting
fully measured. Data available on the state of the federal workforce is
not systematically organized, evaluated or disseminated in a way that
is meaningful to all of the key audiences.
The value of indicator systems as an effective tool for driving
reform has been widely documented. The Partnership has taken a step
toward creating national indicators through our Best Places to Work in
the Federal Government rankings, prepared in collaboration with
American University's Institute for the Study of Public Policy
Implementation. The Best Places rankings build upon data from OPM's
Federal Human Capital Survey to provide a comprehensive assessment of
employee satisfaction across the federal government's agencies and
their subcomponents.
Employee satisfaction and commitment are two of the necessary
ingredients in developing high-performing organizations and attracting
needed talent to meet our nation's challenges. The Best Places to Work
rankings are a key step in recognizing the importance of employee
satisfaction and ensuring that it is a top priority of government
managers and leaders.
Since the first rankings were released in 2003, they have helped
create much-needed institutional incentives to focus on priority
workforce issues and provided managers and leaders with a roadmap for
boosting employee engagement.
The rankings also provide Members of Congress and the general
public with unprecedented insight into federal agencies and what the
people who work in those agencies say about leadership, mission and
effectiveness. Ideally, the Best Places rankings can aid Congress in
fulfilling its oversight responsibilities by highlighting the federal
government's high-performing agencies and raising a red flag when
agencies suffer from conditions that lead to low employee engagement
and, consequently, poor performance.

DHS: Moving in the Right Direction
Mr. Chairman, in 2005 and again when we testified before you in
2007, the Department of Homeland Security as a whole ranked second-to-
last--i.e., in 29th place--among large agencies in the Best Places to
Work rankings. The department was the lowest ranked agency in eight out
of ten workplace categories. Those ten categories are: employee skills/
mission match, leadership, balance, teamwork, pay and benefits,
training and development, support for diversity, strategic management,
performance-based rewards and advancement, and family-friendly culture
and benefits.
Our index scores are computed based on data that comes from federal
employees themselves through their responses to OPM's Federal Human
Capital Survey. The 2008 survey data are available for overall
departments and we are in the process of preparing our 2009 Best Places
rankings. Although the rankings will not be computed and released until
later this spring, we are able to preview some important findings for
the subcommittee drawn from the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey.
[Information follows:]

In key questions that reflect overall employee satisfaction, DHS
has improved:
--Fifty-eight percent of those department employees surveyed
say they would recommend their organization as a good place to
work, up from 51 percent just two years ago;
--Sixty-two percent say they are satisfied with their job, the
highest positive response ever from DHS employees;
--Nearly 50 percent say they are satisfied with their
organization, up from 44 percent in 2006.
Some additional good news is that these gains in employee
satisfaction and engagement do not appear to be accidental. DHS has
promoted a department-wide effort to constructively respond to the
concerns and issues expressed by employees in previous surveys. For
example, we understand that CBP conducted employee focus groups at 127
sites around the country to better understand the reasons for employee
dissatisfaction. Department-wide action plans are updated periodically
with best practices such as the expansion of an ``Idea Factory'' blog
started within the Transportation Security Administration to solicit,
share, and implement employee suggestions. DHS should be commended for
taking the results of the employee survey seriously and for its efforts
to improve employee satisfaction and engagement.
Within DHS, three workplace categories have been most closely
related to overall satisfaction. They are, in order, leadership,
employee skills/mission match, and strategic management.\1\ We expect,
based on historical trends, that leadership will continue to be a big,
and perhaps the biggest, driver of satisfaction at the department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This differs from the government-wide results, where work/life
balance--not strategic management--was the third most influential
driver of employee satisfaction in the 2007 rankings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sixty-one percent of those surveyed in 2008 agreed that their
immediate supervisor or team leader was doing a good job, up fi-om 57
percent in 2006--that's good news and certainly movement in the right
direction, though it is still far behind the private sector, where 74
percent agreed that their supervisor or team leader was doing a good
job. With respect to overall organizational leadership, however, the
signals are mixed: just over 34 percent of employees agreed that
leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the
workforce. This is a welcome improvement over the 27 percent who agreed
with that statement in both 2004 and 2006. The unfortunate truth,
though, is that an organization where only 34 percent feel that their
leaders generate a motivated and committed workforce is an organization
that is probably not performing up to its potential.

A Focus on Leadership
As stated earlier in this testimony, leadership has been the
leading driver of employee satisfaction at DHS. We also know that
leadership is the area in which the federal government most lags the
private sector. The DHS Fellows Program, once run by the Council for
Excellence in Government but now at home with the Partnership, is a
leadership development program for GS-14s and GS-15s at the department.
The program was launched in 2007 and has proven to be a popular, and
successful, professional development opportunity for DHS's next
generation of leaders.
The DHS Fellows are a tremendous source of information and insight.
We believe many of their experiences suggest a way forward for the
department and this subcommittee.
Our Fellows tell us that one of the best values of this program is
the opportunity it offers for them to learn about each others'
organizations. Fellows come from all over the department; some come
from field offices while others are stationed in Washington. The
opportunity to come together through the Fellows Program helps build
relationships and contribute to a more cohesive ``Team DHS'' culture.
Exposing the Fellows to the other components of the department
builds the connective tissue that will make for a stronger department
overall. We know that Congress stands behind this concept, since it was
Congress that passed a provision as part of the Post Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act \2\ to create a rotation program for department
personnel to spend time working in other components of the department.
Unfortunately, only small steps have been taken toward instituting a
rotation program for DHS employees. One promising program is the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center's Pilot Leaders Program, which
intends to encourage rotational assignments for supervisory staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Title VI of P.L 109-295.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was also Congress that created the Senior Executive Service,
which was conceived originally as a cadre of seasoned management
professionals who could, and would, move to different posts throughout
our government. In practice, there is far less rotation among agencies
than the Congress envisioned--but the concept is sound. A well-rounded
understanding of different agencies gives perspective and leads to
better managers and better management.

Attracting and Retaining Needed Talent
The federal government is an attractive employer. Our January 2009
report, ``Great Expectations: What Students Want in an Employer and How
Federal Agencies Can Deliver It,'' found that government/public service
is the most popular industry choice out of 46 options among the
undergraduates surveyed. We also found, however, that interest in
government service is lower among groups government needs most,
including students with technical and scientific majors.
The Department of Homeland Security performs a critical mission on
behalf of the American people. With little margin for error, it is
essential that DHS employ enough of the right people with the right
skills. From new college graduates to senior professionals and
everywhere in between, DHS must be able to attract and recruit the best
available talent to fulfill its mission. We also suggest that DHS must
be able to recruit and retain a diverse workforce at all levels.
Undoubtedly DHS has many of the same challenges as the rest of the
federal government with regard to a hiring system that is frequently
too slow, complex, and cumbersome and not applicant friendly. We also
know, however, that parts of DHS have managed to achieve commendable
results by overcoming some of these obstacles or in spite of them. For
example, faced with the need to significantly increase staff levels,
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) initiated an innovative and
sustained recruitment effort that was able to attract over 3,500
applicants a week from a diverse applicant pool and included special
outreach to military veterans. As a result, and despite what has been
described as a rigorous screening process, CBP has been able to meet a
goal of hiring 6,000 new border patrol agents by the end of 2008.
Further, veterans make up approximately 25 percent of workforce and 54
percent of the workforce are minorities, with Hispanics accounting for
half of the agent population. We are told that U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) has also implemented a robust diversity
recruitment effort and has established partnerships with a variety of
colleges and universities towards that end.
Similarly, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has
maintained an aggressive recruiting and screening process that attracts
over 300,000 applicants a year. In fiscal year 2008 alone, TSA made
over 3,400 new hires. Clearly, DHS has benefited from a renewed
interest in federal employment driven partly by the current downturn in
national economic conditions but also by an increased appreciation for
the value of public service.
It will be important that DHS, along with the rest of the federal
government, not squander this opportunity to fill its workforce needs
with highly talented and motivated employees. Despite its impressive
accomplishments, there are still examples of outmoded hiring processes
or requirements within DHS and other federal departments and agencies.
For example, a current announcement for the HR Director for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, a SES level position, calls for the
submission of up to 14 pages of narrative, to be submitted ``on bond
paper.''
The Obama administration has ushered in an era of enthusiasm for
government service not seen since the Kennedy years. Making the most of
this interest in government employment adds a new sense of urgency to
calls to streamline the current process for hiring new employees.
We suggest that Congress pass legislation creating a ``Federal
Applicant's Bill of Rights.'' An applicant bill of rights should
provide that the hiring process must be understandable, transparent and
timely. Job announcements should be written in plain English.
Applicants should be able to apply online with a standard resume, and
should be able to reach a real person at the agency to which they are
applying if they have questions. Agencies should be required to make
timely hiring decisions, and to notify applicants when a hire has been
made. Our nation needs a Department of Homeland Security staffed with
highly skilled, highly motivated professionals--and we cannot afford to
let such talent slip away due to an unnecessarily lengthy and
complicated hiring process.
We also suggest that Rep. David Price's Roosevelt Scholars Act is
another measure that could help the department--and the rest of the
federal government--meet some of its critical hiring needs. This
legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress and is expected to be
introduced again shortly. It creates a graduate-level scholarship
program in mission-critical fields in exchange for a federal service
commitment. The military's ROTC program has been a tremendous source of
leadership talent for our nation's armed forces; we believe the
Roosevelt Scholars Act could become an analogous source of needed
expertise for our civilian agencies.

Better Support and Oversight
The Partnership believes that the way to better government is
through people. No federal agency can succeed if it does not have
enough of the right people with the right skills to get the job done.
While we have long argued that more investment in the capacity of the
federal workforce is desperately needed, passage of the 787 billion-
dollar stimulus package adds a new sense of urgency.
Federal agencies--and more accurately, federal employees--are being
asked to distribute billions of dollars in stimulus money as quickly as
possible. While the Obama administration has committed to spending 350
million dollars on oversight to ensure accountability and transparency,
this approach fails to invest in the infrastructure of government that
will minimize failures in the first place. It is like calling law
enforcement for a smoking engine when what is really needed is a good
mechanic. We need an aggressive plan to provide the personnel and tools
necessary for our government departments and agencies to succeed, and a
new paradigm that imagines the watchdog role as constructive rather
than punitive. In other words, smart government should be about getting
it right the first time, rather than discovering problems after the
fact and attacking federal agencies, and their employees, for failing
to do jobs they were never resourced to handle.
The Department of Homeland Security is fortunate to have a
workforce that is highly committed to its mission; over 90 percent of
department employees surveyed agreed that the work they do is
important. The challenge for Congress is to ensure that the department
is provided with the personnel and resources to do its job well.
We also highlight the importance of strong Chief Human Capital
Officers and human resources professionals in federal departments and
agencies. And of course, the Office of Personnel Management serves a
vital policymaking role across government. Never has our government
been so challenged, and never have these positions been more important.
In 2007 and again in 2008, we interviewed Chief Human Capital
Officers in large departments and agencies in a candid, not-for-
attribution conversation on the challenges they face and potential
areas for improvement.
When asked the extent to which HR staff members have the
competencies needed to help their agency succeed in the future, 71
percent of respondents said their staffs had needed competencies to
only a ``limited``or ``moderate'' extent, with less than one-third
saying their staffs had the right skills to a ``great'' or ``very
great'' extent.
``[HR staff] are very comfortable in the transaction zone, but not
so comfortable giving advice,'' said one CHCO. The shift away from
transactional skills to a more consultative role for HR staff that
requires strategic thinking was noted by many of our survey
participants. Indeed, 48 percent of those surveyed said that HR staff
is viewed by agency leadership as a business advisor``(versus a
transaction manager) only to a ``limited'' or ``moderate'' extent.
Tackling the workforce and management challenges facing the
Department of Homeland Security requires a solid resources team with
modern skills and tools. We encourage the subcommittee to continue its
oversight of the DHS workforce and to pay special attention to the
capacity of the human resources function in the department. The fact
that DHS has improved to a significant extent from 2006 to 2008, as
measured by the results the Federal Human Capital Survey, is an
encouraging sign and indicates that the department's management team
takes the survey data seriously and that early efforts to improve
employee satisfaction and engagement are starting to pay off.

The Way Forward: Recommendations
The Partnership offers the following recommendations regarding the
Department of Homeland Security's personnel management:
1. Better and more frequent data are essential for Congress to
conduct necessary oversight of the Department of Homeland
Security and how it is managing its workforce. We recommend
that the Office of Personnel Management conduct the Federal
Human Capital Survey on an annual basis, and release the data
as soon as its accuracy can be assured. This will enable the
department to make real-time course corrections where needed;
provide an annual benchmark capability by providing consistent
data across agency lines; and provide Congress a more timely
and informative oversight tool.
2. Congress should encourage and support department efforts to
create learning and development opportunities for DHS
employees; in particular, more attention must be devoted to
creating a successful rotation program that will enable
employees to experience other DHS components and build a more
cohesive department.
3. A key criterion for the success of any human capital
management system is the presence of highly competent managers,
supervisors, and HR professionals. Congress should ensure that
DHS has the resources, and is making the necessary investment,
to select, train, and effectively manage the individuals in
these key occupations.
4. Congress should encourage and fund leadership enhancement
and leadership development programs for DHS employees.
Improving the skills of existing leaders and developing the
next generation of leaders will improve employee engagement and
organizational performance.
5. Congress should ensure that the department has the resources
and personnel necessary to fulfill its mission, and should
encourage an oversight approach that is constructive and
designed to identify and fix potential problems before those
problems become failures.
6. Congress should require the Department of Homeland Security,
and all federal agencies, to improve their hiring processes. A
``Federal Applicant's Bill of Rights'' to make the hiring
process more understandable and timely would improve the
ability of the department to attract needed talent from diverse
talent pools. Congress should also pass the Roosevelt Scholars
Act to enable federal agencies, including DHS, to attract
mission-critical talent.
7. Congress should review the number of positions filled by
political appointees in the Department of Homeland Security to
determine whether each of those positions is needed and whether
the department would benefit from filling some politically
appointed positions with career civil servants.

Mr. Carney. Thank you for your testimony.
I want to thank all the witnesses.
And I will remind each member as we proceed through
questioning that he or she will have 5 minutes to question the
panel. And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
This is for each one of you. If you had 30 seconds with the
chief human capital officer at DHS or undersecretary, what
would you guys recommend?
Colleen?
Ms. Kelley. I would recommend collective bargaining rights
be granted immediately to TSOs.
I would recommend that staffing be secured, resources be
secured to ensure that the agencies in Homeland Security have
the staff they need to do the mission they are trying to
deliver on every day.
And I would recommend that they look seriously at their
management structure and at the message they send to their
managers for delivery out to the workforce.
I believe there are a lot of good managers in the
Department of Homeland Security, but they will react to the
tone that is set at the top. I think we are seeing a different
tone now, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done to
train them to be good managers, and then to hold them
accountable to do just that.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Mr. Gage?
Mr. Gage. Well, clearly--and I have had an opportunity to
talk to the secretary, and we, too, are pushing to correct this
terrible situation with part of the employees in the department
not having Title 5 rights, not having the ability to collective
bargaining, not having a voice at work.
But I would also say, too, that bringing in people, who
really know the mission of the agencies--for instance, the new
appointment to FEMA is a welcome change, that we have somebody
there with a background in emergency management.
And I think moving with appointments like that would really
be very good.
I think, too, that you know when you look at all these
agencies, they all have their own individual problems.
Certainly, more communication with employees and more
communication at each of the agencies--ICE, CIS, FEMA,
especially Border Patrol--would really help in setting a new
attitude at the department and a new way to move forward.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Carol?
Ms. Bonosaro. I would recommend four things--certainly, to
pay attention to what is causing these high vacancy rates,
whether it is by conducting exit interviews or doing more with
existing executives to find out what would encourage them to
stay.
Secondly, I would certainly at this point in the new
administration do everything--I urge that everything possible
be done to develop a clear working partnership and full
communication between career executives and political
appointees. They can't carry out the agenda if they don't know
what it is and they aren't fully involved in it.
Thirdly, I would urge that the pay and performance
management system be examined to ensure that it is transparent
and fair as it is operating there.
And finally, I would urge that a sufficient amount of
funding be provided to ensure that the developmental needs, the
continuing revitalization needs be met for the current and
future senior executives.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Mr. Stier?
Mr. Stier. Well, I want that conversation with the
secretary, not with the chief human capital officer, because,
obviously, I would point him to testimony here.
But the number one recommendation honestly I think, and
from which all of this flows, is making people issues a
priority. The tendency is for political leaders to focus on
crisis management and policy development, but not on really
what is going to make those things work, and that is the people
inside the department.
The secretary needs to make sure that people issues--they
will say, yes, they are important, but the question is do they
prioritize them. And they need to make sure that their
leadership team understands in fact this is not an HR issue.
This is a leadership issue.
And they need to make sure that they then also have a
mechanism of holding those folks accountable and there is some
transparency with that.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Quickly, I want to make reference to the article that came
out in the Post today about the process of hiring. You
mentioned it in your testimony, Mr. Stier.
Apparent that Linda Springer said that the system is
inefficient by design for hiring people to work for the
government. I mean this is not just DHS. This is across the
government. How are you going to fix that?
That is to you, Mr. Stier.
Mr. Stier. All right. This is one that I would need more
than 30 seconds on to begin with.
I think the first way you fix it is you have to recognize
that they are a set of problems. It is not just one issue. And
if you fix one and not the others, you are going to get in
trouble.
So there has been a lot of you know attention focused on
the speed of hiring. That is important, but if you hire poorly,
it doesn't much matter if you hire quick or slow.
So you have to make sure you know that you have all the
different components fixed. And I think in part it starts from
this notion of making people a priority and seeing it as a
leadership issue.
Right now, HR issues are viewed as transactional questions,
not as strategic success questions. And that is a big issue. So
how do you fix it?
First, you recognize that you have to have leadership
hearing about it. You have to have literally the top folks in
the agencies saying, ``This has to be done. It is priority, and
I am going to make sure that it is fixed.''
I see the time is out, so you tell me if you want to keep
running through this, but----
Mr. Carney. Well----
Mr. Stier. Yes.
Mr. Carney. Let me address this. I will exercise my
prerogative as chair here. Is it an OPM problem, or is it a
government-wide problem?
Mr. Stier. It is both. There are ways in which--I mean,
honestly, there are ways. It is a decentralized hiring process.
OPM cannot fix it on its own, but OPM can help. And so you
actually really do need a collective effort. And again, it has
to go beyond the human capital community to really get done.
We did a process called Extreme Hiring Makeover, where we
worked with three different agencies. Just to give an example,
one agency--they had no idea what the hiring process was. We
mapped it. It was 110 steps. Forty-five people touched every
hire.
And usually people say, ``Oh, my god, that is horrible,''
but there was worse. The worst was no one knew what that
process was. And secondly, they got the wrong person at the end
of the day, because they had no conversation between the hiring
person who managed the process and the hiring manager who
needed the person on the requirements at the front end.
So that is an example of the kinds of issues you need to
get your arms around to fix this.
Mr. Carney. Thank you for your testimony, I think.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To follow up on your question, Mr. Stier, in your written
testimony you noted that DHS has many of the same challenges as
the rest of the federal government with regard to the hiring
system. It is too slow, complex, cumbersome, and not applicant
friendly.
Has DHS or any of its components attempted to overcome
these obstacles? If so, what results have these efforts
yielded? What more can be done to prevent talented, motivated
and committed people from slipping away due to the lengthy,
complicated and bureaucratic federal hiring process?
Mr. Stier. This is such an important issue. You have for
the first time ever I think the American people looking to
government in a very different way. President Obama said he
wanted to make government cool again, and I think he has come a
long way to doing that.
But at the end of the day, if talented Americans run into
the typical experience of the hiring process, they are going to
get turned off in a way that is unhelpful for government and
unhelpful for changing that sense of what government can
actually accomplish.
DHS, like other agencies, had made efforts. It is a big
organization. They have tried to improve their process--
honestly, not enough, and not nearly enough has really occurred
to argue that they have made significant strides.
Part of the challenge here is that there is insufficient
transparency, insufficient information. We talked about exit
interviews. It wouldn't be all that hard to start collecting
information agency by agency about what the applicant
experience actually is like--you know questions about time to
hire.
There are real challenges about when you start and when you
stop. But you can actually set something and create some
transparency around that that would serve as a driver for
changes in behavior inside the agencies.
The starting place for that is really focusing on a small
number of core measurements that you can start making that will
drive changes in the agencies in the same way that we are
starting to see more focused around employee morale issues.
Real easy to hide, if you can--if you don't have the
information, and right now that information is not available.
So I would say the starting point really is what I offered
before, an applicant bill of rights that makes a certain set of
commitments and then requires agencies to collect and make
public the information that will allow us to know whether those
commitments are really being made.
But truly to me this is a vital issue. Some folks see it as
you know in the weeds. But at the end of the day, it has
enormous implications not only for the talent government has,
but also for the perception Americans have about their
government.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Ms. Kelley. If I could just add----
Mr. Bilirakis. Sure.
Ms. Kelley. I think there is a huge resource being untapped
by both OPM and the agencies, and that is the unions who
represent these employees. We represent the employees who have
successfully run the gauntlet to get through the hiring process
and to actually be a federal employee.
And I think OPM should be putting out bargains,
suggestions, best practices to agencies. I am hoping now with
the nomination of an OPM Director, that we will see that happen
that the unions will be in that conversation.
We have a lot of ideas, suggestions, things to avoid in the
future. And we want the hiring process be as streamlined and
effective as possible so that the agencies don't have the
vacancies that we see for the length of time that happened
today.
Mr. Bilirakis Ms. Kelley, I have a question for you.
Sir, do you want to comment on this as well?
Mr. Gage. Well, I would just like to say that you know when
you focus on, say, procurement officers, now what everybody is
looking for is we need more procurement officers, and we are
looking to go outside the government to bring them in, when
inside the government there are many candidates who could move
up to those jobs and are a pool of employees who could satisfy
it.
So I don't think just looking outside the government is the
whole answer here. I think there are plenty of people within
the government, who would really look forward to the promotion
and could do the job just as well.
Mr. Bilirakis. Would anyone else like to comment?
Okay. Ms. Kelly, yesterday I had the opportunity to meet
with one of your members. One issue that was raised was the
impact of border violence on CBPOs. I am concerned with reports
that CBPOs do not have sufficient resources and equipment to
protect themselves against the increasing violence occurring in
Mexico.
What resources do the CBPOs currently have, such as body
armor, weapons, et cetera? Have CBPOs received additional
training to help them respond to the threat posed by these
Mexican drug cartels?
And what can Congress do to help ensure that the men and
women who work to protect our borders have the equipment they
need to protect themselves and lawful travelers?
Ms. Kelley. I appreciate the question and the fact that
there is attention being paid to this. I can get you exact
information as to the equipment that they have versus the
equipment they need. I would like to make sure I have the
accurate information from the ports of entry along the
southwest border.
Mr. Bilirakis. Please do.
Ms. Kelley. I would be glad to get you that.
As far as training, part of the problem, especially on the
southwest border, is with staffing shortages down there. They
are daily making decisions to run port operations or to do the
training that they need, ongoing training, important training
that I know Secretary Napolitano believes in, because we talked
about this the other day.
But because of staffing shortages, they are not able to do
the training that is needed. And just a year ago I was in El
Paso at a field hearing, and Chairman Carney was at the
hearing.
And we talked specifically about staffing shortages and the
impact of that is having on not being able to do the job that
they are trying to do, and especially in the situations you
described, where you are talking about the safety of officers.
And you need to make sure that there is always back up,
that people are rested, that they are not working 16 day shifts
back-to-back days in a row, and that is exactly what is
happening because of the lack of staffing.
So a big resource issue is the need for staffing across
ports of entry across the country, but particularly on the
southwest border. And I would be glad to give you specific
numbers of recommendations we have made for those ports that
we----
Mr. Bilirakis. Thanks very much. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes the full chair of the committee,
Mr. Thompson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And good to see our witnesses to this hearing.
One of the issues we have referenced for quite a while is
the number of different personnel systems for human capital
systems operating within DHS. And if I look at TSA, I see where
we have a number of systems operating within that one agency.
Ms. Kelley and then Mr. Gage, have you had any experience
with the different sort of systems operating within TSA?
Ms. Kelley. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the TSOs experience
those differences every day, because the basic employee rights
that employees have throughout the rest of Homeland Security
they do not have within the Transportation Security
Administration.
I can just give you a couple of examples. We had a TSO who
was suspended for 5 days for not taking their break on time
when it was scheduled. They took their break a half an hour
later. The supervisor watched them work through their break,
watched them take their break a half-hour later, never said a
word to the TSO, and then suspended them for 5 days.
Now, if TSOs had the same rights under Title 5 as other DHS
employees have, that employee would have had a statutory right
to challenge that adverse action and to have it reviewed by
third party. That does not exist today for TSOs.
We had another situation where an employee got their score
on this PASS system, their pay system. And he got his score,
and the supervisor changed his score before was submitted, that
is impacting his pay.
And under the current system in TSA, where they do not have
the rights other DHS employees have, there was no recourse for
this employee. Under Title 5, an evaluation cannot be changed
like that, and it would be a--if it were.
So those are just two examples, and I could give you a very
long list. And this happens every day in airports around the
country because of the differences in the systems just as you
described.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Gage?
Mr. Gage. Yes, clearly the biggest discrepancy is a lack of
rights for TSOs compared to the rest of the department. It just
makes no sense to me how Border Patrol agents, how ICE, how CIS
can be afforded Title 5 rights, the right to collective
bargaining, and TSOs not.
And the pay process, where the whole department is under GS
pay, yet they TSOs are into this PASS system. And it is a way,
really, to hold down pay. I think it is the whole basis for the
turnover and the lack of credibility, the frustration that TSOs
have.
And even within TSA, the managers are entitled to go to
MSPB, should there be an issue against them that they wanted to
contest, yet they TSOs have no such luxury, so I--not luxury,
but right.
I think standardization and consistency across this
department is absolutely necessary. And I must say that you
know even President Obama in a letter to me on October 20th saw
that this was a huge problem within TSA and that the employees
needed a voice at work and that he stands fully behind
collective bargaining for TSOs.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the components covered
under Title 5 under Homeland Security entered into the record
of this hearing.
Mr. Carney. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]

Breakdown of Components Covered by Title 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GOV'T-WIDE
BENEFITS
LABOR HIRING, PROGRAMS (e.g.,
COMPONENTS \1\ PAY CLASSIFICATION PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ADVERSE ACTIONS APPEALS EXAMINATION, retirement,
MANAGEMENT RELATIONS \2\ SELECTION AND health
PLACEMENT benefits, life
ins., leave)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 U.S.C. HR 53,55........... 51.............. 43............. 71............. 75............. 77............. 31.33.......... 63, 81, 83, 84,
AUTHORITIES etc.
(by Chapter)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS Yes............. Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes
Headquarters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP Yes............. Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIS Yes............. Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA Yes............. Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stafford Act Yes............. Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ No............. No............. No............. Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLETC Yes............. Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE Yes............. Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSA No.............. No.............. No............. No............. (see below) \4\ (see below) \4\ No \3\......... Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USCG Yes............. Yes............. Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USSS Yes............. Yes............. Yes............ No \5\......... Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniformed No.............. No.............. Yes............ No \5\......... Yes............ Yes............ Yes............ No \6\
Division \7\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Members of uniformed military
service, USCG academy faculty, administrative
law judges, presidential appointees, Senior
Executive Service and office of inspector
general excluded. Pay plans/schedules with
less than 100 participants are not
included in this chart (e.g., USCG
academy faculty).
2 Labor Management Relations not
applicable to supervisors or management
officials.
3 The Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA) OF 2001 placed
TSA employees under the FAA personnel
management system (ATSA Section 114(n)
citing Title 49 Section 40122).
Furthermore, ATSA provides near unfettered
authority for DHS to define all
terms, pay, benefits, and conditions of
employment for Transportation Security Officers
(TSOs, formerly ``Screener Personnell'';
TSA Section 111(d)).
4 Generally, TSOs are not covered
by Title 5 adverse Actions and
Appeals, however, TSOs do have other
formal and informal processes to protect
their rights. TSOs who believe they
have been retaliated against for
whistleblowing may go to the Office
of Special Counsel and the Merit
Systems Protection Board. They have full
access to federal Equal Employment
Opportunity processes; may appeal adverse
personnel actions to a Disciplinary
Review Board at TSA Headquarters;
and can take grievances to Peer
Review Panels composed of three peers
and two supervisors. TSA also has
an Integrated Conflict Management System
providing training on communication, problem
solving and issue resolution, while
creating processes for raising issues.
Airports have Employee Advisory Councils
that raise and discuss issues with
management. The National Advisory Council
of TSOs and middle level airport
managers meet regularly and work in
committees to develop new programs
supporting field personnel.
5 Excluded by Executive Order 1217
dated November 17, 1979.
6 Employees hired prior to 1984 are
covered under the DC Police and
Firefighters Retirement System.
7 Covered under DC Code.
8 Columns with a ``yes'' indicated
where FEMA has chosen to apply
these provisions to CORE employees;
Disaster Assistance Employees (DAE) are
excluded.

Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey, Mr. Pascrell, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you.
When it comes to the issue of our Homeland Security
workforce, many of us have been outspoken about the fact that
TSA employees, and in particular the transportation security
officers, the TSOs, seem to get the short end of the stick when
it comes to their rights and protection as federal government
employees.
In fact, in the last Congress I wrote to the TSA assistant
secretary, Kip Hawley, who appeared before this committee,
about the glaring lack of whistleblower protection for TSOs.
It seemed clear, as it still does now, that these TSOs are
the people on the ground, who witnessed firsthand every day the
implementation of security procedures that we put in place.
Their observations and information can be a very invaluable
resource.
But TSA has seemingly been more interested in silencing
them in the interest of not being embarrassed than they are
listening to their own employees. That is not a good idea.
Furthermore, these TSOs don't have the right to do the same
collective bargaining rights as do federal employees. We do
know what happened in the past several years.
The former president decided that if we ever sent through
bargaining legislation or whistleblower protections, that he
would veto it--clear and precise. He claimed that such rights
would limit TSA's ability to perform its mission due to the
need for workforce flexibilities and fears of strikes.
Yet we know very specifically under Section 7106A(2)(d)
that these are taken care of in already existing law, so there
is no one trying to circumvent so that we don't protect
Americans in their homes.
So it is no wonder, though, then that the level of morale
and retention--we have heard it from all of you--where the
employees in the TSA are the lowest within the Department of
Homeland Security, and I don't care what rating system you use,
the last one or the one in 2006, their rating ranks among the
lowest department in this criteria in the entire government.
So literally, TSA employees are the lowest of the low
within the entire federal government when it comes to morale
and retention, yet we expect these folks to be the first and
last line of defense against acts of terror. It is their job to
present the next 9/11.
But we won't even empower them with a real voice. We expect
them, Mr. Chairman, to do the most with the least.
So I ask Ms. Kelley and Mr. Gage specifically, so many DHS
employees rightfully have collective bargaining rights and
whistleblower protections, including those in the CBP, so why
shouldn't TSA?
And the second question is do you believe providing the
TSOs screeners with these rights and protections would actually
improve the security of our nation and the integrity of the
TSA?
Ms. Kelley?
Ms. Kelley. Absolutely. I believe that TSA employees should
have the same rights, protections and whistleblower protections
as other employees in Homeland Security, including CBP.
And without a doubt, I believe that providing TSOs with
collective bargaining rights can only strengthen national
security. These TSOs join TSA to provide security for our
country at airports.
And they need the ability to do their jobs without fear of
reprisal, to know that they are doing the right thing for the
taxpayers and the right thing for the country.
They want to use their energy to focus on how to make the
checkpoints and the baggage screening operations the most
efficient possible and the safest possible.
And the best way for them to be able to do that is to be
given collective bargaining rights, as well as whistleblower
rights, so that they can do their jobs and that we can tap into
their ideas and energy for how to do the job better, because
today none of that is done.
It is not invited. It is not allowed. And it has created
the work environment that we find them in today. And for the
benefit of the security of our country, that needs to change.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Gage?
Thank you.
Mr. Gage. Yes, Congressman. I just returned from the winter
meeting of the AFL, and a resolution was passed by all the
unions to support collective bargaining for TSOs.
And the argument from all these unions, who had such a big
part to play in 9/11, was that nowhere was their union, their
ability to form a union, to have a union, that it influenced
any of their work when it came to 9/11, the heroes, the EMTs,
the police officers, the firefighters.
And it is an insult, really, to the labor movement to say
that somehow having the right to belong to union somehow
affects national security.
And I think having a secure, experienced workforce with the
rules set, with transparency, with employees knowing they have
a right to work, can only improve our security. And it is
something that is long overdue.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think every member of this committee should
be asked to read Title 5. In Title 5 it is very, very, very
clear that the president of the United States in an emergency
situation can issue an executive order, so the baloney that we
have been listening to for too many years, we must address that
factually so that we can get over this hump and deal with a
major part of the workforce in the Homeland Security.
And I hope we have a second round. I want to get back into
this. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
Will start the second round right now, actually.
Ms. Bonosaro, let us talk about the SES for a moment. I was
kind of disturbed by Mr. Stier's statistics on 72 percent of
the SESs retired or resigned over the last few years.
Without the benefit of an exit survey, but based on your
experience, what can you attribute this loss to?
Ms. Bonosaro. Well, first of all, obviously, and a good
number of these--some number unknown at DHS that these
executives were eligible to retire, and it was time.
I will say, too, though, that clearly over time, as I
indicated in my testimony, the stature of the SES has been
diminished. And one of the things that keeps executives on the
job is to be excited and interested and committed to what is
being done.
I think many of them right now are certainly in that
position and looking forward to contributing to the new
policies and programs that are being put in place.
So to the degree that they were locked out of those
opportunities, that certainly gives them some impetus to
retire.
I think, too, certainly the pay and performance management
system that was instituted 4 or 5 years ago has not been
terribly motivational, frankly. There have been a lot of
problems with it, and that doesn't encourage someone,
certainly, to stay on the job.
And finally, I think there is no question that there is
burnout at DHS. A number of executives that I have known
personally who have left, it just has not been unusual for them
to work 7-day weeks.
One of the things, by the way--I would just like to turn
back to, if I may--in your discussion or your consideration of
TSA, the executives in TSA are not part of the regular Senior
Executive Service either.
So I think if there is any consideration of dealing with
personnel law with regard to TSA, it would be worth taking a
look at whether they should not be folded into the regular SES.
Mr. Carney. What is their status, if they are not?
Ms. Bonosaro. I can't tell you the precise differences. I
will be happy to follow up with the committee and give you
information on how it differs, but they are, as far as I know,
not eligible, for example, for a presidential rank awards.
That is certainly one difference, which they are pretty
rare, it is true, but it is a wonderful honor, and it is
something to aspire to.
I know their status is different. I can't tell you
precisely how right now.
Mr. Carney. I appreciate that. We will get to the bottom of
that. I think that surprised everybody up here.
Ms. Kelley, can you shed any light on that? Do you----
Ms. Kelley. I am making a note, because that is news to me
also.
Mr. Carney. Mr. Gage?
Mr. Stier? Do--yes?
Mr. Stier. The comparison point for the rest of the
government is 48 percent in that same timeframe turnover, so it
is quite dramatically a lot higher at DHS. And you know there
are lots of reasons, none of them good.
And it is also a problem that you are seeing that same kind
of turnover across government at that level. And so we need to
make some changes about that.
Part of that, even when people are retirement eligible, the
question is you know can you motivate them to still want to be
there.
Mr. Carney. Right. Thank you.
I have no further questions at this time.
Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is to Mr. Stier and Mrs. Bonosaro.
As you know, the Department is currently operating out of
more than 70 buildings and 40 locations throughout the
metropolitan D.C. area, although the department is actively
engaged in creating a one-DHS culture.
The lack of centralized headquarters puts a strain on its
operational and organizational capabilities. How critical is it
for any agency, and in particular DHS, to have a centralized
and secure headquarters facility?
And how would a consolidation of the department's
headquarters at the Saint Elizabeth's ancampus improve employee
morale and performance capabilities?
Whoever would like to go first would be fine.
Mr. Stier. I think that you know clearly having a
headquarters, you go to the--you know the headquarters on
Nebraska Avenue, it is a you know not the greatest physical
installation. So real headquarters I think certainly does
matter.
I would argue, though, that this is yet another
representation of the challenge of you know focusing, if not
wiring diagram, on the physical asset rather than some other
issues, which are, frankly, I think even more important.
So making sure that we actually have an investment in the
technology and the communication opportunities that allow
people, no matter where they are--even if you have one
headquarters here, you are going to have you know DHS people
across the country.
You need to figure out ways that you are actually going to
support communication across the entire network of people that
are out there, make sure that you actually have an investment
again in the rotation all opportunities.
And that requires staffing levels--the military plusses up
their staffing requirements because they know that they are
going to ensure that, whether it is rotational or educational
assignments, that those things are going to exist with their
folks.
You know Chairman Carney is probably well aware of that.
That model, what the military does, is something we ought to
see in the civilian work force. If you really want people to
give of their best, you have to invest in them. And I think
that to me that is the kind of focus that I would love to see.
Great to have the physical headquarters, but there are,
frankly, I think other things that are even more important.
Mr. Bilirakis. More pressing.
Mr. Stier. Yes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay.
Ms. Bonosaro. Yes, I agree with Mr. Stier. I think the
issue, obviously, is the collaboration and cooperation bringing
those component agencies together.
You know people have observed that it took the Department
of Defense, when it came together, 25 years to really coalesce
and behave like a department, so to speak.
So I think this is to some degree a long haul problem, but
I agree with Mr. Stier that much of what needs to be done
really has to focus on the collaboration and cooperation and
the building site is but one part of that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Ms. Kelley, in fiscal year 2007, CBP hired 2,156 new Custom
and Border Protection Officers for a net increase of 648 CBPOs.
This indicates a high level of attrition.
Are you aware whether these departing CBPOs are moving to
other jobs within CBP, to another component within the
Department, or leaving the Department altogether?
And if these CBPOs are moving to other components, which
ones? And what is it about the components that make them more
attractive than the CBP?
Ms. Kelley. Well, again, without exit interviews or you
know hard data, I can tell you anecdotally, because I talked to
many of our officers as they are leaving or to their chapters
after they have left. And it falls into a couple of categories.
Now, back in 2007 one of the primary reasons was they were
leaving to go to state and local law enforcement agencies that
provided them with the law enforcement officer retirement,
which did not exist in 2007. So I believe that Congress' action
on that this past year will have an impact.
But I also know that many left because of their feeling
that they were not given the tools and resources to do the job,
that their management structure did not allow them, work with
them or allow them to implement ideas they had about how to
make the ports safer.
There is a very top down structure in Customs and Border
Protection, and there was a time about 8 years ago when NTEU
worked very closely with at the time it was called partnership
with the U.S. Customs Service. And we were able to do a lot of
things that really helped CBP to be effective and to help
officers to be more effective.
That work has really all ceased, and I am hoping it is
going to start up again and that we are going to see in the
future the recognition that these front-line officers have a
lot of really good ideas about how to do the work better and
that we are going to see that tapped into. That will keep them
at CBP, and it will help them to stay.
But for the moment a lot of it is about leadership. Now we
have new leadership. And you know so I think we are going to
see some changes there.
But it is not a work environment that officers feel like
they can be successful or that the work is valued and
appreciated. So in large part that is why they leave.
And most of them are not within department. I didn't answer
that question. Some go to other pieces of DHS or other federal
agencies, but I would say that is the lowest number.
Most of them left because they could get in law enforcement
officer retirement elsewhere, and they were tired of waiting,
or just because of the tone and attitude of management and them
feeling that they weren't valued and respected.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi for
5 minutes. No? Then we will recognize Mr. Pascrell for 5
minutes.
Mr. Pascrell. The argument about shutting down airports is
many times presented as to why we can't allow collective
bargaining rights to TSOs.
Has providing collective bargaining rights diminished the
operational effectiveness of those 54,000 in CBP or the Border
Patrol, in your estimation? Do we worry about the fact that
there will be--someday they will all walk off this and into the
wildwood and then we will have no protection on our borders
these? Would you respond to that--anybody?
Ms. Kelley. Absolutely, positively not. It is not an issue.
I mean it has never happened. It would never be a factor.
Mr. Pascrell. Well, why should it be an issue for those
protecting the border as compared to those that are in our
airports and facsimile?
Ms. Kelley. In my view there is no reason for any
difference at all, for any distinction whatsoever. They all
provide security to our country in different ways in different
places, airports versus the land border crossings versus the
seaports.
But I know of not one reason that is valid that should deny
them those rights.
Mr. Gage. You know I just want to say that our Border
Patrol is very highly organized. And if I were to call a strike
among our dedicated Border Patrol agents, I don't think I would
be sitting here much longer.
They look at their dedication to their country and their
jobs in a way that is really different from other employees in
the private sector, so I don't think there is any real or even
realistically imagined threat that TSOs, for instance, are
suddenly going to shut down the airports and go on a strike or
a job action, nor would it be lawful in any way for our union
to participate or to call for.
Ms. Kelley. If I could just add, as John said, I mean the
fact is federal employees cannot strike. Federal employees in
any agency that have collective bargaining rights have no right
to strike.
Mr. Pascrell. You don't have the legal right to strike, do
you?
Ms. Kelley. No, we do not.
Mr. Pascrell. So this is a very empty argument, very empty
argument against having collective bargaining rights and the
protecting of those people who are whistleblowers. This is
something that we have had to swallow for a number of years
now.
We should address it head-on, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Chairman, as quickly and possibly, because it doesn't make
logic. It doesn't make any sense to me.
And I think is one way to include the morale within the
folks that are on the line every day. It is like almost taking
bargaining rights away from cops and firefighters. That would
be pretty stupid, it would seem to me, because the governor has
powers, the mayor has powers, and the president of the United
States under Title 5 has the power. It is illegal for those
people to strike.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.
Does anybody else have any more questions?
Hearing no more questions, I want to thank the witnesses
for their very valuable testimony today.
First of all, without objection, I submit for the record a
document from the National Academy of Public Administration
addressing best practices for the 2009 presidential transition,
including analysis of the DHS workforce.
So ordered.
[The information follows:

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

National Academy of Public Administration

Presidential Transition Study on

The Department of Homeland Security

Committee on Homeland Security

Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and OversightUnited States
House of Representatives

Doris Hausser, Fellow

National Academy of Public Administration

March 5, 2009

Thank you for inviting the National Academy of Public
Administration to submit a statement for the record on the best
practices for the 2009 Presidential Transition. I served as a member of
the Panel that developed the Academy's June 2008 report that assessed
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS') executive profile, its
transition training, and the department's plans for the 2009
Presidential Transition. Many of the issues and recommendations
outlined in that report apply to other departments and agencies, as
well as DHS, especially those with homeland security responsibilities.
The Presidential Transition of 2009 was the first major transition
since ``9/11.'' As we point out in our report, recent history
demonstrates that political transitions present an opportunity for
terrorists to take advantage of real or perceived weaknesses in a
nation's ability to detect, deter, prevent or respond to attacks. The
final report of the 9/11 Commission raised concerns about the impact of
future transitions on the government's ability to deal with terrorism.
Owing in part to the delayed resolution of the 2000 election, the
incoming Bush administration did not have its deputy Cabinet officials
in place until Spring 2001 or its sub-Cabinet officials in place until
that summer. Historically, getting the Presidential team in position
has been a slow process. The Commission strongly pushed for changes to
the process so that the Nation is not left vulnerable to these types of
delays in a post-9/11 world. During a transition, DHS must retain the
ability to respond quickly to both man-made and natural disasters.
In light of these issues, Congress and DHS asked the Academy to
assess DHS' executive profile, study its transition training, and
review its plans for the 2009 Presidential transition. Our June report
was the result of that request.
The lessons learned from this work can be--and in some cases were--
applied to other federal departments and agencies. For example, the
Academy Panel assessed DHS' allocation of executives between career and
political appointees and compared it with other departments. As of
March 20, 2008, 13 percent of DHS' executives were political
appointees--about average for all federal departments. The percentage
of all executives who were political appointees ranged from 9 percent
at the Department of Veterans Affairs to 35 percent at the Department
of State. But the Academy Panel also noted that 30 of the top 54
executive positions, or 56 percent at DHS were filled by political
appointees. Large percentages of other departments' top executives were
also political--this includes 49 percent at Treasury, 59 percent at
Justice and Defense, and 66 percent at the Department of State.
Overall, the Academy Panel believes that efforts need to be made to
reduce the number of political appointees, specifically in the DHS
security and emergency management environment, so that these positions
can be filled with career executives who will learn the job over time,
versus a non-career appointee with a much shorter tenure. At DHS, the
Academy Panel recommended that non-career headquarters deputy
officials, FEMA regional administrators and other officials be career
executives.
Another part of the Academy's DHS study compared DHS' transition
training programs with those of similarly structured Cabinet-level
agencies. The Academy Panel concluded that DHS' transition training and
development efforts were consistent with executive development programs
in most federal agencies and that the department has a balanced set of
transition-specific training programs underway. When implemented, these
should have helped executives prepare to meet their homeland security
responsibilities during transition. As of our report date, DHS was well
along in its transition training especially given that it is a young
agency with a critical national mission and going through its first
Presidential transition. The Academy Panel believes other departments
could benefit from learning about DHS' transition training.
Finally, the Academy Panel reviewed DHS' transition planning, and
the report laid out a series of actions that were tailored to
Presidential transition timeframes. Specifically:
Before the national party conventions. DHS was to have
completed, updated and executed its transition plans;
identified key operational executive positions; ensured that
training and joint exercises had begun and filled vacant
executive positions.
From the national party conventions to the election.
Consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and
``Sense of the Senate'' provisions, DHS was to have worked with
Executive Branch agencies and Congress to reach out to the
Presidential candidates to identify potential homeland security
transition team members and help them obtain security
clearances by Election Day.
From the election to the inauguration. DHS was to have
worked with the incoming administration, the Executive Branch
and Congress to ensure that the new Secretary of Homeland
Security was sworn in on Inauguration Day; that key executives
were identified and voted on by the Senate as quickly as
possible, recognizing that any day a critical position is
vacant is a ``gap'' in our homeland security coverage; and that
transition training and joint exercises were provided to
executive appointees and nominees.
Following Inauguration Day. DHS should continue
training of new appointees, nominees and careerists to build
trust and operational performance, and reexamine current
executive positions and allocations to support administration
priorities. Within the first six months of the new
administration, DHS should conduct a ``capstone'' scenario
exercise to evaluate the effectiveness of transition planning,
training and overall operational readiness.
DHS did address these recommendations. In June, it appointed
retired Coast Guard Admiral John Acton as a full-time transition
director who reports directly to the Deputy Under Secretary for
Management. DHS completed a comprehensive plan for all facets of the
transition that focused on several areas:
Ensuring that management processes are in place and
memorialized in policies and procedures;
Concentrating on knowledge retention for current
executives and knowledge transfer to the next administration's
executives;
Conducting a series of seminars, training sessions,
and exercises to make sure current leadership is trained in
incident response, as well as positioning the new leaders for
these roles; and
Focusing on the deputy positions in each office and
component to make sure they understand transition issues.
In addition, DHS collaborated with partners such as the Departments
of Transportation, Defense, State, and Health and Human Services; state
and local governments; and with private industry. Joint training and
exercise opportunities were actively coordinated. Also, the Academy
understands that OMB hosted Agency Transition Coordination meetings,
which afforded an ideal opportunity to enhance collaboration among the
federal departments and agencies.
Many of the Academy Panel recommendations for DHS also applied to
other federal departments such as the appointment of a transition
director, development of a comprehensive transition plan,
identification of critical non-career positions, and transition
training. The report noted that to the greatest extent possible,
incoming DHS leadership--including the Secretary and key staff--must be
in place on Inauguration Day or shortly thereafter. Key leadership
positions at other federal departments, especially those with homeland
security responsibilities, must also be filled quickly. This requires
the support and cooperation of federal agencies with background check
and clearance responsibilities, as well as the Congress given its
confirmation role and responsibilities. The Academy Panel believes that
all federal departments and agencies need to address the issues as
appropriate that are presented in our DHS report.
With respect to lessons learned, we recognize that DHS proceeded in
a timely manner to plan for and begin its transition initiative using a
five-pronged approach which included: updating the order of succession
for the Secretary, all headquarters offices and operating components;
assessing critical positions and managing succession risks; working
with an external partner to establish interagency relations mapping and
ensure knowledge transfer through leadership development; operational
training with stakeholders; examining and identifying best practices of
other transition efforts; and developing a series of transition
guidance materials Despite this approach, however there is much more
work to be done.&e strongly recommend that DHS continue to monitor
transition staffing levels beyond the post-inauguration period until
approximately 80% of key positions are filled. ``Additionally, DHS's
decision to identify and appoint an experienced, full-time transition
officer who has accountability for the mechanics and follow-through for
the transition process is seen as a very positive force. The Transition
Officer and the Academy presented the NAPA report and discussed overall
transition issues at the leadership conference in Kansas City for the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. We do not have knowledge of
whether there were similar briefings out in the field, but believe it
is a practice worth exporting to other operating units.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record. We also offer the ``Report of the Panel of the National
Academy, Addressing the 2009 Presidential Transition at the Department
of Homeland Security,'' dated June 2008 for the record.

Mr. Carney. Okay. Now I want to thank the witnesses again
for their testimony and the members for their questions. I
think we have opened up a nice dialogue here that we really
need to pursue further down a number of avenues.
We may have some further questions, and we will ask you for
your written testimony. And please do so expeditiously, if you
get a request for them.
This committee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

APPENDIX

----------

Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:

Responses from Colleen M. Kelley

Question 1.: In light of the recent OPM 2008 Federal Human Capital
Survey \1\ and the FY09--FY13 DHS Human Capital Strategic \2\ Plan what
steps do you see that the Department of Homeland Security is taking to
shore up recruitment, hiring and retention practices?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See pp. 4--24.
\2\ ``Unparalleled Mission. . . Unparalleled Talent. . . Where
People People Want To Work, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Human
Capital Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2009--2013. Homeland Security. (See
committee file.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are not aware of any steps, what do you
recommend?
Can the Department take any best practices from other
peers in the Federal Government?
NTEU answer: NTEU represents two employee groups at DHS--Customs
and Border Protection Officers and Transportation Security Officers, so
my remarks will center on those two groups.
Customs and Border Protection has been helped in its recruitment
hiring and retention practices by passage last year of enhanced
retirement benefits for CBPOs. On July 6, 2008, the Congressionally-
mandated CBP Officer law enforcement enhanced retirement benefit
program went into effect. NTEU members commend the Committee on its
forethought and perseverance in enacting and funding this vital
legislation. Nothing has had a more positive effect on the morale of
the CBP Officer. Now that CBP Officers are granted the same retirement
benefit that most federal law enforcement officers have, it removes a
powerful incentive for CBP officers to transfer to other federal law
enforcement postions. Extending this benefit to CBP Seized Property
Specialists will have the same effect on that position's recruitment
and retention efforts.
Another step that DHS can take is to fully implement retention
programs that it already has the authority to implement such as the
Student Loan Repayment Program. Section 5379 of title 5, United States
Code, authorizes federal agencies to establish a student loan repayment
program for federal employees. The purpose of this law is to provide a
tool for federal agencies to attract and retain well-qualified, highly
motivated employees who otherwise might decline or leave federal
employment.
For example, fully implementing the student loan repayment would
greatly help with the retention of highly skilled CBP Customs
attorneys. Because of the slow implementation of the student loan
repayment program, approximately 60% of the staff has left the agency
in the past decade, with most departing within the last five years.
Many new employees who start their career at DHS leave after a couple
of years because they cannot afford the monthly payments for their
student loans.
According to a survey of professional staff in one of DHS'
agencies, among the employees with student loans, the average total
debt was approximately $80,000--with one new staff person owing
$176,000. The resulting loss of institutional knowledge, combined with
the steep learning curve, has placed a severe hardship on the office,
its budget, and the public.
In addition, NTEU has negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) addressing CBP's Student Loan Repayment Program. The Program is
designed to assist CBP in recruiting and retaining employees in
difficult-to-fill positions. Under the MOU student loan repayments may
be made up to a maximum of $10,000 per calendar year and up to a
maximum per employee of $60,000. NTEU negotiated criteria that CBP must
consider in making student loan repayment decisions in addition to a
requirement that CBP provide a detailed written explanation to support
its loan repayment decisions. A joint NTEU-CBP workgroup will meet bi-
annually to review the operation of the Program including CBP's loan
repayment determinations. Yet the program has not been implemented.
NTEU has requested an explanation from CBP as to the delay in
implementing the program.
As for TSA, we have seen no actions that would favorably affect
recruiting, hiring and retention. We feel that HR 1881 will go a long
way toward helping these areas, and we thank you for signing on to that
bill.
There are many flexibilities within the government that can be used
in recruiting, hiring and retaining employees. For instance, there are
both recruitment bonuses and retention bonuses allowed within the
structure of the General Schedule. There is relocation assistance.
There is a student loan repayment program. Flexitime schedules could be
used. Some of these have been used successfully by other agencies and
the Department could review their potential use at DHS as well.

Question 2.: According to the most recent OPM Human Capital Survey,
51 percent of Department of Homeland Security employees feel they do
not have sufficient information to do their jobs.
What steps are being taken to ensure supervisors are
aware of employee needs?
Further, what steps are being taken to hold
supervisors accountable for providing information to their
employees?
What internal processes are in place for DHS employees
to anonymously inform supervisors of problems they face?
Is there a good effort afoot elsewhere in the Federal
government to hold the supervisors accountable to listening and
developing their employees?
NTEU answer: At TSA, supervisors routinely are given very little
information themselves, so there is no system of providing employees
with information necessary to do their jobs well. At CBP, NTEU employee
representatives have some avenues to make supervisors aware of employee
needs. NTEU is unaware of steps to hold supervisors accountable for
providing information to their employees except through the negotiated
contract. NTEU is unaware of any system for DHS employees to
anonymously inform supervisors of problems they face.
We have found that when an agency has a good relationship with the
employee representatives, a system can be put in place where
supervisors and employees can work together to do the best possible
job. During the Clinton administration, Labor-Management Partnerships
were developed, and both supervisors and employees have told me that
the partnerships made a difference in the work environment and in the
dissemination of necessary information. The NTEU-represented legacy
that became part of CBP, the U.S. Customs Service, had a very positive
experience with Labor -Management partnership in the 1990s. NTEU is
working with the administration and with Congress to have these
partnerships reinstituted government wide.

Question 3.: In July 2008, the Transportation Security
Administration awarded a contract worth $1.2 billion to Lockheed Martin
Corporation to develop and manage human resources management for the
agency. Do you believe these deliverables will aide the TSA workforce?
If so, how? If not, why not.
NTEU answer: You may recall that when TSA announced the Lockheed
Martin contract, NTEU asked whether that money might be better spent
hiring more TSOs. Ever since Lockheed Martin has taken over Human
Resources functions, we have heard many and various complaints. The
biggest complaint is that there is never any person to talk to about
missing paychecks, erroneous leave balances, denial of Family and
Medical Leave, denial of workman's compensation, and other problems.
Problems are never resolved. We have several people who were promoted,
and four months later, still can't get their pay raise. We believe that
the contract should be terminated.

Questions from the Honorable Christopher P. Carney, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight:

Question 1.: It has been noted by some, that the Department of
Homeland Security's intention to move all of its employees to a pay-
for-performance system caused great angst among employees and
contributed to low employee morale.
Now that this system has been abandoned, what steps do
you think the Department can take today and the months ahead to
improve morale?
NTEU answer: DHS has to work with its supervisors to stress the
importance of workplace respect. The present atmosphere lacks respect,
and this is something we hope will change under Secretary Napolitano's
leadership. To help achieve this goal, NTEU supports the
reestablishment of partnership. On October 1, 1993, President Clinton
issued Executive Order 12871, establishing labor-management
partnerships in the federal government. That executive order was
rescinded by President Bush soon after he assumed office. NTEU believes
now is the time to re-establish labor-management partnerships in the
federal government. This step is likely to improve workplace morale.
When labor-management partnerships were in effect during the 1990s,
there was a climate of recognition that the sometimes adversarial
labor-management relationships in federal agencies could be transformed
into problem solving relationships. Partnerships were made up of
managers, employees, and employees' representatives who had insights
into designing and implementing the processes necessary to more
efficiently achieve agencies' missions. Partnership councils functioned
in federal agencies throughout the country and in cooperation with a
National Partnership Council. The purpose of the partnerships was to
identify problems and craft solutions to better serve the taxpayer, not
to provide for co-management. Often, issues within federal agencies
were resolved before they became major obstacles or points of
contention in the labor-management arena. Through partnerships came a
recognition that employees and their union representatives added value
to the decision making process.
In its December 2000 report to Congress, the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) found that partnerships between labor and management
``have helped cut costs, enhance productivity, and improve customer
service at agencies across Government.'' It is time to bring the
creative ideas of management and labor together again in government,
and improve moral.
The employees of DHS overwhelmingly believe in what they do and
regard it as an important part of our nation's safety. Unfortunately,
that is about the only good news. In the most recent public survey
results, 30% of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employees
responded that they were satisfied with their involvement in workplace
decisions. A mere 27.1% believe their leaders generate high levels of
motivation and commitment. At the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), only 20.9% of the employees believe that
promotions are based on merit. Only 22.7% felt that creativity and
innovation are rewarded, and this is in a position where we need to
reward innovative thinking.
One of the most frustrating things I hear is that if only
management had more flexibility, they could recruit and retain
employees much easier. It is frustrating to me, because there are
already flexibilities available to managers that they rarely use. With
greater use of these flexibilities such as the Student Loan repayment
Program, recruitment and retention bonuses, relocation assistance, and
the litany of government flexibilities, I believe we can attract more
workers and keep them. I understand that in many cases, agency budgets
have been slashed so significantly that there is no money for these
flexibilities. May be we need to consider mandating that funds be
allocated to these accounts so that they can really be used. These are
ways to improve hiring in the federal government that do not involve
demolishing the merit system, yet still address serious morale issues
at CBP and TSA.
Finally, NTEU again urges the Committee to repeal Title 5, Chapter
97 that authorized the establishment of a new DHS human resource
management system. This too will lead to increased employee morale.
Last year Congress approved a FY 2009 DHS Appropriations bill that
prohibits the department from using any funds to implement a new
personnel system for rank and file employees. Because of this
Congressional prohibition, in October 2008, DHS abandoned efforts to
implement all regulations promulgated under Title 5, Chapter 97, but
the authorization of this program remains in effect. The House has
voted once already to repeal the authorization of Title 5, Chapter 97.
NTUE urges Congress to enact the Chapter 97 repeal this year
Please also explain your perception of how employee
morale contributes to the Department's overall effectiveness.
NTEU answer: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently
examined this in a GAO report. According to GAO, ``At seven of the
eight major ports we visited, officers and managers told us that not
having sufficient staff contributes to morale problems, fatigue, lack
of backup support and safety issues when officers inspect travelers--
increasing the potential that terrorists, inadmissible travelers and
illicit goods could enter the country.'' (See GAO-08-219, page 7)
``Due to staffing shortages, ports of entry rely on overtime to
accomplish their inspection responsibilities. Double shifts can result
in officer fatigue. . .officer fatigue caused by excessive overtime
negatively affected inspections at ports of entry. On occasion,
officers said they are called upon to work 16-hour shifts, spending
long stints in primary passenger processing lanes in order to keep
lanes open, in part to minimize traveler wait times. Further evidence
of fatigue came from officers who said that CBP officers call in sick
due to exhaustion, in part to avoid mandatory overtime, which in turn
exacerbates the staffing challenges faced by the ports.'' (See GAO-08-
219 page 7)
The GAO analysis demonstrates the important link between morale and
agency effectiveness. Further, I direct you to recent stories from the
Denver airport, where TSOs told reporters that they are so worried
about their problems with management that they can't focus on the
screening.

Question 2.: During Secretary Napolitano's confirmation hearing,
she acknowledged the necessity of improving the morale of the
Department of Homeland Security workforce. To your knowledge, what
initiatives are underway or are planned to facilitate improvement in
how DHS employees view the department's performance of its mission and
the Department as an employer?
NTEU answer: On March 27, 2009, Secretary Napolitano unveiled the
DHS Efficiency review initiative a program to improve efficiency and
streamline decision-making through agency-wide initiatives. As part of
the initiative, the Secretary has charged all DHS components to solicit
ideas from their employees to help generate greater new efficiencies,
accountability, and transparency in how DHS conducts business.
CBP has informed NTEU that it will be soliciting employee input on
how CBP can reduce costs, streamline operations, eliminate duplication,
and improve services while also improving coordination and the sharing
of assets across DHS. Employees will have the opportunity to assist
Secretary Napolitano's Efficiency review to accessing a link provided
by an agency e-mail and responding to the survey between March 30 and
April 10, 2009. Employees will be asked to briefly explain their idea
to make CBP more efficient and why it should be implemented.
To the best of NTEU'S knowledge, this is the first time since the
agency stood up that the DHS Secretary has directly asked rank and file
employees for their input and ideas, and this is a positive
development.

Question 3.: Many highlight the need for leadership and high
quality senior executives at the Department of Homeland Security. In
your opinion, how can the Department attract high quality senior
executives?
NTEU answer: The Department can attract high quality senior
executives by offering a place where their abilities will be utilized
and appreciated, and where they are paid commensurate with their
responsibilities.

Question 4.: How can the Department of Homeland Security alleviate
the effects of the expected large-scale retirements in the coming
years? How can the Department generate interest and recruit its next
leaders? Does the Department adequately develop those in the senior GS
ladder--the 14's and 15's? What does it mean to properly develop those
levels of leadership?
NTEU answer: The answer to alleviating the effects of the expected
large-scale retirements is to provide opportunities for advancement in
the middle ranks and to hire more people.

Question 5.: Throughout reorganizations and recruitment challenges
to ill-equipped office spaces and limited resources, the men and women
that make up the Department of Homeland Security have continued to put
their best foot forward, often times with little to no recognition.
They deserve to be honored for their tireless work and sacrifices.
How can the Department focus on improving awards and
recognition initiatives for its employees?
NTEU answer: NTEU has an ongoing issue with CBP regarding awards
and recognition. In 2004, CBP threw out its NTEU-negotiated awards and
recognition program and unilaterally imposed its own awards system. In
2005, NTEU received a favorable arbitration result that concluded that
CBP had unlawfully terminated the negotiated Article 17 Awards and
Recognition procedures when it unilaterally imposed its own awards
system. The arbitrator ordered CBP to return to the prior joint awards
process where awards are determined by a joint union management
committee, and to rerun the fiscal year 2005 awards process using the
Article 17 procedures. Once again, however, CBP has delayed the
ultimate resolution of this issue by appealing the arbitrator's
decision to the FLRA. In its appeal CBP argued that the award should be
overturned because it allows employees to grieve CBP's award decisions.
Yet CBP has acknowledged that employees would also be permitted to file
grievances under the Agency's unlawfully implemented award process.
Inexplicably, CBP asked the Authority to overturn the arbitrator's
decision in order to improve employee morale.
Undeterred by this 2006 arbitration decision, CBP continues to use
the same discredited, secretive and illegal performance awards policy
to reward employee performance. As a protective measure, NTEU continues
to file grievances and invoke arbitration just as was done for fiscal
year 2005 while we enter a third year waiting for the Federal Labor
Relations Authority to sustain our arbitration win.
A way to greatly improve the Agency's improve the awards and
recognition initiatives for its CBP employees would be for CBP to
abandon its discredited, illegal, and secretive unilateral awards
system and reinstate the negotiated joint awards process.

Question 6.: During the effort to implement a new personnel system,
MaxHR, for the department, DHS reported to Congress that it had
extended contracts to Northrop Grumman Information Technology (NGIT)
for services related to program management; pay, performance, and
classification; and training, communications, and organizational change
management, and labor relations. The contracts were worth almost $3
million and more than $16 million, respectively.
Are any of you aware of specific deliverables from
Northrop Grumman of these some $19 million total contracts for
each of the areas stated (e.g., pay, performance,
classification)?
NTEU answer: No.
How are these deliverables being utilized by the
department, especially in the wake of DHS's decision to abandon
implementation of the new personnel system?
NTEU answer: I am not aware of and deliverable being utilized by
the department. NTEU believes that the Department wasted millions of
taxpayer dollars in funding these contracts.

Question 7.: From your vantage point, what are the staffing needs
in senior career executive positions to the front lines and how many
employees would make the Department of Homeland Security ``whole?''
NTEU answer: NTEU does not know the staffing needs for senior
executive positions, however, CBP's own staffing allocation model
concluded that the agency needs 1,600 to 4,000 additional CBP Officers
and CBP Agriculture Specialist at the 327 air, land, and sea ports of
entry, a boost of 7 to 25 percent.
What impact would full staffing have in terms of time for
training and development?
NTEU answer: Staffing shortages force managers to choose between
performing port operations and providing training. In these instances,
it is the training that is sacrificed. Without full staffing, the
success of the mission is compromised.
According to GAO, ``Vulnerabilities in traveler inspections are
created when new officers do not receive required training. For
example, new officers who received as little as 2 weeks of on-the-job
training rather than the recommended 12 weeks told us that they needed
more training before inspecting travelers. In our July 2003 report. .
.we found that the ports that graded their officers least prepared to
carry out traveler inspections were among the ports that provided the
least amount of on-the-job training.'' (See GAO-08-219, page 40) Also,
``vulnerabilities in traveler inspections occurred when officers did
not receive cross-training before rotating to new inspection areas.
Although CBP's training policy call for no officer to be placed in an
area without receiving the proper cross-training module, officers and
supervisors at ports of entry we visited told us that officers are
placed in situations for which they are not trained.'' (See GAO-08-219,
page 37.)
NTEU believes that full staffing at CBP air, land and sea ports of
entry, in terms of time for training and development, would mitigate
these vulnerabilities in traveler inspections.

Question 8.: To your knowledge, to what extent have your members
participated in the graduate education programs for Department of
Homeland Security employees? Are the Department's employees on
individual development plans to provide for continuous training and
what types of training are essential for all employees, regardless of
position?
NTEU answer: Clearly, training has not been a priority for the last
eight years, More money will have to be appropriated to make up for
that lost time. As for individual development plans, the success of
such plans depends on the ability of supervisor and employee to both
and understand the expectations and resources necessary to achieve the
mutual goals. We believe that the leadership of Secretary Napolitano in
this area will result in measurable changes in this area.